Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-07-10 MinutesPlanning Commission July 10, 2006 Page I MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on July 10, 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- -2166: (SAMAS CLUB, 248) Approved Page 5 LSP 06-1929: (CARPENTER,723) Approved Page 5 VAC 06-2139: (WRMC, 211/212) Approved Page 5 VAC 06-2138: (CORRAL, 410) Approved Page 5 CUP 06-2128: (SOUTH HILL CHURCH OF CHRIST, 561) Tabled Page 6 LSD 06-2133: (APPLEBY Approved LANDING, LOT 12,251) Page 8 RZN 06-2140: (WRMC,211/212) Forwarded Page I I ADM 06-2165: (STUMBAUGH, 284) Moved Page 14 PPL 06-2080: (HAMM/HORSEBEND Approved ESTATES, 220-221) Page 17 CUP 06-2115 (IGLESIA EVANGELICA Approved PENTECOSTAL, 599) Page 26 VAC 06-2136: (WILKINS/PETUNIA CT., 371) Approved Page 34 Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 2 RZN 06- -2132: (JENNINGS PLUS N.A. DOWNZONING, 523-524-562) Tabled Page 50 ADM 06-2165 (STUMBAUGH, 284) Page 54 Denied Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 3 Lois Bryant Candy Clark James Graves Hilary Harris Andy Lack Christine Myres Alan Ostner Sean Trumbo STAFFPRESENT Jeremy Pate Andrew Garner Suzanne Morgan Jesse Fulcher CITY ATTORNEY: Kit Williams MEMBERS ABSENT Jill Anthes STAFF ABSENT Matt Casey Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 4 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call, Ostner, Bryant, Myres, Graves, Lack, Harris, Clark, and Trumbo are present. Anthes was absent. Graves: I believe that Jeremy Pate has some announcements with regard to the agenda tonight, some adjustments that are going to be made. Pate: Yes. There are two things, actually. One is Item Number 5 on the consent agenda. The staff would ask that that be pulled off the consent agenda. There*s a condition of approval there that staff and the applicant have evaluated and it does need to change, so that would need to be pulled off the consent agenda. Additionally, at the end of your agenda, Item Number 12, the rezoning 06-2132 for Jennings Plus Neighborhood Association Downzoning, in discussions today the staff found some discrepancies with regard to the petition submitted and we would request that be tabled indefinitely so that we can ensure that everyone who has signed the petition is on the petition to downzone this neighborhood. Graves: I have a couple of questions. Do we need to have any kind of a vote or anything to move that off of the consent agenda or do we just say itAs done? Williams: I think you can just say it's done since youAre removing it from the consent agenda. Graves: Then on the rezoning item, do we need to move it up or anything or should we just leave it in the regular order and take it up at the end? Williams: I think you can do either thing that you prefer. I think a lot of times you just leave it there and you handle it when you get there. Graves: All right. ThatAs what weAll do then. We have a set of minutes from May the I st of 2006 that we are being requested to approve. I would invite a motion on the minutes. So moved. Second. Graves: There*s been a motion and a second to approve the minutes from May 1, 2006. Is there any discussion? Will you take the roll call? Roll Call: The minutes are approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 5 ADM 06-2166: Administrative Item: (SAMkS CLUB, 248): Submitted by CARLSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS for property located at HWY 112, NW of 1-540. The request is for an extension of the Large Scale Development (LSD 05-1611) approval. LSP 06-1929: Lot Split (CARPENTER, 723): Submittedby BLEW, BATES & ASSOCIATES for property located at 3275 DEAD HORSE MOUNTAIN RD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 23.96 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into two tracts of 21.94 and 2.02 acres. VAC 06-2139: (WRMC, 211/212): Submitted by USI -ARKANSAS, INC. for property located at 3215 NORTH HILLS BLVD. The property is zoned R-0, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 52.03 acres. The request is to vacate a portion of right-of-way and parts of several utility easements within the subject property. VAC 06-2138: (CORRAL, 410): Submitted by ALAN REID for property located at 1182 SUMMERSBY DRIVE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITSIACRE and contains approximately 0.37 acres. The request is to vacate a 39 s.f. portion of a utility easement. Graves: We have before us a consent agenda consisting of now four items. Administrative Item 06-2166, SamAs Club; Lot Split 06-1929, Carpenter; Vacation 06-2139 for Washington Regional Medical Center; and Vacation 06- 2138, Corral. Do I have a motion to approve the consent agenda or are any of these items that anyone would want to remove from the consent agenda? First of all, from the Commission? Is there anyone from the public here to discuss any of those items that would like to see those taken off the consent agenda to discuss? Then I would invite a motion to approve the consent agenda. Clark: So moved. Graves: There -s been a motion by Commissioner Clark to approve the consent agenda. Do I have a second? Lack: Second. Graves: Is there any further discussion? Take the roll call. Roll Call: The motion to approve ADM 06- -2166, LSP 06-1929, VAC 06-2139, VAC 06-2138 carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 6 CUP 06-2128: (SOUTH HILL CHURCH OF CHRIST, 561): Submitted by DAVE JORGENSON for property located at 1146 S. ELLIS AVENUE. The property is zoned RMF - 24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0. 17 acres. The request is for a church (Use Unit 4) in the RMF -24 Zoning District. THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THIS ITEM BE TABLED. Graves: Our next item is old business. Conditional use permit, South Hill Church of Christ. The applicants request that this item be tabled, but since it -s been on the agenda weall go ahead and take a staff report if there is any and invite public comment. Fulcher: The conditional use request for South Hill Church of Christ, if I can get to it real quickly. Graves: I think your microphone is off or something. Fulcher: Okay. Can you hear me now? Graves: Yes. Fulcher: Okay. The subject property is located off South Hill Drive in south Fayetteville. There is an existing church located on the property and actually the subject property is located just south to this, adjacent to it. There&S an existing single- family home on the property that the applicants are proposing to remove and construct a new church facility to provide, I guess, auxiliary functions to the existing church facility there. The staff would be supportive of the request; however, weave met with the applicants and asked them to provide us with some elevations. They had some preliminary elevations that pretty much showed the front facade of the building, which seemed to be a fairly unarticulated structure, as with previous conditional uses for church buildings within residential districts where you*ve looked at elevations just to make sure that they are compatible with the adjacent residential homes in that area and that they are compatible with those existing uses. We met with the applicants the other day. They are going to go back and provide some elevations for all four sides of the building, provide some materials to indicate what type of articulation will be on this structure. Once theyAre ready, they will contact us and we will put them back on the agenda at that time. Graves: Thank you. Is there any public comment on Conditional Use Permit 06-2128? Is there anybody from the public who would like to comment on that item? Seeing none, I&II bring it back to the commission. We got a request from the applicant that this item be tabled. Is there a time frame? Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 7 Pate: Yes. They requested it be tabled to July 24th, which is the next Planning Commission meeting. Graves: Okay. So theres a request to table to the next Planning Commission meeting. Is there a motion to that effect? Myres: So moved. Graves: A motion by Commissioner Myres. Do we have a second? Bryant: Second. Graves: Second by Commissioner Bryant. Is there any discussion? Would you please call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to table CUP 06-2128 carries with a vote of 8-0-0. LSD06-2133: Large Scale Development (APPLEBY LANDING LOT 12,251): Submitted by STEVE CLARK for property located at LOT 12 OF APPLEBY LANDING OFF BOB YOUNKIN RD. The property is zoned R-0, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 8 contains approximately 2.19 acres. The request is for 76,412 s.f. medical office building with 230 parking spaces. Graves: The next item on the agenda is a new business item. ItAs Large Scale Development 06-2133, Appleby Landing Lot 12, 25 1. If we could have a staff report on this item. Fulcher: This is for a four -acre tract located at the southeast corner of Appleby Road and Bob Younkin Road zoned R-0, Residential Office. It contains Lot 12 of Appleby Landing Final Plat and then also two adjacent outlots to the east of this property. The large-scale development will span all three tracts and the applicants are proposing a 76,000 square foot medical office building with 224 parking spaces. Right-of-way is required to be dedicated 35 feet from center line along Appleby Road compliant to Master Street Plan requirements. This item was heard at the previous Subdivision Committee meeting. The item was forwarded with three items, determinations, by the Planning Commission. The Subdivision Committee was in support of all three of those. Quickly 141 run through those and also explain why this item was taken off consent. The first condition of approval being determination of commercial design standards, the Subdivision Committee as was staff was in support of the building elevations. You can see they are well articulated in compliance with commercial design standards and are also very compatible with the Washington Regional Medical Center to the north across the street and also to the buildings that were approved on Lots 2 and 3 of Appleby Landing last year. Condition Number 2, determination of curb -cuts and their appropriate locations, at Subdivision Committee meeting the project was presented with four curb -cuts, three on Appleby Drive. Staff and Subdivision Committee and the applicant discussed removing the eastern most curb -cut. That has been removed on the revised set of plans. Staff is in support of that and the applicant is agreeable to removing that, given its location relative to the intersection of Appleby and North Hills Boulevard, and then Condition Number 3, the reason for taking this off consent tonight, was the assessment amount. The original amount that we had for Subdivision Committee meeting was determined by staff using rough numbers for the ultimate use of the building, the traffic counts provided from that use. Since then, the engineering division and the applicant have revised those numbers, taking into consideration the multiple uses within this building and the traffic counts generated from those uses. That assessment amount is now $5,381.00. And then item mb. is a recommendation for a three -lane section to be striped along Appleby Road between Bob Younkin Drive and North Hills Boulevard. Those are the three items for the Planning Commission to make a determination of. Other than that, item 5 is referring to screening thatAs required between the residential development to the south of this nonresidential development. That is indicated on the landscape plan. It consists Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 9 of landscape plantings and also a fence. Other than that, staff is recommending approval of this item tonight. Graves: Thank you. Would any member of the public like to address Large Scale Development 06-2133, Appleby Landing? Seeing none, 141 bring it back to the Commission. Commissioners, this was on our consent agenda and itAs just been pulled off for kind of a minor item, but obviously since we-ve -- we can discuss anything anybody wants to discuss on this item. Harris: Commissioner Graves? Graves: Pardon? Clark: Are you going to let the developer talk? Graves: Oh, yeah, thatAs right. Sorry. Would the developer like to make a presentation? I apologize, Mr. Clark. lave been off ever since they flip-flopped the public comment and the developer, so -- Clark, S.: Well, I really didnAt have anything to add. We concur with staffas assessment of it and we&re looking forward to building this project. Graves: Okay. Thank you. Clark, S: Thank you. Graves: Okay, now the Commissioners can have it and I wonAt repeat what I said a minute ago. Clark:: Mr. Chair, I move that we approve Large Scale Development 06-2133 with conditions of approval as indicated and including the new assessment number for the sidewalk. Graves: There&s a motion to approve Large Scale Development 06-2133 with the stated conditions of approval, and I call, ask the motioner, including the findings that were recommended by staff and subdivision? Clark: Including, yes. Graves: Okay. Do I have a second to that motion? Myres: 1*11 second. Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 10 Graves: We have a motion and a second. Williams: Mr. Chair,just to clarify, that assessment amount was for the future traffic signal, not the sidewalk. Graves: Correct. Is everyone clear on that? Okay. We*ve got a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Would you please call the roll. Roll Call: The motion to approve LSD 06-2133 carries with a vote of 8-0-0. RZN 06-2140: (WRMC, 211/212): Submitted by USI -ARKANSAS, INC. for property located N OF APPLEBY RD FROM GREGG AVE. TO NORTH HILLS BLVD. The property is zoned R-0, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE AND C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 61.5 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to P-1, Institutional. Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page I I Graves: The next item on the agenda is Rezoning 06-2140 for Washington Regional Medical Center. Can I have the staff report on this item, please? Morgan: The subject property contains approximately 62 acres and it incorporates not only the existing Washington Regional Hospital complex, but also adjacent property to the west, which was formally a manufactured -home park located off of Gregg Avenue and north of Appleby. The applicant requests to rezone this property to P- I Institutional, as it is developed for hospital use. This use would be permitted within this P- I zoning district. At the current time the property is zoned both C- I and R-0 and would require a conditional use permit for any development, which you are well aware, since recently you had to approve a conditional use permit to allow further development on this tract. The staff is in support of this, finding that this use is compatible with the existing uses and the existing development, and find that hospital and associated structures are compliant in this area. If you have any questions, please let me know. Graves: Thank you. Would any member of the public like to address rezoning item 06- 2140 for Washington Regional Medical Center? Seeing none, 1-11 invite the applicant up to make any presentation you would like to make. Would you please step to the podium and introduce yourself. Holloway: Hello. Pardon me. Members of the Planning Commission, my name is Jerry Holloway with USI-Arkausas. We concur with what the staff has mentioned. When we were asking for Washington Regional Medical Center with Large Scale Developments they actually suggested that the property be zoned P- 1, and it was then zoned R-0. Currently the hospital has obtained property to the west, which is C- 1, and so, therefore, we are asking that this be rezoned so that if the hospital wants to expand we do not need to go through the conditional use process. Thank you. Graves: Thank you. Commissioners, weave had the staff report and the presentation by the applicant. Myres: Mr. Chair. Graves: Commissioner Myres. MOTION Myres: I think this is a perfectly reasonable and straightforward request, so I will move that we approve... we approve at this level. Graves: Probably should be forwarding it. Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 12 Myres: Forwarding. Forward to the City Council Rezoning 06-2140 for Washington Regional Medical Center. Graves: We have a motion by Commissioner Myres to forward the recommendation for approval on Rezoning 06-2140. Is there a second to that motion? Harris: I second. Graves: Second by Commissioner Harris. Is there any further discussion? Ostner: Yes, sir, Mr. Chair. I have a question for the applicant. Graves: Certainly, Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: larn just wondering about the historic structure thatas in the center of this land. Holloway: Wondering about what, now, sir? Ostner: The very old home ... Holloway: The old home? Ostner: ... and brick buildings. Holloway: As far as I know right now, the hospital does not have any need or desire to move that home or whatever. I cannot speak for them, though, as far as their future plans. I know that right now within the next two years or something like that, two and a half, three years, that they have the ASB building there. They have the other buildings that they*re building. After that, I do not know, sir. They have not ... I have not been privy to their board meetings or anything like that, sir. Ostner: I see, and what is that ASH building? Holloway: ThatAs the Administrative Services Building. Ostner: Oh, excuse me. Thatas right. Okay. Thank you. Holloway: Uh-huh. Ostner: Well, okay. Thank you. Thatas fine. Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 13 Graves: Any further comments by any Commissioners? We have a motion to second. Would you please call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to forward RZN 06-2140 carries with a vote of 8-0-0. ADM 06-2165: Administrative Item (STUMBAUGH, 284): Submitted by KURT STUMBAUGH for property located at 3538 W. BELMONT CIRCLE. The request is to appeal the requirements from the Engineering Division regarding sidewalks. Graves: The next item on the agenda is Administrative Item 06-2165, Stumbaugh. If we could have a staff report on this item, please. Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 14 Garner: The applicant is appealing the determination by the City's sidewalk administrator to repair broken sidewalk in front of a property, and the property is located at 3538 West Belmont Circle in the Salem Village planned development. As background for the Planning Commission, a developer of a subdivision has two options when installing sidewalks. One is that the developer may provide a guarantee for the required sidewalks adjacent to the streets and allow the homebuilder to construct the sidewalks after the home construction is complete. The second option is the developer can build the sidewalks up front without a guarantee required, and most developers do opt for Option Number I because inevitably sidewalks get broken or cracked with equipment utilized for construction of the homes. And the original developer of Salem Village opted for option two and installed all the sidewalks up front, and at this point the developer is finishing out the house at this address, and the sidewalk is cracked and was noted by our inspectors and required to be replaced or repaired prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, and the applicant is requesting an appeal of that, and staff does find... we recommend denial of this appeal, finding that there is not reasonable justification being provided for this lot not to repair this sidewalk, and we have included photos of other examples in this subdivision where... similar situations where a sidewalk was cracked and had been repaired. Those are the main issues and we will be happy to answer any questions you mighthave. Graves: Thank you. Do we have any member of the public who would like to address administrative item 06-2165? Seeing none, I'll invite the applicant to come forward or the appellant, or whatever we call them here, to address this item. I'm seeing that they're not here. What's our course of action on this item? Do we ... Williams: You can either decide it in their absence if they are not here or you can table it until they come. It's really your choice. Graves: Okay. We'll bring it back to the Commission so that we can discuss it. My inclination would be to move forwardwith voting on it andnot table it, but that's obviously at the will of my fellow commissioners. Ostner: Mr. Chair. Graves: Commissioner Ostner Ostner: I have a question for staff. Are you all aware if the applicant is on his way or if he's planning to not come? Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 15 Pate: I'm not aware of that situation. I would ... if you would allow me, the Planning Commission does typically table items when there is ... especially if it's an appeal where an applicant is not present to present his case. From a staff perspective I would rather the Planning Commission table this item to the next Planning Commission meeting. It may be that they're in an emergency and they simply could not be here for this item, and obviously as an appeal from a determination, I would rather have an applicant be able to, again, state his case to you as a Planning Commission. Graves: Do you have anything else, any other questions? I have a question if you don't. Ostner: Well, no, you go ahead. Graves: Okay. My question for staff would be; what is the recourse from here if there were a vote tonight that was ... that the applicant didn't like? Pate: An applicant can appeal this final decision from the Planning Commission to the City Council. Graves: I would personally be supportive of maybe... perhaps a motion to move this to the end of the agenda and give the applicant an opportunity to arrive if we've moved along in the agenda more quickly than maybe was anticipated, but my inclination would still be to vote. I just prefer not to table items without someone coming here or calling, or whatever, and letting us know that they're not going to be here, and we already have long agendas each time and every time we table things we end up with longer agendas. Clark: Mr. Chair. Graves: Yes. Clark: A quick question for staff. Jeremy, do we know that this applicant has been advised of your recommendation to deny the appeal? Pate: I believe so. We typically send an e-mail to every applicant stating that the staff report is located on our website. That's where we place our staff reports. Clark: Okay. Pate: I don't have a confirmation in front of me at this point. Clark: If the applicant knew what the recommendation was and is not present, I would certainly make the motion to move this to the last item on the agenda so we'll Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 16 give them time to get here, but I have joined Mr. Grave's movement not to table stuff, because we need to make decisions and move on, and I know the staff goes out of their way to inform people to be here. But I wilt give them the benefit of the doubt and make a motion to move it to the last item. Myres: And I'll second. Graves: Okay. We have a motion to second now... it may be moot... do we need a motion to move this item or can we just ... Williams: Why don't you go ahead and do that. Graves: Okay. All right. We've got a motion and a second to move this item to the last item on the agenda, making it... instead of Number 8, it will be Number 12. Is there any further discussion? If you would call the roll, please. Roll Call: The motion to move ADM 06- -2165 to the end of the agenda carries with a vote of 8-0-0. PPL 06-2080: Preliminary Plat (HAMM/HORSEBEND ESTATES, 220-221): Submitted by ROGER TROTTER for property located at N. DOYNE HAMM ROAD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 26.90 acres. The request is for a residential subdivision with 50 single family lots. Graves: The next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat 06-2080, Hamm/Horsebend Estates. If we can have the staff report on this item, please. Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 17 Garner: This property was approved by the Planning Commission for a preliminary plat 05-1810 on November of 2005 for a 53 single-family lot subdivision and the applicant had difficulty acquiring right-of-way to the south. They did bring forward a concept plat showing the removal of a southern street connection. That was in April of 2006, and so now they have a preliminary plat before you today with a 50 -lot subdivision. The property contains just under 27 acres. It's located one-half mile north of State Highway 45, Mission Boulevard. It's two and a half miles east of the City in the Planning Area, and the single-family home, Lot Number 50, was illegally split from the remainder of the property in 1994, 1 believe, without City of Fayetteville approval and the City does not recognize this as a separate legal tract, and the owner of that portion of the property, as well as the remainder of the property, are applicants in this subdivision. They have both signed the application for this project. As well, the owner of Lot 50 owns a private drive into the property from the south. The main issue with this development has been the southern street connection and that was the main comments that were discussed at Subdivision Committee. Andl'lljust get right into the conditions of approval. We do recommend approval of this preliminary plat with conditions, and Condition Number I is Planning Commission determination of appropriate connectivity, and staff finds that street stub -outs to the east and west, along with two street connections to Maywood Road to the north provide adequate east -west and north connectivity, and I would like to modify the next sentence for this condition to read: "The staff also recommends adding a note to the plat that 50 -feet right-of-way for Hamm Road, extending south the entire length of the private drive owned by the applicant, to be dedicated at the time that Hamm Road is improved." And this is just to clarify that the applicant doesn't own property all the way to Shelton Drive. There's approximately, I believe, a 30- to 40 -foot sliver of land that is owned by a separate property owner. So we just want to make sure that it's clarified that we are just recommending they dedicate right-of-way that they own in anticipation that in the future that it would be connected to Shelton Drive, but at this time we understand that we're only recommending the applicant dedicate what they own. And then Condition Number 2, as Planning Commission determination of street improvements, and this references the right-of-way dedication as well. We do find that that is appropriate as far as a street improvement, because they're not required any other off-site street improvements. Condition Number 5 and 6 also references dedication of the right-of-way to the south, and I would like to change the language on those as well to state that "...dedication of right-of-way extending south the entire length of the private drive owned by the applicant ... 11, and that should be added to conditions five and six. Those are the main issues that were discussed by the Subdivision Committee, and the Subdivision Committee didn't have a formal recommendation to the full Planning Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 18 Commission. They did state that they were concerned about connectivity issues, and I will be happy to answer any questions you might have. Graves: Thank you. Would any member of the public like to address Preliminary Plat 06- 2080 Hamm/Horsebend Estates? Seeing none, I'll invite the applicant to come forward and make whatever presentation you may have. If you would step to the podium and introduce yourself first, please. McLelland: My name is Jay McLelland. I represent the developer on this project. Basically I don't want to repeat what the staff just said, but we're in agreement with their conditions for approval for the plat. Graves: Thank you. Commissioners, we have two findings that we need to make stated as Number I and Number 2 on the conditions. We could take those items up first. Ostner: Mr. Chair. Graves: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Andrew, could you once again go over for me the additions and changes you would suggest on the conditions of approval? Garner: Yeah. On Condition Number 1, I'll just read it to you. Staff finds that street stub -outs to the east and west, along with two street connections to Maywood Road to the north provide adequate east -west and north connectivity. Staff also recommends adding a note to the plat that 50 -feet right-of-way for Hamm Road extending south, and then strike out "to Shelton Drive" and replace it with "the entire length of the private drive owned by the applicant" and then the rest of the condition to read as noted in your report. Ostner: And (inaudible) the difference between those two statements, between striking out "extending south to Shelton Drive" and replacing it with "the entire length of the private drive owned"? Garner: The difference is that the applicant owns a private drive that extends all the way from their property line south, the applicant can tell us, 750 feet approximately. The last 40 feet or so of that drive, between that drive and Shelton Road, is actually owned by a different property owner, and so we didn't feel like we should make them dedicate since they're not a party to this subdivision. They're not an applicant. Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 19 Ostner: Okay. And for the timing, for it to be dedicated at the time that Hamm Road is improved, staff is comfortable that if it's... if it's never improved that this will not get built? Garner: Right. Ostner: Okay. Okay. Pate: That's correct. Actually that is a county requirement. They will not accept a road that's not built to their standard. They won't accept the right-of-way even, so that's something that we have placed on plats previously. Where, for instance, our Master Street Plan would require, as a for instance, half of the right-of-way, but that street is not built, we take an assessment, for instance, the county wouldn't actually accept it fee simple as property because there's no street there to maintain. They would not accept that property to have as part of their inventory, so that's the standard note from the county that we put on that plat. So if other properties in this area subdivide and utilize that access and have to build it to the county standard, it would then become county property to maintain. Ostner: Okay. But it's ... it's feasible that this road would not get built because that property is not part of this project and is not being required to be built? Pate: Right. If those properties don't develop, it's likely it will not get built, that's correct, unless the county decides to construct it. Ostner: Well, I'm even asking if the properties do develop, they have other methods of access and they possibly might not build this road is what I'm trying to understand. Pate: That would be a potential, yes. Ostner: Okay. Okay, thank you. And you had one other change in the verbiage? Garner: On Conditions Number 5 and 6 it also references south to Shelton Drive, in Condition Number 5, and the same correction there, strike "to Shelton Drive" and replace it with "the entire length of the private drive owned by the applicant". Ostner: Okay. Okay. Thank you. Clark: Mr. Chair. Graves: Commissioner Clark. Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 20 Clark: We've been dealing with this development in particular for a very long time now, and I know that we have gotten the east and west connections that we have requested, and I think an additional one, maybe to the north. I'm still concerned about the south and, Jeremy, what I'm hearing is, with this change of verbiage, there's no guarantee this is going to actually ... is there a guarantee we're going to stub -out to Shelton Road to the south? Pate: The change in verbiage has not changed staff s condition or approval from what our previous intent was. So our conditions are stated pretty much as they also have been and have been recommended to the Planning Commission. I believe the change now, from Subdivision Committee to the Planning Commission, is the applicant agrees to that condition. We did need to change that verbiage, however, because we were not recommending that the applicant go and acquire the Shelton's property to make that right-of-way connection. We were simply recommending that this portion of property that is owned by the applicant be dedicated in a 50 -foot width. Clark: But the connection will be made? Pate: The connection ... the connection would stilt remain as a private driveway for right now. So there is not a recommendation at this point in time for a street to connect to the south. Clark: And that still troubles me, because, I mean, we're talking about connectivity, and when you look at the vicinity map it is smack dab in the middle of the Planning Area with not a lot coming in around it quickly, and I'm really interested to hear some of the discussion of Subdivision and what their concerns were if anybody remembers. Graves: I think that several Subdivision Committees have probably seen this. It may be the fact that just about everybody here has seen it at one time or another. I do think that the language change does not affect the fact that the recommendation was that the dedication be made at the time Hamm Road was improved, whenever that might be. All that's changed is they've carved out the section that the applicant didn't own, and now the applicant has been able to agree to it, because they're not being asked to dedicate something they don't own. But the issue of whether it was going to connect and when was there even with the previous verbiage that was forwarded by Subdivision. Clark: I just remember the first time we saw this there was no southern stub -out at all, and I don't think there was an east and west at the time, and we've certainly ... I think it's certainly a much better development with those stub -outs, but I fear this Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 21 is going to be a situation if we leave it as it currently is, and I don't know how to fix it, that a few years from now another Planning Commission is going to deal with lack of connectivity, especially in the south, and we've all sat through those meetings, and I'm not sure how we're avoiding them at this point, but that it does ... it does concern me. Myres: Mr. Chair. Graves: Commissioner Myres. Myres: I do agree with Commissioner Clark up to a point, but I also feel like we've seen this that I've got this thing memorized somehow and the additional connectivity up at the north, east and west seems to satisfy staff, and I think if they're satisfied with it, I'm satisfied with it as well, so ... Lack: Mr. Chair. Graves: Commissioner Lack. Lack: I would tend to agree. I think what we see at the south is a stub -out. What we saw in the original plat that I remember, and I went back through the notes of the concept plat that we saw just to refresh ... and I appreciate those being in our packet, Mr. Pate. That was very helpful ... but the original one that we looked at that we approved, I believe, showed a full connection to the south, but only one connection to the north, and then we looked at a concept plat when that easement was ... that right-of-way was not available, which I had understood that we were all in favor of, with two connections to the north, a stub -out to the south, and stub -outs to the east and west, and that's pretty much what I see here. We do have a stub -out to the south. That is what we generally require for connectivity. It would certainly be a better development with improvements to the road to the south and an actual street to the south, but as I found in my comment from the concept plat, I think it still seems to work, as Maywood is a Collector of status to carry the traffic, so ... Graves: Thank you. Ostner: Mr. Chair. Graves: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Thank you. I'm also concerned that we're approving a development sort of tucked into its island, and there is connectivity, there are stub -outs. This is in the county; am I correct? Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 22 Pate: Yes. It's actually outside our one -mile area. Ostner: Okay. So this is in our growth zone boundary? Pate: Yes. Ostner: So we do have limited scope of review at... this body does see these and reviews a short list of items. I'm not sure it's fair to ask an applicant to go and try to acquire land, and when the applicant has no eminent domain powers, but on the other hand, areas of town such as these are in desperate need of connectivity. What's the current situation? This is a question for the applicant. What's the current situation of this private drive? Is it going to stay in use after ... if this is approved as it's stated tonight? McLelland: It will still serve as a private drive, yes, because there's two houses right there in front that have to have it as a drive. Ostner: Okay. And how will it stay private? Is it gated? Locked? McLelland: It will be gated, yes. The stub -out will have a gate on it. Ostner: Okay. McLelland: It will have access for emergency vehicles and for service people to get to the sewer treatment center there toward that end of the property. It will be a coded, locked gate. It won't be used for the general public to go back and forth through. Ostner: Okay. McLelland: But the fire department, places like that, will have the access to get to it if they need to come in that back way for some reason. Ostner: And the owner of the private drive? McLelland: Yes. Ostner: Of course. McLelland: Yes, sir. Ostner: Okay. Thank you. Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 23 McLelland: Uh-huh. Ostner: But this sort of becomes a defacto accidental gated community. There are other ways to get in it, but if I were friends with that property owner and I could borrow the key, since the fire and the sewage maintenance people all have it, why not me and maybe my friend, and suddenly there are a half dozen of us who are good friends with the private -drive owner and we use it, but no one else can. I don't think that's ... I don't think that's good or right. Obviously if itAs being used as a private drive, it's a needed point of access. So I'm not certain I could ... I could vote for this proposal tonight. Myres: Mr. Chair, can I ask a question of staft? Graves: Certainly. Myres: Because I don't remember. Is Overton Park ... what is the status of Overton Park in terms of building? Pate: There are several homes built. It's not completely constructed, but there are several homes built in that subdivision. Myres: Okay. And Gunnison Drive is constructed? The left ... Pate: West. Yes. Myres: The west drive? Pate: That's correct. Myres: So that's a completely constructed street? Pate: Yes. All the streets in that subdivision are completed. Myres: Okay. And Maywood, cast, west? Pate: Yes. Myres: But no connection to the east or west particularly? Pate: Because they have a stub -out to the east. Myres: Okay. Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 24 Pate: This development would extend it further. Myres: Right. Okay. Thank you. Graves: Commissioners, any more discussion or motions? Myres: Mr. Chair, I'll move to approve Preliminary Plat 06-2080 with the conditions of approval as stated, including the corrections made by staff tonight on Number I and Number 5, and all other conditions as stated. Graves: And there was also a requested amendment by staff on Number 6 as well. Same change. Myres: Okay. My mistake. Yeah. Graves: That's also included in the motion? Myres: Yes. Graves: Okay. Commissioners, we have a motion to approve Preliminary Plat 06-2080 with the stated conditions of approval, including findings in favor of staff as recommended on Numbers I and 2, with the amendment suggested by staff on number one and also Conditions Number 5 and 6. Is there a second to that motion? Lack: I will second. Graves: A second by Commissioner Lack. Is there any further discussion? Would you please call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve Preliminary Plat 06-2080 carries with a vote of 5-3-0. Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 25 Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 26 CUP 06-2115: (IGLESIA EVANGELICA PENTECOSTAL, 599): Submitted by MATT PEARSON for property located at LOTS 8- 12 BLOCK 2 MEADOWVALE S/D, AT THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF BROWER AVENUE. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI -FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.07 acres. The request is for a church (Use Unit 4) in the RMF -24 Zoning District. Graves: The next item on the agenda is Conditional Use Permit 06-2115, Iglesia Evangelica Pentecostal. Will you have the staff report on this one, please? Garner: This property is located north of Sligo Street and east of Razorback Road. It consists of five separately deeded tracts, Lots 8 through 12 of the Meadowvale Subdivision. It currently does not have access to an improved street. There is right-of-way for Brower Avenue which provides ... would be access to this site. The site is surrounded by established single-family homes on Sligo and Ashwood Streets to the south and west, and to the east is a small undeveloped parcel adjacent to Razorback Road and then across Razorback Road multi -family apartments are being developed at this time. The applicant requests approval for a church use in RMF -24 zoning district, which requires a conditional use. And table 2 in your staff report outlines the requested use, which includes building a five -bedroom parsonage home with an attached 1,000 -square foot meeting room designed for 70 people to conduct church activities. The applicant did submit to me the hours of operation for their church, which are pretty standard, with two meetings during the week on Tuesday, Friday and Saturday at 6:00 p.m. and then a Sunday meeting at 2:00 p.m. Access and street improvements that would be required and would be construction of Brower Avenue to provide access to this property. They would extend that street approximately 250 feet north along the frontage of the property, and parking for the site would be provided with four spaces in the garage and driveway. And then 12 spaces would be able to be accommodated in the newly constructed 250- foot length of Brower Avenue. And as included in your conditions of approval, parking for a church requires a minimum of 13 spaces onsite, on the parcel, and they are requesting to park on street, so that's actually one of your conditions of approval, to approve the parking. Staff does find that this conditional use permit for a church would not adversely affect public interest. We find that an addition of the church to this area would be able to serve and be supported by the existing and future population in the neighborhood and the area, and there are specific conditions that we are recommending for screening, landscaping, new street access, and we have several conditions that we feel are appropriate to make sure that the presence of this non-residential use in this neighborhood would be compatible, and we are recommending approval and I will go over some of these conditions. Condition Number I is that the conditional use approval Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 27 shall apply only to this initial phase of development, which includes the project as described in Table 2. They have indicated future plans to construct an additional church building and that would not be covered under this conditional use permit. Condition 2 is that the structure shall be constructed generally as submitted to look like a residence so it would be compatible with the neighborhood. Condition Number 3 is, Planning Commission determination of conditional use approval to allow fewer than the required onsite parking spaces, and that is basically in order to be able to count parking on the new street for some of their parking requirements. Condition Number 4 states that onsite parking ... or parking on Sligo Street for this church shall be prohibited and wanted to make sure that that's something that doesn't take place. We find that might be a safety hazard. Condition Number 5 is Planning Commission determination of street improvements. Staff recommends that Brower Avenue be constructed from Sligo Avenue 250 feet to provide access to a necessary street frontage for the property as well as on - street parking. The street shall be 24 -foot wide with curb gutters, storm drainage and sidewalk on the west side of the street, and signs indicating future street extension would be installed as well. Condition Number 7, since I haven't received information from the applicant regarding their hours of operation, I would like to strike out the first statement there. In the absence of a specific hours of operation provided by the applicant, strike that out and then start this condition reading, "This condition limits the hours of operation to ensure compatibility with the surrounding residential development", and then "The hours of operation for this church shall be limited to those that would be anticipated by a normal church operation with approximately two to three church services on weekends and approximately two midweek meetings," etcetera, as stated there. Condition Number 9, we are recommending that even though this would be principally a residential use that it be required to comply with the lighting ordinance, and normally residences are not required to comply with that, but we find that would be appropriate to make sure that it doesn't cause adverse effect to the neighbors. And Number 11, we are recommending a landscape buffer being provided on the south and west to provide screening between the proposed church use and the neighborhood. Then Condition Number 14, no amplified or loud music shall be played outside of the fully enclosed building that could be audible to nearby residences. Those are the main conditions I wanted to point out to you. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Graves: Okay. Thank you. Do we have any member of the public who would like to address Conditional Use Permit 06-2115? Harp: Can I bring some pictures up to you? Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 28 Graves: If you would first step to the podium and introduce yourself and if you... Harp: My name is James Harp and I live at 1826 South Ashwood. Graves: If you have items that you would like the Commissioners to review, you can bring those to Jeremy and he'll pass those to us. Harp: All right. (James Harp hands photographs to Jeremy Pate.) This is where they've been holding church at and I don't want it to be looking like this when... Graves: Sir, the microphone, you really need to be at the podium so the microphone can pick up your voice. Thank you. Harp: Yeah. This property will be right directly behind my property, and they've been holding church at the house next door to me, and I was leaving him some pictures showing what it looks like. I don't want it to wind up looking like that behind me. Also, this property goes downhill from Sligo. I'd like to find out how they're going to run the sewer out of there, because it's going to be uphill, and if they're going to have to put a pump in there and if that's going to put out an odor if they do. Graves: Okay. We don't address those questions right now, but we'll make sure to try to ask the staff about those items. Harp: Okay. And one more. There's four trees in there. I took care of that property for 20 years for Denny Tune. There's four trees in there I'd like to see that wouldn't be done away with. There's a pin oak, a Bradford pear. There's also a crab apple and a maple tree in there. Thank you. Graves: Okay. Thank you very much. Is there any other member of the public who would like to address this item? Sir, if you would step forward and introduce yourself. Feland: Good evening. My name is David Feland. I live at Fayetteville. I have no problems with this church. Heaven knows we've got plenty of apartments and houses and everything else. I think a church in this neighborhood would be real good. I support them. Thank you. Graves: Thank you. Is there any other member of the public that would like to address this item? Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 29 Van Brunt: Yes. My name is Steven Van Brunt. I am a member of the proposed church and we would really appreciate that you guys pass this motion because we ... you know, we really do believe in God and we're just looking for the opportunity to have a place to hold church. Thank you. Graves: Are there any other members of the public who would like to address this particular item? Seeing none, I'll invite the applicant forward to make whatever presentation you may have. Pearson: Commissioners, my name is Matt Pearson. I'm the architect that the church has hired to do the preliminary design thus far. We are in agreement with all the staff recommendations, and will comply with those, including landscaping, which was one of the issues addressed, and of course sewer and things like that. Obviously we have to make those things work. So I do havc additional imagery there if.. here if you would like to see those in color, in addition to the things that you probably have seen from online. I think that's it. Hopefully it's straightforward. Graves: Thank you. Commissioners? Myres: Mr. Chair. Graves: Commissioner Myres. Myres: I would urge the church and the architect, maybe, to make these drawings available to the neighbors so that they could see what a handsome building you're proposing. Because I know they don't know what it looks like, I'd be happy to share my copy if they'd like to see it now. Does anybody want ... Graves: Perhaps after Myres: Perhaps later? Graves: Yeah. Myres: Okay. Graves: He can step forward with it. Clark: Mr. Chair. Graves: Commissioner Clark Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 30 Clark: I have a question for Jeremy. Jeremy, will this have to come back through as a large-scale? Pate: This particular application would not. It would not meet our threshold of a large-scale development. In the future if there is a larger worship hall that's over 10,000 square feet and it's still on that one acre, it would likely have to come back through a large-scale, but at this point in time we're not exactly sure what that proposal would be. This is ... the primary use of this property is a home. It has a large room that can be utilized for a gathering space, and because of that particular use as a gathering space it would be prudent that it be presented to the Planning Commission obviously as a use that would be allowed within the neighborhood if you approve the conditional use. At this point in time it's really a large house with a very large gathering space, street improvements. We are recommending in favor of the parking on street because at this point in time it would not have a ... you would not have a large parking lot that would have to be lit. It would be simply on -street parking. Solid waste and emergency vehicles could continue to access that property. The gathering space would be also designed as an occupancy load status to meet all building codes with regard to that as well. Graves: Are you done? Clark: Yes. Thank you. Ostner: Mr Chair, along those same lines, Jeremy, since this conditional use requires Brower to be built ... That's correct? Pate: Yes. Ostner: ... it will be built to city standards and dedicated, etcetera, etcetera, just like a shopping mall or subdivision? Pate: That's correct. Ostner: Okay. So does this property currently have frontage along Sligo? Pate: It does not and that is really the impetus for this requirement. It does not... it has frontage on existing right-of-way for Brower, but there is no street constructed there. This is an old platted subdivision, and so it's five different lots currently under different parcel numbers that are... have simply never been constructed because Brower Avenue was never constructed, so it has no frontage currently. With this street extension, approximately 250 feet, it would provide the necessary frontage for this property to develop to the level Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 31 that they're requesting. If, for instance, in the future a further development is proposed, it may require further extension all the way to the north property line. As you can see, that right-of-way on Page 19 of 22 extends all the way to the larger tract of land to the north that's not developed yet, so that would provide connectivity even over to Razorback in that location. Ostner: Okay. So the next question, obviously, if they never built the building, the future building, this Brower could simply stay stubbed forever if this tract of land on their northern part fronted it? Pate: Well, someone could come in today and build that street because it's already a dedicated right-of-way, so the city owns that property currently. Ostner: Okay. Pate: So it's not like the county requirement note that we mentioned earlier. We actually already own this piece of property fee simple. If the property owner, for instance, to the north were a large multifamily zoning or a large multifamily project that needed a second point of ingress and egress it could very well apt to access this for a second point ingress and egress. Ostner: Okay. Are there going to be signs? Pate: For the church? Ostner: Signs at the end of this... Clark: Stub -out. Pate: Stub -out. Ostner: ... basically a stub -out ... clearly stating, is that included in the conditions of approval? Myres: ? Yes, it is. Ostner: Okay, that's fine. And is anyone on staff able to answer the sewage question or possibly the applicant, if that's... I understand we have rules that they have to be followed at the next step, but if the sewer is uphill, it seems like there would have to be a pump. Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 32 Pate: I believe the sewer is ... the sewer main currently exists to the north property line and a private line would extend to drain to that north property line, but Mr. Pearson might ... Pearson: It is my understanding under preliminary investigation of that question that there is sewer on the north end of this property that we can tap into, and that's down, quite obviously. Ostner: And north is downhill? Pearson: North is downhill. Ostner: That's good. Pearson: Correct. Ostner: That makes it easy. (Inaudible) (A member of the public starts to speak) Graves: I'm sorry, sir. We've already had public comment on this item. Unless a Commissioner ... unless any of the Commissioners would like to change protocol, we're going to go ahead and have our discussion up here. Ostner: The next question for staff, in deference to the member of the public, are there rules concerning grinders and pumps and their odors in the city limits? Pate: I'm not sure about their odors, but if ... sewer has to be made available to this site, whether it's a main extension or if it, indeed, has to be pumped uphill that would be something on this property that would have to be maintained much like many homes. For instance, in the City of Fayetteville many individual homes actually have a grinder pump in their basement that pumps up to a sewer line. So that is something that if it is required it would be, unless the main works tended to make that not a requirement. Clark: Mr. Chair. Graves: Commissioner Clark. Clark: I think this is an incredibly unique project. The building looks absolutely beautiful. I mean, it really looks like a good solution to an immediate space problem. I think it will enhance the neighborhood. I hope that you are able to save some of those trees the gentleman mentioned. That would not be Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 33 covered in this conditional use, but if you build a bigger building then it would be in a large-scale, so I'll make a motion that we approve Conditional Use 06-2115 with conditions as stated in finding of facts in agreement with staff s recommendations and the conditions that staff gave on Number 7 ... Condition Number 7. Trumbo: Second. Graves: I have a motion by Commissioner Clark to approve Conditional Use Permit 06-2115 with the stated conditions of approval and the findings as stated and amended and as seconded by Commissioner Trumbo. Is there any further discussion on the item? Please call the roll. Roll Call: The motion to approve CUP 06-2115 carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 34 VAC 06-2136: (WILKINS/PETUNIA CT., 371): Submitted by JOHN CARPENTER/REMAX CARPENTER/REMAX for property located between LOTS 31 & 32 OF GLENBROOK PHASE 11. The request is to vacate a street right-of-way that has not been constructed. Graves: Thank you. The next item on the agenda is Vacation Request 06-2136, Wilkins/Petunia Court. We&lI let the room clear from the previous item. If you all would try to move to the hall as quickly as possible, because weave got other items on our agenda that we need to take up. Our next item is Vacation Request 06-2136, Wilkins/Petunia Court. If we could have the staff report on this item, please. Fulcher: You bet. This is for a 50 -foot wide right-of-way located within the Glenbrook Subdivision between Lots 31 and 32. Glenbrook Subdivision is located south of Mission Boulevard and west of Crossover Road. The request is to vacate this subject right-of-way to avoid a potential street connection between the subdivision and the undeveloped commercial property to the north, which is zoned C- 1, currently undeveloped except for a tract which is not adjacent to this right-of-way in the northeast comer of the undeveloped property which was recently approved for a bank development. We did receive public comment back from the adjacent property owners which were notified of this vacation. They had no objections to vacating this right-of-way, citing concerns with a possible connection would create safety concerns in increased traffic within the subdivision. Looking at the Fayettevilleas guiding policy of connectivity, the purpose of it is to promote connectivity and to increase accessability and provide more liveable neighborhoods. Also giving more choices to drivers and pedestrians for points of in ingress and egress out of the subdivision or a development, which results in smoother flows of traffic and less congestion at intersections, which does result in safer conditions for the drivers and the pedestrians. In 1993, �94, ultimately the mid-90s, Glenbrook Subdivision Phase I and Phase 11 were brought through and approved by the Planning Commission. The planning staff and Planning Commission at that time requested that the stub - out to the north be provided. There was discussion with that adjacent property owner of the commercial tract at that time with that, but ultimately, as a condition of approval, that stub -out was provided. However, it was discussed and opted not to construct that right-of-way. So we have a situation of the right- of-way being there, but not constructed. Given the size of the subdivision being 61 lots, only having one point of ingress and egress, providing ... or allowing this stub -out to remain will provide another point of ingress/egress for the residents, emergency vehicles and public service vehicles all together. Also, there are no other stub -outs in this subdivision. There is nowhere to cut through the subdivision. You have your one point of ingress and egress on Glenbrook, then you have this stub -out, which at some point, if itas not vacated, could be Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 35 connected to with commercial to subdivision once it is constructed. Really, given the fact that cut -through traffic would not be generated by this connection, given that there are no other points to go to if you went south through this connection, and the cityAs policy of connectivity, staff is recommending denial of the proposed right-of-way vacation. However, if the Planning Commission does vote to forward this to the City Council for approval of the Vacation, staff has cited three conditions of approval for that. Graves: Thank you. Is there any public comment or a member of the public who would like to address Vacation 06-2136? Please step forward and introduce yourself and we4l be happy to hear you. Peterson: Hi. My name is Brad Peterson. I&m a resident in that cul-de-sac. lam here representing myself, my wife, my I 0 -year-old daughter, 8 -year-old daughter and 5-month-otd daughter. We moved to that division about two years ago and there was two things that attracted us. One was Root School. Two was living in a cul- de-sac for the safety of our children at play. We donAt have a big backyard, most of those residents in there donAt. I understand the need to have a second way out. I wish there was another place to put it. I don -t think that even there would be a very good place for a road. If you came out, youare going to be coming out the back of the bank. To turn left, there is a hill immediately to your left that would create a hazard. Turning right, it is never an issue coming out of our neighborhood to turn right. Turning left, however, to go west is an issue and that would not take any pressure off of that, and the only time it is bad is during school and this second out would not help at all. As far as ... 1-m not sure where the new property would begin or end. The bank ... the land in that area thatAsjust been sold, I see it being more of a hazard than anything. It is a ... itAs a safety concern to the residents, myself. There&s a bunch of other families in that same cul-de-sac and in that area that their children play in that area and also live in that area. So as one of the residents I would sincerely like to see that street never developed. Thank you. Graves: Thank you. Are there any other members of the public who would like to address Vacation 06-2136? Please introduce yourself and let us... Snodgrass: l*m Caroline Snodgrass and I live at 2683 Petunia Court, right next to Brad, and I second what he said. I support the request to vacate the right-of-way. Glenbrook Subdivision is not an overcrowded subdivision or neighborhood. Thereisonly one way in and out, but there is never await thereon Glenbrook. IjustdonAtsee any advantage to having that connection from Mission to Petunia Court, because Petunia Court is a cul-de-sac, you would have to kind of wind your way back out of the neighborhood. There4s lots of kids, small children, that live, including my own, that live on that street, and a lot of other kids in the neighborhood play in Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 36 that area. So lam just here, again, to request that you support their request to vacate. Thanks. Graves: Thank you. Are there any other members of the public who would like to address this item? Seeing none, lall invite the applicant forward to make whatever presentation you may have. Carpenter: I don&t have a presentation. I just support that you guys vacate this easement. ItAs been several years since the subdivision has been there. ItAs a nice quiet neighborhood and we just would like to see it just continue to be that. Thank you. Graves: Thank you. Commissioners. Ostner: Mr. Chair. Graves: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: I have a 6 -year-old. I understand completely children -s safety. It -s a big concern of mine. I also sit here every two weeks and hear people dissatisfied with their choices, their street choices, because of subdivisions, which is a fine subdivision, but poorly planned subdivisions that are sold for cul-de-sacs that could have been better planned. I would probably not be in favor of this vacation, and I think the neighbors have stumbled onto the reason that the vacation should be denied is that this is a complicated way to exit the bank. If you -re in a hurry, going back through Petunia and Goldenrod and Glenbrook is not going to serve you. If youare in a hurry youAre going to jump right out on Mission and misbehave as a driver. If youAre looking for another option, youAre going to go back there and do the weaving. You might even live back there, and you want to go the bank without getting out on Mission. So 1*11 probably vote against this Vacation tonight. Graves: Thank you, Commissioner Ostner. Harris: Commissioner Graves. Graves: Commissioner Harris. Harris: Mr. Pate, what we&re deciding on is, again this is a right-of-way for a road that has not been constructed and that there are currently no... a street that... there are currently no plans to construct; is that accurate? Pate: Thatas correct. Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 37 Harris: And that the right-of-way in essence, I think what lam understanding from the planning staff, is that because no one really foresees this as a major thoroughfare, the right-of-way is really as much about keeping the ability to have emergency ingress and egress. Is that the primary concern of the planning staff.? Pate: Well, the decision by the Planning Commission in 1994 ... &93, &94 ... for this connection was to do two things: One, to allow for ingress and egress of emergency vehicles and service vehicles, but also to allow for residents living in this neighborhood to have another means of ingress and egress without ... for instance, if you live on Petunia Court and you want to go to the bank that&s now developing 300 feet from you, you have to get on to Mission Boulevard to do that, take two rights and then two lefts coming back. That increases traffic danger on Mission Boulevard for existing travelers and the traveler going there as well. So part of the reasoning there... the Planning Commission in 1993 decided that it did not need to be paved, constructed as a street. It was even discussed then that there was a new policy to pave streets, but the Planning Commission decided not to do that at that time in order for residents to know precisely that it was a future stub -out. We now require the pavement of streets in most situations and putting a sign up as well so that everyone understands that that will be a future street connection. If this were a new subdivision, staff would likely be recommending the same type of street connectivity to that property. Harris: Thank you. Graves: My issue with this is the same issue that I had with the one we probably saw maybe a year ago in the Candlewood Subdivision. Some of the Commissioners that are here now werenAt here then. My concern is that obviously the City, whoever makes those decisions, has seen the problem inherent in dedicating of right -of way without any kind of visible notification to people that are buying out there. It is true that ... as it was with the Candlewood situation ... that property owners or people that are prospectively buying in a neighborhood can go look at the plat and find that information on the plat, but the fact of the matter is that most people donAt do that. ThatAs just not a practice. Maybe it should be a practice thatAs picked up in the real estate industry, but as it currently stands, itAS not, and thereas a reason that the City has elected since this time, and recommended at the time, that these things are paved as some sort of temporary cul-de-sac, at the very least, or stub -out with a sign that says thereas going be a future street connection there so that when someone is buying in that neighborhood thereAs no question what the intent is for that strip of land. And so if you put your basketball goals up in there or you build your driveway off of it, or whatever, you understand from the very beginning that youAre in a public right-of-way that may eventually become a street. I donAt ... I donAt see a big Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 38 difference between this one and the Candlewood situation, although there was maybe more of a potential for cut -through traffic on the Candlewood situation, but I still have a problem with notification to the neighbors even with the understanding that the plat could be checked, but also knowing that thatAs not something that people really do. And with the number of lots involved here, the distance thatAs involved between where this street would come out versus where Glenbrook comes out, just maybe a few hundred feet down the road, lam not convinced this would really help alleviate any kind of traffic situation for neighbors either. And while I understand the guiding policy of connectivity and understand that perhaps this subdivision could have been laid out in a better way to promote that policy when it was planned, I for one am tired of being stuck with the problems that were created with ones that werenAt planned properly back in the 490s and lam going to support the Vacation for that reason. Clark: Mr. Chair. Graves: Commissioner Clark. Clark: Mr. Pate, what would drive this Vacation, I mean, this right-of-way to actually be made a stub -out ... I mean, to be connected? Pate: It would likely be development of that overall tract. There is... Clark: We*ve approved the plans for a bank, and that didn4t include the stub -out; correct? Pate: Correct. It was a smaller portion of the property you see there. Clark: Thank you, Jeremy. I am ... this whole neighborhood is such a perfect poster child for why connectivity was invented. It doesn4t go anywhere except to cul-de-sacs and you only have one way in and out. I donAt see for the life of me how maintaining a right-of-way to a commercial piece of property would be in anybodyAs best interest. I donAt ... I think there is some transition issues. I believe in keeping commercial and residential more separate, and I agree with Commissioner Graves in terms of inheriting some of these problems that should have been addressed long ago. This is ... this little aerial shot we have is the poster child for connectivity. This is why connectivity should have happened. And lam not thinking that this Vacation or this right-of-way is going to be a good thing for anyone. I drove down East Petunia Court just the other day to look, and, I mean, itAs obvious, itAs right there. Unlike the Candlewood, itASnot going to take anybodyAs front porch, but I still donAt know if that justifies making it a stub -out. So I am going ... and I think we have others like this coming before us where residential neighborhoods are ... stand the potential of being connected Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 39 directly into a commercial development and I don -t think that is wise. I certainly donAt think youare going to gain anything at this comer because getting out from that hill is still going ... onto Mission is still going to be difficult. The people who live in the Glenbrook Subdivision fight that battle every day anyway, and you donA( turn left, you just turn right. So I will be supporting it, this Vacation, because I really think the neighbors need that assurance that no street is ever going to come through there and theyre not going to have to battle whatever cut - through traffic could be. I mean, people get lost all the time, and this is a very quiet street, a very quiet neighborhood, and I think they deserve to stay that way, so I will be supporting the Vacation. Graves: Thank you, Commissioner Clark. Ostner: Mr. Chair. Graves: Commissioner Ostner, rebuttal? (Laughter) Ostner: Absolutely. A friend of mine was building a deck and he didnat know he had to have a permit, and he got halfway through it and he was notified, I forget exactly how, and he went down to get a permit. He didnAt know. I donAt think the City is responsible for making that clear, putting up signs everywhere, mUley, if youAre going to build a deck, you*ve got to go get a permit.. There is an extent to the education the City can do. On top of that, he thought he had the permit in -hand and learned it was within the setback, but it was on top of a utility easement. He didnAt know that. Now, whose fault is that, whose responsibility? Well, you know what, it is his responsibility. So I really donAt ... I really canAt see the fact that these people deserve for this to not be built because it wasnAt built. That simply confirms the mistakes that were done in the -90s that don4t have to be confirmed. They wanted this connection. They simply faltered in forcing it to be built. Staff, Planning Commission, everybody voted for the connection. They simply said, w0h, Mr. Developer, we&ll cut you a break, 5, 8, 10 grand. Just donAt build it.. ThatAs all. That&s the only thing. They didnAt say, mDonAt ever connect it.. I also disagree that these uses should be separate. WeAre constantly, constantly preaching mixed use. A bank and a neighborhood are terrific neighbors. There&s no smell of retail restaurants. There&s no heavy deliveries of retail items to sell. Money. There&s a money truck a couple of times a day. There are drivers who come through there. I think there&s great opportunity for this neighborhood to participate in what goes on around it instead of wall it off I disagree that this is useless. These people can use this. These people can use this. We don4t know what*s going to go into this piece of land yet. Abankhas taken part of it. What if a really interesting mixed-use development with low- Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 40 impact commercial and some mixture of apartments, the way everybody likes to do, what if that went in there and all these people said, aGod, I wish we could walk through there, but we have to walk out on Mission and take our lives in our hands. Those dam planners, you know, they didnat give us any way through.. So I am ... I am certain that this connection should stay. I donAt think this issue is really about a connection. It*s really about paving. It simply wasn4t paved in 494. So I think it should stay and be paved one day, so ... Thank you. Graves: Thank you, Commissioner Ostner. Harris: Mr. Chair. Graves: Commissioner Harris. Harris: Unfortunately I agree with both Commissioners Clark and Ostner for the following reasons. Ostner: ItAs going to be a tough vote. Harris: Thatas a tough vote, isnat it? We certainly do believe in mixed use and we believe in the combinations of residential and commercial. I have an ongoing issue, however, with these subdivisions which were built with seemingly no forethought about that kind of mix. This subdivision does not say to you as you drive into it, n0h, we4re going to have some commercial activity mixed in with our residential use here. - That doesnAt mean that we arenAt sort of actively going back and attempting to retrofit. I think thatAs obviously a part of some of the downtown master plan and so forth. So I do have ... I have some difficulties with that and I do have some difficulties as we saw, I think, last week in another instance on a highway. I think it was 45. Am I right about that? The tri -city development. ? (Inaudible.) Harris: Anyway, I wonAt take us back down memory lane, but there is a kind of consistency here in terms of trying to make sure that already established neighborhoods are given some protection with the kind of commercial that*s next to them and also the ways in which they must interact and interface with that commercial. So thatAs the question that fem still sort of grappling with and why I wanted to have this conversation publicly here tonight to hear how they are responding to this. I think the issue of itAs ... that the right-of-way is there, it just hasnAt been paved, and thatAs absolutely true, of course, Commissioner Ostner. Of course, the paving is what makes it a street. And so that*s all I have to say. I hope somebody says something smart so that I can decide. Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 41 ? (Inaudible.) Harris: Not that you havenAt already, mind you. Lack: Mr. Chair. Graves: Commissioner Lack. Lack: While I hesitate to jump in after that lead, because I&m not sure that 14m ... ? That youAre smart enough? (Laughter) Lack: ... because lam not sure that lam there, the items that concern me for this division are not just connectivity in the sense that we generally talk about it, connecting neighborhoods and connecting flow of traffic, because I donAt think this is going to be a great flow of traffic if this stub -out is provided. As staff has stated, and I think we all agree, I think the stub -out would likely be used by some residents to get through the bank or to the bank or... the people on Petunia Court, I mean, we could suggest that they would probably go through the bank property as opposed to going back out onto Glenbrook, but the thing that, I think, concerns me the most is the emergency access to the subdivision, and if we see the ... a blockage of Glenbrook and an emergency vehicle canAt get to the subdivision, then one compromise that we might look at would be limitation of that access, of the access way that would be put through the easement. I notice in the packet that the city engineer has noted a ... is it a water line or a sewer line? I remember that there was a ... ? (Inaudible.) Lack: ... utility that would require 16 foot of easement and I wonder if the right-of-way or a paved city right-of-way could be maintained, could be a controlled emergency egress for emergency access. It could be a walking trait into the commercial zone so that it would provide that access for walk -ability in the neighborhood without having to get out onto Mission and would still limit the fears of cut -through traffic, and I would love to hear what other Commissioners thought of that. Graves: I know that we did something to that effect just to the south with the development that was going in on ... so that it wouldnat connect over the top of Mount Sequoyah. We did something similar to that where there was an ability for emergency access, but it was controlled where there wasnAt drive- through traffic by folks that were wandering around lost or whatever. Because significant Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 42 to me, obviously, also is that the people that would most allegedly convenienced by this are the people that are here tonight who donst want to see the connection. And so I would like to ... I guess I have the same thought process as Commissioner Lack as to whether ... I understand it would have to go through City Council because itas their right-of-way and I assume that how that right-of- way is controlled or used is also the City Council*s prerogative, but I*m wondering if there would be a mechanism for forwarding something to the City Council for consideration along those lines. Williams: Well, surely they can read your minutes. Obviously the City Council will make the final decision one way or another on a Vacation. If you recommend approval, it will go automatically to the City Council. If you do not recommend approval, then the citizens could appeal your recommended denial and it would still go to the City Council. So they will have the final word, and certainly what you said on the record, or if you want to have sort of motion to more clearly state what your feelings are, will be read by the city council. Graves: Well, I guess it makes a difference to me because if the motion was to deny the Vacation but the denial was in some way based on the fact that we were recommending some type of limited continued access as opposed to continuing the right-of-way as it currently is posed, I might could support that proposition, but if itAs just to leave it like it is, then I would not want to ... I would be supportive of approving the Vacation request. But ... so I donAt know the best way procedurally to go about doing that, and it may all be moved because there my not be enough votes anyway, but it wasjust a question that crossed my mind as well. Clark: Mr. Chair. Graves: Commissioner Clark. Clark: Right now this right-of-way, for those of you who have driven out there, you know that itAs ... the grass is cut, thereas nothing that stops people from walking straight across there. My concern is that it not get paved. Jeremy, is there anyway to keep it as a right-of-way but prohibit it from being ... and let it be a pedestrian access to commercial property. Is there any way to do that? With emergency access? Pate: I think most likely that the right-of-way as right-of-way is defined would have to be vacated and it could be an access easement then, much like on the project on Mount Sequoyah. It would have to be some sort of emergency access and a pedestrian access easement that was in place of your actual right-of-way. Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 43 Williams: But the emergency access easement, if they ever have a connection, will have to be paved ... Pate: Right. Williams: ... to be able to support fire trucks, which are very heavy. Graves: I believe on that one we did some type of pavers or something where it looked like ... it looked sort of like a grass or a trail, but couldnAt withstand ... Pate: There was a 12- to 16 -foot wide paved surface and then grass pavers on both sides of those to meet the 20 foot of minimum fire truck requirements. Graves: And then some type of gate or something that only the emergency personnel had the ability to open. Ostner: Mr. Chair. Graves: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Since our item before us is an item to vacate the right-of-way, if people are interested in keeping it and adding all these stipulations, it would seem prudent to simply wait on the accompanying or adjacent development and load up the requirements at that point. Because almost certainly the project to the north, if this Vacation is ... excuse me, if this right-of-way is existing, they will be required to use it and they will come before us in a development proposal and Mr. Pate will make them make the connection and they will come to us and say, mWait a minute. We donAt want to make the connection. Remember the discussion you had July I Oth. Breakaway barriers, fire, grass crete, etcetera.. It would seem to me that might be an appropriate angle of parliamentary procedure. Graves: Although I could see the reason or the need for this emergency access today even before this piece of property develops, and so I ... you know, my question would be, is there maybe a way to approve a Vacation and at the same time approve some type of access easement? Pate: Yes. Graves: Tonight? Pate: There would be ... It would be Graves: Would they be two separate motions or would it be Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 44 Pate: It would be an added condition of approval much like any condition. Graves: For the Vacation? Pate: Correct. Graves: Okay. Because I could actually see a reason to have that ... have that emergency access through there now without waiting for that property to develop. But it would also alleviate the concerns of the folks who live out there, that itAs ... that the only access through there is either going to be foot traffic or emergency traffic that has the code to a gate that*s going to be going across this piece of property. Clark: So, Jeremy, how do we do that? Pate: Well, itAs my understanding that Commissioner Graves is not talking about actually someone going out and paving that currently, but simply vacating the right-of-way. You could add a condition of approval, state at the time of development the tract to the north, wA developer shall provide ... or this property shall be maintained in an access easement, and at the time of the development of the property to the north sufficient measures be installed for emergency vehicle and pedestrian access to Petunia Court.. Clark: That would keep a house from being built on that as well. Because your staff report points out itAs big enough to accommodate another house. Williams: Well, except ... I think the staff later then saw that there was an easement needed through that. Right. That (inaudible) easement. Williams: A water easement, so that would make it impossible for a house to be built. Clark: All right. Then I will make the motion that we approve Vacation 06-2136 with the amendment ... with the added condition that Jeremy just stated. Graves: And does the motioner also include the three suggested conditions that planning staff requested in the event that we might go against their recommendation for denial? Clark: Yes. Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 45 Graves: So there will be four conditions? Clark: There will be four conditions. Graves: The stated three, and then Condition Number 4 would be the one just annunciated by Mr. Pate. Clark: Which he did so well, and I wonAt feel the need to repeat. Myres: And I&II second. Graves: There*s a motion and a second. Do we have any further discussion on this item? Trumbo: Mr. Chair. Graves: Commissioner Trumbo. Trumbo: I would like to ask the applicant if he is in favor of this and understands what weare doing. Carpenter: Yeah, that will be fine. I think what our biggest concern was, Mrs. Wilkins, you know, their family developed this property years ago, and when Gordon passed away that was one of the concerns was it was never really clarified what was going to be required by them. They-ve been taking care of this for years. They,ve sold virtually every home, built every home and sold every home in there, and just wanted to make sure that future ... that, you know, the biggest goal is that, as you all have said, people have bought homes in there. They donAt want a lot of through traffic. I donAt think a bank is going generate a lot of traffic in andoutofthere. So if we could just somehow with an emergency type thing or, you know, just something that would eliminate any possibility that there would be a through street there, I guess, and I think that would be fine. If it would be fine with the neighbors, I would assume that would be okay with her. Myres: And that&s what we intend, I believe. Carpenter: Okay. Thank you. Fulcber: Mr. Chair, could I clarify something fairly quickly? Graves: Yes. Fulcher: Speaking of the utilities, when those were referred to, that the engineering department was requesting, that is a 10 -feet utility easement only on the western Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 46 property line. It does not traverse the property. It is only along the property line, 10 feet. So it would not ... itas not going east and west. Itas running north and south on the west property line. Williams: But this motion would not vacate enough to allow a building here; is that right? No. Williams: Because to keep the emergency access through this lot, a house would not be able to be built. ? (Inaudible) Ostner: Mr. Chair. Graves: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: On the mention of a lot, Jeremy, would this ever qualify as a legal lot? Pate: It would if the access easement were not there. It was actually denied. Ostner: ItAs big enough? Pate: Correct. It was designed to potentially, if the decision were made by the Planning Commission at some point in the future and someone wanted to build on this lot, they could vacate that right-of-way, because both properties on either side of that right-of-way is owned by the same person, so they become one lot. However, with this condition, the right-of-way would be maintained as an access easement. I can read into the record again that condition now that I have written it down if you would like. Graves: Sure. Pate: mThe right-of-way shall remain in an access easement and at the time of development of the property to the north the developers shall provide adequate emergency and pedestrian access from the property to Petunia Court subject to approval of the Planning Commission.. Graves: And it would be ... is that satisfactory language to make sure that itAs a limited access type of easement as well? Williams: Limited only in the emergency access ... Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 47 Pate: Emergency and pedestrian access only. Graves: Okay. Ostner: Mr. Chair. Graves: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: I have a question for staff. Do you not need to state emergency vehicular and pedestrian access? Is it obvious? Williams: I think itAs obvious. Pate: I believe ... Ostner: Okay. While I have the floor lad just like to share. I understand every neighbor wants this Vacation. I also understand the neighbors always want these Vacations. Everybody wants to live on cul-de-sacs a quarter mile from an interstate. However, it doesnAt work. They-ve tried that. Their city is choking themselves because they built everybody on cul-de-sacs a quarter mile from the interstate. I believe our efforts to break away fire barriers and for people to walk through are dancing around the issue that we want connectivity, but weare afraid to do it. The fact is we want the fire trucks to break in, but we donA(wantpeople to be able to drive out if they*re in an emergency. If there4s a situation on that main street thatAs currently existing, there&s no other way out of here in a big hurry, period. I donat have the key to that breakaway barrier. Thatas why when people drive through cities and look at problems they rarely say, mBoy, that street should be blocked off. That should have been blocked off.. lt&s almost always the reverse. mWhy isnAt there a connection? Why isnA( there a connection?. So I*m ... I was not in favor of the breakaway barriers on Mount Sequoyah. I think they -re a poor solution. TheyAre almost a .... well, they -re trying to get the connectivity without the connectivity. So I will ... IAII have to vote against this. Graves: Thank you, Commissioner Ostner. We have a motion and a second on the floor. Is there any further discussion on this item? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve VAC 06-2136 carries with a vote of 7-1-0. Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 48 RZN 06- -2132: (JENNINGS PLUS N.A. DOWNZONING, 523-524-562): Submitted by ALAN OSTNER OF THE JENNINGS PLUS N.A. for various properties located WITHIN THE JENNINGS-PLUS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. The properties are zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE and contain approximately 0.20 acres. The request is to downzone 51 parcels to RSF- -8, Residential Single-family, 8 units per acre. Graves: Thank you. The next item on the agenda is Rezoning 06-2132, Jennings -Plus Downzoning for certain parcels that have been identified. The request by the applicant on this item has been to table it indefinitely, but just in case we have any members of the public weall go ahead. 1-11 go ahead and take a staff report on this quickly and invite any public comment. Ostner: Mr. Chair. Graves: Commissioner Ostner. Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 49 Ostner: I wil I be abstaining. Graves: Okay. Ostner: I understood this was not to be heard tonight. Graves: Okay. Well, Ijust ... since it was on our agenda, I want to go ahead and make sure. (Mr. Ostner leaves the room.) Pate: Mr. Chair, this is a submittal of a rezoning that has been initiated by a neighborhood in south Fayetteville. Now, this property is located south of Archibald Yell, east of Locust Street, north of Sixth Street in the Jennings -Plus Neighborhood. It is comprised of several property owners and several different properties, as you can see from your maps. In our process to get to this point in the Planning Commission review of a rezoning, there were a couple of different petitions circulated. One was several months ago when RSF-8 was an idea and the petition circulated there was to ... for many members of this neighborhood to create that zoning district. After that was already created, there was a second petition circulated that stated that (inaudible) property owners wanted to rezone to that petition. There was a mix-up of what owners signed what petition. And so before the Planning Commission votes on this item, we want to ensure and double check all of our signed signatures to ensure that those property owners have signed the petitions and no one else are included in this rezoning request. So that is why staff has recommended that this item be tabled indefinitely. We think it will be ready in two weeks, but we just want to make sure that we have enough ample time to ensure that everyone can get on the list and everyone that has signed the petition is on the list. Staff has also been approached in the last couple of weeks ... last week ... by a couple of different property owners that would like to add their names to the petition. So this would also allow that opportunity as well, and there will be some preparation for that work, to notify adjacent property owners, too. So at this time weare recommending this be tabled indefinitely and this will come back before you at some point in the future. Graves: Thank you. Is there any member of the public who would like to address rezoning 06-2132? Would you please step forward and give us your name. Dennis: lam Dwayne Dennis and I own some property on Sixth Street, and 1&m not, I guess, educated. I live out of town, so I donA( know for sure. Is Sixth Street in ... I mean, I know itAs in the Jennings Addition, but is it in this sub ... you know ... Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 50 Graves: Part of it. Dennis: Well, anyway,... Graves: We4l try to answer whatever questions you have after you get through. Dennis: Okay. Along Sixth Street is where my property is, and the Jennings Addition ... I looked at the plot and there are a lot of real small (papers are handed to him) Thank you ... lots. They say single family. These ... right along where my property is those are probably some of the oldest dwellings in Fayetteville, and it seemed to me like this rezoning would continue to hold those old residences, properties, thatAs been there and a lot of times maybe not ... was built before a lot of codes were seen in the ... you know, in the Fayetteville code. And so there are houses that,&s just there basically, and it seemed to me like this rezoning might keep them there a lot longer instead of, like, out on the other end of Sixth Street theyAre having a lot of development, and it seemed like the rezoning might stall that area and kind of keep it in the same mode that it is right now, and I ... you know, it*s not just a real ... I mean, I own property there, so I hate to commit on anybody, you know, but it -s ... if you all know the area, itas not one of the, you know, best areas of Fayetteville. I mean, itAs the oldest part, I would have to say, and itAs ... to me, if you rezone it to limit, you know, some developer coming in, itAs going to keep it that way longer than, you know, ... and that&s all I have to say. Thank you. Graves: Thank you. Is there any other member of the public who would like to address this particular item? Seeing none, this would only be where we have an applicantAs report. Commissioner Ostner is actually the applicant on this item, and the request is to table this item indefinitely for the reasons stated by staff in its report, but I would like, if you can, to try to address some of the concerns that were expressed. Pate: This is a rezoning, again, that was initiated by a neighborhood, and this property is all zoned currently for RMF -24, multifamily, 24 units per acre. Most of the lots in this area could not be ... there could not be a lot of units developed because theyAre so small, but however, if one property owner ... or if one developer did come in and buy up several lots and combined a lot of property, then there could be a drastic change in character of the neighborhood from what is there now. This request would be to rezone these properties, and again, itas only those who have submitted a signed petition that want to rezone the property, but it would rezone them to RSF-8, which is a single-family residential zoning district. It allows for a much smaller lot, 5,000 square feet. About 50 by 100 is the minimum size. It also allows reduced setbacks. You have a reduced 15 -foot, I think, front setback and 5 for the side setbacks and rear setback, so it allows for Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 51 a much more historical type of development pattern within this area. The ironic part about this is that most of this development ... most of this area that is under request was developed in that very pattern, and thatAs why we have essentially created the zoning district for neighborhoods of this nature who were developed in that zoning pattern ... or developed in that pattern, but then rezoned in the 1970s relatively outside of what they could develop now. So this is simply a chance for a lot of these property owners who have non -conforming lots and structures to become conforming. Graves: Thank you. We have a request by the applicant to table this item indefinitely. Is there a motion to that effect? Clark: So moved. Graves: A motion by Commissioner Clark to table Rezoning 06-2132. Is there a second? Myres: Second. Graves: Second by Commissioner Myres. Is there any further discussion? If you would call the roll please. Roll Call: The motion to table RZN 06-2132 carries with a vote of 7-0-1. ADM 06- -2165: Administrative Item (STUMBAUGH, 284): Submitted by KURT STUMBAUGH for property located at 3538 W. BELMONT CIRCLE. The request is to appeal the requirements from the Engineering Division regarding sidewalks. Graves: The last item on our agenda ... I hope Commissioner Ostner is where he can hear us right now. Here he is. (Mr. Ostner returns to the room.) Graves: Okay. The last item on our agenda is Administrative Item 06-2165, an appeal regarding sidewalks from Mr. Stumbaugh. I believe we*ve already heard the staff report on this item and invited public comment, and there is no public left here now, so on this item I think we can go straight to the Commission with discussion. We apparently still donat have an applicant on this item. We moved this to the end to give an opportunity perhaps for the applicant to arrive if they were delayed for some reason, and my inclination, which I stated at the outset has not changed, but obviously we can discuss this item. Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 52 Clark: Mr. Chair. Graves: Commissioner Clark. Clark: I move that we deny Administrative Item 06-2165. Myres: And 141 second. Graves: There&s been a motion to deny Administrative Item 06-2165 with a second by Commissioner Myres. Is there any discussion? I would like there to be some discussion if we4re going to deny it just to support any reasons that there might be for denying the appeal. Ostner: Mr. Chair. Graves: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Yes, sit. For the applicantas information, the photos that have been supplied by Mr. Rutherford show severe broken sidewalks and I don&t see a reason to overtunn his opinion of the integrity of this sidewalk being suitable for the City to accept. The way I understand it, there is a project going on and this sidewalk needs to be up to City standards and after that we are going to maintain it. It is not up to our standards. We are being granted a substandard product. And this is a standard procedure. We don -t accept broken water lines or sewer or streets or anything when people build those. My experience with Mr. Rutherford has been he&s very fair and very experienced in what he does. So I would be inclined to vote for the motion to deny this appeal. Graves: Thank you, Commissioner Ostner. I would concur ... I would concur with the statements made by Commissioner Ostner. The applicant ... the initial applicant, or developer I should say, had the option as was outlined by staff to provide a guarantee or to build the sidewalks up front with the agreement that those sidewalks would be in an appropriate condition at the time ... at the time of development, and theyAre not in appropriate condition now. They certainly have the option to plan for that by putting up a guarantee and chose not to do that, and so what the ordinance says we have in place and given the photographs weave seen of the sidewalks, I would also agree with Commissioner Ostner for the reasons for denying this appeal. Commissioner Lack. Lack: I did want to get clarification from staff if I could to ... as to when that transfer of ownership is or that acceptance of the sidewalk is set forth by the ordinance, becausel had ... my assumption was that if you fulfilled your subdivision that Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 53 that would, at the time that your subdivision was accepted, all work for that subdivision would have been accepted, and that the sidewalks would have been accepted with the subdivision, and unless somebody had obviously damaged public property, and in that case would need to replace it, then the sidewalks would have already been accepted, and so I would ask for some clarification on when that transfer is taken by code. Pate: Unfortunately, I donat know the street and sidewalk chapters as well, and we donAt have an engineer here today. It was my understanding from discussing and from the memo that you all got in your packets from our sidewalk administrator and the staff report that while the right-of-way has been dedicated those improvements are not officially maintained by the city, for instance, the sidewalk in front of the lot, until such time as a certificate of occupancy is granted for that subject property. Much like if a property owner destroyed a lamp or any other portion of public property, they would have to repair that public property. I guess, probably whether it&s on your property or not, if you destroy public property, youAre required to fix that or repair that. So 14m not sure if it falls under the same type of umbrella as that does or not. 14m sorry I can4t answer your question as well as I wish I could. Lack: Thank you. Graves: Is there any further discussion? We have a motion and a second on the floor. Garner: Mr. Chair, I just wanted to bring up ... the applicant did.... when he submitted the letter to me he wanted feedback from the Planning Commission that whether or not ... if the Planning Commission were to deny it he wanted to understand if he was going to have to be the one to pay for the sidewalk or somebody else ... the original developer ... andjust wanted to get that on the record what our standard would be regarding that question, because I know that was one of the main ones he asked me. Graves: That sounds like a question for staff to me. Pate: As noted in the photographs that you have before you, all those property owners that have repaired their sidewalks have been the property owner of record that developed that home, and so if that property ownership has turned over to a new property owner ... if, for instance, the homebuilder is the one building the home, thatAs typically who replaces it. Whoever gets a certificate of occupancy is the responsible entity for replacing that sidewalk. Ostner: Mr. Chair. Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 54 Graves: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: On sort of a side note, this really illustrates the problem with giving a developer the option of building sidewalks and then basically selling them with the lot to a lot builder, or bonding and guaranteeing that the ... that the lot builder will build them and letting the builder work in his own best interest to build the proper sidewalk. If I had to guess, several of these photos reflected poor workmanship. It was not in the ... no offense, Mr. Developer ... it isnAt in his interest to build something that lasts a long time. He gets to sell the lot. And if it breaks in a year or two under normal wear and tear, it&s not his problem. Sometimes a system where the individual lot builder builds their sidewalk works best. It is in their best interest to make it proper. So thatAs really not related, but somewhat it is related. Graves: Thanks Commissioner Ostner. Is there any further discussion? Will you call the role,please? Roll Call: The motion to deny ADM 06-2165 carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Graves: That was the last item on our agenda. Are there any announcements? Pate: There is a special joint Planning Commission and City Council meeting next Monday night, I believe, and we were just discussing, I believe it starts ... it is here and I believe it starts at 5:30 p.m. for the CityPlan 2025. Graves: Okay. Thanks. Any other announcements? Myres: I have a question for Mr. Pate. I got a notice in the mail of training for Planning Commissioners in Fort Smith. Pate: If anyone is interested in that Planning Commission training, please contact my office. We just got that notice. Myres: And itas Wednesday, the... Pate: I saw it but I didnAt read through it all today. Myres: Okay. I think it*s ... I donAt think it*s this Wednesday. I think it4s next Wednesday, possibly.. Pate: I would especially recommend if the Planning Commissioners have not been in training before that I would highly recommend you go to that training and we will pick up the tab for you. Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 55 Graves: It is very helpful. Myres: And itAs very close for a change. ItAs a day trip. Ostner: Even the veterans who have been here two or three years but have never experienced training would benefit. If anything else, meeting other Planning Commissioners from a town that has no staff, and talking to ... Graves: ItAs an eye-opener. Ostner: It is an eye-opener. They*re shocked and you*re shocked. Graves: Are there any other announcements? Weare adjourned. Pate: Thank you.