Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-08-28 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on August 28, 2006, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN ADM 06-2234:(MARRIOT COURTYARD) Approved Page 4 ADM 06-2236: (CREEKMEADOW PLACE) Approved Page 4 ADM 06-2235: (SCOTTSWOOD PLACE) Approved Page 4 CUP 06-2176: (MCMAHON, 291) Approved Page 5 LSP 06-2174: (MCMAHON, 291) Approved Page 5 CUP 06-2209: (ROGERS, 404) Approved Page 8 LSP 06-2175: (ROGERS,404) Approved Page 8 LSP 06-2042: (RIGGINS,141) Approved Page 11 LSD 06-2195: (PRATT PLACE INN,520) Tabled Page 15 CUP 06-2203: (BAUGH,290) Approved Page 56 CUP 06-2206: (MENDENHALL,324) Approved Page 61 CUP 06-2208: (MOORE, 409) Approved Page 73 Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 2 RZN 06-2201: (MARISCAL, 439) Forwarded Page 77 RZN 06-2199: (RED ARROW) Forwarded Page 86 Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 3 MEMBERS PRESENT Jill Anthes Lois Bryant Candy Clark Hilary Harris Andy Lack Christine Myres Sean Trumbo STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Andrew Garner Suzanne Morgan Jesse Fulcher Matt Casey Glenn Newman CITY ATTORNEY: Kit Williams MEMBERS ABSENT James Graves Alan Ostner STAFF ABSENT Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 4 Approval of the minutes from the July 24, 2006 meeting. ADM 06-2234: Administrative Item (MARRIOTT COURTYARD): Submitted by Scott Smith of CEI Engineering on behalf of Marriott Courtyard. The request is to extend the construction approval period for the Large Scale Development. ADM 06-2236: Administrative Item (CREEK MEADOW Final Plat): Submitted by EGIS Engineering. The applicant requests to modify a condition of approval regarding pavement of a temporary cul-de-sac. ADM 06-2235: Administrative Item (SCOTTSWOOD PLACE R-PZD): Submitted Kipp Hearne of H2 Engineering. The request is for a waiver of street requirements for a portion of the approved PZD. Anthes: Welcome to the August 28, 2006, meeting of the City of Fayetteville Planning Commission. I would like to ask any members of the audience and Commissioners to turn off cell phones and pagers. Also, I would like to remind audience members that listening devices are available for those who have difficulty hearing, and you can just contact one of the staff members at the front table and they can help you with that. Will you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call, Bryant, Myres, Lack, Harris, Clark, Trumbo, and Anthes are present. Ostner and Graves are absent. Anthes: We have four items on the consent agenda: the approval of the minutes from the July 24th, 2006 meeting; Administrative Item 06-2234 for Marriott Courtyard; Administrative Item 06-2236 for Creek Meadow; and Administrative Item 06-2235 for Scottswood Place. Would any member of the public or Commissioner like to remove one of these items from the consent agenda? Seeing none, I'll entertain motions for approval. Motion: Clark: So moved Anthes: I have a motion by Commissioner Clark. Trumbo: Second. Anthes: A second by Commissioner Trumbo. Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve minutes and consent agenda carries with a vote of 7-0-0. Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 5 CUP 06-2176: Conditional Use Permit (MCMAHON, 291): Submitted by TIM & JENNIFER MCMAHON/MCMAHON FAMILY LLC for property located at N OF TOWNSHIP ST., W OF COMMON DR. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.91 acres. The request is for a tandem lot. LSP 06-2174: Lot Split (MCMAHON, 291): Submitted by TIM & JENNIFER MCMAHON/MCMAHON FAMILY LLC for property located at N OF TOWNSHIP ST., W OF COMMON DR. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.91 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into two tracts of 1.55 and 0.36 acres. Anthes: Our first item of new business is actually a paired item, Conditional Use Permit 06-2176 for McMahon, and Lot Split 06-2174 for McMahon. We will hear these items together and vote separately. Jesse. Fulcher: This is a property on Township at 1036 East Township. It is between College Avenue and Old Wire Road, just a little west of Common Drive. As you can see on your map, I think is the best way to look at this property, it's approximately two acres with a single-family residence fronting there on Township. The applicants are requesting to do a lot split. Of course, with it only being a hundred -foot wide and two acres, it only has enough frontage for one property. So in conjunction with a lot split requested a tandem lot, conditional use for a tandem lot, to allow a lot without the total amount of frontage, which is 70 feet in the RSF-4 zoning district. They're going to have a 25 -foot tag to the front. It will end up with a shared drive. There's an existing driveway there for the existing house. The two lots will utilize that shared drive. As far as the compatibility, this area is made up of kind of two different types of developments: your traditional RSF-4 quarter -acre lots, and then also some large -acre lots. This is the same. You're going to end up with a third -acre lot and then also a property on an acre and a half. So it's very consistent with surrounding properties. Staff finds it is quite compatible the way that they have it laid out. Both have access and the tandem lot will meet all requirements under tandem lot development. Staff is recommending approval of the conditional use with 10 conditions of approval, and also the lot split with conditions of approval. There is one correction I'd like to make. Condition of Approval Number 10 under the conditional use is referring to the money in lieu for sidewalk construction. The dollar amount is incorrect on the conditional use report. It is correct on the lot split. It should be for $960.00, which is the newly adopted rate for money in lieu for sidewalk. Condition of Approval Number 1 is that the tandem lot will be limited to one single-family home. Condition Number 3, they will utilize the shared drive and it will be paved 25 feet in Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 6 length from the intersection of the paved street. And then Condition Number 6 is referring to the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District, which the acre and a half is partly located within, and any development will comply with those ordinances. That's it. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Fulcher. Would any member of the public like to address this Conditional Use Permit or Lot Split for McMahon? Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public comment and ask the applicant for a presentation. Good evening, Mr. Reid. Reid: Good evening. My name is Alan Reid. I'll be representing the McMahons on this proposal. We've read over the list of conditions. We agree with all the conditions of staff. I'm just here to answer any questions you might have regarding this. Anthes: Thank you, very much. Commissioners? Commissioner Myres. Motion: Myres: This seems very straightforward. I don't have any questions or comments, so I would move to approve Conditional Use Permit 06-2176 for McMahon. Clark: Second. Anthes: I'm assuming that's subject to the revisions to Item 10. Myres: Yes. Thank you. Subject to the revisions in Item 10. Anthes: We have a motion to approve by Commissioner Myres and a second by Commissioner Clark. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve CUP 06-2176 carries with a vote of 7-0-0. Reid: Thank you. Clark: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Motion: Clark: I'll make a subsequent recommendation that we approve Lot Split 06-2174 with all nine items of conditions of approval as listed. Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 7 Anthes: A motion by Commissioner Clark. Myres: I'll second. Anthes: A second by Commissioner Myres. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve LSP 06-2174 carries with a vote of 7-0-0. Reid: Thank you. Anthes: Thank you. Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 8 CUP 06-2209: Conditional Use Permit (ROGERS, 404): Submitted by BLEW, BATES & ASSOCIATES for property located at LOT 23, MAXWELL ADDITION. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY- 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.00 acres. The request is to create a tandem lot of 0.36 acres. LSP 06-2175: Lot Split (ROGERS, 404): Submitted by BLEW, BATES & ASSOCIATES for property located at LOT 23, MAXWELL ADDITION. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY- 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.00 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into two tracts of 0.36 and 0.64 acres. Anthes: Our next two items this evening are, again, tandem items: Conditional Use Permit 06-2209 for Rogers, and Lot Split 06-2175 for Rogers. Again, we will hear these items together and vote separately. Suzanne? Morgan: This lot is Lot 23 of the Maxwell Addition. This subdivision was platted some time ago and is zoned residential single family, 4 units per acre. Most of the lots within this subdivision are approximately .3 acres; however, there were two one -acre lots platted on the northwest and southwest corners of Maxwell Drive, which were proposed just for single- family residential use. In 1989 the northwestern tract was subdivided into two lots for single-family use with a conditional use for one of the lots. Similarly, this applicant also requests to split this one -acre tract into two lots, one having less frontage than required in the RSF-4 Zoning District and, therefore, having -- they have requested approval for a tandem lot. The lots will be .36 and .64 acres. With approval of the conditional use and the lot split, the applicant will only be allowed to develop single- family homes on each of those tracts at this time. With regard to evaluation of the conditional use, staff finds that the addition of one home and one lot in this subdivision is compatible and will not create any traffic dangers. We do recommend a condition of approval, however, that only one curb -cut be allowed on the street. Therefore, in the lot split application you will see that they are providing on the plat an access easement. This will reduce the number of curb -cuts and potentially any traffic hazards that may occur with two closed curb -cuts on that street. Staff is recommending approval of the conditional use with a total of seven conditions of approval, including the recordation or requirement of recordation of the lot split plat, and also stipulating the requirement of the one curb -cut and a recommendation for sidewalk -- fee in lieu of sidewalk at $630.00. Similarly, staff is recommending approval of the lot split with five conditions of approval, one of which being a requirement for sidewalk -- or, excuse me, parks fees in the amount of $960.00. Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 9 Anthes: Ms. Morgan, before you sit down, do we have the same issue here with the conditional use permit, that the sidewalk fee is actually $960.00 to correspond with the lot split requirement? Morgan: No. The parks fee is $960.00. Anthes: Okay. Sorry. Morgan: And that's covered in the lot split, and the sidewalk fee is $630.00. Anthes: So it's not like the other one? Morgan: No. Anthes: Okay. And one other question, and that is about the access easement. Does that need to be a condition of approval on the lot split, or does it just need to be recorded on the plat? Morgan: I think just recorded on the plat. It's already shown on the plat. So they are already showing that they are going to provide that, and as a condition of approval with conditional use it should be taken care of. Anthes: Thank you. Would any member of the public like to address this conditional use permit or the lot split for Rogers? Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public comment and ask for the applicant's presentation. Good evening. Bunch: My name is Bryan Bunch with Blew, Bates & Associates, representing Mr. Rogers on this lot split. He would just ask that you approve the split as we've shown on our plat, and he agrees with all conditions. Anthes: Okay. Thank you. Commissioners? Lack: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Lack. Motion: Lack: As with the previous item, I think this is straightforward and just what this opportunity was made for, so I will propose that we approve Conditional Use 06-2209 with the stated conditions of approval. Trumbo: Second. Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 10 Anthes: We have a motion to approve by Commissioner Lack and a second by Commissioner Trumbo. This is on conditional use permit. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve CUP 06-2209 carries with a vote of 7-0-0. Anthes: And now we need to hear on the lot split. Myres: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Myres. Motion: Myres: I'll move for approval of Lot Split 06-2175 with the five stated conditions of approval. Lack: Second. Anthes: We have a motion by Commissioner Myres, a second by Commissioner Lack. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve LSP 06-2175 carries with a vote of 7-0-0. Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 11 LSP 06-2042: Lot Split (RIGGINS, 141): Submitted by BLEW, BATES & ASSOCIATES for property located at 4206 HUNGATE RD. The property is in the PLANNING AREA and contains approximately 7.44 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into two tracts of 2.35 and 5.09 acres. Anthes: Our ninth item this evening is Lot Split 06-2042 for Riggins. Suzanne? Morgan: This property contains about seven and a half acres. It is located in the Planning Area on Hungate Lane; the owner requests to subdivide this property. This is the third and final lot split. The lots will be approximately 2.4 acres and 5 acres in size. This item is before you due to the fact that this property is not on a public street. Hungate Lane is on our Master Street Plan as a minor arterial; however, at this time it is a gravel road and not yet accepted by the County as a public street and nor is it maintained by the County. Therefore, the applicant requests a waiver of lot width requirements to create this new lot on a private street -- or a private drive. Staff is recommending approval of this. We find that once Hungate Lane becomes public it will have the adequate 75, or more than 75, feet on that road and finds that the proposed lots are adequate in size and location. With regard to the conditions of approval, we also recommend dedication of 45 feet of right-of-way from centerline. As this property -- or as this 45 -Foot strip will not be maintained by the County at this time, we are recommending a specific note placed on the plat which was given to us by the Washington County Road Superintendent which states, "This road is not constructed to the County standard for a residential subdivision. The maintenance of this road is the responsibility of the current and future property owners. The road will not be accepted for maintenance by the County unless it is constructed to the County standard at the expense of the property owners or developer." Additionally, the applicant will need to extend water to the property in accordance with our requirements. And staff is recommending approval of this lot split with a total of eight conditions. Anthes: Thank you, Ms. Morgan. Would any member of the public like to speak to this Lot Split 06-2042 for Riggins? Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public comment. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Bunch: Bryan Bunch with Blew, Bates & Associates again, representing Mr. Riggins, and he would just ask that you approve his split the way we have it and we have no problems with the conditions. Anthes: Thank you. I have a question of staff. There was some question at Subdivision about the water main extension and whether the lines were outside of a setback. Can you clarify that? Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 12 Morgan: Whether the septic lines were outside of the boundaries? Anthes: There was a question about a 2 -inch water main to be extended, and then I also have notes that said that the lines needed to be verified because they might be outside of the 10 -foot setback. Casey: It's probably the septic system. Anthes: Okay. Casey: And I have not heard from the applicant whether that's been clarified with the County or not. But that's a County requirement and they'll have to meet their standards. Anthes: Mr. Bunch, do you have any further information about the septic line? Bunch: I know that they -- we have to check on that line. I haven't heard back from the crew yet. It's hard to determine where the end of the line actually is. But we are required to be 10 feet from the property line, and if that is the case, we'll adjust that line whenever we can get a definitive answer on that without having to dig up the whole system. Anthes: You mean you would come for a property line adjustment to adjust that? Is that what you're saying? Bunch: Well, I mean, if that line is too close to the setbacks, it will have to move just a little to meet the setback of the Arkansas -- the health department -- to the proximity of the boundary line with any part of the septic system. Anthes: Mr. Casey, are you comfortable with that? Casey: Yes, given in the past the County has also allowed easements for those to cross property lines. I don't know if that's an option that's still available. It's maybe something worth checking into or we could adjust that to allow that. Without having those exact locations, though, it's kind of hard to tell where that line needs to go. Bunch: And we have done easements before this. Anthes: Ms. Morgan, I think you were going to say something. Morgan: I was just going to say that we'll verify that before we file the plat so that if the line needs to be adjusted and the legal descriptions modified, we can do that without having them have to come back through with another administrative property line adjustment. Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 13 Anthes: Thank you. Commissioners? Clark: Should we make that a condition of approval? Do you want to make that a condition of approval? Morgan: I believe that Condition Number 4, which states, "The applicant shall adjust property lines such that there is a 10 -foot separation or provide approval from the health department," and that should cover it. Motion: Clark: Now that I've seen the light I will move that we approve Lot Split 06-2042 with the conditions as stated, finding the facts in agreement with Number 1 and Number 2. Anthes: A motion to approve by Commissioner Clark. Do I hear a second? Trumbo: Second. Anthes: A second by Commissioner Trumbo. Is there further discussion? Lack: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Lack. Lack: Along a similar line, I noticed that there is a well house listed on the plat that is inside the 10 -foot setback, and I wonder if that has a similar concern. While it's not necessarily a State Department of Health -- or potentially not a State Department of Health concern, but a building structure, I'm assuming it is greater than 30 inches tall and within the building setback. Pate: The City does not regulate structures in the County. I'm not sure what their exact regulation is, because there's no zoning or land use regulations. There are setbacks. But that would be something that would have to meet the County requirements for a structure in that regard. Lack: Okay. Fair enough. Thank you. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve LSP 06-2042 carries with a vote of 7-0-0. Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 14 Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 15 LSD 06-2195: Large Scale Development ( PRATT PLACE INN, 520): Submitted by CRAFTON, TULL & ASSOCIATES for property located at THE WEST END OF MARKHAM ROAD, WEST OF RAZORBACK ROAD. The property is zoned C-PZD 05-1670 and contains approximately 72.1 acres. The request is for development of a seven -bedroom inn, restaurant, cabins and accessory structures with associated parking. Anthes: Our tenth item this evening is Large Scale Development 06-2195 for the Pratt Place Inn. This one is Andrew's. Garner: Yes. As background for this project, Commercial Planned Zoning District was approved by the City Council on this property November 1st, 2005. And the Commercial Planned Zoning District approval approved zoning on the property to develop a seven-guestroom inn and a 60 -seat restaurant with a separate residence for the innkeeper and ancillary uses such as a tennis court, cabins, swimming pool, valet parking, and overflow parking. And public comment was received at that time. There was a substantial amount of public comment when the zoning came through. Concerns were expressed on traffic on substandard roads, drainage, noise potential, tree preservation, buffers, and many of these issues were addressed in conditions of approval of that zoning district, and those conditions are carried forward into this large scale development as well. We did receive public comment at the Subdivision Committee meeting expressing similar concerns as were expressed when this came through the Planned Zoning District process. We also received several letters and a petition today discussing the sidewalk, and I've given copies to you and those are provided just today. The property contains 72 acres. It's utilized for residential and agricultural purposes. There are several structures on the property, including a barn and a 5,000 -square foot Victorian farmhouse that is on the Arkansas Register of Historic Places. There are single- family homes at different addresses throughout the property, and some pasture, 1920s and `30s camp cabins, timberland and trails. And the cross-country team for the University of Arkansas uses those trails. And the proposal right now is to develop the seven-guestroom inn and 60 -seat restaurant consistent with Planned Zoning District approval for the property. And this large scale development would also approve development for a separate residence for the innkeeper and all the ancillary uses as well that were addressed when it came through for the original zoning approval. Access into the property was required to be limited off of Markham Road, which is an adjacent Master Street Plan street. And that was one of the requirements, that access be prevented from Sang Avenue, which also borders and goes through this property. The residential streets in this area are open ditches which provide access to the University Heights neighborhood to the west of the University of Arkansas campus. Parking with this proposed development would be Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 16 provided in private parking areas with some paved area with 36 spaces and some additional gravel parking area to accommodate 12 spaces. Staff is recommending street improvements with this development: to improve Markham Road with a 20 -foot standard section with curb and gutter on the north side. We're also recommending drainage improvements with the widening of the street. We're recommending undergrounding the storm drainage on the north side of the street and we're recommending that a 4 - foot sidewalk be constructed adjacent to the curb on top of the storm drainage and we're recommending it adjacent to the curb to minimize impacts to the hillside and grading that would be required in this area. The site contains a large amount of trees canopy, and the majority of the property is intended to be left in its natural state with this development. It's a pretty low -scale impact development. Staff does recommend approval of the tree preservation plan. We are recommending approval of this large scale development with several conditions. The first condition of approval is determination of street improvements, which I've already gone over. Condition Number 2 is Planning Commission determination of Commercial Design Standards, and Jesse will put up some of the boards here. We do recommend in favor of these -- the proposed elevations for the farmhouse. They were consistent with the elevations that were approved as part of the Planned Zoning District, and we've included in your packet the drawings that were approved by City Council for this zoning, and these are the ones that are proposed. Condition Number 3 is regarding some changes to the boundary survey that need to be completed. And Condition 4 is that the development is subject to all conditions of approval of the Commercial Planned Zoning District. And there are a lot of detailed conditions that when this went through were required to be included with the Inn, such as hours of operation, and there's also a barn that they are going to be using for additional events. And there were several conditions the neighborhood helped put together regarding noise and hours of operation, the number of gathering or events per year, and a lot of these are listed in the body of your staff report and they're also incorporated and required as part of the Planned Zoning District approval. Those are the main issues, I believe, and we'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Anthes: Mr. Garner, before you sit down, will you remind us how many occupants are allowed in the barn? Garner: I'm not sure off the top of my head. I know we did get communication from Steve Cattaneo, the building safety director, that the barn has been brought up to Code for events. We can check on that. I'm not sure if anybody else happens to recall that. Harris: Madame Chair. Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 17 Anthes: Commissioner Harris. There's like 370 -- Harris: On Page 19 it says 376. Anthes: 376. Garner: Okay. Anthes: And that number is only allowed at four gatherings per month; is that correct? Garner: That's correct. Anthes: Okay. Garner: And that's reflected in Condition Number 13. Anthes: And were all of the Urban Forester's comments incorporated from Subdivision? Garner: Yes. Anthes: Okay. Thank you. Would any member of the public like to address this Large Scale Development 06-2195 for Pratt Place Inn? Please come forward. I hope there's a sign-up sheet at the podium. If you would state your name and give us your comments. Smith: All right. My name is Kenneth Smith. I've lived in Fayetteville for about 32 years now, including a year and a half on the property that you're considering, the property known as Markham Hill. I have to take exception to the proposal to open a street with -- not only widen Markham Road going up the hill from Cross Avenue onto the property, but also adding curb, gutter, and concrete sidewalk adjacent to the curb. I would propose that certainly the street would need to be widened for traffic going up into that Pratt Place Inn. But -- and it would need to be widened, of course, so that emergency vehicles could get up there, for example. But -- and there needs to be a walkway or sidewalk alongside the street, but I think we're talking about an area where there will be limited traffic. It is a rural -- an area rural in appearance. If you've ever been up there, I imagine most of you have, it -- part of the aura or the atmosphere of that neighborhood is that it has a semi -rural appearance, and to have a regular street going up there with curb, gutter, concrete sidewalk is, I feel, not appropriate to that situation. I would recommend that the street be widened, certainly, but instead of curb, that should -- there should be open ditch, as ditches as there are now, and that the walkway be separated at Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 18 some little distance back from the edge of the street, which it could be. Most of the property up there does belong to the owners of the Inn property -- the Inn development, so that there could be a walkway up there of some sort of softer material, I'll call it. Whether it would be chips or something else similar to that, I don't know. But that walkway, for example, would be used by the track -- the distance runners that are using the property now. It would be an advantage to have them off the street. They're running up the street now -- up Markham Road. But the walkway could be, as I say, chips or something along the north side of Markham Road there, and could wind on up through the woods there without taking out trees. We want to avoid removing trees along that street. And so that's the essential -- the essentials. I will say that I am strongly in favor of open space on that hill. I testified before the City Council last fall in favor of leaving that property as open space as much as possible and also having it available for the high school and university track and cross- country teams, both men's and women's teams, to use it as they have been using it for years now. And I know that -- I talked with Coach John McDonald the other day about the trails on that hill, that we need to do, I think, everything we can to encourage the use of that hill for -- for the track and cross-country teams, but part of that would -- it would help them if that is a soft -surface walkway up that hill, rather than a concrete sidewalk, which -- so it would serve the track and cross-country teams, as well as just the appearance of the hill. All right. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Smith. Smith: Kenneth Smith is the name. Anthes: Thank you. Would any member -- other member of the public like to address this item for Pratt Place Inn? I'm sorry, aren't you with the applicant? Crafton: Yes, I am. Anthes: Your presentation comes after public comment. Okay. Come on up. Kring: Hi. My name is Tim Kring. I live at 1777 West Halsell. My property immediately adjoins my home -- immediately joins the PZD part of the property. I'd like to echo and won't repeat exactly the last speaker. The beauty of the area is the narrow street. I'd like to see it retained as narrow as possible. It is a dead-end road -- Markham is, and so it doesn't need to be a highway. I would ask this staff and City to consider the south side instead of the north side. There is no sidewalk anywhere on the north side of that street all the way to Razorback. There is on the south side. So if we're ever going to connect sidewalks -- it's nice to do it once in a while Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 19 -- it would be better to have it on the south side. Also, the terrain seems like it's more suitable to the south side, if that's absolutely necessary. The wood chip path is not a bad idea. It would be on the other side of the ditch, through the woods. The runners would run on it. As one of my neighbors has told me who watches -- who lives on Markham with the sidewalk, which is down between Palmer and Razorback, the runners never, ever, ever, ever run on the sidewalk, they run on the road, so the sidewalk isn't going to help our runner situation. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Kring. Would any member of the public like to address this item? Please keep it moving. Come on up right after the next one. Schaper: I'm Lynn Schaper. I live on Pratt Drive and we're immediately to the east of the proposed development. I certainly don't any problem with Julian and Jane's proposal for the inn and a restaurant. My problem is with the existing party barn and the noise potential through the party barn. And there was a big charity event there a week ago Saturday and there was considerable noise from the party barn. And one of the conditions of the PZD approval was that there be no outdoor music anywhere on the premises. You must have that in the -- in your packet under some of the conditions for approval, along with the conditions for the hours of use. going only until 10:00 p.m. on the weeknights and midnight on the weekends, and we're fine with that. But in addition to the requirement on no outdoor music, I would like to see a requirement that there should be no amplified music in the party barn if any door to the barn is remaining open. Because if the doors of that barn are open, it's essentially like having amplified outdoor music, and that's going to be a cause for problems. And apparently there was some confrontations between some of the neighbors up at the top of hill even over this event that was there last Saturday. And I -- you know, I really have a problem with -- I have a problem with the creation of a problem and the fact that the neighbors are then put in the position of being the zoning police. Because, really, if some of these conditions are violated, what recourse do we have? You know, you call the police over things like this and they'll say, "Well, we're too busy," you know, "with drunk drivers and doing other things. You know, if we can get out there, we'll get out there." So now the neighbors are put in a confrontational situation with either the people who are going to events or the people who run this thing. And I think it's just -- you know, it's a situation that's not a healthy one for the neighborhood. But at least we should get some conditions in place that would limit the potential for problems, and certainly, if we could get a condition in there that says, "No amplified music in the barn if the barn doors stay open," would be a help. I'd love to have a condition in there that says, "Any music on the acreage should be inaudible at the property line." The party barn is far enough away from any of the other houses that having Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 20 inaudibility at the property line I don't think is too much of a condition to place on this thing. So I would hope you consider some additional conditions for the protection of the neighborhood for the -- for the noise potential of almost 400 people attending an event up there as was happened a couple of weeks ago and has happened several times with large weddings being up there as well. And that -- of course, that use will continue up to four per month, and that's four per month possible disturbances to our, you know, very quiet country neighborhood. Everybody wants to preserve the quiet country neighborhood. That's kind of incompatible with a major commercial facility gathering place for parties of almost 400 people. So let's keep the restrictions on that. If we're talking about keeping the residential character of the neighborhood, please put some additional conditions on the noise coming out of that barn. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Schaper. Ms. Alexander. Alexander: Fran Alexander. I spoke with the Subdivision Committee and I just want to repeat to you what I said to them. My daughter and I own the property on the corner of Cross and up Markham, to meet the Archers' property, so we're the immediate adjoining owners. The proposal is to ditch and put a 4 -foot sidewalk on the north side, which would be our side of the property. And I believe the applicant prefers that this ditch be graded out wider and with no sidewalk. If you grade it out wider we're going to be losing the tree canopy over the road that everyone has been addressing, as well as then adding a sidewalk after the large graded -out ditch would take it further into the woods, and so, therefore, we would lose that many more trees. So I would like to say if it is decided by this body that you do intend to keep the sidewalk on this side of the road that you do the curb and gutter culvert and the 4 -foot sidewalk immediately over that culvert so that you minimize cutting into that hillside. I would like to address the situation where there's just no real plan for the pedestrian foot traffic in this entire network of streets up there, and you really do have to dodge the joggers from the university. I think you should try to work a deal with the university and put some trails in up there for those joggers, because as someone just said, they do not use the sidewalks. The concrete sidewalks are too hard for them. There are sidewalks from Razorback to Palmer on the south side of the road. It does not make any sense for the Archers to waste their money to build something that begins essentially nowhere and ends nowhere for walkers. If you're going to spend money, for God's sake get something for it or do an analysis of the pedestrian traffic up there so that maybe this money could be put into escrow until a trail system or some other logical use for this particular sidewalk or trail could be designed and utilized. I'm not complaining that it's going to be on my side, although it seems as though -- It's not our development. I don't Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 21 know why it -- since he owns the property on the other side of the road it shouldn't be on his. But I am saying that it's just no logic to wasting money with something that does not -- this is where the sidewalk ends, you know. So, anyway, try to do something logical here. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you. Good evening, Ms. Sutherland. Sutherland: Martha Sutherland, here. I just wanted to speak in favor of beauty. We're talking about two short blocks here in Fayetteville that have trees and an overhanging canopy thanks to the fact that the wires are underground. We all know what has happened to lower Markham when SWEPCO comes through, and you don't grow trees overnight. Those two blocks now have a -- or at least one of the blocks has a row of gorgeous sycamore trees which are just becoming in their adolescence and will be a thing of enormous beauty, unique in Fayetteville, one of the places that you could drive to and say, "Oh, look at this gorgeousness." Now, if the sidewalk -- I'm all in favor of widening the street, by the way. It must be widened. But if the sidewalk goes on the north side, I fear that it will take the sycamore trees that are there and are well underway, and it would seem to me a great pity. Of those two blocks, the block that goes west past Cross is used primarily in terms of pedestrians by the track team. Now, the track team and the Markhams have a business agreement of some sort. This is not, you know, strictly the university that just says this is where our boys are going to go -- or girls. So it would seem to me that an agreement might be worked out with the Archers and the university as to the track team if people are worried about that. But beyond Sang, when you turn south on Sang there, no more -- no more walkers, except the teams go west there, first of all, because it's very steep, and second of all, because the Markham -- because the Archers are not happy to have trespassers on their property, and that is their property up there. So I just want to say that it is a -- to me, it's an irreplaceable couple of blocks there that we ought to try and be very, very careful of if we can. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you. Please queue up if you would like to speak. O'Meara: Good evening. My name is Kelly O'Meara and I coach the Ramay Junior High cross-country team and the Fayetteville High cross-country team, and we've been using the Archers' property for a number of years and, you know, what a wonderful greenspace in Fayetteville. We've been cut out of a lot of running areas in town just due to traffic, because other places, the university won't allow us to run now, but this is a great place for our team. We run up there for two reasons: one is to avoid traffic, get off the roads and be safe, and the other one is for a natural surface. In all my years up there the Archers haven't compromised on the beauty and natural setting of this area, and I am against the sidewalk. As far as our Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 22 team running up there, probably two times a week during the season, perhaps three. We access Markham Road by Palmer, and so we'll hit Markham Road off Palmer and we'll have approximately 90 seconds of running until we get to Cross Street and then we have another two-tenths of a mile, another two minutes, until we're on their property and up on the trails. And just speaking as far as runners go and my team, I know that last 200 yards from Cross Street west up to their property we don't see any traffic. If there is a sidewalk there, it would be tough to convince my runners to get off the road and get over on the sidewalk. Now, if there is a mulch trail, a natural trail, they would be more likely to use it than a sidewalk. So just speaking on a runner's perspective, they're not going to get off the road to get on a sidewalk unless there's a law against it just about. Because we don't see traffic. We just don't see traffic that last two-tenths of a mile. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. O'Meara. Would anyone else like to speak to this item? Green: Hello. My name is Danny Green. I'm the director of track and field and cross-country operations for the men's track team, and I'm a former cross- country runner at the university. I've been going to the trails and up the trails since 1988, and after I finished I came to work for Coach McDonald. He's in Ireland right now at a family reunion, so I'm here in his stead. But we use those trails probably about 70 -- for about 70 percent of our training, the men's cross-country team, and this time of year probably even more. I would like to echo what Coach O'Meara said. For the last -- just about 300 meters up where that sidewalk proposal is, it would be -- I don't think our guys -- it would be hard to convince them to go over to a concrete path. Part of the reason that we run on the trails is to get off the concrete. If there were a wood chip or mulch trail, they would be more likely to use it. And with the addition of the Inn -- with the more traffic, I think it would be safe to have another place for them to run. The ditches are very deep on the side of that. But I think they would go against the cars, which they do a lot to keep off the concrete. So, you know, we're lucky to have a place like that, and keeping the natural setting would be good. The trails up there already are wood chip, so it would keep consistent there. And that's all. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Green. Anthes: If you would like to come up and speak at the podium, you can. Audience: I want to ask him a question in regard to his runners. Is that possible? Anthes: No. You can address your question to the Planning Commission and then we can ask about it along with the other questions. Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 23 Pharris: My name is Felicia Pharris. I live off of Sang on Haskell Heights. I've lived up in that area, I guess, approaching nine years and I'm familiar with the Razorback track team and the various high school teams that traverse Markham to -- to get onto the Markham property. And you know, as a previous runner in high school and then college, I appreciate the importance of runners getting their training and the magnitude of the excellence of our track teams and how much they've accomplished over the years. And those of us who are very familiar with the runners there, we very much are very patient with what they have to do, running two wide, three wide, and sometimes on various spring days they spread out even further than that, shoulder to shoulder. The question I wanted to have addressed is the difficulty the runners have, whether it's east of Cross or west of Cross, when it comes to traffic, how much the coach feels they impinge upon their risk when it comes to traffic. The runners -- as -- I'm sorry, walking up here -- I've had damage to my vocal cords and speaking, so please bear with me as I try to catch up with that issue. I think as the years I've had experience on driving and with the runners, I think as far as their danger issues it's much more tremendous east of Cross. I think using sidewalk or not using sidewalk, at least the expansion of Markham would be much more benefited by expanding it east of Cross. I don't -- the issues I have, the traffic is going to be -- you're going to have three roads coming together: Sang, the east -- the west aspect of Markham as the bed and breakfast increased traffic coming from that section of the Markhams' -- the Archers' new adventure, and the impact of Cross Street coming in from that section all funneling down into Markham as the traffic impinges there, and no widening of that road, and then it's going to be smaller now -- or it's not going to be improved now. You're going to have that funneling of those three sections into now a street that's going to be smaller than a road that's going to be widened up above. You're going to be making all of that area even tinier than it was before, with more traffic now from a bed and breakfast and a restaurant and a bar and a party barn, and you're going to be squeezing down into an area. And then you've got the runners that -- I don't understand the rationale and I'm wondering if that can be addressed as well as what -- the coach's opinion of how his runners are at risk when they run the upper half of Markham at that area or the lower half of Markham below Cross or east of Cross. I think those of us who have discussed the issue in our neighborhood don't understand the rationale of not widening that aspect of Cross. I think -- we think that that area should be widened. It's much more important to widen that section than the west aspect at the cross-section of Cross Street. I think that seems more feasible than the other idea. The idea of shallow ditches and cutting out the trees has been addressed already and I'm in favor of curbing much more so than any further destruction of the quaintness of our neighborhood. I think you'll find that in any aspect of any of our Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 24 neighbors, and I'm in favor of the curbing aspect. Fully in favor of sidewalking. I think that -- that any day you'll see many neighbors more so than just athletes running on the street. We would fully use the sidewalk. And I would do much more walking in our neighborhood if we had sidewalks. I don't walk on the streets, fully because of the idea that there aren't any sidewalks. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Ms. Pharris. Please, come forward. Robinson: Do you need me to sign here? Anthes: If you would, and state your name. Robinson: I'm John Robinson. I've been going up on Markham as a jogger for a number of years and have enjoyed going up there. It's quite a unique place and I think that if we widened that street at all it would change the appearance and look like you're going into a subdivision rather than to a -- into a wilderness area. And, you know, that's another alternative that the Archers could be doing is putting in a subdivision up there, and that would be the worst thing that could happen for the neighbors up there. Although I don't lie up there, but I have been a jogger for a long time. And if you build a -- widen the street and put in sidewalks, you're going to take out an awful lot of trees. And, like I say, it looks like an entrance to a subdivision. I live on a street, it's a cul-de-sac, and we have sidewalks on both sides and they're right next to the street, and because it's no through traffic, many of the neighbors like myself walk, but we walk in the street. We don't walk on the sidewalk. And the reason is the sidewalk slopes and you step off the curb every driveway you come to, and so I've observed my neighbors, and almost entirely they walk in the street, just like the joggers. I'm like some others, I go up there because I get off the concrete. I'm 80 years old. I've been jogging for a long time and I still have my knees. If I had been on the concrete the whole time, I wouldn't have. So I think, you know, one alternative would be to develop the property some other way, and I think by what they're putting up there, there won't be that much traffic. There will be some, but -- I've watched the track team and they're just like everybody else. You know, they're out in the street, they're not on the sidewalk. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Robinson. Would any other member of the public like to address this large scale development for Pratt Place Inn? Whitter: My name is Roger Whitter. I live at 1660 Markham Road. Our property immediately adjoins the Archer property to the west. We have lived at this location for over 50 years and it has remained very much the same over that period of time. In large part we believe that this is because Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 25 Julian Archer, his mother, and his aunt, his family, have attempted very hard to keep it this kind of a, let's say, pastoral character, and at this -- during this -- over these many years. If anyone had told me 50 years ago that I could still be living in the same location with a pasture next door to us, pasture where our burro used to roam, I would have thought that they were crazy or on the juice or something like that. Therefore, I think that you ought to consider this proposal from Julian Archer and consider that this will try to keep the character of this property and this of Markham Hill as -- as it essentially is today. Now, and I will speak to in favor of the overall concept of the project for this reason, that it has remained this much the same. Julian's mother and his aunt -- well, I should -- I didn't mention that at the time we bought this property our west property line was the west city limits and this caused the sewer line to come down through our yard, for example, with some unfortunate consequences over the years, but overall the property has remained much the same. It's been my belief over the years that if Julian's mother and his aunt had not resisted coming into the City to begin with and had not attempted to keep the property as it is that we would probably nowadays have who knows what up on this hill -- condominiums, residences, who knows what. Now, on the other side of the coin, several years ago the City Street Department in its infinite wisdom saw fit to pave Cross Lane, and this was done without consultation of anybody in the neighborhood. And upon protesting, when it became a fact, ipso facto, upon protesting we were told, "Well, we thought you people would like this." Well, the contrary is true. We -- because what it did was to open up a floodgate of new traffic, which is of such a consequence nowadays that I have to fear for life and limb if I just go out to my mailbox. I have to because I have to go out and walk on the street for about 15 or 20 feet, and when you have a full-size SUV boring down straight at you when you're trying to get at the -- at the -- at your mailbox, you think hard about jumping into the ditch, which I have done several times. And as another sidelight, I hope that you will consider that we need to have some speed bumps on Markham. Well, let me get to this then again as far as the sidewalks and so on are concerned. I think that the least, what shall I say, invasive thing that you can put upon requirement in this project is to keep the road substantially as it is. What wider roads breed is more cars. They don't breed better traffic conditions, they just bring more cars, and we have enough cars already. In fact, I have thought over some years that we ought to name a -- have a par course around Markham and Razorback and up -- briefly up Maple and around this property through Cross Lane, and we could set us up a little electric system. We can call this the Fred Hanna Speedway and establish what the par for this course should be, and then you have a ticket and you put it into your -- into the slot and you see how fast you can go around all these -- these four -- several corners until you can see how fast you can go around that. That's what some drivers try to do today. But if we rewarded them, Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 26 it might work out even a little better. But -- and essentially I do -- and I would like to speak to another thing in the past. Markham Road has -- Anthes: Mr. Whitter, I'm sorry to interrupt you but I need you to keep your comments to the development proposal that's in front of us if you could do SO. Whitter: All right. I will try to do so. So I would -- again, I would close by saying that I would hope that you would consider not going according to the letter of the requirements as far as sidewalks, road width, and so on are concerned, but consider the esthetics of this situation, consider the humanity of the situation, and set up requirements which will result in keeping this property and this hill in its beautiful state in which it now exists. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you very much. I believe we have one more gentleman lining up. If you would come forward. Good evening. Coger: Good evening. First I'd like to start by saying I appreciate you all taking time out of your regular jobs and doing this, and it's a great service to the City of Fayetteville. My name is James Butch Coger. I'm a property owner on top of Markham Hill. I have two and a half acres there with my wife, Barbara, which we do plan on building on this property, hopefully. We've gotten quite involved in this project here and I have some photographs that I would like to share with you all if I might. Anthes: You can pass them to Mr. Pate. Coger: I was in a hurry and I could only print so many. My printer is kind of slow, so I have three sets there. If you wouldn't mind sharing them, I would appreciate it. Anthes: I also want to assure the public that the Planning Commission did tour this property at agenda session, so we've been up there. Cogen. Okay. Let me start by saying that I am a developer and a residential builder. I am very sensitive to maintaining trees and the beauty of, you know, the Ozark Hills that we have here. We built at the bottom of Markham Hill and -- on a small lot that had 13 trees on it. We designed the house around the trees, not coming in and removing the trees in building the house. We try to harmonize with the environment as much as possible in every endeavor that we do, and we try to be realistic about, you know, what can and can't be done. Markham Hill is a beautiful piece of property. I think some of the main points that are being missed here, a lot of people are talking about how few of automobiles there are up there. Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 27 Well, that's true. Right now it's basically us people that live there, or will live there, that travel the road. One thing that Pratt Place Inn and bar will bring to that area is an additional 450 to 500 trips a day of automobiles. So I think a big point has been missed, that yes, there's not much traffic now. Yes, runners can run out in the road and the people that are used to traveling the road, you know, stop and we let the runners go by us and then we go on. And that's fine, that's great, but when we put 450 to 500 cars a day on that road, that's going to change dramatically. I understand that there is plans for a wine cellar in the Inn, and that alcohol will be served through the restaurant, which I have no problem with that personally. But that is going to add another dimension to the mix up there. People drink with dinner. Sometimes people drink to excess. A lot of people don't drink to excess. Leaving that restaurant at night, it's a black asphalt street. It's hard to see. The deep ditches are very dangerous. It's a -- it's inviting that if somebody has had a little too much to drink can run off in the ditch, blocking the road. They could also run over pedestrians if there aren't places for the pedestrians to go. If a vehicle is in the ditch it does block a good part of the road, and larger vehicles like ambulances and fire trucks could not be able to get around them. That means if this happens, if somebody has a heart attack on Markham Hill, maybe even me, and an ambulance can't get up there to pick that person up, they could die. Another scenario is somebody's house catches on fire. Maybe it's Pratt Place Inn. There's no places for -- no way for a fire truck to get around this car in the ditch. Here again, there's going to be property loss and hopefully not loss of life in this situation. I'll get to these pictures that I gave you and talk about them a little bit. If you'll notice Picture 1, that is a picture and that is a view from Sang Avenue just off Markham Road to the east, and as you can see, trees have been removed and grading has already started. This picture was taken yesterday. Okay. We go to Picture Number 2 and all it does is point out the piece of heavy equipment down in the woods that did this tree removal and grading. I have city maps here which show the slopes 15 percent or greater and uphill from 15 percent slopes, and they are -- Markham Hill is virtually totally green in that. And if I may approach, I'll give Mr. Pate these. ? Is it in the Hilltop Overlay District? Anthes: Yes. Coger: When I noticed the destruction of the trees and the grading starting, I contacted City personnel. I talked with Sarah Patterson, who is the Urban Forester, and asked her if she was aware of this construction that had already started on Markham Hill, and she was not. And I asked her another question, I said, "Well, what all criteria has to be met before construction is to begin, like on a sewer line?" She said, "Number 1, there Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 28 has to be a grading permit; there has to be a tree preservation plan in place; there has to be silt fencing set up to keep erosion under control; and there has to be a plumbing permit." I asked her if the Archers had procured any of these, and she said the only one that she could say for sure was that they definitely had not submitted a tree preservation plan to her for this construction to begin. The way I understand it, there hasn't even been a building permit issued up there yet. And from these pictures I think it's pretty clear that there is -- construction has already started. Picture Number 3 is a picture of the pasture up by the famous party barn, if you would. Before the Archers decided to do the Inn -- well, let me rephrase that -- before they made the city aware of and proceeded to request permits, I noticed that they were up there cutting trees off of this pasture. You can see that virtually all the dirt has been scraped off of the pasture, causing erosion, which is very evident in Picture Number 4. That is a culvert that runs under Sang Avenue there and that ditch is deep right there. I mean, literally if you stand in the bottom of it, it will be chest high on me. It's a 4- to 5 -foot ditch. Anthes: Mr. Coger. Coger: Yes, ma'am. Anthes: If you have questions as to code violations, those really need to be directed to our city officials that deal with code violations. What I need you to address this evening is this development plan, if you would. Cogen. That is what I'm doing. A big part of, I think, the permits, you all trusting an individual to do what they say they will do, is part of the permitting process. And if the people don't do what they say they're going to do, there are code enforcement in place that can take care of that. And I have hopefully set that in motion already with the City of Fayetteville. I do want to go through all the correct channels. We will go Picture Number 5, which is a picture of Markham, looking to the west. If you'll notice to the left there is curb, gutter, storm sewer, underground storm sewer in place, and a 4 -foot sidewalk on top of it. That is already existing on Markham Road. If you'll also notice, that side of the road extends a good -- I would say 8 to 10 feet -- I haven't put a tape measure to it -- to the south. That intersection is a holy nightmare. Whenever somebody is stopped at the stop sign heading down towards Razorback, somebody is coming towards them and they proceed towards Razorback, the way the road jogs around there to the right, it's a real dicey situation to keep from having accidents. So that intersection is obviously very dangerous. Picture Number 6 is -- I did this hurriedly and I'll try to be as coherent as possibly, and I'll try to be as brief as possible, but there -- this is a very important issue. We are looking at an historic piece of land. We are looking at a piece of land that Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 29 a lot of individuals live on that property values are already being impacted and can be impacted even further in a negative manner, so bear with me, please. Picture Number 6 is a mulch trail. It's the mulch trail that runs on the east side of Cross. This mulch trail is -- was just refurbished not too long ago by a neighborhood association, which I'm a member of If you see, there is already grass growing on this mulch trail. And if you'll notice, there's already erosion across this mulch trail. Runners walk -- even walking on a mulch trail like this just does not -- does not exist. It just doesn't work. In the earlier Subdivision Committee, Jane Archer made the comment that if the road could be left like it is with the ditches to help keep down pedestrian traffic up there, they would forbid the University of Arkansas track team to come up there and run on their property. That's in the minutes of the Subdivision meeting. And I have a DVD. I've watched it several times to make sure I did hear what I heard. Given that, you know, we have to -- we have to strike a happy balance. There are rules in place that us developers are supposed to follow. You all are in charge of looking at the situation and coming up with the best proposal that will work best for everybody -- the person doing the development as well as us people that are living there, and the whole City of Fayetteville. And by the "whole City of Fayetteville," that is people that travel through this dangerous intersection. When they're -- after a University of Arkansas football game, I don't know if it's the State of Arkansas, the university, or the City of Fayetteville that's doing it, but they are placing signs routing traffic up Markham, to the right on Cross, another sign directing the traffic down Halsell. As soon as, of course, it makes that 90 back to the right, it turns into Sang Avenue. And we presently live at the bottom of Markham Hill on Loren Circle. The amount of traffic since they've started putting up these signs has increased tremendously. We have seven cats and a dog. They're our children. We love them. This puts animals in peril, as well as people. Back to Markham. And they are traveling Markham now with the deep ditches on either side. That's dangerous. People leaving the game lots of times are in a hurry to get home for whatever reasons. We go back to a car in the ditch -- traffic is blocked, emergency vehicles can't get through. Let's go to Picture Number 8, if we would, and I'll come back to Number 7. Picture Number 8 is obviously looking down Markham towards Razorback Road or looking east. I have done a little bit of measuring on Markham there, and that road is anywhere from 20 feet to 17 feet in that area. It varies. Okay. If you will notice, there is a guardrail to the right, there's a guardrail to the left, there's a visible culvert to the left, and this is a bridge that the City of Fayetteville constructed and started storm sewer -- if you'll notice, it's underground storm sewer -- to alleviate flooding problems that was going on in that section of Markham, and I applaud the City of Fayetteville for doing that and I'm glad my tax dollars were spent to alleviate that danger and health hazard. If you'll notice, that bridge is Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 30 wide enough, it looks like to me, and I did some rough measuring, to accommodate a 28 -foot wide street, which is great. Personally, I do not want a 28 -foot wide street on Markham. I think, not bending the rules, but widening the street from 18 feet to 20 feet is a great idea. It's still going to be a very narrow street at 20 feet, but that extra two feet will help a lot with traffic and congestion. But even at 20 -feet wide, if we get cars or trucks in the ditches, ambulances, fire trucks, cannot make it up that hill. Okay. If we'll come back to Number 7, please, that is actually a close-up picture of the culvert that's to the left of those -- on those pictures, and if you'll look at the concrete on that, you can see where the front leading edge to the right has been knocked off, then back behind it there's another place that has been damaged, and you can also see on the face over the culvert where grout has been brought in and has repaired damaged areas on that culvert. And if we flip back to 8, look how wide that road is there, and look how far that culvert is off the road there -- quite a ways. And what has caused that damage is a car running into that ditch. And if you kind of look at the damage, the car, obviously, to me, had to be traveling east on Markham, which means it crossed into the westbound lane to have that accident. To the right is another barrier, and between the sign and the barrier there's another piece of concrete there, which is part of the culvert, and like I say, unfortunately I was printing these pictures off in a hurry. I didn't get a chance to print that one. That one is also damaged, too, from vehicular traffic. Okay. I have talked with a lot of my neighbors on Markham. As you all are already experiencing, there's quite a divided feeling about what should happen to the street up there. Personally, I want to maintain as much of the tree canopy as humanly possible. I don't want to see any more trees cut off of that mountain than possible. One thing that I think a lot of people are missing is that we -- one thing that was brought up in Subdivision, and it was brought up as a suggestion by city staff, or something that they want to explore further, is city staff agrees that the ditches are deep, they're dangerous, the erosion is really getting bad from these ditches. The deeper they get, the faster the water moves, the more erosion we have. So one option they were proposing was to, on either side of Markham, fill these ditches in and do a 10 -foot wide concrete apron on either side of Markham. In other words, we go from these deep, eroding ditches to, I call it -- in our subdivision we call them swells -- but swell, concrete apron, or whatever. That means -- Anthes: Mr. Coger, are you talking about the section west of Cross Avenue, because that's really what we're considering tonight. Cogen. The section west of -- the way I understand it from them, it would be on both sides, extending from the top of the hill all the way to Cross and possibly even further. Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 31 Anthes: Okay. I think staff's recommendation is to Cross. Is that correct? Coger: Okay. So here we have all of a sudden a 20 -foot wide street with a 10 - foot wide swath of concrete on both sides of the street. Anthes: That's not the recommendation, but -- Coger: It's a 10 -foot wide on one side? Anthes: No. It's not 10 -foot wide either way. The recommendation is for curb and gutter on the north side with a 4 -foot sidewalk that abuts the curb on the north side of the street only. Coger: That's the recommendation at -- Anthes: That's staff's recommendation. Coger: -- at this point.? Anthes: Right. Coger: Okay. Jeremy, was not that -- was that -- aprons not discussed ? Anthes: I'm sorry, you need to direct your comments to me. Coger: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. I would like for you to ask Jeremy if at the meeting the 10 -foot aprons were not spoke of as an option of -- that could happen. Anthes: Okay. I won't ask him now, but we'll get to it. Coger: Okay. All right. Here again, if we go back to -- Well, let's go to Number 4. That's up where Sang intersects with Markham, and obviously, that's a nice, beautiful shot showing the trees canopying and actually touching over Markham, which is beautiful. It's a shot all the way back down to Razorback Road. Here is what I would propose that I think would be the very best thing that could happen there. And this is -- I can speak for myself and my wife. Other neighbors have agreed that this is a good idea, but right now it will just be from the two of us. From a safety standpoint, for pedestrians and traffic alike and to be able to get emergency vehicles up the road, I would propose that there is curb, gutter, in -ground storm sewer on both sides of the road, a 4 -foot sidewalk on top of the storm sewer on the south side of the road all the way to this dangerous intersection that is pictured in Number 5. And if that is done, what happens then with the sidewalk, storm sewer on the south side of the road, we have a continuous sidewalk from Razorback Road to the Palmer Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 32 intersection and then we have concrete all the way up the hill to the top, a sidewalk. Real quickly, let's go back to the runners and the joggers. Okay? Now, then, we're stopping, letting them go past us. We're weaving around them, trying to be as careful with them as possible. And I understand running on asphalt is a little bit better than -- for the joints than running on concrete, but not a lot. But my experience around Fayetteville is -- and a lot of people jog out in the streets. Sometimes I wonder if they have a death wish, but that's neither here nor there -- if there is curb and gutter, we have a 20 -foot wide street that is a nice, flat, level street that goes over to the curbs. There are runners coming down the asphalt. They see traffic coming. What I see happening all the time is, those people go up on the sidewalk, they're safe, the car can pass safely, and they come back out on the asphalt. A very good situation. That addresses a lot of situations. When they have the option to safely get over on a level place where they don't have to stop running, run a few steps, and then they're back on the asphalt, and everybody is much safer. Back to the picture of the bridge. The city has already laid the groundwork for storm sewer -- sorry, it's Number 8 -- storm sewer coming down Markham, which the Archers own a large part of the property on both sides of Markham to the Palmer intersection. They do not own all the property to the Palmer intersection, but they own a large part of it. Fran Alexander owns the part -- it would be west of Cross and north of Markham there, and she is very concerned about impacting her property, and I am too. But speaking with Fran, I think that an in -ground storm sewer, curb and gutter, would be much more desirable than a 10 -foot wide swell there, if that were to happen. There are going to have to be some trees removed to widen the street to 20 feet. I had some pictures of the ditches, but didn't have time to print them, again. There's already -- on a lot of those trees a large amount of the root structure has been exposed by erosion and stuff, so the road is already very, very close to these trees and some of them are going to have to be removed, regardless, just to widen the road to 20 feet. That will encroach on the ditches, which in turn, if open ditches are kept, then those open ditches are going to have to be relocated further out to the trees. Here again, we're taking down canopy, like it or not. What's the difference or what do we gain by moving open ditches over, taking out trees that we would have to take out to do the curb and gutter and storm sewer, and not having the curb, gutter, and storm sewer? It's a big safety issue. I don't like it. I wish that, you know, this Pratt Place Inn wasn't happening. Then we wouldn't be here tonight. The road would just remain the way it is and everybody would be happy except the Archers, who want to do the Inn, and they have every right to, and to develop it and do the Inn, and personally, I'm actually for the Inn if we can do it correctly and make everybody up there safe. Just to recap a little bit, the 450 to 500 trips a day -- and if I'm not mistaken, those figures were supplied by Crafton, Tull on behalf of the Archers, which I believe that's Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 33 part of the study that you all require, is to see how much traffic is going to be increased and how it's going to impact the area -- so all of the neighbors that have been up here speaking about "Well, there's virtually no traffic. Nobody walks up there," they're entirely correct. Right now, there is virtually no traffic, but it's going to increase dramatically. One of the reasons that a lot of people don't walk up there is because there are no sidewalks. Those deep ditches, I mean, I'm not as spry as I used to be, but I'd have a hard time even in my younger years jumping that ditch. If an automobile was coming and I had to get out of its way, jumping that ditch to safety over to the side of the road, I don't think I could do it. I don't think the University of Arkansas track team -- I don't think a lot of those people could do it. So doing a sidewalk, I think, is imperative. And everybody has the right to develop their land in the way they see fit if they can meet the criteria that you all require. And part of your charge is, when you look at these situations and stuff, is to try to keep all residents in the City of Fayetteville safe. I would think safety would be one of the first concerns when you all look at developments, to, you know, keep all of us safe. The Archers, their Inn, our homes up there, and our lives when we traverse that street. The Archers own -- and here again, this is going to be some rough figures. Don't hold me to exactly these figures -- I think it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 345 acres up there, on that beautiful hillside, extending from the top of Markham towards Highway 540, and I believe it runs all the way down to 540. Anthes: We're addressing the 72.1 acres that's within this large scale development. Coger: Right, that's in the middle of this 345 acres up there. Yes, I understand that. Something that will tie this in and my question is, if that -- if improvements are not made on Markham that will take care of traffic flow now and in the future for the Inn, and other property to the back is developed, then does the taxpayers of Fayetteville then have to come and pay for the widening of Markham, installing storm sewers, curb and gutter, that would be required to take additional traffic up there? I would hope not. But if we curb, gutter, in -ground storm sewer, and a sidewalk on the north side, from the top of the hill project down to Cross, what have we accomplished? I mean, from Cross on down, we're in the exact same scenario we are now, a very dangerous highway, and if we don't go ahead and take care of that problem now, the taxpayers have to pay for it when it becomes necessary later on. In the Subdivision, I think Andrew made a -- Andrew Garner made a statement when we were talking about curb and gutter, and -- all the way to the Palmer intersection there, that it would cost the Archers too much money and -- you know, just cost them too much money and that shouldn't be done. I did a -- my wife and I did a subdivision on Mount Comfort Road. We came through the Planning Division. We did everything like we were supposed to. The City Council Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 34 -- one of the stipulations for us to be approved to get our permit to do our subdivision was that we had to improve Mount Comfort from our subdivision to the Rupple Road intersection. Anthes: You really need to address this project, not a project on Mount Comfort Road. Coger: Well, no, this project is done and this is just an analogy to what we're facing here. We were also required to improve Rupple Road intersection at a cost of $10,000.00, and that was a quarter of a mile away from our subdivision. We did it -- it was a safety hazard -- even though a school was built there, and they weren't required to. Anthes: Please, Mr. Coger. Please talk about this project. Coger: Oh, I will. Okay. We were required to do that. The reason I'm bringing that up was that -- Andrew saying it would cost too much money and that some of that would be offsite improvements for the Archers. Well, it's not uncommon, obviously, for offsite improvements to be required. Anthes: We do have a rational nexus calculation and we can address that with you in the discussion. Okay? Coger: Okay. I appreciate that. I -- you know, this is not an easy answer and there's no easy answer to this, and obviously, emotions are running -- you know, running high on both sides in this situation, but I would ask you to look at the safety of all citizens in Fayetteville, putting aside what amount of money it would cost somebody to do the right thing. And I would also, you know, ask you to look at doing this project in a way that the City of Fayetteville is not required to come back later and have to make improvements on a street because maybe we didn't see the big picture and didn't get those prudence taken care of by the developer. As a developer, I'm willing to pay for everything I need to to make the City of Fayetteville safe and my development safe, and I believe the Archers should -- you know, should do the same thing. Thank you very much. Anthes: Thank you for your comments. Would any other member of the public like to address this large scale development? Good evening. Please state your name and sign in, if you would. Roberts: Yes, it's Beverly Roberts and I was one of the caretakers when the project came before you all. And due to certain things, like I was living there, my daughter lived there, there were things that I totally kept from this Council, and I apologize. I feel very bad about that. Things that I knew that I didn't say. Today the runners run up Evangeline Lane a lot. I don't Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 35 know if you all knew that. There was -- has been a gas leak there for two days that we know of, and we have called -- the gas company came out to Anthes: Ms. Roberts, please address this development item in front of us tonight. We really can't do anything about a gas leak. That needs to be reported to the proper authority. Roberts: Well, it's -- the runners run up there -- that way, also. Anthes: Okay. Roberts: But -- and on the chip trails, those get washed away. They're -- and someone is going to have to maintain those because they -- they do get -- just washed away. But I just -- actually just want to say that everything should be taken into consideration that everyone says, and the pettiness of things that have -- I just want to say that everyone should be thinking and watching up on the hill what is going on more closely because -- That is all that I need to say to you guys, and I'm sorry that I misled and did not approach it as I should have in November. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Ms. Roberts. Just to clarify, this is the first time the Planning Commission has seen this item, except for our Subdivision Committee. This was the one and only PZD that went directly to City Council and was discussed at Council and approved at Council without Planning Commission involvement, so this is the first time we've heard it. Would any other member of the public like to address this item? Going once -- Good evening. Harter: Hi. My name is Lance Harter. I'm presently the women's track coach at the University of Arkansas, and speaking for John McDonald, who is unfortunately out of the country, and for our women's team. I apologize. I'll keep this brief. I don't have pictures to offer. So what I'd like to say is that we have given you three letters from the men's team, the women's team, and the actual athletes themselves. And just speaking to the trail itself, anything can wash out due to erosion. If they don't take good care of planting and laying down a good wood chip trail or a sidewalk or anything else, it can fail. There's a lot of cities, especially in Eugene, Oregon, who has kind of lead the way, with wood chip trails in their community with great success. Yes, sometimes grass can grow in it. That's actually a good thing, because it helps stabilize it. But we're all for the idea of, if we possibly can, put in a solid wood chip trail as a running route up to the Markham trails. We've been fortunate enough, blessed enough, to be able to have access to these for the last 25 year and we would like to continue to do so. Obviously, safety is an issue. We are Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 36 very cognizant of traffic and so on, but I think if they're going to put in curb and gutter, if we can put in some type of wood chip stabilized facility, it would be a great addition to the whole community. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Harter. Good evening, Mr. Hall. Hall: Hi. How are you? Jamie Hall. I live on Markham Road, and I apologize if I repeat what's already been said, because I just got here. I got here as quick as I could. I live on Markham and if -- I hope that no one is planning on widening Markham and putting in curb and gutter, because we get a lot of college students and a lot of high school students and a lot of traffic that's zooming in and off that road. And I think if you widen it -- I don't think you're going to increase traffic flow, but I think you're going to increase bad actors. I think people are going to drive faster, and I don't think you're going to get the runners off the road. I think what's going to happen is somebody is going to get hit. So that's my two cents. I don't want to see it get -- I don't want to see our road get improved to death. So I'd like to keep it narrow and keep the traffic slow. Thanks. Anthes: Thank you. Would any other member of the public like to speak to this item? This is Large Scale Development 06-2195 for Pratt Place Inn. Going once, going twice -- I'll close the floor to public comment and ask for the applicant's presentation. Good evening. Crafton: Good evening. My name is Matt -- Myres: Sir, excuse me for just butting in, but I believe your street section is upside down. Anthes: I also am not sure if the cameras can actually pick up drawings in that location. It's really better if you place things over here so the cameras can see them. Myres: You can actually probably cover up the -- Anthes: Or here. That's okay, too. (Display boards are being placed in the room.) Crafton: All right. Good evening. My name is Matt Crafton. I'm with Crafton, Tull & Associates, and we appreciate the opportunity to present this project tonight. I know we've been here a long time, we've heard lots of different comments, and so I'll try to be brief and try to address some of the issues that have been raised by the citizens tonight. You know about the project, so I'm going to go straight to the issues that have been raised Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 37 and try to address those. First of all, we want to emphasize that Mr. and Mrs. Archer are very much interested in keeping the character of the road that's out there now. You've been there. You've seen other pictures that have been passed out tonight. We have pictures here. It's a very unique setting in Fayetteville. It has a tree canopy over most of the street. The street is fairly narrow. It has open ditches right now. And they're very much interested in keeping that character that they have worked very hard to establish over a number of years. And so they do agree that the road needs to be at least 20 -feet wide for emergency vehicles, and they do not argue with that at all. They intend to do that and make sure there is at least a minimum of 20 foot of asphalt pavement out there. We have done some analysis on the drainage areas that drain to the roadside ditches, and in our analysis based on city topographic maps is that the -- the drainage area is very small that actually drain to the ditches. And we've submitted our analysis to City Engineering staff for them to review. There's -- from our estimates there's just not a great volume of water that comes down those roadside ditches because it's at the top of the hill, and again, it's a fairly small drainage area. At the top of the hill, about a quarter of an acre, drains into the roadside ditch. That's a small area. It's not paved, so most of the water is going to seep into the ground before it hits the ditches. And so we're looking at sizing the ditch to accommodate the storm based on that small drainage area. So the ditch would actually be very narrow and shallow is what we would propose, as opposed to the curb and gutter and the storm drains that has been proposed by city staff. The other aspect that we would like to bring to your attention was mentioned in your packet, that from Sang over to the west is a portion of -- that's currently City public right-of-way right now, but the Archers would propose to vacate that right-of-way and assume the maintenance of that part of the street themselves, and so it would become a private drive. That would eliminate the city's need to keep up that road in the future. We realize that's not a part of this request, but we did want to inform you that that is their intent and they will be pursuing that vacation of that right-of-way from Sang over to the west. The other part that has been discussed tonight by various people is the issue of a sidewalk versus the trail, and the Archers, again, in trying to maintain the tree canopy that is out there now, would very much like to construct a trail through the trees rather than knocking out so many of the trees on the side of the road. They would much rather build a trail winding through the trees and maintain those trees. So our conclusion is, due to the low volume of water coming down the street, it would not require much ditch on the side. So we're not going to be going in and knocking out trees on the side of the road. That's not the intent at all. The intent is to keep that ditch very narrow and very shallow just to accommodate the drainage that's coming in there. And then the trail would also, if we could do that, it would eliminate the need to knock down some of those trees that are out there now. And you've Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 38 heard from the coaches. Two different coaches stood before you tonight saying that they would very much prefer the mulch trail rather than a concrete sidewalk. I'll be happy to answer any questions about these issues. Mr. Archer is here, also, this evening and can answer anything else that you might have. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Crafton. Is that the end of the applicant's presentation, then? Archer: Yes, Julian Archer, 2115 West Markham in Fayetteville, the developer. And there's very little that I can add to the remarks that you've already heard. I think some people who have spoken in opposition may have been distracted by the terminology that has to be used when this issue comes before you. You are looking at an LSD application. It has nothing to do drugs, I think you know, but an LS, large scale development. And immediately, large scale development implies in most people's minds a subdivision, when in reality this is not a subdivision application for you, as you well know. And I hope all of the members of the audience are clear on this issue as well. This came forward before the City Council last fall, four separate sessions as a PZD or Planned Zoning development application, customized zoning to essentially keep the property as it is. And even though the project itself, the Inn and the restaurant and the barn usage, will be labeled commercial, it's not commercial in the usual sense of commercial along Sixth Street or other areas. So by the terminology that you're obliged to use going through this planning process, it's easy for people in their minds to hear the word commercial, to hear the words development, and think of it in terms of very traditional commercial operation and traditional development, which I think you all realize is not the case here at all. I would like to address just a few issues that have come forward. One is the noise issue. A year ago February we sent a letter around the neighborhood, saying, "If you hear any noise coming from the barn, call us." We have not had a single phone call. No noise has been reported to municipal authorities. We have received no correspondence from anyone about it. It's an alleged issue. It's a non - issue. There was, as I think all of you know, an event there a week ago Saturday, this Diamonds Denim and Dice event, and we who live closest to the barn, we naturally are sensitive to the noise. We don't want it in our own environment, and there was no noise to the neighborhood, and there has not been in the past as well. As far as protecting the tree canopy, we certainly are very much committed to protecting the tree canopy. Mr. Coger, who spoke to you at length about protecting it, has bought a lot that we created, a 2 1/2 -acre lot, without curb, gutter, or sidewalk. Anthes: Mr. Archer, would you please direct your comments to this development? Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 39 Archer: Yeah, yeah, okay. And where by the covenants we have imposed upon that, the tree canopy is protected. So what you're looking at is not a subdivision, it's not something that I think has ever been seen before in terms of what comes before the Planning Office and I hope that what we have proposed to you and what has been proposed to you by Crafton, Tull for the road widening, the ditches, and the mulch sidewalk will be the safest and the best and most aesthetic solution possible for this. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Archer. Let's start with some questions of staff to clarify some of the questions that have been posed to us. First of all, I believe the Subdivision Committee asked Engineering to go back and take a look and tell us whether you wanted to reevaluate or stay with the same recommendation on the north versus the south side of the street for the improvements. Can you speak to that, Mr. Casey? Casey: The recommendation for the improvements to be along the north side came from the -- the original layout -- the original typical section that was proposed had 20 feet in the center of the right-of-way, 10 -foot ditches on either side, and in a way to accommodate a sidewalk, which we were all recommending to serve the development, to be able to get that sidewalk in there with the least amount of impact would be to put it with a curb and gutter and the sidewalk adjacent to it. The north side came from -- the recommendation for the north side came to try to pull that in with the least amount of impact to the adjacent property owners. As you know, the street improvements are going to be crossing in front of an adjacent owner that does not -- is not associated with this project. So by putting it on the north side we hope to minimize the amount of disturbance in that area. The typical section that you have in the plans tonight, they do show a sidewalk; however, that's located outside of that right-of-way. In order to put that in to where it would be a city -owned -and -maintained sidewalk, the ditches will not work and this curb and gutter would be required to be able to accommodate that. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Casey. Another question -- would Mr. Pate address the issue of Condition of Approval Number 5, the language of that outdoor music condition and the recourse to the neighbors if that noise ordinance is violated? Pate: Sure. The City Council actually added several conditions and I've just sort of noted some of those for you. Conditions Number 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 22, those are items that the Planning Commission really doesn't have a whole lot of jurisdiction over in any type of large scale development application. So I just wanted to bring your attention to that. Those are conditions that are included because they were included as Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 40 part of the original Planned Zoning District and we merely put them on this report as well to ensure that everyone is knowledgeable that those conditions still remain with this project. Condition Number 5 specifically states, "No amplified outdoor music shall be permitted at any point on the property. The property is surrounded by single-family residences, and the potential for noise generation from the proposed development has been voiced as a concern." That was not a part of the original conditions of approval and was added by the City Council at the time of the zoning, and we would work as hard as we are able to if we're notified to ensure that requirement is still being met as part of the zoning -- part of the Planned Zoning District application. Anthes: Thank you. Let's see what else I've flagged here. Also, Mr. Pate, will you address offsite versus onsite improvements and the calculations for those new recommendations. Pate: When this item went before the City Council, again, all this work was done at that point in time. There were some traffic generation numbers actually generated by city staff, not the developer or applicant. There was a comparison, and if you read in your notes, I believe the numbers were -- I cited, utilizing trip generation rates, 446 vehicle trips per day based on the capacity of the barn, the proposed Inn, and the restaurant as opposed to and at that time approximately 1,981 vehicle trips per day, which would be a single-family development on the same site. That 446 vehicle trips per day, however, was based on that -- a potential use of the barn, especially every day. After that, subsequently, the City Council placed a condition that only four events per month are allowed on this particular site utilizing those facilities. So I do want to bring that to your attention, that 446 vehicle trips per day calculation is based on a full occupancy use of all the facilities on the site. So I would not anticipate that would be a daily occupancy or a daily traffic rate. In looking at that and looking at recommendations and the City Council minutes and conditions of approval, staff did make recommendations, as you well know, to improve, especially Markham Avenue west of Cross, because we went out and measured it onsite, the city engineer and I, and felt that that was the narrow section that needed improvement. And based on the vehicle trips per day, those were the offsite improvements that needed to occur. We have recommended them be on the north side to include a minimum 20 - foot wide driving surface, and at this point I would also recommend the drainage, curb and gutters, storm drains on the north side as well as a sidewalk adjacent to the curb, again, to minimize some of that disturbance. I would echo Matt's comments also, though, that all of these improvements need to be within either existing right-of-way or right-of- way that is dedicated by this property owner and that no grading extend outside of the property. That was voiced as a concern and is a very valid Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 41 concern by the property owner to the north. So, for instance, the cross- section on your last page of your submittal shows that trail. Again, I just want to echo if that were -- if that is the Planning Commission's decision to choose a 5 -foot mulch sidewalk, it would likely need to go on the south side of this property, which is owned by the Archers. Anthes: And what is staff's position when it comes to the soft surface? I don't know of any other place than Cross Avenue that I've ever seen one in Fayetteville that -- outside of a park. Casey: If you choose to approve a mulch sidewalk, I would recommend, as Jeremy just stated, that it be off the public right-of-way so it's not the responsibility of the City of Fayetteville to own and maintain. The recommendation for a concrete sidewalk comes from a maintenance standpoint, that it's something that's going to last and we're not having to go out there on a monthly or annual basis to replenish. Anthes: And given what we've seen happen with a mulch trail on Cross, which I believe is a relatively level area, can you talk about how that might change in this area of slope? Casey: With the slopes you're going to see increased amounts -- increased velocities of the storm water runoff, so with that you're going to see more erosion than you would down in the lower areas. So with -- as you know, the mulch will -- it's very easy to float that away, so that would be a maintenance concern. Anthes: And then with staff's recommendation about the cross -slope on the sidewalk, I think there was a comment made that there were some walks that were rather steep in the cross-section. Can you talk about on the width of the sidewalk how much fall there was — and how much would be allowed? Casey: To comply with our current ADA standards, it has to be no greater than a quarter -inch per foot of fall. It's 2 -percent cross -slope. And that would be what we would require for this new sidewalk. Anthes: Okay. And my last question, Mr. Casey, it looks like -- I mean, from the public comment -- those of you who know me better know that -- Casey: We can't hold you to that? Anthes: -- that's probably not my last question -- but has staff checked the Crafton, Tull's calculations for the volume in those ditches and the cross-section of that ditch that they're proposing? Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 42 Casey: Yes, they did provide those calculations as Mr. Crafton stated earlier. However, they are for the north ditch only. We do not have calculations for the south ditch, and the calculations do appear to be in order. Anthes: Okay. So could you repeat to us what that the profile of that ditch would be on the north? Casey: There are a couple of different cross-sections that were proposed. The western part, west of Evangeline, if I'm saying that correctly, was approximately 3 feet wide, 6 inches deep, and it gets a little bigger as it goes east. I think it goes up to 4 1/2 feet wide. I don't remember the depth right of the top of my head. Probably about 9 inches. Anthes: So the maximum width you're talking about isn't 3 1/2 to 4 foot width of ditch? Casey: Correct. Anthes: Which is -- Casey: That's just on the north side. We do not have any information on the south side at this time. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Casey. Casey: Yes. Anthes: Commissioners? Trumbo: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Trumbo. Trumbo: A couple of questions for Mr. Casey, also. Currently, if we required the curb and the underground -- cementing the ditch, putting it underground, how much more is that going to take up of the road that's currently there? I guess what I'm trying to get is, currently we have the sidewalk or the road, it drops off into an open ditch, and I'd say it's 4 feet, 5 feet -- that ditch -- across. If we do these improvements to the north side that are being recommended, how much more -- how much more to the north will this -- will that take up as far as disturbance caused by the construction? Casey: If constructed according to the plan in the last sheet of your plans that you have, these plans show all the widening on the north side, which -- that's Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 43 the first time that we've seen this proposal. Before, it's been centered in the street and you have new ditches on each side. This is pushing it all to the north, which I fear will get too close to the right-of-way line, if we put the improvements that we're recommending. We'll need to pull that away from the right-of-way line. Basically, if you've got that picture in front of you, from the 20 -foot asphalt pavement you're going to add 2 foot of curb and gutter and then another 4 feet of sidewalk before you taper out to match the slopes. So what they show here is 3 feet of ditch and approximately a foot and a half to 2 feet of just grassed area. So what our recommendation, if you put it in these conditions, will be a little wider. However, the original drawings that we've been looking at all along would be less because of the configuration of the overall -- the roadway. They have lessened the amount of the ditch, which changed it some. The main thing I need to point out with this is, you know, their section does not show the sidewalk at all, and to be able to physically construct that, you're going to need to have that curb there, which, you know, that will contain the water. Mixing the storm water runoff with a sidewalk is never a good idea. You have traction issues. You know, even if it's just wet, you could have people slip and fall, and then if it gets into a freezing condition it's going to be even worse. So the curb and gutter is necessary just to facilitate the sidewalk. The calculations that were shown that were submitted by Crafton, Tull show that the need for a storm sewer is probably not there. So we're not talking about an extensive amount of money to install a vast storm sewer system through here. So we're just asking that the curb and gutter and a sidewalk be installed. We'll probably need to modify what's submitted here to be able to contain that within the right-of-way, though. Trumbo: Okay. Thank you. I had another question. I'm not really clear on why the sidewalk couldn't be on the south side. You explained that. Could you go over that one more time? It seems to make sense in the sense that there is a sidewalk further to the east on the south side, so -- Casey: The recommendation originally came because the ditches that were shown on both sides. It was a lot of grading. Trumbo: Right. Casey: With the proposal of 3 -foot ditches, it lessens that quite a bit, but the need for the sidewalk is still there. Could it be moved to the south side? Sure. We could do that and we would still have those ditches shown on the north side as well. There still could be some concern with containing that within the right-of-way, though. So I'm not opposed to having that on the south side. When I visited the site, the north side looked like the obvious place to put it as far as actual construction. Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 44 Trumbo: Okay. Casey: And trying to make it work without doing as much without damaging the trees along the area. The south side, if you put the curb and gutter and the sidewalk on it, if the existing ditch is any indication of the amount of water that comes through there, more than likely you're going to have storm sewer installed in there as well. Trumbo: On the south side? Casey: Yes. Trumbo: Okay. Casey: And that's not based on any calculations. It's just an observation. Trumbo: Okay. A question about the trail, and I guess this is for staff. Who would be responsible for maintaining the trail if it wasn't in the easement? I'm assuming it's the owner's, the developer's. Pate: It would likely be, and as Matt mentioned, staff would recommend that if the Planning Commission chooses the mulch sidewalk option that they do that outside of the right-of-way. Potentially it could be meandered and not a straight path so that some of the slope could be reduced potentially. I would like to point out that I don't think the slope of Markham Road, the sidewalk would likely follow the slope. That probably wouldn't meet our standard ADA requirements for slope anyway. Potentially cross -slope, but not the actual horizontal slope. But that is the typical practice is to follow the grade of the street if there is no other option available. I would certainly not recommend doing that with a mulch sidewalk, however, because of the potential for the velocity of over -ground flow, as Matt mentioned. So, more directly, that would be the property owner's maintenance responsibility. Trumbo: And how would we share that they maintain that? It's kind of a unique situation. Pate: It is. I'm not sure that we have we have had that situation. We could certainly research and see if there would be a bond put up of some sort to do that, but it's not something I'm aware of. Clark: Are we talking -- Jill has had to step out for a moment, so she appointed, anointed, whatever, I'm it. Are we talking on the south side or the north side with the mulch trail? Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 45 Pate: We would likely recommend on the south side simply because, if you look at Page 55 and 56, the maps indicate that the Archers own the south side all the way down past Cross Avenue, but they do not own the portion of Ms. Alexander's property between Cross Avenue and, essentially, Evangeline Lane, or close thereabouts. Clark: Would an additional Bill of Assurance guaranteeing maintenance by the Archers if we did the meandering mulch sidewalk be a possibility? Williams: We would probably need to actually have a separate contract with them, and consideration for them would be we would not require them to build a sidewalk, and in exchange for that they would have to build and maintain this other trait upon their land, giving the city enforcement rights if they did not maintain it properly. Whether or not they're going to be amenable to that or not, I don't really know. But I think we would need something like that, an actual contract between them and the city, in order to enforce the fact that it's not on city property, but it is serving the public and must be maintained. Clark: Thanks. I'd like to know if the Archers are amenable to that. Archer: My I respond to Mr. Williams' proposal? That is an acceptable proposal for us, that we have a contract with the City to maintain it on our own and it does not necessarily have to be on city right-of-way. Clark: Okay. Williams: And, Mr. Archer, you're obviously aware that it would need to be on the south side of the road as opposed to the north side, because it would have to be on your property as opposed to somebody else's property? Archer: Yes. Williams: Okay. Archer: Well -- or it could cross -- well, anyway. Trumbo: Madame Chair. I think if we -- Archer: Just so long -- I would say so long as there is a sidewalk on one side or the other, we can work it out. I know we cannot, you know, volunteer Fran Alexander or Amber Alexander's property for that. Anthes: Commissioner Trumbo. Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 46 Trumbo: Since the intent of a sidewalk is for public use, I think it would be -- if everyone agreed that this other type of sidewalk was allowed, it would be necessary to have some kind of sign marking as well, showing that there is a trail into the sidewalk in this area, if anybody else was in favor of this type of sidewalk or trail. Anthes: Commissioner Myres. Myres: I'm kind of the same mind as my colleagues. I certainly agree that the street needs to be widened to make sure that emergency vehicles can get up and down it and so that the street width is consistent all the way up and down, but I hate the idea of putting in a concrete sidewalk as well. I think it would encroach so much on the trees that are already there. I spent quite a lot of years in Tallahassee, Florida, which is one of the champion places for canopy roads in the southeast and I know how wonderful they are to live with. So I would be much more in favor of a mulch trail and -- rather than a sidewalk. Build the street section the way it needs to be built, put in a curb and gutter if it needs it, but let the pedestrian traffic use a mulch sidewalk, if you want to call it that. One point I would like to bring up, we've been doing some research at work about various types of mulch, and one of the things that's been used quite often, especially in public spaces, is recycled tire mulch. So I don't even know that the mulch trail has to be wood mulch. It could be some alternate material that would be heavier and not as likely to float away in the rain. Anthes: I have a question to follow up on that. As far as I understand it, there is no recommendation from staff or offer by the applicant for any lighting. Is that correct? Pate: That's correct. Anthes: I guess my question is, how does the lack of lighting in this area affect staff's recommendation on a walk that would align with the street versus one that would wind back in the woods and would not be as visible, or I fear, as safe at night? Pate: I think that would certainly have an effect on what type of application this would have. I don't know if the Archers would be amenable to also lighting that path, but -- that's obviously additional expense, additional electrical -type work -- but ultimately we -- staff was attempting to pull the improvements along the street where a disturbance was already going to occur. We did not recommend typical street lights. This is a different situation. One of the conditions that is not reflected in any condition of approval is that this 72 acres, that is restricted to this use and this only. Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 47 This is the only development that can occur on that property and it's zoned accordingly. So that is a major condition of approval, that obviously the Planning Commission nor the City Council could put on an application unless it was offered by an applicant. And so in terms of looking at that in that regard, continuing the character that's been there for centuries, was something that was certainly important to City Council in approving this application. Anthes: And I believe that there were some comments at Subdivision Committee that the neighbors were not interested in seeing lighting there, and I would tend to agree with that, but I also want to make sure that what we're doing is providing a safe walk, and I think we need to keep that in mind. A question about the alignment of centerlines. This 20 -foot widening, you said that the street has kind of been moving back and forth. I believe Markham jogs quite a bit as it heads east and goes to Razorback Road. Is there any attempt to align centerlines in a consistent way on Markham? Casey: All that I have to go on right now is the typical section. That's that last sheet. That's what I was referring to. It appears that they're doing all their widening on the north side to get the full 20 feet. Without scaling this off, that looks like it offsets the existing centerline about 2 feet to the north. As far as alignment along -- Audience: (inaudible) Anthes: Matt, could you lean into your mike a little bit? Casey: As far as alignment along Markham, looking at their plan view, it appears that it's tying in nicely at Cross. The plans that I have do not show edge of pavement from their east, though, to be able to answer that properly. Anthes: I'm a little confused about where this road should go. I believe that I concur with staff's recommendation and a lot of the comments that were made by the public tonight, that the 20 foot is an appropriate width, certainly no wider. That allows the emergency access and egress. I think where that should be situated should try to improve the alignment of centerline and also minimize the disturbance to tree canopy. And so it seems like there's a little flexibility that could be worked out in the field about exactly where this needs to line up -- these recommendations, we may or may not recommend tonight -- and make sure that we're doing the best we can to minimize the impact on canopy. Casey: If I can respond to that, if your recommendation is for a mulch trail on the south side of the road, the typical section that they have shown in their plans would be my recommendation as far as where the widening occurs. Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 48 If you try to center the widening and get a little bit on each side, it's very difficult to construct. You're also looking at redoing the whole ditch on the south side. Where as planned, as shown on your plans, the widening would only affect one side, and we're talking about the 3- to 4 1/2 -foot - wide ditch that we're redoing instead of the larger ditch that's on the south side. So if the mulch trail is what you're looking for, what they show on their plans would be my recommendation. Anthes: In response to that and to follow up on some of the other Commissioners' comments tonight, I believe a mulch trail on this hillside is going to fail rapidly. And I'm concerned that it also doesn't provide in any way, shape, or form -- and I understand we have a slope -- ADA accessibility for a city sidewalk. That being said, I also am very sympathetic to the character of this neighborhood and what this road will -- and any other that we recommend -- will appear like as it's going up through the canopy, and therefore, I'm really concerned about white reflective concrete lining the sides of this road. I think it's important that we acknowledge that there will be additional traffic on this road at night and that we are charged with providing a safe and adequate means of egress. I am worried about the open ditches without any sort of barrier whatsoever because of that safety factor, and particularly because it's an unlit street and it's steep. However, I'm not sure that a curb and gutter and a stormwater system is necessarily the best way to go. And what I came up with, and it was about five minutes before I headed out for this meeting, so I apologize for bringing this late, but I looked at what we used to do on rural roads, and -- if you could pass one of those down to staff -- what I did was pull out this large book that's called America's National Park Roads and Parkways. And the reason I looked to the park system and what's been done before is that -- what I think we're doing by recommending an urban street pattern in this situation is that we really are making a transact violation. We've got a rural condition, but we have to provide for safety, and so I wondered if there was any other method to provide for the safety, but maybe in a way that you just provide a low wooden rural -looking rail that keeps you on the street, rather than a curb, a white -striped curb going up into the landscape. I thought, how has the park service accomplished ditches? And there are some sections here that show, sand and brick beds or stone beds for the water to run in rather than a concrete subsurface sewer system, storm water system, and also for a curb profile that might be lower than the standard kind of extruded curb profile. I apologize, Mr. Casey, for bringing this tonight, but in the interest of a discussion of the city standards or something that is, maybe, contrary, I was looking for some compromise. Is it completely outside of the city's ability to approve a roadside barrier in keeping more with a low, wood rail rather than a concrete curb and gutter, and that would allow the ditch to remain, but keep cars out of it? Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 49 Casey: Well, I think you certainly have the authority to do that. Normally, you see a request from the applicant as a waiver of our minimum street standards, but that waiver goes to the Planning Commission for approval. So if you vote for a waiver of that to allow something different, you know, that's certainly within your right. Anthes: And I'm sure the city attorney may have some comments for me about that -- about being the one that brought this here tonight. Like I said, I didn't think about it until just before the meeting. But we have an issue where we have more traffic introduced on the street, and the people using the sidewalk are not just the people that are running up and down the sidewalk, but there are also going to be people coming and walking from these neighborhoods and walking to events, walking to dinner at the hotel and restaurant, or participating in an event at the barn. We need to be able to accommodate safe passage for those people on some sort of a walk, and yet, just as I don't believe that the city should design its street system to accommodate the five days a year that the Razorbacks play football in town and the traffic is atrocious, I don't think we need to be designing this rural road -that dead ends into a mountaintop property that has a very limited amount of development proposed on it -by creating an urban street condition. Myres: Here, here. Anthes: So what does anybody else think? Clark: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: I am perfectly happy to vote on this tonight, but there seems to be more questions up in the air that I personally would like to have nailed down. I think you've made some really great suggestions. I love some of the ideas that I've just cruised through here, but I don't think we can mix or match tonight with any degree of certainty. We have issues about the trail and lighting, as well. We have the agreement that we hope to work out with the Archers about the mulch sidewalk, which I am a great fan of. We have questions about alignment of the centerlines, drainage calculations on the south side have not been done, and we need to figure out how to camouflage an urban street that's safe and passenger -friendly and people - friendly, but not make it look like an urban street. (Laughter) Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 50 Clark: And God knows I'm not going to do that tonight, but I think it could be done. But I -- and I hate to say this, because I know we've been doing this for a very long time, because this was the first PZD and the last PZD that went directly to Council, and we usually move a lot quicker -- but I would almost recommend, if people don't flinch too bad, that we table this tonight, bring it back as new business -- as old business in the very next Planning Commission with these issues worked out to some -- a better degree of certainty so we know exactly what we're voting for. I think we've heard some very good ideas tonight and I think there are some very good compromises that will make neighbors and the city happy and the developers happy, and I am very pleased -- I mean, I'm going to support this, I do believe, anyway, because the alternative would be anywhere from 288 to 1,200 homes if it was zoned RSF-4 and it were developed out fully, and that just scares the heck out of me. This is a beautiful piece of property. I'm a native of Fayetteville. I have been up there, probably illegally more times than legally, as a child, but it's beautiful and I'd like to preserve it. And for the first time since I've been on this Council, this Planning Commission, we're actually talking about preserving something that is our natural heritage, but it's also owned by private individuals who can do whatever the heck they want to with it. And these private individuals want to preserve it and make it, I think, better. But I would really like some of these uncertain areas to be ironed out so I know what I'm voting for specifically. And I think Matt has some work to do with some of these calculations. Maybe you'll be happier with them and more certain of them as well, if we could table this until the next Planning Commission. Anthes: To follow up on that, basically, I think what all the public comment has been tonight, and most of our discussion, if not all, has been about Condition of Approval Number 1, which is the determination of street improvements. Does any Commissioner see any problem with any other condition of approval, including commercial design standards, and anything else on our list? Myres: No. Lack: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Lack. Lack: As far as the additional conditions of approval, I didn't see anything in that. I did have a couple of other questions not related to the road. Anthes: Great. Can we take care of those? Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 51 Clark: Sure. Anthes: Okay. Lack: Looking at the PZD information, the dance hall was considered a conditional use, as well as recreational facilities were considered a conditional use, and I wondered if a conditional use has been processed for those activities on the site or if those were automatically grandfathered as a conditional use approval by the City Council's approval of the PZD. Pate: I know a specific conditional use permit has not been applied for for those types of applications. As noted there, however, the City Council went through hours of operation, noise, everything that the Planning Commission would typically look at as a conditional use. I would be -- to be honest, I would just have to check back into our City Council minutes and understand exactly what that criteria was, if it was expected to be brought back as a conditional use. I know that there were a number of conditions that were added to this application -- I believe nine or 10 conditions. Those primarily had to do with the barn. And one of those specifically stated that "Prior to submittal of a planned zoning district application" -- I'm sorry, "a large scale development application for this activity," that the barn had to be brought into code compliance for occupancy status. So by that very requirement, they had to make it an occupancy status structure to even submit this large scale development to you. So there may be some conflicting things in there. I'll just have to do a little research, to be honest, to answer that question more fully. Lack: Okay. Pate: Yes, that's what the zoning criteria states in our staff report currently, and as you mentioned. Detailed hours of operation, noise, etcetera, were addressed in conditions of approval by the City Council. Lack: And that -- I guess the dance hall was probably the obvious one, but we've also looked at conditional use for tennis courts in subdivisions. And I wonder if that -- if the tennis court and pool would qualify as recreational facilities, which are listed as requiring a conditional use. Pate: The ancillary structures, I believe, were all included as part of the uses by right because it's a commercial planned zoning district, so those were commercial uses that were allowed by right. Lack: Okay. I also, in reading through the minutes of the City Council deliberation on this issue, it was interesting that the vehicle trips per day projection, where we're looking at 446 vehicle trips per day, the Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 52 subdivision that could have been built at standard zoning, or at the zoning before this PZD was installed, was 1,981 trips per day, and so I think that even at that, that's an alarming difference and an alarming thought of what could have happened on this site and without the PZD, which certainly, you know, incites me to want to get behind this PZD and try to find ways to make it good and to find favor with it. I wondered about the -- is there a sunset clause on the PZD? I did find that we have time limits in which the PZD is valid if things are built out, or if the phasing proceeds as planned. Does that suggest -- I know this is the first one of these and the only one of these that we will see, I presume -- does that suggest that if this phasing does not pan out that we would revert back to the initial zoning? Pate: That is a City Council decision to make. The revocation of a planned zoning district goes back to the City Council for an ultimate decision, I believe is how our ordinance states. Of course, the applicants may choose not to develop fully the site that they proposed. The cabins may never occur, for instance, and so if it's not fully developed I don't believe that would be subject to those criteria. It is more typical, probably, that the City Council would zone it back to what it was originally, but again, only the City Council can choose to zone property, and I believe that's the way the ordinance was stated as well. Lack: So, you know, with that we get back to the idea of the street, I think, and one sticking point being the safety. I think it's a good development that I'm eager to get behind, but when I drive up and down the road and I see the sheer drop-off on the side of the road in the ditch that right now seems to be carrying a substantial amount of water, if the indication of the depth and the erosion in the ditch are to believed, and so I do think that that's something that we have to address for safety reasons. I'm concerned probably, for safety reasons, most with the south side in the trafficking down the hill where speeds are a little less controllable. And even with the barrier system, which I'm interested in exploring and I'm interested in seeing what the applicant would explore with that system as an alternative, I'm concerned about removing the walkway from the side of the road. As my guess of human nature is that the runners will likely still run on the road, and having a sidewalk adjacent to the road allows the opportunity to escape traffic and get onto a more safe surface. I would have a great concern as well with the mulch. I think that a large number of cross - members would be required to have any chance to keep the mulch in place for any period of time. I think that there would be a substantial maintenance issue, as mulch surfaces on this type of slope are not generally a good condition. I would ask, though, of staff if it would be possible to install an asphalt surface in lieu of a concrete surface on top of that storm drain side of the road. Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 53 Casey: Yes, that's possible. Either a concrete surface or an asphalt could be constructed. Lack: And we look at the asphalt surface now being an acceptable surface for the runners, so we would not be making the condition any worse on their knees, but we would be providing a place for escape from traffic, and I think that that's something that I would look to. And I believe that was the extent of my questions. Anthes: I would like to comment that I would also like to see an asphalt trail. In addition to what you stated, our city trail system is constructed as an asphalt trail system. We could use the same details as far as installation. That has been very successful detail with our city trail system. And on top of that, the dark color of that asphalt does not provide that reflective stripe up through the trees. It's much less noticeable and a lot softer. So if the city engineering department would be amenable, I would rather see that than a mulch trail that I think will fail. And I believe it will provide the same kind of visual consistency as well as a softer walking surface. Harris: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Harris. Harris: I'd like to signal my probable approval of the same, of the asphalt trail. I really do have concern with a restaurant capacity of 60 and an event barn capacity of 376 that if we define the narrow -- if we define public, the public that will run on this mulch trail, the public becomes a very narrow term there, because I think we do have to meet ADA standards for this. I would not like to see us put a trail up there, a sidewalk, quote, unquote, that did not do that. And my understanding is, of course, that an asphalt walkway would meet, Mr. Pate, ADA standards, correct? Pate: Yes. Harris: So I would really like to signal that, and I, too, am thrilled with the preservationist aspects of this project, so I absolutely want to find a negotiated ground here. Anthes: May I ask if any other Commissioner has any other comments regarding Conditions of Approval 2 through 31 or any other parts of the staff report outside of the determination of street improvements. So everybody is okay there? Then I have a question of the applicant. Mr. Archer, we have a recommendation before us by city planning staff for -- as stated in Condition of Approval 1, which takes into account a 20 -foot standard Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 54 street section, curb and gutter on the north, and a 4 -foot concrete sidewalk. As expressed by Commissioners tonight, we are looking for a compromise position between what staff has recommended and perhaps the mulch trail that you have recommended. Are you willing to work with staff and wait for the next Planning Commission meeting to decide this, or would you rather have us vote on the conditions as they're written in the report? Archer: We're very willing to wait and work with the staff. Anthes: Excellent. Motion: Clark: Great. Then I will make a motion that we table Large Scale Development 06-2195 until the very next Planning Commission, where it will be old business and at the top of the agenda, for staff and the Archers and the applicant to work out very specific issues all relevant to Condition of Approval Number 1. Myres: And I'll second. Anthes: We have a motion to table by Commissioner Clark, a second by Commissioner Myres. Is there -- Clark: I would like to add one more thing. Anthes: Sure. Clark: I would also like for Jeremy to research the conditional use issue that you were just talking about and get some clarification on that. And is it possible that this asphalt trail could be on the south side as opposed to over the north? Explore that as well. I think asphalt is a good idea, but I really don't -- this development has 83 percent trees and you're preserving 81 percent of it, so I really want to stay with that number and not hurt any more trees. So that's my full motion. Casey: Madame Chair. Anthes: Mr. Casey. Casey: Just a question for clarification for when we meet with the applicant. Are you talking about an asphalt trail within the right-of-way, or pushed back outside the right-of-way? Clark: Yes. Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 55 (Laughter) Casey: Thank you. Anthes: If you would like to hear from all of us on that, we can tell you. I would like to see it within the right-of-way so we're sure it's maintained and I would echo Commissioner Lack's comments about having a way to jump off the road and a safe place to go, and not be putting it in a situation where we may need to require lighting for safety. Now, there might be other people who have different opinions here. Clark: So yes is a good answer to that. Casey: Well, staff recommendation is going to be within the right-of-way, but we'll look at both. Clark: That's good. Be in a good mood when you talk about this. And also the alignment of the centerlines and drainage calculations for the south side and how to camouflage the street. That's my motion. Anthes: Anybody else have anything to say? Commissioner Harris? Harris: No. Anthes: No? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to table LSD 06-2195 until the next Planning Commission meeting carries with a vote of 7-0-0. Pate: Madame Chair. Anthes: Yes. Pate: Just while everyone is here, I just want to make sure the public is aware that this item has been tabled to the next Planning Commission meeting and a date specific, so there will not be a further notification because of that. Anthes: Okay. Does anybody happen to know that particular date? Pate: September 11th. Anthes: September 1 Ith. Oh, great night. Okay, but one we won't forget. Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 56 CUP 06-2203: Conditional Use Permit (BAUGH, 290): Submitted by DIXIE MANAGEMENT & INVESTMENT for property located at 127 W SUNBRIDGE DRIVE. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 1.25 acres. The request is to expand the existing, approved childcare facility. Anthes: Our next item of business tonight is Conditional Use Permit 06-2203 for Baugh. Can we have the staff report, please? Morgan: Would you like for me to proceed or wait? Anthes: Maybe you ought to wait. (Noise from audience leaving.) Anthes: I'm having a request for a break. Let's take a five-minute break. Break Anthes: All right. Will everyone take their seats, please. Could everybody please take their seats, and let's get that back door closed if we could. Okay. Ms. Morgan. Morgan: Yes. This next application is for a Conditional Use Permit request submitted by Mrs. Baugh. The applicant had gotten approval for a conditional use for a childcare facility at 127 Sunbridge Drive in 2004. As you can see on Page 2 of the staff report, the approval was for 35 children, ages 0-2, occupying 1,500 square feet of the structure. The applicant -- there were two other tenants in the building. One has left and one has recently stated that she will moving. And the applicant is now requesting to expand the childcare facility into the entire 6,150 -square -foot structure, with a total of 94 children, ages 0 to 5 years of age, with 24 employees. The site is developed, has sufficient amount of parking, and the other structures on the site are utilized for office use. Staff did not find that the addition of children will in any way compromise traffic safety on this property and we find that the use is compatible with the office uses. We have not received any public comment either for or against this application. Staff is recommending approval of this proposal with six conditions. The conditions in your staff report have been slightly revised and I submitted a new cover sheet, or Page 1, prior to the commencement of this meeting, which reflect approval for 94 children and includes a condition that the applicant will need to comply with all Arkansas licensing requirements for this application. We are recommending approval. Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 57 Anthes: Thank you, Suzanne. Would any member of the public like to address this Conditional Use 06-2203 for Baugh? Seeing none, I'll close the public comment section and ask for the applicant's presentation. Good evening. Baugh: Good evening. My name is Melissa Baugh and I'm the owner of Sunbridge Early Learning Center. I have seen all the recommendations and I'm okay with everything. We offer a wonderful facility for parents and children. We've been spotlighted on the news because we offer Internet cameras, safety on the door -- they have to enter a code to get in. I was just told last night that we were on the news again, and I had no idea, so if you all have any questions for me I'll be happy to answer them. Anthes: Thank you very much. Commissioners? Actually a quick question, Suzanne. On Paragraph 1 of the revised report, Recommended Motion Item 1, "children in the 0 to 5 age group if taken in shifts of no more than 20 children at one rime." On Page 9 of the report it talks about 22 children. Can you clarify that? And that's in the letter. Morgan: I believe the applicant is stating that 22 is the state requirement. The state requires 75 square feet of outdoor play area per child. Our requirements are more stringent, requiring 80 square feet. So our condition is that no more than 20 at one time in the 1,600 -square -foot play area. Anthes: Okay. And that's based on City of Fayetteville requirement of 80 square foot per child? Morgan: Yes. Anthes: Okay. Thank you. Trumbo: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Trumbo. Trumbo: A question for Suzanne. Do you think that there's enough parking to handle the volume that's going to be brought by the addition of all these extra children here? My main concern is the hours of drop-off and pick- up. Baugh: I've extended the hours, to actually help with that, to 6 o'clock. Trumbo: Do we have enough parking in place to accommodate all of that if it all hits in a rush like I imagine it does? Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 58 Morgan: I'm not sure the facility is more of a drive -up type facility or a park, but with the various times of pick-up, I would say from 3:30 to 6:00, depending on parent schedules, I believe that it should be sufficient. Based on our ordinance requirements of one per 10 children and one per employee, the applicant -- or the site does have sufficient parking, is actually -- there's actually four more spaces on the site than would be required with this business as well as the other businesses on the property. Trumbo: Okay. Pate: If I might add to that, too. With this proposal you have before you, that entire building now would be this applicant's essentially, so the parking normally required for those other operations would no longer be required, so that will provide extra parking for that as well. Trumbo: Thank you. Clark: Madame Chair. Anthes: I think Commissioner Myres -- Clark: Oh, go ahead. Myres: No, I counted the parking spaces while you were talking and I believe there are 36 or 37 immediately -- Baugh: I think there's 42. Myres: Is there -- Well, I believe there's at least 37. Trumbo: There's enough? Baugh: Yes. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: A question for whoever. It says, "prior to issuance of Certification of Zoning Compliance." You've got to get certified by the State. You're already certified, right? Baugh: Yes, ma'am. We've already been certified up to 60. It's actually in Little Rock. We're waiting for the -- the certificate takes a long time to get here. Clark: Okay, but they've already reviewed everything and -- Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 59 Baugh: Yes. Clark: Okay. Baugh: And then the doctor just told us she is leaving, so now we're asking for 94, because we're going to take the whole building. So I have -- Clark: It's a compound. Okay. Baugh: Yes. Motion: Clark: Then with further ado I'll move we approve Conditional Use 06-2203 with stated conditions as read. Trumbo: I'll second. Anthes: We have a motion to approve by Commissioner Clark, a second by Commissioner Trumbo. I need to ask a question of staff. It looks like the stated hours of operation are 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. What is allowed by ordinance? Morgan: There are no specific time requirements for a childcare facility. That is different if it's a home occupation childcare facility. There are specific hours. So in this instance there are no set time requirements by ordinance. Anthes: But as a conditional use permit, the hours of operation is something this Commission can talk about, right? Morgan: That's true. That has been discussed before in other circumstances. Anthes: Would the Commissioners like to add hours of operation to the conditions of approval so that we know that that stays consistent, or do you think there's a need for it? ? They're not in here? Anthes: No, the letter from applicant states that their hours of operation are 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., but it's not listed in our conditions of approval, and often they are in conditional uses. That's what I was asking. Clark: Madame Chair. If this were in a neighborhood, I would be inclined to do this. This is in a commercial area and, quite honestly, daycares, in my opinion, tend to close too soon for some parents, especially who are Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 60 working second and third shift like a lot of our employees. So if you want to run this sucker until midnight, I can fill you up with just our employees' children. So if you were in a neighborhood, I would do that, because I understand traffic in neighborhoods. But this is Sunbridge. I mean, it never sleeps, so I'm inclined to -- Baugh: And there's three entrances and exits. Clark: -- I'm inclined to leave it as it is, and there's no residential really anywhere close except for the little apartment complexes on each side. Baugh: That's even far away. Anthes: Sounds good. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve CUP 06-2203 carries with a vote of 7-0-0. Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 61 CUP 06-2206: Conditional Use Permit (MENDENHALL, 324): Submitted by DEBBIE MENDENHALL for property located at 2241 WOODLARK LANE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY- 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.37 acres. The request if for a home occupation to provide child care. Anthes: Our twelfth item this evening is Conditional Use 06-2206 for Mendenhall. May we have the staff report? Morgan: This is a request for a home occupation to have a childcare facility in a home. There are more regulations with regard to these types of requirements, and I'll go through that in a moment. This property is located on Woodlark Lane, and in 1981 the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit for a very similar request for a home occupation for a childcare facility for up to five children. These type of requests and conditional uses must be renewed every year by the Zoning and Development Administrator. Obviously, that fell through the cracks without other approval. The house was sold with the understanding that this use was approved; therefore, the current owner has conducted a childcare facility or a home occupation for childcare facility in the home. As a result of a complaint from a neighbor, the applicant has formally requested approval for this use. Notifications were sent out and staff did receive 13 replies with replies stating that they do not have objections or that they are in favor. One of the replies is within your -- responses is within the staff report. The applicant proposes to have no more than six -- actually, four to five children. The ordinance does not allow for more than six within the home. The facility and the play yard all meet the requirements set forth in the ordinance for these types of uses. Staff finds that this use will not significantly increase traffic in this area. The applicant proposes hours of operation from 7 o'clock in the morning to 5:30 in the evening. This particular type of request does have specific hours of operation within the ordinance. From 7:30 to 5:30 is what is allowed, but the Planning Commission can vary that. Staff is in favor of allowing this operation to open 30 minutes before required by ordinance, finding that that additional time will allow the parents who drop off children more opportunity to access Mount Comfort Road, which is the only roadway right now accessible to this neighborhood, when there's potentially less traffic in the morning. Other issues and items that we have addressed in the conditions of approval for this application, which we are recommending in favor of, are in regard to compliance with all Arkansas licensing requirements. I have also with this application submitted a revised conditions of approval, one of being Condition Number 2, which requires compliance with the Department of Health and Human Services conditions. Also, with every conditional use permit we do look at sidewalks. In the previous application, sidewalks were already existing. That was a developed subdivision for office use. With this subdivision it Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 62 was developed for residential use without sidewalk fronting this particular lot. The sidewalk coordinator did review whether or not he would recommend construction or money in lieu, and in this case, since there is no sidewalk on this street, recommends money in lieu. The ordinance states that that amount for a single-family home is $630.00. So we have included that as a condition of approval. It is Number 7. And overall, we are in favor of this request with seven conditions of approval. Anthes: Thank you, Ms. Morgan. Would any member of the public like to address this Conditional Use 06-2206 for Mendenhall? Please come forward, state your name, and give us your comments. Ibrahim: My name is Joseph Ibrahim. I live on 2225 Woodlark. It's about 15 feet south of 2241, which that's -- I mean, anybody coming from Wood -- or, I mean, Mount Comfort Road, they have to come through my -- or in front of my house and they have to drop the kids next door, and when they leave, they have to leave the same way, which that creates more traffic there. Plus, when there's more than two cars or three cars, their mother come and drop the kids, sometime they park their cars in front of the street, which they're blocking my driveway and that's taking about a minute, two minutes, to get in my driveway when I'm trying to get in. And also I've got two kids already going to school, and they're 5 and 6. And within the next two years I'll have another two. That will make them four kids. And the bus, when they come and pick them up, they pick them up from the corner of Meadowlark and Woodlark, which that is where the bus stop, and that's in front of their house, and that's where the cars are going in and out to drop their kids. And also, a few times I seen the homes, a few accidents happen there. And imagine -- I had -- one day there was a truck -- a dump trucks coming through there, which he live there and that's where he is staying, and when he is coming and there's a lady backing off and they almost run into each other. And if my kid is standing there and the dump truck don't have brakes, he kill one of them, and that make me upset. Before, I didn't say anything about it because I had no kids going to school until last year, which I was watching it a little bit closer until I see what was going on. But now I have two kids. When I see what's going on there and seen some jam up in the traffic and creating a lot of traffic, I started really caring about my kids, my kids, their own safety there, and I don't want going to work or going somewhere and someone calling me, calling -- telling me my kid is in the hospital, and I don't think it's -- and this area is zoned as a resident, is not as a business. And there's more places to own a business than being in that area. And as I said, it's my house, the first house, and that's where they have to go, coming and going. And if they are going to take another route, how am I going to guarantee if they come in from the south or from other road going to Dove Street, coming from the other way. How I am going to guarantee Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 63 in the future they not going to be taking the same road, but they taking right now from Mount Comfort Road. So I'm looking for my safety of my kids. And -- I can't remember -- I'm here as not for losing or winning, I'm here for, as I said, safety of my kids, and also have to raise my voice, because I see, as you know, I'm not from United States, but I have the right to like anybody else in the United States. I'm U.S. citizen. I have to raise my voice. I have to see these problems. I have to save my kids. And if anybody don't like me because of my religion, which did happen, I'm not going to go through that, the problems we had with my neighbors and some other people. And because of my religion or my culture or whatever, that doesn't make me I got sit back and watch my kids get killed because I cannot say anything because I'm from different country. That's not going to happen. I'm here to raise my voice and I'm going to say what I have to say to keep my kids alive. And as I said, I'm not going to bury my kids, I want my kids to bury me before I bury any of them. So if you have any questions -- Anthes: Okay. Thank you. Did you say your last name was Bryan? Ibrahim: No. Ibrahim. Anthes: Ibrahim. Thank you. Would any other member of the public like to address this conditional use permit for Mendenhall? Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public comment and ask for the applicant's presentation. Mendenhall: Hello. My name is Debbie Mendenhall, and I'm the applicant. And I have reviewed with Suzanne all the conditions. We talked about Condition Number 7, the money in lieu of the sidewalk construction. I would like to appeal that and I have (handing document to Commission) -- I would like to appeal the sidewalk coordinator's decision to charge the $630.00 for the sidewalk fee. I respectively request that the Planning Commission waive or reduce this amount, because there are currently no sidewalks on either side of our street. The driveway is the primary access to the house. Our home and street was producted in 1978 and I do not think it's a likely candidate for sidewalk improvements or addition. Because of this reason, I feel that the sidewalk fee is unwarranted in my situation. Anthes: Thank you. Is that the end of your presentation? Mendenhall: Yes, ma'am. Anthes: Okay. We'll get back with you. A couple of questions of staff. What are the requirements as far as coming and going off of this site? How do Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 64 children get dropped off, picked up, and where do those cars typically park? Morgan: There is a driveway in which four cars can park. Perhaps the applicant could state exactly how -- the day-to-day operations of that. Anthes: If you would? Mendenhall: Yes, ma'am. We -- they currently use the driveway to park and drop off children. Sometimes they do park in -- depending on the rain, to park in the front of the house and come directly from the street to the house. Anthes: And do you experience any problem with cars blocking driveways of adjacent property owners? Mendenhall: No, ma'am. It's never -- I've never been made aware of that situation. Anthes: And the application is for six children, as I understand it. Is that right? No more than six children? Morgan: I believe the applicant's letter stated four to five. Our ordinances allow a maximum of six, so in being lenient with the ordinance, that is what the conditions of approval state, but I'm sure the applicant could address if five is the maximum. That might be able to change. Mendenhall: Yes, ma'am. I primarily keep children from 6 weeks to 3, 4 years old. So, no, five -- being the only employee, five will be the max I have. Anthes: Five children. Okay. I'm just trying to think this through. If we've got five children coming and going and we've got parking spaces for four cars. Myres: When do they all arrive? Anthes: Do they arrive in staggered times or do they arrive all at once? Mendenhall: Yes, ma'am. Some are -- the earliest, why we had to use the 7 o'clock time instead of 7:30, is because she is a school teacher and she needs to be at the school, so she comes earlier. Anthes: Okay. And a question of staff or the city attorney. If an adjoining neighbor experiences their driveway being blocked by somebody coming to this business, what is their recourse? Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 65 Williams: Well, certainly, it's illegal to block somebody else's driveway. That's not a legal parking place. But I would think that coordination with the neighbor is probably the best thing to do so that -- you would need to make sure and inform your parents where they should park and that they certainly cannot park in front of your neighbor's driveway and restrict his access in and out. And a lot of that should be able to be done through just being good neighbors with each other and trying to make sure that there is no ill effects upon him or his family from your childcare facility. As you're aware, if you are granted this conditional use, it is only a one-year conditional use, and if there are complaints because of -- there are problems from it, such as your neighbor's driveway getting blocked, well, then, that could lead to another hearing here in the future where you could lose your conditional use. So I would hope that you would work with your neighbors and make sure that you don't have any ill effects upon their use of their homes, and I think that that's probably the best way, rather than -- you know, you to try to call the police for a parking violation, and they're gone before the police ever get there, so that's not a very good solution. The solution is working together with your neighbor and make sure you don't have an adverse impact on them, and if that doesn't work I'm sure your neighbor is going to communicate to the Planning Department that there is a problem, and that would make it less likely for you to be able to get a conditional use and continue this in the future. Anthes: To follow up on that as well, has staff observed any conflicts at the school bus stop in relation to this project? Morgan: I was not aware that there was a school bus stop at this location, so I'm sorry, I didn't look into that. Anthes: Would that change your recommendation in any way? Morgan: No, it would not. Anthes: Commissioners? Clark: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: I have a question for Ms. Mendenhall. Is your driveway -- it can park four vehicles? Are there vehicles -- do you have vehicles that impede that or -- Mendenhall: I have my vehicle. My van is there. Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 66 Clark: So three other cars can pull in most any other day? Mendenhall: Yes, ma'am. Clark: I understand neighbors' concerns about their driveways being blocked. I would assume you're going to tell your parents that that's not a good thing to do and not to do it, because, if not, you can be cited and lose your conditional use. As long as everybody understands that, then I'm happy with it. Anthes: Do any Commissioners have comments about Condition Number 7, the sidewalk fee? And staff, will you tell us what commonly happens in these instances. Pate: Sure. Staff is recommending that a fee as opposed to construction of a sidewalk occur in this location. Pursuant to Chapter 171, which is our sidewalk and streets chapter, the City Council has already by that ordinance determined that the city will accept, as a roughly proportional impact for a single-family home, $630.00. That's where that fee is coming from. It's not just a number that came up with this application. And so that is what is a recurrent type of development, a single-family home. That's the roughly proportional impact that was determined by the City Council when they passed this ordinance. An applicant through a conditional use process, all conditional use processes, require construction of a sidewalk or a fee in lieu of construction thereof. If a developer or applicant produces evidence that the number of persons served is different in this particular case than a normal single-family residence, then the Planning Commission does have the right to either reduce or waive that fee. I believe it actually says, "the Planning Commission -- an owner or builder may appeal the sidewalk administrator's refusal to grant a waiver or the administrator's determination of the amount of contribution in lieu of construction to the Planning Commission pursuant to" our appeals chapter, and that's the letter that was submitted to you earlier. So they have provided that information to you as an appeal from that particular condition of approval. Williams: The only comment I would have on that -- I think that's all correct -- the one thing that might set this apart from a normal conditional use request is the fact that this has been a childcare facility for a long time, before we ever started requiring sidewalks. And, of course, what you're looking at is what is the rough proportional impact to the city sidewalk needs of this conditional use. And if it was a very first conditional use and never had a childcare facility here before, then obviously I think what the sidewalk administrator had said, the $630.00, would be prima facie a fair amount in this particular case. However, I am a little bit concerned, because back as Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 67 far as 1981 the city did grant a conditional use to have a childcare facility here, to watch children there, and so any impact that the city's infrastructure needs it had occurred back in 1981. Now, I guess it hasn't been constant, because that's why she's back here to ask for a conditional use. They -- it was not renewed administratively or for some other reason, but that is one thing you might want to take into account is that for a long time there has been the same impact upon the city, and normally you can charge for sidewalks or for streets or something like that if there is a new impact, but not for something that has happened long ago, prior to the time when we were requiring sidewalks. That's why this whole subdivision was built without sidewalks, because back in 1981 and before, sidewalks were not required. So that's just something else to think about. This is a somewhat unique situation because we have the evidence that 20 years ago, 25 years ago, that this was in fact a childcare facility back then. Anthes: If that conditional use lapses and it comes back, is that considered an entirely new request? Williams: I think for the purposes of a conditional use it's probably considered entirely new. She must have a conditional use or she cannot operate. However, I do think when you look back at the impact of having children at that facility as opposed to just having a house there, which obviously, she would not have to pay for a sidewalk because it was built a long time ago when we didn't require them, I think it's one factor to consider, maybe not the only factor. This is a strange situation. But it's something that you ought to think about is the fact that there have been a child -- there has been a childcare facility here for quite awhile, and I don't know how long. You might want to ask her more of the history. Anthes: And if has been operating without a conditional use, we might not -- she might not want to tell us that. I don't know. Myres: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Myres. Myres: Maybe Jeremy can answer this question. Under what circumstances will or would the rest of the neighborhood have to ante up for the sidewalk? Pate: At this point in time that neighborhood is a fully built -out neighborhood, so I don't believe, unless the conditional use request was requested in a single-family home, that there would not be a sidewalk required. Myres: Okay. Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 68 Anthes: I'm trying to think of similar requests we've had lately, and to my knowledge, we usually assess the sidewalk. Myres: But it's one house in a neighborhood of, I don't know how many houses, that are likely not going to be assessed for a sidewalk that may or may not ever be built. Williams: Well, this would be a legitimate request, certainly, by the city if there had never been a childcare facility there, because they would be adding an impact to this neighborhood by having five additional children in there. And so I think that would be legitimate in most circumstances. In this one circumstance where there has been historically a childcare facility here, that's the one thing that gives me pause. Trumbo: Madame Chair. Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Trumbo. Trumbo: I believe a few months ago we had a duplex come before us on Hollywood Avenue and it was no longer allowed by right and we required -- we did go ahead and change the zoning to allow them to rebuild if necessary, but we required them to put in a sidewalk. So I absolutely think it's too much, but on the other hand it's kind of what we've been doing in other situations where nonconforming uses come back or a conditional use. So I would probably be inclined to go ahead an approve the conditional use but recommend that the money in lieu be paid as the city staff is recommending, based on the fact that we've done that to other uses. Clark: I remember the duplex on Hollywood, but, Mr. Pate, weren't there already -- didn't we make them build and connect sidewalks? Trumbo: Yes. Clark: I mean, there were sidewalks already in that area, weren't there? Trumbo: It goes nowhere. Clark: Oh, did it go nowhere? Trumbo: Yeah. Clark: God, we're good. Trumbo: It's silly. Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 69 Clark: I know it's very silly and my inclination is, keeping in mind you can appeal, as everybody does, a conditional use decision that we make directly to the Council, I'm going to be the voice that says I think it's silly to assess. I know the rules, I know the regulations, but you've been in business for 25 years? And how old are your kids that you baby-sit? Mendenhall: 6 weeks to 4 years. Clark: So they're really running those sidewalks, aren't they? Yeah, that's what I thought. So I would just assume just kind of be realistic and, I guess, rational and not require this specific small business to put in another 600 - and -some -odd dollars that I'm sure -- $630.00, which I'm sure would take a hit out of the budget. I mean, I understand that that's the rule, but if we pass it, I encourage you to appeal it to Council. Pate: Madame Chair. Clark: The first time I -- Anthes: Mr. Pate. Pate: Conditional uses cannot be appealed by the applicant. It has to be two aldermen in that Ward -- Clark: Well, yeah. Williams: And a third alderman outside the Ward. So it's very difficult and very few conditional uses ever appeal to Council. Clark: Pshaw, you say that. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Myres: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Myres. Myres: I have to agree with Commissioner Clark. I think in this particular situation, where we have an entire neighborhood with no sidewalks and no promise or even probability that any other sidewalks will be built in this neighborhood, I don't want -- I don't even want to see somebody giving money in lieu of sidewalk construction. That probably will never happen or possibly will never happen. I would like to see that payment reduced to zero. Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 70 Anthes: Commissioner Harris. Harris: Well, I'm interested in the precedent for this, and certainly, I sympathize with both the request and also the rationale that I'm hearing so far. At the same time, it seems to me we constantly ask people for these sorts of assessments and everybody has a good reason for not wanting to do it. However, -- so I guess I'm just asking and throwing it back on, and, Madame Chair, you posed the question a moment ago. You were trying to in your own mind remember a similar situation. Anthes: I posed that question because it seems to me that almost every time we get one of these conditional uses for a childcare facility we get the request to eliminate the sidewalk assessment. To my knowledge, we almost always charge it. And I think of maybe one place over on Mount Sequoyah we may have reduced it slightly, and that could be an erroneous memory. It's way back. I'm intrigued by what the city attorney said in that this was permitted some time ago, and yet, I also know that that conditional use has not been renewed annually like it should have, and I'm worrying that we're in some way rewarding them for illegally operating a business without a conditional use permit in a neighborhood by waiving this fee, so I'm a little -- I'm torn. Myres: Madame Chair, can I ask another question? If this fee is assessed or a fee is assessed and money is put into escrow and -- is there a time limit? Pate: One year. Myres: So if no sidewalk is built within a year, then she gets her money back? Williams: The sidewalk will be built, it will be built as close to this area as possible, but our sidewalk coordinator makes sure that the sidewalks near schools and parks, things like that, were to our highest priority, get the use of this money, so I would think that the money would be used within a year. Myres: Okay. Anthes: And it has to be used within a certain distance, right? Pate: It's just in a close proximity to this area. Motion: Clark: Madame Chair, to get us off dead center, I'm going to make the motion that we approve Conditional Use 06-2206 with the first six conditions of approval as indicated. Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 71 Anthes: Okay. We have a motion to approve, striking Condition 7. Do I hear a second? Lack: I will second. Anthes: A second by Commissioner Lack. Is there further discussion? Trumbo: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Trumbo. Trumbo: I'm going to vote against this motion. I believe that staff's recommendation is correct. I don't know of any other situation where we waived sidewalk -- money in lieu -- in any other situation, so I'm going to go ahead and vote against. I understand your concerns, though. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Commissioner Harris. Harris: Madame Chair. I'm sorry, I just need point of clarification. I think it's because I took my glasses off. Commissioner Trumbo, so what you're saying is you're going to vote against what Commissioner Clark just -- so you're asking for Number 7 to be a part -- Trumbo: Yes. Harris: -- and you would be voting in favor -- Okay. Clark: See, my strategy is if it wins it's okay; if not, we'll come back and approve. Harris: Gotcha. Thank you. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve CUP 06-2206 with only six conditions of approval fails with a vote of 4-3-0 with Bryant, Myres, Lack and Clark voting yes and Harris, Trumbo and Anthes voting no. Williams: So someone that voted no needs to do a motion to reconsider if you want to be able to still consider the conditional use. Motion: Anthes: So moved. I have a motion to reconsider. Do we need a second on this? Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 72 Williams: Yes, and a vote. Trumbo: Second. Anthes: We have a motion by Commissioner Anthes, a second by Commissioner Trumbo to reconsider. Will you call the roll? Clark: Point of clarification. Are we voting to reconsider or we voting for the ordinance as stated? Williams: No. You're voting to reconsider. Clark: Just to reconsider? Okay. Roll Call: The motion to reconsider CUP 06-2206 carries with a vote of 7-0-0. Anthes: I just want to clarify for audience members and for the applicant. The conditional use permits require five affirmative votes, not just a simple majority, and that's what happened. Motion: Clark: May I, Madame Chair, make the motion we approve Conditional Use 06- 2206 with all seven conditions as stated. Trumbo: Madame Chair, I'll second. Anthes: We have a motion by Commissioner Clark, a second by Commissioner Trumbo to approve with the conditions as stated. Is there farther discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve CUP 06-2206 with all conditions of approval carries with a vote of 7-0-0. Anthes: Thank you. Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 73 CUP 06-2208: Conditional Use Permit (MOORE, 409): Submitted by KELLY & MAX MOORE for property located at 1793 N APPLEBURY PLACE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY- 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.59 acres. The request is for a detached second dwelling unit. Anthes: Our thirteenth item this evening is Conditional Use Permit 06-2208 for Moore, and this one is Jesse's. Fulcher: This is a conditional use request for a detached second dwelling unit located at 1793 North Applebury Place. The property is zoned RSF- 4 and actually is a quite large tract. It contains approximately 0.6 acres. There is an existing single-family structure on the property that was built in 1965 and a detached workshop that's approximately 800 square feet that was built in 1992. The applicants are requesting to convert this workshop into a second dwelling unit. The unit would consist of a kitchen, living room, bathroom, and a single bedroom. There are currently two separate driveways: one on the north portion of the property which serves the primary residence, and then a second gravel drive which provides access to the workshop. This is probably a little different than our other detached second dwelling units in the fact that the building is already there. Typically they're requesting to build a new structure, meet quite a few different architectural standards within the second dwelling unit chapter. In this case, they're just converting an existing structure, so we know exactly what it looks like, its exact location, the exact size, and the type of -- the number of bedrooms in here also. Really, the only changes other than interior work, obviously, converting this from a workshop to a livable unit is just to paint the outside, and then staff also has a recommendation to have the drive paved. Staff is supportive of this request based on a few reasons. One, the amount of traffic generated from this would be very minimal. We're looking at a one -bedroom unit. Also the amount of parking is there. There's adequate parking. The driveway is approximately 40 -feet long with a place for two cars immediately in front of the structure and then you have the rest of the driveway out to the street from that point. Second reason is visibility of the structure. If you've been by the site and also seen the pictures that staff put in the report, it sits way back off the street. It is fairly obscured by dense vegetation, at least in the wanner parts of the year, maybe not so much in the winter. And then also, the size of the lot. If the single-family home had been constructed originally further to the north, this lot could actually be subdivided and a second home built or subdivided as is and the structure converted into a single-family home. This is consistent, the fact that it is a detached unit, a residential unit, consistent with a majority of all the structures in the neighborhood. Staff is supportive of this request and is recommending approval with seven conditions. I think really the most Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 74 important one for the neighbors and owners and everyone to be aware of, and this is a requirement for all of our second dwelling units, and that is, in a nutshell, the two units cannot be rented. You cannot -- a few years from now the owners cannot sell this property and have someone come in and have two rental units. At all times one unit has to be owner occupied, it does not matter which one, but at all times an owner has to reside in one of the residence, and that is required. A deed will actually be filed with the courthouse and will run with the property. So at all times an owner will reside on this property. Third condition of approval is if the gravel driveway will be paved to a maximum width not to exceed 12 feet, or at minimum, a concrete apron. This is just to keep the gravel out of the street at that point. No expansions -- this is Item Number 6 -- no expansions to the second dwelling unit will be permitted without, again, coming back to the Planning Commission and reviewing this under the guidelines of the conditional use. Thus, what would be approved would be a single -bedroom second dwelling unit. And if you have any questions, please ask. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Fulcher. Would any member of the public like to address this Conditional Use Permit 06-2208 for Moore? Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public comment and ask for the applicant's presentation. Good evening. Moore: Good evening. My name is Max Moore and I would just like to say that the primary reason for the development of the detached unit would be for the possibility of future long-term care for an elderly family member. So if you have any questions for me, I will be glad to answer them. Anthes: Thank you. Commissioners? Clark: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: A question for staff. At agenda did someone mention there had been some comments from neighbors that were negative? Fulcher: Yes, we had received some letters from the neighbors. A couple of the concerns were traffic generation, noise, and depreciation in property values, I believe, were the three main items that we got from two letters. Clark: Okay. Thank you. Trumbo: Madame Chair. Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 75 Anthes: Commissioner Trumbo. Trumbo: A question for staff or possibly the applicant. Page 11 of our packet shows a plat of the property and it shows the existing house but it doesn't show the detached garage we're talking about. First of all for staff, what's the side setback requirement for a residential development? Fulcher: It's 8 feet off the side property line. Trumbo: 8 feet. Do we know if this structure is outside of the 8 feet? Fulcher: Based on our maps it looks like it's approximately 20 feet. Actually, I pulled the site plan that you're talking about on Page 11 is a survey from the building permit from 1992, and there's actually a note handwritten that's not included on here from a city division that states that the -- although the structure is not shown on the site plan, the requirement is to meet the 8 -foot side setbacks. So that was stated within the permits. But looking at our aerial maps and other items that we have in the office, it appears to be about 20 feet. It's actually the side property line with greenspace, a 10- to 12 -foot driveway, and then the structure, so there's quite a bit of space. Trumbo: Okay. So it's outside the 8 feet. I guess to the other Commissioners, that's my main concern is that it sat outside the side setback requirements, so I think what we have is a lot that is big enough to handle two residences. We're going to add a driveway; is that correct? Moore: Oh, I have a question regarding the apron. Anthes: Okay. You've given your presentation. Is your question particularly meaningful to -- all right, go ahead and ask it. Moore: I just have a question regarding what the apron -- at the top of the driveway, I assume, is what he was talking about with the apron. That would be my only question. Anthes: He's talking about the apron -- the concrete apron between the street and the gravel driveway to keep the gravel from tracking out into the street. Moore: I just wanted to be clear on that. That's what I thought. Sorry. Moore: If I could address some concerns I know that our neighbors have had. I've made every effort to speak with everybody. I haven't had the opportunity to meet with everyone. I know they're concerned about us renting it and having people park on the street. And as he proposed, we have 575 square Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 76 foot of parking outside the facility along with a single -car garage already on that unit. And we would certainly -- if we ever did decide to rent that unit, we would put provisions in our rental agreement stating that there would be no on -street parking. We wouldn't want people parking in front of our house, either. Anthes: Okay. Thank you. Commissioners? Clark: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Motion: Clark: Since the primary resident must be physically living in the other unit, I have no problems with this conditional use, especially since the side setbacks are well within that, so I move that we approve Conditional Use 06-2208 with conditions as stated. Trumbo: I'll second. Anthes: A motion to approve by Commissioner Clark, with a second by Commissioner Trumbo. Is there further discussion? I'd just like to state for the record that my concern always with these is that the form of these structures meet the requirements of being consistent with the neighborhood growth and development patterns. I believe this one does meet that and I will vote to support the request. Mr. Pate. Roll Call: The motion to approve CUP 06-2208 carries with a vote of 7-0-0. Moore: Thank you. Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 77 RZN 06-2201: Rezoning (MARISCAL, 439): Submitted by DAVID MERSKY for property located at 4041 WEDINGTON DRIVE. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL- AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 1.50 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to C- 1, Neighborhood Commercial. Anthes: Our fourteenth item tonight is Rezoning Request 06-2201 for Mariscal. And this one is Andrew's. Garner: Yes. This property consists of 1 1/2 acres. It's located on Wedington Drive. It's west of Rupple Road. It contains one residential structure currently. It is zoned R -A, Residential -Agricultural, and it's bordered to the east by the Catfish Hole Restaurant, and undeveloped land to the west, and to the north -- to the north it's zoned Residential Office. To the south it's zoned RT -12, to the east it's zoned C- 1, and to the west it is zoned Residential Office. The request is to rezone the property from Residential - Agricultural to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. The City Plan 2025, along with the Interim Future Land Use Map and the Sector Map were adopted by City Council on July 17th of this year. And the Interim Future Land Use Map designates this site for residential use. The Sector Map designates this site as an intended growth area, which is defined as an area where new development in the form of traditional neighborhood development is to be centered. Staff finds that rezoning the property to C- 1 would not encourage traditional neighborhood development along this stretch of Wedington and could potentially encourage strip -center -type development in contrast to the adopted land use policies. We don't find that a restaurant, as the applicant has stated in their application, we don't find that a -- a restaurant is incompatible. We find that that is an essential part of complete communities, but we do find that a straight C-1 zoning does not provide us the assurance that this property would be developed consistent with our land use policies. We would recommend that a Planned Zoning District be a more appropriate zoning. We could thereby ensure that curb cuts and the overall development could integrated into a more complete and planned out development. So we are recommending denial of this rezoning application. We'll be happy to answer any questions you might have. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Garner. Would any member of the public like to address this rezoning request for Mariscal? Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public comment and ask for the applicant's presentation. Good evening, Mr. Mersky. Mersky: Good evening. My name is Dave Mersky. I'm acting as the real estate agent and as a friend of the Mariscals. The Mariscals, Jose and Anani, operate the El Camino Restaurant -- El Camino Real Restaurant in the south part of town, and they would like to eventually move from the south Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 78 part of town out to Wedington, thus their application. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the only drawback by staff to this request was that it wasn't part of the overall plan. There wasn't any objection from a fire point of view, from water, from sewer, from traffic. None of those objections were considered to be a menace. So therefore, I'd ask that you please -- and I would also like to remind you that right next door is a restaurant, and we'd ask that you please approve this. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Mersky. Commissioners? Mersky: Oh, may I ask one more thing? Anthes: Sure. Mersky: I'll save it for later. Go ahead. Anthes: Okay. You might not get another chance. Mersky: Well, I'll ask nicely. Anthes: Commissioners? Commissioner Myres. Myres: One of the things that we talked about at agenda the other day was curb cuts and distance between entrances. I know the Catfish Hole has two entrances into their parking lot. Is there sufficient distance to allow for another entrance to another eating establishment in the lot next door? Pate: I don't know the answer to that question. Myres: Okay. Pate: I'm not sure where the curb cut is in relationship to the actual property line. I think that that would be something we would review at the time of development as opposed to time of entitlement -- zoning entitlement. Myres: Okay. That was really my only concern. I realize we've got a land use policy, but I don't think we need to frog march along every step of the way either, and I've become extremely prejudiced in favor of the applicant when I realized who they were, because it's my favorite place to go eat. (Laughter) Myres: I just didn't recognize their name. So I'm not an objective observer or even participant in this. Well, I like to be frank. Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 79 Anthes: Send a memo. Trumbo: You're honest. Myres: There's a memo coming. I know. There's a memo coming. Clark: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: If you had brought dinner tonight I would have voted for it right now. But, having said that, is staff's major concern that there are no assurances that this will not be anything other than be a restaurant? Pate: There are a couple of concerns. One, this is not consistent with our Interim Future Land Use plan. It states quite frankly that it should be a residential type of use in this area. Additionally, there are at least -- I think we counted 10 other properties that are zoned commercially or for office use in this vicinity surrounding this property that have not developed, which means in terms of one of our findings of fact, a determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified or needed at the time it is proposed. We simply can't make that finding at this time. There are a number of commercial properties that have not developed that already have the uses that are allowed, policy decisions have been made, several quite a few years ago, 10 years ago, I believe, when Meadowlands developed. Those decisions were made and those properties have not developed. So that's one of the findings that are required by the Planning Commission to make in considering any rezoning request. So that's simply something else, another finding we could not make to support this case. Obviously, fire and police response time are not going to be an issue in this area. We have a fire department that's a minute away. This is a major arterial road that has been improved. So I think there are a number of things in favor of a different type of use than agricultural, for sure, on this property. It's just a matter of what that is and how it develops. There are a number of actions, I believe, that the Planning Commission would have rather not happened on College Avenue that's produced the type of development pattern that we see up and down that corridor as well. Clark: So even if there were a Bill of Assurance stating that they would only restrict use to a restaurant you still would not -- Pate: I don't think that use is really a concern at this point in time. Clark: Okay. I understand. Thank you. Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 80 Trumbo: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Trumbo. Trumbo: I believe I heard Mr. Garner refer to this possibly being a strip center, and I was wondering if we had any direction from City Council to get away from strip centers or is there a specific reason why -- Garner: We did have in the -- I was referencing that from, actually, our General Plan 2020 which referenced that specifically against strip -center -type development. I didn't see that language carried over into the 2025 directly, but a lot of the policies in that are really similar, so -- Trumbo: I wasn't aware. Thank you. This calling out as residential on the 2025 plan, I, being in commercial real estate, can understand why you would want this commercial. There's probably 25,000 cars a day going by here. I don't particularly see a large demand for residential, but I also hear the argument every time we talk about this, is we don't want another 71. I don't think we could have another Highway 71 with our current ordinances and our LSDs and all of the landscaping and all the different things we have in place that we didn't have in place in the `70s and `80s. We're pushing for commercial nodes. It's going to be the only place where the staffs map or the city's map is going to recommend commercial, it appears to me. I don't necessarily think that's the best answer as well. I don't have a problem with this being commercial, considering where it is and the traffic, so I would be in favor of rezoning this to commercial. Lack: Madame Chair. Looking at the width of the property and consideration for curb cuts, correct me if I'm wrong, but the classification for curb cuts along Wedington would be 60 -feet requirement separation? Pate: If it did not compound or create a dangerous traffic situation, yes. Lack: And the property is 210 -feet wide, so we would -- we would certainly think that we could get 60 feet of clearance and maintain our ordinance, maintain our development standards as regarding curb cuts. We have connectivity requirements. I believe that we've required that between other adjacent property holders. I don't know -- you know, that Catfish Hole has been there. I don't know if that's enforceable in this condition, but certainly something that we would want to look at. And I'm sure if we were looking at a development item we would ask for that consideration. I'm having trouble seeing the idea of residential on that -- on that one little site. If we had 200 acres that we could assess a mixed-use development to that we could integrate appropriately the residential and the commercial, I Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 81 think I could understand that better, but I think with the development that's in place now and the fact that the zoning to the east is C-1, to the north is R -O, to the west is R -O, would suggest that an appropriate compatible zoning would be commercial of some nature, whether that's R -O or C-1. And with the suggestion of a restaurant would be likely, I think the C-1 would be more appropriate than the R -O. And I think that with that, I'm leaning toward finding in favor. Harris: Madame Chair. I certainly agree with what Commissioner Lack said in terms of it's hard to imagine this 1.5 acres transforming into residential. At the same time, I want to notice the fact that the recommendation is coming to us based on City Plan 2025, along with the Interim Future Land Use plan map, and I feel as though this city worked so hard to get that thing in place, and I also feel as though I've got the hundreds of citizens who participated in the charettes and so forth behind me saying, "Knucklehead, we told you what we think the land uses should be in these areas." So I'm not entirely sure right this minute what I'm going to vote on this, because on the one hand I certainly see the appropriateness of what Commissioners Trumbo and Lack have said, and yet, on the other hand we've got this document that we've worked and worked and worked to get, and this recommendation is actually based on that document. Trumbo: Madame Chair. Anthes: Let me make sure she's finished. Harris: Go ahead. Trumbo: Sorry, Commissioner Harris. I would suggest if we're going to follow the 2025 Plan and not look at specific situations as they come up, then we probably don't -- and this is going to sound pretty outlandish, but if we just let the staff come up with the map and we all sit and look at it but we don't take into account all situations and possible uses in timing, we don't need the Planning Commission as far as rezonings and zonings. The reason that the properties around it are not being used as commercial right now is that they're not ideal. They're not the ideal spots. And I understand that we're not suppose to look at financial interest or what is ideal in a developer's eyes at this time, but that's a reality as well that needs to be factored in, at least in the long-range 2025 Plan or future plans down the road. What's ideal on paper is not necessarily -- Anthes: Question of staff, Mr. Pate, about the recommendation, or Mr. Garner. It looks like the major finding that we're looking at is finding that on determination Number I where we're talking about "rezoning of the property to C-1 does not assure the city that this property would be Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 82 integrated into a TND development." I'm looking at the parcels of land. The parcels to the south are built out, the parcel to the east is built out, and there's one relatively small R -O parcel to the west. Can staff describe to me how that westernmost parcel and this parcel, or do you see parcels beyond that, as contributing to the type of development you're looking for in the area? Pate: It would likely be those two undeveloped parcels at this point in time. I do not see the restaurant to the east going anywhere. It is well used. And as I mentioned at Agenda Session, there's a lot of traffic coming in and out of that particular spot. The Meadowlands Drive location, I think, will only be enhanced in the future as more and more residential units are connected to this subdivision to the south. The Rupple Road subdivision is connected to this Meadowlands, and so those will be other access points, especially as you see school traffic utilizing the light. This is a secondary means of ingress and egress. So I think potentially, as Commissioner Trumbo mentioned, hopefully these properties will be seen as more ripe for development in the near future. But essentially and more directly, those two properties would likely be the ones that would work in tandem. Anthes: And with a planned zoning district versus a straight rezoning, what would you be looking to see differently than what the standard CA development pattern is? Pate: I think likely, looking at specifically our traditional neighborhood development type of uses, a mixture of both commercial and retail use to support this neighborhood that's directly behind this property. There's easy pedestrian access. So I think that supporting uses here would certainly be utilized. There are a number of residential properties to the south: Rupple Row, the Cross Keys, Persimmon Place. All of those are residential entirely. There are no commercial uses in that area. Of course, there are more regional type and community commercial uses as you get further east along Wedington, but I think smaller types of commercial development or office development could factor in here in terms of use in this particular location. The challenging part, and we're also learning as staff about utilizing the City Plan 2025, is that we've inserted a level of not necessarily just use -based, it's also about form. And so that's the challenging part about making recommendations in terms of straight rezoning. I don't think it's appropriate to simply do away with rezoning requests and have all planned zoning districts, and I'll state that very clearly. You will not see this planning staff just simply making recommendations to not rezone property because we don't have a development plan to look at. I don't think that's appropriate. We just felt with the uses that are directly adjacent to this site, the traffic that we do see, and as I mentioned, well, there's a number of trip vehicle movements Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 83 occurring here -- adding another wonderfully successful one would potentially increase that potential in working in conjunction with potentially having access to Meadowlands Drive. Even a signal in the future at Meadowlands, if it's not too close to the other at Rupple, would be a potential as well, especially, with the amount of residential office type of property that's adjacent to this intersection. There's obviously a node in other City Council's decisions. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Pate. Is there further discussion? Clark: I have a question. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: And this is a question to whoever wants to answer it. There is a turn lane on Wedington as you head west. Does it extend to this property or does it -- Pate: It transitions at Meadowlands Drive, so it does extend through this property. Clark: So it does? Pate: The State is picking it up past this and taking it all the way to Double Springs, so that will be extended even further. Motion: Clark: Okay. Well, that then says to me even more that this could be easily C-1. And I understand 2025 Plan. I also understand that we have a little problem with that map simply reflecting what development trends were, not necessarily what we wanted them to be. And I think that Commissioners Trumbo and Lack make some very good points and I will err on the side of caution, I guess, or actually I'll throw caution to the wind this time and support it as C-1. Anthes: Is that a motion? Williams: Well, before you make a motion the applicant should realize it takes five affirmative votes from the Planning Commission in order to forward with a recommendation of rezoning, and there are two commissioners not here, so you would have to have five out of the seven. And you could ask to have it tabled for a couple of weeks to see if you have the other two commissioners come, or else you can just ask them to move forward, but I thought before the vote you might should know that. Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 84 Anthes: And this does get forwarded to City Council. If we vote to recommend it, it goes immediately to City Council. If we vote -- if you don't get the positive five votes, then you have the right to appeal it within 10 days. Mersky: Well, I think we would like to go ahead with the vote. Anthes: Is there further discussion? We have a motion to forward by Commissioner Clark. Is there a second? Trumbo: I'll second. Myres: And that's with a positive recommendation? Anthes: Yes. Commissioner Harris. Harris: Madame Chair, I would just like to follow up on my own -- my own conversation. (Laughter) Harris: I've watched Planning Commission too long, haven't I? This is how we do things around here. I wanted to call out the City Plan simply to put it on the table, that I was recognizing that it's there, because I think that's important and I know that we all do. I agree absolutely with Commissioner Trumbo, and obviously, with the spirit of everybody else. We need to be making these decisions, and I, too, have reasons for knowing this area very well in terms of its land uses and -- well, I eat at the restaurant, too. I feel as though I can make some sort of objective comment here. Myres: Well, it's late and my objectivity went to sleep about 7:30. Harris: That's fine. So I will actually be voting in favor of this myself, but I wanted to explain my reasoning for that earlier. Thank you. Trumbo: If you had just brought dinner we -- Myres: Mine's purely emotional. Anthes: We have a motion to forward by Commissioner Clark, a second by Commissioner Trumbo. Is there further discussion? Clark: Forward as C-1. Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 85 Anthes: As C-1. Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to forward RZN 06-2201 carries with a vote of 6-1-0, with Commissioner Anthes voting no. Anthes: Thank you. Mersky: Thank you very much. Anthes: You're welcome. Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 86 RZN 06-2199: Rezoning (RED ARROW NEIGHBORHOOD DOWNZONING): Submitted by SUE MADISON for property located S OF 18TH ST., ARROWHEAD AND CUSTER LANE. The property is zoned RMF -24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI- FAMILY, 24 UNITS PER ACRE. The request is to rezone the subject properties to RSF-4, Residential Single Family- 4 units/acre. Anthes: Our final item this evening is another Rezoning request, 06-2199 for Red Arrow Neighborhood Downzoning, and may we have the -- Pate: I will be doing this. Anthes: Okay. Great. Pate: As you may remember, recently in southeast Fayetteville there was a request by a neighborhood to downzone their property. That was to RSF- 8. Also, in the history of this particular property there was recently a request to rezone a piece of property for a multi -family development. That property was located off of Custer Lane and Eighteenth Street. Subsequent to that conversation the realization, I believe, hit the neighborhood, which is primarily a single-family residential, that their entire neighborhood was developed and zoned under an RMF -24, Residential Multi -Family, 24 Units per acre type of zoning. That neighborhood under, I believe, the leadership of Sue Madison, who is with us tonight as the applicant, has brought forward a neighborhood downzoning request. We worked with Ms. Madison to get a petition out and that's about the extent of what staff did. We typed it up and gave it to her. She's done all the work to get a very cohesive and coherent application before you. I believe there are 88 individual properties that are requesting to rezone to RSF-4. That includes the majority if not all of the neighborhood along Custer Lane, Arrowhead Street, west of Ashwood, south of Eighteenth, and then both sides of Custer Lane. I did not include the current C-2 properties. I don't believe that they were even approached at this time. They were developed and utilized as commercial properties. It also includes several large pieces of property south of Eighteenth Street that weren't platted as part of this neighborhood, but were certainly willing to come in. Obviously, those particular pieces of property would have a great impact on this neighborhood if developed as multi -family residential and much less so if it were developed in a manner consistent with their own neighborhood, which is single-family residential. Staff is recommending approval of this rezoning request and recommend that you forward it to the City Council. With that recommendation, the police and fire department find no problems with downzoning this property. Most of the land uses are already established as single family. The reason we went with an RSF-4 zoning request is that this neighborhood is primarily developed with that planned development pattern as opposed to a smaller Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 87 lot. These are primarily 80 -by -100 -plus lots, so they fit very closely within our RSF-4 zoning district. And with that, we recommend approval. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Pate. Would any member of the public like to address this rezoning request for Red Arrow Neighborhood, and that needs to be people that aren't part of the application. Pate: I believe you will find that the whole neighborhood is part of the application. (Laughter) Anthes: Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public comment. Ms. Madison. Madison: Thank you. I'm Sue Madison with Madison Assets and I am here on behalf of the property owners. When that issue came before the Planning Commission that Mr. Pate referred to, it sent up a red flag with us. We realized that our zoning didn't reflect the way our homes were built over 30 years ago. And so we wanted the city maps to reflect the way we had been built, and that's the reason that we've come forward with this Downzoning. And not to correct Mr. Pate, but I did a very small part of work. These people here did the legwork and carried the petition around the neighborhood. I just filled in the gaps. But I would be happy to answer any questions. Anthes: Thank you very much. Commissioners? Clark: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Motion: Clark: When we first heard the rezoning application a long time ago and a lot of the neighbors showed up, it really showed the neighborhood spirit. And I think this is a classic example of where sometimes what we think is going to happen doesn't happen. Because this is zoned RSF-28 with the intent of building apartments, duplexes, etcetera, a much higher density, but this neighborhood hung on as an RSF-4 neighborhood and it's not going anywhere, and I think this is -- we told them to do this at planning, downzone to be more reflective so you can build back if anything happens. And I am strongly for this and I will be in favor of us expediting this and getting it done like the neighbors want it done. Anthes: Is that a motion? Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 88 Clark: That's a motion. Anthes: I have a motion to forward with a positive recommendation by Commissioner Clark. Do I hear a second? Myres: Second. Anthes: A second by Commissioner Myres. Is there further discussion? Trumbo: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Trumbo. Trumbo: Quick question. I'm all for this rezoning. I just want to make sure that all properties being downzoned have been requested by the property owners. Pate: Yes. We are not recommending any property owner that did not sign the petition. Trumbo: I'm glad you all are doing this. It takes a huge load off of us when people come through residential areas wanting to build multi -family that's zoned that way, and if anybody is watching, check your neighborhoods. To do this, it saves us a lot of time and saves you all a lot of grief. Clark: And if you had brought dinner, we would have moved you up on the agenda. (Laughter) Trumbo: So I will support it. Anthes: Also, it's obviously a cohesive request. There aren't any holes in it. I really appreciate the neighborhood getting together on it. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call:; The motion to forward RZN 06-2199 carries with a vote of 7-0-0. Anthes: Thank you very much. Madison: Thank you. Anthes: Are there any announcements? Myres: Thank you for staying so late. Panning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 89 Pate: We do have Subdivision Committee this Thursday in the morning at -- Anthes: I'm sorry, will you keep your voices down. We still have some announcements. We have some announcements. Pate: We do have Subdivision Committee this Thursday morning at 9:00 a.m. That, I believe, is Group Number 1, so if you're on that group you should have received packets tonight unless you changed or substituted. And I also some cards to pass out for that. Myres: Jeremy, I did get my packet and I'm subbing for James. Pate: You did get your packet? Myres: Yeah. Trumbo: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Trumbo. Trumbo: Quickly, I was appointed a member of the Sidewalks and Trail Taskforce Committee, which in my opinion is extremely important and deserves a full Planning Commissioner's attention. I have not been able to do that due to things out of my control and I think we need to get somebody on there. If somebody can do it, it's once a month. They do probably what I consider the most important work in the city, and I would let you know that that seat is available. Anthes: Okay. I would like to have a volunteer for that. I will ask for one at the next meeting. If there's no volunteer, I'll be forced to appoint someone. Trumbo: It's a great committee. Anthes: Jeremy, could you e-mail us a description of that job and when it meets so everybody can have a chance to review it? Pate: Sure. Anthes: Okay. Anybody else? We're adjourned. Thank you. (Whereupon, the August 28th, 2006, meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission adjourned at 9:25 p.m.)