Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-08-14 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on August 14, 2006, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN FPL 06-2149: ( TIMBER TRAILS, 526) Approved Page 4 FPL 06-2154: ( CREEK MEADOW SUBDIVISION, Approved 247) Page 4 CUP 06-2177: ( BLU LOUNGE, 484) Approved Page 5 CUP 06-2179: (ALBRECHT, 403) Approved Page 10 RZN 06-2180: ( CALYPSO PROPERTIES, 595) Denied Page 12 RZN 06-2181: ( LIFE COVENANT CHURCH, 363) Forwarded Page 22 ANX 06-2183: (LIERLY LANE S/D, 244) Forwarded Page 26 RZN 06-2184: (LIERLY LANE S/D, 244 Forwarded PAGE 47 Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 2 Jill Anthes Lois Bryant Candy Clark James Graves Hilary Harris Andy Lack Christine Myres Alan Ostner Sean Trumbo STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Andrew Garner Suzanne Morgan Jesse Fulcher CITY ATTORNEY: Kit Williams MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF ABSENT Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 3 Anthes: Good evening. Welcome to the Monday, August 14th, 2006, meeting of the City of Fayetteville Planning Commission. I would like to remind everyone to turn off their cell phones and pagers and anything else that beeps. Jeremy, would you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call, Anthes, Trumbo, Clark, Harris, Lack, Graves, Myres, Ostner, and Byrant are present. Anthes: We have three meetings' worth of minutes to approve: the June 12th, June 26th and July 10th meetings. I have forwarded my comments to Mr. Pate. Does anybody else have any comments, or I'll entertain motions to approve minutes. Motion: Clark: So moved. Anthes: Motion to approve by Commissioner Clark. Myres: Second. Anthes: Second by Commissioner Myres. Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The minutes were approved with a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 4 FPL 06-2149: Final Plat (TIMBER TRAILS, 526): Submitted by PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS, INC. for property located at 226 HAPPY HOLLOW ROAD. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 25.87 acres. The request is to approve the final plat of a residential planned zoning district with 96 duplex and 15 single-family dwelling units. FPL 06-2154: Final Plat ( CREEK MEADOW SUBDIVISION, 247): Submitted by EGIS ENGINEERING, INC., for property located at SPRINGWOODS C-PZD, LOT 5. The property is zoned C-PZD, COMMERCIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT and contains approximately 30.77 acres. The request is to approve a final plat of a residential subdivision with 47 single-family dwellings. Anthes: We have two items on the consent agenda this evening: a Final Plat 06- 2149 for Timber Trails, and Final Plat 06-2154 for Creek Meadow Subdivision. Would any member of the public or any commissioner like to remove one of these items from consent for discussion? Seeing none, I'll entertain motions to approve the consent agenda. Motion: Graves: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Graves: I'll move that we approve the consent agenda. Ostner: Second. Anthes: We have a motion by Commissioner Graves and a second by Commissioner Ostner. Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve FPL 06-2149 and FPL 06-2154 carries with a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 5 CUP 06-2177: ( BLU LOUNGE, 484 ): Submitted by PAUL NICHOLS for property located at 339 N WEST AVENUE, STE. 101. The property is zoned C-3, CENTRAL COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 0.67 acres. The request is for a dance floor in the existing nightclub. Anthes: Our first item of new business is Conditional Use Permit 06-2177 for Blu Lounge. May we have the staff report, please? Fulcher: The applicants are requesting approval of a Conditional Use application for Use Unit 29, Dance Hall, in the existing nightclub within the property, which is zoned C-3, Central Commercial. The property is located at 339 North West Avenue and it's under the name `Blu Lounge," which is one of the many tenants within the renovated Ice House Building. The applicants ultimately are just proposing a small dance floor approximately 15 feet by 20 feet. They did provide a floor plan, which shows the location of the dance floor, on Page 12 of 16. Staff is in support of this dance hall request given its accessory nature within the existing night club and also given the location adjacent to other commercial properties, its location in the downtown and the vicinity of Dickson Street. Staff has recommended six conditions of approval. Just to touch on a few, Items 2 and 4 refer to the City's Noise Ordinance and to outdoor music or amplification of music out of doors, which is prohibited unless another Conditional Use is brought forward and approved by the Planning Commission. And Condition Number 5 just refers to the limits of the size of the dance floor. If that would need to be expanded, the applicants, again, would have to come back to the Planning Commission for that approval. Thank you. Anthes: Jesse, before you sit down, will you address the one question. There's a comment on Page 10 about the project owing Impact Fees. Is that true, and does that need to be a condition of approval? Fulcher: On Page 10? Not to my knowledge. When I ... I pulled these out of the Building Safety Divisions for their inspection. It shows approved, and re- inspection required ... is not required. I can double check the fee settings within our computer program, which keeps track of the fees and building permits. We may be able to put some type of condition that if those are due, as a condition of approval prior to a C of O those have to be paid if they already have not been paid at this time. Anthes: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Fulcher. Would any member of the public like to address this Conditional Use for Blu Lounge? Seeing none, we'll close the public comment section. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Good evening. Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 6 Nichols: Hello, my name is Paul Nichols. I'm the owner of Blu Lounge. I'm requesting this dance ... this permit to allow dancing in there. It will not be any sort of a remodel of the place. It's just ... I recently found out that you have to have a Conditional Use Permit in order to do it, and this is me trying to get into compliance with it, so ... It is a very large part of my business. It's helped considerably on Friday and Saturday nights to help get people in there, and I would be very much appreciative if you would grant me this. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Nichols. We may get back to you with questions. Commissioners? Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Madame Chair. I have a question for staff. We have this on Page 13, the building, sort of, footprint. Where approximately in this building is this establishment? I'm assuming it's not the entire floor, it's a portion of it. Is there just an approximate way to tell me? Pate: It's approximately ... Nichols: I don't have that in front of me. I can Ostner: Possibly the applicant could Anthes: I can describe it to you. Ostner: Well, that's just fine. Anthes: If you go north on West Street there is a frontage of this property just past the parking lot that's internal to the development. Ostner: Okay. Anthes: ... and there's a deck Ostner: Okay. Anthes: ... and then a door where you go in, and then that's where this is. On Page 12, there's a map that shows the layout of the internal part. Ostner: Yeah. So Graves: You're looking at Page 13. I think on the previous page there's a layout of the floor. Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 7 Ostner: Yeah, I know the layout ... Graves: Okay. Ostner: ... but I didn't know where the layout fell in the building. So, roughly, the southeast corner? Pate: That's correct, yes. Ostner: Crudely. Okay. My question is, there's a utility pole in the street. Can anyone explain how that happened? Pate: I cannot. Ostner: You probably weren't the developer of the building. Nichols: I have nothing ... Ostner: Okay. It was just .. Nichols: That was prior to my arrival. Ostner: ... a safety concern that I had for staff. I'm not going to hold this applicant to the utility pole that's still within the street, but it is in the street. It's not behind the curb, it's not even close. Clark: I don't think dancers would come out just to hit that pole. Harris: No, they wouldn't. Ostner: Just a question. Myres: They might want to swing around it, but ... Ostner: Well, it could be driven into. Clark: That's true. Ostner: So if staff could maybe look into that for me. Pate: Sure. It's very likely that ... We have franchise agreements with a lot of utility companies which allow them within our right-of-way, which is why you see poles sometimes. Even with the new library, existing poles are placed in ... or replaced in the sidewalk or right-of-way, and so that may Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 8 be ... very well be when this property was redeveloped within the existing footprint that that simply remained as an existing service, but I can certainly ask that question. Ostner: By my memory, the street section there was basically widened and the pole was ... suddenly became in the street. So it would be good if that could be fixed by someone. That's all. Thank you. Anthes: Is there further discussion? I have one question, quickly. On Condition of Approval Number 4, this is referring to any speakers that are outside on that wood deck or patio? Pate: Correct. Anthes: Okay. Clark: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Motion: Clark: I make the motion we approve Conditional Use 06-2177 with the conditions as listed. Trumbo: Second. Anthes: I have a motion by Commissioner Clark and a second by Commissioner Trumbo. Would that include the seventh condition ... Clark: Yes. Anthes: ... of approval as suggested by Mr. Fulcher? Clark: Indeed it will. Anthes: Is that okay with you? Trumbo: Yes. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve CUP 06-2177 carries with a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 9 Anthes: Thank you. Nichols: Thank you very much. Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 10 CUP 06-2179: ( ALBRECHT, 403): Submitted by JJ HARRIS LIBERTY BANK OF ARKANSAS for property located at 1923 & 1925 W LAWSON STREET. The property is zoned RSF- 4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.27 acres. The request if for a duplex in the RSF-4 zoning district. Anthes: Our next item of business is Conditional Use 06-2179 for Albrecht. May we have the staff report? Garner: Yes, ma'am. This property is located at 1923 and 1925 West Lawson Street and it is developed with a duplex. Lawson Street is an established residential street connecting east to west between Lewis and Sang Avenues and the street is developed with a majority of smaller single- family detached homes with a few duplexes on the street. The applicant is not proposing modifications to the duplex, but wishes to bring in nonconforming property into compliance to allow for the existing duplex to be reconstructed if it is ever destroyed. And a conditional use permit is required because it is the RSF-4 zoning district, and a duplex is only allowed as a conditional use. We are recommending in favor of this request, and we have three conditions of approval that we're recommending listed on Page 1 there of your staff report. The only one that I wanted to bring to your attention was Condition 2, that "Should the duplex be destroyed and reconstructed, or remodeled, the existing footprint and square footage shall be allowed to increase by up to 10 percent without additional conditional use approval. And I will be happy to answer any questions you might have. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Garner. Would any member of the public like to address this conditional use? Seeing none, we'll close the floor to public comment, and, Mr. Harris, do you have a presentation? Harris J.J.: I am the underwriter and the operations manager for Liberty Bank of Arkansas and I approved this loan, and it's held ... currently held for sale for the secondary market and the secondary market will not approve this loan without it having a conditional use to allow it to come into compliance, so I'm requesting the conditional use. Anthes: Thank you very much. Commissioners? Graves: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Motion: Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page I1 Graves: For the reasons stated by staff in its report and in the report ... the written report we have, I'll move for approval of the Conditional Use Permit 06- 2179 with the stated conditions. Clark: Second. Anthes: We have a motion by Commissioner Graves, a second by Commissioner Clark. I have one question of staff. Are the other duplexes that you refer to that are in the area in compliance? Garner: I'm not aware of conditional use permits being granted for those, no. Anthes: Is it the policy of staff to notify those other property owners, or not? Garner: Not really, not unless they Pate: Not typically. Our Enforcement Division is typically complaint -driven. If there is an obvious or gross violation of something, then we obviously will see to it that there is something notified. We'll be happy to inquire into those if they are existing nonconforming structures. In a case like this, an existing nonconforming structure can remain, an existing nonconforming use can remain without conditional use approval. It's simply if the applicant desires to come forward or desires to have a situation where, if their structure is destroyed and they want to rebuild, a lot of times they will come forward. So as it is, there are a lot of nonconformities. We don't go out there looking for all of them, but we'll certainly be happy to look into it. Anthes: Okay. And can I ask that staff would provide photographs of the structure in the neighborhood with similar requests? Garner: Sure. Anthes: It would be helpful since we didn't tour this item. And one other comment. The ... well, actually, I'll leave that one alone. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve CUP 06-2179 carries with a vote of 9-0-0. Anthes: Thank you. Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 12 RZN 06-2180: (CALYPSO PROPERTIES, 595): Submitted by KEVIN SANTOS for property located at 4170 W 6TH STREET. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 3.35 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, with a Bill of Assurance. Anthes: Our next item is Rezoning Request 06-2180 for Calypso Properties. Suzanne? Morgan: This property consists of approximately 3.3 acres. The request is to rezone the property to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, with a Bill of Assurance. Just a little bit of background on this property. It is being developed currently under an approved large-scale development within the residential office regulations. There will be two structures with associated parking. Property to the north, east, and west is zoned Residential Agricultural and property to the south is zoned Residential Office, and RMF -24. In 1993, this lot was created with a lot split, which also created a tandem lot to the north for a single-family home. In 1994 the property owner requested that the property be rezoned C-2. This was denied by the Planning Commission. The property at that time was not developed. So in 2004 the owner requested rezoning from R -A to C-1 in anticipation of development. Staff suggested, instead, Residential Office zoning district, finding the C-1 was incompatible with the surrounding area and did not meet the criteria of the then -adopted General Plan 2020. At that Planning Commission meeting the applicant did agree to the Residential Office zoning. They had originally had a desire for an office park, though, with some eating places. Eating places are allowed by right within C-1 zoning district, but are allowed by conditional use only within the R -O zoning district. At this time the applicant would request that same CA zoning district, to rezone this property to C-1 with a Bill of Assurance which would limit the uses of gasoline service stations and drive-ins. The City ... or, excuse me, City staff still finds that CA zoning district is not appropriate in this area. The interim City Plan 2025 designates this site as Mixed Use, and this area is located within an intended growth sector. However, we find that, typically with the uses permitted in the C-1 zoning district, they have typically longer business hours, more refuse service, generating more noise to surrounding residential neighborhoods or residences, as well as a greater volume of traffic, especially at peak hours, which do not ... aren't necessarily those peak hours of an office time. As you can see on Page 5, we've included a chart showing traffic patterns for commercial versus office, and most commercial areas are busier in the evening hours. We do not find that this zoning is justified or needed at this time. Neighborhood Commercial areas are intended to enhance and regulate the appearance of Neighborhood Commercial areas within and adjacent to residential neighborhoods. The lack of surrounding Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 13 neighborhoods will not allow any development of this property under the C-1 zoning district to function as intended. We find that the best use at this time for this property would be under the R -O regulations, and therefore we are recommending denial of the requested rezoning. Anthes: Thank you, Ms. Morgan. Would any member of the public like to address this rezoning request for Calypso Properties? Please come forward. Wilkes: Hi. My name is Steve Wilkes. I live at 4188 West Sixth Street. I'm an adjoining property owner. I won't reiterate the points that were just made, other than to say that I agree with them completely. R -O is absolutely the right zoning for not only this property but others that will surely be developed along this ... about half -mile stretch of Sixth Street. There's plenty of C-1, C-2 both to the east and west of us. Lots of restaurants, lots of this kind of thing. So I'm pleased with the constancy of the findings of staff and hope that you will be in agreement. I would like to just amplify one or two things, and it has mainly to do with the Bill of Assurance. That offering a Bill of Assurance against something that you never intended to do in the first place isn't much of an assurance, it seems to me. It was never an intent to put a drive-in in there or a gas station. The buildings that have been built wouldn't support those infrastructures, not there. So what it means is, though, that it would allow for other eating establishments and other retail, in other words, a strip mall. So we're just ... I just wanted to point that out, and also to say I'm not totally clear about it, but the conditional uses of C-1, I'm not sure if they're addressed or not addressed in the Assurance, but with R -O you certainly have the right to come in and say that we're petitioning for a particular kind of business that doesn't fall within C-1, but if it falls within CA by right, then essentially the public has given up its voice to discuss what goes in there. And then again, coming back to the conditional uses under C-1, those aren't ... I'm not sure if they've been addressed in this Bill of Assurance or not, but I just wanted to bring it up that perhaps in two or three or four years if you come back and say, "Well, now we would like to have a conditional use of a liquor store or something like that," once it's gone to C-1 the public is more or less locked out of that debate and locked out of any kind of comment there. So thank you for your time and that's about it for me. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Wilkes. Would any other member of the public like to speak to this issue? Seeing none, I'll close the public comment section. Mr. Santos, would you like to make a presentation? Santos: Hello. I'm Kevin Santos, representing Calypso Properties. We compromised last year and I think we compromised too early, because it's Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 14 really been ... the Wilkes family has been the only real opposition to this property. And I know that they made a sympathetic appeal with the pictures of their daughter's wedding, and I think that sympathetic appeal was effective with the Planning Staff, but I would like to make an appeal to reason. And this property was owned by Mr. Wilkes and he got a lot split to sell the property off, and he could have put covenants on it at that time if he wanted to try to control the future use of it, but now he's trying to control the future use of it after he's already sold it for what he could get for it. I'd like to point out in the staff report that they say the R -O zoning is more consistent with the Mixed Use called for by the Master Plan. They don't say that it's inconsistent, they say that it's more consistent, and that doesn't sound right to me, either, because more Mixed Use would be more consistent, I think. You've seen pictures of the buildings under construction. It's a very attractive development. The ... I also included some pictures of the surrounding developments. There's a move towards a form -based zoning code rather than the old-fashioned use - based. And another thing that I wanted to point out is that staff seems to think it was a policy decision by the City Council, that ... when they did the R -O zoning, but they did what we asked for after we had already compromised, like I said, sooner than we should have. You'll see Mr. Wilkes has gone through a lot of trouble to show that there are plenty of other restaurants available in the area. My client has already had to turn down 25 requests from restaurants and small-business owners, a dress shop, a dry cleaners. I think when ... when you look at what's in the area as far as use and form, this development would be a positive contribution to the area. The five -lane highway is not at all appropriate for residential use. That's where the other mixes should come into play. There's already a new subdivision built to the northeast and another one approved to the northwest of this property, and I would just like to appeal to your reason that putting in small businesses and an attractive building in this area that has mega -boxes, has very unappealing form in a lot of the buildings, and very unappealing uses in a lot of the buildings in the area, that it only makes sense to allow a little bit more intensive commercial use ... well, some commercial use, other than offices. There's a glut of office space in Fayetteville. In Fayetteville the price for leasing office space has stayed steady or gone down over the last several years. And what there's a demand for is retail space, really, more than restaurants. But with this Bill of Assurance it would be only walk-in restaurants, no drive-thrus, no gas stations, and I don't see that it would be anything but an improvement to the neighborhood. I hope to get your approval for this. Thank you very much. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Santos. Commissioners? Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 15 Trumbo: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Trumbo. Trumbo: Question for staff. I see a dotted line for a future road just to the east of this property. Is that Rupple Road? Pate: Yes. Trumbo: And that's going to be a ... Pate: A principal arterial. Trumbo: Principal arterial. How many cars are expected to be on that, do you think? Pate: The Design Service Volume for a fully built -out principal arterial is up to 20,600 vehicle trips per day with a left -turn bay, and, of course, that's at a full build -out. This portion of Rupple Road, I would say, is several ... many years from being developed. It's not within any of our first phases of construction for our bond program. Trumbo: Okay. And it's not part of the first phase? Pate: Not ... not that I'm aware of, no. Trumbo: Thank you. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: I have a question for staff. Jeremy, talk to me a little bit about the strip ... the aversion to strip malls along this property and why staff thinks this rezoning would accomplish that. Why would it be a strip mall? Pate: Why it would be a strip mall? Clark: Yeah. I mean, it seems ... when I'm reading the staff report there's something in here that talks about that this would be more like a too heavy development for that area. Pate: That's a City Council policy decision that was ... came primarily out of the City ... the General Plan 2020 and was carried over with the City Plan 2025 ... is to not create strip type of retail development. A lot of the reason, in my opinion, because of the type of traffic, peak traffic, that it Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 16 generates, everyone trying to turn a left or a right out at the same time. College Avenue is probably the prime example of a strip retail -type of development. I think probably the best example to look at an arterial with different zoning and land use considerations is Joyce Boulevard. You have the west side of Joyce Boulevard, which is very commercial oriented, C-1 and C-2 zoning. The east side of Joyce Boulevard, east of College, is more ... it's all Residential Office. So those are very two different types of land use patterns, very different traffic patterns in those areas, and so that's probably the best ... best example that you can see. Both are primarily developed to our existing codes. Most of those have developed within the last 10 to 15 years, I would say. They have the proper landscape setbacks, and so it's a good example comparing what you get when you get a commercial type of zoning pattern versus a residential office -type or office -type zoning pattern. Not that one is better or worse than the other, but there is certainly a difference in the two. And I think the appropriateness of location is something that we felt the Council had made a decision in this area. It's not shown as Commercial or Neighborhood Commercial or Community Commercial in this area, but more of a mixed-use pattern. And there have been probably four to five requests for commercial zoning along this ... along Sixth Street in this area in the last couple of years, and the Council has not, to my knowledge, approved any of them. They've all gone to at least Residential Office, or C-1, with a Bill of Assurance, I believe, on ... I'm not sure that one even passed. I think it all got to R -O by the time it got to City Council. So we are just simply being consistent with those policy decisions we feel the Council has been making. Clark: Okay. That's what I thought. Thank you. Harris H: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Harris. Harris H: Mr. Pate, I have a question as well. Could you address Mr. Santos's comments that this rezoning, in particularly the form here, would be consistent with current notions in Fayetteville with form -based development? Pate: I would probably have to assume what he's speaking ... he may be able to speak to that better ... but I guess I would assume that he is discussing the notion of the structures already there. And we ... staff has actually made this point on other projects before. I believe there was a planned zoning district that allowed a certain use unit. The structure and form of the structure was already there, and so, I guess theoretically, if it's not going Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 17 to change the physical attributes of that site, would not have any more or less detrimental impact to the overall neighborhood. In terms of the impact, though, with traffic noise, trash service, refuse service for restaurants is a much different pickup time than office, for instance. So that ... that's, I think, primarily more of our concerns, actual physical actions on the property that are associated with different types of uses. But I think to Mr. Santos' credit, he's correct. The form -based code tries to get the form right, and the uses therein are somewhat ancillary. Harris H: Thank you. Anthes: And we do not have that code on the books at this time. I have a question for staff. I seem to recall this application and then several others in the area where we discussed the form, and it seems to me that R -O seemed to be the zoning that was most often recommended for approval. At the time this item came through, I believe that Commissioner Shackelford was very specific in making it clear that a conditional use would be needed to have a restaurant on this particular site. Has the applicant considered requesting those conditional uses when these 25 people came to you and asked you about putting a restaurant in this location? Santos: I'm sorry. I didn't understand the question. Anthes: You stated that there were about 25 people, possible tenants, that had come to you about renting in this development and had been turned away. I wondered if any of those were restaurants. If so, had you considered coming to this body and requesting a conditional use permit for those restaurants? Santos: Yes, there were some restaurants. Anthes: All right. And you chose not to come to us with a conditional use request? Santos: Really, there was more of a demand for the retail. Anthes: Okay. Our staff report is a little vague. Sometimes it focuses more on retail and then sometimes it focuses more on restaurants, and I'm trying to get a feeling for what the applicant is actually asking to place (stet.) Santos: I think he wants a true mixed-use development with restaurants, small- business retail, and offices. Anthes: Okay. I have a question to follow that up with staff. I believe an issue with the rezoning is that we look at not only the building that's in place, but if that building was damaged, what is the configuration that the zoning Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 18 would allow it to be rebuilt to. Can you speak to that in reference to this zoning request? Pate: I think in terms of building setbacks, building height, they would probably all conform to the C-1 zoning district if it were constructed or if it were rezoned to C-1 and damaged or reconstructed. To my knowledge, the R -O zoning is more conservative, so it's probably ... it would probably work just fine as far as the actual building placement on the site, and parking ratios are based on uses anyway. So what we have right now, however, is a situation where we have an office park, essentially, with parking ratios based on those, not necessarily retail or restaurant. So I'm not sure how parking ratios would work out in what they are proposing. We would have to look at those ratios as tenants came in, and if they could not meet them, the space couldn't be occupied. Anthes: So that would be similar to the request we just saw on College Avenue for additional parking? Pate: Yes, if that became a problem. I'm not sure if it would or not. Anthes: If this building, though, was entirely damaged and the C-1 was approved, it could be rebuilt in an entirely different configuration than what we see there today, though, correct? Pate: Sure. Santos: I looked at these and compared the height regulations and building areas and setbacks, and they're very similar. R -O is more liberal about building area. You can have 60 percent of the total area in buildings under the R -O zoning. With C-1 you can only have 40 percent. The height limits, there is no maximum height limit except the ... the setback that's determined by the ... the height limits that's determined by the setback in C-1 where there is a height regulation in ... of 20 feet in R -O. If it would help, we could add that to the Bill of Assurance, that we would stick with the original footprint when rebuilding in case a disaster destroys the buildings. Anthes: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Santos. Myres: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Myres. Myres: I have a question of staff. Under an R -O designation, under "Conditional Uses, Unit 2, Citywide uses by conditional use permit," what's a citywide use? What's included in that? Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 19 Pate: There are things that are listed specifically within that use unit. It includes things like an RV park, a campground. There's a list. Myres: Okay. Pate: I can read them off for you if you would like, but ... Myres: No, that's okay. I just wondered if any ... anything like retail was included in that citywide uses. Pate: Those are typically in the Use Units 15, 16, and 17. Myres: Okay. Pate: Neighborhood shopping, some ... that type of trades and services, those types uses. Myres: Okay. Okay. Graves: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Graves: I have a similar, I guess, concern as I was looking at this, that this has already been built with the idea that this was going to be R -O, and that if we get a couple of restaurants in there, we may be looking at a similar situation where then they're coming back asking for a variance because the potential tenants don't have enough parking out there. And so I was curious whether staff at least knows, as it stands right now, what percentage of the acreage ... or maybe the applicant knows ... what percentage of that acreage is built ... is built right now as opposed to available for parking. Pate: It is still all under construction at this point. I'm not sure the ratios that that was approved off the top of my head. Graves: Because the first thing that came to my mind, we just saw that at the last meeting where we had somebody coming in then asking for a variance to eliminate some of the required green space so that they could get more parking in there because their restaurant tenants ... it wasn't built with restaurants in mind and now there's restaurant tenants in there. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 20 Ostner: Madame Chair, thank you. I just have a couple of comments. Graves: I think he was going to Anthes: Oh, sorry. Santos: There's an ... well, excuse me. Ostner: Please go ahead. Santos: There's an aerial photo that shows the footprints of the buildings under construction. It's ... I don't know what page number you have it at, but it's about in the middle, right behind the Bill of Assurance. So you can see that it's ... there's quite a bit of room for parking in that ... in between the two buildings. Graves: Well, I'm not trying to be antagonistic. Santos: Okay. Graves: But I was hoping for maybe a little bit more than "quite a bit of room." I was trying to get some idea of what the actual area out there that's available for parking. And if that information is not available, then I guess that's the answer to my question for tonight. Santos: I can't quite answer that, but ... Graves: Okay. Thanks. Santos: ... you can get an idea. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Thank you, Madame Chair. Just a couple of comments on the relation to the future Rupple, which in actuality could be 10 years away, could be two years away, if a developer were to build it with a project nearby. I think this is a poor choice for a commercial node. There will be two large streets intersecting, but just looking at it from a land use, you've got a big floodplain. I mean, it's big. Even this project's land is partially in the floodway area. I believe it was brought up ... it was brought in ... some fill was brought in to get this project started, as I recall. The parcel ... this piece of land is ... is small. I mean, the parcel between this piece of land and the future Rupple is also tiny. This is not a good place for a major Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 21 commercial node. I think Jeremy's illustration of Joyce Street is very helpful of how there's commercial on Joyce at its east end, and then there's not. There's other things. There are dentists, there's a country club, there are condominiums, and then you get near Collier's and those doctors' offices. Then there's a long stretch, and it's being built right now, so I guess that part will be somewhat commercial. But that really helps me envision how this possibly could be, and probably should be. Also, in December of `04 I was ... as I recall that meeting, the rezoning request was changed at the last minute. It was an original request for Commercial, and right almost as the meeting started, that was off the table and we were suddenly going to talk about something else, and that was difficult for me because I didn't believe staff got a full, thorough look and review of that application. I would not have approved. I would not have voted for this project to break ground had this been before me, this Bill of Assurance, this list of requests. I would have voted no. I don't think a restaurant is appropriate. I don't think any of these uses and the Use Units they're requesting, neighborhood shopping or eating places, are appropriate this close to a flood zone which needs more parking, and there is a neighborhood that is ... that is impacted directly, and I ... we do have a list of, I don't know, 20 or 30 people who voiced their opinion against this, so I don't believe it's just Mr. Wilkes who has come down here tonight. There are a lot of people who didn't think this was a good idea a while back, and I would tend to agree. I would ... I would probably vote against this rezoning request tonight. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Commissioner Ostner. Is there further discussion? Motion: Ostner: Madame Chair, I'll make a motion to deny Rezoning request 06-2180. Anthes: A motion by Commissioner Ostner. Myres: I'll second. Anthes: Second by Commissioner Myres. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to deny RZN 06-2180 carries with a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 22 RZN 06-2181: (LIFE COVENANT CHURCH, 363 ): Submitted by BLEW, BATES & ASSOCIATES for property located at 1855 PORTER RD. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 1.36 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre. Anthes: Our sixth item this evening is Rezoning Request 06-2181 for Life Covenant Church. Suzanne? Morgan: This is an unusual shaped piece of property located off of I-540 and the property actually has frontage on Porter Road as well as Sycamore Street. The property is currently developed for Life Covenant Church, and as you can see on your maps in the back of the staff report, the portion that is requested to be rezoned is a triangular portion at the southwest corner of the overall piece of property. It's currently zoned R -A and the church is developed on this property; however, this portion's 1.3 acres that is requested to be rezoned is undeveloped. The applicant would like to rezone this property in order to subdivide it from the overall tract, and potentially in the future, develop this piece. The requested zoning is RSF- 4, which staff finds compatible with the surrounding areas. There is a mixture of zoning in this area including RSF-4, RMF -24, and RT -12 as well as the R -A to the north. In order for this property to be subdivided, it would have to be either rezoned or a variance granted, so the applicant is just going forward with a rezoning request. We find that this proposed zoning is consistent with the land use planning objectives and principles. It is unlikely that this property will ever be used for agricultural purposes and the owner is unable to subdivide the property under the R -A regulations. We recognize that this tract ... this piece of property, if developed for a maximum of five units, would increase traffic slightly. The Sycamore Street and Saddlehom Avenue are stubbed out to this property and could be extended to give frontage or access to it. Overall, we are in support of this rezoning and are recommending approval. Anthes: Thank you, Ms. Morgan. Would any member of the public like to address this rezoning request for Life Covenant Church? Good evening. Darnell: I live at 2525 West Sycamore, and I understand this is going to be for Lifestyles, and I'm not opposed to that. I think they're a wonderful organization. Anthes: Would you state your name, please, for the record? Darnell: Darnell. Bonnie Darnell. Anthes: Thank you. Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 23 Darnell: The think that I'm worried about is, are they ... there's an easement there and the City is supposed to ... I don't know if the City is supposed to take care of it or not, I assume they are, and everybody puts their trash in there, and I wonder, are they going to clear that out? Is the buildings going to face Sycamore or are they going to face the other direction or come together in the center? How is that going to be arranged? And the traffic is going to be terrific, which it already is right now. The parking space is very bad if they park on the street. If they design it well enough, there will be room for them to park where they should park. My poor mailbox has been knocked over so many times, it's sad. But I'm not opposed to this if it just has, you know, the right ... the right things that's going there for the street. And they want to put ... I think it's four ... it's says four ... almost five acres, and they want to put single units, and that's okay. I know Lifestyles needs this, but I think just so long as they do the street properly and the parking properly. Anthes: Let me address a couple of those things real quickly. The rezoning request is for 1.36 acres. Darnell: Well, listen ... Anthes: It's not the parcel that the church is on. They want to separate out the 1.36 -acre triangular parcel. Darnell: Well, what are they going to do with the rest of it there? It's now grown up with something ... Anthes: The rest of it is remaining ... we're not considering the rest of it at all. The other thing is that this is a rezoning request and not a development approval, so we don't have any drawings or anything about what is proposed for the development of this property or egress or anything like that. That comes through at the time that they ask for a development approval. Darnell: So I'm not opposed to the Lifestyles and what they want to build, units. I'm just concerned about the parking. And that's a really busy street. They need some signs there, speeding signs, because there's a lot of traffic going up and down there and you can't get through. So I don't know if they're going to open that up onto the highway or if it's just going to stop there. Do you know? Anthes: We don't know any of those answers. Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 24 Darnell: You don't know anything about it? Anthes: ... and we'll need to get back with you. Okay? Darnell: Okay. Anthes: All right? Darnell: Thank you. Anthes: Thank you. Would any other member of the public like to address this item? Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Bunch: I'm Bryan Bunch with Blew, Bates & Associates representing Life Covenant Church. We just want ... they were just wanting to rezone this portion just so they can split it from their remainder at this time, and we have to ... have to rezone it from R -A to RSF-4 in order to do that, so that's just what we're requesting. Anthes: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Bunch, did you say? Bunch: Yes. Anthes: Commissioners? Mr. Pate, would you address Ms. Darnell's questions? I don't know that I did the best job of describing to her what the process is and when she'll have other opportunity to look at the project. Pate: Sure. What the church is requesting to do ... they've already submitted a lot split request for us, and so they're trying to split off the church from this 1.36 acres, essentially. It's all zoned Residential Agricultural, which has a minimum 2 -acre requirement; therefore, we cannot approve a lot split request for that. So what they're doing is rezoning this 1.36 acres to RSF-4. If the rezoning is passed and a lot split is passed, at this time all they could do is build one house on it without some sort of subdivision - type approval. There is the potential that, if they felt like they wanted to subdivide it further, they could come forward with a development plan at which we would look at street improvements and how solid waste works and how the streets work, things of all ... all the things of that nature, about how to further develop this property. So that's really ... probably the better situation. You would, again, be notified. You would get a letter in the mail again if a development approval comes forward on this ... or a development submittal comes forward on this property as well. Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 25 Anthes: Darnell: Anthes: Clark: Anthes: Motion: Was that helpful? It's helpful. I'm just ... it said on my letter that in four or five days, something acres, and that's still a big chunk up there to (inaudible) . Commissioners? Madame Chair. Commissioner Clark. Clark: Since there will be public notification when it develops, and this is just a rezoning, I will move that we forward Rezoning 06-2181 with a recommendation to approve. Ostner: Second. Anthes: We have a motion to forward by Commissioner Clark, a second by Commissioner Ostner. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to forward RZN 06-2181 carries with a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 26 ANX 06-2183: (LIERLY LANE S/D, 244 ): Submitted by CLINT MCDONALD BLIND SQUIRREL, LLC for property LIERLY LANE SUBDIVISION, south of Lierly Lane. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 20 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. Anthes: Our final two items this evening are tandem items: an Annexation Request 06-2183 for Lierly Lane Subdivision and the subsequent Rezoning 06- 2184 for Lierly Lane Subdivision. May we have the staff report, please? Morgan: Certainly. On July 11th, 2005, the Planning Commission approved development of 57 buildable lots on this property. This overall property contains ... on which the preliminary plat for Lierly Lane Subdivision ... contains 23 acres. Of that 23 acres three are currently located within the City, and that is a strip on the western side of this property. A little bit of background on the approval of the subdivision. It was discussed in Subdivision Committee Review the connection or the extension of City services, City sewer to this subdivision. This proposal went to the Water and Sewer Committee and it was not favorable to them at that time; therefore, staff removed the condition that they would have to connect to sewer and the subdivision was approved with a community septic system. At the time that construction approvals were being granted, the applicant submitted designs for this septic system to the State for approval, and on Page 23 of your report there is a letter from the Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services stating that "We recommend that Project Design Consultants and the City of Fayetteville give due consideration to connecting this proposed development to the City of Fayetteville's sewer system instead of on ... instead of the proposed onsite treatment disposal system.." Further, they state that it would be to the benefit of the health for the surrounding neighbors and properties if this were done. With that letter, the applicant went back to the Water and Sewer Committee and requested that sewer be extended to this property. City Council ... excuse me, the Water and Sewer Committee did forward that to the City Council and the City Council approved ... passed a resolution to allow for the extension of sewer service to this property. As part of that agreement ... or resolution, there was an agreement submitted by the applicants which stated that within five days of that approval they would submit annexation request to the City ... excuse me, to the County. It has gone through the County Review and, therefore, we are seeing it now as an application for annexation into the City as well as a tandem rezoning request to RSF-4. As part of this agreement, too, the applicant stated that the rezoning would ... that would be requested would be RSF-4 with de facto conditional uses, allowing 16 duplexes and 43 single-family units as shown on an attachment which is Page 24 of your staff report. In review of this application ... oh, and additionally, the agreement was that sewer would Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 27 be extended to this property regardless of approval or denial of the annexation and rezoning, and the applicant would be required to pay all fees, impact fees, et cetera. In review of just the annexation proposal, staff does find that the annexation of this property is in line with our annexation guideline policies. We find that it would extend an existing peninsula, though it would not extend the City's ... City boundaries further to the west nor to the north. This ... there is ... there were several annexations in this surrounding area recently approved by the City Council. Recognizing that there is a school in this area, there are streets being extended to this property through Clabber Creek Subdivision, and with the completion of the infrastructure in this area, we would be able to provide emergency services to this property. We find that annexation in this area is appropriate. With regard to the rezoning, the applicant is requesting an RSF-4 zoning district. They do have approval for a preliminary plat at this time and are under construction. The lots within the subdivision are, for the most part, compliant with the RSF-4 regulations, most likely even larger, because the County requires 10,000 -minimum -square -foot lots. We require 8,000 -square -foot lots in the RSF-4 zoning district. The applicant has proposed to reconfigure any duplex lots to meet the RSF ... the requirements in the RSF-4 zoning district for those type of lots. With regard to four units per acre, we find that that is compatible with the properties that are being developed and have been annexed and rezoned in this area. They are an RSF-4 zoning district, and with that we are recommending approval of the RSF-4 zoning as well. Anthes: Before you sit down, Ms. Morgan, the staff report says that there are these adjacent subdivisions that connect and that are within the city limits, but our maps ... the hatch is really confusing. Can you tell us where those subdivisions are and if they're actually shown as built out or if their streets are shown? So can you describe it? Like, just take Page 26 and describe it for us. Morgan: Sure. Let's see. You're looking at Page 26? Anthes: Yeah, the zoomed -in one. Morgan: On Page 27 of 28, if you look at Rupple Road, go north along Rupple Road across the creek. There are going to be two streets that can go west from Rupple Road just across from the Salem Village Subdivision, and they will transverse ... or go across and kind of follow the contours of the creek and then stub out north to this property. So that will be Clabber Creek Phase V, which has not come before you as a final plat. I believe they're currently constructing those streets. So there is one street connection. From this property will be one street connection. From this Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 28 property to the south it can connect to Rupple Road. And this property is also proposing connection to Lierly Lane, and a stub -out to the east and west, I believe ... yes, for future ... in anticipation of future development. Anthes: And the little strip that's just to the west is the only part of the peninsula that currently exists, and then the southernmost part of this property joins to the city limits, and that's it, right? Morgan: That's correct. And the city -limit line continues south along that western boundary line. It doesn't jog further west. Anthes: The hatch looks the same on our maps. It's really hard to read. Trumbo: What about the property to the north? Anthes: The property to the north is in the County, correct? Morgan: That's correct. Anthes: And to the west of the little finger is in the County? Morgan: Yes. Anthes: And actually to the east of this is in the County, too, right? Morgan: Yes. Anthes: Okay. Morgan: And I did want to mention, too, that I did get a call. I've received a couple of calls from neighbors. One neighbor in particular, Ms. Raymond, wasn't able to attend tonight, but she did want for me to express her concern with this rezoning and the density and the development of this project. Anthes: Thank you, Ms Morgan. Would any member of the public like to address either the annexation or the rezoning request for Lierly Lane? Please come forward. Good evening. Yell: Hi. My name is Garlen Yell. I live just to the north of this guy ... or this property. A couple of questions I ... like she said, this ... these duplexes fall in line with what's around them. Where's the closest duplex to this guy's subdivision? Anthes: So your question is about the development pattern with the duplexes? Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 29 Yell: It doesn't ... it does not fit in the community. Anthes: Okay. Yell: I was here on another project, which is behind me. This is just to the south of them. These guys are playing you all. I mean, they're playing the City and the County with these minimum ... They get everything approved. Now, I realize now that they are now going to the City standards to be annexed, but they are ... it seems to me like they're just playing you all, the County and the City. They'll get County minimum standards and they ask to be annexed. So I have a lot of concerns with Project Design Development's engineering. It's just because of people I've talked to that ... that knows them. This does not fit in with our ... I came up here to ask it to be annexed, actually, because I thought it would be ... it would help the property behind us. But I come in here and I find out that he's already been approved for a large scale, mixed-use development down there, which nobody in the area was notified that the City Council approved it, and we didn't know it until just a while ago. I don't know if they have to be notified, but it's just not ... doesn't fit in with the community, and now Anthes: The issues before us are the annexation and rezoning. Yell: I'm against the ... I'm against the annexation. If it means duplexes or no duplexes, if it means being annexed and getting duplexes or not being annexed and no duplexes, I'm against being annexed. Anthes: The development already has development approval through the County, so the development is being constructed and is permitted to be constructed in the way they have it drawn, whether or not the annexation and rezoning pass. Yell: Right, but without the duplexes, as I understand. Is that right or am I wrong? Anthes: No. Myres: No. Clark: That's with the duplexes. Graves: All that's sewer. Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 30 Clark: But the County approved it, right? Anthes: Yeah, the City and the County. In fact, Mr. Pate, would you like to clarify that for everyone present? Pate: Sure. Currently there are no existing land use regulations within the County, so those ... all the lots could be potentially duplex lots if they chose to do that and we would not have any regulations that would prohibit that in the County. By the agreement with the City Council, they have limited themselves to the amount of single-family lots and the amount of duplexes on this property that could be developed, and that's in the contract with the City Council that came through with the sewer agreement. In response to notification, I don't believe the City Clerk notifies with those types of agreements, so ... and that's not something the Planning Staff was involved in whatsoever, as far as I know. That went through our Water and Sewer Committee, which is obviously shown on the agenda, and the agenda of the City Council was also put out as part of public notification, but not adjoining property owners. Anthes: The thing that's different here is that this is coming through in an order that is not usually the way we see things. Normally, if they're in the Planning Area and they come through for development approval, we have a very limited range of things that ... Yell: I understand. Anthes: ... we can comment on in the Planning Area. If the annexation and rezoning request had come through first and then we saw the development, then there's a different set of things that we look at when the property is in the city limits. However, this project and the subsequent annexation and rezoning request are purely in response to the letter requesting that the City extend the sewer service and not allow the community septic system. Yell: And I understand that. And that's just why I told you while ago that he's playing the County and the City. He's doing it ... Anthes: Okay. I can't ... Yell: I know. Okay. I'm against the annexation. It's wrong. Anthes: We can't talk about personal things, but if you have any specific things about those annexations ... Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 31 Yell: Well, it's a pattern. It's a pattern that ... I know you all have to get it. You have to see ... you have to see the pattern. And he's doing it there, and he's going to go right across the street and he's going to do the same exact thing again, and then he's going to go across the street and he's going to do the same thing again. And this is just ... you annex that ... approving his rezoning and annexation, it's just the first domino that falls, and it affects everybody ... everybody in the County. This thing does not fit out where we are. I mean, it's there, I know we're stuck with it, but it doesn't make it right. Somebody has got to ... I mean, somebody has got to say no sometime. I mean, you look at your stuff out there and all this stuff, it doesn't even go together. I'm song. Thanks. Anthes: That's okay. Thank you. Would any other member of the public like to address this item? Good evening. Price: Hi. I just wanted to beat my head against the wall, so ... anyway, my name is Jennifer Price and I live on 4089 West Lierly Lane. We were here back last year asking, "Could you do something?" No, you couldn't do anything. "Could the County do something?" "No, the County can't do anything." So basically here we are again and we're being told, "No, sorry, we can't do anything." So I guess what I'm asking is that it not be annexed into the City to stop it from touching the other parts that they will come up to. I have a question. If it's not annexed into the City, then they have to use the step system or the decentralized system? Is that ... if it's not annexed into the City, then what kind of sewer system will it be? Williams: They still will have regular City sewer. That was a condition of granting them sewer was that they had to request to be annexed in, and not that they had to be annexed in, but they had ... because obviously they might be turned down, ... Price: Right. Williams: ... but they had to request to be annexed in, and if they did that and fulfilled the other parts of the agreement, which means paying the impact fees and all that stuff, then they would be granted the sewer, which is probably better for your -all's situation than forcing them to be on the step system, which is how it was originally approved by the County. Price: Right, and I understand that. However, you're getting ready to ask for a tax increase because our sewer system is already maxed out, and here you've already granted use to one more subdivision to tie into a sewer system that's pretty much maxed out. And I guess it's very disappointing that we were not notified of the ... and I know you say that we don't have Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 32 to be notified, but certainly we would have stepped forward and said that we ... if it was going to make a deal with the City with this resolution, that we would have asked that you ask the developer to not put the duplexes in, you know. I mean, you're trying to mold the City, mold these planning areas, but you're ... but you have very limited power, and I'm not for sure what the Planning Commission does if you can't help us. So basically, it doesn't ... it doesn't ... and I'll just reiterate what my neighbor said ... that, you know, your staff report says that it is consistent with the homes that are out there. Well, it's not. You know, there are ... there are very many homes that are on three to five acres. Your staff report also said that it wouldn't increase the traffic. Well, there on Lierly Lane there's only three homes that live there. So you're going to put in all these homes. It will increase the traffic. My kids can no longer walk up and down that dirt road because there will be all that extra traffic. And I know you guys are going to say, "Sorry, we can't help you," but it just makes us feel better to be able to have a voice. Anthes: Thank you, Ms. Price. Would any other member of the public like to address the annexation or rezoning request for Lierly Lane? Seeing none, I'll close the public comment section and ask for the applicant's presentation. Good evening, Mr. Earnest. Earnest: Good evening. Hugh Earnest, representing the applicant. I serve as a consultant to, in this case, Blind Squirrel. The ... and I want to say one thing. We started this debate a long time ago and have ... were consistently requesting for the City to grant us permission to tie on to the City sewer system. Quite bluntly, it is an environmental issue. We welcomed the letter from the State suggesting that the City tie us on. When we first started this debate, and these people are exactly right, we started the discussion at the County level with the numbers that have been consistently contained within every single document that we have presented. We offered the contract for the agreement in principle between us and the City governing this ... governing this development. What we are trying to do, and it is occurring across all of the boundaries of the City, and it's in the growth area, this developer and other developers are attempting to meet market issues, and that is exactly what we're doing in this and other areas. It is a debate from the County perspective that will probably cause additional conversation about County -wide zoning. These discussions are occurring, let me assure you, before the Quorum Court and before the County Planning Board. We have tried in this instance to meet every single applicable City standard and are offering to pay a great deal of impact fees and park fees if we come into the City. In addition to that, the appropriate and necessary fees that occur when you tie into a sewer system will become part of the system. But we have tried in every single Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 33 way that we can think of to meet all applicable City standards and to pay all fees that are in place when annexation occurs. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Earnest. Williams: Well, of course, the agreement you have is you're going to pay the impact fees whether you get annexed or not. Earnest: That's right. Williams: And I would point out ... I see the agreement that was done here, Exhibit B, that was approved, said 16 duplexes and 43 single-family units, and that is ... Earnest: Yes, sir. Williams: ... the agreement. So that even though there will be duplexes there, there will be 16 duplexes and 43 family units. That would have been built regardless of anything the City did. The City complied with the Department of Health in asking ... in allowing them to be hooked up to our City sewer service, but we did not approve this ... this agreement ... I mean, this development. This development was approved, I guess, by the County, and the County does not have zoning. The only way, really, to protect your area out there is if it was all annexed in to the City of Fayetteville when ... and then the Planning Commission would have authority over what kind of developments go in there and how it's zoned in the first place, as opposed to what happens right now. Anthes: Or if the County had zoning. Williams: Or if the County had zoning. We'll see. Earnest: Be careful with that word "Z" on the County side. Williams: I have my own doubts about when the County will ... I think eventually the County will have zoning, but I don't know if any of us are going to be here when that happens. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Earnest, Earnest: Thank you. Anthes: Is there discussion? Commissioner Myres. Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 34 Myres: Can I get some clarification ... Anthes: Please. Myres: ... even though I just heard you say it? Regardless of whether this is annexed, they will be connecting to the sewer system and they will be paying the impact fees, so if we choose not to annex this, it's not going to be an undue hardship on the developer because they're already committed to hooking up to the sewer, basically? Pate: That's correct. The thing that would not occur is zoning enforcement. We still have no land use regulations, obviously, if it's not within the City of Fayetteville. And so things like permits for construction, all those things that were not specifically agreed to within that contract, would not be under the City's purview if that's not annexed. So essentially it comes down to a policy decision, whether the City of Fayetteville Planning Commission, the City Council, wants this within the City of Fayetteville city limits. All the other typical development regulations have been already agreed to, and sewer connections, lines are in the ground, I believe, for the most part. Myres: Yeah. Pate: So those types of things have already occurred. Myres: I thought that's what I remembered. I think I've finally gotten to the point where I'm ready to say, "Let's stop." I don't see any really compelling reason to annex this property, because what the purpose is is to allow sewer to be connected to it. Granted, we don't have any other controls over it than we already have, being in the Planning Area but still in the County, and as long as there is no undue hardship to the applicant by denying it, I'm willing to deny it. I think I'm ready to just say, "Stop," for now. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: Refresh my memory, and maybe the neighbors in the back can help. Is there not a drainage issue associated with this development that the neighbors were worried about? Myres: And maybe Hugh can answer that as well. Anthes: If you would, please first address that question to staff. Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 35 (Inaudible concurrent conversation) Clark: With one of the corners? Price: Yes, on Weir Road. Pate: There's a different subdivision. Anthes: Oh, that's the Weir Road. Okay. Mr. Pate, I'm sorry, will you please answer the question? Pate: There's a subdivision close to Lierly Lane. It actually fronts onto Weir and Hughmount, I believe,... Clark: Okay. So that's the problem child? Pate: ... that's to the north. That's correct. Graves: Madame Chair. Anthes: Are you finished, Commissioner Clark? Clark: I'll come back. Go ahead, Commissioner Graves. Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Graves: Just addressing, first of all, the ... the Item Number 7, the annexation. Without question this creates a peninsula, but as I've stressed many times, that's one factor out of numerous factors to consider on ... on an annexation. In my opinion, the staff s report is over all supportive of the annexation. The other factors are met, other than the issue of creating a peninsula. I know that we've denied on some based on the peninsula issue when it created really strange -looking pieces of ... pieces of property that you're being brought in. This is a pretty squared -off piece of property. And while I ... I guess I understand what Commissioner Myres is saying, my prediction is that ... and it's not a very bold prediction, even ... that all the property right around this is going to be in front of us pretty soon to be annexed. And so I think if we don't annex this, we're just postponing having it come in front of us again, maybe as part of a larger annexation proposal or maybe in the same form it is now and they just wait the period of time and them come back after some more of the property around it has been annexed. Annexing this property doesn't change the situation that we're seeing as far as the density that would go on this property and all that. That, as has already been indicated, has kind of been worked out as Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 36 part of the ... the County proposal, which was then tied in with the sewer agreement. And even though, whether you annex it or not, all those restrictions on what can be built and everything are still there. We're already extending sewer service to this area. It's something that going to be in an area that's going to come into the City in the not too distant future, and the residents of that piece of property, in my opinion, ought to go ahead and begin to get the other protections of the City services that would be available if they became annexed and come on into the City. We're imposing a lot of City requirements on them as part of the sewer deal, and I just think they ought to come into the City under the circumstances, and I realize and understand the City hasn't committed itself on that, but I just feel like they ought to be in the City under all the circumstances that are there. Anthes: Thank you, Commissioner Graves. Is there further discussion? Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Thank you, Madame Chair. I wish the press were here. They probably skipped because it looked like a light agenda. I think in a nutshell this is a terrible example of how development is about to happen in the State. Developers have often sat around and said, "Well, gee, we don't have any leverage" ... not leverage, but "we have nothing to encourage that City to bring in our land." I'm not trying to be offensive, Mr. Earnest. But there is leverage. It's automatic leverage. Technology has changed. These package plants allow land to develop using municipal water systems outside the city limits, and it's a terrible irony that we're going to face more and more. It's not as clear anymore, as Commissioner Myres illustrated. It's not really about whether it should be in the City, it's just about to what degree. Partial City services have been offered, which is pretty new to me. It hadn't happened a lot in the past and it's a new thing, and I think the City Council is wise to read that writing on the wall. Either extend the sewer, or we're going to go ahead and do these package plants because we can and it's legal and safe. I'm ... this is difficult for me, but I would ... I would tend to agree that it needs to be annexed. I think this is a rare occasion where the City Council has sort of given us ... they've tipped their hand as to how they might vote. We're generally sitting here forging the way and not knowing what they might want, not that it really is our concern, but if it ... if we're sitting around wondering what the Council wants, I believe they want this to be in the City. And if it's ... if it's an even race before that, that's the weighing factor to me. There are other protections beyond zoning: police, fire, solid waste. There's trash. There is no trash coordinated pickup in the County, as you all know, and generally that's taken care of on its own. It's often not taken care of on its Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 37 own. So that's ... I'll be voting for the annexation and the rezoning request. Anthes: Thank you, Commissioner Ostner. Is there further discussion? Clark: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: This is such a dilemma. I was at the Subdivision that this first came to, I do believe, and we broached the subject of sewer because it was right across the street, and that was before anybody went to the Planning ... on the County level. So I'm feeling a little boxed in, and that's never a good feeling. It's already been approved at the County level, and I don't know what their notification rules are, but you should have gotten something. If not, you need to talk to them. It's a done deal. If we don't annex, they can build it anyway they want to build it. If we do annex, there are more rules that then are imposed upon them that they have to follow. Are you going to get duplexes? Yep, but we can control to some extent the quality of the entire subdivision if it is annexed. And none of us are talking about the big fish sitting right in the living room, and that's the sewer system., which, you know, I have been hearing terrible reports about, yet, we're bringing 20 more acres in and we're giving it sewer service. Yes, another dilemma. Septic tanks are not environmentally friendly. They scare me to death. They're going in all over the County. We need sewer, but we keep blowing up the one plant we have and we haven't built the second plant that we need, so it is ... it is an absolute dilemma, and, you know, here's where the wisdom of Solomon needs to come in play to all of us, and I think it's been illusive. Annexation is probably going to be the only option to get you, the neighbors, the type of development and the quality and the oversight in building that you need. Saying that, knowing that Rupple Road has been built not to the way it was supposed to be built, so oversight might be a little bit better. Without annexation, anything is going to happen, but the issue of extending septic ... sewer system service when we're not sure what our capacity is right now, and what the future capacity holds is a little frightening. But I'm in ... I'm going to err on the side of caution and support this annexation simply because it's going to give you all more rules to look at and more security in terms of the ... the wastewater not going through septic system of such a big development. But I don't like this. I don't like a developer coming to the County getting approval, then coming to the City and ... and I feel like we're being leveraged, and I'm just going to be really out front. Fool me once, but not going to fool me twice. So I'm sincerely hoping this is not a pattern, because all of us are ... you know, we see what's going on and I think all Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 38 of us are a little uncomfortable because we can't do anything about it. Had they waited to be annexed, then brought the development back through, we could have talked about land use, duplexes, lot sizes, and stuff like that, but the way it's being done, I'm not sure we have a heck of a lot of choice, and I don't like that, I really don't. Anthes: Thank you, Commissioner Clark. I do believe that several of us are frustrated by the order that this item has come through. I do have some questions to follow up on a few of your comments, with staff, if I might. Mr. Pate, I don't believe that, whether or not this is annexed, anything can change on that site. I mean, they're committed to a development plan that has a certain street profile and cross-sections, at a certain lot and block configuration, certain street connectivity, and all those, and that's set whether or not the annexation goes through; is that correct? Pate: Yes. There's an approved preliminary plat for this subdivision, meaning all the applicable preliminary requirements for the City of Fayetteville and Washington County. Anthes: Okay. And then they will be required to pay the impact fees and the parks fees, but I believe there was some issue in the staff report about the Tree Preservation and Tree Mitigation Policy. Can you clarify the City's position on that? Pate: As you know, when this project came through it was not within the City, so we did not require a Tree Preservation Plan like we typically would have. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to come up with that now since the project is well under construction. So essentially we would have a development ... site development as it currently stands. Anthes: So has staff looked at aerial photography pre -construction of this site and felt that they were not able to negotiate some sort of mitigation number? Pate: That would have been something ... we cannot put conditions on annexations or rezonings, so that would have been something that would have ... would have happened had it happened at the City Council level with the contract for the sewer extension, but it was not offered nor required by the ... not offered by the applicant nor required by the City Council. Anthes: Okay. So flat out, let me just ask you this. What real difference will this annexation make? Will you delineate for us, yes, the annexation, "x" changes; no, the annexation, "y" changes. Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 39 Pate: Of course in terms of what the Planning Commission reviews, the zoning requirements, building permits, development requirements, are all associated with annexation and rezoning in bringing that property into the City. We would see, as you mentioned ... someone mentioned trash service ... police service, fire service all through the City of Fayetteville. Things that the Planning Commission typically does not see, but the Council does, the noise ordinance, the animal control ordinances, things of that nature that the Planning Commission typically doesn't deal with, and we don't usually make findings for you simply because that's not part of our annexation policy. But there are a number of city-wide ordinances that come into play when a property is annexed beyond just simply zoning and development uses. Of course, it pertains in terms of zoning, all to what Use Units are allowed on a property, what easements are present and who maintains the utilities within those easements, yard ... code compliance, when you have unsafe structures, when you have unsightly yard waste, trash removal and pickup, un -mowed grass, things of that nature that ... the list is very long when it comes to what services are provided or regulations are provided through the City of Fayetteville. Anthes: And one follow-up question. We are just now starting to see the findings as related to the Interim City Plan 2025 map, and we have some new nomenclature in our packets. And I would just like you to clarify in the Land Use Plan, you say this property is not identified on the Sector Map as a Growth Sector. Will you go through that with us? I might ask you this several times in the next few meetings so that we all get a handle on the map. Pate: Sure. We're also ... I'll let you know that we're in a transition period. These ... for instance, these applications were submitted under the General Plan 2020. Obviously, under City Plan 2025, it's changed through the process, so there's still several agendas that we'll kind of be looking at both as much as we possibly can and getting staff and everyone else up to date. Our applications, for instance, all have to be updated to indicate City Plan 2025, a new Interim Land Use Map, as well as a Sector Map. In reference specifically to a Sector Map, it is the ... in basic terms, a map showing ... indicating through our charette process through our City Plan 2025 anticipated or areas of growth that are intended and those areas of growth that are more, I guess, not necessarily intended growth areas. I can't remember off the top of my head what those are called ... Growth Sectors and ... it's escaping me, sorry ... but those are used in conjunction with the Interim Land Use Plan, as well as the City Plan 2025, the actual document ... the folder you all have. So we use those all three in conjunction to make a recommendation. What we mentioned earlier in rezoning, we heard tonight that it was within a Growth Sector area, Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 40 meaning that if it also falls within the City Plan 2025 six goals and objectives, and the Interim Future Land Use Map, it's sort of a formula that all comes together and potentially we would recommend that, or if it does not meet a lot of those goals, but it still might be within Interim Land Use Map. There will be a lot of recommendations coming, a lot of factors that play into our recommendations that are probably a little more ... a little more challenging, I think, probably to get around your ... too, to get around than what we used to do, which is look at the map. If it's red, it's commercial, and that's what we recommend, so ... Anthes: Okay. So if this was coming for development approval tonight and it's in an area that's not identified as a Growth Sector, you would basically be weighing that against all the different policies and the development proposal in order to decide how to recommend? Pate: If there are a zoning action or a land use action associated, yes. If it's already zoned, those decisions have primarily been made. Anthes: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Pate. Mr. Lack, did you have something? Lack: I did, yes. Thank you, Madame Chair. I think one thing that I see as kind of a simple issue is on the Guiding Policy of peninsula. I don't believe we are creating a peninsula by annexing this piece of property, I think we're simply widening one, and so I think within that ... I'm more comfortable with that one principle. I think I would like to revisit the Tree and Landscape issue again, as I do have some concerns with that as well. I think it's very specific within the Tree Ordinance that there are penalties for tree removal prior to development and I wonder if ... if that would not be in some way the ... the factor here in that the City of Fayetteville had not granted approval for the development under that ... under those conditions ... or under the County's conditions. But when that case is considered in a development that would be handled differently, that wouldn't have had this kind of sordid history, the aerial photography and those means would be used for analysis to find out what had been removed from a site, and I would suggest that we're in a very similar condition and that we would have ... and there may be something that the City Attorney would enlighten me on here. Williams: Since the tree removal occurred when the property was not within our jurisdiction, it was outside the City, and, of course, we don't control tree removal outside the city limits, then to try to apply it later would be kind of like an ex post facto act. So, you know, even though you've already done it and it was legal when you did it, now we're going to penalize you for doing it since we bring you into the City, and so I don't think we can Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 41 do that. That was something that could have possibly been covered, at least mitigation -wise, in the contract that we worked out with them, but was not and, therefore, is not something we can, I think, approach now. I do want to respond a little bit to some of the concerns I've heard on the sewer issue. I should tell you that the sewer plant in the west is well under construction now. It's progressing very well. It will be open in less than two years. I encourage any of you that would like to take a tour of the facility, there is a tour that leaves from City Hall at 8 o'clock in the morning on Wednesday, this Wednesday, mainly for staff, but I will talk to David Jurgens if someone would like to go along and see the progress that's going on with that plant. The current plant we have is able to handle the capacity that is anticipated to be [inaudible] prior to the opening of the second plant, which, of course, will vastly increase our capacity and will allow us to handle all of this growth and more in the years ahead. It's obviously not unlimited, and that's why the City Council is in conversations with the City of Farmington and others about using our plant in the future and whether or not ... what conditions will be placed upon them for their continued use of our plant, but I think that that's why staff is able to recommend this and recommend other developments and other annexation, is because we are making progress, significant progress, now on our sewer situation. So I'm really not the expert on that, David Jurgens is, who is our Water and Sewer Director, but I am aware enough to give you at least some assurances, and I do encourage you to speak to David Jurgens, and if you want to go on tour on Wednesday, please feel free to give him a call and I'll talk to him also. And that won't be the only tour. There will be several times that they will take either officials or City employees to go out and take a tour of that facility to see how it's progressing. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Williams. Williams: Thank you. Anthes: Did you have additional comments? Motion: Lack: Yes, ma'am. I think that I accept that ruling on the Tree Ordinance. While I'm uncomfortable with that, I certainly understand the legality of it. I think that with the benefits available to the surrounding landowners, even for annexation, I wouldn't see how we could not do this. The question was, you know, what do we do as a Planning Commission or what power do we have, and I think that at this point with this project we have no power over exactly what will be built there, but we can help the Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 42 City to have some power over how that will be built, and with that, I find myself in support. I find that when the building inspection department has to review the construction and when the city trash service hauls away the garbage, I think that those are things that truly benefit the surrounding neighborhood over and above what would happen, or what would have the potential to happen if we did not annex this property, and with that, I will move that we forward to the City Council with a recommendation for approval Annexation 06-2183, Lierly Lane, giving consideration to the staff s findings. Graves: I'll second. Anthes: We have a motion to forward by Commissioner Lack, a second by Commissioner Graves. Is there further discussion on the annexation? Ostner: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: I have a question for staff and possibly, Mr. Williams. The agreement that has been sort of struck is, I believe, what, 46 single-family units and 16 duplexes or something similar? Williams: It incorporated the agreement, which is located on Exhibit B. If you'll look on the second paragraph there, it says, "The property shall be zoned as a modified RSF-4 with de -facto conditional uses allowing 16 duplexes on the lot shown. The development on the property will consist of 16 duplexes and 43 single-family units." Ostner: Okay. Thank you. Williams: That is what they are held to. They cannot exceed that amount. Ostner: Okay. Thank you. My question, then, sort of relates to Page 24 of 28, showing their layout. This large area in the north is for the ... partially for the drip field of the package plant. How ... how much latitude would they have to realigning their 43 and 16 to take up some of that space, since they're partially approved with the County? I know they're, it's looking like, going to resume their construction with City approvals. Can they reconfigure if they wanted to to make larger lots if they kept to the 43 and 16? Pate: They do have a preliminary plat approved through the City of Fayetteville Planning Commission in a manner that's constructed similar to this, if not Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 43 just like that, as well as the Planning ... the Washington County Planning Board. Ostner: Okay. Pate: They have approval of a preliminary plat already and they are proceeding with that. They do ... have agreed as part of the contract to adjust those lots that are duplex lots to meet the minimum standards through the ... I think it's 10 or 12,000 square feet as opposed to 8,000 ... or the 10,000 that they've shown. So there will be some adjustment of lots, the Planning Commission will have to approve that, and this will go through a final platting process just as it would through the City of Fayetteville. So I suppose the lots could get larger. It could not be re -subdivided, and future lots could not be added unless they came back and amended that resolution ... by a resolution or contract with the City of Fayetteville, the City Council. Ostner: Okay. Thank you. And my follow-up is a question for Mr. Earnest. What ... are there any plans for that open area on the northern part of this project? Earnest: I believe you're in reference to the former drip field? Ostner: Yes, sir. Earnest: I believe from a planning perspective on the developer's side, that's open. But as Mr. Pate has said, that will come through the City process, if anything is done with that area. Ostner: Okay. Earnest: So again, that's further protection, if you will. We're offering ourselves up for regulation. Ostner: Thank you. Earnest: Okay. May I say one more thing? Anthes: Sure. Earnest: This is ... and I certainly understand the frustration and confusion that's going to occur, that is occurring, and will continue to occur. And my encouragement as an ex -city person is that you pay careful attention to revitalization and infill on your 2025 plan. The individuals that I work for Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 44 are going to be moving a couple of very innovative projects through the system in the next month or two that are infill and revitalization. One is very close to Tyson Original and the other is on College Avenue. So as we get into this discussion about ... about stopping this type of sprawl and moving inward, I hope that we can all engage in what is a good public debate. The second part of that is, and I've made this speech to the County Planning Board, and George Butler, especially, has made it from a County perspective. The County simply has to start talking about land use controls. This is one of the most active counties in this ... in the country and certainly in the state, and there does need to be careful attention to that at the County, and I hope that the City and County can work more closely together on controls, for instance, within the Planning Area. That's, again, an issue that may be appropriate to worked on in ... in the next couple of years. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Earnest. May I say ... Anthes: I'm sorry, the public comment section is closed. Clark: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: I have one more question. Jeremy, in your experience, has a development ever come through like this, approved at the County, back to the City to be annexed? Pate: Not in my time here. There's been another project recently that has been ... has sewer approval outside the city limits and they had to agree to the exact same thing, almost the same conditions, pay all impact fees, annex as soon as they were legally able to do so. That property was actually not adjacent to the city limits, so it's going to be until the other properties between ... by State law ... until it can actually touch the city limits, and that will actually be probably several property owners, because they'll be divided into lots at that point. Anthes: Is that the one on the east side of town? Pate: Yes. So that's another example that we will likely see, because ... under the same contract terms. Clark: Mr. Williams, do you remember any coming through like this? Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 45 Williams: The other one that he talked about is the only one. For many years the City Council refused to grant sewer service outside the city limits. It was not until the step system became available that allowed density ... City - type density in the County ... Clark: 7 Changed it all. Williams: ... that we had to start looking at that again, because we would see that we would not stop the density on our outskirts of the City. It would still happen, except we would have not very good sewers. We're not sure ... I'm not convinced that the step systems have a very long life and there is problems and concerns about who is going to take care of them, what if they fail, who is going to fix them at that point in time, and so they're not recommended by the Department of Health, even though they ... they have legalized them. Clark: They have approved them. Williams: You know, and so we have to live with them, but on the other hand, from an ecological point of view, it makes more sense to have sewer provided to these kind of high-density subdivisions, even if normally we would not have approved them that far out of town. Clark: Well, I actually approve ... agree with you on the concerns about a septic system, but to me it seems like I'm doing a double -take. If they're going to come in this way, yes, this development has a Planning Commission approval, but only on the things that we could approve in the Planning Area, which are incredibly limited. I don't understand why... and you're going to die, Mr. Earnest ... I don't understand why they don't have to come back through if we annex them through the whole kit and caboodle all over again with our standards, our City standards, on every part of this development. Now, to me, that would certainly discourage anybody who might think about doing this for the wrong reasons, but it would also give us some of the assurances that we need to have in place that these developments are going to come in according to all of our standards. Now, I know that is not feasible, but maybe it will resonate in the Council and maybe they'll think about it, because I really think if we're going to do it this way, to protect ourselves we ought to give them that additional hurdle of having to come back through and meet every one of our standards. Because this just ... this just doesn't seem right to me, and it's certainly not clear-cut, and I'm not looking forward to facing it again, and that's not good news that you tell me there's another one on the east side of town. Just a thought. Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 46 Anthes: Commissioner Harris. Harris H: I just wanted to explain my vote, because we've got Ms. Price and Mr. Yell, who are obviously dedicated stewards of this neighborhood, we've seen them before, and I would just ... I won't belabor the point or take more time. I'm just ... echo other Commissioners' statements, that I do truly believe that annexation at this point would afford this neighborhood greater protection. Thanks. Anthes: Thank you, Commissioner Harris. We have a motion to forward the annexation request by Commissioner Lack, a second by Commissioner Graves. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to forward ANX 06-2183 carries with a vote of 8-1-0, with Commissioner Myres voting no. Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 47 RZN 06-2184: (LIERLY LANE S/D, 244): Submitted by CLINT MCDONALD BLIND SQUIRREL, LLC., for property located at LIERLY LANE SUBDIVISION, south of Lierly Lane. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, and contains approximately 20 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, Residential Single -Family, 4 units per acre. Anthes: We still have the rezoning request in front of us, 06-2184. Is there discussion or do I hear motions? I have one question for staff. As I understand it, there was a de -facto conditional use offered for the duplexes in the agreement, and yet, I believe the staff report, or maybe at agenda, you said that they would have to bring the conditional use permits forward for those. Can you tell us what the process will be? Pate: What I would likely recommend is that you look at the definition of "de facto," and I believe it states it's unofficial recognition, essentially. What I would likely recommend is that at some point, so that these structures are in the City and not nonconforming, that a conditional use request be submitted through the City of Fayetteville, and those be ... those be either approved or denied according to the Planning Commission's purview. I would anticipate that those will be constructed, however, because, again, there is a recognition already by the City Council that those will be constructed, and that was something that was certainly given consideration by the City Council when they looked at this proposal. Anthes: So the item we heard earlier this evening that was for a duplex within a single-family residential neighborhood, that was built prior to the Zoning Map? Pate: Correct. Anthes: We would essentially have a situation like that now, that these were permitted prior to City zoning. So the City zoning would come afterwards and those structures would be nonconforming and not able to be rebuilt if damaged unless the conditional use was granted ... applied for and granted? Pate: That's correct. We face that a lot with annexation requests in general, because a lot of structures that are annexed do not meet our City requirements. Anthes: Okay. So basically what we are looking at tonight is rezoning from R -A to RSF-4 designation, and that blankets the entire property? Pate: That's correct. Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 48 Anthes: Okay. Graves: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Motion: Graves: In light of the comments from Staff and City Attorney about the de -facto agreement that we're not committed to, but that we kind of are, and what they can build, even though we don't have to vote to let them build it, but they'll get to build it, I'm going to move for approval of Rezoning 06- 2184 to rezone this to RSF-4. Lack: I'll second. Anthes: We have a motion to forward by Commissioner Graves with a second by Commissioner Lack. Is there further discussion? Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Madame Chair. It's been embarrassing before to be a Planning Commissioner, but to be sitting here doing this is ridiculous, and it's not our fault. It's not blaming anyone; it's ridiculous. All snickering aside, I have the deepest understanding for the neighbors. I do not like this. I do feel like we're being backed into it, but I have sort of a different take on it, and the tides have simply changed. This applicant is acting legally. Some would even say, you know, ethically proper. He's opened discussions with the City Council. It does seem like a backdoor bootstrap. I do not see it that way. I simply see it as what we thought were our powers and our reach is different. It's not. It's not the way we thought. Something significant has to change on Monday nights or at the County building to give us different tools. Our ... our reach here is limited. I don't think duplexes are appropriate in this area. I will probably vote for this reluctantly, because there are so many strings attached that there are many benefits. So I just wanted to share that, and my apologies for taking this lightly. This is not anything to be taken lightly, but the ... the pointlessness is not lost on us as well, so ... Anthes: Is there further discussion? Graves: Madame Chair. I'll just clarify that my motion was to forward with a recommendation of approval. I think I said approval, but ... Anthes: Okay. Will you call the roll? Planning Commission August 14, 2006 Page 49 Roll Call: The motion to forward RZN 06-2184 carries with a vote of 8-1-0, with Commissioner Myres voting no. Anthes: Are there any announcements? We're adjourned. (Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned on August 14, 2006 at 7:15 p.m.)