Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-05-08 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on May 8, 2006 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN Discussion of Downtown Master Plan Tabled Page 3 Consent Agenda (VAC 06-2045 and LSD 06-2036) Approved Page 6 PPL 06-1977: (CRYSTAL SPRINGS IV, 285) Approved Page 7 PPL 06-1998• (THE HEIGHTS @ PARK WEST, 208) Approved Page 33 RZN 06-2026: (LAFAYETTE & MISSION, 485, 486): Forwarded Page 45 RZN 06-2049: (COMBS, 564): Tabled Page 48 ANX 06-2046: (OLD WIRE INVESTORS, 217) Denied Page 52 RZN 06-2047: (OLD WIRE INVESTORS, 217) Forwarded Page 52 RZN 06-2048: (TETRA INVESTMENTS, 598) Denied Page 63 RZN 06-2050: (WALES, 373) Forwarded Page 70 RZN 06-2028: (MOUNTAIN RANCH, 479) Forwarded Page 71 Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 2 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Jill Anthes Lois Bryant Candy Clark James Graves Hilary Harris Audy Lack Christine Myres Alan Ostner STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Jeremy Pate Andrew Garner Suzanne Morgan Jesse Fulcher Leif Olson CITY ATTORNEY: Kit Williams Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 3 Welcome to the May 8, 2006 meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. I'd like to remind all members of the audience to turn off your pagers and cell phone, please. If we could have the roll call please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call Bryant, Anthes, Clark, Graves, Myres, Harris, Lack, Trumbo, and Ostner were present Discussion: Downtown Master plan/Entertainment District Ordinance Amendments Anthes: The first item on the agenda tonight is a discussion item. It is the downtown master plan/entertainment district ordinance amendments. May we have the staff report, please? Graves: Madame Chair, I'm going to recuse from the downtown master plan. Anthes: Thank you, Commissioner Graves. Good evening, Mr. Conklin. Conklin: Good evening, Chairwoman Anthes, members of the Commission. I'm Tim Conklin. I'm the City of Fayetteville's Planning Development Management Director. This evening as a discussion item we've brought forward amendments to our proposed entertainment districts that deal with different aspects with issues with regards to sidewalk cafes and other issues of our master plan area. The purpose of the discussion tonight is to bring forward a policy discussion and work with the city attorney's office to look at what is feasible with regard to implementing some of these recommendations within our downtown master plan area. With regard to that, we have forwarded that to you and we request that you discuss those issues or items and provide direction for our city attorney's office to bring that forward to a full planning commission and public hearing any proposed amendments. Within our Unified development zone we've drafted some language but I thought it might be beneficial this evening to have you as commissioners discuss some of the ideas that you would like to see called upon. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Conklin. We'll take public comments on the downtown master plan and entertainment district ordinance amendments. Would any member of the public like to speak to this discussion item? Seeing none we'll close the public comment section. I guess I'd like to say that we have actually discussed this at length at our downtown code work sessions. At the request of the city attorney when he attended one of those sessions, we have what we believe is a vision for what we'd like to see happen in downtown and have ordinances that would support that vision. We've worked with staff and drafted a document and that's something we would like you to review, Mr. Williams. What would you like to hear from us as far as that vision or would you just like to come back and discuss this Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 4 at a different time when you've had a chance to review and make your recommended changes? Williams: If you would like me to, as you know I've reviewed this I've talked with both of you at the meeting I've sent memos to you. As you know, I'm very concerned about any changes in sign ordinance at all. I think that Fayetteville has one of the few ordinances in the state that allow no off- site signs. That's how we eliminated billboards. Our predecessors did about 30 years ago. There are law firms that specialize in suing cities, especially on this billboard issue so my recommendation is that most of these changes were off-site signs. There are some issues also about whether or not you need discretion is left with the sign administrator. In dealing with what signs can go up and that kind of stuff, and how long they can stay up, federal law does not allow that kind of discretion as an individual or a body. Your ordinance has to be very clear because we're dealing with the first amendment. My recommendation remains that we actually do not change the current sign ordinance we have. There is one place in the sign ordinance that allows these little banners to be placed as they are now on Dickson Street. That would accomplish some of what you're trying to do here, I think. I have concerns about over the street banners. Unless they would be by the city and only for city events and had no commercial direction at all on them because as I explained in my letter I might have difficulty trying to convince a court that a banner with commercial message on it as big as it is across the street is not a billboard. If we allow a billboard there, we would have to allow them elsewhere in the town. I think our sign ordinance is good as it has been so I would not recommend a banner across the street thing. Leave it as it is now. It might possibly be all right, but that would be that the city would have to finance everything. We couldn't have commercial sponsors. Anthes: The majority of things that we have talked about and forwarded have to deal with the sidewalk cafes, bus shelters and taxi stands. One small part of the discussion was the banners and wayfinding. I think the wayfinding was the one that we're interested in really looking at about how we're going to move in and out of downtown Fayetteville parking facilities and what would be allowed. As far as the cross -street banners go, I think what we were looking for is some clarification. It seems to me that in the email you wrote us there may be some things happening out there right now that shouldn't be. If that is the case, what we would like you to do is review it and perhaps we need to tighten up and make it very clear about what we're allowed and not allowed to do. I think that's why we chose to leave it in the list of things to be forwarded to you rather than omitted. You might want to strengthen that language. Commissioners, did you have any further items? Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 5 Williams: I'll be happy to review this and talk about the other parts of the suggested changes in the ordinances I think many of them will just be really have no comment from the city attorney's office about a taxi stand or bus stand as long as we're assuring that we're not violating the public's easement on the sidewalk I think that is a policy issued by this body to the city council about what this policy should be. I don't really see a problem as long as it doesn't affect the public easements that the public enjoys on our sidewalks. Anthes: The other thing that we did was ask for the transportation division to review those items in concert with you I think that the recommendation from staff was that we would forward these items to the city attorney for legal review and opinion and then it would come back to this board when you're finished. If we do that, is it possible to table it until a specific date, can you tell us? Williams: In order to get it in your agenda packet, I would say that it shouldn't be in two weeks but maybe the meeting after that. Anthes: So two meetings from tonight. Do I hear a motion? Clark: So made. Anthes: And I'll second it. Motion by Commissioner Clark and second by Commissioner Anthes to forward the proposed downtown master plan and entertainment district ordinance to the city attorney for review to be placed on our agenda for two meetings from tonight, which is June 12th for public discussion. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to forward the Downtown Master Plan and Entertainment District Ordinance Amendments carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 6 VAC 06-2045: (BELLAFONT II, 175): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located NW OF JOYCE BLVD. AND VANTAGE DRIVE. The property is zoned C-3, CENTRAL COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 0.28 acres. The request is to vacate a portion of a utility easement located within the subject property. LSD 06-2036: Large Scale Development (VALUE PLACE HOTEL, 519): Submitted by DIRK THIBODAUX, FREELAND KAUFFMAN & FREDEEN, INC. for property located NE OF OLD FAMINGTON ROAD AND SHILOH DRIVE. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 3.70 acres. The request is for a 4 -story, 42,620 square foot hotel with 120 parking spaces and 120 guest rooms. Anthes: The next item tonight is the consent agenda. We have two items, a Vacation 06-2045 for Bellafont and a Large Scale Development 06-2036 for Value Place Hotel. Would any commissioner or member of the public like to remove either of these two items from the consent agenda for discussion? Seeing none, I'll entertain motions to approve the consent agenda. Clark: So moved. Osmer: Second. Anthes: A motion by Commissioner Clark and a second by Commissioner Ostner. Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve the consent agenda carries with a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 7 PPL 06-1977: Preliminary Plat (CRYSTAL SPRINGS IV, 285): Submitted by MEL MILHOLLAND for property located N OF MT. COMFORT RD., AT THE N END OF RAVEN LANE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY — 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 85.18 acres. The request is for a residential subdivision with 273 single family lots. Anthes: Ms. Morgan? Morgan: This request is a preliminary plat at Crystal Springs which consists of 273 single-family lots. This is phase IV of an overall plan for Crystal Springs which was introduced in the early 1990s. At this stage, the applicant requests development rights for this 85 acre tract with a density of approximately 3.2 units/acre. This phase of Crystal Springs is proposed to be developed in 6 phases. If you look on page 2 of your staff report, you can see those 6 phases broken into lot numbers as well as connections to existing streets and the proposed to the east and west for future street connections. With regard to access, the applicant will be providing access from the south through Brookhaven Subdivision, specifically to Woodlark and Raven Lanes. When Brookhaven Subdivision was platted these rights- of-way were stubbed out to the property for future extension of streets. However, since the property to the north has never developed these have remained as dead-end streets. Other streets which were proposed or at least discussed in subdivision committee or technical plat for proposed connectivity to the south were Gooseberry Lane, however this right-of- way does not connect to the subject property and it appears that the owners adjacent to that cul-de-sac are not willing to give right-of-way so a street connection is not feasible to this street. Also, Crafton Manor Subdivision which is to the southwest to this property has a street stub -out; however we have spoken and the applicant has spoken to the owner through which right-of-way would need to be dedicated in order to have a street connection to Crofton Manor and he is not willing at this time to dedicate property for this. So we are looking at two access points to the south. The applicant is proposing access to the north by way of constructing a bridge across Harbor Creek, it will be Raven Lane. The Master Street Plan designates Raven Lane as a Collector Street extending from Mt. Comfort north all the way to Hwy 112/Salem Road. The applicant, with regard to other improvements, the applicant will be required to reconstruct Raven Lane and Woodlark Lane as full streets and reconstruct the yards with the street connection. Speed tables will be installed on both of those streets in order to provide additional traffic calming in the existing neighborhood. Other improvements have not been recommended by staff to surrounding streets as we find that construction of a half a million dollar bridge is sufficient for this number of lots proposed based on the proportionality. With regard to public comment, staff has received numerous public comments; we have included those Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 8 within your staff report and have many more in our files with neighbors concerned with traffic both on Mt. Comfort and through the existing subdivision. Staff is, though, recommending approval of this proposed preliminary plat with 26 conditions of which we request Planning Commission determination of appropriate street connectivity, determination of street improvements, and appropriate phasing within the development. Condition number four addresses the Planning Commission determination of a waiver of block length. At the last subdivision committee this was addressed and after evaluating the block length the requirement is 1400 feet and it appears that there is only one block length that would be greater than this. It is a 120 feet greater than allowed. Staff finds in favor of this request finding that the two proposed eastern connections between which this block is located are located appropriately, the eastern step -out to the north and the step -out to the west both step out to the golf course which in the future may be developed. If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask. Anthes: Before you sit down, let me ask you a quick question. Morgan: Sure. Anthes: Would you please say which street is in excess of 1400? Morgan: It is street C. It's the eastern block on street C between the northeast step - out and the 50 -foot step -out to the south on Raven Lane. Anthes: So it's the one that borders the eastern edge of the property lane? Morgan: Correct. Anthes: One other question in anticipation of public comment. Normally when we would see this many lots in a subdivision today we would require quite a bit more connectivity probably than what is shown here. Can you describe what the policy was at the time when this was originally platted? Morgan: When Brookhaven Terrace was originally platted? Anthes: No, the original phase of Crystal Springs. Morgan: The original phases I believe were not formally approved as a plat though there was a kind of plan approved. I have not researched too much on that plan and where specific connections would be required, though Raven Lane is one of those connections which for many years has been anticipated to connect to the north. Mr. Pate may have more information about that. Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 9 Pate: I can add to that a little bit. In the early to mid-90s Crystal Springs as an overall development was master planned. That included dedication of land where the school sits now, where the ball field sits, those are all dedicated and were planned for. Park land dedication was dedicated back in the 1990s so that is why you see in your conditions of approval that those requirements were already met well over a decade ago. This was part of the master plan that was reviewed at that time showing the street through this subdivision. As I mentioned during agenda session, that master plan carries no weight as far as approval if there was no Planning Commission approval or City Council approval or PZD. The connectivity issues were obviously not as strong at that point in time although they were discussed so most of those stub -outs that you see now were not included as part of that original master plan. At the subdivision committee there were originally no stub -outs to the golf course to the east and north. Staff did recommend some stub -outs to that property finding that the potential for any development it would be beneficial to have street stub -outs to that property so that all of the traffic would not simply dump onto one street or the other. It would diversify some of that traffic load. That is why we are recommending some street connections in this area. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Pate. Would any member of the public like to address this preliminary plat 06-1977 for Crystal Springs IV? Please come forward. If you would please state your name and your comments. Stocker: Hi. My name is Kathy Stocker. I live at 2848 West Quayle Drive. I'm opposed to connecting Crystal Springs Phase IV to Woodlark and Raven. I think we have legitimate traffic concerns about the connections being made through our neighborhood to Mt. Comfort. This development has poor connectivity and has not been able to gain any access to the east and west of the development in this phase. It is clear that these property owners do not want these connections to be made. In regards to Mt. Comfort, we are being told it is in the design phase. Which Mt. Comfort project is in the design phase and is there current funding for the actual road work is our question. Everything we see in the paper says that these projects are going for a bond issue. There is no work taking place right now. I want to talk about the traffic study that was included in the packet that went to the commission. Paragraph four in that study talks about Stonebridge Rd and Hwy 16. These streets are located on the east side of Fayetteville. How much confidence can we place in a traffic study that doesn't even have the correct information in it? This is an important development for our neighborhood and I think this traffic study should have been looked at and what is it a cut and paste job from some other study that they did? Our subdivision is going to suffer from this Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 10 development. We ask for your support in denying this development access to our neighborhood. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Ms Stocker. Smith: Hi. I'm Geri Smith. My address is 2840 West Quayle. I want to emphasize something that Kathy said. We're not a big neighborhood, maybe 100 houses. People walk their dogs and their children. Kids ride their bikes. It has been a very peaceful and small neighborhood. We don't have sidewalks. Raven Lane has one block of sidewalk but they don't go anywhere. I think they have a lane but it's just one block of sidewalks. On the other three streets there's no sidewalks on either side. It will change it will more than triple the traffic in our neighborhood with cars coming through so that will really change our way of life. We're not a wealthy neighborhood. We don't have a lot of financial resources to do anything about it, but at least we thought we could speak up and appeal to the commission to look at the actual area. Mt. Comfort Rd is just two lanes. Right now in the mornings and the evenings turning out onto that lane is a challenge. If you triple the number of cars it's going to be quite an imposition, I think. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Ms. Smith. Would anybody else like to speak? Myers: My name is Jeff Myers. I live at 2325 Woodlark Lane. I've lived in the subdivision since there were six houses there and right now it is basically a cul-de-sac subdivision. There's no traffic in or out except for the people there. I'm going to be living on a collector street now. I don't want speed tables. Speed tables are nice, at least they thought of that. I don't want to... I figure right now we've got maybe 50 cars in our street all day. Now we're going to have with 273. We'll have two choices the way I understand it; it's either going to be Raven or us, 300 more cars that's one trip out and 300 more cars coming in. I didn't want to live on Maple Street. I didn't want to live on Lafayette or some of those streets. They're nice streets but I wanted a place where I felt safe getting out walking around from traffic. Right now we have a whole sidewalk along one side and no other sidewalk. If we're going to be a collector street, we need sidewalks. I don't care if they build the houses there. I know they're going to build there. They've talked about them since I've lived there. I moved in in 1978. We need, if they're going to use our streets for access in and out there's going to be too many cars coming in and out and there'll be no way in the morning or the evening to make a left-hand turn or maybe even a right-hand turn onto Mt. Comfort. Mt. Comfort, as you all know, has built up along there and every day there's more and more cars there and now we're going to have 300 more at just one time. We need to do something about access there. I realize that people have the right to build. Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 11 I'm not opposed to the project, but they've got to put more places in and out. I don't see that. Are they going to connect over towards the school to the development they're making there? I don't understand, it's a stub -out, is that actually a road or a road that will be there in the future? Basically it's going to change our subdivision. I don't think many people when they moved into the subdivision expected it to be a collector street, a major street in the city. They said that about Raven. I didn't hear them say that about Woodlark, but we're going to be right beside them, a block down, two blocks down. We're going to be a collector street too. I don't want that, please. Anthes: Thank you. Would any other member of the public like to address this item? Mendenhall: Our names are Jim and Davy Mendenhall. We live at 2241 Woodlark Lane. I'm just here to ask you to please consider this before you turn our street into an access for Crystal Springs. We've lived there since 1989. We do enjoy walking. I have a day care and little kids walk. We had a Mardi Gras parade. That won't happen if you open our street. It would be too much. We see our street as being a cut -through to the back of Holcomb and the ball field. We would just like for you all to consider the road situation out there before you open our roads up. I waited almost seven minutes just to turn left on Woodlark onto Mt. Comfort just to get to this meeting tonight at 5:20. I would really appreciate it if you all would look further into opening up a different access for Crystal Springs. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you. Harris: I'm Waylon Harris. I live at 2397 Woodlark Lane. There are three members on that LSD committee that I met with earlier last week and they take some action on the issue that I am presenting to you. I'm not ignoring your action, but I do want action not on the road or eliminate it from consideration. To the three members of the LSD committee, I thank you for addressing those issues. I am a Fayetteville bus driver. I have to deal with the traffic problems you create every day. I say create because I do not see many of them being corrected but I see more of them being created every day. The one on Mt. Comfort is bad and if you bring in Crystal Springs out to there the traffic on Mt. Comfort will be much worse and more dangerous. When I refer to principal roads I am using the color - coded designations on the Master Street Plan. The principal arterials specify no more than 10 -feet minimum - does not match the color code or what exists in the city. I understand the engineering for Mt. Comfort will begin this year but when will the construction for Mt. Comfort begin and end? Is the funding available now for the construction of Mt. Comfort? Why was Crystal Springs Drive and Van Ike and that is what is specified Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 12 on the Master Street Plan as the street north of Crystal Springs, why were they not made thru-streets from Salem Road to Dean Solomon Roads? Van Ike traffic is turned onto Topaz making a loop to the south. Why is the city approving all these subdivisions out west of town and providing no principal arterials to handle the increased traffic? Are Doubletree and Lierly going to be the principal arterials as they were shown on the master street plan? Doubletree and Lierly being arterials why is the city allowing homes in these subdivisions to be built in the right-of-way instead of behind the right-of-way? If Doubletree and Lierly are not going to be constructed, my question is why not and is there another plan for replacing them? Principal arterials should be constructed at the same time and prior to approval and construction of subdivisions. It is easier to close a street after it is built than to put a street through an existing neighborhood and it is not nearly as costly. Traffic impact on Bird Haven, well we are going to have more crime, theft, assault, rape, more vandalism, breaking of windows cars and homes, destroying of mailboxes, more traffic, we're creating a speed hazard there and we know it is because of the fact that they're putting in a speed table. Construction traffic will inhibit most of the Brookhaven traffic and construction traffic will destroy most of the street. The street wasn't constructed to withstand the weight of the vehicles. We don't need any delays on the bridges across the creek. We actually need more bridges across the creek. We need at least two more. When the school is built up there, there will be more traffic. One of the reasons for not bringing a street out on Lori over by the golf course which is south of it was because of the vandalism that they were anticipating. I ask here today is it easier to control vandalism at one location or one hundred? Which will experience more crime because of all the traffic, is it the golf course or these one hundred homes in this addition? I want to go back to traffic issues. They're building 274 homes in the Crystal Springs addition. That will be approximately 700 vehicles for those 274 vehicles. Each will have at least 2 vehicles and some will have three. That's how I arrived at the 700. There are 78 single-family homes in Birdhaven. That's about 200+ vehicles. There are 12 duplexes, which is 44+ vehicles. Gooseberry has 15 single homes so the total vehicles we're talking about coming out Raven or Woodlark is approximately 900 vehicles. Each of these vehicles will make two trips on average in and out. That's two ins and two outs a day. We're looking at somewhere between 3600 and 5400 vehicles coming out of those two streets. Traffic will be entering Mt. Comfort which is already beyond its capacity at this time. Road improvements will bring additional traffic to Mt. Comfort because drivers won't get off at 6`" street at I540. They'll want Wedington at I540, so they're going to be coming somewhere other than those two streets. A significant amount of this traffic from Crystal Springs will be going to and from Holcomb, Holcomb Elementary, and Holcomb Middle School. Streets will not physically handle that kind of volume or weight of that Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 13 Anthes: Harius: kind of traffic. There is a speed hazard that has been created. You must add the additional traffic from the new developments west of Brookhaven. Currently emergency personnel and vehicles do not have access to anyone living between Salem Road and Dean Solomon between 7 and 8am because of the traffic. From the previous meeting, we were told that access for Crystal Springs development was planned when Birdhaven was built. It made sense in 1978 and 1980 when Birdhaven and Gooseberry were the only developments on Mt. Comfort. However, conditions have changed in the past 25 or 30 years. We have added 16 to 18 new developments out there, 10,000+ homes that have been put out there. I did a random traffic count on Mt. Comfort on May 2nd between 11 and 12pm, 520 cars, that's an average of 6.9 seconds per car. 5:30-6:30 there were 1308 cars, an average of .75 seconds per car. Wednesday May 3`d 7-8am there were 1408 cars, an average of 2.5 cars per second. Friday May 5th 9-10 600 cars per hour, average of 6 seconds per car. I give you the seconds average of seconds per car because if you look at that time it's impossible for anybody to pull out into the street to get out into that traffic. Anybody concerned about pollution and conservation there are a number of streets that have been and are being turned into parking lots. This adds up to the pollution in the city. It also wastes gasoline. Between 7 and 8am there are 20+ vehicles lined up on a single road sometimes trying to get onto Mt. Comfort and it takes a while. The lady said 7 minutes. I'm sure that it's at least seven minutes, usually longer, for these cars to get out there. My question here is why is Fayetteville not building any arterials for handling the increased traffic problem? Currently Fayetteville has two streets designed for increased traffic flow, Joyce and Gregg. All major traffic routes are farm roads in the city, Old Wire Road, Zion Road, Mission Blvd., Mt. Comfort... Will you please address this particular project in this area rather than the rest of the city, please? Well, I am, because I would like to see a major road put in out there to take care of the traffic. When I look at the master street plan I see houses being built in place of Doubletree you'll have to buy back some houses to get Doubletree through, and Lierlly you're going to have to buy back some houses to get Lierly through. We can build bridges across the creek down there, but they won't come back out to Mt. Comfort because there's nowhere to go. There is no street that has been taken out of that subdivision down there to carry to a main traffic artery to get the traffic out where it needs to go. So this is the reason why I am bringing these up is Mt. Comfort is a farm road and we've added more and more cars to there. I don't see anything out there that is being done to improve the traffic. The only major traffic roadways in the city were designed by the state and why is the traffic for all of these routed through someone's Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 14 neighborhood? We would just like to have the same consideration that you gave Judge Gunn and the people that live on Mt. Sequoyah and the people living on Rockwood Trail. We don't want the traffic through our neighborhood, either. We'd like for you to give us that same consideration. I would like to make some suggestions to you. Do not extend Raven or Woodlark Lane. Open up the road south to the golf course which is called Lori across Dean Solomon and extend it to Moore Lane. Open up two streets across the creek to the new street Van Ike north from Crystal Spring Development and extend these streets. Open up the street south of the apartments, and widen Moore Lane to Shiloh Drive. Build a new street east of Dean Solomon to provide some additional ingress and egress of the traffic there. Do something to get the traffic to the north of 112. One of the benefits we get from this is it reduces the traffic on Mt. Comfort, traffic from Crystal Springs to and from Holcomb Elementary and Holcomb Middle School will not contribute unnecessary traffic to Mt. Comfort. Traffic from Crystal Springs Development off I540 can be routed away from Mt. Comfort to Shiloh. When the new high school is built, traffic will not be cutting across Brookhaven addition and Crystal Springs school traffic will use Dean Solomon to Moore Lane and Dean Solomon to 112. As for the stub -outs here are more options, distribution to Dean Solomon reduces traffic congestion because when you're constricted it would open many outlets. I believe that it eliminates a speed hazard that has been built into Birdhaven at this time will not increase the crime to the Birdhaven addition. With no principal arterials north and east of Crystal Springs Development, most of the traffic will come through Birdhaven to Mt. Comfort and this is where you have reached a bridge or bridges. If you want to put it in there, can we have a traffic light installed on Dean Solomon and Mt. Comfort there where Crystal Springs and Birdhaven can have reasonable access to Mt. Comfort? Who will pay to repair and rebuilt Birdhaven addition streets after the construction is over? If it is your decision to route all traffic through Birdhaven can the developer be financially responsible for repairing and rebuilding of streets? These streets should be replaced with concrete streets. If you offer the repairing and rebuilding of the streets can an escrow account be established to repair and rebuild the streets and can this account be established prior to the streets being cut through Birdhaven addition. We have used 540, Mt. Comfort, and the Shiloh intersection which is scheduled to be reengineered and reconstructed. What are the actual dates to begin and complete that intersection? Is there money to do this? Is the city or developers liable if there is an emergency and the emergency vehicle and personnel are unable to provide them with these services because of traffic? Currently there are times when an emergency vehicle can not access homes between Dean Solomon and Salem Road in a timely manner because of the traffic on Mt. Comfort. I know this that you have a proposed road extending Salem or Lierly over to 112 or Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 15 Garland. It comes out just south of Van Asche. When is this road scheduled to be constructed and completed? Thank you. Anthes: Thank you very much. Would any other member of the public like to address this preliminary plat? Seeing none, I will close the public comment section and ask the developer to begin the presentation. Jeffcoat: I'm Tom Jeffcoat with Milholland Company representing the developer Edwards LLC. The project is a large tract of land. The last phase of Crystal Springs Development phase IV. We've worked hard with the staff in developing the conditions and working with them on the conditions of approval and getting the project to move forth. We have previously developed the sanitary sewer water through this subdivision back in the early 90s, connecting through the Birdhaven Subdivision. The force main water and sanitary sewer dictated the location of Raven at that point in time part of the design process. The connectivity to the east and west has been worked out with staff the best that we can arrange. To the north and south connectivity we've talked about Woodlark and Raven Lane were preselected in past developments. The connection to the lane, Raven Lane, has been on the master street plan for some time. That bridge connection will be made in phase two. As you've noticed in your packet there will only be like 58 lots developed in phase one of phase IV by the time the bridge is connected. We're only looking at 58 homes possibly being built, lots being ready for development until phase two when the bridge connection is made. The timing and the phasing have already been worked out with staff to the benefit of traffic. I understand that Mt. Comfort is slated for design. There is no determination that I know of or that the city engineering department has made as far as the layout or how Mt. Comfort will be configured at such a point, but our developer is being assessed for a third lane connection at Raven and Mt. Comfort is part of that design. So some consideration is being given to planning how those intersections and how traffic will be alleviated at the Raven entrance to Mt. Comfort. The speed tables have been recommended by staff. We support those, too, on each Woodlark and Raven Lane for traffic control. In addition to that, we have incorporated some traffic islands and some striping along Raven to increase the safety and speed along that major thoroughfare. The connectivity, one of the connections to the west, is shown on the master street plan. That 70 foot right-of-way and street connection has been worked out with staff. All in all this is an excellent development. It does provide for full development of phase IV. All of the recommendations and the conditions of approval that staff has made are supported by the developer and are agreed to through our engineering firm representing them. The only other comments that I would like to make on the conditions of approval is the park land dedication for the trails. It is a considerable enhancement to both transportation and I understand the Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 16 trails committee is asking for the donation of additional land on cross-over to Raven to support that trails system. Our developer has graciously dedicated that land or will dedicate that land as part of the development in support of the trail system. If you have any questions, anything that we can try to answer in support of the approval of this development, we would be happy to do so. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Jeffcoat. Before we start a discussion with the Planning Commission perhaps staff would answer a few of the public's questions. One is about just the definition of a stub -out and can you tell them when they might expect those additional connections to be made? Pate: A standard definition of a street stub -out is a street that is essentially constructed to a property line; it is not connected to an existing street because at that point in time there is not an existing street there. In the future, as you all know and can see driving around new subdivisions, we have signs there that say road closed and that it's reserved for public street extension, so hopefully everyone is aware of those streets. Some of the older subdivisions though that you are aware of also do not have those. What those do allow for as the citizen mentioned that lives in Birdhaven is that it does help distribute the traffic so that you have more than one point to go to. A good example is Salem Road right now. A lot of existing subdivisions only have stub -outs for future connectivity. They haven't quite been filled in and developed yet. Everyone has to go to Salem and Mt. Comfort. It is similar on Mt. Comfort. Everyone funnels to that minor arterial. The stub -outs through neighborhoods travel almost all the way from Shiloh to Dean Solomon, through Dean Solomon to existing subdivisions, all the way over to Rupple Road, so there are avenues opening up and streets opening up currently that will allow for street connectivity that will allow for pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicular traffic to again distribute through neighborhoods as well as arterials that alleviate traffic flow. The connections when they are planned, we really depend upon the development to pick those up. The city does not have a fund to build brand new streets. We do try to plan for improvements to streets, the Mt. Comfort widening is part of those. We do have some funds for Mt. Comfort widening; as you know with every development that comes through that accesses Mt. Comfort we do review and as you will remember assess for those developments on Mt. Comfort. That goes into an escrow account for the improvement of that area. Our ordinances are for proportionality and calculation for development. We do not require that a developer build a full arterial section from traffic carrying from one development. It simply does not warrant a full arterial that everyone on that side of town will benefit from. So what we do is assessments specifically for those areas. In this case there's a significant improvement that will help distribute traffic to the north which is another crossing of a Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 17 street again as the gentlemen mentioned that will allow for north -south traffic with the bridge or possible construction over the bridge that will allow for another significant crossing there. With regard to Mt. Comfort improvements, I spoke to the city engineer today. It is anticipated if all goes well that we will pick an engineer next week to begin design on Mt. Comfort improvements. That of course will have to go through contract negotiations by the City Council for approval. The funding mechanism currently in place - we do have some funds planned into our capital improvement plan as well as our assessments that are planned. Obviously we are depending upon the bond program if it is approved by the voters to do some of that as many of the arterials that we always depend upon either state or federal aid or something such as the bond program. The current projects that are planned on Mt. Comfort road include Rupple Road east to Alpine which is just past Raven and then a separate project that would like to be constructed at the same time is Alpine east through the current (inaudible) Dean Solomon and Shiloh and I-540. Signalization planned in those areas include Moore Road, Salem Road which has already been paid for you will remember by a developer in this area, and signalization there at Dean Solomon and Shiloh and that design work is going to the city council to approve the contract for that. So this is something that we are moving forward on. Anthes: Do you expect that the traffic through would warrant a signal at Raven and Mt. Comfort? Pate: It's not likely. That's something that would be evaluated by planning to assess the developer for a turning lane at Mt. Comfort. Distances between signals is always important in creating gaps so that is something we would have to take a look at is how far between Salem and Shiloh and Dean Solomon the signals are located. That's an important component as well. Obviously Dean Solomon is something that would be taking on additional traffic in the future with commercial subdivisions and other subdivisions that are developing in that area. One of the improvements also that one gentleman mentioned, from Moore Lane to Shiloh that is already in the works and as you remember from approval of a development four weeks ago that improvement all the way out to Shiloh is occurring as well with the development there. Anthes: You've noted that Raven Lane is a collector street. Do you know what the designation of Woodlark is? Pate: It's just a local street. Anthes: Will you state for the audience members what are the conditions of approval dealing with construction and traffic? Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 18 Pate: The current condition that we have for construction traffic simply states that construction traffic other than passenger vehicles is encouraged not to access the property through Woodlark Lane and Raven Lane. Temporary barricades shall be installed at the terminus of streets to discourage construction access. Once sufficient access has been established from the north, no construction traffic shall access the site from residential streets to the south. It was our initial thought that all construction traffic should be limited. However, obviously with a creek across to the north and no other access to the site construction traffic has to get to the site in some manner. The developers indicated that the bridge construction in phase 2 is an improvement that will occur pretty quickly so that's something that we anticipate and hopefully will alleviate the need for construction traffic to go through subdivisions. I would also note for the record that as with any development it is not a condition of approval it's simply part of our ordinances that if you damage city property such as streets, curbs, or sidewalks as part of the construction process you are required to repair those. So that would be at the cost of the developer. Anthes: Are there plans for sidewalks through the Birdhaven subdivision? Pate: There are not currently sidewalks; existing sidewalks that are shown on the plat as was mentioned by one or two citizens will extend south to the first block through the cul-de-sacs that are being removed. There are two turn -around cul-de-sacs there that will be removed. Sidewalks are shown to continue south to that point. Anthes: Do you happen to know the schedule for the street committee because I think that this neighborhood might want to attend some of these meetings? Pate: I don't know the next scheduled meeting but it is listed on our public meetings or you can just come to the planning division. The improvements that I have mentioned and just went over on Mt. Comfort Road specifically, were announced and discussed at the last meeting. The bond program will be going to city council hopefully soon and then to the voters if city council chooses to forward that on. That is something that I hope all citizens would be interested in. Anthes: And does staff have the traffic study that lists roads that are not accurate? Pate: We have seen that before and I concur with the lady that spoke about that that an engineer in a traffic study should not copy and paste. You'll see it in our staff reports sometimes and it is a mistake. We have reviewed the traffic numbers. City engineering did go over everything in the traffic study and concurred with those numbers which with a single-family use Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 19 project is relatively straight forward to decide the number of trips generated per day. They did concur with the developers on that. Anthes: One last question. The design volume capacity of a collector street. I know the traffic numbers have been added up by the neighborhood, and I wondered whether we're approaching capacity or not on that street. While you look that up we can go on to something else. Commissioners? Myres: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Myres. Myres: Madame Chair, I might actually have a question for staff. Maybe Suzanne could answer it or whatever. On condition number four on the waiver of the block length on street C that borders the right-hand eastern property line it says in the condition that finding that the two proposed eastern street connections to the golf course, which is the second one? Morgan: After looking at this, I noticed that the second one isn't exactly on that block, it's actually just south of that block. If you look at the southeast corner of the subject property where it you'll see future street right-of-way future connections. It's actually not existing now, I don't believe, but in the future there could be a future stub into Raven Lane, a street connection into Raven Lane just north of Lot 14. Myres: I think that is a housekeeping thing and you probably need to change that. My other comment is it is 1520 feet long and if we are asking for speed tables on Raven and Woodlark it would seem to me that a relative straightaway like that would warrant some speed calming some traffic calming measures as well. Did staff have any discussion about that? Morgan: We did look at that. There are three street connections on the other side of that street which may help to alleviate some of the... Myres: But are there any three way stops planned for those intersections? Morgan: Not at this time. We typically do not plan for stop signs at this stage. Some of the discussion did revolve around where to stub that street out to the east. It was discussed to stub street D to the east instead of street H which would reduce the block length there. Anthes: Suzanne, if you would describe which streets those are because our plats are so small we can't read the letters. Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 20 Morgan: Myres: Morgan: Myres: Ostner: Anthes: Ostner: Clark: Anthes: Clark: Morgan: Oh, I'm sorry. Street D is the northern street that steps out to the east and street H is the street just to the south of that. That goes over Baskin and curves down Raven? Correct. In discussion of where to stub that street out to the east, part of that discussion revolved around how future property - the golf property - may develop to provide a street connection more to the north would alleviate the applicant from also having to provide a northern street connection because it is to the northeast. Also, street H curves and connects with Raven Lane and continues on and steps out to the west property line. That section of Raven Lane to the west is a collector street on the master street plan and so we talked about offsetting that stub out from that street and would be creating a through street that way. That was the discussion that took place. I'm still a little bit concerned with that big long uninterrupted street without either some stop signs and/or some speed tables or some tacks in the road or something like that to keep people from driving too fast. I think that answers my only real question. Madame Chair. Commissioner Ostner. I would tend to agree that this really long street concerns me. I'm not sure I'm in favor of the waiver. At subdivision committee meeting this determination was not exactly presented to us. Staff had not measured it at that point so there was a little bit of confusion about whether there were any waivers to be presented so subdivision did not scrutinize that issue. I have a question. Commissioner Clark. Suzanne, the street to the south of H that does not stub out to the east, was there a rationale to the two stub -outs to the east because that just looks like it's begging for it. I know there is a golf course there, but that doesn't mean there is going to be a golf course there ten years from now. There could be a house there, so a stub -out could be warranted. I think originally we did look at potentially two stub -outs to the east and one to the north. I think that is how it originally came to subdivision. That's my recollection. Through discussing with the applicant and the Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 21 Clark: owner of the golf course obviously fewer stub -outs to the east was preferable so we tried to create a situation that... I remember that discussion. Vandalism was mentioned. It all comes back to me like a dream. I still think it's warranted. That's my concern especially on this long street that could turn out to be a racetrack. I don't know how the rest of my co -commissioners feel but it just looks like a stub -out could help in that area. Anthes: Suzanne, what is that street letter, F? That's F. Morgan: That's F. Clark: That's F? It's really hard to read. Anthes: It's interesting because when you look at this project and when you look at the residents of Birdhaven coming here now they're asking questions that I believe other people would ask as development continues to happen. Obviously with one way to go through their neighborhood, Raven, it provides so much more traffic on Raven than if there were multiple ways that traffic could be dispersed. I am seeing tremendous amounts of blocks on this parcel to be developed and while it won't help for the immediate future certainly maximizing the number of ways in and out that cars can take onto the site in the future seems to make sense. It seems to me that an additional stub -out at street F would help not only the future but would also alleviate the need for a waiver by the Planning Commission for a lot length that is too long. Any comments? Pate: In answer to your question on the capacity of the collector streets, 4000 trips per day is the designed service volume; with left -turns it would accommodate 6000 trips per day. While I have these numbers in front of me, a minor arterial which is what is planned is the designation of Mt. Comfort with a four -lane section and turning lanes at the major intersections that can accommodate up to almost 15,000 vehicle trips per day. Anthes: So we're well within the limits on either one of those designations on either Raven or Mt. Comfort? Pate: Yes. Clark: Jeremy, if we change the conditions to require a stub -out on the eastern side of street F would that alleviate the need for a waiver and street length? Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 22 Pate: The block length you mean? Clark: Yes. Pate: On condition number four. Clark: Yes. Pate: If there were additional stub -outs to street D between two stub -outs to the east, yes, it would eliminate that. Clark: Okay. Ostner: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: I'd like to make a motion that we change condition number four to basically eliminate as it reads and for it to read street F will stub -out eastward to the eastern property line of this project. Clark: I'll second it as soon as we get the language right. Anthes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ostner and a second by Commissioner Clark to amend condition of approval number four eliminating the determination of the waiver and instead requiring a stub - out to extend street F to the east. Is there discussion? Will you call the roll, please? Roll Call: The motion to amend condition four carries with a vote of 9-0-0. Anthes: We have two major conditions of approval, one and two. One is street connectivity which we've already been discussing and another is determination of street improvements. Would any commissioners like to discuss item one or two? Ostner: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: I have a question for staff. In the presentation tonight you all have shared that number 2A is not possible. Am I understanding that? The connection to Kenswick. Pate: Not at this time, that is correct. Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 23 Ostner: Okay. Pate: We do have a letter stating such in your packet. Ostner: My question to staff is how much was that going to cost the developer and where has there been an additional request that that same amount of money be spent elsewhere? Pate: To be honest, I don't think that the discussions were ever able to get to that point. I know the applicant discussed or contacted the property owner who subsequently contacted us and we discussed that with the property owner. Your letter indicates that they have no plans whatsoever to allow a construction any kind or easements through that property. Ostner: I understand that. At subdivision we talked about that was something you all thought was necessary but you weren't sure it was going to come through. It sounds like here tonight that you're sure that it's not. It just seems clear to me that staff wanted that connection and those expenditures were warranted. Instead of just wiping them off the chalkboard, I'm wondering where those moneys will be spent elsewhere. Pate: It essentially went into the phasing. The issue, one of the issues with recommending that connection was because I believe the bridge was originally phase four of five of the overall construction which would have been many more vehicle trips generated before the northern connection was generated. We worked with staff when it was obvious from the property owners on page 17 of 38 when that became obvious to us that that connection could not be made and we discussed it with the applicant the opportunity for phasing to allow for the construction of only a few lots before the bridge would be constructed. So essentially that rolled into a much earlier investment in that half a million dollar improvement than would have been proposed in the prior phasing. Ostner: Well, I guess that sort of confuses me because at subdivision a week and a half ago when they presented this exact same phasing phase two was going to be the bridge and the Kenswick connection was going to be built. Pate: I'll have to refer to Suzanne, I'm not sure Ostner: I recall talking with the applicant about the maximum would be 58 homes built in phase one before phase two includes the bridge. Morgan: I'm sorry. In looking at staff report for March 30`h I guess that would be the earlier one we did have a condition that there was supposed to be an Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 24 off-site connection however that was prior to contacting the owner of that property to the west. It is my recollection though that the condition was as it is stated in this it was stated the last time it was looked at by subdivision committee and we had that discussion with the owner prior to that. Ostner: That's exactly what I'm saying. This phasing recommendation was the same ten days ago as it is tonight. However, at subdivision Kenswick was a possibility. Graves: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Graves: It is my recollection that it was reported to us at the subdivision meeting that they had not been able to get that permission from the property owner. I don't know. Maybe there has been additional discussion since then but I know that I understood that that might not happen at the time. The conditions were worded in such a way that it could still happen at some point in the future so we're asking them to stub it out there if they get permission from this owner or from another future owner that they would be required to build it. That's the way I understood it. I may have been misunderstanding it. I just looked at understanding it the way it is worded. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Graves. Jeffcoat: If I could, Mr. Graves is correct on that. I also want to add that prior to that and prior to this development being submitted I think staff had briefly contacted these people on other developments that adjoin their property and had the same reaction. Their recommendation or condition that condition of approval was obviously answered before the condition was ever presented in previous development. The owner of that property was not going to develop so it was not just something that came up on this project. It has been tried on projects prior to this project. Also, the condition number four that was removed it was my understanding that we're going to have three stub -outs to the east now? Anthes: Actually it is two to the east and one to the south. Jeffcoat: Well we already have two to the east. Are we going to eliminate one of the ones we have now? Anthes: No. Jeffcoat: So we're going to have three then? Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 25 Anthes: That is correct. Morgan: I would like to point out on page 17 on your packet is the letter from the adjacent property owner. It was received by planning on the 15th of April. Anthes: I have a question for staff to follow up on Commissioner Ostner's and Commissioner's Graves questions. The way I understand it, it appears that this condition would travel with the entire development. If something changed in the future before the final recommendation of the last phase of this development, that would still travel, that condition would travel with it. Is that true? Pate: Yes. Anthes: Okay. I'm confused then about the language on D on 2D. It was my understanding that that bridge was going to be developed prior to phase two as that condition states and not in phase three. Pate: Phase three is actually - this is an issue that we've been having in staff: phases 1-6 of Crystal Springs, phase 4 which is connecting to Crystal Springs is this one. Anthes: So the applicant and staff are very clear about what needs... Pate: Yes. Anthes: Okay, great. Harris: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Harris. Harris: Just a point of clarification. The in the southeast corner that isn't actually a stub -out is it? Pate: We've required that a sign be located at that point. It would actually connect to a street to the south. To the east it would allow for a minimum of 50 feet of right-of-way. Probably the best way to see it is to reference page 36 of 38 which is your map. If you could see at the very southeast corner of the property and go directly east is Emil drive which is also a street step -out to the golf course. That's where we're looking at that street connection. It comes directly off of Dean Solomon. Harris: Thank you. Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 26 Clark: Anthes: Clark: Pate: Madame Chair. Commissioner Clark. Jeremy, just to review what you said a while ago because the very first day I joined the Planning Commission we took a tour on Mt. Comfort and my life flashed before my eyes several times. It is a terror. It is horrific traffic conditions, but you're reporting that we're going to put a light on Rupple on the intersections of Rupple, Salem, and Dean Solomon? That's my understanding, yes. Rupple Road is actually being entirely realigned to the south of that to create a four-way intersection and the y - intersection would go away. That would be part of a larger improvement of Rupple Road, as well. The Wellspring development to the south on Rupple was taking care of about 3 of a mile which was the majority of that between Wedington and Mt. Comfort, which will as the one gentleman mentioned allow a principle arterial to begin that connection there. Clark: So do we have time frame on when these lights are possibly going to be placed? Pate: It's all really tied into the overall improvement. Obviously we wouldn't want to have a signal there and take it out as we do improvements to the street. If the bond program is passed construction could begin within a year after the contracts are approved for design. Again, that does depend upon approval of city council and the voters. Clark: But some relief is at least on the drawing board? Pate: Yes. Clark: Okay. Excellent. My other question was we didn't mark the stub -out at Woodlark and Raven, but they are cul-de-sacs, right? Pate: Woodlark and Raven, they have a full stub -out of right-of-way to the property. Those are acting as temporary cul-de-sacs. They were built in the 60s or 70s. Clark: This was built before the time we put up signs? Pate: That's correct. Clark: That's what I thought. Thanks. Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 27 Anthes: Is there further discussion? Myres: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Myres. Myres: Just another comment or two. As Commissioner Clark said we've been looking at projects in this area the whole time I and Commissioner Trumbo have been on the Planning Commission and we keep thinking well you know eventually they will improve these roads. I haven't passed I don't think approved developments where the critical mass would be reached before improvements would take place. I just sort of hoped that they would be a little bit further along than they are right now. I'm very ambivalent about approving this project just because I think for me the development in this area has reached critical mass. Mt. Comfort, regardless of what is planned for the future, is a 2 -land country road and has an awful lot of traffic on it. On the other hand, there are significant improvements to traffic flow that will be accomplished by the building of this development. I really am so torn. I don't know really what to do. Whatever comes out of my mouth when they call for the vote is probably what my decision will be. My only hope is that if this is approved or when this is approved that the build -out of the phasing take the amount of time that I think they will, which is fairly extensive and that the road improvements can keep up with or out -pace the build -out of this development. 58 homes for the initial two phases is not hideous although it's 100 something more cars. It does insure that there will be another northern route built over the creek in that direction. It is really hard to decide what is best in a situation like this. I would love to just say I'm not going to approve anything ever again unless the roads are approved first. We've had those discussions a lot within this body. I don't even know where this discussion is going but I do have severe reservations about adding again another large contingent of housing in this area until those roads are improved. Thanks. Anthes: Mr. Pate, the assessments that have been collected on Mt. Comfort to date, are they going to be enough to construct this road whether or not this bond issue passes? Pate: No, not at this time. The estimated costs of these improvements I think exceed two million dollars for Rupple Road through Dean Solomon through that intersection and that's not what we've collected to this date. As we look at further development and future traffic we continue to require assessments as those come up. Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 28 Anthes: Pate: Anthes: Pate: Graves: Anthes: Graves: Anthes: Trumbo: Anthes: Ostner: Anthes: Ostner: Pate: What is the time line on that assessment being held? Is there a time limit that we can hold that money? 5 years. Does the city expect to have a bond issue in place and passed before the escrow expires? Like I said, staff has continued to go forward. We are picking an engineer next week to do a design on this. So that process can be completed, and that is one of the most timely processes; you have a six or seven month signing process and hopefully funding will be worked out at that point in time. I did want to follow up on something Commissioner Myres said, just so everyone is clear. On page 2 of 38 phase numbers are there on 77 lots that will be built out in two phases, but if you think about it when you final plat these two there will be no homes and no traffic generated and the bridge will have to be completed and inspected. So at maximum there will be 58 if those are all built out initial homes and initial traffic. Madame Chair. Commissioner Graves. I am going to move for approval of Preliminary Plat 06-1977 with the 26 stated conditions of approval and a finding in favor of condition number one, condition number including all the subparts listed there, condition number three, and as we've already changed on condition number four. I have a motion. Do I hear a second? Second. A motion to approve by Commissioner Graves. A second by Commissioner Trumbo. Is there further discussion? Madame Chair. Commissioner Ostner. I have a small question for staff. On condition number twelve, it reads Clabber Creek Trail developers agree to donate all the land between the flood plain lots to whom? To the city. Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 29 Ostner: Pate: Ostner: Pate: Ostner: Pate: Ostner: Pate: Ostner: Anthes: City parks? To the city. All land donated to the parks is donated to the city. Okay. I'm assuming parks board has met and has is understanding they are receiving that land... Yes, that's primarily for a trail because again, this development has already met their parks requirement, but they are working with our trails coordinator to obtain property there to look at a trail connection to Clabber Creek. The issue of additional land may be necessary to provide an adequate crossing trail at Raven Lane, that sort of concerns me. The developers are donating the land to city and parks for this trail. However, crossing is not being provided for? That's on us, I'm assuming. Could you elaborate how that will work? I think that condition and the way it is worded has to deal with the alignment of the trail with the side of the creek that it will be located on. We're not exactly sure where that will be located. That trail hasn't been constructed yet. It's in the early design phases. We wanted to be able to work with the developer and the applicant to ensure that the area there is adequate for that crossing. The last condition reads it is between the west and east property line so anything the street has to cross that floodplain so all that development would be at the right-of-way. I'm simply concerned about what would happen if there wouldn't be a crossing. So, you're telling me that you are going to take care of that after the approval? Yes. It will be part of our construction plan. Okay. Thank you. I have one further thing to say and that is that I share Commissioner Myres and maybe some others concern about 273 single-family lots with really two ways out that are assured. We see a lot in the future, but that may be some time particularly with it leading to a road that is undeveloped at this point. Does staff have an idea of how many years this project will take to build out? Pate: I'd have to defer to the developer on that one on overall phasing time frames. Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 30 Jeffcoat: The developer is committed to this being a continuous project all the way through phase six. They're not going to just build phase one and wait and build phase two and leave out and come back and build phase three and leave out and so on. They're going to do it continuously at one time. That's one reason for the six phasings of this. This is phase four. As one of the six phases as they become available will be platted and lots sold rather than wait until all 270 lots will be platted at one time. It will be a continuous process I think that continuous process actually depends on the economy and the actual physical construction could take eighteen months if he economy and a situation develops in a declining situation I'm sure that would be slower. If it stays as it is it could be faster. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Jeffcoat. To follow up on that, I have a question of staff. Basically we have an issue of concurrency of infrastructure with development. I know that there are communities that have ordinances on the books that talk about that infrastructure must be provided before development is allowed. I don't believe the city of Fayetteville has anything like that. In fact, I think the opposite, as it looks to development to make the improvements. Just assure me of that or restate the city policy about infrastructure and developments. Pate: Sure. With regard to infrastructure improvements obviously the city has a limited financial pot to pick from. We do have low property taxes within the city. That's not a high viability of a funding mechanism. Our capital improvement plan is reviewed by the City Council and approved with the budget for five years out. Those improvements, specifically street improvements, are proposed by the city engineering division and are recommended to the City Council through the street committee. In a way you are correct we do depend on development of community as traffic is generated to put their fair share of the improvements out there with this development. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Ostner: Yes, Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: On this issue of Mt. Comfort which I agree with Commissioner Myres, I've been approving things out here for a long time and I'm wondering when it is actually going to happen and I'm getting a little bit discouraged. I would just like to suggest that instead of a $10 million program that relies on a bond issue that several small, almost intersection solutions, be considered. At Gregg near on the north end not too far north of North Street I was amazed when somebody drove an asphalt machine Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 31 accidentally to provide a way for people to go around those intersections this was two or three years ago and how much relief that offered before the entire street was widened and realigned. If two or three of these intersections have lights and a third lane for turning in the center a traffic signal for a major intersection isn't more than $100,000. It would easily be under a million and I think tremendous relief would be experienced by the neighbors who live there and the people west who have to funnel in. It concerns me that small solutions like that aren't being considered. Each of the developments that we've approved in the past five years could have contributed to small solutions but with a solution is a $10 million solution the development that has contributed with these assessments there's no way that each development can really make a dent in that $10 million dollars. I would hope that the city staff and engineering might consider smaller almost short-term solutions I think Commissioner Myres said it best when she said that it's a country road. That's what country roads do when a certain intersection gets overloaded. You just make a third lane and everything works out. I am going to vote for this only because the bridge I believe will relieve a lot of traffic. I'm very concerned about Mt. Comfort. This might be the last one I can approve without major improvements being done. Thank you. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Clark: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: Very reluctantly I'm going to be supporting his development as well, not because I think it is an outstanding idea based on the traffic on Mt. Comfort but because our role is incredibly prescriptive. We have rules that we have to follow. If they're met then we're told that we must approve a preliminary plat. A lot of the comments that the neighbors made here and at subdivision and I'm so happy you showed up are policy related issues that your aldermen need to hear. They're the ones that can change the rules. We can't change the rules at this time. All we can do is try to put a stub -out and try to do what we can do to make it the best development not only today but five years from now. I think staff has helped us do some of that and I think adding the additional eastern stub -out might happen. I also know that a bridge will never be built unless we can get a developer to bear the cost to build it. That will give some traffic calming relief to the north and I think that is a much needed connection on Raven to get more traffic to the north. I will be voting for this tonight with the words of the other commissioners resounding in my ears. We're pushing it on Mt. Comfort. We're pushing it in a couple of places. I sincerely hope that we can get the policies changed to address this. I'm going to be doing it and I Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 32 hope people don't; people often point at the planning commission and say that was really a dumb move, sometimes all we can make are dumb moves because of the ordinances. Anthes: Mr. Pate, will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve PPL 06-1977 carries with a vote of 7-2-0. Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 33 PPL 06-1998: Preliminary Plat (THE HEIGHTS @ PARK WEST, 208): Submitted by MEL MILHOLLAND for property located at HWY 112, N OF I-540. The property is zoned R-PZD, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT (R-PZD 05-1796, PA - 1) and contains approximately 27.62 acres. The request is for a residential subdivision with 100 dwelling units. Anthes: Suzanne. Morgan: This proposed subdivision is on approximately 28 acres located south of 112 and east of Dean Solomon Road. The property is zoned R-PZD 05- 1796. It is a master plan development for Park West, of which this is planning area one. This is the first proposed development that we have seen for this development and consists of 100 lots of the proposed approximately 1700 dwelling units within the total development and 806,000 feet of commercial space. There is no commercial space proposed in this phase of the development. Of these 100 lots, 47 are proposed to allow attached town homes. The total density will be approximately 3.62 units/acre. One item that the applicant has addressed is requesting a minor modification to the master development plan that has been requested of the Zoning & Development Administrator. Because the approved planning area one allowed a maximum 91 units, the applicant is requesting to reduce the number of units allowed in planning area 12 and increase them in this planning area. With regard to the master street plan, there are several amendments that were discussed with the overall master development plan that would need to take place following approval with the actual approval of development. With this planning area that we are seeing, the request to realign Dean Solomon Road, a collector street, to the east and redesignate the existing Dean Solomon Road to a local street. Also, the applicant is requesting a realignment of the east -west collector street designated Park West Boulevard to match the location shown in the packet. The street committee has reviewed these requested amendments and has voted in favor of them. In addition to those amendments, the applicant will be following this request with several vacation requests of the existing right-of-way. As for connectivity, the applicant will be providing connectivity to Hwy 112 to the north as well as Dean Solomon to the south by realigning that street and to Honey Lane to the west. The attached master development plan is located on page 15 of your packet and shows additional street connections to the north and south in future phases of development. Street improvements are necessary however many of those improvements will be seen as assessment. As this is located along Hwy 112, we will be looking for assessment of the required improvements adjacent to this development rather than the construction. Those come to $153,928.75 to be paid prior to the final plat of this subdivision. Although this amount is less than the necessary cost to improve Hwy 112 adjacent to the property, staff finds that it is adequate for this 100 lot subdivision, Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 34 more than adequate. Also discussed with the Park West PZD was the necessary street traffic lights at Van Ashe and Hwy 112 as well as Park West and Hwy 112. Based on the cost of those traffic signals and the amount of traffic produced by this 100 lot subdivision, we've come to $7500 required for those traffic signals at this time. We've also included other improvements with regard to the development of this project. Those would need to be done and they're reflected on the plat. This was heard at subdivision committee on April 13`h. The adjacent owner to the east was present and raised concerns regarding traffic and buffering this development from the adjacent property which is zoned residential agricultural as well as I-1 further to the east. Staff recommends approval of this preliminary plat with a total of 28 conditions of approval. Those address Planning Commission determination of master street plan amendments. Also we've included in number two a list of vacations that would be required. The applicant will submit formal vacation requests at which time you can indicate whether or not you are in favor of those with this development as proposed. Most of those vacations will be necessary. Condition three expands upon street improvements proposed and other conditions are fairly standard. We do have a condition just that this applicant will need to conform to all of the requirements of the approved master development plan so that we can make sure that all of those requirements are met by this development. If you have any questions, let me know. Anthes: Thank you very much. Would any member of the public like to address this preliminary plat for the Heights at Park West? Seeing none, I'll close the public comment section. Oh, I'm sorry. Come on up. Yes, if you would hand it to Jeremy here he will pass it here. If you would state your name and give us your concerns. Benedict: I'm Marty Benedict. I live at 3481 North Hwy 112. We have 31 acres there at the corner where 112 turns. 112 borders our property for about .7 miles, 7/10 of a mile so we're quite concerned about this development that is going in. We're not opposed to building up there. I think that looking at what we have here, it is much too dense for the area. I don't think that this is appropriate for that area. I think it's going to cause a lot of traffic congestion. You talked about Crystal Springs about 273 houses/units, this is just the beginning of what I understand is going to be 1,000 units and is going to impact 112 and Dean Solomon. I've been before the Planning Commission before. I didn't do the speaking. Others did it for me. One of them said that Dean Solomon cannot handle that traffic even though the expanded on Dean Solomon because it goes through wetlands and marsh lands and you'll have trouble with Dean Solomon constantly. I would have him here tonight except he had a stroke and so could not be here tonight. My daughter also would be here tonight except that in speaking for me I Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 35 wouldn't have to speak here but one day she was jogging on 112 and a kid came, a 16 -year-old, came around 112 just north of our property with the up and down just off the corner of our property and went off the road and hit her and threw her 42 feet into a post. She's not here tonight. I have reasons to be concerned about this development and 112. Now I'm told that Tracy is going to expand 112 up to our property line I guess up to where we are I wonder what is going to happen to the rest of it because it is not going to handle that traffic. It's just not. With the development across from there that is going up and then just south of us, it's going to be a gridlock on Dean Solomon and 112 with major problems. Furthermore, I stepped out this morning of my house and I breathed in wonderful air and I stood there and relished it. Those of you who have lived there for 15 years and enjoyed that fresh air and I thought to myself with that development in I'd better enjoy that fresh air while I can. I'm not opposed to developing on this property. When the rest of the Park West comes up I will have a lot of objections. I've been before the Planning Commission before on the rest of it and we've had it voted down three times. This area I'm not as opposed to. I do think it is unwise to permit that high density on that terrain the way it is. I just don't think that it adapts to that terrain the way it is. At this point it shows where it is orange shows where our property is. You can see how 112 goes along our property. If you go out there you'll see that there's going to be a problem expanding 112 by our property. If you come onto our property you're going to have to cut down huge beautiful gorgeous trees. I don't know how that road will be expanded. It goes down very rapidly which reminds me, this plat for Park West is also on hillside. I think it is just much too dense for hillside and especially if you see how the terrain goes. We're not going to pay to vote in widening 112. If he widens it where he is and then comes back to where it goes like a roller coaster and that's how 112 is and they go whipping up and down and whip around the corner. It's a very dangerous area. With all this expansion there are going to be major problems. I think you should reconsider this high density on this area of it. Crystal Springs was talking about 273 units. This 100 units is the beginning of what I understand will be about 1000 units. With Dean Solomon, even if you widen it you've got that marsh land that won't be able to handle that kind of traffic. I wish Perry Pritchard were here to explain it to you. I'm not a scientist or an architect like he is. I would like to make one request. I probably won't have any consideration in reducing the units of this area so I would like to request that you at least put a buffer to our property to this property, either as a part of one he is putting elsewhere or much larger next to our property. I would appreciate that very much. I think that covers everything. My daughter was a fantastic athlete and she's not here tonight because of one prick. Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 36 Anthes: Thank you, Ms Benedict. Would any other member of the public like to address this item? Walker: Johnny Mac Walker. I'm with the Fayetteville (inaudible). Is this I have a question, is this the same developer that is doing Crystal Springs? The one we just talked about before, is it the same people? Morgan: No. Anthes: Would any member of the public like to address this preliminary plat for the Heights at Park West? Seeing none I'll close the public comment section and ask for the applicant's presentation. Jeffcoat: Tom Jeffcoat Milholland Company representing Paradigm Development, Tracy Hopkins, owner. This is also a very exciting project to be dealing with as well as Crystal Springs. This one is exciting in a different aspect in that it is taking a different approach to providing dynamic and interesting housing in a commercial development that was presented in a long drawn- out process in PZD being approved by this committee and this council and also the City Council. This is phase one of the development which is residential 100 units. The conditions of approval have been worked out with staff. There are several conditions of approval that should be emphasized and pointed out. The realignment of Dean Solomon Road is not only an aspect of condition of approval but it is one that this developer presented to staff in making improvements to the dangerous intersection existing on Dean Solomon and Hwy 112, improving of that dangerous intersection by vacating that particular section and realigning the roadway of Dean Solomon with the Belclaire that is being constructed to the north of Hwy 112. Those alignments and intersections is a big improvement to the improvement of the Hwy 112 situation at that intersection. That entire realignment and construction is an expense that is born by the developer and is not the city participating in. There are also improvements at the intersection of Salem Road and future master plan street development for Park West Boulevard that is one of the links in the master street plan that connects a major east -west corridor from Hwy 112 through this Park West PZD development that connects Salem Road east -west and eventually goes to Rupple, all of which is tied in with the Van Ashe and the entire master street plan improvements as part of the bond issue. So there is a good bit of planning of development and consideration has gone in. One of the conditions of approval that has come into question is part of condition 2C I believe it is for, no 3C, improvements along Hwy 112. That assessment contains several items that are in question. We in principle agree with the assessment. Some of the items in that assessment I believe was done and presented by staff for consideration coming over the figure maybe in question and one of those items happens to be the curb/gutter Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 37 along Hwy 112. The highway department is not currently requiring curb and gutter as part of their highway design I think that the improvements that were presented by staff and was outlined in our costs covers curb and gutter. It also provides an expense for complete drainage enclosure along that section of Hwy 112 I think that one of the conditions that we would like to see you provide in that assessment is with the approval of the highway department if the highway department would have to approve those improvements on Hwy 112 and we would abide by whatever the improvements are the highway department provides for. I think that the literal interpretation there is that while there is an assessment yes, we will agree to an assessment but that assessment has to be approved by the highway department not just an assessment made by the city since this is a highway. Also, we would like to point out that if you go back to Belclaire which is immediately north of this development, Belclaire is not assessed for any improvements along Hwy 1112. Part of their conditions of approval was realigning or straightening a connection with Howard Nickel Road at 112 and that was the only condition. They have much more frontage than this development does at this point on Hwy 112 and I just wanted to point that out to you that there is somewhat of an imbalance with the assessment being made, with the condition of approval being made. That's one of the reasons why we would like to have the stipulation of highway department approval on that. Are there any particular questions on that? I think either myself of the client will be able to address those. If we are to make those improvements on Hwy 112, wee would just as soon to make those improvements as far as our development. Other than that, your approval for this project is appreciated and we're available for any questions. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Jeffcoat. Commissioners? Could I start with staff addressing some of Ms Benedict's questions? I did have a question about one of the things that she is talking about is the amount of density on this property. This property has already been rezoned as an R-PZD. They have development rights for this number of parcels. I wanted city staff to kind of explain to where we are in the development process. Pate: Sure. As far as the planned zoning district, each one of the several planning areas identified zoning criteria... Anthes: Could you lean way into the mic? Pate: The zoning criteria that were established by the Planning Commission and the City Council essentially gives the developer rights to develop each of these planning areas in accordance to that zoning criteria. As I explained, we will review each one of these planning areas as we did with this first one, based on the zoning criteria. They presented to the City Council the Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 38 statement of commitments, the development standards, and all other criteria and conditions of approval of the original planned zoning district. With this particular planning area, the density was to be no greater than 4 units/acre, which they did meet that criteria. The number of dwelling units was set at a maximum of 91 by ordinance. The developer is allowed to petition the Zoning and Development Administrator to not increase the overall number of dwelling units on a PZD but move some of those dwelling units around up to 20%, so that was the reason for the nine additional units. As you'll note in conditions and as has been submitted in the planning areas acknowledging that nine units were moved from another planning area which happens to be in area 12 which is the multi- use area in the center closer to the center of the property. That is how the zoning criteria works. Anthes: Can you talk about the issue of Hwy 112 and it being a state highway and how you derived the assessment and what road improvements beyond what this developer is being asked to do the neighbors can anticipate? Pate: The actual number was submitted by the applicant's engineer. The city engineer did review that. We did recommend at technical plat review as part of this project that the assessment be for the widening of Hwy 112 18 feet from center line, which is a collector street status width for one half of the street with curbs, gutters, and storm drains and sidewalks. The highway department does approve curb and gutter and it does meet their criteria as obviously College Avenue and I believe Sam's Club show curbs and gutters on that particular development as well. With regard to the assessment, the applicant did as far as his submittal of the Park West planned zoning district, did indicate to the City Council as part of the statement of commitments that improvements on Hwy 112 would be part of this development. That is why we're seeing that part of the assessment here. We're recommending assessments instead of the street improvements for this frontage based on the number of vehicle trips generated on the frontage that this applicant currently has on Hwy 112. With regard to the signal, the signals are based on a number of vehicles generated again the applicant as part of the statement of commitments for this project and based on his traffic study indicated that there would be approximately 26,000 vehicle trips generated by this overall development once a full build -out was completed. This comprises approximately 3% of that full build -out as far as number of trips generated. Anthes: Three? Pate: Three, that is correct. That is how we derived the numbers that you see there based on the cost of traffic signals and that percent of that cost. Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 39 Harris: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Harris. Harris: We seem to be talking streets tonight. Ms Benedict had a concern about safety on Hwy 112 and I think I concurred with several other commissioners who voted in favor of Crystal Springs and that in part what we were hoping to happen was that Raven Lane would actually provide some help. So I would ask a similar question of this development. Are you satisfied with the level of improvements that will be made to Hwy 112 and do you feel that they will actually improve the traffic safety situation? Pate: With the assessment obviously nothing would be done, so what we're anticipating here is that Hwy 112 as it curves around Howard Nickel is being realigned in the center section, Dean Solomon is being realigned with this development, and this is something that that intersection needs further review and there is the potential that Hwy 112 and Howard Nickel would become a through street and Hwy 112 would T at some point. That's something that we will have to take a look at in the future, the design of the overall improvement. As is indicated in our master street plan, this is a significant arterial that connects Van Ashe all the way west across Howard Nickel and south to Rupple Road which is not far from Crystal Springs that we were just discussing. This is all part of that same arterial that will connect. It actually goes as far south as Hwy 62, which is 6th Street, and would connect near Farmington all the way into the NW Arkansas corridor. This is one of the arterials that we are getting right-of- way for as development occurs along this corridor as well as assessments. Again, not all of it will occur at the same time. That is several miles of length to make that occur. With this particular development, there is also a collector that is just south of this property, that would be again if you reference your phasing on page 15 of 36, part of that collector I think will decrease traffic on Hwy 112 because it will pull in the density proposed within this development which you don't have the benefit of the knowledge of the overall planned zoning district but it is a 856,000 square feet maximum build -out with 1700 dwelling units I believe if my memory serves me correctly. So it is a very type of dense development that sort of decreases in density and intensity as it gets out to the property so a lot of traffic would be generated and then brought into the property as opposed to Hwy 112. Concept plans show things such as round -a -bouts for traffic calming, signalization in two locations, so I think this part of the improvement yes is certainly meets our warrants and that is why we're recommending it. Harris: Thank you. Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 40 Graves: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Graves: I'd like to have staff respond to the comment regarding buffering as or attempts to buffer this property. Pate: It is our opinion that this single-family use adjacent to their property which I believe is residential agricultural and I-1 industrial is a buffer. It is a single-family lot. 87-91 are all single-family detached homes. They range in size from 7600 square feet up to 11,000+. Those are relatively standard single-family lot sizes. It varies along that street. Additionally, something you look at is the decreasing the set -back along the east property line, which is pretty common. Most of the rest of the development is a standard 20 -foot set -back that you would see if this was zoned RSF-4. So we can keep that in mind as part of our planned zoning district. We're not recommending here any additional buffering other than single-family uses. I would mention, however, as part of the planned zoning district, the fencing and things like that is all itemized and I would refer to that which is page 16, 17, and 18 which talks about fencing the front yard is prohibited other than decorative fencing for landscaping. The privacy fences turn to the outside of the lot so essentially the good part will be turned if there was a fence on the rear side of the lot toward the adjacent property owners. That is something that has been thought about through the overall development of this project. Trumbo: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner. Trumbo: A quick question of staff. The reclassification of Dean Solomon to a local street, what is it currently classified as? Pate: It is currently classified as a collector and will remain a collector in this realignment. The only portion that we're recommending be a local street is street I on your plats that connects to Honey Lane. As it is currently aligned, Dean Solomon heads to the northwest so it will remain a collector as it is realigned. Trumbo: Thank you. Lack: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Lack. Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 41 Lack: Pate: I think that when we're talking about street safety and traffic safety that is one thing that sells me on the project is the alignment of Dean Solomon. I think that from having driven Dean Solomon for years and the only thing that is scarier than knowing how many I've shanked off onto Dean Solomon when I was driving on it was the idea of trying to make a left- hand turn at 112 off of Dean Solomon because that is one of the most dangerous intersections that I have experienced in town. I think that that's one thing that definitely helps me with my like of this subdivision I think that is one thing the fact that it will align with the roadway to the north. I would like to ask staff, those comments from the applicant about Bell Claire and the fact that they were not assessed for improvements to 112 and I would like your comment on that. I believe if my memory serves me correctly that a lot of that discussion centered on improvements of preservation areas. That actually went to City Council with a bill of assurance that I believe was appealed. The street improvements were concentrated on the offsite improvements which was Howard Nickel to make that a T intersection to the Y that it is now. If my memory serves me correctly neither the Planning Commission nor the City Council discussed any assessments or improvements with that particular subdivision to the north. Lack: Thank you. Anthes: I just had a couple of quick questions about some notes in the staff report. I'll either address them to Mr. Pate or the applicant. There was some language that encouraged shared driveways and also that we would encourage front build -to lines on the front setbacks in condition 13. Do we not have the ability to require those? Pate: No, it was not part of the zoning criteria. They did not commit to that. It is part of the zoning document and their covenants that they would encourage those front build -to lines. I believe part of their covenants at this time that they are proposing that a portion of the structure shall be located as a front building set -back. Anthes: Mr. Hoskins, would you address those two items and your intent? Hoskins: I'm Tracy Hoskins with Paradigm Development. Actually we have put those in the original PZD because that is what our intent is. In a lot of cases you have shared driveways because the different curvature of the streets puts one house in closer proximity to the other et cetera so we have put it in there not that it was mandatory but as the homes come to our architectural committee we will be looking at those kinds of things. As far as the set -backs, that is a build -to requirement. That is our intent with that. Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 42 Again, with the curvature of streets and things, sometimes that is not possible. That is our intent with this development. Anthes: Okay, thank you. Hoskins: I'm sorry, but if I may, I want to address the improvements along Hwy 112. As with our original PZD application, we committed to doing improvements along Hwy 112. We're still committed to those improvements. The question is what is the degree of those improvements? My understanding as of this afternoon is that curb, gutter, and storm drainage in this particular area with state highways or what have you, would probably not be approved. I don't know that for a fact, but that is what my understanding is. As far as the subdivision on the north side on Hwy 112 straight across from us, the Belclaire Estates, they actually have more property along Hwy 112 than what the Heights at Park West does. They were not assessed any improvements along Hwy 112. It is my understanding that it didn't really have anything to do with tree preservation. With the curvature of Hwy 112 trees were removed, as a matter of fact. Their assessment, their offsite assessment, was the realignment of Howard Nickel Road and Hwy 112. After speaking with their engineers this afternoon I learned that that is what their assessment was. As far as Belclaire, their assessment of realigning the intersection of Howard Nickel and Hwy 112, well we're not only realigning the intersection of Dean Solomon Road and Hwy 112 and dedicating all of the right-of-way for that, constructing the entire street 28 feet back to back, and paying for the closing of the current intersection of Dean Solomon Road and Hwy 112. We're not opposed to improving Hwy 112. We're all for it. In fact, we'd like to go ahead and do it now, as a matter of fact and widen it 18 feet from center line and install sidewalks along Hwy 112 which with the golf course makes it safer to jog along, walk along, etc... We would rather go ahead and do those improvements now, making the highway more safe now. I don't think the city has another bond program to do improvements to Hwy 112 so they may not want those improvements done at this time. I guess what we're asking for is what the improvements along Hwy 112 if the highway department for this particular subdivision would not require curb, gutter, and underground storm drainage then we not be assessed for that. We would be happy to widen Hwy 112. We would be happy to do it with this development and install the sidewalks. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Hoskins, and just a clarification from staff. If the $153,928.75 as I understand it is 3% of what the expense of this entire development to contribute to 112? Pate: No. The 3% is referencing condition number letter A with $7500. Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 43 Anthes: Ah, I see. So what proportion of the 112 improvements is this first phase responsible for? Pate: One half of Hwy 112 to the south which is the full improvement to the south of the center line. Anthes: And what is staff's general opinion of how those numbers vary? Based on the highway department, I'm thinking about the Huntsville Road issue, that we saw recently with Planning Commission. How was that adjustment made? Pate: We're looking at an assessment here and not the actual improvements so we request the applicant supply those construction cost numbers. Our city engineering division did review those and concurred. As Suzanne mentioned, we found that these numbers are above for that type of development based on 100 lots. We thought that number was roughly proportional to the impact of the development. We just want to keep in mind here that the developer did commit to improvements on 112 as part of 1700 dwelling units and roughly 800,000 square feet of commercial development. Obviously we'll see other improvements as we go with the rest of the development project. Anthes: So basically while it is just these 100 units now you're looking at it for the entire 1700 lots? Pate: For this portion, yes. There is no other improvement anticipated for Hwy 112. This section curves around and goes south and we'll review that in a future phase. Anthes: Thank you. Is there further discussion? Lack: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Lack. Lack: There is one piece of that that I wonder if it would be possible to pull sidewalks out of the assessment portion that it might be possible unlike curb, gutter, and storm drainage to build those in a location where they wouldn't be damaged by future construction. You'd get the sidewalks at least into the development to benefit the people who move in there as well as the people that are there now. Pate: It is certainly possible. The concern that we have and the reason we're looking for an assessment and as someone mentioned there is some Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 44 vertical alignment challenges in Hwy 112 that may have to be taken out so how it is aligned is really the crucial part. We do not recommend improvements going in now because we'd have to go back and cut some areas and fill some. Most of these improvements may have to be moved anyway. That is something that we have to look at as well especially further to the east with the hills and that is something we have to take into consideration. That is relatively minor compared to the overall project. Graves: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Graves: I'm going to move for approval of preliminary plat 06-1998 with the 28 conditions of approval finding in favor on condition number one, finding in favor on condition number two, and finding in favor on condition number three including all subparts and agreeing with staff on number three that the assessment is appropriate for the reasons that have been stated by staff. Clark: Second. Anthes: A motion by Commissioner Graves and a second by Commissioner Clark. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve PPL 06-1998 carries with a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 45 RZN 06-2026: Rezoning (LAFAYETTE & MISSION, 485, 486): Submitted by Planning Staff on behalf of the neighborhood for property located NORTH AND EAST OF MISSION BOULEVARD AND LAFAYETTE STREET. The property is zoned RMF -24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY 24 UNITS/ACRE AND I-1, HEAVY COMMERCIAL, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. The request is to rezone the area to RMF -6, Residential Multi -family 6 units per acre. Anthes: May we have the staff report, please? Pate: This is a request specifically organized by Ms. Nancy Williams but on behalf of the neighborhood and area around Lafayette Street and Mission Boulevard. The request is to rezone the existing property which is RMF - 24, residential multi -family 24 units/acre to RMF -6, residential multi- family 6 units/acre. The neighborhood approached the planning staff to request a rezoning action for this neighborhood. It included a larger target area and if you will refer to page 11 of 14 it will refer you to that target area. It was east of Mission south of Maple, west of Tanglewood and north of Lafayette that was the overall target area, as well as the larger parcel that you see here to the east of Lafayette. That was the target neighborhood rezoning decision. All of the property owners were listed on a petition to rezone their property from RMF -24 to RMF -6. RMF -6 is residential multi -family 6 units/acre and is our lowest density multi -family district. There are some multi -family structures located within this zoning district. The petition was circulated and only those property owners who signed the petition were included with this proposal and those are indicated there on page 11 of 14, those areas that are heavily outlined. Those property owners do request to be rezoned. It is not all of the property owners as I mentioned in the target area and does not include the I-1 to the north. Those adjacent properties were all notified as represented by the stars there in regard to this particular application. Staff is recommending approval of this requested rezoning finding that it is primarily established residential district, primarily single-family but does include some multi -family dwelling uses at a relatively low density. This down -zoning would be compliant with our future land use map for this area and would be compatible with the adjacent properties. With that, staff is recommending that this be forwarded to the City Council with their recommendation for approval. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Pate. Would any member of the public like to address this rezoning request for Lafayette and Mission? Please come forward. Williams: Good evening. My name is Nancy Williams and I live at 716 East Lafayette. Anthes: Are you the applicant? Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 46 Williams: I'm one of them. Anthes: We need to hear from the public, other than the applicant. Pate: The neighbors, the city is pretty much the applicant here. The whole neighborhood has contacted us and we're kind of working on their behalf to bring this before you. Anthes: So we're viewing the city as the applicant. I'm sorry. Go right ahead. Williams: We have some neighbors in support of us if you want to raise your hands if you would like. Thank you. I'd be happy to answer any questions. This change in zoning would have a tendency to regularize a bit of a chaotic condition. On the south side of Lafayette Street across the street from me is one -family residences, we're multi -family 24 to the south of me immediately on the to the north of me immediately on the south side on Maple is industrial. Across the street from industrial is multi -family 4 units/acre. So there are four different zonings within two streets. That's not counting Tanglewood. I don't need to go into that. We just believe that this will bring us all into a little bit more cohesive units. It won't help the anomaly of the industrial area but it will help to unify the neighborhood. I really don't have anything more to say than what Jeremy said, but if you have any questions I'm here. Anthes: Thank you, Ms Williams. We may get back with you. Would any other member of the public like to address this item? Ryder: My name is Esther Ryder and I own three properties adjacent to that property. I own 807 East Maple and 434 Tanglewood and the property in between. I will keep this short. Mr. Lindsay has not been a good neighbor. It is absolutely rude. Anthes: I need you to discuss the property that is under the rezoning request and not the adjacent property that is not in this request. Ryder: Well, it was on his there was graffiti on the wall on the fence that he put up and then refused to do anything about. I believe he is not a good neighbor and it would be really nice to have that all rezoned so that in the future he couldn't put lots of different easements in there. Anthes: I understand what you're saying but you know that is not part of the rezoning request tonight. That property is not within the boundaries that we are considering. Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 47 Ryder: I thought it was in the zoning area. Anthes: No. Ryder: Okay. Anthes: Would any other member of the public like to speak to this rezoning? Seeing none, I'll close the public comment section. I believe we've heard from both sides of the applicant, unless one of you has something else you want to say, Ms Williams or the city, then we'll just start with deliberations of the commission. Myres: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Myres. Myres: I'd like to make a motion to approve rezoning of 06-2026 under the conditions of approval. That's just fine, I'll agree with the findings of that. Ostner: I'll second. Anthes: We have a motion to forward by Commissioner Myres and a second by Commissioner Ostner. I just want to ask a quick question and that is of staff. We're looking at an RMF -6 designation as opposed to an RSF-8, can you just describe why you chose a multi -family designation number six then? Pate: I believe that is to allow for any existing two-family or multi -family structures to remain without becoming non -conforming. Anthes: Thank you very much. Is there further comment? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to forward RZN 06-2026 carries with a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 48 RZN 06-2049: (COMBS, 564): Submitted by ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC for property located at SE CORNER HWY 16 AND MORNINGSIDE DRIVE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMKLY — 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 62.00 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RMF -24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY, 24 UNITS/ACRE. Anthes: May we have the staff report? Garner: This property is located at the southeast corner of 15`h Street and Morningside Drive in Fayetteville. It is zoned RSF-4 single family with four units/acre. It contains approximately 62 acres of agricultural land. It is surrounded by mainly undeveloped and agricultural uses in nature with some industrial uses for the eastern portion of the site near 15th Street. The request is to rezone the property from RSF-4 to RMF -24. In the information provided by the applicant it appears that he wants to develop the property in accordance with RMF -24 zoning regulations. Based on density, this would allow approximately1500 multi -family dwelling units. Access to this site is from Morningside Drive which is a collector on the western property line and 15th Street which is a principal arterial on the northern property line. Both water and sewer are available to this property. The fire department and police department reviewed this request and did not find that this rezoning would have any adverse impact to their provision of services. Future land use plan designates this site as industrial. Staffs' findings for this rezoning, in general we find it inconsistent with the land use policies and objectives and principles. We find that a straight rezoning to RMF -24 across the entire 62 acre site is not really compatible with the surrounding zonings. There are industrial zonings to the east, south, and portion of the western edge of this site. There is a small block of multi -family zoning adjacent to the western comer of this site and some other residential uses and zonings to the north. We find that in this transition area between the industrial area and the residential area a straight rezoning to multi -family would have the potential for some incompatible development and we would be more likely to support planned zoning district where you can provide a mix of uses and transition in density. The traffic that would be generated by this proposed rezoning approaches 15,000 average daily vehicular trips which is a higher value of traffic than Morningside Drive which is a collector currently supports and the same on Hwy 16. The traffic generated by this rezoning would also have a potential for increased traffic danger and congestion based on these traffic flows. However, we would look at street improvements and what would be required when this property is developed to make sure that it is developed in a safe manner as far as traffic issues. In summary, we find that straight rezoning to RMF -24 doesn't give the city assurance that it would be compatible development that would occur. We would be more than likely to support a planning Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 49 zoning district. At this time, we are recommended that you deny the request. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Garner. Would any member of the public like to address this rezoning request for Combs? Please come forward. Hannah: Hi. My name is Thad Hannah. I own the property on the eastern border of this property on 156 Street. The only thing that I'm requesting is that if it is approved that is from light industrial if we have multi -family going in there that we make the request that a barbed wire fence be put between the industrial and houses and proposed plan. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Hannah. Walker: Again, my name is Johnny Mac Walker. My concern is that of totally overdeveloped issues. We just had a multi -unit project built right to the north of that area. I guess what I'm wanting to see from the city we have a census coming, is there a need for all these multi-plex apartment buildings that are being built in Fayetteville? 1500 units, that scares me. We haven't seen what is going to happen with this new development and I think it is time that we're just being a bit overdeveloped and until we see the need for this housing I don't think it is a good idea at all. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Walker. Would any other member of the public like to speak? Seeing none, I'll close the public comment section and ask for the presentation from the applicant. Humbard: Thank you. My name is Phil Humbard. I am with Engineering Services up in Springdale. This property has about 25 acres of developable land on it. The remaining portion of the property is at the flood zone. I don't know if it was my, well 25 acres times 24 units/ acre is about 500 units or 524 units. I don't know where the 1500 units came from how we would ever get 1500 units on this property. It's just development unit/acre. We're not really talking about 1500 units here. We're talking about something extremely less than that. As far as using the planned development zone concept to do this project, I talked to the developer and he has no problem with that. I guess I thought the questions may be about what would be required in that methodology. I guess the question I have and I probably should have asked it before I got here is can we just put apartments in that zone or do we have to use different types of... Anthes: It is possible to do a residential PZD with residential property. Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 50 Humbard: Anthes: Pate: Anthes: Humbard: Anthes: Humbard: Anthes: Humbard: Anthes: Humbard: Pate: Okay. With that, I don't have any problem with changing my request from RMF -24 to planned development zone if that is possible, thank you. If you have any questions, I'll try to answer them. Thank you very much. We'll get back to you. A question of staff. If the applicant is interested in pursuing a PZD would we table this request and have them bring back a request for a planned zoning district or do you need an action on this particular rezoning request? Tabling would be an action...I suppose I would recommend that it be tabled indefinitely at this point in time. That would give staff the ability to discuss with the applicant and look at plans and see about a single -use PZD on the site and obviously that is something that would have to be evaluated on its own merits, too. If you table it indefinitely then the applicant would be able to bring this back before you. Was the applicant under the impression that we could change that zoning tonight? I was hoping we could. A planned zoning district requires a considerable amount of drawing in order to bring that application forward and you would have to comply with the requirements of a planned zoning district application. Okay, you just can't agree to comply with it and go from there. No, because we wouldn't know what it is until you draw it. I understand. Would you like us to discuss it and go forward with this application at this time? With this application? If you deny it, can we come back with a plan? Obviously you're not going to go against staff recommendation so... If the Planning Commission chooses to approve this rezoning it would automatically go forward to City Council. If the Planning Commission chooses to deny this application you have two options. One is to appeal to the City Council within 10 business days. The other is to discuss with staff other alternatives other than different zoning districts or a planned zoning district. Humbard: I'm not sure what the best course of action would be. I guess we'll just... Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 51 Pate: Madame Chair, I would recommend that if Mr. Humbard would like to sit down with staff that you table this item and within the next two weeks we can look over the PZD application and if that is something that interests the applicant then we can go in that direction and if not we can bring this item back before you. Trumbo: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Trumbo. Trumbo: I would like to make a motion that we table RZN 06-2049 indefinitely. Myres: I'll second. Anthes: We have a motion to table indefinitely by Commissioner Trumbo and a second by Commissioner Myres. Mr. Pate, will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to table RZN 06-2049 carries with a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 52 ANX 06-2046: (OLD WIRE INVESTORS, 217): Submitted by RAYMOND SMITH for property located at NW INTERSECTION OF OLD WIRE AND ROM ORCHARD ROAD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 30.70 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. RZN 06-2047: (OLD WIRE INVESTORS, 217): Submitted by RAYMOND SMITH for property located at NW INTERSECTION OF OLD WIRE AND ROM ORCHARD ROAD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 35.51 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, Residential Single -Family, 4 units per acre. Garner: This property is located at the northwest intersection of Old Wire and Rom Orchard Road east of Fayetteville. I will summarize both the annexation and rezoning together and we can answer any specific questions you might have. Subject annexation property was included in an annexation request that came before the Planning Commission on October 2005. Staff recommended denial of the request at that time and annexation was denied unanimously. The applicants included an additional property owner and one acre parcel on the north side of Old Wire Road in the current request for annexation and rezoning. Additional background, in March 2006 the applicant submitted a preliminary plat to the City of Fayetteville for a subdivision with 77 residential single-family lots. This subdivision has been tabled until the type of sewer service can be determined. The property that can be annexed contains five parcels consisting of 31 acres. The rezoning application contains approximately 5 acre parcel as well as that within the city limits. There is a difference in the acres between the annexation and rezoning. The applicant proposes annexation of 31.00 acres into the city and rezone the property if it were annexed from Residential -Agricultural to RSF-4, Residential Single -Family, 4 units per acre. The current site has access to Old Wire Road. The site has water available and sanitary sewer is not adjacent to the site. The nearest sewer main is approximately 2,500' west of the site on Old Wire Road. The fire and police depai intent responded, and did not have any adverse effects on their services noted. Other than that they did acknowledge that it would be a change in the population density in this area. Staff finds annexation of this property would be in contrast to the city's policy not to annex islands or peninsulas. Finding that the configuration of these parcels would create a peninsula that would be undesirable and would have potential to have city services extended to areas where it would provide some potential service problems. Staff has discussed with the applicant that we would be more in support of this request if they were able to get the support of some of the adjacent property owners and provide a more continuous parcel to be annexed in and rezoned. As far as response, they have been unsuccessful in obtaining support from neighbors. Staff finds that this annexation and rezoning in general would not be compatible with Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 53 this area. It is largely agricultural, rural residential at this time. The density proposed, 4 units per acre, would not be compatible with these land uses. The closest subdivision is west of Crossover Road or south of Skillern Road. Those are the main reasons why we recommend denial and we would be happy to answer any questions you might have. Anthes: Would any member of the public would like to address either the annexation or rezoning for Old Wire Investors. Gaston: Hello, my name is Colleen Gaston at 3270 Rom Orchard Road, which is one of the connector streets to this proposed subdivision. I definitely oppose the proposed rezoning. If you have looked at any of the attached maps to the staff report, you will see surrounding on all sides of this proposed annexation and rezoning land, the houses are on tracts of minimum 2 acres. More often, 3,4,5,6, and 10 acres. This falls completely out of character with this surrounding area. I'm not clear on the staff report on the traffic issue, exactly on what is being said. I guess there is a letter from the police department from Captain William Brown. It stated that the proposal would have negligible impact on the cost from police services and traffic congestion for the area. Elsewhere in the report, it talked about increasing the density of traffic from approximately 170 vehicles per day to 1,380 vehicle trips per day. To me this is not just a negligible increase, particularly at certain times of the day. The intersection of Old Wire and Crossover, at morning rush hour and evening, has traffic backed up at least a mile on Crossover. This will clearly add to that traffic problem, not to mention the fact that there are several blind curves associated with this project. I do, however, have mixed feelings about the annexation. Some of my neighbors share those same concerns. If there is going to be development in this area, and we all know there is going to be more development, we would like to see it on a sewer system. We think that it would be better for the city and those of us in the area. If this was developed with sewer as opposed to septic, if you're looking at 80 houses on 35 acres. Its sort of a catch twenty-two, I understand the staff recommendation for why they oppose the annexation. At the same time, I think there is some value to the city having property come in with sewer. Although, not as densely as proposed. The idea about this would be if this was annexed in as R -A, but allowed to have sewer. I think those are the main points. This did come up before the Planning Commission in October and I know that many of you were here at that time and heard a number of the neighbors talk about how this proposal was not in keeping with the area. This is an area that is going to be developed with a lot of subdivisions. The surrounding properties are pretty stable and are going to stay with very low density housing on it. This would be an island of very dense development and for that reason, I think I support the staff's recommendation that this not be rezoned RSF-4. Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 54 Anthes: Thank you Mrs. Gaston, would any other member of the public like to address this item? Seeing none, I will close the public comment section. Oh, in the back. Elliot: My name is Don Elliot, I live at 3743 Bridgewater and I've spoken here once before, so I don't really want to repeat what I've already said. But I would like to join in with Mrs. Gaston said. The report from the senior planner states, this use is not compatible with adjacent land use or density in the surrounding area. We had to sell a 40 acre tract that had its own covenants and no lots less than 5 acres. That's the 40 acres just across the street, just east of this land. While there are closer houses nearby that are less than 5 acres, they are not even close to this dense. I don't know if you have looked at the traffic, but I've talked with Perry Franklin about this, who I think does a great job. If you are traveling west on Old Wire Road at Crossover, you will sit thru three lights minimum between 7:30am to 8:15 in the morning. Coming back, going east on Old Wire Road and Crossover, I was just there last week sitting there at 6'oclock sitting thru three lights. I don't know how much you look at the traffic, but the traffic at that intersection at those times of day, going those directions, is horrendous. I don't see what you would do, you would have to change the road out there. If you put in 77 units and expect them to get to work on time and get home at a decent hour. Anyway, this project is just not compatible in that area. Anthes: Anyone else would like to speak on this item? Seeing none, I'll go ahead and close the public comment section and ask for the applicant's presentation. Sloan: I'm Charlie Sloan, representing the applicant. I'm a developer in Fayetteville, as you know. I do not have any investment or interest in this project. This project came through back in October at a time that I brought a project through. There were three of us, Mark Spradlin, Tim Estes, and myself. The first project that came through was Skillem Drive behind Savanna. It created a peninsula; it stuck out. It wasn't as big as this one. But, then again, it did get passed. My project, second, I was surrounded on three sides by the City of Fayetteville, I was annexed in. Sitting outside, talking to my engineer afterwards, we found out that this project was denied on the annexation. Later on, I read in the paper where this had gone to the county and had taken a conceptual plat only, to the county. It was not a plat to be approved, but it had gone to the county. They did seem to like it, it was in the paper. They acted like they would develop this property. The problem is to me as a private citizen on this, is if there is a project going to happen out there, sewer is available to this property. I've contacted the developers, I didn't know them, but said why not run sewer out there. They said that they would be willing to go back Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 55 Clark: and run sewer, at least a couple 1000 feet of sewer. We are out the same amount of money whether we put this on the step system or we put it on a sewer system in the City of Fayetteville. That's the issue that got me involved. One of these days, this area will be annexed in out there and the citizens of Fayetteville will be paying for sewer out there. My problem is, why not let private dollars pay for something that will be a public utility, plus they will have to upgrade the sewer water system, if they put the subdivision in. There is a 4 inch water line going out there, they will be putting in an 8, the City will probably want to upgrade that. It will cost - share you to 12. So, those are the issues that got me involved in this, it's strictly not knowing the issues about the compatibility, the rezoning, or the lay out of the subdivision. Five acres of their property is already in the City. The rest of it, they are asking to come in. The big issue, I saw, was whether this comes into the city as an annexation or not, or if this plan is approved on the rezoning. Tell these people what the process is to go forward, to let them spend private dollars to take sewer out to this area, that I've felt like would eventually benefit everybody in that area. Some of the homes though developed on 5 acre lots, have covenants that will not allow them to ever break it down and develop smaller lots out there. Do you have a need for sewer? I don't know. Obviously, if there is a septic system working fine, it's working fine. I just hate to see a subdivision put on a step system that could be put on City sewer, even though it is a big expense to these people. This is a chance for us to let private dollars pay for it. That's the reason I ask to bring this forward, and try one more time. Ask if that is possible or maybe this is not the mechanism to go with it. Maybe they will get approved by the County and then come back in and request to be put on the City sewer system, which is fine with them. 122 lots, I believe is what the calculations are for 4 units per acre. They were proposing around 82-83 lots on their latest thing. We did talk with one of the neighbors for them, that I happen to know. They agreed to sale the one acre lot that was carved out of this, so it really made this an odd shape piece of property. It still creates a peninsula. We talked with the two other land owners, and they request not to come in. Cooper runs a business, landscaping business and he wishes at this time not to be in. He had a letter signed for me and his wife said he lost it. He didn't have it with him the other day when I chased him down. He did say that he did not wish, at this time, to come into the City of Fayetteville, because he is running a landscaping business. That is my two cents. I have been told millions of times that not creating a peninsula is just a guideline. So, I'm asking for more clarification. If it's just a guideline, and 5 acres is already in the City, what is staff's rationale that the rest of the utilities are not available? What's unique about this one? Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 56 Pate: With any annexation request, we look at all those guidelines and polices. If we feel it does not create a dangerous situation or there is some reason that, for instance, a request creates an island and we recommend it, the applicant has gone through every possible means to acquire that property or have that property come in. It's something we will evaluate each and every one of them on their own merit with every single request. The City Council has obviously gone against our recommendation, even recently with an annexation request in northwest Fayetteville. This particular request came before us 6-8 months ago, with very little difference. With the exception of the one acre lot, as Mr. Sloan mentioned. We made a recommendation last summer for the applicant to look at properties, look at page 16 and 20, south of this down to Skillern Road. The property owner, that you mention - Mr. Lee, of course did not what to come in, which is a large notch of his property, in an effort to support this application. That has not been able to be done, for whatever reason. Those property owners do not wish to come into the city limits and staff does not feel this particular request was warranted or meet our guiding policies at this time. With regard to the other utilities as part of our finding, are utilities readily available? No. A sewer line is 2500 feet away. The development of this property would be unique with the surrounding properties. As staff mentioned earlier, the closest property developed as RSF-4 is west of Crossover, as you can see on the same page, or south of Skillern. Those properties are developed more around 2 or 2 'h units per acre. They are rather large lots in the area, even though you can see that they are much smaller than what's surrounding in the County. It was our rationale that it did not meet guiding policies for City Council and annexation. Graves: I have a question for staff as well. I'm testing my memory, I remember as Mr. Sloan does, that we saw several of these on one night and that I can see the Skillern Road on our one mile map here. I remember that we approved that one that night and didn't approve the other one. Partly based on staff recommendations, I believe, that staff recommended the one on Skillern Road for some reason. I don't remember what that was at this point. Pate: The one on Skillern Road was contiguous to an existing adjacent single family residential subdivision. If you look at that property, which those that were not here don't have the benefit of knowing, if you were on Skillern Road and how Natchez Trace curves around, it's directly to the east of that. It is a small potion of property, about 5 acres, I believe. It is much less and does not extend the city limits any further east of those properties surround that. There is an obvious peninsula zoned R -A [to the north] and within a conservation easement and that is not to be developed. That was annexed a number of years ago. The rest of the property is there, Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 57 you see, with the addition of the property just east of Township, which was just annexed in as well. This particular case, the city limit line from Skillern goes directly north without variation until you get quite a ways north and we felt it would not meet our guiding policies for this particular recommendation. As you mentioned, Planning Commission at that time, voted against the request to annex that property. We have found that nothing has changed since that particular request to warrant a recommendation. Anthes: Any further discussion on the annexation request? A motion? Clark: I'm kind of at a crossroads because I respect staff recommendations but I also know that with annexation comes development rights for the city. In other words, if somebody's going to develop this and put on a step system, since there is no zoning in the County, they can do that. I'd like some input from my fellow commissioners regarding annexing something that would go ahead and develop and not with a RSF-4 rezoning request. If you think it's too dense, there is no transition... I think its totally out of the norm for this area, but I'm not so sure that annexation is not a wise choice. Opposed to high density and septic system, so I'm interested on the feed back from the commissioners. Graves: I tend to agree; I don't see anything that's changed from when we saw this in October. We did vote it down last time. By the same token, I understand and appreciate that this could develop that similar density to what's proposed on a step system, if it stays in the county. So, from that stand point, I can see its justification for annexing as requested. I know the density proposed is not appropriate against what's already out there. So, I would not be in favor of RSF-4 on the rezoning request. Anthes: It seems we have this conversation every time we're looking at one of these rezoning and that is, sort of the threat of development without city streets sections, sewer systems, water sewer, etc...What I have never quite been clear about is whether this body is actually suppose to weigh the threat of what we do as a substandard infrastructure, when we are evaluating an annexation request. Pate: Really, you should look at it as findings, and part of that are infrastructure and utilities. The findings that are listed there, areas currently served by utilities and other public services should be annexed. Proposed annexation areas should not require the upgrading of utilities to meet the demands of development unless there is a threat to public safety. Phased annexation should be initiated by the City within active annexation areas based on planned service extensions or availability of services. One of those is in the paper right now. I don't believe those services are currently Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 58 in this location. The threat of development is before us with every single annexation request we have anymore. There is always a potential to develop something that does not meet these standards. I think that's something that Commission and Council, ultimately the policy making body, has to take in consideration every time they vote on an annexation request. Graves: I don't believe that this applicant has made a quote threat I think we've heard some covert comments along those lines from other applicants before. This applicant would prefer be in the City or they wouldn't be here a second time asking to come into the City. They could have gone before us with a step system or whatever, before now, if they wanted to do that. My comment, I used the word threat, but I didn't mean threat by the applicant. I just meant along the lines of the City attaching some more rights on development oversight when it comes in. It's true on all annexations. This one is within shouting distance of existing city boundaries. Williams: I certainly agree with Jeremy Pate on his analysis of annexation, but I would like to say that annexation is one of those issues where you have - especially City Council - has administrative discretion. The basic question is; do you want this property inside the city? I sure the guide lines will help you make the decision but it no small decision that you make on that level. You can recommend to the City Council an annexation even if maybe wouldn't meet all of the guidelines that we have for the 2020 or 2025 Plan. This is one place where you have tremendous amount of discretion. I just wanted to tell you that, because sometime you don't have any discretion, so this time you have a lot of discretion. Anthes: Any further discussion? Ostner: This is complicated and I'm glad I don't have to make the decision. I'm just going to recommend something to the others to make the discussion. The part two that Jeremy read us, 11.6.k: Proposed annexation areas should not require the upgrading of utilities to meet the demands of development unless there is a threat to public safety. To me, that is a one of the statements that I can use. The property that we are considering is a long distance from sewer. 2,500 feet is a long way to go. Sewer mains are expensive and I think that is important. That changes things, the area adjacent to this is in the City, but is not served by sewer to that extent. I'm not sure I'm in favor of this annexation. I'm certainly against the RSF-4, I would see RSF-1 or even R.5 to be possible zoning district if the Council saw to annex this area. I'm not sure either, but I'll be inclined to be against the annexation. Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 59 Clark: The sewer was 500 ft? Anthes: It is showing 2,500 ft. Clark: Where is the sewer? Sloan: Somewhere out there....laughter...He is not asking the City for the money, the developer is spending that money himself. They are willing to do that, to bring the sewer to them. They will be paying for that 2,500 ft to have the sewer come to them. It's not something the City would deliver to them, nor would water lines would be on them. All those expenses would be on them. I'm just saying, it's more than a wash for them. They probably will spend more money bringing sewer to them, than they would be putting a step system in. That's all I'm saying, I had a problem to see this go to a step system. Let the developers spend the money. He will bring the public utility out to that part of town. Let him spend the money to do it, he is willing to do that. That's the only reason I got involved with it, was over that issue that one of these days, that area is going to have to have service out there. Why not have private dollars pay for it now, rather then have the City pay for it later? That's the only reason why I got involved in this project, period. Ostner: Madam Chair, I did not mean to insinuate that the City would have to pay for the 2,500 feet. My point was simply to consider that this piece of property is including in its proposal to extend that as Mr. Sloan stated. I think it changes things; that simply means this piece of property is not only willing to apply for rezoning but is willing to go the long distance. It just makes it clear to me that it's a stretch. That's all I'm saying, I'm not casting judgment, not that it's bad. I'm not trying to say that the City is going to be holding the bag, I'm just saying it's a stretch. Part of our charge is to keep development contiguous I believe. That is why we are only allowed to annex adjacent to the City limits, under the logic of continuity. We are contiguous to the City limits, but not contiguous to the development. It's fairly undeveloped or sparsely developed as evidence by the 2,500 ft link. That's what I'm trying to say, it's a stretch. Anthes: Question for Mr. Williams, for as I can see here, the extension of the sewer line is a policy issue that an annexation, if we agree to accept property into the City, then we also agree to serve it with city services. What I'm wondering is, if this body recommended an annexation request, would we be requiring that the City would deliver City services to that site? Whereas, if the City Council chose to do so, they can negotiate with the applicant about extending those services... Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 60 Williams: In reality, there are number of places within Fayetteville that do not have sewer service. You get sewer service if you have a sewer main close enough to your property to access it. If they wanted sewer service inside the City, they would have to extend the main 2,500 ft at the developer's cost, not at the City's cost. The same thing even with the water. We have number of City residences, which I found out at recent City Council meetings, that don't have City water because they are not close enough to a water main and chose not to extend the water main, so they can get City water. So, the city makes available these services but you have to develop or the developer has to extend the sewer main to the corner of your property and you put your own service line to it. So, this would not be guaranteeing them the sewer service, even if they were annexed. Harris: Sloan: I did have a question for the applicant, Charlie, sorry. If we in fact, were to vote to approve the annexation but change the rezoning to a much less dense zone, would the applicant be amendable? Well, I guess zone it the way you want it and then I'll have to check with them. I will give you my permission. They have numbers they have to run to a certain point on the property. We will have to discuss it with the land owners around there. It would be nice if you could keep everything 5 acres. That's not going to be the reality of it. I don't know if they might not come back with a PZD. The problem of the zoning is the minimums on the widths and stuff like that when you are trying to work a property around. It's almost like you can throw these things away and just say we approve the project or not based on the layout, we like it. Because that gets into a tough situation to make things fit, because you have certain minimums. For instance, my project out there by my house, we did 1 acre estate lots. I asked for RSF-2 and got RSF-1. Ya'll gave me RSF-4, but we did the one acre, because a couple of those lots don't quite make that 50 -foot frontage, and didn't have the space to put it in there. So, we asked for RSF-2, still ended up going a little bit deeper, making our lots an acre depth. I can't speak for them; I'm not involved in that part of it. I was just trying to see if we could eliminate a step system out there, that's what I was trying to do with this. Compatibility is still yet another issue. I not sure if they would love to stay where they're at or somewhere in that range. All they can do is take your recommendation, maybe come back and switch it to a PZD. Something to allow them to guarantee to the neighbors what they are going be able to do to get some assurance. You know I'm a big fan of PZD's. Anthes: It seems to me that a lot of the discussion seems to be leaning towards possibility recommending annexation, but at a lower density zoning. I'm just looking at refact that this body made a unanimous recommendation awhile back and as staff has reported very little has actually changed in the Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 61 application between that time and now. In the interest of consistency and findings of the staff that the configuration is not in compliance with the policies for annexation, I make a motion to deny annexation request 06- 2046. Trumbo: Second. Anthes: A motion by Commissioner Anthes and a second by Commissioner Trumbo. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Pate: What was the motion for? Anthes: To deny. Roll Call: The motion to deny 06-2046 carries with a vote of 6-3-0. Anthes: As far as the rezoning request, it drops right? But do we still need to state our opinions? Williams: In the past, you have gone ahead and recommended, if the City Council disagrees with you on the zoning. You would recommend what it would be. Anthes: Well, we have had several Commissioners state that they thought the RSF- 4 zoning district is too dense for the area. We have had one Commissioner state that he thought a RSF 0.5 or RSF-1 would be more in keeping in the area. Do we have any others thoughts on that? Pate: RSF-.5, Residential Single -Family, ''A unit per acre, has a minimum size of two acres, basically 1 unit for every two acres. It just doesn't allow agricultural uses. We have RSF-1, Residential Single -Family, 1 unit per acre which has an 1 acre minimum. RSF-2, Residential Single -Family, 2 units per acre, and then RSF-4 and RSF-7. Anthes: Mr. Williams, do we need to just state our preference? Or do you want a motion? Williams: I think in the past, you voted on it. If I'm not mistaken. Anthes: I'm thinking we did as well. Williams: Why don't you go ahead? A conditional recommendation, if the City Council disagrees with you, assuming it is appealed, your recommendation would be... Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 62 Ostner: I will start with a motion of approving the same piece of property, forwarding it to the City Council as RSF-.05, '/z a unit per acre or 1 unit sitting on 2 acres. Anthes: I'll second Trumbo: It seems to me, we will rezone RSF-4, which is pretty much standard in a residential neighborhood. The thing that concerns me is this is pretty close to being in the center of town. It has access to Hwy 265 and Old Wire. Just purely planning, standing back and taking a look at it, it appears to me that RSF-4 would be a more appropriate zone. Just where it's based in the City. Not considering what's already there, but the neighbors to the north and to the south. Everything else is just raw land. I'm not really stuck on RSF-4, but it doesn't seem way on the outskirts; a denser zoning would be appropriate right here, at some point in time. That's my only comments. Harris: I would agree, and echo Commissioner Trumbo's comments. The applicant may wish that they don't get annexed with this zoning. I'm not entirely sure which one, I'm not married to RSF-4 either, but I would like to think of more dense on what we are currently discussing. Anthes: Any further discussion? We have a motion by Commissioner Ostner and second by Commissioner Anthes for RSF-.5 as a conditional recommendation to City Council. Will you call roll. Roll Call: The motion for RSF-.5 as a conditional recommendation to City Council for 06-2047 carries with a vote of 5-4-0. Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 63 RZN 06-2048: (TETRA INVESTMENTS, 598): Submitted by PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS, INC for property located at 1938 W CUSTER LANE. The property is zoned C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 1.37 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RMF -24, Residential Multi -family, 24 units per acre. Morgan: This property contains 1.37 acres. It consists of properties own by Tetra Investments, which consists of Lots 3 and 4 in Red Arrow Subdivision and part of Lots 11 and 12 in Cornelius Subdivision. The portion of the property requested for rezoning is currently zoned C-1. The remainder of property owned by this owner is zoned RMF -24. When Red Arrow Subdivision and Cornelius Subdivision were originally platted, the subject property was zoned RMF -24 at the time designated R-2. In 1969, the City Council zoned portion of the property C-1, basically the south east corner of Custer Lane and 18th Street. This property is affected by not only flood plains and creekbeds, there is considerable canopy on this property. Surrounding development consist mainly single family subdivision to the south. There are some duplex lots in that subdivision. The surrounding property is zoned RMF -24, which would allow more duplex lots if appropriate lot width and area is available. This property owned by Tetra Investments as well as the property to the west, excuse me, east, are undeveloped at this time. We have seen much development to the north and northeast of this develop, including Lazenby Properties, Crown subdivision, Crown Apaitments, and a newly platted C-2 development for commercial development in this area. The applicant requests the rezoning from C-1 to RMF -24. In evaluating this request staff finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the surrounding RMF -24 zoning. It is compatible with the potential development of surrounding vacant properties and is a down -zoning from the existing C-1 zoning. The general plan designates this area as well as the other areas zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. It matches what the zoning was in 1969. However, staff finds that the down -zoning of this property will not be detrimental to area. It is not developed at this time. It does not provide services to the existing residential areas. We also find that the remaining third will be remaining C-1 property to the north, which can be developed for commercial use for the potential future development of this property and surrounding properties. Also, there are C-2 properties to the north along the I-540 corridor, as well as the new subdivision University Village. Staff finds that the down -zoning to RMF -24 would not negatively impact natural amenities. The staff finds that it will likely reduce the amount of impervious surfaces and run-offs by this development. With regards to traffic congestion, staff and the police department does not feel that this rezoning will create a problem; a lower traffic count for the C-1 development and C-1 properties. There are no specific peak hours for commercial development. In regards to alteration Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 64 of population density by zoning RMF -24, staff finds that maximum 32 units would be allowed and under the current zoning, the applicant could develop commercial property and then have residential attached, residential units by right. Up to 24 units per acre not occupying more than 49% of the overall development. Therefore, as a C-1 zoning district you could have commercial and residential development, though it is atypical for those to occur. Therefore, staff is recommending in support of the rezoning to RMF -24. Anthes: Would anyone in the public like to make comments or address this rezoning for Tetra Investments? Madison: My name is (inaudible) Madison. I am here on behalf of my family, my mother, my father who is here, my brother, and my husband. We own seven homes in the Red Arrow Subdivision. Three of them are adjacent to Tetra Investment property 1940 West Custer, 1952 West Custer, and 1924 Arrow Head. I'm also here tonight on behalf of several home owners in the neighborhood, who could not be here tonight. I know that some people are still here, they managed to wait for item #9. If you guys could raise your hand that you're here. I know that some of the other residents was here earlier but had to leave. One woman commented that she had to go to work at 3 o'clock this morning, so she had to get to bed. But we are here tonight because we very much oppose this rezoning request. If you look at Exhibit A submitted by the applicant, the southeast comer of 18th street and west Custer Lane, while it may be zoned C-1, that's not what it is being used for. The existing C-1 that fronts on 18th street is a single family residence and a triplex. The triplex is relatively new, it would have come in since 1969. On West Custer, there is in C-1 a triplex. In the C-1 that is part of the rezoning request is a duplex. The lot 4, just at the south of that which you see is also owned by Tetra Investments is a major electrical easement. There is a huge power line that comes through that lot making it useless. You are looking at lot 3 for the access to this property. The first reason we oppose this rezoning request is because RMF -24 at its maximum density is not at all consistent with the use of adjacent property. If you were to look only at the zoning map, then you would think it would be consistent, but this is wrong. As you can see from the pictures we provided, the Red Arrow Subdivision is an older, well established neighborhood, comprised almost exclusively of single family homes. Yes, there are a handful of duplex's sprinkled throughout, and the two triplexes at the entrance off of 18`h. There is nothing nearly as dense as the maximum of RMF -24. We believe it is not sufficient for the zoning just to be compatible with the neighborhood zoning. It should also be compatible with the neighborhood uses. RMF -24 at its densest is not compatible at all, with single family homes in the Red Arrow Subdivision. Second, because this property could be built out to this maximum density of 24 Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 65 units per acre, we're very concern about what it could do to the Red Arrow Subdivision. Tetra Investments does not own property out to 18`h street, but only to West Custer. Which would suggest that they plan to access whatever development they have in the works by tearing down a duplex and making a driveway to West Custer. That's the duplex that is in the existing C-1. This is a very big concern for us, what everyone in the neighborhood now thinks is just a duplex, it's going to be a driveway to potentially 72 units. Right now on West Custer, South Custer, and Arrowhead there are only about 75 houses. The requested zoning could potentially double the number of housing units trying to use these streets. West Custer and Arrowhead are already used as a cut -through, to get from one entrance of I-540 to another. The additional traffic would only make things worse on a street that has no sidewalks, where children routinely play, where people walk, where people park in the street, and there's already enough traffic. Red Arrow has been around since the 50s or 60s and there are still many of the original homeowners in the neighborhood today. Red Arrow represents one of the few Fayetteville developments where you can buy a home with a good size yard and at an affordable price. Please don't make Red Arrow just another apartment complex subdivision. Please vote against the requested rezoning. Anthes: Would any other member of the public like to address this rezoning request? Errick: My name is Mike Errick and I live right up the street from where this is going in. This thing is completely incompatible with our neighborhood. It is an old established neighborhood, I've been there 30 years, and I don't want that fool thing there. If however, if the thing is put in, I would like to specify a large privacy fence between this and our neighborhood as a condition of the installing it. I would like to see a driveway cut directly to 18th street and not access West Custer or Arrowhead at all. I would like to see preservation of the trees and wildlife that live in this area right now. This is completely wrong for this area. Makes me wonder is staff went and looked at this place, anyway, thank you. Anthes: Would any other member of the public like to speak? Seeing none, we will close the public comments sections and ask the developer for his presentation. DuQuesne: My name is Jorge DuQuesne, I'm here on behalf of the developer. Basically, all he wants to do is rezone. He has one continuous property complete. He would like to rezone it all to the same zoning. He plans on developing the whole thing. The duplex would not be coming down, there is enough room to put a drive down the center there without actually tearing down that duplex. The developer is going to leave a lot of trees, a Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 66 lot of wildlife, which you don't normally have with commercial. We concur with the staffs comments. Trumbo: I have a couple of questions to clarify, is any of the property currently zoned RMF -24? Did I hear that, or is it all C-1? Pate: The property directly south of this is also owned, there are several properties owned by this applicant that are zoned RMF -24. The larger piece of property directly south, which I'm looking at page 16 of 20 on Exhibit A, everything you see there, Tetra Investments is zoned RMF -24. There are several parcels though, you can see also are currently zoned C-1. Trumbo: I also noticed this property is in the Design Overlay District. Pate: That is correct. Trumbo: Will that affect density at all? Pate: It would not. Trumbo: Just off the top of my head, I prefer, if I was him, be in favor in something as dense as this. I prefer to see it as a PZD, personally. I would like to hear what other Commissioners have to say about that. It's a pretty sensitive area. Ostner: I would echo those comments. Infill rezoning is a tricky issue, there are a lot of long time residents, even though those single family homes are zoned RMF -24, they are built and developed and currently living in this neighborhood, and supporting it, taking care of it. I'm not in favor of this RMF -24 rezoning. I will probably vote against it, and I would encourage the applicant to consider a specialized PZD zoning district to try and get the area rezoned to something that they can live with. Clark: I'm not going to support this rezoning as it stands, simply for a lot of the reasons Commissioner Ostner stated. I think a PZD could come back to us that could sway me to vote for it, but not as RMF -24. Also, not without calibrating with the neighbors and talking to them. This is a well established older neighborhood, which I'm very familiar with, and I think it has gone thru a rejuvenation phase in the last few years. The neighbors should be commended, it was on the precipice of really becoming a eye sore several years ago. It's not like that any more, it is a very nice vibrant neighborhood. I drove through it this weekend, there were a lot of kids out playing and there were a few dogs, which is not a good thing, but is shows a very vibrant, vital neighborhood. I would like to see that maintained and preserved. A PZD could give you more options, in terms Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 67 of tapering the development, so it helps this neighborhood continue to rejuvenate itself. With maybe some commercial aspects thrown in as well, because this is becoming an isolated island in the city. I think some commercial -designated property use could be useful in this area, not exclusively, but in a mixed development. I would truly encourage the applicant to rethink the zoning and come back maybe with a better idea that would be palatable and help the infill. I do believe in the infill, but also believe to do it sensibly and certainly taking the opinions of the neighbors into consideration. DuQuesne: The good majority of this project is also a floodway area, which won't allow for any kind of development. Which, of course, reduces the amount units that we could possibility put on here. It would make this area harder to development with that floodway going through the middle in any kind of commercialized situation. I just wanted to also bring that to the attention of the Commissioners. Anthes: Harris: Anthes: Pate: I believe we have a map on page 18 of our packet that shows the amount of floodplain and floodway through that property. That is the reason I'm a little bit confused about this. It looks to me like Tetra Investments owns lots 3 and 4 which is the existing duplex and that adjacent lot to the south. It sounds to me like they propose access to the eastern properties through lot 4 without the removal of the duplex on lot 3. Most of the land holdings they have (or the substantial amount of land holdings they have are under RMF -24 and they are asking only for this northern portion of C-1 to change. Currently, the C-1 zoning allows development that is much denser than what they are requesting. If you are looking at uses next to your neighborhood, the RMF -24 and what's allowed by right in that zoning district is actually a lot less than what's allowed by right in its current zoning definition. To a certain degree, the rezoning helps you. It helps mitigate problems that the neighbors have brought up this evening. My question though, to Mr. Pate, is it an island, this rezoning request? One that will further the discussion with the applicant about alternate development patterns in this area? To be honest, I can't speak to that. I'm not sure, we really haven't had that much in-depth conversation about what type of development we would see on this property. I have spoken with some neighbors in this neighborhood and must like the Lafayette Mission project you saw tonight, down zoning. There's some interest in this neighborhood to rezone the properties from RMF -24 to something more compatible with what the actual land use is. So, that is something that we are working on Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 68 with this neighborhood and the Aldermen involved in this ward. That is something we are looking at. Anything but that, I'm not sure I can answer in those 15 seconds your question. Anthes: Well, I kind of put you on the spot. Trumbo: I'm not against denser zoning here and I wouldn't be against that. But, both pieces I would prefer to see a PZD so we can tell exactly what was going to go where and the neighbors be aware of it as well. DuQuesne: I would like to ask, since the bottom piece is the majority of property and is zoned RMF -24, would you be able to develop that property now (inaudible) Trumbo: Yes, they would. DuQuesne: But if that's the case, would that see many of the members around here complaining about it, would that not still be the issue. Trumbo: I would like to see it a PZD; of course, you have the rights do it, as it is zoned. But, if you want my vote, I would prefer to have a PZD. DuQuesne: I understand that and I appreciate that. I would also like to bring up that there is a big 50 foot wide electrical easement and sewer easement in the middle of the property. That would make it harder to develop this property. Harris: I need some clarification on the residential use that is available to a C-1. In our regular chart of uses and conditional uses, residential is not called out. But there is that 164.03a which says "Attached residential uses shall be permitted in this district as a use by right". Density limitations for a detached residential uses and zoning districts shall be governed by the next chapter. I think you have stated that you needed to be less than 49% of that property? Morgan: That is correct. In order to be attached or accessory to the principal use in a C-1 zoning district, the total area utilized for residential use would have to be 49% or less of the total area of the development. Harris: Which would mean they would have to build 51% commercial use. Morgan: That's correct. Myers: I'm very ambivalent about this particular proposal. I would be a lot more comfortable if I could clearly see what floodway on the map was where I Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 69 can actually see this surrounding area. I realize that the parcel immediately to the south is zoned RMF -24 and coupled with the lot to the north, that gives them probably a lot more than 1.37 acres to develop. Although, again with that easement and that high tension line. I'm almost always willing to take staff's recommendation but I'm real concerned about putting an island, multi -family housing in behind a single-family residential. So, I'm likely to vote against it, as it is proposed. Trumbo: I'm going to make a motion to deny RZN 06-2048. Clark: Second. Anthes: A motion by Commissioner Trumbo and a second by Commissioner Clark to deny the application. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to deny 06-2046 carries with a vote of 9-0-0. Ostner: Point of information, Madam Chair, is the applicant aware of his 10 day appeal process for the rezoning situation? Anthes: I think we did state that earlier, but if not, thank you. Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 70 RZN 06-2050: (WALES, 373): Submitted by JASON AND AMY WALES for property located at 2055 N FOX HUNTER RD. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURE and contains approximately 1.43 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY — 4 UNITS/ACRE. Pate: This is property zoned currently R -A, Residential Agriculture and contains approximately 1.42 acres. It was annexed into the City, in February of this year, Ordinance#4828. It is a property that is surrounded on three sides by the City of Fayetteville and property within the Barrington Park Subdivision. Forever whatever reason at that time, the applicant did not request to rezone this property to RSF-4, which is what the surrounding properties are zoned except for the east, which is in the County. The applicant at this time is requesting that rezoning, because the R -A zoning district does inhibit any expansion to structures or use on this property. It also requires two acre minimum lot size. Finding that it is compatible with surrounding land uses and does incorporate our future land use plans, staff is recommending approval. Anthes: Thank you, would any member of the public like to address this rezoning request? I will close the public comment section and ask for the applicant presentation. Wales: Jason Wales, the applicant and property owner of the presentation. The staff report pretty much speaks for itself. I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Wales, Commissioners? Myres: I don't have any discussion, I just like to recommend approval of rezoning 06-2050 Wales. Graves: Second. Anthes: We have a motion to forward with a positive recommendation by Commissioner Myres, seconded by Commissioner Graves, is there other discussion? Will you call the roll. Roll Call: The motion to forward with recommendation 06-2050 carries with a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 71 RZN 06-2028: (MOUNTAIN RANCH, 479): Submitted by TOM TERMINELLA for property located at WEST OF 1-540 AND SOUTH OF BETTY JO DRIVE. The property is zoned C-1, RMF -24, RSF-4, and R -A, containing approximately 47.48 acres. The request is to adjust existing zoning lines and to rezone certain parcels of the property in the manner indicated with the attached maps and descriptions. Pate: This is several rezoning requests, actually, 10 different zoning boundaries or districts as you see itemized on the chart on page 1 of your staff report. It is comprised of approximately 48 acres in total with the different requests. You may remember in 2005, Planning Commission recommended and City Council did approve an overall rezoning of this area for 350 acres. At that time, there were 7 different zoning requests. Several of these zoning within the 10 parcels are simply adjustments of those boundaries. Staff has based our recommendations primary on those different types of uses, different types of requests, some of which are transitions in the boundaries. Some of them are new zoning districts, but with the same boundaries as the old, but regardless, staff has made three recommendations and if forwarded to the City Council, we would draft an Ordinance for each and every one of these for the City Council to review separately, as different rezoning district requests. I think for the sake of discussion, it is easier to discuss this all at once and see the breakdown there. Staff is recommending approval of all the zoning districts as they are currently requested. We are not in favor of the request to zone to C-2 without the Bill of Assurance that mirrors the previous Bill of Assurance on property adjacent to this that was zoned C-2. I would refer you to the color maps that I have passed out. They are probably the best way to walk around the property. Item number one, I will refer to this zoning district boundary map, that request from C-1 to C-2. The majority of that is located within the Design Overlay District and would be subject to those regulations. A smaller portion of that property is actually with in the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District, too. Staff is recommending approval of that zoning district subject to the Bill of Assurance offered by the applicant. I would reference you to that Bill of Assurance, it is located on page 16 and 17 of your staff report. It exactly mirrors the Bill of Assurance that the Planning Commission went through in detail with the applicant last year. Typically, a Bill of Assurance would state, certain use units are not allowed. This went further than that; it went into a specific use units, particularly use unit 17, and went through those particular uses that are itemized and further restricted those uses. Those included such things as buses, manufactured home sales, use car lots, auctioneers, cabinet makers, tattoo services, and motor repair, things of that nature. As well as use unit 19, bowling alleys, slot car racks, things of that nature. It is very detailed Bill of Assurance that the applicant has offered to the Planning Commission and City Council in consideration of this zoning. The same goes for the request number two which is approximately 2 acres. Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 72 That is a boundary shift to the west; not as much multi -family zoning district is needed in that location and more C-2 is desirable. Both of these are located on to be soon busy connecting streets, especially Persimmon once it is constructed. As well as Shiloh Drive, which is adjacent to I-540. If you look at 3 and 4, those are also boundary shifts. One from RSF-4 to RMF -24 and the other from RMF -24 to RSF-4. Again, as I mentioned in the staff report, the applicant has gone into further detail with engineers now and locating the actual road for this property. Where the street can be located and it was found that it would be suited in a different location that subsequently creates split zoning districts on the property and would not necessarily be beneficial either to develop or to recommend. Therefore, the applicant is requesting those zoning districts be changed. Item number 5, this is one zoning request that is new to this area. It is a request from C- 1, which it is currently zoned, to downzone this property RMF -12. That would create a zoning district that would transition from the proposed C-2 up to the RSF-2, which is proposed across the street. Staff is recommending in favor of this rezoning, finding that it is a compatible future land use. There are not really any existing land uses to be compatible with out here. This is a property that has not been developed as of yet. We do find it compatible and provides a transition between these two proposed land uses. Also, with the adoption of the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District, staff finds that there may be a way that the applicant can utilize some of those functions, such as, decreased setbacks, decreased road widths, and encourage some of the density there without getting into the hillside as much as our previous concerns were with RMF -24, that was previously requested. Parcel number 6, the current zoning is C-1; that is a downzoning to RSF-2. Again, across the street, west of where they are proposing the street. Number 7 is a request from R -A to a RSF-2, staff is supportive of that request. 8 is a request from R- A to C-2 that is a contiguous piece requested to be from C-2 to the north. It is also adjacent to Shiloh Drive and adjacent to other commercial and multi -family properties already zoned within this corridor. Number 9 is a request from R -A to RMF -18, you may remember on your second page there, E with the 350 acres rezoning, was originally requested to be RMF - 24, that has been reduced to RMF -18 and the boundaries shifted to the east Staff is supportive of that request as well. Finally, item number 10 is the smallest, less than 1/2 acre, almost the smallest; that request is also to be RMF -18. Finding that these uses are compatible with our General Land Use plan and 2020, our guiding principles for this area for mixed use development. This is a very large 350-400 acre development. We feel support services within walking distance to the school and major arterials which carry the highest volume in traffic. Staff feels supporting those types of zoning in this area are vital in meeting our planning policies and therefore recommend approval with those three different recommendations you see before you. Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 73 Anthes: There is no public in attendance, I'll ask for the applicant's presentation. Jorgensen: My name is Dave Jorgensen and on behalf of Tom Terminella, representing him on this project of rezoning requests. Jeremy, I followed right along with your presentation and it was very well put, totally agree with it. As Jeremy mentioned, the biggest part of this is to make some adjustments, because the road was adjusted to fit the terrain with a better lay of the land. After we got out there and started getting detailed on this right here, we figured out that we are going to have to make some adjustments to the location of that road. Therefore, that's the majority of the reason for the majority of these rezoning requests. Myres: Commissioners? I would like to say, that when we were looking at the rezoning requests on this very large piece of property, originally, it seemed to me like it was pretty likely we be seeing some of these adjustments. I appreciate that we're getting to finer grain detail. With the Hillside/Hilltop overlay shown now, that gives us a little bit more comfort. I know at the time, we were wishing for that to be in place with the original rezoning request. Lack: Pate: I think I would with concur that, and applaud that we are seeing the zoning to the RMF -12 inside and outside the lines and densities. Group those, and use some of the attributes of the Hillside ordinance. I would like to make a motion that we forward, actual, hold up for just a moment Jeremy, would you like these, you broken these down into three specific categories, would you like theses to be motioned to reflect that? It does not necessarily have to, if you agree with all the rezonings and as offered by the Bill of Assurance, regarding the C-2 portion, I recommend you make your motion that says that and all Commissioners agree to forward these. Again, I will put them in separate ordinances for each one. Lack: I will move then, that we forward with a recommendation for approval RZN 06-2028 in its entirely as written. Trumbo: Second, with the Bill of Assurance. Anthes: We have a motion by Commissioner Lack, second by Commissioner Trumbo to forward rezoning request 06-2028. Is there further discussion? Will you call roll. Roll Call: The motion to forward with recommendation 06-2028 carries with a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 74 Anthes: That was our last item of business, are there any announcements? Perhaps about the 17`h? Pate: Anthes: Pate: I'm sorry? Perhaps about the City Plan. City Plan 2025, we are having a meeting May 17`h. The policy summit is that morning and then we will have a public meeting at the library, please bring your children, if you like. There will be a special event for them as well, for City Planning. That will be our final presentation by Dover Kohl, with regards of City Plan 2025. Anthes: No more announcements, we are adjourned.