Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
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.