Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-02-27 MinutesMODIFIED ON MARCH 20, 2006T0 INCORPORATE MODIFICATIONS SUBMITTED BY COMMISSIONER ANTHES AT THE PC MEETING OF MARCH 13, 2006. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on February 27, 2006 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED R-PZD 06-1922: Planned Zoning District (SCOTTSWOOD PLACE, 558) Page 6 ADM 06-1976: Administrative Item (PARADISE POINT PZD, 177) Page 7 ACTION TAKEN Tabled Forwarded ANX 06-1935: (FLETCHER WILLIAMS, 474) Denied Page 9 RZN 06-1936: (FLETCHER WILLIAMS, 474) Denied Page 16 CUP 06-1953: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (WESTERN SIZZLIN) Page 22 LSD 05-1827: Large Scale Development (WESTERN SIZZLIN, 557) Page 26 ANX 06-1933: (NOCK-BROYLES LAND DEVELOPMENT, 645) Page 29 RZN 06-1934: (BROYLES COMMERCIAL FUNDING, LLC, 438) Page 31 LSD 06-1736: Large Scale Development (ZAXBY'S, 521) Page 32 Approved Approved Forwarded Withdrawn Approved CUP 06-1954: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Approved (FAUCETTE MINI -STORAGE, 290) Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 2 Page 35 ADM 06-1975: Administrative Item (City of Fayetteville PARKS DIVISION) Page 37 Forwarded ADM 06-1955: Administrative Item (DOWNTOWN Forwarded MASTER PLAN ZONING DISTRICTS) Page 49 ADM 06-1956: Administrative Item (DOWNTOWN Tabled MASTER PLAN ZONING DISTRICT MAP) Page 49 Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 3 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Nancy Allen Jill Anthes Sean Trumbo Christine Myres Alan Ostner Candy Clark Christian Vaught Audy Lack James Graves STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Jeremy Pate Andrew Garner Suzanne Morgan Brent O'Neal Jesse Fulcher Tim Conklin Leif Olson CITY ATTORNEY: Kit Williams Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 4 Welcome to the February 27, 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, Myres, Trumbo, and Ostner are present. Ostner: The first item on our agenda is the approval of the minutes from the February 13, 2006 meeting. Anthes: I make a motion to approve. (with changes) Allen: Second. Roll Call: The minutes are approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 5 Ostner: Item #8 — the applicant has requested to withdraw this item. RZN 06-1934: (BROYLES COMMERCIAL FUNDING, LLC, 438): Submitted by JAMES ATWOOD for property located at 4621 WEDINGTON. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 10.06 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RMF -24, Residential Multi -family, 24 units per acre. Pate: Just to clarify — the applicant did contact us on Friday and asked us to withdraw this request; they are in the process and will be looking at a planned zoning district with a larger parcel of property. Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 6 Ostner: The first item on our agenda — we seem to be a little bit short tonight; we have six commissioners instead of nine Many of our items require five positive votes to pass: All rezoning, annexations, and conditional uses. That is where we stand right now. Before we begin our agenda, I am going to appoint the nominating committee for officers. The nominating committee will be Commissioners Myres, Trumbo and Vaught for the 2006-07 officers. They will meet during a publicized meeting, generally after this meeting or before. Those are some options, or we can get with Staff to publish a meeting specifically for the nominating committee to meet. R-PZD 06-1922: Planned Zoning District (SCOTTSWOOD PLACE, 558): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at NE OF OLD FARMINGTON RD.AND ONE MILE RD. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL - AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 5.06 acres. The request is for a Residential Planned Zoning District with 17 single family lots. THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THIS ITEM BE TABLED TO MARCH 13, 2006. Clark: I move to table R-PZD 06-1922 until the next meeting on March 13th. Trumbo: Second. Ostner: Is there any discussion. Allen: I wonder if there is anyone in the public who would like to speak to it. Ostner: Yes, if anyone in the public would like to speak about this issues, before we vote to table. I will close the public comment section and call for a vote. Roll Call: The motion to table R-PZD 06-1922 until March 13`h carries by a vote of 6-0-0. Pate: Just for everyone's information, that item has been tabled date specific to March 13, 2006. We will not be re -advertising or notifying for that, so anyone who is watching or is here tonight, March 13th it will be on old business. Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 7 ADM 06-1976• Administrative Item (PARADISE POINT PZD, 177): Submitted by Planning Staff to amend the approved Residential Planned Zoning District for a second curb cut on Crossover in lieu of cross access. Morgan: This property is located south of the intersection of Joyce and Crossover, south of the AHEC property. In January 2006 the City Council approved this residential planned zoning district after it had been forwarded by the Planning Commission. One condition of approval required Planning Commission determination of safe and adequate access. The original proposal included one access onto Crossover and cross -access to the property to the north; however, at the time this was being reviewed, the applicant did not have approval or written authorization from the property owner to the north; therefore, the approval by the Planning Commission and City Council required that if the approval for that cross -access was not obtained prior to construction, the applicant would have to come before the Planning Commission for re-evaluation of this condition of approval for safe and adequate access. This applicant was not able to obtain this authorization; therefore, they have proposed a new site plan with two access points onto Crossover. Staff has reviewed this application and finds that the curb cuts proposed would not create any dangerous traffic situation, finding that there are no curb cuts between the northern proposed curb cut and the intersection of Joyce and Crossover and the distance is greater than 200' from that intersection to this curb cut. Additionally, there is approximately 200' between both proposed curb cuts onto this property and Staff finds that there is adequate distance there to allow traffic turning movements as well as stacking distance on the property. As for cross -access, Staff would recommend a cross -access to the property to the north so that in the future, if they felt that the property owners to the north would like cross -access, it could be done. Staff recommends that this cross -access be located along the eastern most portion of the property to the north property line, as you can see on page 13. Staff proposes the cross -access in this location as well as the two curb cuts, finding that that would allow for future cross -access; and finding that the cross -access in this location would cause less disturbance to existing green space as compared as to a cross -access along the northwestern portion of the property. That is our recommendation. Planning Commission recommendation will forward to City Council, if you should approve either the applicant's proposal or Staff's recommendation. Ostner: We are trying a different order tonight. I will call for any public comment on this item. Seeing none, I will close the public comment section and ask for the applicant's presentation. Hearn: Kipp Hearn with H2 Engineering. We are in agreement with Staff's recommendations so we wouldn't have any exceptions. Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 8 Ostner: Commissioners. Anthes: I have a question. The letter that came from the applicant on page five of our Staff report, says that the changes made to the plan were associated with the revision from one entrance to two entrances. We had to make 19 of the parking spaces compact in order to keep our parking numbers at the level of our original submittal. Is that because you are meeting minimum requirements or is that a desire by the applicant? Hearn: That was a result of trying to meet the minimum requirements. Anthes: So Staff, the PZD as is — does it just meet our minimum? Morgan: The parking that is proposed by the applicant is within the range allowed. They are above the minimum requirements and they have not changed the number that was originally proposed. They just decreased 19 spaces to compact, so that they would stay at the same number. Anthes: Can you tell me what the City's standard is about compact spaces? Morgan: You can have up to 35% of your parking compact. Anthes: I just wondered because I obviously see SUVs parked in compact spaces all the time and wondered if we were requesting that the applicant make the spaces smaller.... Morgan: Actually, it was the applicant who proposed that. Clark: I move to forward ADM 06-1976. Allen: Second. Ostner: Is there any discussion? Roll Call: The motion to forward ADM 06-1976 is approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 9 ANX 06-1935: (FLETCHER WILLIAMS, 474): Submitted by RANDY RITCHEY STEADFAST, INC. for property located at 370 DOUBLE SPRINGS RD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 9.70 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. Morgan: This property is located south of Persimmon Street, south of Legacy Point Phase I. It contains 9.7 acres and the applicant requests approval of annexation of this property into the City of Fayetteville. For several months the applicant has been working with Staff. They are interested in proposing a subdivision and subdividing this property. The applicant would like to have access to City sewer. In order to do that, the applicant will either need to annex into the City of Fayetteville, or get approval from the City Council to extend sewer into the planning area. The applicant has meet with the aldermen of the Fourth Ward on several occasions regarding this application as well as several adjacent property owners regarding the intent to annex and develop. The applicant is currently proposing the avenue of annexation into the City of Fayetteville, however, annexation of this property would create an approximately 6.3 -acre island within the City. Annexation of this property would not extend the City limits south of its current limits, as this property is encompassed within the City, with the City adjoining the property to the east and the west. There are two property owners to the north of the property within the planning area. The immediate property owner to the north is at this time, unwilling to annex into the City due to potential regulations which would be placed on the property as well as the effect it would have on the owner's storage business. Staff has met with the land owner of the new storage business and he has expressed his desire to remain in the County Mini -storage is allowed in the I-1 zoning district in the City. While it is atypical to recommend an annexation that creates an island, Staff finds that the applicant has made every attempt to request that the property owners that would become an island to annex. We have met with additional property owners to the south who have also expressed an interest in annexing into the City and believe we will see annexation requests from those owners soon. This property is located adjacent to the City property currently being serviced by utilities as well as the emergency vehicles. It is approximately six minutes away from the Fire station on Rupple Road. Staff therefore recommends approval of the annexation into the City. The applicant has also requested a rezoning at this time. The intent is to develop this property for a combination of single-family and two-family town homes similar to those located within Legacy Point Phase I which the applicant has some involvement in developing. Additionally, the applicant would request an RMF -6 zoning district with a bill of assurance. This bill of assurance limits the number of units as well as maximum of two-family town homes. The applicant has assured in the bill of assurance that there will be single family adjacent to the RSF-4 properties to the east Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 10 and west. Staff finds that this zoning district while slightly greater than the RSF-4 that is surrounding, will be compatible in this area. It is near commercial properties located on Wedington. Additionally, it is adjacent to a minor arterial, Double Springs Road, as well as to collector roads, Dot Tipton Road and Persimmon Street. We find that the slight increase in density proposed for this area would be compatible as well as allow additional residents of Fayetteville to take the opportunity of community services provided nearby this area. I have some maps here for you that show this property in relation to the adjacent to the City limits as well as the zoning. You can see where the RMF -6 area is in Legacy Point which is actually our first RMF -6 in the City of Fayetteville. Staff does recommend approval of that rezoning with the bill of assurance. Ostner: At this point I will call for public comment on ANX 06-1935. Lacy: I am Skip Lacy and I own property to the north. I haven't been notified or spoken with anybody about this as far as them contacting me. The only reason I knew it was coming up was because of the sign and that was up last week. I haven't spoken with anybody. Ostner: And you own the property on the north side. Lacy: Yes. Thank you. Osmer: Is there any further comment. Seeing none I will close the public comment section. Can we hear from the applicant. Ritchey: Randy Ritchey with Steadfast, Inc. and I represent the applicant in this application. We are, as Suzanne mentioned, seeking an annexation and a rezoning to ultimately develop residential properties. We have submitted a bill of assurance spelling out what we would like to do. I think we submitted a conceptual plan showing what the development will look like. As part of the bill of assurance, we stated our maximum number of units which is several units less than the RMF -6 zoning would allow. Obviously the reason we are asking for the RMF -6 is we want to build some two -unit town homes. The density is not really any more than what a RSF — actually I think it is 4.4 or 4.5 units per acre by the time you work it out, the total number of units we will build. We have been working with the property owners to the south and they are in process, through the County, to ask for annexation into the City. I think those processes are moving along. We tried to all be together at the same agenda, but it didn't work out with the County that way, so we are coming in in steps. We are maintaining compatible adjacent zonings where our property borders up to single family, we are going to build single-family units and we are trying Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 11 Clark: to do it in the most pleasing way possible. If you have any questions, I would be happy to address them. I have a question for Suzanne. On page 21 of 22, in the subject property, on the western side, is there a big gap between the property and Double Springs Road? Morgan: The western property line, that subject property is actually adjacent to the right-of-way line. There is currently 90' of right-of-way existing. You can't see it, but if you look to the north of that in Legacy Point Subdivision, you can see a line for Double Springs Road and if you continue that down to the south, that would be adjacent to the property. Clark: Technically there is no gap. And none of the property owners to the north of this in the island it is going to create want to come it yet? Morgan: Correct. The property owners to the north, we understand, does not want to come in due to the conflict with the business he is currently owns. I have not received any information regarding the desire to come into the City from the second property owner, the second home just south of Legacy Point Phase I. Allen: The gentlemen that spoke earlier, Skip, I was going to ask a question of him and I wondered if this long building on page 22, is that the storage unit? Pate: That is actually a poultry house. Allen: I wondered where you were in relation to the storage unit, if you are on the north? Lacy: I am. That is my storage unit. That is my property. There is a home on the property. Allen: I wonder if Staff could give us any insight as to why he might not have been notified. Pate: We have checked our records of notification, but for rezoning requests, by ordinance, there is no notification requirement by an applicant. We typically send a courtesy letter to adjacent owners. We obviously publish in the paper and put the sign up, but we can check our records to see if he was notified, but it sounds like he was not. Ritchey: When I went to the courthouse and pulled all the neighboring parcels, the previous owner's name was still on that parcel on the County records — Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 12 they got notified and it wasn't until only recently that we realized.... I kept trying to call that individual and they never returned my calls, but they finally did answer the phone and explained that they don't own that property any more, that they had sold to an L & L Construction, but they couldn't tell me who that was. We found it out as of late who the owners were, so they did not receive the letter in the mail because of the lag of the update in the County records. Anthes: Our finding of fact on page 3 states that the immediate property owner to the north is unwilling to annex into the City due to regulations placed on the property and the effect it would have on the land owner's storage business. If that person did not understand that this was happening, I don't understand where we got that information. Pate: Clark: Pate: I actually spoke personally with the property owner to the north along with one of our Staff engineers about his mini storage project, because there is a stub out to the north from Legacy Point Subdivision which was going to be blocked. We don't review Targe scale developments in the County. I believe that just went through the County process. We did review the water line extensions, however, and that was our meeting at the time. It was my understanding that because of the mini storage units being placed there, obviously annexation in this area would prohibit that project from going forward, unless it was zoned I-1 Industrial which I doubt Staff would support. This is a question for Staff. I am confused. Our guidelines call for us not to create islands or peninsulas. Yet, in this annexation we are not only creating an island, but if the property owners to the south, which everyone seems to be excited about, really want to annex in, we are going to create an even more isolated island by getting deeper. In the past I've heard words like compellingly unique to justify annexation. I'm not hearing that this time. Why is an indifference to Commissioner Graves, who is not here — I know it is just a guideline, an idea, but why is this warranted to violate this guideline. With specific reference for annexation, the policy is for not creating peninsulas or islands. I'll reference the recent peninsula that the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council and the City Council approved the very large peninsula to the northwest of town. Staff did find any reasons there to support that, we could not find justification; the property owner had notified everyone and attempted to try to bring that in in a comprehensive annexation. We have spoken with this property owner for the last couple of months now and they have indicated — several property owners in this area are looking at annexation. We have also spoken with Farmington whose is looking at extending their property into Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 13 Clark: Pate: this area at this time with their annexation taskforce. The opportunity for annexation for this property in the future, because it becomes an island, would lie with the City Council, if they chose to follow that legislative path, because an island can be annexed by the City Council. Not that that is why we would recommend it, but it is relatively small. It is being developed at this time. If it were potentially to be used for single-family residential development or otherwise, much like this property is being developed, I think that we would probably have a little bit different opinion on the matter, but because it is approved for being developed and we don't see any indication that they property owner is moving forward or willing to annex. That is one of the reasons we utilized for justification for that. It seemed to us that creating an island in this particular location would not exacerbate the problem. Double Springs Road would have to be built to our City standards whether it is in the City or the County as I mentioned before. It is within one mile, so it would have to be built to the City requirements. This would simply allow property that is bounded on the west by single-family residential development in the City, east by single-family residential development that is in the City to be developed in a manner that is according to that, unlike the property directly to the north. All of that makes absolute sense to me and I am a believer in annexation because it has to be developed along City standards. I am just concerned when we accomplish one goal while seemingly contradicting another goal. It is challenging at times to meet all of those policy requirements and guidelines and I think that's why they are guidelines. It is something we will be revisiting, I believe, as all of you Commissioners have noted in the 2025 Plan. There are some big shifts in City Council decision to annex the property just recently in the northwest as well. Hopefully, those will be coming out in public discussions soon. Clark: Thank you, Jeremy. Allen: Placing on the fireman hat again, with still yet another request, that we have the opportunity to talk with the Police (Fire) Chief on these fire responses — this one is six minutes. The information to me is contradictory to what it takes for a house to burn to the ground. I understand that growth is what causes the building of a fire station, but it is still problematic. Of course I won't be here much longer, but I hope other people will want to carry on with having a little more clarity about that. I just don't think we have enough information sometimes about fire response. Sometimes it will say that this amount of time is enough, and then another time, it is another amount. That is a factor in making these decisions. Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 14 Pate: Allen: Anthes: If I may respond to that. We have spoken to the Fire Department several times and they are actually including much more information than they used to. It used to be just a spreadsheet with the number out beside it. They are talking now about where they are located, how many calls they anticipate for full development, they include the map showing exactly where the station is in reference to where this project is and how they would get there. Something they really can't take into consideration is the subdivisions approved between these two, but they are not platted yet, or the streets aren't built which would reduce response time. That is not something they can take into consideration when they make that call. They also include hydrant flow which is not something they have done in the past to understand — the County specifically — is really looking at that with a very hard hand, you would say, especially this year, January 1, 2006 to require that those meet minimum fire codes for water pressure. I think it is good in that it protects the public good out there that are moving into homes that are developed at urban densities, but they are right outside that City limit line. As per your request, the Fire Department is working on deployment strategy, sort of a master plan, as you will, kind of like our General Plan 2025. They would rather, in speaking with Chief Johnson, present that to you when it is complete as opposed to giving you half the picture type of thing. It is definitely something we discuss at least every couple of weeks in meetings with them. That is great. I appreciate that, Jeremy. I am glad to know it is looming out there soon. Another question for Staff. I believe the report said that there is a strip of road that would still exist in the County between this parcel and the rest of the City limits. Is that part of the Fire response route, and how does that factor in? Pate: Are you referring to page 8 of 22 — strip of road unannexed? Anthes: Yes. Pate: That was the Ms. Clark's comment about strip of land along Double Springs Road. Anthes: Oh, okay, it wasn't that the road itself..... Thanks. Pate: Once property adjacent to right-of-way that is County right-of-way, annexed into the City, that County right-of-way becomes City right-of- way. Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 15 Ostner: I would like to ask the property owner to the north (Skip Lacy) if you would approach. Since is the first you have heard of it, are you interested in being annexed, or is it something you might consider? Lacy: I would have to consider it. Originally, I have also spoken to Jeremy about this particular property and at the time, the infrastructure as far as the Fire and Police Departments and all that stuff, to him, as far as multi- family units, the way I understood it, it would be a problem. But that was six months ago. When we bought this property, it took some investigating into what I could and couldn't do. And some of it I had to go to Jeremy and figure out what you guys would require, and have to go to the County. I didn't even get a letter until the other day, I visited with Mr. Williams, the property owner next door, but I didn't really know what is going on. Ostner: Thank you. Trumbo: I am going to go ahead and make a motion that we approve this annexation although this is the first time Staff has, since I have been here, has recommended making an island, but if it makes sense with their explanations, I agree. I make a motion to forward ANX 06-1935. Clark: Second. Ostner: Any discussion? Will you call the roll please. Roll Call: The motion to forward ANX 06-1935 is denied by a vote of 2-4-0 Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 16 RZN 06-1936: (FLETCHER WILLIAMS, 474): Submitted by RANDY RITCHEY STEADFAST, INC. for property located at 370 DOUBLE SPRINGS RD. The property is zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural, and contains approximately 9.70 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RMF -6, Residential Multi -family, 6 units per acre. Ostner: The next item which we have already discussed, is the accompanying rezoning request for this piece of property. I think we should discuss it since the City Council is entitled basically to an automatic hearing. If they overturn our annexation, they will not have a report for the rezoning consideration. Trumbo: Out of curiosity, if you all would mind explaining why you voted no to give some direction to the applicant. Ostner: For me it seems the real lynch pin for Staff, as you mentioned, it is the first island they have recommended, is sort of undermined because the property owner to the north is not as informed as I would hope he would be. If he were here tonight and he was adamant that he understood everything and he absolutely did not want to be annexed, I might be able to consider it. Since the mailings that the applicant did as a courtesy, got delayed and that happens a lot, that was my opinion. I'm not completely opposed to this property coming into the City, but that was my hang-up. Myres: I think I would have been more comfortable if it had been a bigger package, even though it doesn't in that case not create that island of County property. I am also very concerned about the response time for fire. I think it hasn't finally gotten to the point for me where critical mass has been reached and I'm not comfortable with six minutes. Anthes: The other issue is the length of response time and where are we going to be able to seek connectivity. I am concerned about piecemealing in developments that may or may not be able to provide connectivity because of the lack of coordination. It seems like coordination in this case with both the properties to the south coming in soon and the possibility for the property to the north, we might be able to get the appropriate development pattern if we just wait. It might be an issue of timing. Allen: I really have nothing further to add. I feel the same as the other commissioners. I do see this as something that we will want to rezone. I have a problem with the fact that the gentlemen who is directly involved didn't know what was going on in time and the island, and the response time. Trumbo: I appreciate it. Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 17 Ostner: The rezoning request is what we should consider right now. I will call for any more public comment. We already heard the applicant and the Staff. If anyone would like to speak, please step forward. Asad: I am Zachary Asad (?). I am a proposed future owner of this property and I don't understand why.... Ostner: Sir, if you don't mind, I am sorry. I am going to get right back with you, but I want to try to hear from people who are not involved with the project first. Sloan: Charlie Sloan. We developed the Legacy Point Subdivision which is north and to the east of this. You guys approved our Legacy Phase IV. We also have multi -family which is RMF -6 and actually I own some property in there. We developed a street of town homes. I don't want to be up here saying no against his rezoning against RMF -6, but when we did that project, we placed that street where Mr. Conklin felt it was the best for the public so that we weren't against someone else's property that was single family. So in this project we would ask that on the east side, and I don't know where else there would be other property affected by it, but at least if we could have one-half the street that butts residential RSF-4, be RSF-4 in that project if at all possible. I have not seen the layout on this, but this is one of the comments that Tim had asked us, he had asked us to move ours down by the creek away from potential single-family homes that were to the south of us. If we are going to do the project, we need to do it within our project, so we would like your consideration on that. That's the only comment I have. Ostner: Any other public comment? Okay, I will close the public comment and if the applicant would like to address us, please. Asad: I believe all of you got pictures of town homes, those I built myself on the same subdivision that Mr. Sloan mentioned, which is surrounding the Legacy Point subdivision and we were going to build those type of town homes which is really each side, condo -type of town home. They tend to be more single-family because you can sell each side. It is more of a selling item, rather than rental items, typical of multi -family units. Myself, I work hard to notify every and each surrounding property owners. We called for a neighborhood meeting a couple of weeks ago and I have a very favorable opinion about this development. We believe that we sent them notification to the northern surrounding property owners as well. I am not sure what kind of confusion there was between the previous owners and the current owners. We notified each south, west and even the ? subdivision which is across the street, we had neighborhood Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 18 meeting. Again we worked with Planning Division to make these as attractive as possible and we agreed to put single dwelling houses on the line towards the surrounding properties, particularly Mr. Sloan's Legacy Point and we agreed to put single dwelling houses over there. And also single family houses would be in the front of the property which is on Double Springs Road. I worked about one month to notify and let all the owners know about this development, and I really don't understand why the northern property owners didn't get this message, although we tried to inform as clearly as we could all property owners. Thank you. Ostner: Thank you. Allen: To the applicant, certainly by the time this goes to the Council, everyone will be very aware and will be notified and I don't think you will have that problem. I was just going to say for the record that if the Council decides to annex this property, that I don't have a problem with the rezoning that you have suggested. It seems appropriate for that area and I like the way that you have laid it out. Myres: That bill of assurance goes with the land, so regardless of who might own it in the future, they can't redevelop it in any other way? If so, I am fine with the RMF -6 zoning. Ostner: Is the bill of assurance — it appears to me half way down the bottom paragraph on page 12 of 20, "Subdivision will meet or exceed the requirements of RMF -6 zoning. The subdivision will contain between 20 to 24 zero -lot line town home structures and between 3 to 6 single family dwellings". That's where I am confused, because it sounds like we are trying to buffer the adjoining single-family with single-family and let the multi -family sort of be insulated. I don't see how that is possible. If a ring of single-family needs to surround the 24..... Pate: If you will reference the site plan, it probably shows it the best. There indications ring single-family are those properties currently zoned single family. Obviously the property to the north is developing industrially and to south, there are no land use regulations at this time. So the applicant has proposed in his bill of assurance that single-family lots will be adjacent to the property zoned for single-family use, and utilized for single-family use at this time. To the north, it is approved for industrial use and to the south is agricultural. Clark: So there is only single family on the east? Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 19 Pate: On the east and west, along Double Springs Road as well. They are indicating at lease two homes there would be single family. Again, we really haven't reviewed this site plan in detail, but that is the concept. Ostner: I think the key is that the northern and southern property boundaries are not City, if those get annexed, so they are abutting with town homes. Okay, I am understanding now. Anthes: A question for Staff. Can you define for us the difference between "multi- family" and "single-family attached," as related to this project? Pate: The residential RMF would allow more than three units for instance. What the bill of assurance has done is disallow that multi family component. It essentially stated that you could have single-family and two-family dwelling units only and the two-family town house that the attached single-family townhouse would be a two-family town house probably split down the middle with a lot line. Anthes: So basically what we have is single-family property that shares an adjoining wall. So if we are talking about separating multi -family uses from single-family uses, do we actually have anything other than single family on this property? Pate: We have debated about adding a new use unit in our code to allow for that, but it is looked at differently in building codes and it is looked at differently in zoning codes and in park development fees. So it really depends on how one develops this. For instance, we would not be able to require them to put a lot line down the middle; they could still have a duplex — a two-family unit on one lot, it is a bit of a semantics game at times. Anthes: So basically, the bill of assurance is saying how many units it is but it may or may not be developed as a multi -family versus a single-family development and that is not something that we see in the bill of assurance. It just limits the number of structures, right? Pate: Number of structures and the fact that there will be no more than two attached. Clark: Although I have no real problem with this zoning, it seems to me, especially after this discussion, that an R-PZD would be very appropriate for this piece of property where you can have a little more leeway on where you put everything in your lot lines, but that is your choice. I think the type of structures that you have pictures of are really nice. I just wish it was in the City. Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 20 Ostner: I think I have to differ a little. I just don't think that RMF -6 is quite appropriate. I know that there is a band of RFM-6, a quarter of a mile to the north, or an eighth of a mile to the north. This is nice illustration, the light tan is RSF-4 — this property has RSF-4 on the east and the west, unincorporated County land north and south and there is no RMF -6 until you drive all the way up to Greens Chapel Road. I just think it is a big jump for the six —nine acres. I can see this zoning if it has something that wasn't completely housing, that had something added into it, but as it stands, I am going to have to vote against. Allen: We won't take a vote on it though, isn't this just comment for.... Williams: I think you ought to take a vote, a conditional vote assuming the City Council would in fact approve the annexation on appeal which you recommended a denial of. What would be your recommendation on the zoning. Pate: If I may offer a little bit of history, too. RMF -6 was, one of the reasons it was created, was requests such as this — they were looking at a lower density, but the applicant would like to utilize something other than just single family. RMF -4 is very hard to do, to create four units per acre and still have a multi -family development, unless you have large lots. So back in 2000 or 2001, this zoning was created and utilized for that very purpose and as Suzanne mentioned, the very first property zoned RMF -6 was the property at Legacy Point, Mr. Sloan mentioned. That is the reason we created that zoning district, was to allow for lower density so you could achieve the level of compatibility between single family zoning districts. Ostner: I am not opposed to RMF -6, I think it is a terrific tool. The RMF' -6 to the north is different because it is integrated. It is part of a larger development. It is almost a type of mixed zonings. It is not mixed use, but it is a mixed density. This is not. I guess it could be strictly mathematically, there are three to six single-family detached and 24 of the town homes. There is sort of a critical mass. If this were larger, if the zonings were more evenly distributed, it would be less homogenous and that is sort of where I am falling on that. Anthes: A question for the City attorney. I am having difficulty figuring out how to vote on this, based on whether or not the annexation would go through. The reason I say that is that we are within a half a mile of Wedington Road, 54`h, Persimmon and Double Springs, so, as far as transportation and ingress/egress to this property, we are in pretty good shape as far as density goes, but whether or not I would find for this zoning might differ if I knew it would come in with these other two properties and have Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 21 development that is more coordinated than we currently see. It might affect my decision about whether this was appropriate. Williams: I would think since the City Council will be looking at this before these other annexations, come before them I think, you should base your decision on rezoning as if we don't know what is going to happen in the future with those other ones. Just base it on this property, whatever that will make you decide. Allen: I will move for approval of RZN 06-1936 to be forward to the Council, if they decide to override our other motion. Myres: Second. Ostner: Is there any discussion? Will you call the roll. Roll Call: The motion to forward RZN 06-1936 is denied by a vote of 2-4-0 Osmer: As a procedural issue, these do automatically go to City Council..... Williams: Well, no, the petitioner must file a written appeal with the City Clerk within ten working days of tonight. Ostner: Then the item can be heard at City Council. Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 22 CUP 06-1953: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (WESTERN SIZZLIN): Submitted by Crafton, Tull & Associates for property at 3070 W. 6th Street. The request is for additional parking with the associated development. Fulcher: This large scale development and conditional use are obviously together. I will cover it all. The subject property contains 3.32 acres. It located west of the corner of Sixth Street and One Mile Road, across from Lowes' and is zoned C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial. Currently the site contains an abandoned single family structure and some mature trees, located mainly in the center of the property. We have done two other developments on the east and west side that have provided cross access potential for this property. We have received some public comment from an adjoining single-family neighborhood to the north. They did make some comments at the Subdivision meeting regarding the screening pretty much associated with the noise and odors from a restaurant use adjacent to their properties. The proposal is to construct a 9,000 s.f. restaurant and a 5,000 s.f. retail building with 158 parking spaces (that number has changed one since Subdivision). The conditional use refers to 144 only being allowed, that's a 30% increase over the 144 allowed. They are requesting 158 which would be a conditional use for 14 parking spaces which is about a 10% over the allowable number. Street improvements will be sidewalks; the existing sidewalk on the property will be removed; a 6' sidewalk will be located at the Master Street Plan right-of-way with dedication of right-of- way by warranty deed for the highway there. Cross access will be provided to the east and west for two recently approved projects and bicycle racks will be provided for multi -modal access. Mitigation will be required in the amount of 40 trees. Condition #10 will go into the matter of mitigation. When we looked at this item at Subdivision Committee, they had gotten all 40 trees on to this site as well as landscape trees that are required and additional landscaping trees that they have provided. The position of the trees was so close that we felt they should remove some of those. The landscape plan has been revised since Subdivision Committee, so while 40 trees are required for mitigation, not all 40 will fit on the site, so we will have a combination of money -in -lieu and mitigation on site. With that Staff is recommending approval of the conditional use for the additional 14 parking spaces with two conditions of approval. Condition #2 refers to an item brought up by one of the Subdivision Committee members regarding the time of delivery — some of the larger vehicles that come in to a restaurant for food deliveries. We have tried to put a time limit on that that wouldn't be restrictive to a business trying to operate but also provide some assurance to the neighbors that these trucks won't be showing up in the middle of the night, or at 4:00 in the morning. We are also recommending approval of the large scale development with eighteen conditions of approval. Item #1 — Planning Commission determination of Commercial Design Standards. This was an item that was discussed, but Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 23 the Subdivision Committee members at that time, did not find in favor of all the elevations. If I remember correctly, they found in favor of the restaurant, but not the retail building. We have been provided with the material boards since that time showing the materials. They have shown all four sides of the retail building with the articulation and I believe the applicants could probably expand on what they have done with the building since then. Item #2 — determination of conditional use for the 158 parking spaces. Item #3 is referring to the six foot privacy fence located along the north property line to screen this use from the residential use and also a continuous, dense planting of shrubs and trees. Item #4 — dedication of right-of-way 55' from centerline with a warranty deed. Item #5 referring to the cross access. Item #10 to the mitigation requirements. Ostner: At this point I will call for any public comment on CUP 06-1953 and LSD 05-1827. Seeing none, I will close the public comment section. If we could hear from the applicant. Hood: I am Scott Hood with Crafton Tull & Associates here with the owner, Mark Bazyk and we agree with Staff's comments and are here to address any comments you might have. Ostner: Thank you. We will get back to you. I suppose with could start with the Subdivision report if anyone is here who was there. Anthes: We looked at the site and actually one of the neighbors to the north attended the meeting, Larry Lomas, who adjoins the area close to the dumpster and compactor area. We were asked to evaluate the noise and odors associated with that proximity. That is why Staff has put Condition #2 on the conditional use to address their concerns. I believe that there is also a good amount of buffering going to happen within that 20' setback. We asked if they had considered putting the building closer to the street with the parking behind, but the Tree and Landscape Administrator indicated that there are some pretty significant trees on this property that would be lost if there was a different configuration on the site and so that is why they had elected to put it in this position, with Staff's guidance. I don't know — there were quite a few comments from both Parks and Engineering about tree spacing and other construction issues, and I don't know if those have been addressed on the plans? Fulcher: Yes, the items regarding the spacing of the trees were revised with the revisions they submitted. That is why the mitigation number and money - in -lieu has changed with mitigation numbers. Anthes: The other thing is that there was a significant tree that was pretty near a parking space and the reason the parking numbers have gone down, is one, Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 24 they have removed a space to allow more breathing room for that tree. I think the Committee was pretty happy with the Commercial Design Standards for the Western Sizzlin building itself, but the retail center was felt not to comply although they have modified those elevations as presented tonight. Myres: The major problem as I remember it was with the standards for the retail center that it is basically is a building that will be seen easily on all four sides and they had addressed the front and the street side, and the side that faces Western Sizzlin, but not the back with the same level of detail. They seem to have corrected that, in between Subdivision and tonight, and I am much more inclined to approve those elevations, which I was not at Subdivision. Allen: Were there other concerned neighbors there other than the one gentlemen. Has Staff heard from other neighbors that adjoin the property with other concerns? Fulcher: No, I have spoken with Mr. Lomas on the phone and also by e-mail. To my recollection, that is the only neighbor I have spoken with personally. And I haven't received any other written items from those other neighbors. Allen: I guess we can hire someone on Staff as the official "smeller". Anthes: I think the first thing in front of us is the Conditional Use Permit. I am looking at this degree of excess parking that they are requesting, and it is much less than we have approved on many other projects. I would like to move that we approve CUP 06-1953 with conditions as stated, although I would like to add to condition #2, three words — "trash removal and" in front of delivery times for large commercial vehicles, etc. Allen: Second. Ostner: And that was going to be my comment, that the.... Williams: I am a little concerned; I'm afraid the trash removal is normally handled, well it is commercial I guess... if the Fayetteville City trash removal won't agree, I guess they could get a commercial. Anthes: I recall a statement from the applicant during Subdivision Committee that they are going to have a compactor which is emptied from the site about three times a week. I believe at the time, he had agreed to that; it just didn't make itself into the wording. Bazyk: Six times, almost daily. Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 25 Osmer: As someone who abuts somewhat semi -commercial property with a dumpster, that is important because a dumpster does not talk about delivery at all. Any further comment? Will you call the roll. Roll Call: The motion to approve CUP 06-1953 passes by a vote of 6-0-0. Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 26 LSD 05-1827: Large Scale Development (WESTERN SIZZLIN, 557): Submitted by CRAFTON TULL & ASSOCIATES INC. - ROGERS for property located at 3070 W 6TH ST., HWY 62 W at ONE MILE RD. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 3.32 acres. The request is to approve an 8,348 s.f. restaurant and a 5,000 s.f. retail building on the property. Ostner: The accompanying item is LSD 05-1827. We have already heard the Staff report. I will call for any public comment. Seeing none, I will close the public comment. Would the applicant like to add anything to his presentation. Hood: No. Clark: Pate: Why aren't we putting the second condition off the conditional use onto the large scale as well regarding delivery, because if they violate, you can't take a parking place out, so the conditional use is kind of de facto once the parking places are made, so why not move the second condition also onto the large scale. It is part of the conditional use; it does take a finding or requirement by a large scale development for utilizing that, but again, we just recently had an ordinance amount for a relocation of conditional uses so potentially there could be removal of parking spaces if it is found to be in violation of that. Clark: So don't violate..... I'll move to forward LSD 05-1827 with conditions as stated. Allen: Second. Ostner: I have a question for Staff on condition #3 talks about a six foot tall wood privacy fence along the north property line and a twelve foot vegetative buffer. I am assuming the fence is on the line and the vegetative buffer is on the development side of the fence. Fulcher: Yes, between the fence and the building. Ostner: Are there any more details about the fence? Is it one sided or two sided? Your average fence can be a lot nicer on one side than the other. Pate: We have not addressed that. Ostner: That is something people talk about is they build this nice fence and the people at Western Sizzlin get to look at it, when it was sort of built to Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 27 mitigate the neighbors. There is a two-sided type of fence out there. Would the motioner be amenable to adding a double -sided (good neighbor) fence? Clark: Yes. Ostner: Would the seconder? Allen: Yes. Ostner: Would the applicant - please step forward. Bazyk: I am Mark Bazyk and I am the owner. We have spoken with Mr. Lomas twice now and we want to be a good neighbor and he even mentioned taking out the chain link fence that is there now when we replace it with the wood fence and we said sure. We will take care of it. We want it to look nice and we want to be a good neighbor to him. We will take care of it. From the Western Sizzlin side it is going to be buffered by trees and realize the building sits down six feet on the property, so it will be a slope of trees. Anthes: I have one question of Staff and I don't know if this came up or we understood it at Subdivision and that is the issue of the 20' strip of land that is zoned RA. Can you tell us about that for the record? Pate: This property was rezoned C-2 many years ago and we didn't have the requirements we have for legal descriptions we have currently, so there are properties all over town that have — it was part of the property, it looked like it was supposed to be all the property — so that is why we have in part of our zoning codes, an interpretation of zoning district boundaries. On any lots that have common ownership, and you will see this actually on the Zaxbys tonight as well, with split zoning districts, administratively the zoning development administrator has the right to allow for development on the property within 20' of things that would normally be allowed. In this case, C-2. You can't go further than that and it is not technically rezoned, it is still the zoning district, but you can allow those uses within 20'. My condition for that in this case was with having the dense vegetative buffer and the fence to screen those residential uses to the north. Anthes: Is there anything that suggests that that strip should come through as a rezoning or do we just leave it? Pate: That is an alternative. They could come through, it's a 25' strip or something like that, it is a lot of process to do that. Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 28 Anthes: It is just housekeeping. Thank you. Ostner: My only other question is that these tree sort of walls that are going to be in the parking lot, this is really a question for the applicant, the trees aren't below grade, the trees are going to be above grade? Hood: Yes. Ostner: I am really glad you are saving those trees. Hood: We worked very hard to save those trees. They are gorgeous. Ostner: They are gorgeous. I have seen a lot of problems with those walls being so close to curbs; the note on the plan says that the wall will be one foot behind the curb. From a truck's tire to his bumper could be 4-5 feet. They get hit and get knocked down in parking lots all the time when they are that close. Hood: We can move that curb; that parking stop. Ostner: If that distance could be greater without pinching the tree, it would be more successful for everybody. That's is really a comment for the applicant. Allen: It is a special treat to see their furnishings. This is the first time in my six years to get to actually see the furnishings of the building. It looks very attractive. Ostner: Any further comment? Please call the roll. Roll Call: The motion to approve LSD 05-1827 is carried by a vote of 6-0-0. Anthes: I have a question, maybe of the City attorney. A motion was made earlier on item #2 and I had assumed when I voted for it that part of the recommendation was part of a condition of approval and it looks like it is just a recommendation and I'm not sure the construction of the driveway to the property line was included in our motion. Pate: That is in Staff's recommendation as a condition of that motion. We did not itemize it out condition #1, but that is part of our recommendation. Anthes: So we are covered? Ostner: Does that item go to City Council again? (yes) — okay Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 29 ANX 06-1933: (NOCK-BROYLES LAND DEVELOPMENT, 645): Submitted by JAMES ATWOOD for property located at 2390 S DEAD HORSE MOUNTAIN ROAD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 6.55 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. Fulcher: The subject property contains 6.55 acres and is located on Dead Horse Mountain Road, east of the West Fork of the White River, south of Goff Farm Road. The property is part, the requested annexation is part of an island that was created last year 2005 with the Hall annexation just southwest of Stonebridge Meadows Golf Course. They are requesting this annexation, a portion of this. We spoke with the applicants and asked them to approach the landowner to the south, and if you look at the map on page 20 of 22, you can see the darkened area in between the RA and the RSF-4 properties. It is an odd -shaped property that was created. This request will ultimately create an island within this island to the south, a small portion of property. This is the property we asked the applicant to contact the property owner to see if he would be amendable to be part of this annexation request. Unfortunately he did not and did not want to be brought into the City at this time. Therefore, the applicant has just brought forth the 6.55 acres which is bounded on three sides, or adjacent on three sides to incorporated property. The proposed annexation will not extend the City boundaries any further south as currently exists. As you can see, there is a large tract of land on the southwest portion here that is in the City. It is almost completely surrounded by incorporated City limits and the public service providers and the emergency personnel currently access portions of property around here and provide services to adjacent properties. Ultimately this annexation will begin to incorporate this island that was created this large annexation from last year, and while we would not like to see it create a separate tract there within the island, the ultimate purpose is to get more of this island into the City limits in hopes that in the future other adjacent property owners will petition to be annexed, although, as I said, the property owner to the south is unwilling to annex. With that Staff is recommending approval of this annexation of 6.55 acres and request it be forwarded to City Council. Ostner: I will call for any public comment. Seeing none, I will close the public comment section. If the applicant would like to make a presentation. Broyles: I am Hank Broyles and am the developer with John Nock. We are just taking in an island, just part of it. We did try to buy adjoining properties or see if they would annex, and we were unsuccessful either way. This 6.5 acres will be added to a 45 -acre tract that is already in the City to the east of this property and we will bring a PZD to the City once this annexation is completed. Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 30 Anthes: As opposed to the one we voted on earlier that created an island, this is actually trying to remedy something that we did awhile back and therefore I will (I am looking forward to seeing the PZD as part of the 45 -acre tract total) move that we forward ANX 06-1933 to City Council. Allen: Second. Ostner: Any discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to forward ANX 06-1933 is approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 31 RZN 06-1934: (BROYLES COMMERCIAL FUNDING, LLC, 438): Submitted by JAMES ATWOOD for property located at 4621 WEDINGTON. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 10.06 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RMF -24, Residential Multi -family, 24 units per acre. Withdrawn. Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 32 LSD 06-1736: Large Scale Development (ZAXBY'S, 521): Submitted by ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. for property located at 6TH STREET, BETWEEN LEWIS AND EASTERN. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 1.96 acres. The request is to approve a 3,378 s.f. restaurant with 38 parking spaces Garner: This property contains just under two acres and is located on Sixth Street on the northeast corner of Lewis Street and south of Venus Street and west of Eastern Avenue. The property is split zoned C-2 and R -O. A conditional use permit to allow for a restaurant use on the R -O portion of the site was approved by the Fayetteville Planning Commission in May 2005. The surrounding zoning consists of multi -family and single-family to the north and it is zoned RMF -24, to the south across Sixth Street, it is zoned I-1 Industrial; the east is RMF -24 and C-2 zonings and a mix of commercial and multi -family uses; and to the west is commercial uses, and again, mixed multi -family an commercial zonings. The applicant proposes approximately 3,400 s.f. restaurant with 89 seats and 38 parking spaces. The site would be accessed directly off of Sixth Street and Venus Street via a shared driveway with the adjacent lot to the east. Right-of- way would be dedicated along Sixth Street, 60' according to State Highway standards by warranty deed and 25' from centerline from the other three surrounding streets. Staff has received verbal comment from the adjacent property owner to the north that expressed concern with the back out from their driveways in close proximity to the driveway for the northern exit of this site. Staff is recommending approving this LSD 05- 1736 with conditions. Condition #! — Planning Commission determination of a modified condition of approval for the original conditional use permit 05-1474, to allow a drive-thru window on the R -O portion of the site as proposed. This is just an administrative item that should have been included in the original CUP to allow a drive-thru window. Staff does recommend in favor of this condition finding that a drive-thru window would be appropriate and compatible with surrounding commercial development and restaurant development in this area. Condition #2 — Planning Commission determination of Commercial Design Standards and compatibility with surrounding commercial developments. Staff finds that the proposed elevations meet commercial design standards. The Subdivision Committee found that the west and east elevations needed additional articulation, and that the elevations should be scaled. I believe you have actual photos that were provided simulating the colors of this restaurant and showing what their proposal is. Condition #3 — Planning Commission determination of street improvements. Staff recommends 6' sidewalks at the right-of-way line along Sixth Street, pavement 14' from centerline, sidewalks, curb, and gutter, storm drains and street lights along Lewis Avenue and Venus Street with a 6' sidewalk located at the right-of- way. Subdivision Committee found in favor of this condition. Condition Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 33 #10 — there are a few comments of a landscape plan to be addressed. Condition #11 is referencing the tree preservation requirements — the 13 mitigation trees that must be planted on site. With that, I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. Ostner: At this point I will call for any public comment. If you would like to speak to this LSD, please step forward. Seeing none, we will close the public comment section and move on to the applicant. Evel (?): Jason Evel (?) with ESI, representing the owner and would be happy to answer any questions. Anthes: A question for Staff. Have you calculated the percentage of paving on this property and are we within our standards? Garner: I believe there is a site coverage note on the site plan showing 39% green space which is in conformance with our requirements. Anthes: The second question I have is, are we anticipating additional development on the eastern side of the lot where it says — what is the note that says proposed property line — are they thinking about processing a lot split? Pate: This is currently several lots, I think maybe four to six lots that were originally platted in this block and they are combining them all into two larger lots and that is the property line we are looking at administratively. Anthes: As far as the elevations go — the elevations we are voting on are ones from the drawing? The photographs that have less articulation are just for.... Pate: Yes, those are for your material samples and colors and it was a really good idea to show photographs in real life example. Anthes: I move for approval of LSD 05-1736 subject to the conditions of approval as stated. Myres: Second. Clark: Whoever was in Subdivision this day, are they happy with the revised elevations? Anthes: Yes. Ostner: Yes, I was on that committee and I believe they satisfy. It might have come to Subdivision twice. Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 34 Allen: Do we feel like we have addressed the concerns of the public about the traffic, the driveways? Ostner: How close are we talking. This is a split zone site and the drive-thru window, in a perfect world, should be in the southern zone. How close are we into that R -O zone? Pate: The majority of the building is actually is actually within the C-2 portion. It is really only the actual window which you would order and the drive lane that is located within that residential office portion, so it would fall within that 20', for instance, like I mentioned earlier with the Western Sizzlin, we could administratively allow those types of uses. So it is within 20' right in the center of the site. The Burger King for instance, just adjacent, is actually set back even further with their drive-thru. Ostner: The reason I am curious, too, is that those windows are loud — sometimes you can hear them a block away, when the person asks for the order. Pate: It is about as far away as you can get it, unless you put it on Sixth Street and they would not be advisable to have that type of traffic stacking right next to Sixth Street. Ostner: I was speaking to this microphone/speaker situation in proximity to the northern residential property. We have a motion to approve. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll. Roll Call: The motion to approve LSD 05-1736 passes by a vote of 6-0-0. Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 35 CUP 06-1954: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (FAUCETTE MINI -STORAGE, 290): Submitted by GEORGE FAUCETTE for property located at 2593 N. COLLEGE AVENUE. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.51 acres. The request is to bring an existing non -conforming use into compliance. Garner: This property is located at 2593 North College Avenue. There is an existing mini -storage facility on the site was constructed in 1993 when mini -storage projects were a use by right in a C-2 zone. The applicant would like to modify the interior of one of the mini -storage and a building permit for this interior modification is not able to be issued without a conditional use permit to allow for nonconforming use to be recognized and approved by the Planning Commission. Therefore, the applicant proposes to continue to operate the existing mini -storage facility on the site and requests conditional use approval to operate the mini -storage facility within the C-2 zoning district, whereas now it is only allowed as a conditional use. Staff finds that to allow the operation of this existing nonconforming mini -storage facility would be compatible and no expansions would increase in square feet or cubic content as proposed or permitted at this time. We are recommending approval with one condition which states that the conditional use is to allow the existing mini -storage facility to operate and no additions or expansions would be allowed. Ostner: I will call for any public comment on CUP 06-1954 for Faucette Mini - storage. Seeing none, I will close the public comment section. Is the applicant present? Faucette: I am George Faucette and have nothing to add to Staff's comments. I will be happy to answer any questions. Allen: It is my understanding that as long as there is no structural change and no other improvements can be added. Pate: During an expansion or addition, we would look at a sliding scale of what improvements could be required, but really it is simply a use that was approved in 1993 by the Planning Commission. Those uses have changed now, so it is a conditional use and the improvements requested are interior to the building and above the dollar amount percentage wise that we can permit. Allen: Well, knowing that Mr. Faucette is a long-time resident of Fayetteville and would like to have Fayetteville be a beautiful city, that whenever possible, he will make those kind of improvements. I will move for approval of CUP 06-1954. Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 36 Trumbo: Second. Ostner: Is there any further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve CUP 06-1954 passes by a vote of 6-0-0. Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 37 ADM 06-1975: Administrative Item (City of Fayetteville PARKS DIVISION): Submitted by Parks Division Staff to propose amending the Park Land Dedication Ordinance, amending the fees in lieu and other criteria in Ch. 166.03 of the Unified Development Code of Ordinances. Pate: I would like to introduce Connie Edmonston, Parks and Recreation Director and she and others with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board will give a presentation tonight and recommendation, after many months of public meetings and sessions to determine changes to park land dedication ordinance which we have under Chapter 166 development. Edmonston: Our park land dedication ordinance was created back in 1981 and it pretty much came together with the Planning Commission working cooperatively with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board that actually drafted this ordinance. As housing additions are constructed in our City, that it was increasing the demand placed upon our Parks and Recreation system. In fact, Ernie Jacks from the Planning Commission back then was very instrumental in helping us to draft this ordinance. Our ordinance does provide a reasonable dedication of park land or money -in -lieu which must be spent for either park land acquisition or park development that does serve the subdivision in that park district. In determining in a subdivision if we should take park land or not, Park Staff utilizes our Park and Recreation ten-year master plan which was adopted and blessed by the Planning Commission as well as the City Council back in 2002, also, the alternative to Transportation and Trails master plan and then our current park property service map. Our park land dedication ordinance has been crucial in helping us develop our progressive park system. In the past 25 years, we have gained over 33 parcels of land; that includes 19 parks, 2 nature trails and 5 pieces of park that we use for a trail corridor. In addition money accumulated through the money -in -lieu has brought over $2.7 million for park development and land acquisition. I would like to explain to you about our current park land dedication formula. This tells you how we determine how much land and how much money is required through this ordinance. First of all, we take the census data and right now the most current census data we have is the year 2000. As you know, we are in the process of doing a new one in 2006, but that data won't be available to use until the fall. We found out that the number of people per unit in a single family is 2.39 people per unit and a multi family is 1.7 persons per unit, and mobile home is 2.38 persons per unit. We also look at the standard that we set for the amount of park land that is needed for our citizens. We utilized the National Parks and Recreational Association's standard of ten acres per 1,000 people and this was also recommended by the consultants that we hired for our Parks and Recreation master plan. You take the persons per unit times the number of acres, that ten and that gives you the land dedication requirement. So Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 38 for every single family unit that comes in, we need 0.024 acres times the number of units. For multi family, we need 0.017 acres per the number of multi units that come in. Then when we go to look at money into the formula, it is a little bit different. We have to determine the average cost per acre. The last time we did this, the cost per acre in which current fee is, is $23,125, the average cost per acre. So then you take the acres per unit times the average cost per acre and then you get the fee -in -lieu per unit. So, right now currently, our single family units, for every unit that comes in as a single family unit, we take it times $555. For every multi family unit that comes in, we take it times $393. Mobile home is $555. This formula must be reviewed and updated every two years and that is why we are here with you today. We do have our chairman from our Parks and Recreation Board, Wade Caldwell, who would like to give our recommendation and then we will follow up with our Park Planner, Alison Jumper who is going to visit with you about the methodology — how we came up with these numbers. Are there any questions. Caldwell: I am Wade Caldwell, Chair of the Parks Board. Tonight we also have from our Parks Board, Jerry Bailey, Jay Davidson and Monroe Harrison, and one of our Park Planners, Alison Jumper. The Parks and Recreation is recommending the following amendments to the Park Land Dedication Ordinance. First, updating the average cost per acre for determining the fee -in -lieu from $23,125 to $40,000. This is an increase of approximately 73%. The second item is, requiring residential developments under one acre to be subject to the Park Land Dedication Ordinance. This would require infill projects less than an acre to meet the same requirements of the Park Land Dedication as all the other residential developments do. It had the same as a multi family. Third, deleting the manufactured home designation from the ordinance including the single family residences. We don't have very many of these in our community as this point, as far as new ones being allowed. Manufactured homes are assessed the same fee as a single family residence. Then we would suggest deleting the major development subsection of the ordinance, these developments of course are over 100 units or 40 acres, they are evaluated on their own individual criteria regardless of their size. The fifth item, add the requirement of a written request to bank land for future development. This written request would minimize any confusion when future development is reviewed and banked land is requested. It would give us something to fall back on as far as what was agreed upon earlier. Do you have any questions for me? Ostner: We might get back with you. Jumper: I would like to elaborate a little on what Wade has already touched on. First, I'll go through the first ordinance amendments that don't include Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 39 updating the fee. The first one does deal with parcels under one acre. Currently we do not see these under our review and we see an increasing amount of infill in the City and often those are less than an acre in size and they are increasing the impact on our Park system just the same as any other residential development. We would like to add these in our review and require them to meet the requirements of the Park Land Ordinance. The second one is pretty simple. We really don't see manufactured homes that often and when we do, they are considered as single family residences so we would just like to take that language out of the ordinance to clear it up. The third one does deal with major development. I think it was in 2004, the Parks Board adopted criteria that we use to evaluate park land when we review it, when the projects come through. We apply that criteria to every development whether it is five acres or forty acres or five units. We apply the same criteria to every development to evaluate whether we need park land there or not. And things we take into consideration are existing parks in the area, existing recreational opportunities, so whether that project if forty acres or not, to us we evaluate it the same way. The next one deals with banking. Developers are allowed to dedicate park land in access of their requirement if they want to bank this land. We are asking that they provide us a written request for that, just so that we have record for future developments, that it is clear that they want to bank it. I'll go on to the fee update process now. We have had several meetings on this. We had three public meetings and we then presented to Parks Board in February for final recommendation. We have been viewing this at every direction we could think of. First, we did go back and try to determine an average cost per acre City wide. We looked at parcels that were sold within the City limits in 2004 and then we tried to apply the City zoning to try to differentiate single family from multi family and those prices might be for the fee -in -lieu. When we were doing that, we had hundreds of records from the County. They ran a query for us that gathered all the data that was sold within the City limits in 2004. And we found that the averages were very, very high, as much as $2 million. You probably have seen that in the paper. And part of the reason for that is that these parcels included lots that had already been subdivided and had existing infrastructure, so that really swayed how those averages were turning out. Then we started thinking, maybe we will take this out, or take that out and not everyone was comfortable with just picking and choosing a number, so we tried to look at it from another angle. So then we said we would try to come up with a fair market value approach. To do this, we again used the County records and used the actual sale price of the lands and plugged it into a pretty complicated formula and I can find it on the Power Point if you need it. We found this very cumbersome; it wasn't predictable for developers. Each development would have a different fee -in -lieu amount using that method, so it was predictable for them to try to figure their own fees. And it didn't take into Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 40 account family land swaps, or land deals. We saw potential for errors in the recordation of the prices. We did present that at two public meetings that were geared towards developers. It was open for everyone, but we made sure developers were invited to those. We took in their comments and took them into consideration and we ended up going back to looking at an average cost per acre City-wide. And again, we looked at all parcels sold within the City limits in 2005, after this some time had gone by and we wanted to get the most recent data. So we presented that to Parks Board in November and came up with an average. They made a recommendation to use the fair market value unless it wasn't deemed appropriate and then to use a number of $40,000 for the fee -in -lieu. Since that time, we had Parks Board members go off the Board and four new ones come on. We went through this process with the new members at our orientation in January and they asked us to get the most recent data from the County and present that. And we did that in February. The average came out to be $67,225. That was from parcels sold in 2005 within City limits that were over five acres. We did it over five acres to try to weed out all those parcels that already had existing infrastructure and made those averages go up higher. We felt that number was very high; we presented a median number that was right in the middle and that was $36,000+. The Parks Board reviewed that and then made a recommendation of the $40,000 for the fee -in -lieu. Ostner: What was the first number? $67,000? And you did more figuring and came at $37,000. Jumper: We proposed the median and that was the $67,225 number. The Board recommended the $40,000 and that is where we are here. If you have questions, I will be glad to answer them. Ostner: Sort of a procedural issue, Mr. Pate. Is this sort of an informative item before the council. This doesn't seem to be something we regularly rule on. Pate: This is an amendment to the Unified Development Code and happens every couple of years by ordinance. I'm sure Ms. Allen has seen this before. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board makes a recom- mendation to this Council, just like with every development, they make a recommendation to you and you actually decide. With this case, they are making a recommendation to you as the Planning Commission to then forward a recommendation to the City Council for ultimate adoption. So, yes, you will be voting on a recommendation to go to the City Council. Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 41 Ostner: If anyone from the public would like to speak to this issue, please step forward and share your comments with us. Seeing none, I will close the public comment and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. Clark: I have a couple of questions. How much have we banked money -in -lieu? Jumper: In each quadrant? Clark: Overall, City-wide? There is a bank account somewhere. Pate: The money that is taken in -lieu when the Parks and Recreation Board recommend to you in the Planning Commission decides to take money -in - lieu, that has to be utilized in a certain amount of time period. So that money is going into a capital projects or other projects used annually within that quadrant of the City. Clark: But you are not out of money -in -lieu are you? Edmonston: No, we still have money -in -lieu. We have three years in which to expend the funds and it must be spent within that park district that the subdivision is located. Clark: Do you have any idea what percentage of developments pay as opposed to plant? Edmonston: We have taken in 33 parcels of land and we have taken in $2.7 in the last 25 years. Does that answer your question? Each year it varies because we never know what subdivisions will be coming in. Clark: I am reacting to the 73% increase. To me that seems like a big number. I don't fault your rationale; you certainly know what you need, but that is a very large number. My concern is and remains affordable and obtainable housing. The more you put in fees on developers, the more the base cost goes up and I'm afraid we are excluding a percentage of the population at the lower, entry level homes that I don't know exist any more. I am concerned that this may have a negative impact which is certainly not your intent. Edmonston: One of the problems we hit now is that with an average of $23,000 an acre, the developers are not wanting to give the City park land. We need park land in that area, but when the average was $69,000 an acre and they are going to give it to us for $23,000 or if we request money -in -lieu, they get the $23,000 per acre formula, that's one of the problems we had. One of the bases of this ordinance is that we can serve the people coming in. Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 42 Clark: Edmonston: Clark: Edmonston: Bailey: Ostner: The impact is great that the people are bringing upon our park system, either by acquiring new land or by developing the current parks we have. So in the recent years, have you had to buy park land? We have bought very little park land. Most of it has come through our Park Land Ordinance, we have been very blessed in that instance. A lot of times, we are behind, because we get parks and then we have to get the money to develop it. So we wait until we get the park land dedication money to help develop that park. We are getting on that system right now. We have several — Salem Meadows, Legacy, Lafayette Lofts, several of those are developing. Braden Park we just finished. Okay, the 73% just makes me stumble. Now if your incentive is to get them to dedicate, to give you park land, that is a great philosophy. I might let the Parks Board address it. One of the reason we went with the lower figure, they average is $69,000 and we are only asking for $40,000 an acre, so we are already below the market value on it. We want them to support our parks system and we thought that was something we could live with. Jerry Bailey with the Parks Board. I would like to point out also is that people are wanting in the neighborhoods are Wilson Parks, they are wanting Gulley Parks. And at $23,000 or even $40,000, we don't have much opportunity to do that. And 73% could also be looked at as we have given developers a bargain for quite a while and I don't think that this is going to be too much to swallow considering even in my 15`h Street/6`h Street neighborhood, my property values have tripled in three years. I don't mean to be too defensive sounding, but I have to because we can't buy good park land at the current value we are getting. And we can't take care of the parks at the current value that we are getting. I think we should look at it that the developers have gotten a good deal for quite a long time, and the increases do look like they are large, just because we haven't been increasing them at the rate we should have been increasing them. We are behind the curve ball on this. They should have been increased quite a while back. We are playing catch up here, and if we don't play catch up now, we are going to have to do it sooner or later. I do not think we are gouging anybody. You can't buy five acres, sixteen acres, twenty acres at what we are getting now. If the point is to basically motivate the landowner to donate land instead of money -in -lieu, which sounds like the best choice right now. I paid so much, if I paid the Parks this much, I come out better. Wouldn't it be great if part of the difference went toward affordable housing. It doesn't Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 43 sound like Parks Board is saying we are dying for more money; we have got to raise these rates. It sounds like we really would prefer land and we have to raise the price in order to make that logic flow. Instead of the entire the 73% going back toward Parks, wouldn't it great if 10-15% of that could go towards affordable housing? It would almost defray the obvious downfall that they would have to charge more per unit but right now, there is no overall plan for affordable housing. There has been a lot of discussion and some rough notes on the shelf that the Council is trying to get to, but it seems like almost a middle ground right there. Bailey: We can bring up affordable housing — I don't think that aligns with Parks Department issues; we don't handle affordable housing, we handle Parks. And one of the reasons why we can't simply rely on the landowner to give us the lands, because if the land is an area that is not near a lot of other neighborhoods, what good does it do to those children. What we would like to do, and I hope I am not out of line here, is to be able to get enough revenue to where we could buy a premium piece of land that is situated in an area that's accessible to the majority of the people in the neighborhood, as opposed to being an outlying piece of land. We would like to be able to say we are going to go buy a great piece of land for the Parks Department, for the community, not simply rely on a piece of land the developer doesn't want because it is in an out -of -way location. We want to get in there and buy the best parkland we can, not just settling for what they are willing to give us. I may be out of line a little bit there, but that is how I feel. We want to be able to buy the good land, not just settle for the second hand land. Ostner: I assure you that that has come up at this level before. We have noticed the same time. It is not new. Bailey: I hope I have gotten across to you that the 73% may seem like a lot, but it is simply because we are playing catch up. I want to emphasize that developers have gotten a deal over the years. Anthes: Question of Staff. How often is this ordinance reviewed? Jumper: Every two years. Anthes: When I look at the price at what land is selling for, I do think the Parks Board has done a good job of trying to apply an even hand to those who are required to dedicate property versus those who are required to pay money -in -lieu. There was quite a big differential between how you came out, how your bottom line came out, depending on where you happen to have land and whether or not it was deemed to be in a place that Parks wanted it. I think this goes to level that differential -to make it fairer. I do Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 44 Allen: Edmonston: Ostner: Edmonston: Ostner: Edmonston: have some questions and maybe this is something I could ask you to consider in your next biennium when you are looking at how to rewrite the ordinance in the future. Obviously there is talk about a sliding scale of impact on different kinds of fees that are being charged in the City and addressing some of the other Commissioners' concerns here tonight, there might be an incentive or sliding scale that had to do with Park fees depending on what kind of development was being proposed — whether it was a certain kind of housing or development that met the intentions of our City Plan for example, when that is enacted. The other thing I would really like for Parks to consider is public art. We've talked about it in our review of the downtown code, about what might be the most appropriate place for money to be collected and spent for public art. Without a lot of review about that issue, it seemed that the Commission, in our initial reaction, was thinking Parks was the right place for that to happen. I wish that we were seeing an ordinance tonight that included a provision for public art. I understand that we are hitting you with it tonight and you have developed this ordinance, but if you could take a comment on that and incorporate it in the future, I think it would be great for the citizens of Fayetteville. Connie, could you tell me specifically some ways in which the money -in - lieu has been used in the four quadrants in the last two years? I think we have a list of projects — Braden Park, we just developed that — it is a small neighborhood over in the Covington Subdivision. We have almost finished out on that project — the playgrounds and trails through there. What we do when these neighborhood parks come in is we meet with the people and ask them what kind of parks do they want us to develop, and that is how we come up with our parks. It helped with the State Parks. May I ask how much Covington Park cost? Covington Park came to just under $110,000 for phase one. Is that land and equipment? That land was given for Park Land Ordinance. This one was kind of unique because we did get $40,000 grant money from Arkansas Parks and Tourism. So the City only had in $70,000 or so for this project. And that is normally what we do. That's why the money -in -lieu is very important for those subdivisions that were around Covington and we collect money so we can develop those neighborhood parks. Budrig Park, out on #16 — it was developed with park land dedication ordinance; Red Oak Park — the trail around it and the playground; Lake Fayetteville bridge — some monies Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 45 Clark: Allen: Edmonston: Allen: Edmonston: Williams: Allen: Edmonston: came from park land dedication along with other funding from sales tax from park land dedication ordinance. This next year we have dedicated money for Salem Village and for Legacy Point and Lafayette Lofts. Walker Skate Park — we put quite a bit of our money in that quadrant. It just depends on which quadrant has the money at that time. We will have a park comes in, but because that quadrant doesn't have a lot of development going on or because we took land in lieu of, there is not a lot of funding, but that is when we tried to subsidize it with our general budget that we get from sales tax and HMR tax. I can provide you with a list of $2.7 million worth of projects. We have a beautiful park system; there is no denying that. I wanted to ask is that the only criteria used about the location of the park, is that the money -in -lieu came from that quadrant? It could not be spent in any other quadrant, even if there was a real need for a facility in that area? That is correct. How is that determined? That was determined by our ordinance. That was determined by the Supreme Court when our Park Land Ordinance was on appeal and went to the Supreme Court. You see, it is based upon the fact we can require developers to provide public facilities and one of those things can be park land for their residents and that is why you must have the park close to the residents for them to be able to access it. If you took money from someone that is developing on Dead Horse Mountain Road and you put a park out on Wedington Road — way out, that probably wouldn't serve that development. I understand that, it just seemed like it could become very skewed to the quadrants of town that are newer, because there would be less development in the other parts of town. But one of the things is that the ordinance is an impact. When the numbers of people are coming in there, then we need to provide the park facilities to serve those. It used to be the northeast quadrant had lots of money, but now it has shifted to the southeast then had quite a bit and now the northwest has been flourishing. Allen: Could you tell me how many City parks there are in each quadrant? Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 46 Edmonston: I have those numbers; I don't have them right in my head. I have the number of acres that were approved by park land dedication ordinance. In 2004 we took in 18.26 acres, in 2005, we took in 41.37 acres and money - in lieu, we received $418,000 in 2004 and in 2005, almost $440,000. As to how many parks in each quadrant, I do have those numbers available. We do have 55 parks. Bailey: Ideally what we would like to have in Fayetteville is parks like Wilson Park and Gulley Park. These are twenty -acre parks and we are seeing this, too, around Lake Fayetteville and now slowly around Lake Sequoyah as well. We found that at these larger parks you have more things going on, our crews can go there and in one day can maintain the whole facility. All these parks can please more people at one time instead of the smaller parks. The neighbors when they come into the subdivisions like to have those small neighborhood parks as well. We are not able to aquire these Gulley Parks, these large pieces of land, even at $40,000 an acre, you know land doesn't go for $40,000 an acre. So this would allow us, too, to be able to acquire larger pieces and this is what we are trying to concentrate on in West Fayetteville, where a lot of the development is occurring. With Gulley Park, it was an exception with a very nice gift. I think Ms. Gulley, when we bought it from here, it was at a very reasonable price. Those things don't happen very often at all. But that is what we are trying to counteract. Allen: Can I presume that is what the survey showed when you were polling people and they wanted the larger parks, rather than the small parks? Bailey: Number one was the community park and that is what we are trying to do with South Pass. We had a ten-year plan done and that was the number one item. Number two item was neighborhood parks and trails. And now we are trying to connect all these parks and green spaces with trails. Also, I think an item that came out of the most recent plan we had was that people wanted more green space. Edmonston: Our park land dedication is not only trying to acquire neighborhood parks but trail corridors so we can finish our trail system. We try to take that in. And preservation areas. We have some areas that will never be developed, but it is green space that people can enjoy. We try to incorporate that also. So our park land dedication is really stretched to its limits based on the demands that the citizens are crying for. Clark: You haven't exactly made this argument in this manner. You are asking for 73% increase, you are using the money -in -lieu currently to support current parks and develop what is given to us, but that does not leave you Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 47 with enough to purchase additional park land in more prime or better locations. Edmonston: Yes, we try to do all of it. That's all part of it. Clark: That works for me. Ostner: I have a question about this survey that we are referring to. You say the number one thing — were people given an either or, or was the question, what's the thing you want? There is a big difference. Edmonston: That was a survey that was done in 2001 and there was a survey done and we had a meeting that had forty stake holders, people from all aspects of recreation and anybody was welcome to come. We had a one -day session on it. That steering committee came up with the number one need, the community park. The survey that was done was actually, they liked the community park but the big one was trails and greenways. They want more parks like Wilson and Gulley. Ostner: What I am driving at is if it was phrased a certain way, what is the thing you want most in Fayetteville, people could say yes, I want a neighborhood park and number two, the small playgrounds in our subdivisions are important to me. But if the question was never asked, you can only have one, a community park or your neighborhood playground, that is crucial to me. We all want both and if we have to choose between one or the other, I'm not so sure the community park is hands down what everyone wants. I think if people have to choose, there is only one dollar and it has to go one way or another, I think people want smaller parks. I realized they cost more to maintain, there are more edges to weed eat, there is one trash can for half acre. Allen: My recall of that is that is was a long list of items that you actually put them one, two three, Edmonston: They prioritized them. When we say we are trying to get larger, if there is a subdivision going in and we know that there is raw land around it and we know someday that land might be coming in as a subdivision, we try to take the land in that corner and hook on and get land in the next subdivision, so instead of having two acres here, we can have four acres, six or add it all in. Red Oak Park is a perfect example. We have three subdivisions that make up that eight acre linear park and it serves all of the people. This park land dedication does go for getting us land for parks, trails, for green space, for connectivity and it gives us money to develop existing parks, new parks or to acquire land. Those are all important. Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 48 Osmer: So the acquisition of trails is something you can use the money for. Trails are parks. Edmonston: Yes. Clark: Should I ask about a dog park yet? Edmonston: This money could help support a dog park and it is on our list. Anthes: I would ask the Parks Board to understand that if we are now requiring item number two, that residential development under one acre be subject to this ordinance, that we are looking at densification issues and infill issues. People that choose those places to live and those places to develop might be more interested in having neighborhood parks near those infill potentials. There probably aren't large parcels available in those infill areas, so I would ask that you put that into your equation. I would like to move to forward ADM 06-1975 with a positive recommendation. Clark: I will second. Ostner: Is there any further discussion? Roll Call: The motion to forward ADM 06-1975 passes by a vote of 6-0-0. Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 49 ADM 06-1955: Administrative Item (DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN ZONING DISTRICTS): Submitted by Planning Staff for property located in the Downtown Master Plan Boundaries. The Downtown Zoning Code will amend the zoning code and official zoning map that presently exists in the Downtown Master Plan Area. A copy of the proposed Downtown Zoning Code and map is available at the City Planning Offices at 125 W. Mountain St. ADM 06-1956: Administrative Item (DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN ZONING DISTRICT MAP): Submitted by Planning Staff for property located in the Downtown Master Plan Boundaries. The Downtown Zoning Map is available for public viewing at the City Planning Offices at 125 W. Mountain St. Conklin: Chairman Ostner, members of the Commission, Tim Conklin, Development Management. There is a lot of the public here this evening that would like to talk about the draft proposed zoning code and draft official zoning map that you have been working on as part of the Downtown Master Plan. I am going to go through very quickly a Power Point to explain how we got here, why we are doing this and some of the main points. This is a draft code and draft zoning map. Today we purchased open space as recommended per the Downtown Master Plan, created a TIF district for the Mountain Inn, looking at building a new addition on that site — motels, condos, converted one-way street, added parking, funded Downtown Partners, adopted new street standards. So we have done many of the items recommended the Downtown Master Plan and this is one more item that was recommended to look at our zoning districts and zoning map. First of all, let me thank the Commission for spending every two weeks looking at this important topic. We started out in November with everything, had a Planning Commission meeting, had another meeting where it became obvious to Staff that in order to move forward, we had to take these smaller bites, chunks in order to move it forward. We created a calendar. You kept your end of the bargain and forwarded, brought this draft to the Commission level. Let me state for the public that Dover Kohl and Partners was hired to do the Downtown Master Plan. As part of their scope of work, they provided us with a draft starting point code in -map of the downtown area. What I believe the Commission and Staff have been working towards is refining that and calibrating that map to the City of Fayetteville and there has been a lot of discussion as to the type of standards that we are looking at, the districts and the bulk and area requirements. Every code that is adopted across this country has to be calibrated to their particular individual city and what you are trying to achieve in the overall goals. Thank you to the Planning Commission spending those Thursday afternoons bringing a code forward to have the public review and comment on it. That is the purpose of this meeting this evening is to get some public input, based on how this calibration of this code has occurred to this date. It is based on traditional Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 50 standards for city building, identifies new zoning districts (four new zoning districts in our downtown), it looks at building placement, building height and land use by zone. We went through a schlep process and those that went through that process for City Plan 2025 was very similar, very hands on, taking the citizens' ideas. One of Dover Kohl's strengths is that they graphically and visually show what the type of vision you are trying to create within a downtown. I will through these series of slides — Block Street and Spring — once again, trying to calibrate or code for what we are trying to achieve within our Downtown Master Plan. We see College Avenue before and after, I'm not going to go through the entire series for the public has seen them many times. Looking at building placement, building form, minimum and maximum height and land use. Those are the main key areas we are looking at this evening. I show this image because downtown Fayetteville is very different, the Historic County Courthouse in the Square to Mount Nord with the five homes on that street, so a very different development patterns. There are four distinct zones that we have looked at. I would to thank Audi Lack, as we discussed building height and how tall is a story — a lot of research went into this and we have looked at that. We have looked at newer buildings that have been added to the downtown. We have looked at some of our oldest buildings, our historic buildings that everyone recognizes within our downtown. We looked at building height in relation to what has been built within our City. Our most recent building, major building, Blair Library. The 25' foot is the top of that on the slide that you can see, but just to give you a visual representation of building height, that is the back side along Rock Street at the Blair Library. It is based on different development patterns that occur within the downtown area, there are many different zoning districts. The downtown core and the other four districts — Main Street/Center, Downtown General, Neighborhood Conservation, there are no density limitations. With regard to height, within the Core, twelve stories maximum height, 160'; Main Street/Center, six stories, 84'; Downtown General, for stories, 56'; and Neighborhood Conservation, three stories, 42'. There is also a minimum height; this is different than what we have typically done in the past. In the Downtown Core, the smallest geographic area within the downtown, minimum three-story building height; Main Street/Center — two stories; Downtown General and others are one story. Building street frontage. The major difference is the buildings are being brought up to the street. With regard to setbacks, Downtown Core, Main Street/Center you have no front building setbacks and includes Downtown General. You have a 5' — 20' building setback in Neighborhood Conservation. So you bring your building up to the street and if you look back at the slides, going back to Dover Kohl and what we are trying to achieve as a community and some of the visualizations that they came up with on Block Street and other areas, looking at how buildings relate to the street, development relates to the street; building Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 51 placement, building height are very important. Lot width — there is no lot width within Downtown Core; 18' in Main Street/Center and Downtown General; and 40' in Neighborhood Conservation. I do not have a slide that talks about the different types of uses that are permitted by right and conditional use, but the Commission has changed that and drafts are available. Basically, we tried to remove different land uses within different areas and add different land uses that you would find in the Core and Main Street/Center. Ostner: If you could back up one slide, before we get too much further. Buildable street frontage, those percentages — minimums or maximums? Conklin: Those are minimums. Ostner: So in Downtown Core, it is 80% minimum frontage; 100% maximum. Conklin- That is correct. Ostner: You leave the side setbacks being zero and lot width — those are the minimums — lots can be wider than 18' but they must be at least 18' Conklin: Thank you for bringing that up. I tried to summarize the code within this one slide. These are minimums, trying to recognize that traditional building patterns that are downtown, you have your buildings up against the street to sidewalk. Most of the development in downtown a lot of times is nonconforming with regard to building setbacks so this would make things more in compliance to how it was built at the turn of the century, 1920s and 1930s. The proposed map as we discussed, the Core, the tallest building, the most intense dense, should be contained; the Main Street/Center is the next larger area which includes Dickson Street, Block East, West Avenue; the blue areas are Downtown General, lower density and then we have Neighborhood Conservation areas which include Mount Nord, off of Lafayette Street, west of the train tracks and then some smaller areas south of Archibald Yell. That is the presentation. I am looking forward to hearing from the public. Once again, I think this is a starting point for us as a City to talk about a code that is more formed - based that addresses how we achieve an overall vision, removes the barriers to the type of development that we want within this community. Basically, it identifies what we want as a City to be built, try to code for that, and then try to remove the hurdles to allow that to happen. Behind you on the wall are goals for 2008, talks about development of our crown jewels which includes the Square, Dickson Street, University of Arkansas. Guiding principles for 2020, number eight, Dickson Street developed as a cultural and entertainment district. These are the priorities for the City of Fayetteville. We have come a long way in regard to the downtown Master Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 52 Plan and this is the next step to achieve the overall vision for this small but highly loved and cherished geographic area of the City. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Conklin. At this point we are going to call for public comment. Please step forward and introduce yourself. Glenn: My name is Jimmy Glenn and I represent the Jennings/Plus neighborhood which is bounded on the north by Archibald Yell and on the south, essentially Walker Park and on the east, College Avenue, even incorporating the houses on the east side of College, and on the west by School Street. I, too, would like to thank the Commission and the City Council and Dover Kohl for their input, energy and philosophically our neighborhood association is sympathetic with everything that has taken place. Our neighborhood is mixed architecturally, but is dominated by Arts and Crafts bungalow -style and even though it may not be as architecturally dramatic as some of the older neighborhoods, I particularly think that it is significant because of the consistency of the style of those dwellings. The demographic is essentially service workers, who Dover Kohl put a great deal of emphasis on finding housing for. That is essentially who we have in our neighborhood. And as it appears on the map, our neighborhood from an overhead map or aerial view, appears to be in the downtown area. However, we have this impenetrable wall essentially, called Archibald Yell. The zoning of Downtown General where Penguin Ed's BBQ is and the commercial viable properties that actually front Archibald Yell, we as a neighborhood, are more than happy that those enhanced by commercial viability. We do have a question about the area on Fourth Street which is essentially between Block and Church which is designated as Downtown General and the question we have there is about the connectivity which again is a dominant thing of Dover Kohl Plan. And if that density increases there without Archibald Yell being accessible, then we are dumping denser traffic into a residential neighborhood. The streets which would be blocked from East, all that traffic essentially has to dump south unless you want to access Archibald Yell from South Street, because of the gradient is at times inaccessible. To give an example of how inaccessible Archibald Yell is from our neighborhood to the Square or to Dickson Street, if there is a major event in either of those two places and the traffic is heavy to get to those, then it becomes more conducive for the residents of our neighborhood, even though we are three blocks away by walkability, it is more conducive for us to actually get in our car and drive to these events and actually a lot safer. As a neighborhood we appreciate the Neighborhood Conversation that creeps into our neighborhood and ultimately would like to be a partner in the Downtown Master Plan as a neighborhood with a green zoning of Neighborhood Conservation. Our neighborhood association has had a several -month project underway where we are voluntarily down zoning Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 53 our properties. We have already had over 50 people sign up from our neighborhood to voluntarily down zone their property and that is a mix of owner -occupied and rental property owners as well. I also might point out some of the revitalization that is taking place on the existing homes in the neighborhood. Tony Wafle has sensibly done two houses on South Street, Gary Kahanick and John Furman have refurbished on the very corner of South and College, a masonry Arts and Crafts style bungalow. We are proud to call Allen Ostner a neighbor and he took an ill -kept rent house and turned it into a primary residence for his family and so a brief summary — I think our neighborhood in general is extremely proud of the charm and humility of this little neighborhood. We look forward any future growth actually enhancing those qualities. Ostner: Thank you. Doura: My name is Julie Doura and I live at 230 West Meadow downtown. I am here tonight kind of with two different hats on. I am chair of the Dickson Street Neighborhood Association. We are in the middle, the heart of the yellow area on the map there, Church to School Street all the way over to Mountain Street. We did send the Planning Commission members a letter back in December and I wanted to mention that again tonight, that the neighborhood association had met on the issues that were being discussed in the planning sessions. Our main concern as a neighborhood association actually centered around adequate setbacks in our neighborhood that provide green space and limitations on building heights and preserving the charm of our neighborhood streetscape. We had concerns with the down zoning to a residential use but that has been removed since it is now Main Street/Center in our area, the whole downtown is Main Street/Center. I had a couple of other comments I wanted to make, just personally, not necessarily as a representative of the neighborhood association. Concerning the conditional use on single family, two family and three family in the Main Street/Center building structure that would be in place with this zoning, I really feel that our neighborhood of single family dwellings, however they are used, are really essential to the character of downtown and therefore they really deserve equal footing and not conditional use status along with the other permitted uses in the downtown area. I think everyone in our neighborhood association really does eagerly welcome infill as well as more commercial use in our neighborhood, but I personally don't want that at the cost of lost green space or the loss of our neighborhood feel in our neighborhood. It is the very diversity of residential options that gives our downtown our unique character. Relegating the one, two and three family detached dwellings to the Neighborhood Conservation zones to the outskirts of downtown will not promote such diversity in the future. It will only ensure that these structures will disappear from the heart of our downtown. While current Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 54 developers are actually doing a very superb job, such as the Alexander, Merryship and Alt group, of putting in developments that fit in very well, other developers may not be so thoughtful. I think the zoning changes that we have before us really need to outlive all of us who are here today. The zoning adopted must reflect the vision of Fayetteville's downtown stakeholders and that includes current residents, as well as developers and investors. I personally don't feel that any aspect of the Main Street/Center zone really compliments or enhances the warm feel that our neighborhood currently has, residential living in a single family residence and commercial activity are not mutually exclusive uses. A compromise zone, I'm sure you guys don't want add another one to your list, but a compromise of a Neighborhood Conservation and a Downtown General possibly described as a Downtown Neighborhood zone that has lower building heights of one to four stories, more setbacks allowed at 40-50%, lower minimum building street frontage and a variety of permitted and residential uses would go much further than the current proposal in enhancing the charm of our neighborhood and our downtown. Those are all the comments I have unless you have any questions. Ostner: What are the boundaries of you Association? Doura: The Dickson Street Neighborhood Association I think technically runs from probably Church over to West Street, Dickson Street over to Mountain. The majority of the participants we have in that Association are in the Locust Street/Meadow area. Brown: My name is Tom Brown and I live in the West Lafayette Street Historic Neighborhood Association area which is in Maple Street forms the northern boundary, then the western boundary is along Arkansas Avenue. The southern boundary falls down just north of Dickson Street. First of all, I wanted to thank the Commission for looking at the area around Arkansas Avenue, Gregg Street, Maple and looking at that and proposing a classification of Neighborhood Conservation. I want to thank you all for that. We think that that is a positive step to integrate the eastern edge of the neighborhood with the western edge of the neighborhood. The only fine tuning on that point I wanted to make was on the southern boundary, you are showing that Neighborhood Conservation to end at a property line and my thought is that if it was extended down to Alley 333, that it might be a more logical termination or break between the Neighborhood Conservation in that area, because it is an alley way as adverse to a property line. You might consider that. Then there is a concern that I have and others have that I have talked to in the area, of having a conditional use of eating establishment allowed in that Neighborhood conservation. The thought that if it would be permitted, it would be traffic and movement of people and the noise associated with eating Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 55 establishments. That could be not conducive to or desired to keep a residential character in that area, so the thought would be to delete eating establishments from the conditional use permitted in that zone. Then that is basically the extent of my comments regarding the zoning and the uses permitted in the zoning. I did want to make a comment, more of a question. I know in previous meetings we have talked about needing to recognize historic resources within the downtown area. The development of a list and maybe an integration of mechanism for dealing with those historic resources and protecting them. I was wondering if that is still a goal of the Commission to carry that issue. Along that line, there was also a discussion about the recognition of visual resources within the downtown area and integrating some mechanisms to identify those and establish procedures to protect those resources. Ostner: We are in the process of establishing the Significant sites list; it doesn't have to be historic necessarily. It is not on our docket tonight; it is still in committee status. Gregory: My name is Carol Gregory and my husband, Richard Farkus and I own a small property on Center Street, at 507 West Center that is zoned residential office. We were initially concerned about the neighborhood preservation zoning that we saw in the center part of the map that is now all colored in yellow, which we are very glad to see. I just wanted to tell you that from our prospective, we wanted to protect and preserve the value we have in that property as an office space and we were really concerned that it might be taken from us. We are pleased with the map as it looks right now, but I agree with one of the previous speakers when she said that residential should be on equal footing with the permitted uses in this yellow zoned area. We believe that it should be left as a matter of right as well, and not be considered a conditional use only in that area. Those are all of my comments. Marinoni: Paula Marinoni and I live 617 West Lafayette Street. My family has been there for one hundred years. You didn't mention it but the Gregg family right around the corner has been there for about 150 years. We have quite a bit of interest in a number of aspects of what is going on here. I am the chair of the West Lafayette Street Historic Neighborhood Association and I am also the president and founder of the Washington County Historic Preservation Association. I have spent the last ten plus years speaking out on all issues just about, pertaining to historic properties in Fayetteville which I will address in just a minute. I wanted to start with the purpose of this as outlined in this information. It says that the City of Fayetteville seeks to create a downtown district based on traditional standards for city building. I underlined and starred building. And then it goes on to say, traditional urban design conventions have been applied to create a palette Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 56 of building and thoroughfare types that form the framework of the downtown district, as it is addressed here. Dover Kohl came and they had great input sessions and it was wonderful to see all the people leaning over the tables, but the bottom line is it only scratched the surface on the implications of what is happening here. I was very concerned when this first came up that this was being rushed through and there wasn't a good overall understanding of what this means. I've heard it referred to a number of rimes, that the blanket zoning of 1970 was a big mistake. That mistake wasn't realized until about the last four years when the money was available to act on that ability to zone and build to that level. So what I don't want to see, I would hate to see, as someone who is really interested in the City, is the same mistake repeated again in trying to push this through too fast. I understand what they are trying to do here, I appreciate what the Staff is trying to do, and I have heard it probably more than anybody, the objections of people having to address the loopholes, having to address the barriers, the hurdles, the need to streamline the process because I have been the one in many of those issues that they were going up against. One of the traditional design standards that they are talking about could be Celebration Florida. I was there in 1997, I was visiting on business and took the time to go and spend a whole day in Celebration Florida which is a totally designed community of this fabric that this is talking about. I went to the shows there, ate at the restaurants, wanted to have the whole experience and it was lovely, but it is reminiscent of the Stepford Wives or Disneyland. And you will hear a lot of people refer to Celebration Florida as being like Disneyland. It was created like that. And I will say that they didn't tear down anything to build that, that was swamp land, much of which they had to conserve and such, but there was nothing there. So that was built out of nothing. Just got back from San Francisco, lovely town, fabulous architecture, but that was created out of total devastation of the fire and earthquake of 1906. Just got back from Paris this last summer, lovely city, fabulous architecture. They went in and ripped out a huge part of the city and totally rebuilt it to build that fabulous continuity that you see when you visit there today. There was mention of Dover Kohl helping design urban fabric and such following the Katrina thing. Again, that was totally wiped out in many places. What is different here is that we have a pretty nice area downtown, we have a lot of character. It is a place where people want to be, and people who are from here, leave and return because they love that. In these issues that have come up before, I was on my way out to San Francisco and was in the plane and thinking about this and a lot of these issues that have affected my neighborhood, in trying to save it over the last ten years, and I thought that maybe I would feel better if I put these on paper. And I was going to list them and I thought maybe ten to twelve issues, just on my neighborhood, not Carnall Hall, not this or that. Mentally I started listing and I got up to twenty. So a couple of mornings Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 57 ago I sat down and started to write down many of these major issues, many of which I could write a book about, that I have had to fight for our neighborhood, a lot of historic structures — the Browns Grocery store, the Trace House. I got up to almost seventy and so what I want to tell you is that this is going too fast. There are many of these issues that have not been addressed. I went through and underlined a whole bunch of things that I'm sure you don't understand or haven't thought of what the ramifications of that are going to be. I want to tell you mainly, and this is your decision, number one — I am happy that you made our little area up there green, too, but there are some things that are still wrong with that in addition to what has already been addressed. But this whole area, if you remove the loopholes, and remove the hurdles and the barriers and streamline it and make it use by right, 90% of this historic fabric in fifteen years will be gone. I don't know if you will listen to me or not, that sounds pretty extreme, but I don't think there is anybody in the City who has followed any historic issue that doesn't know that I have been the one finding, digging the loophole to at least stop it long enough to bring it to the public attention to what was going to happen. If you remove all of those loopholes, there will be a lot of people cheering, because I won't have any loopholes, there won't be any way to bring these things to the attention of the public, and if you make this use by right to a much higher density, then all of these little buildings are toast. Right now, one of the most famous scenes of Fayetteville, looking down Smoky Row from the Square, looking east with the old courthouse as the center, that is called Smoky Row. That is where all the attorneys used to be at the turn of the century and before and after. That will all be gone, wiped out. There is a whole lot more that needs to be discussed on this and more input that needs to be made. This is a huge, huge decision in the future of Fayetteville and what we are going have? Do we want a Disney looking Fayetteville? We already have structures that are here are really cool. Can we work together to figure out, at the very least, I'm realistic, I'm a realtor. I know what the property values are. And somebody called me the other day and wanted to know about saving the building behind the Pettis Law Firm, and I said, it is toast. That little rock house — it is toast. They just sold it for $5 million, $75 a square foot. No little building is going to survive. So at the very least, maybe we could require people if they are going to tear down a historic building to document it and put it in Fayetteville's archives so fifty years, one hundred years from now, people will know the fabric that we lost. Thank you. Ostner: I would just like to add these items that we are considering are exactly about setbacks, use units, heights; they do not include any architectural standards. The topics before us are these use units appropriate for these zones as a lot of people have talked about and are the front, side, rear setbacks, heights and the frontage — Mr. Conklin had a little cheat sheet Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 58 just before this slide which was helpful. That is really all we are talking about tonight. Other people have brought up the Disneyland criticism and I understand that, but that is not even on the docket. I just want to make that clear to everyone. That is yet to make it out of committee. We are doing this is pieces as Mr Conklin mentioned, we have done lots of pieces and tonight, those are the only pieces we are talking about. Shoan: Cyrus Shoan, 210 North Locust. No, you are doing a lot more than that when you add in building heights. Ostner: I'm simply explaining that we are not talking architectural standards. That was referred to and I should have stopped her there. Shoan: I am opposed to this zoning code as it is written right now. This code is designed to destroy the downtown area. For the sake of profits for developers who will not be here, Fayetteville realizes that it has lost what we cherish today. In the destruction we will lose the core of Fayetteville, exactly like we lost the tree -lined College Avenue years ago and people have regretted letting that happen ever since. I ask you not to let this destruction happen again. This destruction begins in the second paragraph of these pages — traditional urban design conventions have been applied to create a pallet of building and thoroughfare types that form the framework for the downtown district. And then the next sentence — these design conventions are derived from a number of sources in planning literature, and you list out the books right there. They are listed out, written by people who don't know Fayetteville, haven't been here, don't know anything about it. There is no mention in here of what the citizens of Fayetteville have stated as their desires and goals. That's not a requirement. The boundaries of the district are wrong, in my opinion., particularly the yellow is too big. I am concerned with the building heights in the yellow area — the six stories, particularly as it applies to Dickson Street. And I noticed when Tim Conklin was showing the slides, he was showing examples, but none of the examples showed six or twelve -story buildings; he only showed two and three-story buildings as examples. Well, in reality, if this is approved, you are allowing in the yellow area, six story buildings and if you think it is going to be limited to six stories, you are wrong. Developers will decide if they want a ten -story building, they will go to the City and the City will do like in sporting events, they will do the "wave", they will wave that requirement. And the big cities, that is what this is all about, trying to reproduce the big cities with their skyscrapers. And when those skyscrapers in big cities were built, they were built based on ego. Somebody put up a building, and when the next building went up, they had to have a bigger one, taller. That is well documented in the big cities. That is the whole purpose of it; there wasn't any practical purpose of it. I remember there was one, and he Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 59 wanted to be the tallest that he actually put up an antenna so he could claim it was the tallest building. People move to Fayetteville to get away from that type of thing, those big skyscrapers. Please don't reproduce big city problems in Fayetteville. There is no mention in any of these pages the requirement for compatibility. Compatibility and therefore preservation of Fayetteville has been requested for years by the citizens of Fayetteville in countless meetings. There is no mention of that or requirement for that in any of these pages. Please do not approve this zoning code as it is written now. The citizens of Fayetteville have asked for the downtown area to be preserved. Developers will come to you and say we have to have these tall buildings because of the cost of the land; the land is so expensive. The City of Fayetteville does not have to bail out a developer, because he made a mistake of buying that land at that price. You as a Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council is there to preserve Fayetteville, that which the citizens of Fayetteville have requested. The citizens have requested that the downtown area in particular be preserved. Robson: My name is Joe Robson and I live in the City of Fayetteville, in south Fayetteville. I have a home in the Mill District on South University Avenue. The history of my involvement in this project started with the City Planners wanted to rezone our neighborhood. At the time because of the railroad tracks that go right through that, it was zoned industrial and the City said that doesn't make sense and most people agreed with them. So we had this process where we went to meetings and everything was above board and things were discussed, etc. We were told we were allowed to look at the kinds of options we had and we selected R -O — we felt like Residential Office gave the best mixed use and that the City has within its own power right now, with you guys decision, the possibility of rezoning this area and creating your own plan for densification. But what happened to us is they rezoned many of the homes in our neighborhood, R -O. Now here now, several months ago, the real language of what this ordinance, the zoning change means, comes before us. I am looking at now for the first time, I've had my hands on it ten days, maybe two weeks, what this zoning is. That may be a flaw of mine and I should down there flipping through the pages all the time or what have you. But I wanted to point out that many of the concerns of the people in the Mill District have to do with preserving and protecting homes that people live in and homes that people own and live in, and places where people raise families and their kids walk to school, etc., etc. Those kinds of things. Now what you have done if you approve of this zoning, and I am going to ask you to please do not, not enough has been said about this. Very euphemistically where my house is now, is considered Neighborhood Conservation. Neighborhood Conservation is the only place a single-family home can be built by right. And even in Neighborhood Conservation which is the Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 60 green zone, where single-family homes are owned, even there the setbacks (that's an issue tonight) in Neighborhood Conservation is zero on the sides and what's Conservation about that? Ostner: Actually, it is five feet. Robson: Only if it is a different use next to you. If the guy next to you is zoned the same way. Ostner: There is a five foot setback in Neighborhood Conservation. Robson: The side facing the street is five feet in you are on a corner; the side internal if adjoining a different use unit, is five feet, but the side internal if adjoining a similar use unit, not even belonging to you, is zero. Ostner: I see that; excuse me. Robson: I feel that this whole process is one where I have been misled. I don't know who has done it. I make comments at the City Council I suppose, and the Mayor called me up and what was bothering me about all of this, and I told him several things. He invited Kit Williams to that meeting so he could have his own recollections of it. Mine were that if I was in the downtown area, because what is going to happen next when you approve this, when the other shoe falls, the downtown area is also the Business Improvement District, the same square inches, the whole thing right down the line. And they are going to be asked to create this taxing entity, this quasi -governmental entity that has taxing powers, given to it by the General Assembly.... Ostner: Mr. Robson, this isn't relevant, actually. Robson: What is relevant is that my street which is South University is on the other side of the tracks. Now I already spoke to the Mayor about it. If you are going to put sidewalks on my street which is only on my side, you would have to cut 100 year old Maple trees, etc. There is nothing in the Neighborhood Conservation about this. And none of those other zonings if you look at the yellow and the blue and the red, none of those have single-family homes permitted by right. Everybody that wants to build a single-family home in any of that other area, other than the green zone, is going to have to come to you, it is going to be a Planning Commission issue and go to the City Council, just to be able to live in a single-family home or to build one. Yes, if you live in one now, you can stay in it. But the trend is there to move those people off of there, because it not considered a good use of the property. I understand that. That's what the prevailing view apparently is by consultants and others is that there is Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 61 going to be 40,000 more people here and those people should be downtown. Nobody is going to be talking about where those cars are going to be. You would almost think that 40,000 people, even if it is 2 Or 3 or 5,000 are going to move downtown, and to listen to the scenario, there are all going to be whistling on their way to work on bicycle. Well, there are no trails for that, there is no safe place for pedestrians — they get killed in Fayetteville still, even on Center Street. Within the last six months if I'm not mistaken. The cart is before the horse. These people will argue with me on that point because they want to create a taxing district that when we get to that, it is a nightmare. It is a nightmare for the little guy. How many of those 18' wide lots up and down Archibald Yell are going to be owner occupied? None of them. You'd have to be a big player to get all that stuff to divide it up into 18' wide apartments and it is all going to be rental, and what happens when that goes down hill. If you adopt this, you are kicking families out of places right now that are zoned for single family homes, have been homes for 100 years or more in many cases and you are basically not allowing them to exist except in the green zone and that is a zero setback. And you are going to bring people downtown and it is going to densify it and it is cause all types of problems, such as traffic. Is it relevant? I think it is. If anyone does buy of those condominiums or whatever, to the extent that people own them for their own use, they are coming with their 2.something cars, too. There are not necessarily walking to work — what if they drive to work? What if what happens in Fayetteville is that it is just like Fayetteville High School getting out for lunch? Did you ever try to get on and off of Center Street with a game got out or a game gets out of Bud Walton Arena? What if that is happening every day. You can densify it, but there are other problems that have not been addressed regarding that, all kinds of issues. But to have zero setbacks in Neighborhood Conservation zone and for me to even be in that when I am on the other side of the tracks. Where was the City to protect me when the power company came down my street and put telephone poles bigger than you and me can put our hands around, Allen. They are 130' tall. Major high lines, right through what used to be industrial, they took advantage of the fact that this used to have an industrial use and its gone up there. Now it is going to be put into a taxing entity and you are just going to squeeze the little guys out one by one. There is going to be the assumption of value added. I asked the Mayor personally, what is going to happen on my street? Can you put sidewalks without cutting down all the trees, well no — then there is nothing you can do, so leave me out of it. There is a greater concern for our City because there are other single families in those areas that are blue and yellow, and they make up the fabric of our City. So when you approve of what's before us, I want to tell you that there has been some things that have happened that people not saying what they are going to do. I talked to Daniel Hansen and he said, you guys don't want to be in this? And I said Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 62 no, I don't want to be in this. Because you are going to turn it into a taxing entity and squeeze the little people out. Ostner: I am going to ask you to find something new to talk about; you are on the third or fourth round on your items to talk about. You have made some good comments. If you have some new comment, we'd be glad to hear them. Robson: Well, the purpose of this meeting is to hear comments and I'm glad that you are doing it finally; obviously my thoughts aren't well collected. If there has been complete due process on public comment periods, a lot has been left out. Too much needs to be said. I am concerned about the owner occupied versus the rental and those issues and I'd like you to think about it too. Because you are getting ready to ruin the City of Fayetteville in my opinion. There are going to be a few people who are going to benefit at the top and the real wealthy developers, etc. they are going to yuppify it, Californicate it in my view. You can hire people from California if you want to, if you want Californication.. Ostner: That's enough. That's inappropriate. You are going to stop. Hoover: I'm Sharon Hoover. I would like to encourage you to forward this to the City Council. I was part of several groups that had meetings prior to, when Tim first started presenting this, and it was stopped and then we got a schedule and you guys did the extra meetings. I'm very familiar with all of this, I have read through all of it; there has been great improvement since four months ago. I am very pleased with it. I have waited two years for this. I have two pieces of property in this district; I am been waiting to remodel one of them; I have nonconforming lots that now will be conforming. My setbacks will fit within the setbacks here that I believe are appropriate, so I would like to encourage you to continue on with this. I appreciate the hard work of everybody. Solomon?: I am Preta Solomon (?) with Fayetteville Housing Authority and I would like to represent the Housing Authority and the Board there. We are located on the comer of Center and School in a 12 -story, low income elderly high rise building. What we want is to make sure the Planning Commission at least considers affordable housing in that area. We do have affordable housing with our low income elderly but we would like to make sure that there is some home ownership issues and make sure that is covered. We think that would be a good thing for Fayetteville. We like where we are at and we think it would be good to be covered. Silkwood: Celia Scott Silkwood, 221 North Locust and first of all I would like thank the Planning Commission for working so hard on this and Staff and the Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 63 Urban: Fayetteville Downtown Partners. They have been very helpful, all of you. I would like to say that for my piece of property the Main Street/Center seems to suit it just fine; I do have two concerns. One is the six -story height which is just huge for Locust and also perhaps the single, two and three family by conditional use. Now, because of my profession I understand what we are doing here, but personally, in the neighborhood, maybe a use by right would be okay and something to think about. My name is Lillis Urban and I own a house on Mountain Street, just across from the new library. According to the zoning, I am in the yellow and I am please with that. I bought the house about two years ago, my first home and I plan on opening a store some day. Right now the house behind is abandoned, and my house was built in 1906 so it is an historic home, which I think is charming. The house behind me has been abandoned ever since I have moved in and according to this zoning, someone could tear this home down and build a six -story high rise next to my 1906 Victorian home. I just wanted to articulate that. Ostner: I wanted to remind everyone that we are in an advisory position. We are going to make a recommendation. The City Council will hear this thoroughly. They do not take things lightly and neither do we. This has been in committee in our Committee every other week for five months. It has been on the Staff's docket for over two years. They have been working, there have been dozens of meetings two years ago that hundreds of people participated in. This is an ongoing process, and we want everyone to know that this is not the end, just a step towards the Council approving the regulations. Robson: My name is Marsha Robson and I live in the Mill District and I am a little disappointed that there was never any notification sent to the neighborhood associations so they could participate in this discussion prior to this. We spent months partly with Daniel, partly with Tim, hashing and re -hashing the zoning that was appropriate for our area, for our neighborhood. The first time that I heard that the zoning was going to be changed was at a meeting January 26th and it was boom, boom, we are going to change the zoning and I'm thinking, what a minute, we just went through this. We just got through changing the zoning within the last year. We gave it a lot of thought and there was a lot of public participation and I feel just disappointed that all the thought and effort that came forth as a neighborhood was just dismissed as though it were nothing, as though it was just some charade that we participated in for several months. It was a waste of my time, a waste of time for all the people in my neighborhood association that participated in that. I think it is real interesting that the current zoning map that you are proposing to replace is not even shown side by side up here next to the one getting Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 64 ready to replace it. So we really can't see accurately what is being replaced. I think we are moving too fast. I can appreciate it that you have been working on it for a long time, but none of the rest of us have been party to that. There are a lot of people out there that I share their concerns. The woman who spoke ..... Ostner: Ma'am, I'm sorry but everyone of those meetings was public, there was notification in the newspaper. We can only do so much. Robson: I had no reason to think anyone was going to change my zoning — we had worked it out as a group, the Mill District had worked out all of our zoning in the last year. Why would I think that somebody was going to come by and change that? I can't imagine why I would think that. It's not like you got in contact with the various neighborhood associations that make up the downtown master plan and said, look, we are fixing to change all the zoning. Ostner: Actually, we did, two years ago. Robson: We just changed this this last year. The Mill District. I'm not talking about the 2020, 2025. I share the same concerns that Paula Marinoni does, I share the same concerns that the women from the Dickson Street Association. I think single-family residential homes should be included and should be included by right for those people in the downtown area. I think that it is going to completely change the character of the downtown area and I think that that is a mistake. I think people are coming to Fayetteville, we are the largest growing area in the United States right now, Northwest Arkansas and people are coming to Fayetteville because of the charm that it currently possesses. I think that the setbacks, everything, it is not a minor change, it is a massive change. I think you need to give it more thought and I would appreciate it if you put it on the back burner for a while and wouldn't rush through this. From the first time it was brought forward in a meeting that I knew of, a couple of meetings where it was discussed and I actually got a copy of the map was January 26th and that is just too fast. I would appreciate you holding off on your decision. J. Robson: To clarify... Ostner: No sir, I'm sorry, there is one chance to talk, we are being fair. I'm sorry. J. Robson: What's changed....(inaudible comments) Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 65 Ostner: No sir, you sit down right now. You are not going to speak, you have lost that. Right now, Mr. Robson. You have behaved inappropriately - you will leave the podium. Anyone who behaves inappropriately is not going to speak. You have lost that. You spoke a great deal and then you lost it when behaved inappropriately. Please. Other people would like to speak as you did. If you are going to leave this room, you are going to leave it right now. You will not speak from the audience. Please. Anyone else? Jackson: My name is William Jackson and I live at 230 West Meadow. My concern is more with the fact that we live in a single-family residence and right now we are currently zoned as Main Street/Center and if heaven forbid our house were to burn down, we would have to get conditional use to rebuild the same house we live in and that area, just the walk I did last night, it is full of houses and they are being used as commercial use also, but there are several single-family residences there. There are several people that rent houses out to college students, but it is a neighborhood and it looks and has the feel of a neighborhood and I would just like you to reconsider Main Street/Center or some type of hybrid off of that. I don't think that is the right fit for the neighborhood. Ostner: Exactly where are you talking, sir? Jackson: Meadow and Locust. If you drive down Locust Street from Dickson, once you get past Dickson, all you see is houses up until you get to Spring Street and on your left, you see two commercial properties that don't even fit this zoning requirement and then you see more houses on the right. Cityscapes is there too, they are a publisher. Hintz: My name is Daniel Hintz and I am the Director of Fayetteville Downtown Partners. On behalf of the organization I would also like to thank Planning Staff and Planning Commission in moving forward with this. It is about the conversation and I think this is something that is important. There is one thing I would like to raise that a number of neighborhood associations in the downtown area have been represented, but to continue to solicit information from Town Mountain South, which has not been represented tonight. I think as the process goes on, we will continue to get more information from them and we hope to bring some of their representatives forward as well. But we are very glad that this is moving forward and we know that this is just the beginning of this public process and other opportunities for public comment will not only be created in a form like this, but in neighborhood associations over the next several months as this goes through and Fayetteville Downtown Partners is committed to making sure that we are able to provide as much information to the residents as possible, updated information, so that they are able to Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 66 make responsible decisions and come to the podium as informed as possible Thank you for your work and thank you to Staff for all of their work and we look forward to working with all the downtown constituents as we move forward through this process. Ostner: Is there any more public comment? I will close the public comment section and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. Clark: With regard to Main Street/Center, maybe this is a question for Leif and Tim. I hold in front of me two plats of uses, when we did the use units, when we broke them out. On one of them, in Main Street/Center, one single, two and three family were permitted. Was that the first one? The other one I have it is now a conditional use. Did we change it to conditional use? Olson: That is correct. Clark: Why did we do that? Olson: Because at the time your discussions centered upon are we looking at the use that exists there on the ground today, or are we looking into the future for the potential. We talked about, if someone were to lose their home, they could come in through the conditional use process and request to put back exactly what was there. Clark: That was back when I had faith in the conditional use process in total. I have lost a little bit of that confidence, quite honestly, and have understood what I have heard about single family, two and three family uses in that area. It would be interesting to hear what everybody has to say now in light of some of the happenings. Ostner: What use did you ask about? Clark: Single, two and three — eight, nine and ten. The were permitted originally, now they are conditional in the Main Street/Center. Ostner: The discussion I recall, if that is what you are asking about, is basically looking at setbacks and massing. That if Main Street/Center was going to be a four-story with a step back and allow the six to go up after the 15' step back, it was either one or the other as I recall. We had to decide whether we really wanted Main Street/Center or if we wanted if (unaudible) Anthes: I just want to remind everyone that what we did was actually start with the names of these areas and then their purposes. And we very carefully went Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 67 Allen: over the four purposes of the four areas. If you recall, Main Street/Center (for everyone in the audience), the purpose says, "a greater range of uses is expected and encouraged in the Main Street/Center. The Center is more spatially compact and is more likely to have some attached buildings than Downtown General or Neighborhood Conservation. Multi -story buildings in the Center are well suited to accommodate a mix of uses such as apartments or offices above shops, lofts, live/work units, and buildings designed for changing uses over time are appropriate for Main Street/Center. The Center is within walking distance of the surrounding primarily residential areas." So the purpose of that area is something that we looked at when we reviewed the Use Units, and what we realized is that if you are comparing each Use Unit to the purpose, that we were outside the main purpose of Main Street/Center with the single family by right. But we acknowledged that those houses existed and we wanted them to remain or be rebuilt. When we discussed those four zones and Use Units, we did that independent of a map and tied the purpose and the uses together to make sense of the zones. The next step was to apply the zones to the map. If there are questions, I might submit, that it is not the Use Units and the designation that are in error but perhaps it is a revisitation of the map. One month from tonight I will have completed six years on the Planning Commission, so I would like to make some comments about this since I may not have another opportunity. I think that this is going to happen, but I also think that I represent 1/9th of the Planning Commission and perhaps 119th of Fayetteville. I think we are at a pivotal point in deciding what kind of City we want to have. I feel this master plan is not going to be market driven but will be City driven and that concerns me. I think that the main thing I wanted to do was represent the little guy and I want to do that as I leave the Committee, too. I think it is very important that we in Fayetteville think about if we want exclusionary housing, whether we want to have diversity. This plan concerns me about heights, views, whether or not it is compatible. I feel like we are going to lose our diversity if we adopt this Plan and so 1/9th of this Planning Commission will not vote to forward this to the Council. Conklin: I would like to make a couple of statements with regard to the code and building heights. There are certain areas currently in the downtown where we don't have any building heights, so in regard to whether or not this code is going to cause six story buildings go up, not having the code, we are also seeing buildings beyond six stories being planned. You are seeing them — you will be seeing more this year. Just in regard to bulk and area and building height. We currently don't have any building heights in C-3 and C-4. A term that has been thrown out — vertical over expansion — I've heard this evening from the public in regard to parking. That is a concern. Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 68 I think if we don't address building heights and the size of buildings we build downtown, with regard to everyone coming out with a twenty -story, a forty -story office at one time, and we have a whole bunch in one location, that would be a concern. So in regard to the code in looking at where we cluster our downtown core, where we want taller buildings, that is why the smallest area that has a twelve story. With regard to the single family home, there are areas currently in town where the single family home is not permitted as a conditional use — the area between Dickson and Spring on some of those streets are zoned C-3. So with regard to whether or not it is allowed or not allowed, we currently have some of those situations. That was a great suggestion that we put up the current zoning map beside this, because we can see what those changes were and I appreciate that comment Downtown is changing. There are two cranes in the skyline - when you leave the building, you will be able to see. I am not asking you to rush this code; I think we should have lots of discussion and debate — it is a rezoning, it is a new zoning map and new zoning standards. It also recognizes the type of development patterns that currently exist within our downtown. Many of the structures do not meet the urban type setback and they are closer to the street. We have issues with that. My point is that we have two sets of codes here, we have the existing code that we see development occurring fairly rapidly within the downtown area under the 1970 code. We have a code that is trying to reflect and implement an overall vision that we went through a couple of years ago. As we move forward, we are trying to calibrate a code in order to achieve an overall vision, so twenty years from now, we have a downtown we all meet these goals up on the walls behind you in regards to downtown, Dickson Street and how we develop. I think this has been very productive this evening. Anthes: I have some questions about the actual language of 161.26 of the Unified Development Code as proposed. It looks to me that if we are going to discuss the possibility of forwarding this, there are some paragraphs that need to be removed until this Commission does some more work. Page 8 of our packet is the first one. We have multiple references in the ordinances stated that talk about the cultural and entertainment overlay district, which we have removed from the map until we can have further discussions on it and I would think that we would need to remove paragraph, I guess — this is really hard to read the way it is formatted, C-2 on page 8, the 31d paragraph in D on page 11 — those references. Do we need to remove them, Mr. Williams? Williams: Certainly. Anthes: There are certainly a lot of comments. Williams. Why don't you make that motion now so we can do that. Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 69 Anthes: I would move that we would remove the references to the cultural/entertainment district and strike them from the proposed changes to the UDC. Clark: Second. Ostner: Does Staff have any comments? I think we have been over that pretty thoroughly. Conklin- We recognize that it is something that needs to be removed so we are in agreement with the Commission. Ostner: Any further comments before we call the roll? This is just only on Commission Anthes removal of certain language. Roll Call: The motion to remove the stated language from the UDC is passed by a vote of 6-0-0. Anthes: I would like to comment on a couple of the things said. First of all, Mr. Glenn was talking about the wall at Archibald Yell and the impenetrable nature of it. What I am hoping is that the redevelopment of the streets in this area does start to knit our community back together across those lines. I think the reduced street setbacks that we have forwarded to City Council, although I think Archibald Yell and College were removed from that before they voted, will help, as well as different kinds of landscaping requirements. Also looking at the code when we have been looking at the map, we have been careful to try to think about what happened on both sides of the streets and have those things be compatible, so actually have the zoning districts straddle the street rather than be stopped at a street line. You get a continuity on either side of the street. So I hope that we are moving towards that. I also heard comments about down zoning. There are people on both sides of it. For those who are concerned about down zoning, once they saw what uses were going to be permitted in those different uses, they were kind of calmed by that. There also were comments about reproducing a city and allowing for high-rises. I do have a copy of the existing zoning map that we can look at side by side with the proposed, and there is an awful lot of downtown that is currently zoned... in fact, I would dare say most of it... that currently has absolutely no height restriction at all. So by right, in most areas that you are discussing that you are worried about, somebody can come next door right now and build a building of unlimited height. Even though we are looking at a height restriction that may be considered tall at six stories, it is considerably shorter that what is currently allowed. We are trying to balance the property rights of the people who currently own that property Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 70 with what they perceive as a down zoning. As far as affordability and single family residences, I think there was a comment made that a neighborhood liked R -O because it was the mixed use zoning available at the time. The four new zoning district that are proposed in this code are true mixed zoning units for the first time in the City of Fayetteville. In my mind (and when I have been to a lot of the public comment sections, I have attended almost every meeting of the downtown master plan and the City plan 2025), I hear over and over again that people want a vibrant, walkable community that is mixed and lively, especially in the downtown, so I'm actually very encouraged by what was initially proposed and then the work of this Commission which served to broaden the Use Units that were available to us in the four downtown zones. I think it will contribute to the vision that we established as a community for quite some time, for the past two years. As far as affordability goes, you know, it is such a difficult subject (and we debate it all the time on the Commission), the one thing about allowing smaller lots, tighter setbacks and higher density, is that a larger variety of units become feasible to become constructed and some of those can be smaller and apartments and all sorts of things that would allow people at different income levels to own. I don't believe that just because you build mixed use or multi -family units in a downtown area necessarily dictates that that area will be all renter occupied and not owner occupied. It actually might provide an opportunity for more owners in the areas of different income levels. I don't think that protection is afforded in a way that some of us would like to see, but I think we are moving in the right direction. As far as the historic and significant structures, we are looking for cultural and significant places as well as historic places. The code specifically refers to it at least once as currently written — it is in an alley area — not negatively affecting buildings of historic or cultural significance and I would hope that the committee that is working on that will have some recommendations. We would love to hear from the public as that goes forward. Ostner: Someone mentioned compatibility and how this plan had disregarded compatibility. I would tend to disagree. I can see how on its surface, it would seem incompatible. The changes that map has made since Dover Kohl gave us a starting point, I can't even keep up with. First off, they walked the streets for days and they tried to color the map the way it was today. They found the areas that looked like neighborhood conversation and they colored them green. They found the areas that looked like they might fit into the blue and they colored them blue. They thought that was the best way to do it. On the edges, maybe the red, we will push the limits because the property owners and the people of Fayetteville that we want to up the height. A great deal of consideration has gone into compatibility I believe, and that is just one of maybe 100 different instances. The setbacks that are being proposed tonight almost make half the buildings Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 71 suddenly compliant instead of not compliant. Most of the buildings downtown are built with the setbacks we are looking at. They were built that way a hundred years ago. I think that is something to continue. I think the things that were built a long time ago should be promoted and allowed. That is part of why the setbacks and the height limits appeal to me. I am not in love with the map as it stands. People have mentioned a lot of good criticisms of it. I'm not sure we don't need to take another careful look at that. I do feel pretty good about our use units that we spent two hours going through one by one. Something that concerns me greatly is that I distinctly remember Neighborhood Conservation having a five foot setback period. This is part of what is confusing me, Leif, is that on this great hand sketch that helped us understand that meeting, right here, N -C 5 and 5. Now I understand Downtown General is a five foot kind of, not really. It is five foot when it is on a corner lot. Can you help me out here with the discrepancy? Olson: Apparently that did not make it on the drawing — I think we discussed it because I do remember on there if it adjoins and we talked about it. On my copy, I have some hand written notes — I don't have that with me. We did talk about that if it adjoins another use unit then it would be zero, a similar use unit. Ostner: In other words row houses and neighborhood conservation. Olson: It would allow for forty foot row houses, if you had a forty foot lot and you were to build row houses side by side on forty foot lots, it would allow you to do those with a zero lot line. But you were correct, the hand drawn think did not have the zero for the adjoining similar use unit and it should have had that. I do distinctly recall that. We talked about that and I made a note on my copy that it should say zero if adjoining a similar use unit. Ostner: I'm not trying to break you down. I liked to make a motion that we change Neighborhood Conservation to have a five foot side setback. Period. That is what I had in mind. It is the least intense of our districts. I didn't picture Neighborhood Conservation as row house by right, personally. Anthes: What does that do for ancillary structures? A zero lot line garage or workshop behind a house that happens all over our historic areas? Pate: Currently it would have to meet the setback that is established by the zoning code. I would mention that we went to ordinance review last week to look at ancillary/accessory structures to allow different setbacks for Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 72 those, so it is something we are looking at changing to our code across the City. Anthes: So would that review also be looking at these districts? Pate: Any zoning district. Myres: I will second the motion. Ostner: The motion would be to change the side setbacks in the Neighborhood Conservation Zone to remove that side setback internal if adjoining a similar use unit — remove that and the line above that, side setback internal if adjoining a different use unit would be five feet. Williams: You just say side setback internal five feet. Ostner: Yes. We are going to throw the use unit out. Roll Call: The motion to change the setback per above passes by a vote of 5-0-1. (Allen abstaining) Williams: Before you send this forward to the City Council, I would like to give you the only real legal concern I have at looking at that and that is the fact that in the largest area, the yellow area, the Main Street/Central, it concerns me that we will be creating a lot of nonconforming buildings because we have required buildings to build to the setback line by the street all the way to the property line and that is going to mean that a lot of the houses that have been built probably are not sitting on the property line. There are going to be other nonconforming uses, for example the E.J. Ball Plaza is taller that six stories, so is the Senior Center. I think that with this particular ordinance since so many structures are going to be immediately rendered nonconforming, we need to look at whether or not we need to do something in particular so that these would not be held nonconforming so that every time somebody wants to renovate it or build something on it or repair after some sort of damage, that they don't face a big struggle to have to come in and get permission to do that. I just wanted you to think about that. I don't know how many structures that is, but when I look at the map and how far off a lot of these houses are from the street, I'm afraid they are not built to the property line and I am aware of other structures that are too tall for this particular area. So that is one concern I have a City attorney, I don't want to create a whole bunch on nonconforming structures unless there is a very good reason to do it. Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 73 Osmer: Thank you. That is something we have talked about a lot. Specifically you mentioned the yellow zone and that is called Main Street/Center, there is no setback. Williams: It says, buildings shall be built up to the build -to line that runs along the side property line facing the street. I'm afraid there are many that have not built up there then they also have to cover 75% of the frontage, so even if they might be at the property line, they might not cover 75% of the frontage. We need to be careful we are not creating additional problems. Ostner: You are talking about the side setback. Williams: No, itis the side facing the street if you look on the left. Ostner: Okay. That brings up an issue; someone brought up bridge legislation — things like the noise ordinance. The noise ordinance is currently prescribed to each zoning district, not these. Something will have to be addressed there. There are a lot of other extraneous rules that aren't set out flat in the zoning legislation that I think that need to be looked at. I am understand that that is part of ordinance review's job at that committee point, to scrutinize those things carefully. Anthes: We did talk about this quite a bit in our meetings and I would like Staff to give us, for the record, their statement on this. We talked about how many buildings would be brought into compliance that don't currently comply versus the ones that might be made noncompliant. While nobody did a survey of it, what we realized, and what were encouraged to do by Staff was to say that we were setting the vision for what is in the future, not necessarily what is on the ground right now. And I would like Staff to go over those recommendations that we listened to and heard. Conklin: The question was asked whether or not we can modify our nonconforming zoning ordinance language to grandfather the bulk density regulations in there and it is my understanding, and if there is a different way to do it, the whole intent of that nonconforming use ordinance and structure and land and premises in combination is when you do set your standards out that you have limitations on what you can and can't do with regard modifying or adding onto your home. So if the intent is to create a zone to implement an overall type of development, it was Staff's opinion that to say everything that is nonconforming can stay nonconforming forever. That would go along with the way the nonconforming ordinance currently works. That's the discussion that we had. We had that with other uses recently in regard to industrial uses and residential neighborhoods. Maybe, Kit, if you have another idea of how to address that issue, I am not Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 74 sure how we can get there. We have that whole section on nonconforming uses. Williams: Obviously, part of it could be on refining this map itself so that various areas where there might be more problems, you wouldn't do that. Or else you could might not require the build -to line in those districts. You could allow the reduction in the setbacks, which you have done, which will make many more properties conforming, but maybe you would not, especially in certain districts, require the build -to line right up to the property line where the structures have not been built there. And we would all of a sudden we would be saying, you are all now nonconforming. I think we have to be very careful about some larger structures, too, like the E.J. Ball Plaza and like the Senior high-rise and not make them nonconforming. These are significant buildings and we need to be little more careful when we look at this downtown plan and make sure we don't have any unintended consequences with significant structures like that. Osmer: If there are at least 30% of the downtown structures that are nonconforming today, in a certain way, and if this were to pass, another 30% would be nonconforming in another way, looking toward the future with a plan and a vision, I am thinking of Block Street where Hugos is, just off the Square, that line helps define that street. And that is something that Dover Kohn taught us. It either is or ain't and that is part of why they helped promote this in here. I'm just wondering if so many homes are not conforming, my home is not conforming, I guess technically it is not, I got a special condition for it when I got a building permit, but if so many are nonconforming now and they are not any worse off for it until they go to develop, what's the harm. Williams: It wouldn't be until they went to develop, it would be if some catastrophe happened. And someone who owns a house that might be conforming now that you are making nonconforming is not going to be necessarily happy because he made his neighbor conforming at the same time you made him nonconforming. I wanted to bring that up that it is one issue that needs to be clearly addressed, not only by you but by the City Council in determining what to do in relation to this zoning. Ostner: What about a disaster clause, a special time when a conditional use to grant something otherwise prohibited otherwise might be looked at differently because of a special circumstance. Is there is such a thing? Williams: I think we can work on the nonconforming previously existing nonconforming use, how that can be remedied and how that can work. I'm not really sure about this disaster clause and what that would entail. It Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 75 would have to be more that one house. But I think that can be something that City Council can address to try to ease the transition into a downtown master zoning plan. Anthes: I feel like that these are important issues but also something that needs to be worked out in ordinance review and I feel like we have done a lot of hard work and I feel confident that we have calibrated the purpose of each district with the use units for each district and for that reason that I move that we forward ADM 06-1955 (which are the downtown master zoning districts only) to City Council. Ostner: Your motion is not about the map? Anthes: It is not about the map. Ostner: I have a motion to forward the use units and bulk and area requirements. Myres: I will second. Ostner: Is there any more discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call The motion to forward ADM 06-1955 carries by a vote of 5-1-0. Ostner: The last item is the map. Trumbo: Looking at the downtown core, we have a Federal Building that takes up a large block here, we have the jail, the old Courthouse, the parking deck behind the Hilton, does the City own part of the parking deck? Williams: The City does own the parking deck. Trumbo: Then the jail again that was just changed. I guess my point is that there are six rather large parcels of property in the downtown core that won't be redeveloped, that won't be used, it can't be. They are significant structures. I would propose or at least suggest that has this moves forward that we look at moving the Downtown Core possibly a little further to the east to allow for more opportunity for development down the road. I am talking about when we do have an additional 40,000 people here in 25 years. I don't want it to be that it is so packed into this core that they are saying in 25 years, we needed more area for the core. I think it is too small. Ostner: City and Federal buildings do get sold. I would personally wonder if the Federal building meets their needs with 9/11 security measures currently in place. I'm not sure that isn't prime for redevelopment. Two-thirds of it Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 76 is surface parking lot — I'm not sure that meets their needs. The old jail and the old Courthouse that will never be developed. We did extend the Downtown Core northward, not quite double its area, but a third of its area again. It used to stop at Meadow, just about. I'm not sure in agreement with you. I want to point out that this is a large rezoning all at once but people petitioning to get their own property rezoned will continue. People who get zoned green will have the right to come here and onward to get changed to a different color. I would wonder if five, ten , twenty-five years from now a bunch of people said we need that red to be changed and they could petition to do it. Myres: I am not comfortable forwarding this map as it exists to the Council at this time. I will like to move to table it and discuss it one more time at the next agenda meeting. Ostner: I will second. Is there any further discussion on tabling the map? Roll Call: The motion to table ADM 06-1956 carried by a vote of 5-0-1. (Allen abstaining) Trumbo: Just for the public's information, I will recommend to the administration and the Council that we go to ordinance review, that we not just place this on the Council's agenda with the regard to the previous item with regard to the code. I will ask the chair of the ordinance review committee to place it on an agenda, I don't have a date for that. I am not intending just to follow the City Council agenda schedule and place this on a City Council meeting. Anthes: I misspoke, I should have made that clear. Pate: This is the creation of these new four zoning districts; it is not putting them anywhere in the City on a map at anytime at this point. It is the creation of four new zoning districts with these criteria, just like if we were creating a new C-1, C-2..... that's what this is. Clark: Are we going to keep Subdivision as it has been or are we going to back to the six months in prison thing. Ostner: I think sharing prison terms is the best. There has been a good response. I would be in favor of your next chair to keep that, in perpetuity. Pate: At the next meeting, also, for the nominating committee, we do need to have the slate presented and at the following meeting, it will be voted upon, the last meeting of the Planning Commission as it stands currently. Planning Commission February 27, 2006 Page 77 Myres: The only restriction on the nominating committee is that we have the discussion and nominations at a meeting that is open to the public so we could do it at the next agenda meeting, because our third member is not here tonight. Pate: That is correct. It could be immediately following the agenda or immediately prior. Last year they did it immediately at 5:00 prior to the meeting at 4:00. So it is really up to the committee. We will put out a press release appropriately. Ostner: it is also possible to do it on a 48-hour turn around and notify the press and create a meeting if Christian cannot make it. Any other comments? WE are adjourned.