No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-06-12 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, June 12, 2006 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN ADM 06-2142: (CROSSOVER SIDEWALKS) Approved Page 5 LSD 06-1997: (DIVINITY HOTEL & CONDOS, 484) Tabled Page 6 ADM 06-2078: (DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN) Tabled Page 7 ADM 06-2137: (NELSON'S CROSSING SIGN) Approved Page 8 PPL 06-2053: (WELLSPRING, 400) Approved Page 12 PPL 06-2032: (TIMBERLAKE OFFICE PARK, 135) Approved Page 31 PPL 06-2079: (ADDISON ACRES SID, 569) Approved Page 35 R-PZD 06-2035: (THE MAPLES, 365) Denied Page 45 CUP 06-2089: (CORDES, 331) Approved Page 53 CUP 06-2090: (RAMSEY, 559) Approved Page 64 CUP 06-2091: (JONES, 367) Tabled Page 67 CUP 06-2092: (UNITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, 399) Approved Page 68 RZN 06-2088: (TRI -CITY INVESTMENTS, LLC, Tabled 527) Page 71 Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 2 MEMBERS PRESENT Lois Bryant Candy Clark James Graves Hilary Harris Audy Lack Sean Trumbo STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Andrew Garner Suzanne Morgan Jesse Fulcher Tim Conklin Leif Olson CITY ATTORNEY: Kit Williams MEMBERS ABSENT Jill Anthes Christine Myres Alan Ostner STAFF ABSENT Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 3 Graves: Welcome to the June 12, 2006 Fayetteville Planning Commission meeting, if Jeremy could call a roll. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call Graves, Lack, Harris, Clark, and Trumbo are present (Bryant arrived later). Graves: First up we have approval of minutes from the March 27. 2006 meeting and the April 24, 2006 meeting; those have both been provided to us in packets prior to the meeting. Is there a motion to approve those two sets of minutes? Clark: Motion. Graves: Do I hear a second? Lack: Second. Graves: There has been a motion and a second to approve the minutes from the March 27, 2006 and April 24, 2006 meetings. If we could have a vote. Roll Call: The minutes are approved by a vote of 5-0-0. Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 4 ADM 06-2142: Administrative Item (CROSSOVER SIDEWALKS): The request is to amend the Planning Commission's condition of approval for construction of sidewalks for those projects along Crossover Road as identified, to allow money -in -lieu of construction. Graves: We also have a consent item tonight, it's Administrative Item 06-2142. Is there anybody from the public who would want to take this off of the consent agenda and have it discussed? Are there any commissioners who would like to take it off the consent agenda and have it discussed? Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda? Clark: So made. Lack: Second. Graves: Ok, motion by Commissioner Clark with a second by Commission Lack, is there any discussion? Can we have the vote? Roll Call: The motion to approve ADM 06-2142 carries with a vote of 5-0-0. Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 5 LSD 06-1997: Large Scale Development (DIVINITY HOTEL & CONDOS, 484): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at 101 W. DICKSON, BETWEEN CHURCH AND BLOCK. The property is zoned C-3, CENTRAL COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 1.41 acres. The request is for a 10 -story mixed use building with a hotel, 2 restaurants, retail space, parking garage, and condominiums with a total of 84 residential dwelling units. THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THIS ITEM BE TABLED TO THE JUNE 26, 2006 PLANNING COMMISION MEETING. Graves: We have an old business item Large Scale Development 06-1997 the Divinity Hotel and Condominiums. The applicant has requested that this item be tabled until the June 26, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. Before we entertain a motion to table, does the staff have any comments about that item? Pate: The applicant has submitted a letter requesting it be tabled until June 26. It would be on old business on that agenda. As we discussed at the agenda setting session for this meeting staff will keep an eye on that agenda and inform the Planning Commission if it looks like it will be a significant agenda which at this point it does. Graves: Do I hear a motion to table this item until the June 26, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. Clark: So made. Graves: A motion by Commissioner Clark, is there a second? Trumbo: Second. Graves: Second by Commissioner Trumbo. Is there any discussion for the motion to table? I'll call for the vote. Roll Call: The motion to table LSD 06-1997 carries with a vote of 5-0-0. Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 6 ADM 06-2078: Administrative Item (DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN): For Discussion: Downtown Master Plan/Entertainment District Ordinance Amendments. THIS ITEM WILL BE TABLED TO THE JUNE 26, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Graves: Next on the agenda is new business, administrative item 06-2078, the Downtown Master Plan. Can we have the staff report on this item? Pate: These are amendments to the Unified Development Code for adoption of a Downtown Entertainment District and it addresses the following items as listed your staff report: Sidewalk Cafes, Bus Shelters, Taxi Stands, Artist Live/work Units, and Downtown Wayfinding. These amendments were passed out to the Planning Commission and City Attorney's office two meetings ago. The Planning Commission at that time requested that the items be forwarded to the City Attorney's office for review. There has been a memo attached for this particular item. I have received word from several commissioners that are not here tonight that they would like this item to be tabled to the next agenda in order for them to be here to discuss all of the items. That is staffs recommendation, to table the Downtown Master Plan Entertainment District regulations until the June 26, 2006 meeting. Graves: A question for staff, do we need to go ahead and take public comment on it before we would have a motion to table it. Pate: Yes, I would go ahead and recommend that because if there was anyone here that saw the advertisement they would need to be given an opportunity to speak. Graves: Is there any member of the public that would like to comment on Administrative Item 06-2078? Seeing none I'll bring it back to the Commission. Is there any discussion by any of the Commissioners? Is there a motion to table to the June 26 meeting? Clark: So made. Graves: A motion by Commissioner Clark. Do I hear a second? Harris Second. Graves: Second by Commissioner Harris. Any more discussion on the motion to table? I'll take the vote. Roll Call: The motion to approve ADM 06-2078 carries with a vote of 5-0-0. Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 7 ADM 06-2137• Administrative Item (NELSON'S CROSSING SIGN): The request is to utilize a message board -type sign, which constitutes a waiver of indirect lighting for signage as required in the Design Overlay District. Graves: Next on the agenda is Administrative Item 06-2137 the Nelson's Crossing Sign. If we could hear the staff report on this item. Garner: Yes sir. This property is located at the corner of Joyce Boulevard and Shiloh Drive and the Nelson's Crossing large scale development was approved on this site for a 62,000 square foot retail building, approximately 5,500 square foot retail building, and a 11,300 square foot office retail building. This is the location where the old Ramada Inn was. It was demolished and now they are in the process of building these new structures. The monument signs that are proposed for this development are at the two main entrances into the site: the westernmost entrance onto Joyce, and the entrance onto Shiloh Drive. The sign on Shiloh Drive is within the I-540 Design Overlay District and the requested message board is not allowed as it is considered to be direct lighting. And we've cited the section of the Unified Development Code that references that requirement. The applicant requests a message board monument sign and staff finds that illumination for the messages displayed on the sign are considered to be direct lighting. Staff is recommending approval of this waiver. We find that it would not be injurious to the neighborhood or the surrounding area: finding that it would be compatible with other signs in the area and there is a Walgreens just north of this property just across the street that has a message board sign. We do find that it would be compatible and we are recommending approval with two conditions just that the sign be a monument sign, condition number 1, and that per the Fayetteville Unified Development Code for message boards they be allowed to change their sign once every three hours. And page six and seven of your staff report shows what their sign looks like at this time of the proposal and there is also location on the site and we'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. Graves: Is there any member of the public who would like to comment on administrative item 06-2137 Nelson's Crossing? Can we have the presentation of the applicant on this item? Is the applicant here? Eckels: I guess everybody received what I sent to you. Great. The only concern that we had was the application of the verbiage indirect lighting compared to direct lighting and the only thing we can tell is industry standard direct lighting is speaking of say I take a light and flash it up on that wall that's direct lighting. If it's lit from behind like up in there that's indirect lighting so, it says only indirect lighting which would be from the inside. Well, in Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 8 all technicality a LED is indirect lighting because it is lit from behind and not only that, the issues that pertain to the value of the property, the value of tenants to want to rent, lease space and take some development, how it would hinder that and the biggest thing is in order to be in a monument status with a multi -tenant to adhere to those standards there has got to be a way for all tenants in these 30 some thousand square foot facilities to be on that sign that can only be 120 square feet. The only one we found to utilize that was an electronic message center. Keep within the 3 hour limit and everybody could stay advertised without having to build some monster which they're not even allowed to do because of where they are located. This is the most feasible way we found of getting rid of or fulfilling every obligation with this area. And I'm available for questions I guess, but that's about all I can say. Graves: Thank you. Commissioners. Pate: Mr. Chairman, could you have the applicant introduce himself so I can have his name printed. Graves: Yes, I forgot to do that. Can you come back to the microphone and introduce yourself? Eckels: I apologize. My name is Derek Eckels, Dixie Development, Springfield Missouri. Graves: Thank you. Clark: Could I ask Andrew a question? Graves: Yes, Commissioner Clark. Clark: Will this be the only sign here or the only monument sign? I'm not understanding. Garner: There will be a monument sign at this entrance onto Shiloh Drive. There will also the same monument sign on the entrance onto Joyce Boulevard. They would also be allowed wall signs but these would be the two freestanding signs, the only two freestanding signs on the property. Clark: Ok. We got a memo from the City Attorney about the signs and restrictions and stuff and I always pay attention to things like that. So, I'm wondering is there any type of fear that we are going to open a flood gate of applicants wanting the same waiver which will undercut the Sign Ordinance? Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 9 Williams: No, this does comply with the Sign Ordinance. The only thing they are asking waiver from is the 540 Overlay District which talked about direct as opposed to indirect lighting of signs and there is even some issues as you heard from the applicant today about that. I would say that you need to consider the staff's recommendation that it is direct lighting but then they also recommended you could waive that and they did recommend that you would waive that requirement. No, I don't see this as a problem with the Sign Ordinance, it does comply with the Sign Ordinance. Clark: Thank you, Mr. Williams. Graves: Commissioner Trumbo did you have something to.... Trumbo: Yeah, question for staff. I think what I just heard is there will not be any other signs allowed, there will not be any tall monuments signs such as Dixie Cafe, Home Depot. Those are centers and they have signs and this is also kind of a center not just necessarily one single retail business. Pate: Right, within the Design Overlay District those type of pole signs are not allowed; you need to do a monument style freestanding sign, that is what they are proposing in this case. Trumbo: Do have any other... do we allow message boards? Pate: Yes, outside of the Design Overlay District it's very common actually and you'll notice on Joyce Street alone, I believe, the new Hanks has a message type board and the Walgreens across the street so it's really only a factor because it's in the Design Overlay District that you're even considering this. The Planning Commission doesn't have the authority to waive the Sign Ordinance. So, that's not really the consideration here, it's because it's in the Design Overlay District, the Planning Commission has the authority within the Design Overlay District. Trumbo: Ok, is the Walgreens across? Pate: It's outside the District. Trumbo: It's outside the District, so they have display. Ok. Thank you. Lack: Mr. Chairman? Graves: Yes, Commissioner Lack? Roll Call: Bryant arrives. Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 10 Lack: I wondered in looking at the site plan, it's a question for the applicant I guess. In seeing the sign set perpendicular to the right-of-way, I wondered if it was double -sided or if it was sided only to the entrance? Eckels: It is double -sided, yes. Lack: Ok and for staff, I guess that still meets the quantity of signage? Pate: Yes, sir. Lack: And the calculation of square footage? Pate: That's correct. Lack: That was it. Graves: Anymore discussion? Clark: Mr. Chair? Graves: Yes, Commissioner Clark? Clark: I motion to approve administrative item 06-2137 with conditions of staff. Graves: There is a motion by Commissioner Clark to approve with the stated conditions. Is there a second? Trumbo: Second. Graves: Second by Commissioner Trumbo. Any further discussion before we take the vote? Jeremy. Roll Call: The motion to approve ADM 06-2137 carries with a vote of 6-0-0. Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 11 PPL 06-2053: Preliminary Plat (WELLSPING, 400): Submitted by CRITICAL PATH DESIGN for property located NE of RUPPLE RD and WEDINGTON DR. The property is zoned R-PZD, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DIST. and contains approximately 152.23 acres. The request is for a subdivision of 159 total lots with 132 single family lots. Graves: The next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat 06-2053 Wellspring. If we could have the staff report on this item? Garner: This property contains approximately 152.23 acres. It's located on the north side of Wedington Drive east of Rupple Road. The property is undeveloped with primarily agriculture with a couple of existing single family houses on the site. A creek enters the property from the east and travels north, towards Hamstring Creek. Bryce Davis Park is located adjacent to the east as well some single family subdivisions and multi- family development. As background, this property was rezoned in March 2006 for the Wellspring R-PZD which would allow mixed -used residential development in 7 seven planning areas each with a variety of conditional uses, permanent uses, building setbacks, lot width and area density and intensity. Approved zoning allowed for a maximum of approximately 550,000 square feet of non-residential space and a total 1,175 dwelling units for the site. And what you're seeing before you tonight is the first phase of development for Planning Area One which would divide that Planning Area called the Garden Homes into 159 lots. The first phase of this development plan would result in 132 single family dwelling units over the planning area 1; which is about 28.5 acres. The density would be 4.6 units per acre so what we are looking at tonight in detail is 132 units single family subdivision on approximately 29 acres. In addition to that, they are also subdividing some of the other lots along the planning area boundaries in anticipation of future development and the lot lines shown are broken down in table 2 of your staff report which show what the designations would be for the different lots. The applicant has attained administrative approval for modification to some of the zoning criteria and this was, when it came through as an original PZD, and by the time they came ready to propose this subdivision, there were some modifications and it has been approved as allowed by Ordinance, approved by the zoning and development administrator. Other issues in background for you to be aware of is access into the site is provided from Rupple Road and Wedington Drive and there is also a stub -out to the property from a subdivision to the northeast that would be connected with this plat. And there are also two other proposed entrances out to Rupple Road and that's part of this development and the developer would be responsible for signalizing Rupple Road in several places and would be phased in proportion to traffic volume as the site develops. The applicant requests a Master Street Plan amendment to Rupple Road from its current alignment Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 12 and recent concept designs by staff for Rupple Road are shown. This roadway is designed as is proposed with this the preliminary plat and the staff is in support of this amendment. It would have to go to City Council to have the Master Street Plan amendment approved. In addition, the circulation for this project, I'm sure the applicant will get into detail, but there are certain street design waivers, and staff is in support of several of these, and there a couple of these that we are not in favor of. There is correspondence from the applicant and waiver justification attached to your staff report, I'm sure you've probably looked at this. Street connectivity was looked at when the original street layout for this PZD was approved and staff is in support of the street connectivity as proposed. In addition, when some of the larger commercial lots get developed there would be additional street connections through those areas or we would be looking for street connectivity in those areas as well. Parks voted to accept a land dedication to meet requirements for park requirements and park land would be dedicated in the amount of almost 21 acres. In the addition a trail corridor as part of that would be provided as part of this development, through this property. The Subdivision Committee did discuss concern with some of the street design waivers and since the Subdivision Committee meeting we have gotten feedback from the fire department as requested and they did review the waiver requests and did not have concern with the waiver request from a fire and emergency access stand point. We have added some conditions of approval that the fire depai tment discussed that they would like to see just to make sure that there would not be any problem. We are recommending approval of this preliminary plat with conditions. Condition number 1 is Planning Commission determination of street connectivity I've already discussed. Planning Commission determination of street improvements, this is condition number 2. And 2A through C the staff is recommending a partial assessment and the amount listed in your staff report to be paid to the city for the phased cost of three new traffic signals. These signals would be located at the project's two southern entrances onto Rupple Road and the projects entrance onto Wedington Drive. And the dollar amount in your staff report is based on the traffic volume that would be generated by this phase. And condition 2B is referencing the street improvements to Rupple Road, constructing the boulevard street section on Rupple Road, and the street improvements would continue south to intersect with Wedington Drive, with three lanes at the intersection. And condition 2C is an assessment to be paid to continue the boulevard street section all the way to the northern property line. The Subdivision Committee did determine in favor of this condition; we didn't have the dollar values at that time but we do have dollar amounts now and we are ok with these. Condition number 3 is Planning Commission determination and recommendation for Master Street Plan amendment to Rupple Road, as I mentioned, and staff is recommending in favor of that and the Subdivision Committee also Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 13 determined in favor of that condition. Condition number 4 lists various waivers for street design and they have several street cross-sections that differ from those in the Master Street Plan and we do recommend in favor of those. Condition 4B is to construct a horizontal curve with the radius of less then 150 feet and what this is referring to is the cul-de-sac in northeast comer of the site. Instead of being a traditional cul-de-sac it would just be a loop street and staff does find in favor of that request. Condition 4C is to build a street cross-section with no curb or sidewalk, this is one of the waivers we don't find justification for, the absence of curb gutter and sidewalk for the lots as requested. Condition 4D is a waiver to exceed 4% grade within 100 feet of intersection and this occurs in one instance directly northwest of the pond in the northeastern portion of the site. We do find in favor of this request. We find the applicant's justification is justified. 4E is to construct a curb radius of 15 feet on residential street intersections. Staff does not recommend in favor of the requested 15 foot curb radius finding on the narrow streets proposed it would not allow for adequate vehicular turning, and this is one we did talk to the fire department about. And if the Planning Commission does recommend in favor of this the fire department just discussed that all on -street parking would need to be located a minimum of 40 feet of the intersection to allow for their emergency vehicles to swing around those more narrow curbs. And 4F is to allow on -street parking on one side of the proposed 22 foot street section and we recommend in favor of that request. Other conditions, I wanted to call your attention to Condition number 14, is referencing that residences in other structures in this subdivision shall be constructed in accordance with architectural standards and concepts that were approved with this R-PZD and we'll be looking for those at time of building permit and/or large scale development. Those are some of the main issues I wanted to highlight and well be happy answer any of your questions when you get looking at this in more detail. Graves: Thank you. Is there any public comment on this item preliminary plat 06- 2053? Seeing none, would the applicant please come forward and introduce yourself and give use your report. And also meant to mention before we start deciding that Commissioner Bryant has arrived as well, since we started the meeting. Jacobs: Good evening. I'm Todd Jacobs with Critical Path Design. I'm the project manager for Wellspring. I'd just briefly like to give you a little description of our design attempt for Wellspring and take you through the design real quickly. I think most of the planning commissioners have promoted this project that has been around for 8 or 9 months now and just look real quickly at the two waivers that the staff is not supporting and our design attempt and why we feel they are important. What you're looking for now is this is the preliminary plat we're bringing through for the garden homes Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 14 were planning all the lots for the entire property so when a mix -used project or a large scale, each individual lot will come back to planning commission staff to come through its own individual merits. So, what with this, being one of the first large PZD of the master plan we did ask for a few waivers that we weren't initially that far along the design. But the basic design of Wellspring is more of a traditional neighborhood design where we've designed everything for a 5 minute walk either from your home to the park, or home to the restaurants or mixed used area. So, the intent here is to lower the vehicle count and provide safe pedestrian walkways for people. And I think if you look through our site plan, we've gone way out of our way as part of our design philosophy to provide for these pedestrians to be able to access the entire site where land uses are not totally separated from or another and vehicles required. So, that kind of goes in with the waivers. What we are asking for in the two that we talked about with subdivision committee. I'll just go through these briefly on the waivers and give you our design intent and why we feel very passionately and very strongly at why these should be approved. Typically, on the 15 foot radiuses, what we looked at is what we, what you hear is TND, Traditional Neighborhood Design or you might hear New Urbanist Design, to us they are really the same thing they look at neighborhoods and how traffic patterns works and pedestrian patterns work. This is the design booklet that we passed out at for you at agenda session and this goes at start in with waiver number 4. Item E, this is a slide that talks about the 15 foot radius and why we are proposing it. With our design attempt is to provide a friendly pedestrian environment for the entire site, but to do that there is no one magic bullet to do it. So, we had this thing about waivers, we propose a smaller street cross-section, allow on -street parking, have pedestrian walkways in our residential neighborhoods from block to block so you can get to the park. But one of the key parts to keep a pedestrian feeling safe and traffic speed flow are a 15 foot radius. The typical City of Fayetteville is a 25 radius. And to show you in perspective of how what they difference is, if you look at the black chart as we talked a little about at subdivision. The difference between a 15 foot radius and a 25 width is 11.5 feet in the road that a pedestrian will have to cross and that adds 3.5 seconds to their crossing time. So with that, the diagram above that shows a 15 foot radius and then the black hatching is a typical 25 or 30 foot. A lot of people and what you'll hear from staff is why they are not talking in favor of this is it goes against traditional belief or engineering the last 4 years that a car or a fire truck or emergency vehicle or trash truck will turn a 15 radius and have to do encroach into the oncoming lane and that is true. But what we are asking you to look at is context. We design what the design standards for design engineers, transportation engineers and they're traditional neighborhoods is setup your streets and your radius based on the design vehicle. What that means is build your streets on what is going to be used day to day and that's Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 15 gonna be a car or SUV or mid-sized truck and that's what we call the control vehicle or design vehicle or what typically uses it day to day. But with that it does bring a few concerns and we've tried to address that as talked about before. The diagram on your bottom right is a mountable curve, it's reinforced to 4,000 PSI so if it is hit, it is a stronger construction then your typical curve then we'd normally pour. Also with that, we talked with the fire department for a couple of hours, they had no problem with it. They feel fine, safe, to them they liked this type of project. It's a grid, it gives them lots of access into the project. Also, with the diagram here you're right mid -block of what we call queuing areas. So, on these smaller streets a fire truck could come in and setup mid -block, there'd be no, that's, what you see in red is no parking zones. So, a fire truck or emergency vehicle could come in mid -block, setup for their queuing area, and serve the blocks. Because our blocks are fairly short, cause it goes with walk - ability. The only concern they did have was to increase the intersections to 40 foot no parking and standard is usually 30. Also, with the 15 foot radius what we propose is we don't put the fire hydrants, trees, street lights, we pull everything back out of that area. So, if there is a fire and they need to get into it they are capable of running over the curb if necessary but that is if it's an emergency. The only one I want to show you on this one is the top right. There is a graph, what this shows is the increased speed on the street, the fatality goes up dramatically. The small green is 15 miles per hour which for our 22 foot street, that's our design speed is 15 to 20 miles an hour. A typical residential street in Fayetteville is designed for 30 miles an hour and higher. Anyway, you can see the fatality level goes up dramatically on that. Like I said, radius is no one, you have to have a combination of design elements to control traffic and provide safety for pedestrians. These are just some of the typical pictures that can be found in Fayetteville. On the left is Willow Street, that's pretty typical to the cross-section that we are proposing and staff has approved. In reality, we don't see as much on -street parking being used. There will be shared driveways for the houses. The two pictures of the curbs, the one at the top is, I think it's probably an 8 foot radius and the one at the bottom is probably a 10 foot and they are working fine these are in the Historic District on the east side of Dixon or College. The one at the top again is Willow and that this shows on -street parking and example of room to get through. The bottom right that is a 24 foot street with 15 foot radiuses, it works fine. I traveled it. It was fantastic, kept the speed down. To address the last waiver, kind of shifting gears a little bit. The picture on the right is Skyline Drive on Mount Sequoyah. We are requesting a waiver on the northeast corner of our project. There are twelve houses that will be served by this and we are proposing a 20 foot, 1 -way with no curb and gutter, and no sidewalk. We feel that the amount of houses, only 12 houses are going to be used by that. Sidewalk is overkill in our opinion. As far as the curb goes, we have it engineered drainage wise where it works just fine we Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 16 don't need the curb. That area is heavily wooded and we are trying to keep the aesthetics of that area extremely wooded. So, Skyline Drive, that's a 20 foot 2 -way, it's 8.5, or 9.5 foot drive in some areas, it shrinks down. I was at a Board of Adjustments, I heard staff ask this question of is there a problem of safety, have you had any pedestrian problems, and staff said no. And why is this, it's because on Skyline loop there are 30 houses plus the church campus but it goes out into a bigger street. So, in context it does work, it does go against traditional design and doesn't make a lot of sense, but we ask you to look at these two waivers in context of what we are looking for. We think they are appropriate in these situations and I think it makes for a much better design and project. Thank you. Graves: Thank you. Commissioners, discussion? I would like to hear if there was anybody here that was on the subdivision committee that heard this, if we could get a report from subdivision. Clark: We were in agreement with the majority of the findings. The one that tripped us up, and we wanted to bring in front of everyone was the street waivers. We had concern and asked for input from the fire department about the turning radiuses and the safety of the smaller streets and smaller street sections and the turning radius. And I thank staff for follow-up with the fire department because apparently they have some issues with one of the waivers as well. The rest of the project the curbs, the curb and gutter in the northeast section was something we kind of split our opinion about and wanted to bring it back here and give the applicant an opportunity to give us some examples of where that would work. Cause we were concerned about pedestrian right-of-way without sidewalks. Curb and gutter was not so much of an issue, but the sidewalk into a park area was. The rest of the conditions we found in agreement with. So we kind of took the chicken's way out and brought it back to everybody to talk about the waivers. Graves: Thanks Commissioner Clark. We have a number of findings that we need to make on this one, particularly conditions 1 through 5. Maybe the best way to discuss this would be to start with number 1 and kind of go down the list, unless someone has an object to that. And so, if we could discuss, first of all, conditions number 1, we have to determine the street connectivity and the way they've got it platted out for their streets. Does anybody have anything, any questions, concerns, comments they want to make about condition number 1? Pate: Mr. Chair? Graves: Yes? Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 17 Pate: I might mention there were a couple late letters that were submitted to the Planning Division. One of them was requesting a connection to Allan Drive, that is the connection to the northeast that you see. That is an existing stub -out to the property so that will access and provide connectivity to the northeast and that subdivision. Stub -outs to the north and then access points along Rupple Road and Wedington Drive, and staff felt, obviously as each one of these larger tracts develop you will see cross -access and connectivity in-between those larger lots but those will all be reviewed again at the time. Graves: Thank you. Are there any other comments about condition number 1? It looks like we've got three folks here who felt like that condition was appropriate as suggested by staff. Three of the commissioners that are actually here tonight so I'll assume their opinion hasn't changed since subdivision unless they say so. So, maybe the questions better directed at the commissioners who were not at subdivision for this item. If there are any comments or questions about condition 1? Lack: Mr. Chair, I would concur with the approval the subdivision committee afforded this item in that these are largely like the same connectivity that we've seen when the property was rezoned and I was in favor of it at that time. I believe we spoke at length about connectivity with this project and the only part that I remember even have concerns with at that time was the potential to have connectivity closer to Wedington Drive from the easternmost section but at the time we decided that was not appropriate in the nature of the parkland that we would be traversing. So, I would concur. Graves: Ok, are there any other comments about number 1? Then well move to number 2. This is the determination of street improvements, in particular the assessments for traffic signals and for the 28' street section onto Rupple Road and the construction of the boulevard street section on Rupple Road along the frontage. Are there any, again the subdivision committee recommended in favor of this and we have all 3 of them here tonight, are there any other comments about condition 2? Clark: Mr. Chair we did not have the assessments at the time. Graves: You didn't have the numbers. Clark: So, I don't know if the applicant agrees with. Jacobs: On the assessments on the traffic signal we broke out the, as the amount of traffic the homes would generate, we used a forum to come up with that amount. As each project comes under its own merits it will be warranted for how much they pay towards the traffic signal or they bond into the Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 18 city. So, with each phase hopefully the full build out will pay for all the traffic signals. The assessment for 117,000 that was our number that builds, that keeps us from tapering down in the northeast like we talked about. So, that's fine with us as far as the 28 foot on the northern part of Rupple. Graves: Thank you. Pate: Mr. Chair? Graves: Yes? Pate: If I made add too. A and B is probably capable in a project of this nature. It would likely far exceed the rough proportionality test however. As you may remember, as the planning zone district there was a commitment by the applicant to build all the streets at once and that was part of the zoning. That was something that was offered by the applicant. That's why we are seeing at this time, all the interior streets are being constructed at this time. That's why also, we are breaking out the traffic signals. That was not part of that commitment so we are basing that on the traffic that's actually generating. Graves: Thank you. Do we have any other comment with regard to condition number 2? Moving to condition number 3, this is a determination of our recommendation to the city council for the master street plan amendment to Rupple Road based on an applicant request our staff has recommended in favor of that recommendation by the planning commission to the city council. And again the subdivision also determined in favor of this condition, are there any additional comments or questions or concerns with respect to condition number 3 or the findings that we have to make there? Seeing none I'll move along to the controversial one. Condition number 4 the Planning Commission determination for waivers for street design and on this one since we've got differing staff recommendations depending on which one we are talking about, why don't we start with letter A. With waiver on cross-sections differing from Master Street Plan the staff has recommending in favor of those and the subdivision has admittedly punted this to full commission that we have here tonight. So, are there, do we have any comments, Planning Commissioners, with regard to subsection A. Clark: It was a soft punt. Because we did not have, I don't recall an issue with the street, the cross-sections. Graves: Ok. Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 19 Harris: Correct. Subsection A wasn't in question. Graves: Ok. Any other comments? Alright we'll move to subsection B which is the curve, horizontal curve with a radius less then 150' in place of a cul-de- sac. And again staff has recommended in favor of this one. Harris: Mr. Chair, again I think my recollection of our meeting is that subsection B was really not a question. Graves: Ok. We'll move to subsection C which is building a street cross-section with no curb or sidewalk. Do we have comments on that one? Why don't we hear from the subdivision on this particular subsection. Clark: We split on that one pretty evenly. It's in the northeast corner and it's only going to have 12 lots around it and its going to be a park like setting. And staff recommended curb gutter and sidewalks. I think we really reserved our comments to sidewalks and safety issues of getting to this leads into that park because it's going to be I think a really nice wooded area that will attract people and we just were not 3-0 comfortable to say don't do it because of safety so we wanted to hear a little more from the full Planning Commission. I don't think curb and gutter necessarily was an issue as much as the sidewalk. Graves: Thanks Commissioner Clark. Any other comments with regard to this item? We've seen a demonstration by the applicant of some photographs of some other areas although I know the city right now is in the process of curbing and guttering a lot of those streets on Mt. Sequoia right now because I live there and I get to drive through it every day. So, I know that that's the case. So, some of those streets we saw in the photos may not be staying that way. Be that as it may, are there any comments with regard to, why don't we talk about sidewalks first since that seems to be a concern of the subdivision committee in this area. Particularly, with the applicant representing this as a very walkable project and this being sort of a park area that we want to access with pedestrian traffic. Harris: Mr. Chair? I would actually like to ask a question to the city attorney. Is there a legal reason for us to demand curb and gutters or sidewalks in this area? Williams: Well, normally that's a, the legal reason would be just the fact that the Unified Development Code in fact calls for sidewalks and curbs and gutters. Especially sidewalks I think in relation to neighborhood park which I think is what is being established here. As you're aware neighborhood parks do not requiring parking areas because it is presumed that the neighbors will walk there and normally that means a sidewalk for Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 20 Harris: safety and also for convenience too in case of not wonderful weather where you would be able to walk in a place that would not be muddy or anything like that. So, the legal reason though is the fact that the Unified Development Code states that the normal street cross-sections are going to have curb and gutter and sidewalks. You can weigh that, that's also within your power. Mr. Chair, I recognize, I think the Mt. Sequoia example is the obvious example in terms of it's not well known for its curbs, gutters, sit row lines, or sidewalks. But I recognize however, those were already existing, those streets. The reason we split, I don't know, I wouldn't care to have this each way. Graves: One and a half votes each way? Harris: I simply wanted to bring this conversation forward because it seems to me that in this instance this developer working in conjunction with this particular design team is really offering the city so much in what we are asking in terms of the design of a neighborhood for social cohesion and circular identity and healthy bodies and so forth. So, I was interested in continuing the conversation in terms of design philosophy. May I ask a question of the applicant? What materials will the pathways to the park be made of. Jacobs: The park, the main trail will loop through the entire park will be asphalt. That'll be up to the Park's and Rec. Department of the site, but typically that would be asphalt. All our sidewalks will be concrete. So, those are the two materials that you would see for sidewalks or trails. And then if we were forced to put a sidewalk in for the small loop we would ask if we could use more of paved walk. It would be more of gravel crushed sidewalk. It's less disturbance. It's aesthetically more pleasing then a 4' sidewalk. Except we don't feel it's going to be used so we just look at it in the context of what we're providing and if we have a pedestrian walking in they are getting down to the trail and once the loop closes the sidewalk picks up. So, with that, you know common sense says you should use a sidewalk but with this we just don't feel it's appropriate so. Harris: Thank you. Clark: Mr. Chair. Graves: Commissioner Clark. Clark: One of my concerns was when the initial RPZD came through it was kind of promoted as a future location for baby boomer generation, retirees Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 21 etcetera and that was part of my concern is that we were going to have accessibility to this park for everyone of every age group. Not only the very young on bicycles and tricycles but the elderly as well. And it still does concern me a little bit. I don't have a problem with that type of a sidewalk that you're talking about. I don't think we have to be locked into sidewalk necessarily. But I'm still concerned that there is a functional and safe entrance to this park for pedestrians because it is going to stub out very close to another neighborhood and I'm sure you're going to have cross -utilization and it's going to pick up with the trail. I really think it's going to be an important focal point of this whole community and communities next to it. So, that still does concern me. Lack: Mr. Chair. Graves: Commissioner Lack. Lack: I would, I would concur with the concern for the need for the sidewalk. I appreciate the idea of keeping the area very natural. If engineering staff can concur that the water can be handled without curb and gutter, I'm fine that with a pavement edge and drainages to take care of that. It's a very environmentally sensitive way to handle that area. I would not agree though with the idea of not needing sidewalk. I think a sidewalk in that area is, would be important. We've seen countless numbers of people explaining the dangers of their subdivisions because they did not have sidewalks to walk on and they walked on the street and had to bail off into the ditch when the cars were coming. I think that a sidewalk would need to be concrete or some permanent means of construction that would not degrade as a gravel or other pathway type material would. So, I think a concrete sidewalk would be wanted in this application. Graves: Thank you, Commissioner Lack. I would also agree, my concern with gravel or something of that nature is that it goes away after a period of time and also just the problem with things like handicapped people that are trying to use the access or baby strollers or whatever trying to go up a gravel as opposed to a nice sidewalk to get to the park area. That would be my concern with something of that nature. But if there is a way to engineer the drainage portion of it without curbing and guttering it so that it has a more natural feel with it, I would tend to be in favor of that as well. Clark: So, Mr. Chair, how do we proceed? Do we reword this condition, do we take it out, do we make it a separate condition? Graves: I would, I think we can have a motion, and staff will correct me if I'm wrong. I think we can have a motion to amend, well we can actually do it Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 22 when we make findings and we can just find on that item that the cross- section can be built with a sidewalk but a waiver on the curb and gutter. Provided that engineering can approve the alternate drainage. Is there any more discussion on letter C? Lack: Mr. Chair? Graves: Commissioner Lack. Lack: May we ask staff for an opinion on the handling of the water and the engineering of drainage without drainage? Pate: I'm here for engineering staff tonight. The discussion at subdivision committee, that's why the staff is not recommending the absence of curb and gutter on this particular application. We've seen many times where the city has expended funds to go in and place curb and gutter like mentioned because of draining concerns. Each one of these lots, typically, is not guaranteed to be the same builder. There are typically individual decisions made on every single lot. Drainage concerns, we don't have it, grading permit for single family lots. So, each one of these decisions are made independently of each other and we end up sometimes with situations with the drainage, especially when it's not controlled, which is a situation in an application like this without curb and gutter, the runoff is not controlled and discharged to certain point to go down to the creek. It's simply sheet closed off to into a barrage or something of that nature. It can be done, obviously, it has been done in the past. And I'm sure it will be done in the future, but at this point staff could not find the justification to not have the curb and gutter to provide adequate storm drainage in this location. Graves: If the finding were that engineering bad to approve it, to approve some alternate method and absent that sort of sign off that there had to be a curb and gutter. Maybe this is a question for legal or legal as well. Can we, is there a way to word that so that the option is there without them having to come back in front of us if it doesn't work out for some reason. Williams: I guess the problem I see is that without a curb and gutter to be installed by the developer at the time they are building streets and everything, I'm not sure exactly when engineering would sign off on the alternate ways to do it unless they wanted to sign off with the engineer and evidently, from what I hear from Jeremy, they've already recommended against that. That they don't want a drainage and a regular non -curbed side. I wish they were here so we could ask them, because I don't know exactly how you can word it. But I think that whatever we do, the developer has to get the final approval one way or the other before the plat can be final. Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 23 Graves: Yeah, but I guess, I understand what engineering's preference is. I guess my questions is assuming that that preference doesn't carry today here on our finding, that the applicant is at least provided the opportunity through whatever motion is passed or whatever tonight, that they have the opportunity to make presentations for engineering at this point for engineering to either approve or disapprove. I mean, I understand what engineering's preference is, but that preference aside, if the Planning Commission were to make a finding tonight that they could use some alternate method if engineering approved it, is that an option? Williams: I think you can still do that as an option. It would still have to be the developer who put it in. Graves: Ok. Lack: Mr. Chair. Graves: Commissioner Lack. Lack: I would even go so far as to ask Jeremy if he can speak for engineering on a method of doing that that would provide a note on the plat or provide a provision that the design engineer will provide the drainage calculations and will design the drainage with barrages or necessary means which is acceptable to engineering staff. That the plat would require that to maintained through the construction of homes process. Pate: I could certainly add that. And that's something that there are two different construction processes here. One is obviously construction of the infrastructure and subdivision streets, drainage, sidewalks, all that. And then there is construction of homes which at times will do away with the barrages and entirely change the character of that drainage. Especially if you pave a driveway, for instance, across what was once drainage. So, that's something that if the applicant can prove to engineering staff that adequate drainage is maintained, especially with velocity and velocity runoff, that's something that we certainly need require the developer to put on the final plat so each home builder is aware that that is there and something that will not be maintained by the city. It would not be accepted by the city into our storm drainage maintenance would be maintained by the applicant at all times. Graves: Any other comment with respect to letter C on the cross-sections, the cross-section waivers? We'll move to letter D, which is the request for a waiver for the 4% or exceeding 4% grade within 100' of an intersection. And there is one particular intersection where they are asking for this waiver. Are there any other comments or concerns with that one? Letter E, Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 24 which is the request to construct a curb radii of 15' on a residential street intersection. We heard the applicant's presentation on it. And the staff is not recommending in favor of that item. Although it sounds like they have, at least the applicant has and possibly staff has visited with the fire depaitment about their concerns with it and those concerns can be alleviated with some additional items it sounds like. Be that as it may it would still require a waiver from the normal requirements. Is there any discussion on item E? Trumbo: Mr. Chair. Graves: Commissioner Trumbo. Trumbo: At the subdivision committee our main concern was emergency services getting in there, particularly fire department. So, we asked the applicant to speak with the fire department. Seeing that they are in favor of it I was wondering what else, what else would staff, what other reason they would have for not recommending other then emergency services. Pate: An emergency service application, especially if it's a true emergency, there would be emergency lights, sirens, things of that nature, and all cars would be stopped so you could swing wide into an intersection, much as you see in the downtown area. Our concern is that the combination of the inner streets and the small radius on those curbs are concerns because we feel, staff feels, that that pulling out into an inner street and actually into an oncoming traffic lane, albeit small local residential street type of traffic, you would still potentially pull into oncoming traffic. And a good example is right outside my office on Mountain and Church there where you have actually two lanes of traffic most trying to make that curb, make that right hand turn onto Mountain, pull out into that second lane to actually head toward the square. So, that was our concern. Yes, emergency vehicles, they had some specific requirements if that curb radius is reduced. At this time staff is not supporting, supportive of reducing that as far as 15' with the street widths that are proposed. Again we are looking at some smaller street widths then we've seen in most residential areas. It's more like a downtown type of pattern. Trumbo: Can you speak to the traffic calming that they are trying to achieve with this? Do you believe that's a valid reason to approve? Pate: I think that the traffic comment as far as the narrow streets is certainly valid. That's why we are supporting those narrow cross-sections. The traffic comment on the curb radii will be calmed regardless because of two stop signs. You will have to be turning right or left onto all those curves so you should be at a slower speed to make that turn anyway. Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 25 Graves: Are there any additional comments with regard to item E? Clark: Mr. Chair? Graves: Commissioner Clark. Clark: Jeremy, also in our staff report there is a comment from the fire department about round -abouts. Is that factored into this plan already or do we need to put that as a condition? Pate: Clark: Those are in condition number 6, really doesn't have anything to do with radii, but it is some concerns that were voiced when the applicant spoke the fire department. Ok. I think Jeremy's example of Mountain and Church just drove it home. You know when you turn right you have to get in the other lane or, like me, hit the curb. So, I'm still concerned about that, especially if you try to bring in one of the big fire trucks. I think that is just potentially compounding an emergency situation. Making it worse and I'm really uncomfortable with that. Jacobs: Can I have a word? Graves: Actually, we are in Commission discussion right now. If someone has a question for you we can bring you back up. I tend to agree and the reason that the UDC was developed with the larger turning radii is because of the emergency services. It sounds like the fire department has tried to accommodate a design request by allowing the developer to go through some particular gyrations so that it would be possible for them to make their turns with the smaller turning radius, but at the same time I don't think it's anything that they would necessarily prefer or recommend in trying to get through there with the larger vehicles. And so I would share the same concern even though, I think they would be willing to allow it with certain modifications or modifications to on -street parking. I don't think it be anything that they would necessarily recommend or prefer in the design. Harris: Mr. Chair? Graves: Commissioner Harris. Harris: I would like to hear the applicant. You actually spoke with the fire depaitment is that correct, sir? Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 26 Jacobs: That is correct, we sat with them for several hours and talked about it. They have no problem with the 30' no parking to begin with. The way they talk about it, let's say you're in a residential area, they are going to slow down anyway looking for the address of the house. So, for them coming into this they don't have a problem. We just voluntarily to kind of make things better and hope to get this approved we offered to 40', extend it 10 more feet if it made anyone more comfortable. The other sections that we are talking about, the 15' are only interior to the residential area so we're not talking, I mean, there are maybe 15. They're all internal with no parking on some of them. So, it goes back to, if you increase the radius, the safety of someone getting hit goes up dramatically. The fire department says they can get in and they are willing to. It wasn't a concession they felt comfortable about it. So, we don't really quite understand why the 15' radius is such a big deal. We're just trying to promote safety of the pedestrian. Emergency vehicles can get in and serve if they need to and we ask you to look in context of the cars in this area. What Jeremy used is not the same context of the volume of traffic in this residential area with on -street traffic with people walking. What he mentioned was a much higher volume of traffic so we just ask you to look in context of what we're proposing. Actually, it's done all across the country. Pre -ordered too, it has the highest property values, people wanted it there, they feel safe when they walk. Harris: Thank you. Graves: Are there any additional comments? I would note that the emergency vehicles are much larger in modern times then they were when the tighter turning radiuses were designed on local streets. And as our staff has pointed out, you could have a situation where cars are traveling in the opposite direction, they hear the sirens and see the lights, they stop, and all the sudden even though there is not a car parked there because you've got the no parking near the intersection, they're stopped there because they see the lights, hear the sirens, and now they are blocking an area that the fire truck needs to make that turn and the safer way to do it is to already have room on the correct traffic direction to make that turn. Clark: Mr. Chairman? Graves: Commissioner Clark. Clark: I'd like to carry that analysis a little bit further because I think you make a very valid point. And also I'm a little concerned that the assumptions that the developer is laying out might not hold true to the test of time. There is the assumption that we're going to have heavy pedestrian traffic here, which is not necessarily true. People are addicted to their automobiles and Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 27 tend to drive when even if it's easier to walk sometimes. And secondly, you're assuming that people don't park in no parking zones. I suggest that we go take a walk around the block right now and we'll find lots of people park in front of no parking zones in front of the police department. So, we're not, I mean I think we could be compounding a potentially dangerous situation with narrow streets if you restrict the turn lane you see any further. And the fire department, I just think in an emergency situation the UDC thinks ahead and makes a level playing field that factors in safety and I want to do that tonight. So, I will not be supporting that particular waiver. Harris: Mr. Chair. Graves: Commissioner Harris. Harris: I understand what Commissioner Clark is saying and I too, of course, am concerned about emergency services. At the same time, I very much have at the forefront of my thinking, the development of the kind of neighborhoods we keep talking about and that does take a certain innovation. Innovation that has already been tried in other parts of the country and doesn't even count so much as innovation at this point but just accepted practice. So, I guess I'm wondering, for one thing, if subsection E were to fail this evening if there might be a negotiated position of a compromise position in terms of curb radii. One that is not as large as it normally is but might not be exactly what the applicant is asking for because I would like to see some physical manifestation of the sort of theory that we are talking about here. And I think, you know the street plan is obviously one of the places where we are going to have to locate that theory that we're going to have to physicalize it. So, I would like to help a developer in this instance that seems to be making such an effort to do some of the things that we are asking both the developers to do and also the citizens to imagine this kind of neighborhood and actually moving into it. So, when we talk about, I mean I for one am somebody who does, when I move to a place I do look for this kind of street grid myself because these are the type of places I choose to live. So, I guess that's in part why I keep coming back to this. I would like to see if there is a negotiated position here. Mr. Pate do you have a comment about what you might be willing to do that might seem appropriate? Pate: That would be entirely up to you voting tonight. Harris: I was hoping you would be sitting as a commissioner at this point not just the engineer. Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 28 Pate: I can't vote, I'm sorry. The Planning Commission has approved waivers for the 25' curb radius in the past in the downtown area projects. There have been a couple of 15' in a very small, in a driveway setting as opposed to a street intersection which I think is very different. I believe there have been waivers allowed down to 20' which would be the obvious compromise here between 15 and 25. I can't speak entirely for the engineering division but I do represent staff here and I think staff would be comfortable, more comfortable with a radius of 20'. It would allow for a higher I think safety factor as far as vehicle emergency movements. I think the same conditions we need to apply, the same no parking zones would need to apply and everything else staff has listed and the fire department has recommended because obviously if a decision is made tonight they'll have to be consulted again. So, I would have to assume on the conservative side in that case and recommend the same conditions of approval. Harris: Thank you for that. Graves: I just have a sort of a clearing house question Jeremy. Are the things that the fire department had requested if we did 15' are those listed in the conditions already or are those? Pate: Listed under E. There is a bullet point all on street parking, none within 40' and also on the applicant's submittal package they've included the fact that there will be a higher PSI concrete rating in those curb radii as well so that's something as submitted by the applicant so it would be held to that as well. Graves: So, what you're saying is if we did 20' you would still want the 40' minimal of on street parking away from the intersection as part of that condition. Pate: Yes, sir. Graves: Are there any other comments of issues that any commissioner wants to take up with regard to letter E? Is there a consensus that 20', the commissioners that have raised a concern with this would be comfortable with? Commissioner Clark? Ok. I could as well. So, we'll move on to letter F. The allowing street parking on one side of the proposed 22' cross- section which the staff has recommended in favor of. Is there any discussion on that item? Those are the only findings that we were requested to make. Are there any other questions or concerns with any of the other conditions that are listed there aside from the ones that we've already talked about. Any other comments by any commissioner in general about this project? Do I hear anybody that wants to take a stab at the motion. Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 29 Clark: Mr. Chair. I will move for approval of Preliminary Plat 06-2053 with finding the facts as follows. Planning Commission approval of finding the fact, condition of approval number 1 of street connectivity as written, number 2 determination of street improvements as written, 3 determination of city council Master Street Plan on Wedington and Rupple Road as written, and 4, here we go. For approval of conditions A and B as stated, C amended to read build street cross-section with sidewalk for lots 110 through 120 but allow a waiver of curb and gutter should engineering sign off on alternative effective means of redirecting storm runoff water, is that close enough Jeremy? Pate: I'll take that in the minutes yes. Graves: And there was some comment that our legal staff made with regard to some language that before it was platted or - Williams: I think, no, I think that'll take care of it. That'll be part of the plat. Graves: Ok. Clark: Finding of fact that agreement with letter D. With letter E amending it to construct curb radii of 20' on residential street intersections and including all on street parking should be located a minimal of 40' from an intersection and in agreement with finding of fact F as indicated and in agreement with the rest of the conditions of approval through 29. Graves: We have a motion by Commission Clark with a number of findings as well as the other listed conditions of approval. Do I have a second for that motion? Lack: Second. Graves: Then a second by Commissioner Lack. Is there any other discussion before we vote? Jeremy. Roll Call: The motion to approve PPL 06-2053 carries with a vote of 6-0-0. Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 30 PPL 06-2032: Preliminary Plat (TIMBERLAKE OFFICE PARK, 135): Submitted by FREELAND, KAUFMANN & FREEDEN for property located at 1250 E ZION RD. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 18.4 acres. The request is for a Residential Office subdivision with 18 lots for future development. Graves: Next item on the agenda is Preliminary plat 06-2032 Timberlake Office Park. Lack: Mr. Chair 1 recuse on this item. Graves: Commissioner Lack is recusing on this item and can we have the staff report? Morgan: Yes, this property is approximately 18.5 acres; it is zoned residential office and located north of Zion Road. There is currently one single family dwelling existing on this property and the applicant requests to subdivide the property into 18 lots which could potentially be developed for office use. Three of those lots are larger then an acre and so you would be seeing those in the future at the time of the development to review things such as commercial design standards, landscaping etcetera. The other Tots being less then lone acre will just require building permit and staff will review those items necessary to receive building permit. This property has some frontage on Zion Road and in review of the required street improvements in relationship to the projected traffic counts that the applicant submitted to the engineering division, we are recommending street improvements on Zion Road for 36' width in street, basically the addition of a lane to create a turn lane on Zion Road. There are planned improvements from College to Zion, the timing I am not completely aware, though. So, we will be seeing the improvement along this frontage with this development. As for serving these proposed lots the applicant is proposing one street. It is a dead end street. It will meander through this property and the length of that street is 1200', quite a bit more then the 500' required. Therefore they are requesting a waiver of the minimum dead end length requirements. As you see on the colored handout that I submitted to you, you can see the property here in a purple. The area around it to the north and the east as well as the west is an area of 15% slope or greater. There is a creek, Clear Creek, to the north. To the east is, to a portion of the eastern property line, is adjacent to a city park with the southern portion being adjacent to a single family dwelling zoned Residential Agricultural. And then to the west is Lowe's to which no cross -access has been provided. Staff finds that due to these constraints: the topography, the floodplain, as well as tree canopy, we are in support of this waiver. We do anticipate that with development of some of these properties we will be requesting cross - access to some portions which could potentially be developed in the Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 31 future. We are also looking and recommending for pedestrian access to the park's property with a sidewalk connection. And overall we are recommending approval with a total of 20 conditions. Graves: Thank you. Is there any public comment on Preliminary Plat 06-2032 the Timberlake Office Park? Seeing none I'll bring it back to the Commission. Can we get a subdivision report on this item as well? Are there any members of the subdivision who saw this one? Clark: We came to this - Graves: Same one? Ok. Clark: Oh yeah. It's been a busy day. We found in agreement with all conditions of approval as laid out. This is a very unique situation and we talked about the 1200' dead end street at length but there is just no way to make a connection to anything so we agreed, because of the topography, flood plan, etcetera, that this is definitely a unique piece of property and hardship conditions do apply. We did help with the staff and the applicant to compromise on the third condition that allows pedestrian access into the park so when it develops we'll be able to make the proper determination of where that needs to go at that time of development. The rest of it looked very straight forward and a good use of this resource. Graves: Thank you. We have again on this one three findings that we need to make. Condition number 1 is the determination of street improvements, number 2 is asking about the longer dead end street, and the last one is the pedestrian access that was just referenced in subdivision report. We can take these up in order again. Are there any comments with regard to the determination of street improvements? It sounds like we have the same Subdivision Committee members here, again I don't know if any of you have any additional comments. Otherwise it looks like Commissioner Bryant and I are there only ones up here for this item that were not at sSubdivision. Trumbo: Commissioner Graves. Graves: Commissioner Trumbo. Trumbo: Has the applicant spoken? Graves: Oh, I'm sorry. You can tell I'm not used to doing this, sorry. I did not let the applicant make the presentation before I brought it back. I did not mean to overlook you so if you could introduce yourself and give any presentation that you may have. Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 32 Matlock: Travis Matlock from Freeland, Kaufman, and Fredeen. I guess we have 19 total lots, one lift station lot, and then one existing house lot that right now there is an existing house out there that is being used. We're just subdividing that as one of the lots that will be out there. We have spoken with the fire department before any of the design began to talk about the 1200' street. In concession with that our entrance is a little bit wider to have 2 outs, 1 in, no median in-between. We put a couple of additional fire hydrants on there to kind of alleviate any of those concerns. We are improving the street to get a total width of 36' since the south side already has curb and gutter we are going front of south side onto the north side, maintaining the curb and gutter on the south side, and just like they said adding an additional lane to get 3 full lane widths right there. We are gonna, we don't have any problem with putting the access to the park, we just want to kind of delay it until final plat so that we can find the best path for it. Park's had just asked kind of a blanket easement between lots 5 and 6. And talking with the developers we think that we may provide a better way to the parks once we get to the point of actually seeing where the street would be. Other then that, if you guys have any questions I'm more then happy to answer. Graves: Thank you. And I assume that you'll [Jeremy] rig the minutes and the media report that I did it in the right order [laughter]. Ok, now we can take up conditions of approval 1 through 3. Are there any comments or concerns with regard to the determination of street improvements in conditions number 1? We'll move to condition number 2 which is the long dead end street. The ordinance allows a 500' dead end street and so the applicant is requesting a waiver of that to allow for the 1200' dead end street due to the peculiar situation where this land is and the topography and so forth. Is there any comment about that particular - Trumbo: Mr. Chair, I have a question for the applicant. Will the parking lot, it looks like your building there is going to be in the front and your parking is going to be in the rear. Matlock: Yes, sir. Trumbo: Will they all be connected, the parking lots throughout the entirety? Matlock: They won't all be connected through there. About every two lots will have a shared drive where one drive will go into each lot. Trumbo: Ok. Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 33 Matlock: So, basically the drive will be cut in half in the amount of lots there will be. Trumbo: Ok. I didn't see it and I wasn't sure if that was the plan. Thank you. Graves: Any other comments on number 2? It seems fairly straight forward. It is extremely long but there is a good reason for it. What about item number 3, does anybody have any discussion with regard to pedestrian access easement and the sidewalk connection? Any other comments regarding this particular Preliminary Plat for the Timberlake Office Park? I will entertain a motion. Trumbo: Mr. Chair? Graves: Commissioner Trumbo. Trumbo: I'll make a motion that we approve PPL 06-2032 finding in agreement with staffs 20 conditions of approval as stated. Graves: And findings on 1 to 3? Trumbo: Finding with staff recommendations on items 1 through 3 as well. 1 and 2. Graves: Thank you. There has been a motion by Commissioner Trumbo for approval with the stated conditions and findings in favor in 1 through 3 as recommended by staff is there a second? Bryant: Second. Graves: There has been a second by Commissioner Bryant. Any further discussion before we vote? Mr. Pate. Roll Call: The motion to approve PPL 06-2032 carries with a vote of 5-0-0. Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 34 PPL 06-2079: Preliminary Plat (ADDISON ACRES S/D, 569): Submitted by HGM CONSULTANTS, INC. for property located at 4230 E. HUNTSVILLE ROAD. The property is zoned RSF-7, SINGLE FAMILY — 7 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 5.94 acres. The request is for 18 single family lots. Graves: The next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat 06-2079 Addison Acres, if we could have a staff report on this item. Morgan: Yes, sir. This property contains approximately 6 acres. Rezoning for this property was before you sometime ago for requests to rezone it to RSF-7. The applicant did get approval for this rezoning with a Bill of Assurance that the development would be no more then 18 single family homes with covenants to either meet or exceed the David Lyle Village restricted covenants. Staff finds that the proposed development meets all of these restrictions. Surrounding land uses includes a city park to the north as well as the location of floodplain and floodway to the north with a river running through there. To the south the property is zoned Residential Single Family, 4 units per acre and there is some property in the Planning Area further south of this. To the east is the David Lyle subdivision and to the west are some single family homes as well as an apaitment building. The property to the west is zoned a mixture of RSF-7, RMF -24 along Huntsville and some R -A property further to the west. With regard to street improvements, staff is recommending that the applicant pay an assessment of $10,553.50 along Huntsville Road for the width of the property. At this time staff is not recommending the construction due to foreseen future improvements on this street. With regard to this project, just like the last, the applicant is requesting a waiver for the minimum dead end street requirements. The requirement is 500' and the applicant requests a 730' dead end street. Staff is recommending a stub out to the west in a location that would provide for a logical connection to establish a complete and connected neighborhood in the future. I have included an exhibit in your packet on page 13 which shows the property to the west which could be developed in the future which includes RMF -24, RSF-7, and a portion of R -A all told approximately 8 acres. Staff finds that in the future if this is to develop that to reduce the number curb cuts along Huntsville Road allowing for a stub out, providing connectivity to this project, will increase safety and traffic, create a better traffic flow in the area. The applicant has requested that should the Planning Commission find in favor of a stub out that it be further towards, closer towards Huntsville Road in close relationship to the easement for the gas line. Staff does not have any particular preference for the location of the stub out. Should a stub out be provided and the remainder of the street be greater then 500' we would support a waiver for that. We also have a condition with regard to appropriate lot configuration. The ordinance encourages lot lines that are perpendicular to the right-of-way. Due to the easements on Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 35 this property the applicant has angled the property line so that they can increase the lot yield and get full 18 single family lots on the property. Staff would be in favor of the lot configuration if very clear notes are places on the final plat to inform future owners of these irregular lots. Also, I would like to mention that at Subdivision Committee, the owner of 851 Regency Drive in the David Lyle subdivision to the east raised concerns regarding an existing barbed wire fence and at that meeting the applicant did agree to remove that fence and install a future privacy fence. We did want to make a note that if there are any unforeseen canopy reductions that a tree preservation plan would need to be submitted. At this time the applicant is not proposing to remove less then the required amount of tree canopy. Also the developer does have a private agreement to install a fence on the west property line and he has made that agreement with Mr. Horlick. And with that we are recommending approval with a total 20 conditions. Graves: Thank you. Does any member of the public want to address Preliminary Plat 06-2079 Addison Acres? Please come forward and state your name and provide your comment. Horlick: Thank you Mr. Graves. My name is David Horlick. I am the property owner directly to the west that Suzanne just mentioned. I live on the property that is approximately half RMF -24 half RSF-7. My wife and I and children live there in that property. We had disagreement with irregular lot sizes. If you were to look at that a little more closely and you probably can't see it on anything that you own but the shape of all those property lines seem to direct, are pointed directly toward the busiest side of our house. The incoming driveway, garage, and our patio. Our property actually, is fairly close to that property line and it almost looks like the focal point for all of those property lines were drawn around our patio area and so my wife and I are against that irregular lot design mainly for security reasons for my wife and children. Also, on item number 10 there was some mention about barbed wire fences. My property line that borders this property also has barbed wire fences. I was hoping that it would not be removed, it's the only way that I can assure where my property line is. Also, I was a little concerned, in that same section, I believe that's section 10 in the staff notes, there was talk about canopy reduction. The bordering property between these two properties is, since there was a barbed wire fence, of course, there are some quite old large trees there and I really would prefer no canopy reduction. It's one of my buffer zones between my property and my soon to be new neighbors so I wanted to just make it clear that there wasn't going to be a canopy reduction along that property line. Thank you. Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 36 Graves: Thank you. Is there any other public comment with regard to this item? Seeing none I will hear the applicant's presentation at this time, is the applicant here? Would you state your name and make your presentation please? Grote: Good evening. I am Clay Grote with HGM Consultants. As Suzanne stated this is currently zoned RSF-7. We are proposing basically 3 units per acre. We, I want to kind of speak about the connectivity issue. Mr. Horlick I think failed to mention that we have a signed agreement, I think my owner does with him, to provide a privacy fence along the buffer road on his side, which I think he is making it clear that he's not looking for connectivity on that piece of property. The property is, if you look on the map, we've included it's along the west not only having an existing apartment complex that accesses Huntsville Road, right next to them is the White River floodplain. So, as much as I understand that connectivity is important I think that in this case it is kind of irrelevant because it would connect to the White River which would pretty much land -lock there. If you look at your vicinity map on the front of your plans you should be able to better see the White River floodplain and how our property relates to the surrounding areas. Also, I would like to state that our developer was committed from the beginning to work with all the neighbors including privacy fences along the west and removing along the east the barb wire and we will also be connecting a pedestrian walkway to the park, particularly to the playground there as well. And I believe a stub out could possibly land lock Mr. Wood there along the west. He's not really in favor of connectivity as well being that they both asked for privacy fence both Mr. Horlick and Mr. Wood, and the owner is providing such a privacy fence on a written agreement. Graves: Thank you. Commissioners? Trumbo: Mr. Chair. Graves: Commissioner Trumbo. Trumbo: Question for staff. The properties to the west, is there a curvy access to those properties, I'm assuming there are since there are residences. Pate: Yes, there are driveway connections onto Huntsville. Trumbo: Is it staffs fear or concern that if another, if this property did develop at these two accesses, being that on the western boundary the White River is there, that these two accesses would be too close together? Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 37 Pate: There is that potential. What we are trying to do is provide the ability for all these neighborhoods to connect. Obviously, we would love to have a connection to the east to the David Lyle subdivision so that that neighborhood could also connect. That opportunity is not available to us, there is not a stub out from that property. What we are trying to do is provide, our recommendation is to provide a street stub out to the property line so that if this RMF -24 property or the RSF-7 property or the R -A property is rezoned, if any of it develops, about 8 acres or so, it would allow for another street access point into that property without providing yet another street connection with a cul-de-sac or dead end thereby extending those, essentially the same design I think there is a good way to provide street connection in this location. It may not alleviate the entire said 720' waiver request, I believe if closer to Huntsville there is a street stub out to the west outside a utility easement, Western Gas utility easement there. I believe even with a small residential street it could provide a safer means for ingress in the future. Trumbo: The stub out you're recommending, is that, you say it's outside of the 50' Western Gas utility easement, are you recommending, I guess it would be south of that easement or north into lot 1? Pate: That would be south of that easement. Obviously, most of that property is unbuildable there because it wrapped with utility easements. It could fit within a 40' right-of-way with a 24' wide stub out street, residential street to the west and still allow for a future development of approximately 800' between the Master Street Plan right-of-way and that street for future development. Trumbo: And if we put that to the south would that be far enough away from the proposed curb cut on Highway 16? Pate: Approximately 100 feet and I'd say 70 feet from the curb cut onto Huntsville based on their measurements. Trumbo: Which meets all code? Pate: Yes. Trumbo: Ok. Well, if we decide as a Commission to approve this subdivision with a curb cut I would recommend it go there. That's if other Commissioners feel it's necessary. Lack: Mr. Chair? Graves: Commissioner Lack. Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 38 Lack: I do think that the connectivity in this case would be beneficial. It tends to mitigate the long cul-de-sac. I think that this property could not be developed without the long cul-de-sac and I'm ok with that. I'm in favor of that waiver. But I think that the opportunity to mitigate that in some fashion is something that we should accept. I have looked at the 500', it would be just about to the middle of that Arkansas Western Gas easement I believe. And expecting that Arkansas Western Gas is not going to want that street in the easement, I would again opt to concur with the option to go farther to the south and not lose a lot for the connectivity, only stretching the 500' by a minimal portion. But I do think that the connectivity is warranted in the neighborhood so I will support that. Graves: We've got 3 findings again on this one that we need to address. The first one is the determination of street improvements. Why don't I get a Subdivision report on this one before we start the discussion. Clark: Yet again, all of our items are Planning Commission this week. We had no problem with the street improvements, I don't know that we had the assessment at that point, but we found the widening to be necessary. In terms of the waiver for the minimum street dead end issue we had no problem with that waiver. We discussed at length the stub out to the west and the issues were we had a couple of property owners there saying they were never developed, they didn't want any connectivity and a river and a floodplain. We talked about it for a very long time and then just said we'll see if you can work it out before Planning Commission and if maybe Planning Commissioners can weigh in in terms of preferences. And in terms of lot configuration we discussed that to a minimal amount because we couldn't so how else they could loop. This is a very unique piece of property with all of its limitations surrounding it. We certainly didn't talk about it pointed at your house. We didn't really see that as much of an issue. So, maybe we should give it a little discussion here because we certainly, I don't think there was anything that was purposeful about it. And the barbed wire in item 10, I thought the barbed wire fence we were talking about was to the east along the David Lyle subdivision and it really had nothing to do with the one to the west. So, I would encourage us to amend number 10 to read that the applicant has agreed to remove existing barbed wire fence to the property to the east along David Lyle subdivision prior to recommendation for final plat. And you've agreed to remove a couple of trees, we've had a whole bunch of neighbors here with issues on the David Lyle subdivision and the developers were more then happy to address their issues. So, we really need to talk about connectivity and lot configuration I guess. I will point out that there was no one from David Lyle subdivision at this, when this came to us last time. It sends the message to me if you all would remember we had all of them here at Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 39 Grote: Planning Commission when we were rezoning it. I think you worked very diligently to address their issues and they seem to be very content now that the barbed wire and the whims are all cleared up. It looks like this developer is working with the majority of the neighbors. Can I add one comment to that. Reading note 10, I don't read this here about the owner making the comment of installing a new privacy fence for that said property along the east where the resident came in. There was one barbed wire removed in 3 branches. There is a new privacy fence installation that was direct for along the west so if we could probably clear that item up in number 10. Clark: That's the way I remembered it as well. Take out the branches, take out the barbed wire, put it on the other side. Trumbo: Yeah, it's my recollection that you said you were going to do that anyway. Grote: Install the privacy fence? We're installing the privacy fence along the whole western side by Redna Green. Trumbo: I understood it to be the east, maybe I was wrong. Harris: Well, I did too, I do not remember it was to the east I remember the removal to the east. Trumbo: Ok, I am probably wrong. Graves: Ok, I have a question for staff then. What is, with regard to item 10, which we've kind of skipped to for the time being, we've already cleared up where the barbed wire fence that was being referenced to that's to the east, is that staffs recollection as well? Pate: That's correct. Graves: And so we are not talking about a barbed wire fence along the west. Then with regard to the privacy fence are we talking about east or west on the privacy fence? Pate: Both of these should be clarified. Both of these are private agreements between the applicant developer and property owners adjacent to them in effort to work with their neighbors. Those should not be construed that the applicant, or the city is requiring them to build a privacy fence. This condition is simply placed in there because the urban forester had some concerns when that was mentioned at the subdivision committee about removing a fence and limbs. That if there are any large trees or any Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 40 significant trees along that area, that if there is any unforeseen canopy reduction that a revised tree preservation plan would be submitted. That's really the reason for the condition being there. The private agreements between the property owners are certainly commendable and we would want to encourage that, but just want to clarify why that is in there. That is simply explaining the means to the end that if there are any unnecessary tree removal then that's where our arborists govern. Graves: Well, then I have a concern about the way the whole thing is worded. I would be more comfortable if maybe it stated that the applicant had to follow its private agreements with the neighboring property owners and leave it general that way and then say, you know, with respect to those private agreements, if the removal of any canopy should occur then they have got to do a tree preservation plan. Pate: Perfectly acceptable. Graves: Rather then trying to get into specifics about what the agreements with the neighbors might be. Would that satisfy the applicant's concerns as well? Grote: Yes, sir. Graves: Ok. We'll try to remember to word it that way when we vote in a little while. And that answered some of the questions I think that the neighbor to the west mentioned in his comments with regard to canopy. He had questions about canopy reduction and barbed wire fences. It doesn't do a lot on the irregular lot he raised but I think that takes care of some of the comments. On item number 1, which is the first finding we have to make, determination of street improvements, does anyone have any comments they want to make with regard to that particular finding? We'll move to number 2, we have to make a finding on the waiver of the 500' dead end street requirement allowing a 730' dead end street. Commissioner Lack has already made some comments with regard to connectivity. I would concur with those comments. Although, the neighbor to the west has no intention of the developing the property it sounds like, by the same token, even if it happens 50 years from now, the stub out would be there to allow for connectivity for whatever happened to the west but in the mean time it would just be there, there wouldn't be any traffic crossing his property. It would just be there and be available to allow for connectivity in the future at some point. And that's why I would be in favor of it too. Again as staff has mentioned reducing the number of curb cuts along Huntsville Road and Commissioner Trumbo's suggestion of where to locate that stub out is fine with me. I don't, I'm like staff on that, it wouldn't matter to me necessarily where it is located and if some agreement can be reached about where to locate that that fits with where the easements are and that Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 41 satisfies your neighbor to the west, understanding that he doesn't want a stub out at all, but if there is going to be one he might have some feelings on where that ought to be located. But that would be my take on that and I would be in support of the waiver if there is the stub out because I agree that it mitigates it. Are there any other comments on that particular item? Trumbo: Mr. Chair, I agree with the stub out and I wouldn't be in favor of the stub out if it was going to take out another one of your lots I think you've compromised with the density in relation to the zoning so the connectivity is important but I would not want to see it go through a platted lot here. Graves: Any other comment with regard to the finding we need to make on number 2? Then well move to number 3, the lot configuration. The subdivision committee found in favor of this but it doesn't sound like subdivision had the benefit of the neighbor's comments with regard to how the lots are laid out and whether they seem to be pointed at the patio area. I'm not sure, I might have a question for staff on whether, I guess we need to make a waiver for the lot configuration, but if we make that waiver do we really have input into how that irregular lot is shaped? I mean were making a recommendation, if we were to approve that finding of fact, if we make that finding that he can have an irregular shaped lot, do we necessarily get into the business of how that lot is shaped at that point? Pate: With regard to how it is facing another property owner, no. That's not really the point. Our ordinances with regard to our Design Standards, they are not required to conform to any stipulated pattern in so far as practical side lot lines should be at right angles to street lines or radial to curb street lines and that's very typical. It makes construction easier typically. Obviously, these lots are going to have an awkward lot line and houses will likely be built facing the street, it'll be at an angle. And that's why we felt it was important for Planning Commission to determine and for the public record for those property owners that will own these lots at some point in the future, their lot lines will not go straight perpendicular to the street. And that's why on the conditions of approval it will be very clear perhaps even on every lot that they should reference the reported plats for any - Graves: Could we have the cell phone turned off please? Sony, Jeremy. Pate: That they should refer to the reported plat for any lot lines that would be the shape of the lots. It's really not a waiver request per say, it's something in our Design Standards that encourages where practical it should be and it's usually not a problem. But in this case we felt there was a hardship on this property because of the existing gas line easement and other utility easements. The applicant has significantly reduced the actual density on Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 42 the property because of that. I believe when this first came forward, RSF- 7, there was a lot of concern and the Planning Commission actually denied the rezoning because with 6 acres, 7 units an acre, it could allow up to 42 lots. Well, you can see that this property could not allow 42 units to be developed at RSF-7. The applicant did provide that Bill of Assurance and we felt he has honored that Bill of Assurance and are recommending approval. Graves: Are there any comments from any Commissioners with regard to the lot configuration? My take is as staff has stated that there have been a number of accommodations made with regard to the density they could be allowed through the point of a Bill of Assurance. That this is building out at only 3 lots per acre and you know to some extent the developer has got to try to figure out how to fit those lots on that piece of property at a given significantly reduced density from what could have gone there theoretically. And I'm not sure, well I know that the Planning Commission is not the body that draws lot lines. Basically he's asking not to have to build them perpendicular to the right-of-way and from there, the way that they are drawn is really not something that we do or handle as a Commission. Any other Commissioner have any comments on this particular item? Clark: Mr. Chair, t have a question for staff and the developer. Graves: Commissioner Clark. Clark: If we find in, I guess we'd have to have a separate condition mandating a western stub out; Jeremy, would we need a new condition? Pate: Clark: Pate: Clark: Grote: As we've recommended in number 2 - It's in number 2. Ok, if you think that's a strong enough recommendation that's fine with me. But I agree with Commissioner Trumbo that I don't think this owner should lose a lot. Do you think it is feasible to put the stub out to the west closer to Huntsville to the south of the gas line? Yes. Ok. Should we put that in the condition or I mean I'm going to assume that you don't want to lose a lot. I would be more then happy to put a connection there to push this thing through along the south of the gas easement, we can live with that. Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 43 Pate: Clark: Graves: Clark: Graves: Harris: Graves: Staff would recommend a maximum of 40' right-of-way as opposed to standard 50' with a 24' wide street that would allow for less property to be utilized and would likely be located, I have drawn it in, it could fit south of that gas easement and still meet all of our standards. Remember that wordage. Mr. Chair, I would like to move that we approve Preliminary Plat 06-2079 with conditions of approval as indicated with finding of facts on number 1. Agreeing with findings of facts of number 1, agreeing with finding of facts number 2, including the future connection to be made to the west, and Jeremy you can put in all that verbiage, finding of fact in agreement with number 3 finding of fact. All other including item number 10 which will be edited to read, take out the first two sentences so it will read no unnecessary removal of canopy should occur, if there is unforeseen canopy reduction as a result of private agreements between the developer and adjoining property owners a revised tree preservation plan will be submitted at time of final plat. And all of the conditions - And all of the conditions of staff. There has been a motion by Commissioner Clark to approve with findings of favor on 1, 2, and 3, and condition 10 as amended and with all of the stated conditions of approval is there a second for that motion? Second. Second by Commissioner Harris, is there any further discussion? I actually just have one comment and it's not a disagreement. My thought process on at least leaving where the stub out would occur generalized like it reads right now, although I agree completely that I don't want to see the applicant take out another lot in order to make that connection was to at least if you make it general provide him with the opportunity to discuss it with his neighbor and possibly reach some consensus. That may not be possible, but it would at least allow for that discussion. I'm not going to vote to deny the project on that basis but that was my thought on kind of leaving where the stub out be located generalized as the staff had it originally worded. Is there any other comment? Roll Call: The motion to approve PPL 06-2079 carries with a vote of 6-0-0. Graves: Thank you. At this time we are going to take a 10 minute break and we'll come back for the next item. Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 44 R-PZD 06-2035: Planned Zoning District (THE MAPLES, 365): Submitted by PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS, INC. for property located SE OF DEANE STREET AND LEWIS AVENUE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY — 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.91 acres. The request is for a Residential Planned Zoning District with 16 dwelling units. Graves: Six items, are all items that they're either rezonings or conditional uses proposed. They all would require 5 votes to pass and we only have 6 commissioners here tonight so before I take each item up, and well do it as they come up in the order of the agenda. What I would like to do is have the applicant, without making the presentation or anything, advise us of whether they would prefer that we table their item to the next meeting when we have the full commission here. Because as it stands right now it would either have to be a unanimous vote to approve or it would have to be a 5 to 1 vote. If one commissioner opposed an item or wanted to deny an item then it would fail because of the numbers that we have here tonight. And so I will give that option to request a tabling of the item before we hear a staff report or anything on each of those items. And so right now we are on item 8 which is our PZD 06-2035 The Maples. If I could have, first of all the applicant come up, first of all introduce yourself for the record and then let us know if you would prefer that this be taken up by a fuller commission then what we have available tonight or whether you would rather us go ahead and take this up knowing that you would either have to have a unanimous or five one vote approve it. Kemmet: Good evening. I am Bruce Kemmet with Project Design Consultants representing the developer. We already ran this option pass the developer and he would like to move forward and get a vote tonight. Graves: Ok. Thank you. If we could have the staff report on this item. Fulcher: Good evening. This PZD request is for approximately 1.6 acres located southeast of Lewis Avenue and Deane Street. Surrounding properties consist of a single duplex, single family homes, the University Farm to the north, and to the south the are soccer fields leased to the city by the University. The applicant is proposing a development for 16 dwelling units, 8 of which will be multi -family, 4 will be single family and 4 will be 2 family units. This item has a great deal of history, I should say the property has a great deal of history, which is outlined in the staff report. There have been numerous rezoning requests as well as some variations of this PZD request. This one was heard at subdivision committee approximately a month ago at which time the applicant requested the item be tabled so they could reword some of the density and street layouts of the project as well as green space and building location. Since that time to the previous subdivision committee we did a month ago they did work out Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 45 some of those items staff had concerns with and now are here before the Planning Commission after they were forwarded from the subdivision committee without a recommendation. The density proposed is approximately 9.5 units per regular which is a little over 2 times above the allowance for which it is currently zoned. Staff has stated many times that we are opposed to densities higher then 4 units per acre. Given the location of this property in relation to some major roadways, park plans, schools, the university, provides an opportunity to have something higher than 4 units per acre. However, in looking at the divided line that Lewis Avenue has been historically between multi -family developments to the west, single-family developments to the east there is a line that we're trying to find there and we just felt that 9.5 units per acre with a good deal of multi -family units was not compatible with the single-family units located immediately around it. Staff would recommend that possibly removing some of the multi -family units along the frontage of this property would not only reduce the density thus making it more compatible with the surrounding land uses but also change the building uses to a use that is more compatible to the surrounding land uses. Staff has consistently recommended denial of a density request of 16 units or more per acre or 16 units total on this property in the past. Again tonight we are recommending denial of this request. Should the Planning Commission decide to forward this item to the city council we have included conditions of approval. I think that covers all of staffs comments and findings tonight if you have any questions please ask. Graves: Thank you. Do we have any member of the public who would like address R-PZD 06-2035 The Maples. If you would come forward and introduce yourself and make your comments. Bryant: My name is Rebecca Bryant. I'm an adjacent property owner. I know there are other owners here I don't know if they will stand up and speak or not. I am really impressed by the quality and the depth of the discussion tonight. So, I feel like we are in good hands with this commission. As you know, as Jesse said, they are requesting almost 2 and a half times the density that's allowable in our properties, residential, I'm getting a little confused. RSF-4 ok, and all the properties adjacent, all the residential properties adjacent to this are single family homes at this time and some of those are unoccupied. What I ask myself is why should the Planning Commission grant this, I can't really come up with a good reason. I mean they are not doing anything at all here it's not like the great presentation we saw earlier for someone who was really trying to do something special with traditional neighborhood development. They are, the city is against it, the neighborhood is against, you know I just hope you deny it. Thank you. Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 46 Graves: Thank you. Would any other member of the public like to make, I want to stress non -cumulative comments, if you have something additional that hasn't already been stated by other members of the public then please come forward. Richards: Joyce Richards and I live to the east of the property, a couple blocks I guess down the fifth row. And I've written you a couple of e-mails and I just wanted to get up and say that I'm with Rebecca, please deny it. There is enough there with the zoning as it is for them to put a dwelling and I don't think it needs to be anymore. We don't need more built than what's already allowed. Thank you. Graves: Thank you. Would any other member of the public like to address this item? Seeing none I will hear the applicant's presentation at this point. Kemmet: Good evening. Bruce Kemmet, Project Design Consultants. We've been through several other arrangements with this residential plan development in attempt to go along with staff and satisfy the goals of the PZD. We've reduced to what was 17 units to 16 units. As stated earlier it was 4 family homes. We've removed those and we now have 8 single family homes and 8 town homes. The town homes are fronted along Deane Street, if you will look to the colored building elevations you will see that it is a very nice building. Probably the nicest building in the neighborhood or proposed building. I would like to point out that this neighborhood isn't primarily single family. Just to the west is primarily multi -family. Immediately to the west is a duplex which is zoned RT -12 and immediately to the west are 3 homes of which 2 of them are rented out. Immediately to the east are 2 single family homes, one of which is rented out and one of which is owned by the lady that was speaking earlier. We are proposing to maintain 16% of the tree canopy. We are proposing screening in the means of the existing trees as well as a privacy fence along the property line. The houses that you see are very nice craftsmanship construction. The town homes are upscale town homes, 15 hundred square feet or more. The town homes are proposing rear access from an alley so that you have a community, sense of community along Deane Street with not having the driveways facing the street that you can see fronting the street. And we are proposing an open space that will have an area for the community to use for functions, for neighborhood functions which will also have a gazebo that can be used for those functions. This property, although it's zoned RSF-4, is not marketed as RSF-4, as you know the price of property is very high and you'd probably never receive that zone in that area. In order to have this feasible this count, this number, this density is what is going to be required to make it worthwhile. I'm sure that Miss Bryant would prefer to just not have it developed but we actually want it developed. I would like to point out that this property is just under 2 acres, however we Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 47 need more right-of-way for a minor arterial of Deane Street, a 25' strip of property is required to be donated to street right-of-way as part of the Master Street Plan requirements. So, that significantly reduces the total acreage which gives you a density number that's actually higher then what is actually spaced out there in existing property. Other then that I'm subject to your questions. Graves: Thank you. Then I'll bring it to the commission. Commissioners this is a rezoning request. That's what it boils down to. Although it is a request to rezone a PZD it is a rezoning request. I would ask staff or legal, just briefly remind us what we are reviewing on a rezoning request. Pate: As you mentioned this is a rezoning and development request. As a residential planned zoning district therefore the applicant has provided you both their version of findings of fact as well as staff's version. If you agree with staffs you would recommend denial of this project. If you agree with the applicant's, obviously you would forward this to the city council. The findings that you make for a general rezoning begin on page 18 of 82 of the staff report. They include in this proposed rezoning consistent with the land use, planning objective principles policies land use zoning plans? Is it justified and needed at the time it is proposed? Does it create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion or alter population density thereby undesirably increase load on public services? Those are the essentials for findings the Planning Commission reviews with regard to zoning. A planned zoning district however has many more findings that you'll see on page 82 of the staff report. The findings that begin on page 7 of 82 and go through page 18. Those include does this application in compliance with the requirements of Unified Development Code and the general plan 2020, the overall stated use? Is it compatible with adjacent property? That's one of the primary findings that rezonings take a look at typically by state law and by our own ordinances whether the zoning is compatible with the surrounding land uses. Is it suitable for intended use and compatible with the natural environment? I could read all of those for you a lot of those just go into more detailed development questions, but those are the essential ingredients of a zoning request and in this case a planned zoning district request. Making those findings the staff could not support this particular request. Graves: Commissioners? Clark: Mister Chair? Graves: Commissioner Clark. Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 48 Clark: I would be happy to start off. Since I've been with commission 2 years I think I've seen this before and it does have a lot of history with our 82 pages of staff report. A lot of reiteration of the times this property has been denied rezoning and as I look back at this material I don't find that a lot has changed in the conditions. I do believe that as said in subdivision this property is too dense. This proposal is too dense for the property. I don't think it's compatible with surrounding development. I don't think the neighborhood is in favor of it. I see traffic issues, there is only one way in and one way out and that concerns me greatly. I don't think that the multi- family in front of the property, I agree with staffs finding that if it was single family or maybe even duplexes that might sway my opinion. I had hoped maybe for some modifications before it got to Planning Commission but seeing none I will restate my objection and lack of support for this project. Graves: Thank you Commissioner Clark and perhaps a sort of summary of what happened at subdivision on the side mybe appropriate at this point. If you don't mind giving us that. I think we've heard what you've said at subdivision but if anyone else would like to chime in or if you would like to report on it. Clark: Harris: Pate: We have had an indication that the property owner association in that area was in favor and I didn't have a problem with it but that turned out to be a little overstated according to what is in the packet today. I think there were concerns about density and any of you try and jump in because I'm not as clear on this one. I know we had concerns about emergency traffic, emergency vehicle access and entrance and exit because there is no way out. The way in is the way out. So, there were safety issues we talked about, compatibility, density issues. What else did we talk about? Commissioner Clark I'm not helping you because I think that pretty much sums it up. We were concerned about density issues. My understanding from the packet and also Mr. Pate as I listened to you before, would you mine reviewing what you said to me about the number of units now is really where we started a few months ago. Do you mind just reviewing that for me now? In brief there was a request in 2003 for RT -12 or 1.5 for this property which is an RT -12 now. The request was again proposed before the Planning Commission though the applicant withdrew earlier this year, January or February of this year for RT -12. Staff did not support that request finding that the density was not appropriate in this area although there was bullet of assurance for duplexes I believe. In the, looking at the minutes and the report of the minutes to the applicant from the previous Planning Commission meetings there was discussion of a planned zoning Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 49 district and perhaps the density and the concerns voiced by neighbors could be accommodated by a zoning district request. However, it does not mean that this was staff stated at subdivision committee that any planned zoning district proposed would come with staff recommendation. The initial request that we received had 22 units per acre which again, January there was a request for 16, so it jumped up a good 6 units with the original request. Staff did not support that. It came down to 19 I believe and now 16 that was proposed at subdivision committee of the Planning Commission. So, that's kind of the history of where it came from 22 down to 16 so we are essentially back at where we were in January, February with our recommendation of density. We do have a benefit, obviously, to the applicant's credit, a plan to review. The Planning Commission does have something to look at to see where the 16 units are located and I think that's part of the role of the planned zoning district is to allow neighborhoods, Commissioners, and those concerned to review an actual plan. It does not meet all of our concerns however and staff felt that, I'll just reiterate what I said in subdivision committee in our recommendation, the applicant stated that there is a lot of multi -family in this area. It was our finding that Lewis Street has historically been that dividing line. Scholar Place is a typical example of that multi -family development in this area just west of Lewis Street. To the east of Lewis Street is you look at your city maps, to a larger degree almost all the property east to Garland and south to Mt. Comfort is primarily RSF-4 developed single family residential neighborhoods. That's the case with the property adjacent to this with the exception of course to the northeast agricultural park. South is the agricultural farm and to the south is the soccer fields in that area. So, we felt that this is not necessarily a transition area in terms of land use. As primarily single-family, transition really is on this street between multi- family to west and single-family to the east. Harris: Thank you. Graves: Any other discussion in regard to this item? Lack: Mr. Chair? Graves: Commissioner Lack. Lack: I think that in looking at this project and what it first, I think even the first time that we saw the request in a previous forum I think that there were, there is an idea that this area is largely multi -family and there are a lot of parts along Deane Street. But in reviewing the actual site, going to see the site and understanding the nature of the neighborhood, I think that that Lewis Street division Mr. Pate talks about is very real. I think that there is a transition to single-family residential which along Deane Street could be Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 50 subject to change or not depending on the investment in current residents there. But I think that with that division this area is well recognized as a RSF-4 type area and to change the zoning this dramatically would be nestling in a very, very different use. I would encourage that if mixed-use makes density, I don't know that adding less then 2 acres in this case 1.6 acres a higher density into the middle of an existing RSF-4 neighborhood would achieve that goal. And with that I would not be in support of this item. Graves: Thank you Commissioner Lack. Any other comments? Harris: Mr. Chair? Graves: Commissioner Harris. Harris: It's all coming back to me all of a sudden. It came like a flood it happened. I remember asking at that time in subdivision committee, Mr. Pate, this notion of infill and density and again going back to that process that the city has just been through in terms of the kind of neighborhoods we are going to develop and so forth. I'm also, I'll come to that in a moment, I'm very aware, as is the developer I'm sure, that dirt is very expensive. I'm not exactly sure what density will be profitable at this site. And density does have to happen somewhere in someone's backyard including my own. At the same time I am not convinced at this point that this is appropriate density infill for this particular neighborhood for the reasons that have already been stated and then some I will restate them. I am also concerned with the actual layout of this particular proposal. The eastern stub out among my concerns so at this point I will not be able to support this particular proposal. Graves: Thank you Commission Harris. Any other comments? Motions? And we'll add just for clarification if there is a motion to deny is that a motion to recommend denial to the city council or is it just a denial at this point? Williams: You would still recommend, a recommendation to the city council for denial. Graves: Ok. So, if we had a motion and it's for denial then that would be the way to state the motion. Clark: Commissioner Chair. I would like to recommend denial of R-PZD 06- 2035. Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 51 Graves: Thank you. There has been a motion by Commissioner Clark to deny of R- PZD 06-2035 or actually to recommend denial to the city council is there a second? Lack: I'll second that. Graves: Second by Commissioner Lack. Is there any further discussion of the motion? Take the vote. Roll Call: The motion to deny R-PZD 06-2035 carries with a vote of 5-1-0. Williams: I should note for the developer that this doesn't automatically go to the City Council at this level. You would have to file a written appeal to the City Clerk within ten business days. Kemmet: Thank you. Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 52 CUP 06-2089: Conditional Use Permit (CORDES, 331): Submitted by VAUGHN MICHAEL & MONICA CORDES for property located at 1720 E. SUSAN DRIVE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY — 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.50 acres. The request is for a home occupation/day care. Graves: Thank you. The next item on the agenda is Conditional Use Permit 06- 2089 Cordes request for an occupational day care in an RSF zone. Again as I stated with regard to item number 8, this is an item that would need 5 positive votes to be approved and we have 6 commissioners here tonight so it would take either a unanimous vote or a 5 to 1 vote. If more then 1 commissioner wanted to deny it would be denied at this level. So, I would invite the applicant just to address the issue of whether they want to move forward or not. Is the applicant here? We're not asking for presentation at this point, you could just introduce yourself and let us know whether you want us to vote or whether you would prefer it be table to a time when we have fuller Planning Commission. Cordes: My name is Vaughn Cordes and my wife Monica Cordes is here, we are the applicants and we would like for this to move on tonight. Williams: I should note for the record that as opposed to a rezoning request you can't automatically ask for the right to appeal, a conditional use can only be aprealed by 2 of the alderman, the 2 alderman living in your ward plus a 3 aldterman so that is a much more difficult appeal to do to the city council. Graves: Maybe we should have told you that because you committed yourself on whether you wanted to go forward. So, do you still want to go forward? Cordes: We'll go forward. Graves: Ok. Thank you. If we could have the staff report on item number 9 in the agenda. Fulcher: I'll try to keep all these conditional uses straight. This property is located at 1720 Susan Drive in the Cedar Creek subdivision. The property is zoned RSF-4 and contains one single family home. The property can be accessed, if you look at your maps included in your report, from Overcrest Road from the west Township road to the north from Mission Boulevard to the south. The applicant is requesting conditional use to operate a home childcare facility in the RSF-4 zoning district with a maximum of 5 children. Ages new born to 2 years old. The childcare facility would be located in the 1700 square foot home of which 654 square feet will be dedicated for childcare use. The outdoor play area totals approximately 13 thousand square feet and the hours of operation will be from 6 A.M to 6 Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 53 P.M Monday through Friday. Outlined in the report the outdoor play area lot size and play areas all of which meet minimum ordinance requirements. Based on the accessibility of this property hopefully, you would assume no two cars would arrive at this location by the same route given the age of the children who would be cared for newborn to 2 years old. And also the limited number of 5 or less. Staff didn't feel that this would have a negative impact on surrounding property owners nor a potential or great increase of traffic in the area at any one time. With that and the other findings in our report, staff is recommending approval with 4 conditions of approval. Again condition number 1, which again added into our child care conditional use request says prior to a certificate of zoning compliance the applicant is to provide a license from the department of Health and Human Services for a childcare facility if it is required to be obtained from the Health and Human Services. Condition number 2, no more then 5 children or the number licensed for, whichever is fewer. And we will be looking at some sidewalks on this and other condition use requests this evening, in this case the sidewalk administrator has reviewed the site and there is an existing sidewalk to the south, on the south side of the street. Therefore, no money in -lieu, or construction of the sidewalk is required. Graves: Thank you. Would any member of the public like to address conditional use permit 06-2089. If you would step forward and state your name and then give us your comments. Rogers: My name is Marilyn Rogers and I live at 2289 North Creekwood Avenue and the back of my property is adjacent to the side of their property where the driveway is and this, our area is already used a lot by people going through the neighborhood. We have Elmwood and we have Stewart and we have Overcrest and people do go through that neighborhood. Creekwood intersect East Susan Drive twice and within those two intersections there are 4 houses. My house, the house at 1720 East Susan with no sidewalk and across the street are two houses with the sidewalk. So, there people turning at those 2 intersections very often and sometimes it's even difficult to get out of my driveway. The 1720 East Susan is very narrow at the front and their driveway is usually occupied with vehicles and I feel like there will only be a couple cars that can park in front and those other cars will park in front of my yard. And since there is no sidewalk I think they will probably walk through my yard. I am concerned about the safety of the parents and the children because if two cars are parked on either side it is difficult to get through. The people at 1720 have already used my yard for vehicles, to drive through my yard with their vehicles and they have also allowed people to walk through my yard to get to their property. I am concerned mostly about people parking in front and opening car doors when that road is used very often by people going Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 54 through the neighborhood and I think it is a dangerous situation. Thank you. Graves: Thank you. Would any other member of the public like to address this item. Sir, you could step forward and introduce yourself and give us your comments. Hunter: I'm Jerry Hunter and I live at 1789 East Susan which is about 5 houses up. I don't know anything about the daycare part of it, it seems like that would be good. But usually daycare means that the people are going to work and I have waited sometimes 3 or 4, 5 minutes when I have to shoot out from the street, although there are three they all go into busy highways. And if you're going to take a left turn sometimes it's closer to 7 minutes, 8 minutes. And what I'm saying is if you have 5 other cars waiting in line there you go in another 20 or 30 minutes or more. And I don't know if there is a problem with that, but then the other problem I see is there is no sidewalk on the side it is in and again when the weather is bad you got children coming out of the place with their parents and it doesn't make any sense to me. If you want to run a business to go into a place that is zoned that way before you go into that area. Because a lot of people that I've talked to particularly neighbors across the street, next door, etcetera, didn't have terrible things about it except the fact they were wondering why someone would go into a home area to start a business where it's not business and start one. Thank you. Graves: Thank you. Is there any other member of the public who would like to address this particular item? Sir, if you could introduce yourself and then give us your comments. Friend: I'm Jerry Friend, my family and I live at 1640 Stuart Street which would be, I think, almost directly behind this house on the street to the north. I agree with city staff that I probably would never hear the kids and if I did that's kind of a joyful sound anyway. I do have a few traffic concerns but my main concern is and I hate to say this slippery slope, but I want to point out a couple of things I heard tonight and one of them was an excellent presentation that, I can't think of the name, but some fella gave, but they showed a street on Mt. Sequoia with no sidewalk and curb. Saying here is a beautiful street already like that in order to convince you all to let them do the same thing in their building. I also heard I believe it was one commissioner say in discussing a sign I believe it was one of the signs like the one Walgreens has that it would stand out and be different. I think I heard someone else say something like if we pass this we may get a bunch of other people wanting us to give a waiver for them. And those are all legitimate statements and that's my theory that if we allow daycare in a neighborhood that's residential, even if it's the best daycare in the world, Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 55 and even if the traffic doesn't bother us, if a jet ski repair person wants to put something in up the street they can use the argument that well you've allowed a business in there already and you should allow us in. I know I'm exaggerating this committee, I'm sure this commission would never allow a jet ski repairman live up -street from me I'm sure, but I'm just using it as an example. Once a neighborhood, a business is started in a neighborhood, it is so much easier to convince people that another one wouldn't hurt also, thank you very much. Graves: Thank you. Would any other member of the public like to address conditional use permit 06-2089? Seeing none I'll invite the applicant to make his presentation. Cordes: My name is Vaughn Cordes. My wife and I are the applicants. Graves: Your a tall fella you might have to pull the microphone up a bit so we can hear you. Cordes: Is that better? Graves: Yes. Cordes: Ok. We've had 3 people here tonight, the main concern I think with these 3 has been traffic and saying that this use of our property for day care in this residential zone would cause problems. We already had residential day care in this area on Overcrest about a block and a half away. It has not cause any significant increase in traffic flow. As the staff told you there is 3 different ways of approaching our property. There is no reason for there to be any congestion in one of those accesses as well as any other. There is also no reason for traffic to cut through our neighborhood as suggested by Miss Rogers on their way to work on the day. This neighborhood has several cul-de-sacs on it. Susan Drive is one, the road that Mr. Friend lives on is near one of the cul-de-sacs as well, Marilyn Rogers lives on a cul-de- sac. There is no reason for there to be a flow of traffic through the roads in front of their homes and to prevent them from getting out into the road, accessing the road from their driveways. There is no reason that there is going to be traffic for 5, 10, 15 minutes on one road versus any of the other 2 roads from Mission Boulevard from Township from Elmwood road. I too have concerns if there was problems with parking on the street for the safety of the children. This is a residential area, the homes in this area are full of children. That's why we moved into this area. We didn't move into this area to start a business. We moved into this area because it is a beautiful area. It's by Gully Park, what do you want my Gully Park you want homes full of families with children and this area is full of families with children. Our parking in our home, our driveway Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 56 accommodates 4 spaces and that for code requirements is more then adequate. We are only required to have 3 spaces. Our lot is a half acre lot, the frontage on our lot which they say is a narrow lot is 116'. You can park 3 to 4 cars on the street in front of our home alone. There is no reason for any cars to park in front of Miss Roger's home and then walk their children through her yard to get to our, to the entrance of our home. Miss Rogers I think, her concerns are more less based in fact and more based in I'm sorry to say sour grapes. Graves: Well I would prefer if you, we don't need to cast dispersions or make any attacks on anyone who has made comments you can address the issues that they raised, but I would prefer that you did not make any comments. Cordes: Ok. We will address the facts of what she brought up. First, I've already addressed her detour issue and the letter that she submitted to commission, I've already addressed the parking issue. She says that they would be parking in front of her home. There is no reason for that, our driveway adequately covers that plus the frontage in front of our street covers that. She also argues that there would be parking on both sides of the street. There is no reason for that either to make a safety concern with doors opening into the street. Parents can open their doors, if for some reason they did not park in our driveway they could open their door onto our front lawn. There is no border, there is no fence to actually prevent them from going onto the lawn and walking straight up to the door. In terms of Miss Marilyn's concerns about us having guests walk through her yard and heavy machinery go through her yard, there has been none of that. We have put in a garden in her back yard and after having the utility companies mark that incorrectly we cut our own cable line and phone line. When they came to re -dig that line, the telephone company cut her telephone line which runs through our garden as well and the machinery that came through her yard on her side of the fence, there is a privacy fence between our yards, they dug up her yard to replace her phone line and instead of it going back into her yard they dug a trench. Graves: Well, then lets reel this back in to the conditional use that's at issue as opposed to what sounds like maybe just some disagreements in the past. Cordes: Ok, ok. You're right. Just trying to put up a history for this on you. She also said this is a quiet peaceful neighborhood. This neighborhood as I said is a full of families and children. The residents to the north of her that border our property and Miss Roger's property have sent us an e-mail saying you're a go, congratulations good luck. I have that here if you would like to have that. We've got another e-mail from someone in the neighborhood as well. Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 57 Graves: If you have anything you want to give us then you can give it to Jeremy and he can pass it out to us. Thanks. Cordes: This neighborhood is also near Gully Park. Gully Park has concerts every Thursday now, those concerts can be heard throughout the neighborhood. This is not a quiet tucked away retirement village. This is a place with families. The family behind us practices their drums at night and on weekends. The family Rick and Beth Scottdale she practices her harp at night and you can hear that throughout the neighborhood as well. And she even notes that on her Internet message to us. This is a family area. Giving a daycare to us in this area allows us to meet needs in the area of other families. These infants to 2 year olds are not going to create a disturbance for anyone in this area and we've met all the code requirements that we need to. Graves: Thank you. Commissioners. Trumbo: Mr. Chair, question for the applicant if I may. What are your anticipated hours of operation? Cordes: 6 A.M to 6 P.M. Trumbo: And will most of your customers will they typically be picking up after 5 and dropping off prior to 7, is that what you are anticipating or? Cordes: We are anticipating most people begin work at 8 O'clock so most children will be dropped off at the hours between 7 and 8 and picked up between 5 and 6. Trumbo: Ok. As far as parking is concerned, I guess this is more a question for staff. Can we require the applicant to, and I don't exactly know how to do it, but possibly post or I guess strongly suggest that his clients not park in front of neighbor's house? I am having issues with it I mean I know it is a public street, public right-of-way, but has it ever been done? Pate: The transportation division usually determines what streets can be posted for parking and no parking. I'm assuming this is a standard residential street, 40' driveway, 24' wide probably with a curb or sidewalk on one side. That is very typical of residential streets that does allow for parking on at least one side of the street. By this conditional use it does state that the applicant is to provide off-street parking where required and there is a requirement of 1 space for employee, 1 space for 10 children. As the applicant stated that's 3 spaces and I would feel comfortable if the Planning Commission require drop-off or pick-up to the curb within the Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 58 that area of the driveway as opposed to parking for drop-off and pick-up within the street. Trumbo: You're saying in front of the applicant's property? Pate: Or in the driveway. Trumbo: Or in the driveway but not the whole street ok. Pate: That goes back to subsection 2B where it states off-street parking and loading areas where required especially with regard to effects a special exception on adjoining properties and properties generally in the district. So, by virtue of the conditional use request the commission does have some discretion about the conditions that can be placed on the applicant. Harris: Mr. Chair? Graves: Commissioner Harris. Harris: I would just like to state again for the record I think I heard someone among the neighbors say and it's certainly written in Miss Roger's letter to us that she's concerned about changing the zoning. This isn't actually a rezoning request is it? Pate: That's correct. Harris: Pate: I mean this is not a use by right this is a conditional request so this is not a spot zoning request. This is something that anybody in the neighborhood could and apparently somebody in the neighborhood has already requested correct? Right, there are other a limited other conditional use requests that can occur within a residential single family neighborhood. This is one of those. Graves: Jet ski repair is not one of those? Pate: Correct. Clark: Mr. Chair? I am having a hard time figuring out why 5 children especially infants only 2 years old, how they could disrupt a neighborhood to the point of denying this condition use. It seems like you picked a perfect age group to reduce interaction with neighbors, they I don't, do 1 and 2 year olds go out and play a lot? My memory is they sleep a lot. Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 59 Graves: I don't believe there is anything that restricts him to infants to 2 year olds. Clark: No, I thought I read, may that was form the applicant. Graves: I think they suggested that but the only conditions I see on the conditional use request is that no more then 5 children be there. I think they stated what their anticipated customers would be. Clark: Ok. I'm reading on the proposal 5 children age new born to 2 years old. Should we put that in the conditions of approval Jeremy? Pate: I would recommend that, that's based on, that's what we based our recommendation on and that's what the applicant specifically - Clark: And the applicant is still comfortable with that going into the condition for approval? Cordes: Yes. Clark: So, only new born to 2 years old, only from 6 to 6, and the condition that all drop-offs and pick-ups should be restricted to the applicant's driveway. I'm, is that legal? Every time you frown like that I have to ask. Williams: Well, I just wondered if you were concerned that they not be dropped off in front of the house either, I mean they have over 100' of frontage and from the safety point of view I don't know how that would make it unsafe for them to pull up in the street, if it's in front of the applicant's house why you would restrict someone from dropping off a child there instead of just the driveway. Clark: Ok. Should be restricted to the applicant's driveway or frontage? Williams: I think that would certainly be more workable. It might be a couple cars in the driveway dropping off children and I don't see a reason to not allow them to drop off in front of the house. Clark: On their side of the street. Williams: Right. Clark: I'm having a hard time in finding, we've certainly rejected daycares in the past, and I don't see any of the warning signs that I have found in some of those in this proposal. I guess I'm asking fellow commissioners what they're take on this is. Now jet ski, ski repair thing, absolutely not. But I think this is low impact. Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 60 Graves: I would agree, I think that the Conditional Use Permit does not have any precedental binding effect on this body. It is a case by case basis based on specific circumstances that we see in each, with each item we take up the issues involved in that specific piece of property and that specific applicant when we look at a conditional use and it doesn't bind this body to grant another conditional use request for something on down the road in this area or any other area. With the condition regarding the parking and where it can occur I would agree that having it allowed on the street or in front of the property is appropriate because I can foresee a situation where one other person might even pull up in the middle of the driveway when someone else drops off and they don't want to pull in behind them or whatever. It's important to have a restriction on the parking to avoid intrusion on the neighbors as much as possible although as Commissioner Trumbo pointed out those are public streets and people have a right to park on a public street if they want to, but as far as these customers of this daycare I don't see a problem with putting a restriction like that on there to avoid intrusion on the neighbors. And again with the particular age that the applicant has exhibited willingness to place in the conditions of approval, there is not enough of a number of children or of age that I would anticipate there would be very much noise that would effect any of the neighboring properties. And I will be in favor of this Conditional Use Permit with those conditions as they've kind of been hashed out here as we've discussed. Clark: I think, Mr. Chair, if we just amend number 2 to no more then 5 children between the ages of new born to 2 years of age or the number of approved residences. And then add a condition number 5 all drop-offs and pick-ups should be restricted to the applicant's driveway or direct frontage, would that solve the concerns stated? Graves: Does that satisfy the staff and our city attorney, that verbiage? Pate: Question was we'd allow newborns up to 2 years of age or through 2 years of age to 3 just to be clear. Graves: Newborns up through 2 years of age. Pate: Thank you. Graves: And then would staff and city attorney both with regard to as it's now been modified with the age and as the 5th condition it's been stated with the parking or the drop-off and courier along the frontage? Pate: Yes, sir. Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 61 Williams: It's fine. Graves: Are there any other comments by any of the commissioners on this Conditional Use Request? Do I have a motion? Lack: Mr. Chair? Graves: Commissioner Lack. Lack: I think that there's a good reason that this is one of the items that is listed for us to consider for conditional use as are churches and other things that service the community, service a particular neighborhood. And with that I think that this particular neighborhood and this particular condition of use will service the neighborhood and be a good fit. And I would move that we approve Conditional Use request 06-2089 with the amendment to item number 2, condition number 2, that no more then 5 children age 0 through 2 years be amended and that we add a condition number 5 that states that drop-off of children to be restricted to the applicant's driveway or the frontage of their property. Graves: We've had a motion by Commissioner Lack to approve the Conditional Use request with the stated conditions of approval and modifying number 2 as stated and adding a condition number 5 as stated. Is there a second to that motion? Trumbo: Second. Graves: A second by Commissioner Trumbo. Is there any further discussion on this item before we vote? Pate: Mr. Chair? The motion specifically said drop-off, I wanted to clarify drop- off and pick-up. Graves: I meant, I thought he said pick-up or I would have. Clark: Mr. Chair, for the benefit of the neighbors, Jeremy, it is true that if any of these conditions were violated we can revisit this Conditional Use? Pate: That is correct. Clark: So, these are the rules they have to abide by if they don't, you have recourse. Graves: Is there any further discussion on this item before we vote? Jeremy? Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 62 Roll Call: The motion to approve CUP 06-2089 carries with a vote of 6-0-0. Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 63 CUP 06-2090: Conditional Use Permit (RAMSEY, 559): Submitted by MELISSA RAMSEY for property located at 925 & 927 S. HOLLYWOOD AVENUE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY — 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.26 acres. The request is to allow an existing duplex in the RSF-4 zoning district. Graves: The next item on the agenda is Conditional Use Permit 06-2090. Let the room clear out for a little bit. Again this item would require 6 or 5 affirmative votes. In other words, no more then 1 commissioner could oppose it or would vote to deny and it would cause it to fail. And so you would have the opportunity as the applicant on this item if you want to request we table it until we have a full commission we can do that. You've heard the city attorney's comments with regard to the difficulty of appealing a Conditional Use Permit as compared to some other items so I would ask you to introduce yourself and to let us know whether you would like for us to proceed on this item tonight or table it. Ramsey: My name is Pete Ramsey and I would like to proceed. Graves: Ok, thank you. If we could have a staff report on this item please. Fulcher: This property is located at 925 and 927 South Hollywood Avenue which is just south of 6th Street. There is actually an existing duplex on this property. The request is not to construct a duplex on this property but rather to make the existing duplex, which is a non -conforming structure, into a conforming structure so in the event or the possibility that the building was destroyed they could actually build it back or if they want to do anything more then minor repairs to the structure they could also do that without having to come back in the future. It was actually constructed as a single-family home in 1958, it wasn't until approximately 1970 that the second unit was added to create this as a duplex. At the time, obviously, the limitations within the zoning district were a little different and allowed for that two family dwelling unit to be created there. Ultimately, we've looked at this as an existing structure, an existing use that's been there for approximately 36 years and to recommend approval of that, continuation of that use would not be injurious to the neighborhood or create a situation that obviously doesn't already exist there. With that staff is recommending approval with 5 conditions. Condition 1 is just to reiterate that this is not to allow for a new structure on the property but rather for the existing duplex to remain and be a conforming structure. Item 2 refers to the fact that, and again based on the time that this structure was constructed, the lot does not meet the lot size and lot width requirements that are set forth in a RSF zoning district so condition number 2 requires that the applicants goes to the Board of Adjustments and request those variance that are appropriate to make the lot itself conforming and if there are any setback encroachments which Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 64 there may be to also correct those at this time. And condition number 4 again, back to the sidewalk recommendations for Conditional Uses as required in the UDC the sidewalk administrator has recommended that a sidewalk be constructed along the street -front frontage. Graves: Thank you. Is there any member of the public who would like to address Conditional Use Permit 06-2090? Seeing very few members of the public left, we will go to the applicant and if you would like to step forward and make whatever presentation you have on this item. Ramsey: We are asking for the variance just to transfer the property from the present owner which is Jefferey Ramsey to the person who is now written the also half of the property, Melissa Ramsey. We are just asking for the transfer to be made. Graves: Thank you. Commissioners? Trumbo: Mr. Chair? Graves: Commissioner Trumbo. Trumbo: This Conditional Use looks pretty straight forward. It's non -conforming. I don't have any problems with it so I'm going to go ahead and make a motion that we approve Conditional use 06-2090 with the finding in agreement with staffs 5 conditions of approval. Graves: We have a motion by Commissioner Trumbo to approve Conditional Use request 06-2090 with the stated conditions approval, the 5 stated conditions. Is there a second? Clark: I second. Graves: A second by Commissioner Clark. Is there any further discussion? I have one question for staff. On condition number 1 it's worded that a reconstruction of this duplex can occur but the next one says they can't build a new structure and I was just wanting to clarify what the difference is. Pate: That language is coming from our non -conforming section of our ordinance under these conditions and discusses reconstruction or destruction of a structure, repairs of a structure, up to I believe 50% could not be replaced so for instance it would allow for instance a 50% of the structure restored and they would be able to reconstruct that. Graves: Ok. Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 65 Pate: So, you can see the repair level and really get into reconstructing a portion of the structure. This would also allow for, just for the record, it would allow for future alterations and additions to the property as long as it met all building setbacks and that's referenced in condition number 5. So, I just wanted to make sure the Planning Commission is aware of that. This could be added on as long as it met all setbacks. Graves: I just wanted to make sure the applicant is clear that reconstruction doesn't mean complete reconstruction if the entire or more then 50% were destroyed for some reason. Any further discussion? Lets take a vote. Roll Call: The motion to approve CUP 06-2090 carries with a vote of 6-0-0. Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 66 CUP 06-2091: Conditional Use Permit (JONES, 367): Submitted by CHARLES P JONES for property located at 227 W. MILLER. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY — 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.26 acres. The request is for a duplex in an RSF-4 zoning district. Graves: The next item on the agenda is Conditional Use Permit 06-2091. And again with a Conditional Use Permit it requires at least 5 affirmative votes. We only have 6 commissioners here tonight so the applicant, if the applicant would prefer that we have a more complete commission as a body before we proceed on this item, that would certainly be something we would consider. But that's up to the applicant. If that applicant would step forward on this item and let us know. Is the applicant here? Doesn't look like we have an applicant. Can we check in the hall and make sure nobody is sitting out there. Is the applicant outside? What's our procedure when the applicant is not available on the Conditional Use request? Williams: Well if someone from the public came to speak they probably ought to be allowed to speak about it and then it would need to be tabled I would guess. Graves: Ok. Is there any member of the public who would like to address Conditional Use Permit 06-2091? Seeing no one, Ma'am are you here to address a particular item? ?: Yes, sir. Graves: Ok. Seeing no member of the public that is here to address that item I would entertain a motion to table since the applicant is not present. Clark: So made. Graves: A motion by Commissioner Clark to table this item to the next meeting. Clark: Sure. Graves: Ok. To the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Is there a second? Lack: Second. Graves: Ok a second by Commissioner Lack. Any discussion? Can we take the vote. Roll Call: The motion to table CUP 06-2091 carries with a vote of 6-0-0. Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 67 CUP 06-2092: Conditional Use Permit (UNITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, 399): Submitted by UNITY OF FAYETTEVILLE for property located at 4880 W. WEDINGTON DRIVE. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 2.74 acres. The request is to convert an existing structure into a classroom. Graves: The next item on the agenda is Conditional Use Permit 06-2092 Unity of Fayetteville. Again this is our last of a series of Conditional Use Permit request, a Conditional Use request requires at least 5 affirmative votes. We only have 6 commissioners here tonight so if the applicant would prefer that we table this or would like to have us table this to the next meeting when we have a fuller commission we would certainly entertain that. But that's certainly the applicant's option. If you would step forward and introduce yourself and let us know what you want to do on that. Leise: My name is Roger Leise, I'm the vice president of the Board of Trustees. Let's get a vote tonight. Graves: Ok. Thank you. If we could have the staff report on this item please. Fulcher: This is a property located at 4880 West Wedington Drive. There is an existing church facility which was approved in 1992 by the Planning Commission and earlier sometime after construction of the principle building a storage building was located directly behind the church structure for purposes for church storage. That's just a color photo of the particular structure we are talking about here tonight. We looked at that at session on Thursday although not all members were able to see that. The applicant's request is to convert that building into a part-time classroom. It would be operated on Sundays from 9 A.M to 1P.M with 1 employee obviously in there supervising the students with a maximum of 25 students proposed during those peak hours. There is an existing parking lot which was approved as part of the Large Scale Development which provides ample parking for the existing church and the proposed expansion into this adjacent building. Looking at the findings that we have to make on this Conditional Use, obviously this church was already approved its existing use on the property. Staff is supportive of the expansion of this use into another structure whether this or another. Given that the church is, it's on about 2.5 acres. The closest residential building approximately 200' away. So, although this is a very accessible church it is also quite isolated from any other surrounding uses. Staff is as I stated supportive of expanding this church use. However, originally we had some reservations about these, the structure. Given its, just looking at it you have concerns of use of its size and being able to provide or not endanger the health of safety of its users. We asked our building safety administrator to go out and look at the structure and kind of give us a list of items that would have to be done Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 68 to the structure to bring it up to code to make it a non -temporary structure that could be utilized by individuals and we've included that in our condition number 3. We've given that to the applicant and I'll let him speak for himself. I believe they are in agreement with all of the conditions of the building and safety division. That is our main concern that and in condition number 2 the building and safety administrator, based on the size, requested this be limited to a maximum occupancy of 14. Again I believe the applicant is agreeable to that. With those two main items with in addition to the other conditions of approval staff is able to support this. Just for the record I'll go ahead and cover items 3 that were requested by the building and safety administrator. And that is the building should be secured to a permanent masonry or concrete foundation thus making it a permanent structure. Windows as shown in the site plan shall be added, insulation shall be added to the floor and walls, dry wall and paint shall be installed and/or applied, a floor should be constructed to meet city building codes, heating and cooling shall be provides, an entry with landing with steps, guard rails, with guards and hand rails shall be constructed for safe access into and out of the structure, and all building construction shall meet applicable building code and fire prevention code to acquire occupancy status. Graves: Thank you. Is there any member of the public who would like to address Conditional Use Permit 06-2092. Seeing none I would like to hear the presentation of the applicant at this time. Leise: First of all, I would like to thank staff and the building code folks for helping us get this project off the ground. Bottom line is we have got to get these teenagers out of my minister's office. They've got bean bags all over the place and we're just running out of space inside the facility. We do have plans for perhaps an addition to our current facility but this is a stop gap measure. We'll do what we have got to do to make it work right now. Well agree to a 14 person occupancy in the building. We've got 18 teenagers right now that we didn't have 2 years ago. The congregation is growing, sooner we'll have a bigger challenge down the road and we know it. Permanent structure, we'll make it a permanent structure, whatever we've got to do to make this happen. And I want to again thank engineering and staff for helping me get this through. Any questions? Graves: Yeah. If any of the commissioners do we'll ask them and then you can come back. Leise: Thank you. Graves: Commissioners? Now see you now you're not going to like me because I do have a question of you and I'm the one who just told you to sit down. Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 69 Leise: Out of any of the conditions listed here are there any conditions that staff has stated. I've heard some peace meal that you all have agreed to some of them, do you agree to all of the conditions? Have you had a chance to review those and do you agree with all of the conditions that they've listed here? My first request for what we were going to do is put it down on a piece of paper and this is a storage building so I put some fans like this and I put some notes on a thing and we'd agreed to do everything on here except for 2 things. And that was build a foundation for the building and put an entryway and steps on it. If that's what is necessary in order to make it habitable for Unity's classrooms it'll get done. Graves: Ok. Thank you. Leise: It's either that or get a big tent. Clark: Mr. Chair? Graves: Commissioner Clark. Clark: I commend you. You are taking a storage building to such heights and I hope it is successful I think staff has spelled out everything that needs to be done and when you start to do it you might decide expanding the church might just be simpler. But if you all want to do it I'm going to make the motion that we approve Conditional Use 06-2092 with all of the conditions stated. Graves: We've got a motion by Commissioner Clark to approve Conditional Use Permit 06-2092 with all the stated conditions of approval. I would question the motioner, does that include a finding on number 1 with compatibility? Clark: Yes. Graves: Ok. Do we have a second? Harris: Second. Graves: A second by Commissioner Harris. Is there any further discussion on the motion? Jeremy. Roll Call: The motion to approve CUP 06-2092 carries with a vote of 6-0-0. Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 70 RZN 06-2088: Rezoning (TRI -CITY INVESTMENTS, LLC, 527): Submitted by CRAFTON TULL & ASSOCIATES INC. - ROGERS for property located at NW of HWY 16 AND STONEBRIDGE ROAD. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY — 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 2.78 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Graves: The next item and the last item on the agenda is Rezoning 06-2088 Tri - City Investments. Trumbo: Mr. Chair? Graves: Commissioner Trumbo? Trumbo: I'm going to have to recuse. Graves: Ok, Thank you. Commissioner Trumbo is recusing for this item. Again with this item as I've told the previous applicants now this would require five affirmative votes in order to proceed from here with a positive recommendation. So, much to the extent that if there is more then one commissioner, well actually, we would have to be unanimous because Commissioner Trumbo has recused so it would have to be a unanimous decision tonight in order to get a positive recommendation. And so I would like to give you the option of whether you would like to table it tonight. Beam: And as much as I've enjoyed this evening with you all I'm going to let us all go home and come back and see you in two weeks. Graves: Ok. And so the applicant is requesting that we table this item tonight until we have a fuller Commission available to consider this item. Is there a motion? Such a motion? Williams: Mr. Chair. Graves: Oh, we need to hear public comment, I apologize. Is there any member of the public who came here who would like to address this item? Ok, please come forward. Understanding that we are not going to vote on it tonight. Cobb: Yes, I understand it. My name is Theresa Cobb and I live at the corner of Sherlock and Homes which is an adjacent property to this proposed rezoning area. Last week I sent packets to the Commission members to try to save some time in this part that consisted of signatures of the neighborhood, of the people in the neighborhood that are opposed to this rezoning. Photographs of the area, etc. I've included a letter with that that since speaking to other members of the neighborhood that I've revised a Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 71 little bit I would like to go ahead and read this letter at this time and there is other people here who would like to speak. Graves: Ok. If you would prefer it might be easier especially since we are probably not going to vote substantively on it tonight, we are probably going to table it, you might want to provide the letter to Jeremy and then it would be in our packet before we voted on it next time rather then reading the whole thing. Cobb: Ok. Alright I'll do that and I have a photo - Graves: The photograph, you can provide all that to Jeremy and he'll have it in our packet before we consider it next time if that's ok. Cobb: That would be acceptable to me. Thank you. Graves: Thank you. Do you want to give it to him right now? Ok. Is there any other member of the public who would like to address this item? Please come forward and state your name and make your comment. Isaacs: I'm Elsa Isaacs. I live in the same neighborhood. Out of respect for our suffering Glutiuses Maximuses, that's a bad Latin in plural, could you put us up above number 13 in the agenda next time? Graves: This will be old business next time so it would be at the, closer to the beginning of the agenda. Tonight it was a new business item and it was the last new business item. Isaacs: Ok, thank you. Graves: Thank you. Bruins: I do apologize for having to speak, unfortunately - Graves: Could you introduce yourself? Bruins: Yes, I'm sorry, I'm Josh Bruins. I'm also a resident of the same neighborhood and unfortunately I'll be out of town on business in the next two weeks. So, I'd like to go ahead and address my concerns and talk to you a little bit about it. Graves: That's fine. Bruins: I live, my wife and I bought our house about a year ago and our house actually butts up to property that's in question. When we bought our house Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 72 we walked in, we saw this beautiful land you know behind our house this nice pasture and everything. And that was one of the major reasons we bought the house and we knew there was a possibility that since it was zoned residential that there was a possibility that there would be houses, we were great with. We like the idea of growth. And one of the neat things about the house is there was this terrace and on the terrace there was wysteria growing all over the top of it. Beautiful, shady, one of the coolest things about the house. One of the things to be noticed it the wysteria was wrapped around the terrace and it was actually pulling it down. Now say that to just say that growth without management can be detrimental and destructive to whatever it's around. So, I really want you guys when you are considering this to think about that. Though this growth is great and we all want to see Fayetteville grow and prosper, it needs to be managed and really looked at before it is actually completed. So, some of the major concerns that we have is safety. My wife and I we hope to have kids really soon; we want our kids to be able to go down the street, hang out, and do all that. But traffic is a major problem in the area because it's located right off Highway 16 first of all, but then with new businesses it's going to bring more traffic into the area. There is already speeding issues around there. In truth they'll address that more next time. Something else is the new growth brings crime. With businesses and especially large businesses there is a lot of riff raff that comes in. We all know that, it's just a logical thing and hopefully what they're doing, what they're proposing is going to be very tame but any time you bring in extra people and extra growth there is going to be more crime. The value of our neighborhood is something that we are majorly concerned about. When we bought it we looked at it and we thought you know what our neighborhood is going to grow financially, it's near the Stonebridge area with the new development, the golf course and all that. And we're very excited about the growth potential financially for us and we don't want that to be a deterrent in the future of someone buying our house because there is possibly a big box retailer behind us. Also, the value of our house relating to noise and disturbance. We don't want to at three in the morning to hear big rig trucks coming in and dropping off deliveries and lots of noise and lights and just the disturbance that brings. So, in our respect what needs to be done there is a few different options. We can limit the size and types of retailers that back up to our house. We know there is going to be retailers more then likely, now if we can keep this zoned residential that would be optimal and then it would be residential retailers that would come close to butting up to our house. So, that's one way we can do it and we would prefer that no big box retailers be allowed in, that it be restricted to small mom and pop shops. Colliers Drugs, like a little clothing shop, maybe even a business park the hours are 8 to 5 or something like that. Another suggestion that might be feasible is that we are concerned that at the end of Sherlock, right now it just stops. It's not a cul-de-sac, it just stops and that's a very big concern of Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 73 ours because we don't want that to become a through street to the commercial because if that does that will bring even more traffic through and the kids in our neighborhood won't be able to play on the streets, won't be able to walk around without the parents fearing that something is going to happen. Just cars driving by, trucks in the middle of the night things like that. So, that's another suggestion that we build up a park at the end of that. It would help the city, it would help the residents, and all the kids, and it would also block that from every being any kind of through street commercial. But of course what would make us the happiest what would be the most simple if leave that residential. So, like I said you know, growth isn't bad and I know that this is going to be a different one to win because even though numerous accounts are financially tied with this and I know you that probably you discussed it and know a lot about it and know what they are going to do. I will say I've talked with some of these guys and they've been very nice and very helpful. Unfortunately, I haven't gotten a chance to connect with them and actually go walk the rain with them. But it still, no matter what, it is impeding up into our land and we would appreciate it stay residential. And so, just, we just want to make sure it's positive growth and please think of that whenever you vote. Graves: Thanks. And just so it's clear anybody that may be affiliated with the Planning Commission or City Council if they have any kind of financial ties to such a project they would not be voting members of it and we do not discuss these items until we are here at our public meetings because that's just how it is. So, just to address the comment that was made that we may have already talked about it, that has not happened and it doesn't happen so. We've had a request by the applicant to table this tonight because we don't have a full, ok there is one more member of the public who would like to talk. Please introduce yourself and give us your comments. McGathy: My name is Rachel McGathy and I live across the street from Theresa. Her property is facing it two ways but mine is directly across the street so. And I really appreciate your patience I am probably not going to be able to make the next one, perhaps my husband can be here. But I have a couple of my concerns and one of them may not even be, this may not be the forum, but one of them is definitely the traffic issue. Because if you look at the property itself and where it is sitting, in front of it fronting Highway 16 there is already, basically there is houses and one business, which I'm sure is going to be destroyed and something put there that's commercial. But as a whole it's a very quiet section and then there is the buffer zone, the field, and then there is our street which is Holme's Drive. I don't know exactly how anyone would develop that without having Highway 16 access and without using some part of the currently existing residential section although I don't know if that's the plan. I'm not privy to all the Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 74 planning but that area is not exactly huge and if Sherlock ends up being connected to any of that in any way or 16 is cut I'm not sure I can adequately explain to you how bad the traffic is there in the morning and in the evening, but if anyone lives near Elkins, basically it is a traffic jam from 7:15 until about 8:00 everyday. The only way you can get out onto the road is if someone lets you in. And the other side of Stonebridge, the left turners have bleak prospects. It is absolutely stopped in the morning and it backs up far past that road. So, if anyone is actually planning or know their plan which I don't by the way, if they are planning to cut 16, I can't even explain to you how dangerous that would be in my opinion especially if the businesses have some kind of outlet there because it would be two right next to each other Stonebridge and Sherlock. The other concern would be even if they don't do that if they twine Sherlock back and create some kind of a U for access or if they cut Stonebridge again, assuming that they connect the road into one big loop, it will pretty much destroy the dead end that we enjoy so much, which I'm not saying that would be the end of the world but for our world it would be. We have actually, as neighbors, and they are kind of new to our neighborhood, but we have a fantastic neighborhood. I know everyone on it except for the ones who live absolutely on the corner of Stonebridge because I think that's a rental property. We all know each other, we talk to each other, we stand out in the street and talk to each other. No one drives down our street. It is a neighborhood watch section. It is basically like a driveway with lots of people who like each other. So, it's disturbing to think that we would have some sort of through way where people could drive around. I guess beyond that, and again this is the part that I'm not sure is associated with this forum, but I have no clue what kind of business they're going to put there. It is a really horrible spot for anything big and anything small I'm not sure that it would be the right place. But that's altogether up to you to decide, but those are my comments. Graves: Thank you very much. Is there any other member of the public that would like to comment on this item? Seeing none we do have, with all apologies for those of you who waited till the very end of the agenda to have an opportunity to address this and I'm sure have a decision tonight, we've had a request by the applicant to table this tonight, which in fairness is probably the appropriate thing to do if they request it given that we only have five members who could vote on it tonight and that's how many votes it would take. With that request is there, do I have a commissioner who would like to make such a motion. Clark: Mr. Chair, I would like to make the motion to table Rezoning 06-2088 until the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission and having said that I would like to encourage neighbors to show up and also turn in all of Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 75 your materials that so that everybody can read them before the next Planning Commission. Graves: We've had a motion to table is there a second? Bryant: Second. Graves: There has been a second by Commissioner Bryant. Is there any further discussion? Let's take the vote. Roll Call: The motion to table RZN 06-2088 carries with a vote of 5-0-1. Graves: And that's the end of our agenda items tonight are there any announcements? Pate: We have one, the ordinance review committee is having a meeting at 5 P.M in the Blair Library on the 176 I believe, I'll double check that date for you, I'm sorry on the 29`h of this month on the downtown zoning code; it will be in the Walker Room. That is a public discussion of the downtown zoning coding before it is forwarded to full City Council for a vote. Graves: Are there any other announcements? We are adjourned.