Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-09-11 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on September 11, 2006 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN ADM 06-2255: (BASSETT FURNITURE) Approved Page 13 ADM 06-2257: (THE DICKSON) Approved Page 13 ADM 06-2259: (MAPLE & GUNTER) Approved Page 13 ADM 06-2251: (BELLAFONT PH. I) Approved Page 13 LSP 06-2217: (HOMESTEAD HOMES, 282) Approved Page 13 FPL 06-2216: (BELLWOOD I, 361/400) Approved Page 13 FPL 06-2155: (LEGACY POINTE PH. IV, 475) Approved Page 13 VAC 06-2220: (EMERALD AVE./HILLCREST, 291) Forwarded Page 13 VAC 06-2219: (NORTH POINT S/D, 248) Forwarded Page 13 ADM 06-2272: (WALNUT CROSSING) Approved Page 13 (Added to agenda at PC meeting) LSD 06-2195: (PRATT PLACE INN, 520) Approved Page 16 CUP 06-2218: (GELATERIA SCARPINO, 484) Approved Page 44 ADM 06-2258: (LIERLY LANE) Denied Page 46 Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 2 R-PZD 06-2191: (UNIVERSITY CLUB TOWER, 135) Tabled Page 63 R-PZD 06-2190: (WOODBURY, 137) Forwarded Page 77 ADM 06-2252: (FUTURE LAND USE MAP No Action Taken SECTION 1) Page 83 Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page3 MEMBERS PRESENT Jill Anthes Lois Bryant Candy Clark James Graves Hilary Harris Andy Lack Christine Myres Sean Trumbo STAFFPRESENT Jeremy Pate Andrew Garner Suzanne Morgan Jesse Fulcher Glenn Newman CITY ATTORNEY: Kit Williams MEMBERS ABSENT Alan Ostner STAFF ABSENT Matt Casey Sarah Patterson Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 4 Anthes: Good evening. Welcome to the Monday, September 11, 2006, meeting of the City of Fayetteville Planning Commission. I would like to remind all audience members and commissioners to turn off cell phones and pagers. Also, listening devices are available for people who are hard of hearing. If anyone needs assistance with one of those devices, please contact one of the staff members in this front row and they can provide a headset. Will you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call Bryant, Graves, Lack, Harris, Clark, Trumbo, and Anthes are present (Myres arrived later). Anthes: Our first item tonight is an informational item, a presentation on the wastewater systems. Mr. Jurgens. (Commissioner Myres arrives.) Jurgens: My name is Dave Jurgens. I'm the water and wastewater director for the City, and I'm going to be standing over there pointing in front of a map, but in general what I'm going to do tonight is just give you an update on where we stand on the wastewater system improvement project, the wastewater capacity overall, when this stuff is going to come online, how it affects things in your business. Please feel free to ask questions at any time. And I'm also going to point you to other places where you can get continual updated information, and I've give you a little handout that we've been providing to the press and put on our website that if you want us to send it to you every couple of weeks when we update that we can continue to do so. So I'm going to journey over here. This map shows not only the wastewater system improvement project, but other capital projects that are happening in the city as well. I'm going to focus, of course, on the wastewater system improvement project because that's what you asked me here to talk about. The project consists of a renovation of the existing Nolan wastewater treatment plant. That was -- that project is upgrading the existing plant, a $14.5 million project, and that is underway as we speak, and it's about -- I'm not going to try to memorize the numbers -- it's about 70 percent complete as we speak. It's been underway now since March of last year. We are constructing the new west -side wastewater treatment plant that we awarded the contract in October of last year. That one is right now, by dollars, 16 -percent complete; by actual construction, close to 20 - percent complete. That, of course, is the critical factor in many of the decisions that you all are making. But it's not the critical factor, because it takes a lot of other things to get the water there. That plant will come online in May of 2008. Contracts awarded -- excellent contractor, going very, very well. I can say that with very much confidence it will come Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 5 online, substantial completion, water will start flowing in May of 2008. To get the water there we have two force mains that are under construction as we speak. In fact, this job which is 20,000 foot of 24 -and 30 -inch pipe, the last piece of pipe will be put in the ground this week, so that job is 95 - percent complete as far as substantial work being done, pipe being put in the ground. The lift station right here is under construction. They just started work on that last week. The lift stations, we're trying to time those portions of the project so that the contract is completed a few months before the west plant comes on line. What we don't want to have is $6 million worth of lift station, warrantees already running, and not even have the ability to test the equipment. So we want to time phase these things so that they get complete at about the right time for the lift stations in particular. This is the Hamstring lift station, just to orient. I think most of you are familiar enough with the area. I didn't go through a full orientation, but this is the Hamstring lift station at this point, number one, and if we can -- am I in the way to get that up on the wall? Okay. If we can get that up on the wall it will make it easier to see. I would much rather look at the map than look at me. Okay. And if I'm in your all's way too, the same thing. Just throw a rock and I'll try to move around. We've got the lift station at Gregg Avenue right here, number 10. Water flows this way, force main there by gravity down to the Hamstring lift station. That property is under construction and we have already done the work on the bypass, already underway for getting the bore across the interstate right here, and there's several other bores along the way here at Highway 112 that are underway as well. The actual construction on laying that pipe is going to commence in several months. We've got a gravity line going from the Porter Road lift station north of Wedington Drive going to this location. As you can see, we're about 50 -percent complete on that -- laying that pipe work. Gravity line from Old Wire Road to this lift station, that one is also underway. Bores have been done at College at Old Missouri underway, at Steele and at Mall Avenue. So work is progressing on all of these projects. The next one we're going to bid, advertising within the next couple of weeks, is a line from North Street lift station up to the Gregg Avenue lift station, and again, that one is going to be bidding here in a couple weeks. I'm going to hand out in a couple of minutes an update to you, but if you notice the colors on the map, red is projects that are ongoing. For WSIP we've included every major subproject on this map. So if it's in red, it has a bid date or portions of it are already underway. Blue is where construction has already been completed. Green is where construction is underway. Again, we are updating this map on the website, accessfayetteville.or¢, every two weeks. We are also providing it as a press release, and again, if you all wish to have this information we can certainly send it to you as well. It is all available on the website. What this will do - Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 6 - there's a watershed line that you're all well familiar with. It comes up around here, comes through the center of town, across Mount Sequoyah, then comes up and follows to the northeast part of town. That separates the Illinois River watershed from the White River watershed. Every drop of water that falls in the south and east part of that flows by gravity to the White River and the Nolan Plant. Every drop of water that falls on the ground on the north and west side of that line, flows to the Illinois River. So we're making the wastewater system so that it follows that gravity configuration. That's why all of this work is underway, because all of those components have to be in place for this plant to fully function. And again, we're timing them all so that the pipeline jobs, the lift station jobs, will be done several months before completion of the west plant, that west plant being the single biggest piece of it. Renovation of this, like I said, is underway. We are also, in this stretch, line 15, we're putting in -- or project number 15 -- we are replacing two sewer lines that are existing. They're old clay lines. One of them was installed in about 1927, and if you can think about what you'd look like if you had been buried underground for 80 years, it needs to be replaced. We are also replacing a line that was installed in 1959. Both of those pipes are clay lines and they're just, frankly, in very, very bad shape, so we're getting rid of those, putting in a larger diameter line that will carry the water to this point, and then we're installing a 42 -inch line from there to the plant that will parallel an existing 36, which again, is going to significantly increase our capacity on the south side. Now, what does this mean? Two treatment plants, total capacity by NPDS permitting, which we received the last permit -- it became effective 1 June, 2006 -- will give us 21.4 million gallons per day of NPDS- permitted capacity. Our plants can meet that. Our current capacity right now by permit is 12.4 million gallons per day. So we're seeing an increase of whatever the map works out, about 80 percent from today to May of 2008. My estimates, based off the existing efficiency of the existing plant, is that we will be able to treat for at least 115,000 population in the city. I'm going to refine those numbers a little bit, break them apart by watershed, etcetera, within the next six to eight weeks. I've been a little busy the last few weeks, as you can imagine, so I haven't gotten all of that analysis done yet, but I'll be breaking that apart by categories. The Nolan plant has the majority of the industrial flows. The plant on the west side is truly a state-of-the-art plant and I believe that it will be able to treat to a significantly better efficiency than the Nolan plant. The Nolan plant is good. It's being operated very, very well. It is very close to capacity as we speak. Between now and then, that question comes up, how can we treat the capacity for the wastewater that is being produced today? We are still continuing our sewer realization program. We are still -- in fact, I've got a $2.2 million job underway as we speak eliminating inflow and infiltration Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 7 into the system. We have historically for the last 15 years had our population increase, had our domestic flows increase, but had our wastewater plant flows just increase a very small amount. Our sanitary sewer overflows have actually stayed pretty flat. We've had seasonal impacts due to some rains -- or some years have a lot of rain and some have very little. We've had some fluctuations due to that. But the EPA has been pleased with our reducing the inflow and infiltration that causes the overflows, offsetting the impacts of development, and so they allowed us to do that and have continued to allow us to do that as long as we continue to make progress, and we are doing so. We have more sewer rehab underway. We just -- in fact, I just received an e-mail from Region 6 stating that last Friday we had another $half -million -grant that was signed on Friday to continue that sewer rehabilitation partially through grant funds from EPA. I think that pretty much runs through everything in a nutshell. 15 minutes or less, I think, was the directive. Are there any questions? Anthes: Commissioners, any questions for Mr. Jurgens? Clark: I've got one. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: Or two. Mr. Jurgens, you said that the new wastewater treatment plant on the west side wilt be operational by May 2008. Jurgens: Yes, ma'am. Clark: You also said that the Nolan wastewater plant was close to capacity. Jurgens: Yes, ma'am. Clark: How close? Jurgens: We're operating -- last year our average daily flow for 2005 was 12.4 million gallons per day. We stayed under permit every day. Clark: What is the permit? Jurgens: Permit was 12.6 million gallons per day. Now, permit and operating capacity are based off design efficiency, if you will. Clark: Those are the gremlins saying "keep it really simple." Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 8 Jurgens: The plant is operating -- (microphone trouble). Williams: Why don't you take that back to the podium now. Jurgens: I prefer to use a big mouth than a microphone, but the TVs don't hear that very well. The plant is operating at better than its design efficiency. It is treating wastewater for actually more population than it was originally designed for, which is what it should be, because there should be a safety factor built in there. We can treat for even more than we are, and I'm confident personally, and the plant operators and managers are confident that we can continue to treat for the growth we'll see between now and when the new plant comes online. Just to keep it really basic, the majority of the water that we treat when we have 80 percent, 90 percent of flow, we can generally treat through a biological process only. It is bacteria doing what bacteria do best. It's like a dog does it's thing in your backyard, gradually that goes away and you have a green spot in the grass. We use bacteria in the wastewater plants. Both of our plants will be bacteria -based. When you get to a higher volume of wastewater coming into the plant, that's when you have to supplement with chemical type of work. We put in alum, we put in polymers and do other voodoo stuff out there, so that you can then treat to higher -than -designed efficiency. It's simply costing more money to do so, but you are able to treat. I'm confident that we will be able to treat. Now, for the growth that we'll have between now and May of 2008, as we grow we are getting closer to the potential for something to go wrong. We're losing our safety factor, if you will, our margin there, but I'm still confident that we can continue to operate. Clark: So what numbers of projected growth are you looking at, because nobody shared that with us. Jurgens: What I do when I'm looking at growth for this business is I go by the number of water and/or sewer accounts that we get in the city. That's the number that I use because that's -- in my budget, that's what I take, is the number of sewer accounts, because that's the people that are actually flushing to the system. Clark: So you don't look at the amount of subdivisions that are coming through planning to see what our projected build -out is by the year 2008 -- especially in the west? Jurgens: Actually, no, I don't. I look -- now, we have done that. We've done that analysis as well. We do both of those, because I talked with planning and I was involved when Karen Minkel did her study last year. We have Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 9 evaluated on a sub -basin basis on the Hamstring basin, what would need to be done in the short term. So we do the sub -basin analyses as well, but as far as overall treatment capacity, I'm looking at the number of accounts. That gives me a true feeling for what's actually flushing as opposed to what's on the horizon and I think it's a pretty reasonable number to do. Clark: So you don't have a number at which point you think we need to stop adding before this plant comes online? Jurgens: In terms of your work here, very little of what you would approve tonight would ever flow to the Nolan plant, if it's on the west side of town, because of the amount of time it takes to get through the development process, to get through the design process, to have the actual development, roads, streets, water, sewer, storm drainage put in, houses built and actually start flushing to my system. The turnaround time, quite frankly, they'd have to be really fast -tracked in order to put any water into my system if you approve them tonight. Clark: Well, I'm not talking necessarily about what we approve tonight. I'm talking about what we've approved since I joined the Planning Commission three years ago. And in our meeting on November 22nd, 2004, a representative from engineering told us that this plant would be online before the school on Rupple Road opened, and it's open now, running two years, and you're still telling me 2008 before we can actually run water through that. Jurgens: Well, I can give you a couple of differences. It's being built -- Clark: Oh, I'm sure you can give me the spiel on it, but my concern is that we're still being asked to approve and approve and approve and approve, and at which point do we stop before we know for certain we can handle the wastewater? Jurgens: What I can tell you is that if I recommend approval or if I allow us to continue to approve things that I believe will cause sewer overflows and it's established that that's happened, then I go to jail. I don't look good in stripes, so I'm not going to do that. If I see an area that's going to be a real problem, I will surely bring it up. I promise you that. Because it is our obligation to make sure that doesn't occur. When we thought we had that concern in the Hamstring basin a year ago, then we looked at that, evaluated the number of units, the number of empty lots, made the decision -- we had been going with a more conservative route, and Dee Hugh and the Health Department both allow either pathway as long as you're doing Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 10 your business in due diligence of evaluating what's being approved -- you can either do that control at the planning level and at the planning time of approving developments and the number lots being developed, or you can do it at the building permit level, which more accurately reflects actually when wastewater is discharged into the system or when it's going to be discharged into the system. Again, the plant is under construction. It's not a circumstance like we've had in the past, other than the past nine months, because we know right now we've got fixed timelines. If -- when everything that is under contract right now gets built, then I know that that wastewater plant will be carrying water, and I have no reason to have any doubt that that's going to happen on time. Clark: Okay. Anthes: Commissioners, are there further questions? Thank you, Mr. Jurgens. I appreciate it. Would you also be sure to add the Planning Commissioners' e-mails to your list, sir? Jurgens: I sure will. And I've got the latest -- the update that was actually done two weeks ago. We're updating as we speak. I'll hand one of those out to you now. And I just want to show as a last saying, this is also on the website. This is an update. I can pass one around, but I need to hand them out to the City Council tomorrow night. It's just an update that's being published every month on the west -side wastewater treatment plant. It has photos. Again, looking at the monthly updates on this thing, it's pretty cool to see what's happening and it gives you the confidence to know that we're past the things beyond our control, and that's the biggest comment. Is that up until a year and a half ago and up until the permits that we received this year, things were outside of our sphere of control. We do construction contracts. These are things that we can control. If a contractor doesn't do his job, I'll call his bonding company. If they don't do this job, then we can take them to court. That's why Mr. Williams is here. We can get these construction contracts executed. So I'm confident of that. Anthes: If you could leave a copy of that booklet, we can return it to staff tonight before we go home. Jurgens: Will do. Anthes: All right. Thanks. We have an additional administrative item that we may want to add to tonight's agenda. Mr. Pate, can you tell us about that? Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 11 Pate: Certainly. There's an administrative item that I passed around just briefly before David's presentation. This is an administrative request, so it doesn't require any type of notification or any other activity in that regard. Staff did anticipate putting this on the agenda; however, we did not have the materials in time to do that for your agenda session on Thursday. We would ask the Planning Commission to please consider this tonight on your agenda and I will briefly go over what it is. This is for a project that's already under construction. I believe there are approximately 20 to 30 building permits already issued for Walnut Crossing Planned Zoning District. It's a single-family residential neighborhood being constructed on the west side of Fayetteville, adjacent to Farmington. One of the conditions of approval as part of that PZD and Final Plat was for a maximum driveway width of 12 feet. The reason -- one of the reasons that that requirement was placed upon this project was because of the narrow widths of the lots. They vary from 50 to 55 feet in this development. Reasons for that, of course, as we've discussed in this project and others, include a 50- to 55 -foot -wide lot; if you have your standard 24 -foot -wide driveway curb -cut it would essentially take out half of the lot just for the driveway, which decreases pedestrian safety and the safety of the street environment. In construction of these 12 -foot -wide driveways, there's a photograph in your packet and you can see how that has been constructed in the field. You can see that the width of the driveway is measured at the right-of-way line, so the first photo there you see coming out of the house is a 16 -foot -wide driveway and then it decreases down to the 12 to meet the ordinance requirements. You can see, functionally, it does not work, and so the applicant has requested of staff and staff is fully supportive of a request to amend that condition of approval to make that a 16 -foot -wide - maximum driveway. The applicants have indicated that that will work for them and we still feel it will provide for the pedestrian safety needed in terms of this development. So we would ask that the Planning Commission consider and vote to put this on the agenda for tonight. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Pate. We need to vote on whether we find this appropriate to add to the agenda. We also could add it to the consent agenda if we so desire. Graves: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Motion: Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 12 Graves: I'll move that we place Administrative Item 06-2272 on our consent agenda. Clark: Second. Anthes: We have a motion to place this administrative item on the consent agenda. The motion is by Commissioner Graves, a second by Commissioner Clark. Is there discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to place ADM 06-2272 on the consent agenda carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Commissioner Ostner was absent. Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 13 ADM 06-2255: Administrative Item (BASSETT FURNITURE): The request is for additional concrete pad area within the existing utility easement to allow for a bailer adjacent to the existing trash enclosure. ADM 06-2257: Administrative Item (THE DICKSON): Submitted by HAYNES LIMITED for property located at 608 WEST DICKSON STREET. The property is zoned C-3, CENTRAL COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 0.23 acres. The request is for a waiver of the minimum curb radius for a commercial driveway on Gregg Avenue. ADM 06-2259: Administrative Item (MAPLE & GUNTER): The request is for an extension of the approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP 05-1684), which allowed for a 2nd dwelling unit, for one year. ADM 06-2251: Administrative Item (BELLAFONT PH. 1): The applicant requests a modification to the approved condition of approval No. 5 for LSD 06-1885, constituting a waiver from the City's design standards for Commercial driveways (medium width). LSP 06-2217: Lot Split (HOMESTEAD HOMES, 282): Submitted by NORTHSTAR ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC., for property located at 2834 HUGHMOUNT RD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 9.95 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into two tracts of 2.09 and 7.85 acres. FPL 062155: Final Plat (LEGACY POINTE PH. IV, 475): Submitted by DAVE JORGENSEN for property located at E. OF DOUBLE SPRINGS RD., AND LEGACY POINTE PHASE I -III. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY- 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 29.29 acres. The request is for an approved final plat of a residential subdivision with 77 single-family dwelling units. VAC 06-2220: Vacation (EMERALD AVE./HILLCREST, 291): Submitted by CEI ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC., for property located at THE N. END OF EMERALD AVENUE. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 0.33 acres. The request is to vacate a portion of a utility easement on the subject property. VAC 06-2219: Vacation (NORTH POINT S/D, 248): Submitted by TIM PATTERSON for property located at LOT 5 BLOCK 1 OF THE NORTH POINT S/D. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 0.56 acres. The request is to vacate a portion of a utility easement within the subject property. ADM 06-2272: Administrative Item (Walnut Crossing): Submitted by Rausch Coleman requesting a modification to the approved conditions of approval regarding driveway widths. Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 14 Anthes: We have eleven items on the consent agenda this evening. The first is the approval of the minutes from the August 14th, 2006 meeting. The second is Administrative Item 06-2255 for Bassett Furniture. The third is Administrative Item 06-2257 for The Dickson. The fourth is Administrative Item 06-2259 for Maple and Gunter. Five is Administrative Item 06-2251 for Bellafont Phase L Six is a Lot Split 06-2217 for Homestead Homes. Seven, Final Plat 06-2216 for Bellwood 1. Eight, Final Plat 06-2155, Legacy Pointe Phase IV. Nine, Vacation Request 06-2220 for Emerald Avenue and Hillcrest. Tenth, Vacation 06-2219 for North Point Subdivision. And eleventh, Administrative Item 06-2272 for Walnut Crossing. Would any member of the public or any commissioner like to remove any of these items from the consent agenda for discussion? Seeing none, I will entertain motions to approve the consent agenda. Lack: Madame Chair. I will have to recuse from this item. Trumbo: Me, too. Anthes: Commissioners Trumbo and Lack will recuse from the consent agenda. Do we have anything on here that five votes, right? Pate: No, ma'am. Anthes: Okay. Clark: Madame Chair. Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Clark. Motion: Clark: I move that we approve the consent agenda as read. Anthes: I have a second -- I mean, do I hear a second? Myres: Second. Anthes: I have a motion to approve by Commissioner Clark, a second by Commissioner Myres. Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The consent agenda is approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Commissioners Lack and Trumbo recuse themselves. Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 15 Anthes: That might be a record. Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 16 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 first item is old business, Large Scale Development 06-2195 for Pratt Place Inn. May we have the staff report? Garner: Yes, ma'am. This project was heard at the August 28th, 2006 Planning Commission and it was tabled to allow time for the staff and applicant to meet and discuss one particular issue that could not be resolved at that meeting, which was the street improvements necessary to Markham Road. And since that meeting, staff has gone on site and met with the applicant and we have changed our recommendation regarding the street improvements. And we have a drawing submitted -- we have prepared a drawing separately from what the applicant prepared, showing what staff is recommending, and you should have a copy of that. I'll go over the change. It's reflected in this condition of approval Number 1. Planning Commission determination of street improvements to Markham. Staff recommends that Markham be improved to a minimum of 20 foot of asphalt pavement standard from the subject property east to Cross Avenue within the existing right-of-way or within right-of-way dedicated by this developer. No disturbance, including grading, shall occur on adjacent properties not owned by the applicant. A 2 -foot -wide shoulder shall be installed adjacent to the pavement on the north side of the road and the existing ditch on the north side shall be replaced with a new ditch to cant' appropriate designed storm. Curb and gutter shall be installed on the south side of Markham, east through the Cross Avenue intersection with appropriately sized storm drainage. A 6 -foot -wide asphalt trail would be installed adjacent to the curb along the south side and the trail may need to switch to the north side of the road west of Sang due to terrain issues. And a concrete or pavement apron onto Markham Road is required adjacent to the gravel drive from the parking lot. The gravel parking area and drive shall be of sufficient compaction and depth for adequate access and parking, and all gravel contained in edging. And that is the only change to the conditions from what you heard previously. And we will be happy to answer any questions you might have. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Garner. Before I open the floor to public comment I would like to remind everyone that we've already had considerable public discussion on this matter. The condition of approval Number 1, which is the determination of street improvements, is really the item of discussion Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 17 that most of us are debating tonight. I think the other one -- the other conditions of approval received a nod, although not a vote, and if everybody would keep their comments brief and to the point, and if you've already said it or somebody said it for you, please just state that you're in agreement. So with that I will open the floor to public comment on Large Scale Development 06-2195 for Pratt Place Inn. Good evening. Alexander: Hi. Fran Alexander. I understand from what Andrew just said that this improvement is still going to be on the north side from Sang to Cross. Is that right, Andrew? Because of terrain? Garner: I'll let Glenn, a staff engineer, expound upon our recommendation. Anthes: Well, if we could -- Go ahead and make the clarification before the public comment then. Newman: Yes, ma'am. There's improvements proposed on both sides; however, all the improvements will be within the existing right-of-way. What we're looking at on our recommendation is that approximately 16 foot from the centerline of the right-of-way would be where the actual improvements would be. That includes the roadway widening on the north side and a small paved channel also on the right side. Does that answer your question, ma'am? Alexander: Right or north? Newman: I'm sorry -- Anther: I'm sorry, Glenn. Would you direct your comments to the Commission? Newman: Yes, ma'am. I'm sorry. That is on the north side, and does that answer your question, ma'am? Anthes: Is Glenn right? Did I just -- Newman: Glenn, yes. Anthes: Okay. Sorry. Ms. Alexander, if you would state your name too, for the record, please. Alexander: Fran Alexander. Anthes: Did you do that? Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 18 Alexander: Yes. I met with Mr. Archer last week and discussed his plans for that ditch, and I would like to know if what we discussed is pretty much what these fellows are talking about. Because the way I understood his description, that this improvement could go on the north side because of terrain issues. I don't really think the terrain is that much different on the north and the south, and I want to make sure that the majority of these improvements, including this trail or sidewalk, stay on Mr. Archer's property since this is Mr. Archer's project. So that's my major concern. Mr. Archer did show me his plans to fill the ditch and pave it with stone on top, and my daughter and I were both there to look at that and agreed with him that that encroachment over onto our side of the road was acceptable. So I'd like to make sure that I understand either with a drawing or some indication exactly what's happening on the north side of the road. And I also want to put in a plug for this trail. I still think it ought to be off in the woods and not right next to the road because then you're -- might be inhibiting the canopy over the road again. But my big concern is the north side. Have you guys got a drawing? Anthes: Thank you, Ms. Alexander. Staff, are there additional copies of this drawing that were provided to us tonight that you can share with the audience? Pate: I have one. I won't be able to discuss it if I don't have one. Lack: We can share. Myres: And I can share mine too, Jeremy. I've got one down here. Anthes: Would any other members of the public like to address this large scale development? Pharris: Hello, my name is Felicia Pharos. I reside on Haskell Heights, 2215. I don't think that I've heard any issues about lighting being brought up, especially with the issue that there's going to be alcohol -- or attempt to bring alcohol to this restaurant that Mr. Archer has proposed. I don't know if anyone has really appreciated the darkness of this road and its continued narrowness from east of Cross. I don't know that the appreciation of the issue of the increased traffic and the alcohol has been brought to mind on this project or has been kept in mind in the planning of this issue. I didn't hear any aspect of any additional lighting anywhere along Markham and the prospect of the increased incidents of traffic accidents, especially since Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 19 we're leaving the deep ditches on either side of Markham, east of Cross. I wonder if that could be addressed. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Ms. Pharris. Would any other member of the public like to address this item? Going once -- Coger: I'm James Butch Coger, a property owner on Markham Hill. I have a lot of catalogs here and pictures I've taken off a website there in California, and they show some natural stone curbing as opposed to regular concrete. I realize what we're trying to do here is keep the Markham Hill Road as natural as possible, looking as natural as possible, and also obviously try to address the safety issues that are involved with it. The latest drawing I saw from staff recommendation, I'm happy to see the curb and gutter and the storm sewer on the south side. That makes a lot of sense. My concern is still stopping it at Cross. That does not address the deep ditch that, you know, runs all the way down to the bottom of the hill, and it does not address the jog in the intersection there of Palmer and Cross that is very dangerous. I don't know if you all are aware or not, but evidently the City of Fayetteville, the University of Arkansas, has started placing signs after Razorback games routing the traffic up Markham, right on Cross to the north, and then back to the west on Halsell and funnels it on out to Wedington Drive, which is bringing a tremendous amount of traffic through our neighborhood. The other night after the ballgame it was two hours before the traffic cleared off of Loren Circle, that's where I live, and basically you could not access Loren and go to the north for several hours after the game. That hasn't really become a problem for us because we adjust our lives around the games and can judge that. But a major concern for me is, with more and more traffic being routed up Markham, and bear in mind, a lot of this is people that do not live in Fayetteville and are not familiar with Markham Road at all, and more and more of our games are going to nighttime -- you know, it was midnight the other night before the game was out -- with that black asphalt road, no lighting whatsoever, that is very dangerous for everybody concerned to travel that road. One of the reasons I was showing the natural stone there on the curb and gutter, that could be incorporated in staff s recommendation. Instead of just doing the typical, totally concrete curb and gutter, we can do concrete curb and this can also be dyed a brown. It's very simple to add a little bit of concrete dye to the mix to the trucks that are bringing it to the site that's going to dump it in the curb and gutter machine, and then instead of having glaring white concrete, we have a nice brown concrete that would compliment native stone curb, and the gutter could be done conventionally. The actual curb could be designed where native stone could be laid on that curb to give it a very nice appearance. It would still be very substantial. If Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 20 somebody did strike the native stone curb, then you have concrete behind it to support it and that concrete would also, you know, help with maintaining the road. If storm sewer was done the whole way down the road, where we have dropped inlets on the storm sewer, that concrete could also be dyed brown. That would tie in with the native stone. One of the main things, if a retaining native -stone wall was done, lighting could be incorporated in that too. I tabbed some pages on that lighting book that shows some lighting, low profile. You would not have to disturb a large electrical easement to install this type of lighting. This type of lighting can be done with a Ditch Witch right along the edge of the sidewalk. You have basically an 18 -inch -tall light that is going to shed light across the sidewalk and out into the street a certain amount. Granted, this is not going to be the same type of light as you would have from pole lighting -- street lighting, but it would be low -profile lighting. It would give us a demarcation point of the curb of the street and the sidewalk so these people that are traveling these roads that are not familiar with the area would be given some light. Obviously, if all these improvements are stopped at Cross, the larger section of the road that's traveled by these people -- I mean, we're talking about literally thousands of cars after a Razorback game. 74, 000 people in the stadium, I'm sure there hasn't been a study down on what this is adding to the road. Anthes: Mr. Coger. Coger: Yes, ma'am. Anthes: The issue of how many days a year a Razorback game is affecting traffic is really not the issue here, it's the other days of the year, and I would appreciate it if you could keep your comments directed exactly at your concerns with this exact development and the pressures of Pratt Place Inn, rather than the Razorback game on traffic in your area. Coger: Okay. I thought traffic was a concern on Markham Road as a whole, which is -- Anthes: I believe we heard quite a bit from you last meeting, and you're welcome to talk as long as you're telling us new information or if you have additional concerns. Coger: Well, these are additional concerns and I'm trying to provide some information to address these concerns. I did not mention the additional traffic last time, and traffic is traffic no matter how it's generated. So again, my concerns are that if the improvements are not made all the way to Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 21 the Palmer intersection, what are we accomplishing? Sure, it's going to be safer from Cross to this project, but the rest of the road is going to suffer. And the Archers own the majority of the property on down to the Palmer intersection, not all of it, but they do own property on both sides of the street and the majority of this property, so it seems to me that, you know, as a responsible developer, that ought to be addressed and, you know, improvements need to be made to the whole street or we're not, you know, addressing the safety issue. Thanks. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Coger. Would any other member of the public like to address this large scale development for Pratt Place Inn? Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public comment and ask for the developer's presentation. Crafton: Good evening, my name is Matt Crafton. I'm an engineer with Crafton, Tull & Associates and representing Julian and Jane Archer this evening, as we did at the last meeting. And again, we want to express our appreciation to city staff for spending the time with us to try to come to a solution that would accommodate the needs of the city as well as the developer's, as well as I appreciate your time last meeting and tonight as well. As you said, we're going to focus on Markham Street since that seems to be the only real issue that is of concern. And we did meet with city engineering staff on site, spent quite a bit of time out there, and we think we've come up with a solution that, although it differs from what the staff is proposing, we think that it meets the intent of the concerns that the staff has. We certainly recognize the need to have a 20 -foot -wide pavement on Markham, all the way to the project location. We are in total agreement with that. The widening of Markham would be as required to get that 20 feet and it would be on the north side. However, in addressing Ms. Alexander's concern, we don't believe that's going to affect her property at all. Our intent is to fill in the ditches on both sides and align those ditches with native stone, rip rap, it would be very attractive, and it also would provide a demarcation from just the black asphalt pavement. And we think we can do that within that ditch line that exists out there right now. And so Ms. Alexander's property would not be affected on the north side. So the pavement would be widened as needed to provide that 20 -foot -wide pavement to the development. On the south side from Cross to Sang we would propose to construct a walk made of asphalt behind the first row of trees that line the existing street. This would keep the canopy just as it is today and also provide for a walk behind that first row of trees. And so it would keep the look that is out there now while also providing the walk. And that walk would be constructed through the trees and would be in city right-of-way, and if additional right-of-way is required, the Archers have agreed to grant that and that's on their side, on the south side of the street. Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 22 When we get to Sang, the sidewalk would switch over to the north side, and again, this is on their property and any right-of-way that would be needed to accommodate that walk would be dedicated. So those are our recommendations. We think that they meet the staffs concerns as far as handling storm water, providing delineation between the pavement and the side of the street, providing a walk that meets the needs of everyone, and keeping the tree canopy as it is today. I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Anthes: Thank you very much. Before we start the discussion, we'll let staff clarify a few things. Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Archer, did you have something to add? Archer: Yes. Julian Archer, 2115 West Markham. First of all, thank you for your patience and thank you for your willingness to postpone this two weeks so that we could meet with the engineers, which we did on the 31 st of August, met with Matt Casey and Glenn Newman. You have their recommendations here, which are in line with what the engineering division normally would do. Although our discussions on site indicate that they would be willing and could live with the proposal that we have put before you, and while there are some of the recommendations with which we agreed and have no differences, I'd like to point out the three areas in which we do have differences and would hope that you would be willing to make those modifications. First of all, that there be no 2 -foot -wide shoulder on the north side, which would be the side on which Fran and Amber Alexander's property is situated. We see no need for a shoulder there since we will be building a trail or sidewalk, however you want to characterized it. If that 2 -foot -wide shoulder should be added, which would push the ditch on the north side 2 feet farther, that would cause the -- by having the ditch being pushed to the north would cause trees to be taken out. And while I know that that is within the city's easement and you can indeed require it, the proposal that we have before you does not take out any trees whatsoever, neither on -- any significant trees either on our property or on the Alexander property. The curb and gutter on the south side, the drainage can easily be handled not by a curb and gutter and storm drain, but you see in the design that has been submitted to you that you have really a very modest ditch on the south side, only 4 -feet wide and only 1 -foot deep. An excellent, excellent solution there, far better than curb and gutter and storm drainage and one that keeps the rural look of this road. I'm sure that many of you and maybe all of you have already been up there. We would also ask that the proposal be modified from a 6 -foot -wide trail to a 4 -foot -wide trail, call it trail or sidewalk, and one done in asphalt rather than in concrete. And as we have emphasized to you, while this in order to save trees and have it meander among the trees may require a grant and an Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 23 expanded sidewalk easement, we would gladly give that expanded sidewalk easement in order to have this plan that we have put before you and under which a great deal of study has already gone be enacted. So again, I thank you for your patience with this proposal. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Archer. A couple of clarifications from staff. Would you restate the amount of width that is being proposed versus what's there and what you feel like is the impact to the tree canopy? Newman: Yes. What's currently located at this location is the roadway is approximately 15- to 18 -foot wide. It varies through that location. I do not have exact dimensions on the existing ditch width right now, but it's presumably 6 -foot wide at the top or greater in those locations. So if you add all that together, that's 28 foot, give or take, from the existing conditions. What we're proposing with this design also is within about 28 foot with the curb and gutter on one side, on the south side, and a small lined ditch on the north side. The improvement or the difference is the sidewalk, the asphalt sidewalks, 6 foot greater for that dimension, so what we're looking at difference -wise is the width of the sidewalk. Anthes: And do you expect that to significantly impact canopy? Newman: They have not provided the -- the client has not provided exact cross- sections of locating the canopy in the dimensions, but from a visual observation it would not greatly impact that location. Anthes: Okay. And the profile of the ditches as they are now versus with the stone lining, do you expect that that profile will change quite a bit?. Newman: Yes. Anthes: Because they look very shallow as shown on the drawings now. Newman: Yes. I do believe that the erosion has created the ditches to be deeper than they need to be. However, the engineering calculations have not been provided at this time, but we do believe they would be greatly reduced from the existing conditions with the lined ditches. Anthes: Okay. And there was a lot of discussion about what keeps cars out of the ditch, because the ditches were so steep before. Do you think that if a car did go off the roadway and into the ditch that it could drive out of it easily now with this profile? Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 24 Newman: With what they have submitted at the general slopes, I believe that would be correct for a very low speed running off the road. And if may, that was one of the issues that we were looking at is having a small buffer as the shoulder on the north side. That's why our recommendation shows the 2 - foot shoulder, is to give a little bit more cushion from going into the ditch. Anthes: Yeah, I have a question about that. Doesn't that just essentially give you 2 foot more width on the road? Newman: Well, it could be asphalt, it could be gravel. We're just looking at some area to give a little bit more cushion from running off the road, and that meets the standard design criteria for a low -speed roadway design. So we're following the design criteria. I know we're looking in this area to try to preserve the canopy, but we're also looking at the design criteria and guidelines we normally approach. Anthes: Okay. And will you or another member of staff remind us about the discussion about lighting in the area. Pate: Sure. During the City Council proposal we discussed it briefly and it was the desire of, I think, several members of the neighborhood that spoke to keep both the street width and the character of this area much the same as it is now, obviously increasing the safety as there is an obvious traffic impact, though low in our opinion. There will be four events per month, so I think that the traffic generated will be simply four times a month, and otherwise, it's a seven -room inn with a small restaurant. In terms of lighting, we're not recommending the typical street lights that you would see SWEPCO or Ozark Electric install along a street in the City of Fayetteville. That is one of the basis of our -- the bases of our recommendation for having the sidewalk adjacent to the street, because there is no lighting. We felt it was a safety concern both for pedestrians if they happen to be on the street and a vehicle is approaching them they can get off the street and onto the sidewalk readily. Additionally, if the sidewalk is located within the woods, it's an additional area outside of where the public realm is essentially, instead of having it closer to where vehicles would pass potentially, if there is a safety concern. That was the basis of our recommendation to have a sidewalk adjacent to the street. Anthes: Okay. And one last question. There has been concern about the Alexander and the Archer property. It is my understanding that the City is not proposing going outside any right-of-way they currently own. Is that correct? Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 25 Pate: That's correct, and there was some discussion about where something would move to the north, the trail. There is a condition of approval. It's in the fourth bullet point. We're recommending "a 6 -foot wide asphalt trail shall be installed adjacent to the curb along the south side. This trail may need to switch to the north side of the road west of Sang Avenue due to terrain issues." And that was specifically referring west of Sang, which is on the -- this property owner, the applicant's property in that area, so it would be west of that property where the intersection of Sang and Markham is is where we were discussing that happen. Anthes: And one last thing. The centerline, I believe that this commission asked for the centerline to be looked at to see if the jog was going to be taken out of the road. Was that addressed? Newman: In the field we looked at the roadway and that is why they are widening on the north. There will also be, regardless of which improvements, because of the widening of the road there would be some intersection improvements done so that there is a smooth turn in that radius and at that intersection you would have a straight line for the roadway. You wouldn't have any jogs going in there. Anthes: Thank you. Commissioners? Commissioner Lack. Lack: Madame Chair. I did want to ask, and maybe the applicant would be the most appropriate one to answer. The statement of native stone concerns me a little bit in that limestone or something that we see as standard white rip rap is fairly native to the area, so I'd like to get a definition to make sure that the brownstone that I would suspect everybody is picturing is what we're going to end up with as native stone. Archer: Well, I find myself in a bizarre position in Fayetteville, Arkansas, trying to define "native stone." I didn't carry my usual rock around with me. I believe it's what is sometimes referred to as fieldstone. I understand that the Fayetteville City Council actually forbade the use in the City of the standard rip rap, which is limestone, big chunks of limestone, which always remains white. You can see it frequently beside the interstate. So fieldstone is that brownish -colored sandstone, and it would be laid in there at kind of a saucer pattern and would have to be as -- we've already talked with the possible contractor for this, and you don't just dump it in and just spread it out, but it actually would have to be laid by hand. Just as you would lay a sidewalk by hand and arrange the stones so, we find ourselves in the position of laying by hand, not us, but the contractor's employees Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 26 laying by hand the stones in this ditch so that they form a tight pattern all the way down the bed of the ditch. Lack: Thank you, and I appreciate that. I appreciate the work that goes into that. Beyond that concern, the drawing and the description that staff has presented to us is almost exactly what I had anticipated and maybe hoped to see with the curb and gutters, storm drainage on the south side and the asphalt walk adjacent to the road on the south. I am pleased to see that it does come short of extension past the ditch. So I think that the extent of impact will be lessened because we are not extending past what has already been impacted. I am a little bit surprised, maybe, to see the shoulder extension, which I would somewhat agree is just a widening. It's another 2 -feet widening of the roadway in that we do have in the new scheme a much shallower ditch, and with a fieldstone ditch the way as has been described, I think would be something less severe for a car to have to maneuver out of, or the ditch that's there now, I would certainly hope to have a shoulder. I would certainly hope to a lot of distance between me and the ditch that's there now. But the ditch that's proposed, I think, is much less severe and I would like to hear what other commissioners thought of the 2 -feet shoulder. Anthes: Yes, I would like to comment on that. I think what's happening is that we've got a little creep going on with the 2 -foot shoulder and then the 6 - foot sidewalk, and I understand that staff is recommending a 6 -foot walk rather than a 4 -foot because of construct -ability of the asphalt. Is that correct, Glenn? Newman: Yes, ma'am, that is correct. And also, I'm not into opposition if we do decrease that some. It just concerns me on one edge if it's not confined like it is against the curb of the raveling, so I don't believe we would want to go down below something that would consistently give us 4 foot after some time and some deterioration. So we could decrease the 6 to 5 to 4 1/2, but I believe that the asphalt without being confined will deteriorate and we'll lose a lot of that as we get overgrowth from the grass and other things in the area. That's why staff was presenting a little bit larger sidewalk for the duration. Antbes: Okay. Well -- I mean -- I think my biggest concern with those ditches previously was the depth of them and the severity of them and the fact that, you know, traffic could get into them and -- and with the gentler ditches I find the need of separating the drainage from the roadway less important -- less of a safety concern, certainly. And with the construct -ability issues, I was wondering whether we could construct a 20 -foot roadway with 1 foot Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 27 for a barrier and then a 4 -foot, 6 -inch walk, which would be a continuous pour of asphalt. And then a barrier could be individual stones or a little fence or some sort of curbing installed as a divider, really, between the sidewalk and the lane of traffic and then have a ditch on both sides of the street. We would end up with a smaller street section and would allow for less asphalt and no white reflective concrete to be poured in the area, but still provide the same safety that we were looking for before, the separation of pedestrians and traffic that we were looking for, and minimize any additional impact to canopy. I don't know. You know, when you add it up -- I think we could end up with another couple of foot narrower roadbed with an approach like that. Harris: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Harris. Harris: I would agree with any proposal to bring some of these numbers down as well. As I'm listening to the sort of points of debate that Ms. Alexander and Dr. Pharris and Mr. Coger give us, as well as what Mr. Archer has said, I've got a few points that I just need to clarify individually before going to sort of the full picture here. I need to know, for instance, we've heard from the engineer that we could go down to, say, 4 1/2 on the trail, which I would certainly be in favor of, because my understanding again is that meets ADA approval. Is that right, Mr. Pate? Would that be correct, with 4 1/2 feet? It would, wouldn't it? Pate: I believe there are sections, depending on the length you have -- the width -- the length of the walk you have to have a 5 -foot crossing path minimum to meet ADA requirements. Off the top of my head I'm not sure about that though. Harris: Okay. Well, I still have real concerns about that. I just think it's appropriate to make sure that the city's trails are ADA compatible, so I would want to check into that. Regarding Mr. -- Commissioner Anthes, I wouldn't mind your input again on what you were saying in terms of curb and gutters. I certainly do like the idea of doing something with the curb and gutter to make it a part of the natural landscape, at least in terms of its aesthetics. I also want to bear in mind what Dr. Pharris was talking about in terms of lighting, and I don't know exactly if you were talking -- if she was talking so much about the street or the asphalt trail, but -- so my question here really is, in this meeting are we going to be directive in the sense of are we going to ask for directional bollards on the trail? No. We're just going to come up with -- the street section? Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 28 Anthes: I think we can propose what -- we need to propose what we think is appropriate. There was a considerable amount of discussion at the last meeting about lighting, and at that point with the neighbors that were present and commenting on that time, and correct me if I'm wrong, it seemed like a lot of people were more concerned about the addition of lighting in that environment rather than having it as far as the intrusiveness. And what we were trying to do was come up with something that would give pedestrians a place of refuge off the road, but in a way that was the least intrusive. Harris: Again, that's great. That's fine in terms of the lighting, because I would -- you know, I think we all want to minimize the impact of this in whatever way and maintain safety. So let me listen to other commissioners in terms of what they would propose for doing some of that. Anthes: Did you want me to clarify the section that I was talking about? Harris: Yes. Thank you. Anthes: If we pulled out the staff recommendation, in moving from left to right, I was wondering if we could kind of merge the two proposals. Basically look at a 4 -foot ditch, a 4 -foot 6 -inch walk, a 1 -foot barrier area, 20 -foot roadway, another 1 -foot barrier and a 4 -foot ditch. The walk, the barriers and the roadway could be one continuous asphalt floor, so we wouldn't have a problem about how -- the construct -ability of that. We would just need to be discussing the barrier that would be available to us that staff would and engineering would be satisfied with that would separate the automobile traffic from the pedestrian traffic. Harris: Thank you for that. Trumbo: Madame Chair. Anthes: Yes. Trumbo: One more time for clarification. Are you proposing to remove the curb and gutter when you said just one flat pour so there -- it's all level, put up a rock barrier or some kind of other barrier, let the water flow into the ditch, and behind or south of the rock barrier would be a sidewalk or trail? Anthes: And the reason why I say that is, is that I think a lot of the Commission's concern -- or at least my concern originally was with the depth of the Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 29 ditches and the safety problem that would occur if cars ended up in that ditch. It looks with this new profile and the new surfacing material that's been offered by the applicant that a lot of that safety concern has been ameliorated with that design, and if so -- and it effectively gives, you know, another hard surface. So if the flow could indeed be accommodated in those ditches and we could narrow the roadbed within what's already existing there, it seems like that might be a winning compromise between the two proposals, and Mr. Pate, it looks like you might have a comment on that. Pate: Just a question. In your cross-section that you mentioned, that would require drainage to flow across the sidewalk; is that correct? It would have to drain across the sidewalk? Anthes: Well, unless it all pitches to one -- unless the pitch occurs at the barrier line: one way it flows to one ditch, one way it flows to another. Pate: Because that would be obviously one concern to consider. The other, the reason primarily that we're looking at curb and cutter is that once the applicant makes the improvement, he's gone, it's the City's improvement to maintain forever and ever. So replacing those types of improvements are obviously more costly and more difficult for the City to do and City taxpayers to incur, so that's really one of the reasons why we look at more traditional design standards in terms of this and try to come up with sort of a compromise. I think the ditches are a little bit different as well, but we're comfortable recommending those in this particular case. Anthes: But you were comfortable with the ditch on the one side? Pate: Correct. Exactly. Anthes: So would you not be comfortable with it on the other side as well? Pate: No, I don't think we have an issue with the ditch. If there is some sort of curb to keep drainage off the sidewalk, I think that would be preferred to be something more standard if there is one at all -- if there's a barrier. Anthes: Is there anything that is not going to provide a hard, white line running right up the -- and would provide the construct -ability of the narrower walk rather than the 6 -foot walk? I think the goal was to keep the pavement section adequate, safe, and yet as narrow and rural in appearance as possible. Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 30 Pate: I don't know that I have an answer to that question. Lack: Madame Chair. Anthes: Yes. Lack: I think the only concern that I would have with the barrier would be that the barriers that I picture are boulders or something large enough to not be moved by a car and probably discontinuous so that water would flow between, and what I see with that is the potential for that to be at a point where it hits a car in a less forgiving place. A curb at 6 inches with the entire -- which is much more forgiving and you can go on down the road, but if you strike a boulder that are spaced at some distance that you could get between them somewhat, then I think that there's much more likelihood for property damage for vehicles. And I think that the -- when we think about the white curb, I think the curb will be white if poured without color for a short period of time. I know we all see curbs and sidewalks that do mellow out a little bit with time. I think the thing with the 6 -foot walkway is that there is some breakage of the edge and just an overall construct - ability with that undefined edge in making sure that we do keep a 5 -foot ADA cross-section and share in that space with the drainage I think is what's attractive with that for me with having the actual storm drain and the curb -in so the water is directed at the curb, taken in the curb inlets, run through the pipe, and that that space is shared with the walkway. Anthes: What about the idea of, and I don't know if staff still accepts these or not, but further on down the road there is one of those more conventional wood posts with a low metal railing that you see in a lot of rural areas and then on bridge crossings or low-water crossings. That exists already on this street and would not provide a barrier to water but it might be visually acceptable if staff still allows those types of barriers, or is that an old standard? Newman: I believe that's an older standard, but we'll have to review that and get you an answer back. Anthes: I don't think that does what you're asking, but I was addressing the question about something in lieu of the boulders. Lack: Sure. Graves: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 31 Graves: I would tend to lean more towards sticking with staff's recommendation, but possibly with less encroachments as far as the width and possibly making the shoulder 1 foot instead of 2 foot, making the sidewalk 5 feet instead of 6 feet, and then making it clear in the condition that the shoulder can be constructed out of some material like gravel or asphalt, which staff has indicated they could be comfortable with. You accomplish the process of having a narrower overall encroachment in the area, but at the same time addressing the concerns of staff about drainage. Anthes: Are there further comments or discussions? Commissioner Clark. Clark: The only one we haven't talked about is the lighting issue, and I understand the desire to keep this area looking as rural as possible, but I also understand that we're going to vastly increase the usage of this area. We're putting in sidewalks, but we're putting in asphalt sidewalks which will be dark. That concerns me on a safety issue for a variety of reasons, not only for pedestrians in terms of pedestrian traffic up those sidewalks at night, but also for cars being able to see them. So can staff -- someone on staff explain to me why we're backing away from required lighting, because usually we throw that in when we improve the roads. Pate: It's one of those issues that in terms of this project we felt it was unique in part of discussion with the parts of the neighborhood who do not what lighting on this road. I know some of the Council members mentioned it and some of the Planning Commissioners have mentioned it as well in terms of balancing the safety needs, and that's what we're doing exactly with the 20 -foot section, balancing the safety needs with what our standards are. Clark: I've heard people say they don't want overhead lights, the big ones, but can't we find some -- I mean, we're designing this as committee now anyway, so can't we find some compromise in terms of putting, maybe, trail lights along the sidewalk, between the sidewalk and the street, something -- the short ones, not the big overhead hummers that I can see why the neighbors would object to -- but something that's still -- especially if we're going to make this ADA compatible. I mean, my gosh, it's a very dark path. Pate: I certainly think that's a possibility. I'm not sure what the applicant feels about that, but there's obviously some bollard -type lighting which is more pedestrian scale. In this area, the ones that were installed in front of the Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 32 Terminella building, for instance, is a bollard -style -type of lighting, which is -- Clark: Yeah, those are very nice. Pate: -- a lower, more pedestrian -oriented type of lighting. I'm not sure what the applicant has -- Anthes: Well, I would also submit that those are more of an urban style of lighting. Is that something that staff is maintaining at the Terminella site or is that on the Terminella property itself? Pate: I believe that's on the Terminella property. Anthes: So that would not be something that would be accepted in a city right-of- way -- Pate: As a typical standard street -- Anthes: -- that the city would maintain? Pate: Correct. That's correct. Anthes: Do you have any comments about alternative lighting that engineering and the City accepts other than a pole light? Newman: No, ma'am. I do not have any recommendations on lighting. Anthes: Mr. Archer. Archer: Yes, I just wanted to make a comment on -- I believe, as I understand the suggestion that you made earlier, a foot on each side of the road, if that's correct. And everything there seemed to be fine, as I understand it. The one request I would make is to move the sidewalk as opposed to having the 1 -foot widening, then the sidewalk, then the ditch, which then forces the ditch outside of the current ditch and off into the woods, to keep the ditch as it is and then filled in and lined with rocks and allow us to put the sidewalk meandering through the trees. Anthes: I understand that's your request, but it doesn't sound like that's staff s recommendation, and we can discuss it in the Commission, but --. Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 33 Archer: Well, no it was not -- they said they could live with it. We have done the same thing in a development that we have, Bois D'arc Subdivision. We were allowed to weave the sidewalk in the trees, and certainly a sidewalk that is on the other side of the ditch and wandering through the trees is the safest possible position for the sidewalk. Anthes: Okay. Thank you. Alexander: Point of clarification. Anthes: Sure. Alexander: I don't really think that my question was answered. Staff recommendation is a 6 -foot wide asphalt trail should be installed adjacent to the curb along the south side, the asphalt trail may need to switch to the north side of the road west of Sang due to terrain issues. That is our property, is the property west of Sang, and I still haven't really gotten clarification as to what's going to keep the sidewalk on the south side, because this terrain issue in these notes says that that would shift it to the north. That would make it -- you know, you're running across the road. Clark: That's really funny you would make that clarification, because that's where I was going next too. Alexander: I just don't understand this. And I would like to put in a good word for Julian's idea about having it meander through the woods. If it was eventually connected to a bigger trail system, which is desperately needed, that would be a great place for it and get them off the road entirely. Anthes: I think we need to be clear about what we're asking for here. This is really a sidewalk on a city street. We're just asking them to construct it to trail standards which allows the asphalt rather than the concrete for the reflectivity issue. So would that be an accurate statement, that this is a sidewalk? Newman: Yes, ma'am. Anthes: Can you address Ms. Alexander's question about the location again? Newman: To the best of my ability, when we met out in the field, it was my understanding, and Mr. Casey's at the same time, that the property ownership that was west of Sang and on the north was Mr. Archer's also. If that is incorrect, we may need to revise our statement, but that was -- I Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 34 believe there's -- on the south side there's a picket fence there located in the terrain. It's a lot steeper. And on the north side of that location it was flatter and would be less interruptive to the trees. That's why the decision and the statement was made. If that is incorrect we need to review that, if it is getting off our property -- off of the applicant's property. Pate: That is exactly what all our plats have shown, is that Evangeline Lane, which is the -- if you look at your plat, the driveway that's proposed comes almost to the property line that's shown as owner, Amber Dean Alexander, Frances Dean Alexander. The property line is to the west of -- to the east of Evangeline Lane, which is where that crossing at Sang would be. I'm not sure if that's an incorrect property line shown by the applicant or not, but that's what we have assumed. Anthes: So based on the plat information you have, the recommendations and the plat information match -- Pate: Yes. Anthes: -- as according to ownership? Pate: Yes. Newman: I'm not sure if I can explain it without showing you. May I approach? Anthes: Try. Newman: From the map that we have in our packet, which is not a very good detail, as we can see, Sang is located here, and this is west, so at this location they were discussing from the intersection of Sang and Markham moving to the west side and crossing this direction. It's my understanding that that is the applicant's property. This is the property in question and we are on the south side in that location. Clark: Would you show that to Ms. Alexander? Well, it looks like Jeremy is. Graves: I have a question for you while we're standing here. If we -- if he doesn't own that property, even though the terrain is steep, is it capable of having sidewalk built on it? I understand it might be more expensive. Newman: We would have to look at the location -- Alexander: Jill, I've just looked at the -- Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 35 Newman: -- following the terrain versus the road. The road is generally flatter, and the sidewalk should follow the roadway, and it depends on the cross- section, if we can stay within the right-of-way at that location. Without the cross-section data being presented right now, I could not answer that without that information. Anthes: Okay. Thanks. Alexander: Okay. We are from Evangeline to Cross on the north side. Pate: Their property line is indeed east of Sang Avenue. Anthes: So staff's recommendation holds. Okay. Lack: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Lack. Lack: I did also, when I read through that, understand that to mean that the recommendation is for the sidewalk to be on the south side, but if terrain requires that there may be a need to move it to the north side for that particular stretch. But I think it is everybody's understanding that the desire is to have it connected fully along the south side. Clark: Back to that lighting thing. Are you saying, Jeremy, there's no -- unless we put up pole lights, there's no alternative here unless the applicant is willing to do something? Pate: We don't have the ability to require SWEPCO or Ozarks Electric -- I'm not too sure as to what electric company here -- to install a different type of lighting other than the standard lighting that they install. Clark: So if we -- so our choice is no lighting, dark, black asphalt paths, or big pole lighting that nobody really wants in the neighborhood? Pate: Unless the applicant offers to do something different, that is correct. Anthes: And then that has to be accepted and maintained by the City. Clark: By the applicant -- or by the City actually, because it's in the City right-of- way. Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 36 Anthes: Right. Clark: I really thought, Madame Chair, that I was going to be wholeheartedly in favor of this proposal and I really liked what I heard a lot last time we met, but we sent people back to get very specific answers to very specific questions, and as far as I'm concerned, I got some of them and not all of them, and now I have even more questions. And I have concerns regarding safety and the fact we're going to, hopefully, get a sidewalk all the way up the south, where I think it belongs, but it might cross the street. And, you know, if we're talking about pedestrian safety, that's just not right. And speaking of right, it's going to be dark, so I'm not going to support it. Anthes: Okay. Is there further discussion? I guess I have a final question of staff. As far as a shoulder width that is construct -able and maintainable, is 2 foot what staff recommends as a minimum or is that -- does that dimension have variability? Newman: That's the typical dimension that we would look at. Also, if I may, if the depth that they indicate with these drawings right now do not exceed 1 foot in any location, I would feel comfortable with eliminating that buffer zone of the 2 foot that we are showing, but we do not have that information. We have representation at two areas on these profiles on cross-sections that they presented. If they give us the worse -case scenario and that is reviewed and meets our requirements, I feel comfortable in removing that recommendation of the shoulder, because it is very shallow, if this is accurate, for the entire length of the project. Anthes: Mr. Crafton, have you done those calculations and can you tell us if 1 foot is the maximum depth in those ditches? Crafton: Is the maximum depth? Anthes: Of the ditch in the deepest part. Crafton: Yes, it is, and that will handle the design storm for that classification of street. Anthes: Thank you. Harris: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Harris. Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 37 Harris: I believe that this project is going to open up this neighborhood in ways that absolutely need to be addressed and I believe that's what we're attempting to do, from the notion of the sidewalk that will nonetheless look like a trail, and even to our questions -- and Commissioner Clark, I think, is right on about -- there is a serious question about lighting. Because this will open up I think pedestrian traffic, it will be a point of destination, a point of interest, and that will speak to the success of the project, actually, so I do want to continue to think about that. At the same time, while I believe this project opens up this neighborhood, it's seems to me that it opens it up in ways that are far preferable to so many others that I could imagine for this neighborhood. So I do continue to want to support this project with compromises intact, and so this evening, for me at least, I would like to have again -- we keep coming back to this -- well, I guess I would like to put it to my fellow commissioners about, do we want to be directive in some way about lighting, and second, I would like to come up with -- and Madame Chair -- actually, Commissioner Graves, I think I prefer your particular street section at this point and I would like to give the floor to you to make a motion at some point, but at this point I would still like to talk some more about the lighting and if they're -- even within the sort of pole lighting, if there is -- is there any sort of compromise there, Mr. Pate, in terms of distance between them to make them somehow less obtrusive and invasive for the neighborhood? Pate: I believe so. At this point in time we're not recommending any, so I believe the separation is certainly something that could be discussed. Our typical separation is a maximum of 300 feet. Other than that, that's the directive we are given by our city ordinances on most of our standard projects. That is the typical separation you see in a residential neighborhood or along a standard street in the City of Fayetteville. So utilizing that as a guideline, there's approximately 900 feet, I believe, between Cross Avenue and the right-of-way that's interior to the property. There obviously would be some lighting interior to the property just for the structure, the parking areas. That will be low -scale and meeting our lighting ordinance in terms of those areas. And because, obviously, the parking if you notice on the site plan set quite a ways off into the woods in a bench there. So there will be come lighting that allows you to go into the site and understand what is there. So if that is your position, you know, there are numerous derivatives of 300, 600 feet, 900 feet, one at the intersection of Cross Avenue and Markham, and one at the intersection of Sang and Markham, would the be intersections which that's where -- if a crossing occurred for pedestrian, that would be a crossing -- that would be a likely place to locate lighting. Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 38 Clark: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Motion: Clark: I would like to make that very motion, to add a condition requiring street lights at a minimum impact, meeting at intersections, and if this does cross from north to south, certainly at those junctures -- or south to north. Jeremy, you can craft it the wording that you just said. Graves: I'll second. Anthes: We have a motion to amend by Commissioner Clark, with a second by Commissioner Graves. I'm afraid I'm unclear about the spacing. Clark: Spacing at the two intersections that Mr. Pate pointed out. Is that going to be about 600 apart? Pate: Approximately 450, I'm guessing, just roughly scaling that off of the maps in the back of your packet. Anthes: So there would be two poles? Clark: Two. Two poles and a pole if the sidewalk were to switch from the south side to the north side. Pate: We would likely only recommend that at the intersection. So it's likely just two lights that we're looking at. Clark: Okay. Just two lights at those two intersections. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Commissioner Harris. Harris: I have a point of clarification only. So adding this condition does not mean -- we can still come back and add more conditions? Pate: Sure. Harris: Thank you very much. Anthes: And one other clarification from staff. Can you tell us what the standard lamping is on those poles? Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 39 Pate: I don't know that, sorry. Anthes: Can you guess? Do you know what the light source is? You don't know what color the light is? Not mercury light, not high pressure sodium, not 150 watts, nothing? Clark: Can't we just request low -impact to illuminate the trail or the sidewalk, whatever we're wanting to call it. Anthes: It's just whatever the SWEPCO standard is, I guess. We just don't know what it is. Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Clark, a second by Commissioner Graves to add two lighting poles at the intersections, approximately 450 feet apart, to the SWEPCO standard, or the lowest SWEPCO standard. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to amend LSD 06-2195 carries with a vote of 5-3-0 with Commissioners Myres, Trumbo, and Anthes voting no. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Graves: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Motion: Graves: I'm going to move to amend condition of approval number one, which is actually a finding by the Commission on street improvements. The motion is to amend it to read that the Planning Commission approves street improvements and then, as staff recommends it there, with the exception that on bullet point number two, the shoulder would say -- it would say, " a 1 -foot -wide shoulder of gravel or asphalt shalt be installed," etcetera. It would say further down in the paragraph, "The existing ditch along the north side shall be replaced with a new ditch that is lined with brown or darkened fieldstone and that will carry the appropriate design," etcetera." And then on bullet point number four, "a 5 -foot -wide asphalt trail," etcetera." Clark: And I'll second. Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 40 Anthes: Okay. We have a motion to amend by Commissioner Graves, with a second by Commissioner Clark. Point of clarification. On the shoulder, on the 1 -foot gravel shoulder -- Graves: Yes. Anthes: -- is that in all cases or is it only if necessary given the depth of the ditch? Because I believe engineering said they would be willing to remove that section. Graves: I think they are willing, but my motion is for it to be there. Anthes: Okay. Graves: To still provide separation between the edge of the pavement and the ditch. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Does engineering feel like a 1 -foot section is maintainable? Newman: Yes, ma'am. The ditch section, just to bring the case in point, 1 -foot deep ditch as they show here is a 2 to 1 slope, which is starting to get steep and that's kind of a little bit of the cutoff area, so that's why I was wanting to make sure that we're not getting too deep with that slope. Anthes: And you can work with the 1 foot? Newman: Yes. Yes, ma'am Graves: And just by way of explanation, I envision it almost like what you would have as a rumble strip in some areas. It's sort of -- if you get your wheels off the pavement you at least have a little space before you go off into the ditch. Anthes: That's good. Is there further discussions? Trumbo: Madame Chair. Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Trumbo. Trumbo: Point of clarification. Are we talking 1 foot on both sides or just the north side? Graves: Staff recommendation was for the north side. Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 41 Trumbo: Okay. And then this -- we're going to change the sidewalk to 5 feet, sidewalk trail. Are you recommending as shown on this design staff recommended over the storm drain and pipe with the curb and gutter? Graves: Yes. Trumbo: Okay. Graves: I'm not changing their cross-section with the exception of the width of the sidewalk. Trumbo: All right. Graves: Which engineering has indicated they can maintain it at 5. Trumbo: Thank you. Anthes: Is everybody clear? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to amend LSD 06-2195 carries with a vote of 7-1-0, with Commissioner Anthes voting no. Coger: Madame Chair. Anthes: I'm sorry. We've already closed public comment. Coger: May I have just 60 seconds? The other people got to speak afterwards. Just 60 seconds, please. Anthes: We're in the middle of amending motions. Coger: I realize that. Given Ms. Clark's -- Anthes: Mr. Coger, you don't have permission to speak. I'm sorry. Coger: Okay. Anthes: I wanted to make sure that everybody knows that we are voting on this entire large scale tonight. I know that our focus has been on condition of approval 1 and amending the cross-sections. If anybody has any further comments on the commercial design standards or any other conditions of Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 42 approval, I just want to make sure that you had the opportunity to comment. Graves: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Motion: Graves: I'll move for approval of Large Scale Development 06-2195 with the 32 stated conditions of approval, including condition number 1 with the finding that was just made and a finding on condition number 2 in favor of commercial design standards. Anthes: A motion to approve by Commissioner Graves. Do I hear a second? Trumbo: Second. Anthes: A second by Commissioner Trumbo. Is there further discussion? Pate: Madame Chair. Anthes: Yes. Pate: That does include an additional condition for the two lights. Graves: I said 32 conditions. I think there -- Pate: I'm sorry. Yes, you're correct. Anthes: Commissioners? Trumbo: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Trumbo. Trumbo: To the applicant's proposal, I personally understand and would like to have a nice meandering sidewalk through the roadway, but as mentioned by Commissioner Ostner when we were talking about it last time, the ditches are open and they're pretty deep, and as an emergency bail-out zoned right on the side of the road, it makes more sense with the way the ditches are open there, so it's what I would prefer to have, but I don't believe it's -- there is a safety issue with the added traffic. Thank you. Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 43 Anthes: Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve LSD 06-2195 carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 44 CUP 06-2188: Conditional Use Permit (GELATERIA SCARPING, 484): Submitted by RICHARD BERQUIST for property located at 329 WEST AVE. The property is zoned C-3, CENTRAL COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 0.63 acres. The request is to approve a Dance Hall, Use Unit 29, in the existing building. Anthes: Our first item of new business is Conditional Use Permit 06-2218 for Gelateria Scarpino. May we have the staff report, please? Fulcher: This is a conditional use request for a dance hall, use unit 29, at Scarpino's at 329 North West Avenue. They're requesting this -- really, they have a variety of uses inside the structure. It's approximately 5,000 square feet. I alluded to it a little bit in the staff report. They have concerts, private parties, wedding ceremonies, dinner theaters, various activities. Some of the time within these activities they do have an area for dancing, approximately 700 square feet. That is why they've requested this conditional use, for those times when they do have an area for dancing, and to have that approved as a conditional use within the existing structure. Staff finds that this is compatible with the surrounding uses. We recently reviewed a conditional use for the same use unit, a dance hall, at the building just to the north here. This is surrounded by C-3 zoning, other than one property across West Street which is R -O and C-3 mix. This is within the downtown Fayetteville area and the Dickson Street area, very compatible and appropriate. Staff is recommending approval of this request based on its size and location, with seven conditions of approval. These are standard conditions of approval regarding the two that we always put in here about the noise ordinance, about that this does not approve outdoor music or amplification of music out of doors. Fairly standard. Condition number seven, with this being a conditional use, the sidewalk administrator has recommended reconstruction or repairs to the existing sidewalks in front of this building. They've started to deteriorate and those improvements can be coordinated with the sidewalk administrator. If you have any specific questions, please ask. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Fulcher. Would any member of the public like to address this conditional use permit for Scarpino? Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public comment and ask for the applicant's presentation. Is the applicant available? Hi, come on up. Berquist: Good evening. I appreciate your interest. We host wedding receptions -- Anthes: If you would, state your name, please. Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 45 Berquist: Oh, my name is Richard Berquist. I'm a co-owner, with my wife, of Scarpino's. And we host wedding receptions probably more -- 90 percent of the business that we do. The dancing that we do pertains to that. We have public events and private events, just depending on who rents the place. So we need a permit to -- I guess to allow dancing at Scarpino's. Anthes: All right. Thank you, Mr. Berquist. Berquist: You're welcome. Anthes: Commissioners? Trumbo: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Trumbo. Motion: Trumbo: I don't see any issues with the permitting of a dance floor there. I'm glad number seven was added. Those sidewalks are a little bit dangerous and could use improvements. So with that in mind, I'm going to make a motion to approve Conditional Use 06-2218 with the stated conditions. Myres: I'll second. Anthes: We have a motion to approve by Commissioner Trumbo, with a second by Commissioner Myres. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve CUP 06-2218 carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 46 ADM 06-2258: (LIERLY LANE): The request is for a major modification to the approved Lierly Lane PPL 05-1433, to allow for money -in -lieu of street improvements. Anthes: Our next item is Administrative Item 06-2258 for Lierly Lane. May we have the staff report? Morgan: Yes. This property is located south of Lierly Lane. The property is currently within the Planning Area and annexation of the property is pending City Council approval. On July 11, 2005, the Planning Commission approved a preliminary plat for Lierly Lane Subdivision. On Page 6 of your agenda you can see the approved plans as well as those plans which were submitted for construction approval and approved. The applicant has been working on this subdivision and is constructing improvements on Lierly Lane. What was approved was a 28 -foot -wide street section within this collector street, which included a 28 -foot -wide street with curb and gutter on each side, and sidewalk to the south. The applicant has constructed half of the improvements and has submitted a request to modify the required improvements along Lierly Lane for 14 feet pavement to the south with curb and gutter and 6 foot pavement to the north. I have some drawing here of that, of the proposal, and will be handing those out. The applicant proposes full improvements of the intersection of Hughmount and Lierly with the improvements to the north stopping shortly after that intersection curbing into that radius. The applicant requests this modification due to wishing not to disturb the existing stand of trees along the fencerow to the north, and there are some existing single-family homes to the north within a platted subdivision, the Lierly Subdivision. The fencerow consists of eastern red cedars and cherry trees and does provide for some privacy for the homes. Staff has reviewed this request and recommends denial. We find that there is no guarantee that those trees would survive. They are located within an area that is provided for a waterline and any reconstruction or repair of that waterline would require removal of those trees. I believe those trees are within the existing right-of-way, which is 25 feet from centerline as platted within the Lierly Subdivision. An evergreen screen is not required to buffer a residential subdivision from another residential subdivision and we do find that the more narrow street intersection can cause a dangerous traffic situation. So for those reasons staff is not recommending approval of the requested modification. And I'll pass out these maps, which also has cost estimate provided by the applicant. Instead of the improvements they are proposing a cost estimate. That total is $25,221.20. Our engineering division did review that this afternoon. We were only supplied with this this afternoon, and the statement said that it did look a little low, that inlets and some curb radiuses on driveways were not submitted -- or included as Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 47 part of this, so we still do need to work out that figure if it is your desire for those improvements to be paid for instead of constructed. Anthes: Thank you, Ms. Morgan. Would any member of the public like to address this administrative item for Lierly Lane? Please come forward. Good evening. Threlkeld: Hi. My name is Mike Threlkeld. I live on the north side of Lierly Lane. I'm one of the homeowners that your staff mentioned. I would like to -- I have some comments and suggestions I would like to make. First I would like to address what she said, the waterline that she mentioned and there's also a gas line as well on my property. It's on my side of the property line. It's not in the trees. And let's say the waterline did break. Even if it breaks you don't have to remove the whole stand of trees along my whole property line to fix the waterline. I mean, I would think that should be a one -spot deal. So I really don't think that's a valid argument for removing my trees. Also since my property line comes so close to where they're building this street, I'm not sure that the city has a right-of-way or an easement on -- to do things onto my property. I guess that would be a question or concern of mine. Now to -- I guess I can move onto my comments. Recently it seems like there's been a lot of discussion with Fayetteville and its growth and sticking with what you're calling the spirit of the community. I would like to say that this area with large homes on larger lots -- I'm on an acre. I have neighbors on 5 acres, 3 acres -- and now that we're bringing in homes four to an acre, it really doesn't seem to fit our community, but I'm not sure that there's anything we can do about that. But I don't think we should make that worse for me by basically what would be destroying my trees, our cedar trees, which would be my screening from the development that's going on. I have five kids and a lot of my concern would be if -- These trees keep my kids in the yard. If we're making a wider street and a more wide-open street, then that just gives my kids free rein to the street. So I understand there's concern about cars, but my concern is about my family. I have talked to the developer today, to Mike McDonald. He has provided me -- we have some pictures that show what they've done now of full-size trucks passing on this road with absolutely no problem at all. There's also pictures of the trees in front of my property. I would like to suggest that we either -- if we could leave the street at 23 to 24 feet, which is what the gravel is now, if you can see on the pictures I could provide, or at least allow them to bond the widening of the street to be done in the future when it's necessary. I did some research. I looked at the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission and they suggest -- or they show Weir Road, which is the street just north of us, as a collector street and not Lierly. So I would like some study to be done to make sure that Lierly is Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 48 the correct street to be a collector street before we automatically widen it to 28 feet. And, I guess, one other suggestion, I'm not sure it's realistic, but would be if the road does have to be widened, to consider widening it to the south onto the developer's land instead of into my screen. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you very much. Would any other member of the public like to address this administrative item? Price: My name is Jennifer Price and I live at 4089 West Lierly Lane and I'd just like to concur with what my neighbor Mike has said. You know, we've been here several times in front of you asking for not such high density, you know, no duplexes, the annexation, the rezoning, and every time we come you want to help us, but you can't. Now we're in front of you and it's kind of ironic that we're on the side of the developer this time asking you to not cut the trees down, because that is the only thing that protects my neighbor from the development. He doesn't have to walk out his front door and see all the homes there. He can still view the trees. And so I urge you to find another way. You know, if it means that the developer has to widen the street on his side, then please consider that. Now, I will agree that the intersection when you go up to Hughmount and Lierly is very narrow and that part does need to be widened. I guess we're used to coming into it as a dirt road, and now it's changed and it does seem a lot narrower. And I would also ask that you look at the Master Street Plan and find out if it would be acceptable to make Weir Road a collector street versus Lierly Lane. I know this may not be germane to the topic today, but if you cut -- if you make Lierly Lane the collector street, you're going to have to go through four or five property owners. You're going to have to get permission from them to cut through their land, essentially cutting their land in half. Weir Road is already an established road that would cut through no one's property and would be a win-win situation for the city and for the neighbors who Lierly Lane would cut through. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Ms. Price. Would anyone else like to address this administrative item for Lierly Lane? Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public comment and ask for the applicant's presentation. McDonald: Hello. I'm Mike McDonald with Hometown Development. Art is passing out the photos that Mike Threlkeld had mentioned. Anthes: Art, if you just want -- we can pass them down if you just want to hand us a stack.. Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 49 McDonald: I know your time is valuable. I'll try to be brief. It's really a simple issue. We don't dispute the fact that the original plan submitted showed a 28 -foot back-to-back curb and gutter road, and it can be fit without going onto Mr. Threlkeld's property, but it will get within 4 or 5 feet of the edge of his property, and the back field behind the curb, along with the construction, will probably kill all those trees, and certainly they'll be chopped in half. We're not disputing that the engineering planning staff are correct and --- technically correct. The choice is really to put the road in as it's designed or to save these trees in the neighbor's yard. We're not trying to keep the money. We'll be glad to review the cost estimate that we submitted to engineering and if that needs to be adjusted somewhat we can do that. We used 10 percent more than we are paying our developer out there now for the paving and put some undercutting in there and put a thousand -dollar landscape allowance and a couple of other things to get to that $25,000.00 figure, and that's not a big bone of contention with us. It was actually sort of a difficult decision for me, and I personally made the decision to appear before you, because we have a very clear-cut plan that obviously shows that we can go in and put this road in without going onto the neighbor's property. But in the last month or so several times I've appeared before different city staffing, including some of you at Subdivision Committee, where we've been asked to consider not only the technical merits of a project, but you've asked us to look at things from the point of view of the community, and so we believe some of the traffic that comes from our neighborhood, which is to the south of this, will actually exit through Clabber Creek when that's completed. It will be sometime before we're building homes and complete this anyway, and we've put the widest width road there that we can right now without affecting the trees. The road varies from about 23 feet from the back of the other curb to about 24. So if this is denied, we would have to add about 5 -- 4 or 5 feet to get the curb and gutter in. And we would just ask that you consider that and let us put a bond up for that. And if someone chooses to put that in at a later date, the money will be there for it. I appreciate your time. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. McDonald. Mr. Scott, do you have anything to add? Scott: No, ma'am. Anthes: Commissioners? Staff, if you might clarify a few things for us. Has the waterline placement and the easement -- and have the easements been verified on this property? Pate: We are aware that there are waterlines on the property adjacent. It's just to the north of the right-of-way. It's likely not directly under those trees. I Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 50 believe those are old fence -line trees. The right-of-way was dedicated at 25 feet from centerline to the north with Lierly Lane Subdivision, which is part of the subdivision that some of these property owners are within, along the original Lierly Lane, and so yes, to my knowledge those things have been verified. Anthes: Okay. And can you comment on the difference between the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission map with Weir Road noted as a collector versus Lierly Lane as shown on ours? Pate: The Master Street Plan for the City of Fayetteville is adopted by our elected officials and City Council and recommended by the Planning Commission. We've gone through a couple of different processes in 1996. The Master Street Plan was adopted through a series of public meetings as well as amended in 2000 or 2001, I believe, through a series of about 26 public meetings. That was part of our process to get the Master Street Plan adopted at that time and that is the Master Street Plan that we as a City -- you as the Planning Commission and the City Council, operate on in terms of development, by ordinance, and by resolution for the Master Street Plan. Anthes: And can you comment on staff s response to a request to widen on the other side of the street? Pate: Regardless of whether this was a collector street, which it is, or a local street, which is our designation below that, but the 28 -foot -wide cross- section is a typical residential cross-section in both of those types of applications. So the road width really wouldn't change. The centerline of the street is typically the centerline of the right-of-way, which is why we've essentially located the street where it is currently. Pushing it to the south, obviously, would incur quite a bit of additional cost above and beyond what this developer was originally approved to do because it would require removal of the existing curb and gutter that's already been constructed, and likely drainage improvements and things of that nature as well. It would also decrease the green space between the sidewalk to the south and the curb that is adjacent to that in this location. Anthes: And has the tree and landscape administrator evaluated the desirability of these particular trees? Pate: Yes. Our urban forester did visit this site and indicated to us that these are primarily fencerow type eastern red cedar trees. They are not a high priority. In fact, they're considered low priority. Obviously for the users of this property, the homeowners that are currently there, they're certainly a Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 51 high priority. In terms of if there's a bond taken and the City went in and installed this improvement in the near future, the very same effect would have to occur. We would likely have to remove a portion of those trees, if not all, to improve that street. So I think the question is whether that occurs now or later, if it's now or if it's a delayed effect at some point in the future. We are of the opinion in staff that the improvement should occur at this time when the traffic being generated is about to occur once these homes are constructed and connectivity does reach from Clabber Creek south. There are school districts. The school is in this area. Obviously, that will allow for people to travel both north and south in this area. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Pate. Is there further discussion? Commissioner Myres. Myres: I have a question. I understand that to the north of Lierly is Washington County. Is that right? Does the street lie completely in the city limits? Pate: Actually to the south of Lierly is also currently Washington County. This project was processed within the Planning Area. It's not yet been annexed by the City Council. Myres: Okay. I had forgotten. Okay. I have a thing about streets and things that have been approved in the past and are supposedly then set in stone and perfectly fine forever after, but even downgrading this to a -- just a regular street section wouldn't change the size, is that correct, if it was not a collector? Pate: That's correct. It would still have to be 28 -foot wide. Myres: It would still be a 28 -foot -wide street? Pate: Correct. Anthes: Other comments? Trumbo: Madame Chair. Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Trumbo. Trumbo: I would -- after reading this and then seeing the trees, one letter we have from the engineer states that it's -- I got the impression it wasn't this dense with trees -- this big of trees. I'd like to be able to save the trees, but we need a wider road, if not now, definitely with all the development going on Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 52 out west is -- does staff see any way to compromise to get a wider street without removing these trees at this time? Pate: I certainly -- if there were a way we would certainly be supportive of that. I think the issue is that the amount of construction that would occur, the length of street will be interior to the trees, but the amount of construction that would occur in disturbance to backfill and install the curb and gutter would likely take those trees out, and that's essentially our concern. Clark: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: Jeremy, if we allowed this developer to pay money -in -lieu and narrow the street section to preserve the trees, etcetera, what would trigger the decision to go back in and widen that street at a later date? Pate: It would likely be either a development in that area and the street committee agreeing to do that, because the street committee is typically the committee, along with City Council, that expends city funds once they're put into our system. So it would likely take an action by our elected officials or through a CIP project or some other development to cost share as part of that -- part that of improvement at some point in the future. Clark: I asked that question because I have been the "lucky" person to be on subdivision and -- twice -- when this has come through and now twice at the Planning Commission. Every time my hands have been absolutely tied in what we could do and every time that meant we voted against the neighbors. That has -- it still bothers me and I fully understand the need to have 28 -foot -wide streets through the city. I understand that, but I also understand that this is still on the fringe of our development area, next to the Planning Commission and -- next to the Planning Area rather, and the demands on the street are not necessarily -- I'm rationalizing this as I go -- not necessarily significant at this date. So I am going to err on the side of the neighbors and vote to allow the developer to pay money -in -lieu, fully realizing that that street will be widened eventually, but in the meantime maybe you can plant some other trees and they'll have some time to get going. And primarily I'm voting for the neighbors, because it's about darn time on this development that I get to do that. And it's no disrespect to the city and staff. I understand the 28 -foot stuff, but I hope you understand my rationalization. Anthes: Commissioner Harris. Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 53 Harris: I have shared the same subdivisions with Commissioner Clark and I have absolutely the same sentiments. I would also like to just go through the staff's recommendations. Concerning number one and two, the guarantee that the evergreen screen will be preserved, that doesn't concern me so much, and the fact that an evergreen screen or buffer is not required, that doesn't concern me so much. My only real concerns are the second part of number three and all of number four, which are obviously the major concerns, and for the folks listening, that just has to do with whether or not the city can get this improvement now, which is what Commissioner Clark has just been addressing, and whether or not there will be too narrow of an intersection if we don't do this now, again, which Commissioner Clark was just addressing. And Commissioner Clark, I'm going to come down on your side with you. It's -- I just -- this is part of the human -us of the Planning Commission. I cannot say no yet again to this neighborhood. I think this is a reasonable enough proposal at this time. I would concur with Commissioner Clark that maybe this gives the neighborhood time to plant some trees, because development in this area is happening and the widening of the street is undoubtedly inevitable, but perhaps it just simply doesn't have to happen with tonight's vote. So I will be voting in favor of the neighborhood on this as well. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Question of staff. Can you describe what happens and what you expect to happen soon on either side of this particular section that we're talking about tonight as the road extends in both other directions? Pate: I'm not sure I understand. On either side of Lierly Lane? Anthes: Yeah. What I'm talking about is that -- is that we have an intersection at Hughmount Road and then we head east on Lierly Lane. The trees are only on a smaller section of that roadway, right? Pate: Correct. Anthes: So what kind of condition are we asking for if this were to be allowed? I mean, is the 28 going to be constructed part of the way, then it narrows back down, and then goes back to 28? Pate: If this were approved we would certainly recommend obviously an assessment for that portion that's not constructed and the intersection would need -- regardless of how the Planning Commission votes tonight, the intersection needs to be addressed. It's a dangerous situation currently. Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 54 It's much too narrow. So that would certainly need to be addressed. And then an assessment would be taken, I would assume, along the entire property frontage as opposed to having a narrow section widen back out. Myres: Madame Chair, can I ask another question of staff? Looking at the map on Page 8 of our packet, would you remind me -- obviously we're in the Planning Area. What improvements are planned for the east end of Lierly as it moves towards Rupple Road? Pate: Lierly Lane where it intersects Velma essentially is a -- not a dead end, but it heads north on Velma to intersect with Weir Road. There's an existing right-of-way east of Velma Drive that was platted with this subdivision, but it's not constructed. Then, of course, there's nothing constructed until you get to Rupple Road in that location. Myres: Right. And then it goes west until it intersects Hughmount and turns south, and there's no improved or there's no actual road west of Hughmount either? Pate: That's correct. Myres: On Lierly? Pate: That's correct. Cherry Hill Subdivision was approved there, a 200 -lot subdivision in the Planning aArea, and there was an assessment taken there because there is no street or a connection in that location. Myres: And were they assessed improvements to construct that street? Pate: They were assessed a portion of the improvements and they constructed, I believe, half of the street if I remember correctly to allow for emergency access. Myres: Okay. Pate: Other projects in that immediate vicinity directly to the north on Hughmount and Weir Road is a subdivision the Planning Commission recently approved with town homes and single-family homes and we have in process another subdivision at the northwest corner of Hughmount and Weir Road, also in the Planning Area. As you can tell and as Commissioner Trumbo mentioned, there is a lot of development on this west side of Fayetteville, both outside the city and in. Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 55 Myres: Well, I, if I can continue, certainly agree with Commissioners Harris and Clark about the actual road itself. My concern is that intersection at Hughmount. I remember pretty clearly when we discussed this however long ago it was -- I don't know when it was, but I do remember it -- and we toured out there and it was very clear that that connection of Lierly to Hughmount is very substandard, and regardless of what happens to the rest of the road, I really would prefer to see that intersection addressed sooner rather than later. And I don't know if we can separate the two issues. I would like to see money -in -lieu of road construction allowed, but I would also like to see that intersection taken care of sooner rather than later. Graves: Madame Chair. Anthes: Are you finished? Myres: Yes. Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Graves: I can't help but think about the irony in the fact that we just spent an hour and a half on old business wallowing around with trying to come up with a solution to the fact that there was a road that was too narrow to deal with the traffic that's being generated in a particular area, and now, you know, there's some inclination to start the process in motion of doing the same thing again in another area. While I certainly sympathize with folks who live out there and understand the fact that any time there's the beginning of a rural area becoming an urban area, that change is met with some resistance and some concern. The fact of the matter is that there is growth happening out there. It's going to continue to happen out there and we need to construct roads that are appropriate to deal with it. Otherwise we're back here five or 10 years from now having to deal with the fact that we've got a road that's too narrow for all the cars that are on it and trying to figure out how to solve the problem. We've got an opportunity now to put a road in that meets our city standards, which is, by the way, why we have a Planning Area, so that we can in our growth area construct streets that are appropriate in areas that are growing to meet the demand that we expect in the near future for those roads, and we have that opportunity here and I just can't -- I can't support the request. We hashed this out only one year ago. It wasn't a decision that was made that far in the past. It was July of 2005 that we approved this preliminary plat, and I see no reason to change what we did last year. That's not inflexibility to change, it's, once again, affirming that we did the right thing a year ago in requiring that this street be wide enough to handle the traffic that's going to be out there. And Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 56 so for the reasons stated by staff and by our engineering division, I cannot support the request to make the modification to the plans that were already approved. Anthes: Is there further discussion or motions? Lack: Madame Chair. Anthes: Yes. Lack: I think that my concern with narrowing for this one small section would be a safety concern in throating the street down for a short section. I think that we may want to talk about as a City the width of our streets and whether streets are too wide or too narrow and what it actually takes to carry traffic in appropriate manners, but to narrow a street for a short section does create a dangerous condition. And so while I greatly sympathize with the neighbors and with the buffer that exists there now, and if I were in that position I believe I would want to keep that buffer myself, but I don't believe that I can vote to create what I think would be a dangerous condition in throating down the width of the road, obviously jogging centerline, and to maintain a buffer. So I will not be able to support abandoning this. Trumbo: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Trumbo. Motion: Trumbo: I would agree with Commissioner Graves and Commissioner Lack. I do understand the neighbors' concerns, but I feel that we need to go ahead and do this at this time. Development is growing rapidly out here and I'm afraid if we let this go for four or five years we'll have a bond that's insufficient to cover all the costs of road improvements at that time, we'd be scrambling for money, and I'm going to go ahead based on those comments and make a motion to deny Administrative Item 06-2258. Graves: I'll second it. Anthes: We have a motion to deny by Commissioner Trumbo, with a second by Commissioner Graves. Is there further discussion? Myres: I have one more question. Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 57 Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Myres. Myres: Now, I'm totally confused. Mr. Pate, if you look on Page 7 and you get the big scale with Lierly dotting itself along the top, what parts of Lierly are improved to 28 feet or improved at all? What part is paved? What is -- Pate: Currently, it is not improved. Myres: So none of that? Pate: Correct. The proposal would be to improve from Hughmount. The Planning Commission required the intersection improvement along with the 28 -foot -wide street section and -- Myres: Right. Pate: -- so that would take that improvement from Hughmount east to the property line which is north there of Lot 6 on the north side -- Myres: Okay. Pate: I'm sorry, east of -- south of Lot 6. Myres: And then it's up to whomever develops or -- Pate: Correct. It narrows back down at that point. That's correct. Myres: Yeah. So when you're coming down off of Velma you will come onto a narrow section and then when you hit the property line of this development then it will widen out and flow into Hughmount with an approved intersection? Pate: That's correct. Both Velma and Lierly currently are not developed to city standards. Myres: Okay. Okay. Thank you. Audience: May I make another comment? Anthes: I'm sorry. The floor is closed. Harris: Madame Chair, if I may. Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 58 Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Harris. Harris: Commissioners Lack and Graves, their logic, their rationale, is unimpeachable, and in fact, Commissioner Graves, yours is so much that I think that you deserve a permanent name plaque any day now. (Laughter) Harris: And I will certainly, in my career as a Planning Commissioner, I have already and will continue to do so, use a symbolic vote very sparingly, because I tend to think a symbolic vote is sort of the last refuge of someone who has not been able to reach a compromise. But in this instance I am going to cast a symbolic vote against -- well, in favor of the money -in -lieu of, even though, again, the logic behind the street widening is absolutely unimpeachable. And I do so because in this instance this is just one of those situations in which a neighborhood, I think, has been asked to compromise and to give an extraordinary amount and has received very little back. Not that there was anything the city could give it back, but in this instance one commissioner will give a symbolic vote. Thank you. Anthes: If commissioners would remember, we don't have to say why we vote in favor of a project, but if we're voting to deny it we need to look to our ordinances and state the reason and rationale for that denial within the ordinance structure; is that correct, Mr. Williams? Williams: I'm sorry. Could you repeat? Anthes: If we're voting for a project, we don't necessarily need to state the reasons why we're voting, but if we're voting to deny a project then we need to state the rationale -- Williams: Well, you're actually not voting to deny anything. This has already been approved. They're just asking for a modification, so -- Anthes: In general, as a course of when we state the rationale for -- Williams: If you're actually voting for approval or denial of a large scale development or preliminary plat, that's absolutely correct. Anthes: Okay. Thank you. Clark: Point of clarification. Not administrative items? Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 59 Williams: No, because this has already been approved. They're just asking for a change in the approval, and so I don't think there's a -- you have to actually really explain anymore than what people already have, why they would be voting yes or no. Graves: Madame Chair. Just for the record, I did reference -- I know it was Mr. Trumbo's motion, but he did reference my comments and Commissioner Lack's comments, and which in turn I referenced staff's recommendation where they referenced specific sections, so -- Anthes: I have another question. Velma Drive is currently how wide; do you know? Pate: I don't know. Anthes: And how many -- Can you quantify the amount of development that is approved in this area and give us some kind of idea of time frame of the build -out of those approved plats? Pate: Time frame of build -out is entirely unknown. It's all dependent upon the developer and how fast they move. Typically, the project that I referenced north of this at Hughmount and Weir on the southeast corner is approved through our Planning Commission process. Is it through the Planning Board? Audience: It's through, it's just waiting for construction drawings. Pate: Waiting construction drawings on the project there at the southeast corner. Anthes: How many units is that; do you remember? Audience: 74. Pate: 74. I have a bird in my ear-- on the northwest corner there is a project that has not yet been approved, but it is in the process, I believe, of our planning review process. I mean, I don't know how many units are there. Nothing to the east of Velma currently is in process to my knowledge. Anthes: But didn't you also -- and then how many units -- this one has 57 lots, but additional units, right? Pate: Correct. Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 60 Anthes: And then didn't you reference another larger development? Pate: The Cherry Hills development which is further west on Hughmount and south of Lierly, west of Hughmount, somewhere in the neighborhood of 199 to 200 lots in that. That's under construction at this time. Anthes: Okay. So we have about 200 lots and 57 lots that are under construction now in the area? Pate: In addition to Clabber Creek, phases three, four and five, that are in the City directly to the south. Anthes: And those are huge. Pate: I'm sorry? Anthes: Those are many, many lots. Pate: 270, I think. Close to that. Anthes: Almost 300 lots, 270 lots. How do you expect that traffic will go if it doesn't use this section of Lierly? Pate: If the traffic does not go north, there is a connection to the south that was part of the approval. So there is a street stub -out and that will be connected into Clabber Creek, which would then travel to Rupple. This portion of Rupple is only constructed south of Clabber Creek. There is not a portion of Rupple that ties into Weir Road yet. There's right-of-way dedicated on one half of the street, but there's not a current street there. So traffic here would either head south into Clabber Creek Subdivision through Rupple, and there are numerous connections through neighborhoods and collector streets and arterial streets to get east to the bypass, I-540. Or one could travel north along Lierly and Hughmount down to Mount Comfort Road as well. Anthes: And then to follow up on Commissioner Lack's very well -stated comments about whether or not we -- you know, this is the section that's in place as our city standard and we know that City Plan 2025 has a transportation component coming through in the future that may have a look at that -- those roads sections, do you think that a different standard may be adopted before the build -out of this entire road is warranted or do you believe that Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 61 this standard is warranted now and with the construction in the area it's dangerous no matter whether we wait six months or a year? Pate: We feel it's warranted now; otherwise, we would have not made that recommendation to the Planning Commission a year ago. We felt that it was warranted also with the traffic generation in the area. The 28 -foot - wide street cross-section allows parallel parking also, so it does allow for parking on the street. With the addition of units in this area, I believe it will be an important east/west connection. That Lierly Lane has been discussed many, many times in how we can get portions of it constructed to connect both to over far west Adams Road when the Cherry Hills project came in over a year ago, and then even recently with the Crystal Springs Subdivisions and those modifications to the Master Street Plan in that area. So it's certainly a hot topic of conversations at the Council and Planning Commission level. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Pate. Is there further discussion? Williams: I have some questions about this, looking at what authority we have to do with what the applicant is asking us to do. Chapter 158, bonds and guarantees, I guess is what we're looking at. I'm not sure of exactly what we're going under, though, because under the first section there it talks about guarantees in lieu of installed improvements. This was an installed improvement that was supposed to happen prior to them being able to sell their lots. This was something that you all approved. If you allow them to have approval of it when they plat without this installed improvement as guaranteed, you're supposed to have -- receive 150 percent of the estimated cost of the uncompleted improvements as determined by the city engineer. That can be either a currency of bond or a letter of credit. On the other hand, maybe this is something else. Maybe this is offsite improvement delays, because you're talking about, I guess, across the street and not right next to him. But if that's the case, then that money has to be deposited into an interest-bearing account of 10 percent and if not spent within five years will most likely go back to the developer and not be used for the street widening. In other words, if the street isn't widened within five years, there's a good chance that that money will never be used to widen the street. Now, you hold a hearing and if the public -- if the Planning Commission at that point determines after a public hearing that the offsite improvement is still feasible and will be done soon, then you can hold onto the money and the project will then be done soon. But this is a rather unusual thing. I'm not sure exactly -- in reading the letter from Project Design Consultants, I'm not sure 100 percent of what exactly what we're doing here and what we have authority to do in accepting money. If you're Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 62 actually going to change the condition of approval to reduce the size of the street, then what are we taking money for? Because you're actually changing what the -- how the preliminary plat has been approved. And so I just wanted to call that to your attention, that if it was a Bill of Assurance to be suggested and that Bill of Assurance is supposed to be submitted and approved by me -- I wish I could get that out of the ordinance, but it's in there -- and I have not seen anything. I haven't seen something like that or a performance fund that has been submitted for your -all's approval. So I'm a little unsure under Chapter 158 of the Unified Development Code exactly how you can approve this tonight. Anthes: So the motion on the floor is to deny. Williams: Right. I just wanted to bring that up. Anthes: So is it your recommendation that if the motion to deny fails that we table this tonight in order to -- Williams: Yes. Anthes: -- then figure out what the legalities of an acceptance would be? Williams: Yes. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to deny ADM 06-2258 carries with a vote of 5-3-0, with Commissioners Myres, Harris and Clark voting no. Anthes: A five-minute break has been requested. (There was a brief recess in the meeting.) Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 63 R-PZD 06-2191: Planned Zoning District (UNIVERSITY CLUB TOWER, 135): Submitted by CRAFTON, TULL & ASSOCIATES INC.- ROGERS for property located t N OF LOWE'S, E. OF THE NWA MALL. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 10.39 acres. The request is for a 13-story/approximately 200' tall building with a maximum 83 dwelling units, and both surface and underground parking. Anthes: We'll reconvene the meeting. Let the minutes state that Commissioner Graves has left, and Commissioner Myres did arrive during Mr. Jurgens talk earlier today. I don't know that we entered that in the minutes. Okay. Great. You missed roll call. Myres: I missed roll call. Anthes: We just want to make sure they put you in as here. Myres: There were no parking places. I have a good excuse. Anthes: Okay. Our next item tonight is R-PZD 06-2191, a Planned Zoning District for University Club Tower. Suzanne? Morgan. This property contains approximately 10 1/2 acres. It is located north of the Lowe's Home Center on College Avenue. And the applicant proposes a residential condominium building on this property. The property is zoned C-2 as well as R -O, the R -O portion being a part of the Timberlake Trail -- Timberlake Office Park which was approved for preliminary plat recently. The adjacent uses are commercial in nature. There is Locomotion to the north, Northwest Arkansas Mall to the west, Lowe's to the south, and a proposed office park to the east. This property is heavily and, I believe, completely covered with tree canopy and it does contain some steep slopes to the north and along College to the west. The property is not, however, in the Hillside/ Hilltop Overlay District. The applicant proposes an 83 -unit condominium building with 144 bedrooms. The building, as you can see on the elevations presented, is 13 stories or 200 feet. We do have a material sample board as well for this project. Because this is a residential project, we do not have commercial design standards or design standards for residential buildings for which to critique or determine compliance. Staff has reviewed this area and found that there are no historical views which would be obstructed by the construction of this building. And the applicant has proposed it to be vertical in nature in order to have a very reduced small footprint in order to preserve the canopy through which a proposed pedestrian trail is to be constructed on the property. The project proposes approximately 80 percent of tree canopy protection and the Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 64 applicant proposes under -- two stories of underground parking in order to reduce the number of surface parking on this property. Since Subdivision Committee the applicant has revised the plans somewhat in order to take off or reduce the amount of surface parking, and additionally, staff is requesting that the applicant remove the overflow parking in order to even increase the numbers more and the tree canopy preservation. We've discussed that with the applicant and I believe that he is all right with that. They will be meeting all of their parking calculations or requirements. The applicant is proposing access onto Timberlake Drive, which is going to be built through the office park. Staff has included a condition of approval that no permits will be issued for this building or for this project until such time as that street is constructed and approved and dedicated to the city. Our requirements under the PZD regulations state that 80 units on a private looped street -- excuse me, no more than 80 units can be constructed with a private loop street. This applicant proposes the access onto the private -- excuse me, the right-of-way or the new street and an emergency access only to Lowe's. Apparently that is part of the contract that Lowe's has agreed to with the developer, that this be an emergency access only. Previously there was an access easement dedicated for it to allow access between the tract to the north and the Lowe's parking lot. Staff is recommending that the gate be removed and that that looped street -- or that that access be available to provide connectivity and ease of cross - access between properties as well as relieving any burden placed upon the intersection of Zion Road and Timberlake Drive. Additionally, with regard to improvements, street improvements on Zion Road were required as part of the office park development and staff finds that the addition of 83 units or 80 units as required by ordinance with a loop street would not place any more of a burden on that intersection and we find that the improvements to be constructed are adequate. As for findings with regard to our zoning requirements, we have looked at this proposal in light of the Interim Future Land Use Map which identifies this site as Regional Commercial and Mixed Use were zoned C-2 and R -O respectively. The Sector Map also was adopted as part of the City Plan 2025 and designates this as an intended growth area. We find that his proposal meets the intent of the parameters of the City Plan 2025 as well as 10 criteria including compatibility and transition of land use, providing creative and harmonious land uses, provision of residential housing in a commercial area, as well as open spaces and enhancing and preserving natural features on this property. We are recommending approval of this proposal with several conditions, a total of 24 conditions of approval. Of those conditions we are requesting Planning Commission determination of street improvements. Staff finds that the street improvements, again, with Timberlake Office Park are sufficient for this development as well. We do have a request that sign Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 65 regulations be modified to restrict this development to the residential multifamily requirements rather than commercial requirements, finding that residential -- you know, because this structure is intended for residences and not commercial activity, that commercial signage is inappropriate. And condition number 5 does address the access issue that we've encountered on this project. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Anthes: Thank you, Ms. Morgan. Would any member of the public like to address this R-PZD 06-2191 Planned Zoning District for University Club Tower? Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public comment and ask for the developer's presentation. Ellis: My name is Daniel Ellis with Crafton, Tull & Associates. And we have spent quite a bit of time on the design of this condominium in trying to make it work with the site and minimize the impact on the site. I think the developer is agreeable to all the conditions that staff has recommended as part of the packet, with the exception to the connectivity requirement. He is asking that that requirement be waived by the Planning Commission. As Suzanne has stated earlier, Lowe's is absolutely steadfast in that they will not allow that connectivity to happen, and they will cancel the sale of this property if that connection is required. And so we are asking for that waiver. Other than that, we're agreeable to everything else. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Ellis. Ellis: Thank you. Anthes: Suzanne? Morgan: If I may just add one thing that came to my attention this afternoon when the applicant's landscape architect, I believe, called. There is a requirement as part of the landscape staff report that trees be planted along the right-of- way as required, one per 30 feet within the 15 -foot landscape area along the right-of-way. In looking at this, the right-of-way line is approximately 50 feet above street level on this property and the site is fully wooded; however, the applicant has not identified the location of specific trees along that right-of-way within that 15 -foot area, and the applicant would request a waiver of that, that requirement for trees along College Avenue. They do intend to plant the required trees along the cul-de-sac of Timberlake Trails. Anthes: And what is staff's recommendation with regards to that? Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 66 Morgan: We are recommending in favor. We find that the site is heavily wooded and that the planting of street trees in this location would not necessarily serve the purpose as street trees since it is not adjacent to any street in this location. Anthes: Commissioners? Clark: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: So what I'm hearing is that Lowe's is not going to allow connectivity. Is that the bottom line? And Jeremy, if that's true, what are our alternatives or what persuasive arguments could the City make to Lowe's to throw away those bollards? Pate: I'm not sure the City would be making any persuasive arguments to Lowe's. Without that connection I don't think staff can support this project as shown. That is essential in our recommendation to having an ingress and egress in two points, for both emergency access -- by International Fire Codes it's actually much less. You have to have a -- I think it's 30 units if I remember correctly. That could be for single family. I'm not sure what the International Fire Codes are, but in terms of our PZD ordinances it's a maximum 80 with two points of ingress and egress, and that's, in my opinion, not just the emergency access, that's access for everyone that's accessing that property and utilizing that property. Whether it's a single- family or multifamily dwelling unit, these are shown and indicated in the report as sort of a nicer type of condominium units, probably not a standard rental student housing, which would function essentially as a single-family home for someone. So if you look at our standard trip generation counts for single-family homes, while they do drop somewhat with multifamily development, you're looking at roughly 9 to 10 trips per day with 80 units. Those numbers start to add up in terms of trips per day into and out of this development. With one point of ingress and egress, which is not yet improved, though, we do have a subdivision that's been approved to help that situation with a turn lane, including all of that traffic, plus the offices that are planned on that particular Timberlake Road, we feel is not a safe situation. If you remember on that subdivision, the Planning Commission did approve a waiver well over our standards for a dead-end street. And this property has suffered for many years because of lack of access. Clear Creek to the north significantly slopes to the west to get down to College Avenue, but there is another point of ingress and egress, obviously Lowe's, which has the existing access easement to the south. That's potentially Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 67 what we would recommend is that connectivity remain as a full ingress and egress point. Clark: So if the applicant is telling us tonight that they cannot meet Number 3 and Number 5, then you're recommending that they either reduce to 40 units or you are recommending we change your recommendation to deny? Pate: That would be one option, is to reduce to 40 units, obviously. Then the Planning Commission and Council would determine whether they felt that was a safe and adequate means of ingress and egress for those 40 units. In terms of if the applicant cannot meet that, the Planning Commission has obviously two -- one of two decisions to make: to forward this to the full City Council with the conditions intact. The applicant can also plea to the City Council who always approves or denies these planned zoning districts and they can appeal those conditions to the full City Council. Obviously conversely you can deny the project because you do not feel, as the applicant stated, they can meet those requirements that have been created by these conditions of approval. I know that the City Attorney has commented on this a couple of different times, too, and he may want to add to that if there is anything. Clark: Well, we do have a third option, Jeremy. We can table it and let them go back and figure out what they want to do and bring it back to us, right? Pate: That is true, and I'm not sure -- we have spoken with the applicant for several months on this project and that was one of the first things we identified as a major issue to overcome, a hurdle to overcome for this project. So I'm not sure if that -- if two weeks is going to make a difference. You can ask that of the applicant if you would like. Clark: Okay. Well, I'll listen to Mr. Williams first. Williams: Well, it looks to me like the applicant at this point is -- since the Unified Development Code is clear that it is says, "The maximum density served by a cul-de-sac shall be 40 units, maximum density served by a loop street shall be 80 units," that the applicant is by going forward tonight asking for a variance of that and will maybe ask the City Council for a variance also under our variance chapter, and of course that's up to your discretion and then later on to the City Council's discretion if they felt like a variance was warranted in this case. I do think the applicant has indicated that Lowe's would allow an emergency access through there, so for the fire code situation the fire engines could get through. It would be one of the gates that the firemen have the key to. And so from the fire code that might not Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 68 be a problem. However, I do think that the code is pretty clear when it talks about access, That is not meaning emergency access, it's meaning any kinds of access, so that they would have to have the difference there by a variance, and whether or not they would be able to convince you or the City Council that a variance was warranted in this case. That's for you all to decide. The code is pretty clear where it talks about, "The maximum density served by a cul-de-sac shall be 40 units." I was looking in the definition sections trying to find a definition of a loop street. That's probably a weakness in our code. We really need to try to define what a loop street is, because I could imagine a loop street that might hook onto the end of a dead-end street, and whether or not that would be a loop street or not, I'm not sure, but I could not find a definition for loop street within our code and that's something we would probably want to do, is put some definitions in there to make it crystal clear exactly what we're talking about. Anthes: Mr. Williams, can you also comment on the access and utility easement agreement that Lowe's had with the prior land owner, where it says "the grantee hereby grants -- the grantor hereby grants to grantee her successors and signs a perpetual non-exclusive right of access ingress and egress at all times across the 35 -foot wide easement as described on Exhibit C." Williams: My understanding is at this point in time Lowe's owns both properties, and so there has now become now a unified title so that the access easement is owned -- is owned by Lowe's as well as the property that it's supposed to be serving that. So it's up to Lowe's -- Lowe's does not have to convey the access easement to these individuals to sell the property. That is their access easement that they own at this point in time, and so if they refuse to convey it apart from the emergency access easement only, that probably is within Lowe's power not to convey that access easement, even though it puts this developer in a very difficult situation because he can not meet our code and, therefore, he can't get a recommendation of approval by the planning department. Anthes: Thank you. Commissioners? Myres: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Myres. Motion: Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 69 Myres: Given the fact that apparently the applicant cannot comply with conditions of approval Number 3 and Number 5, I would like to make a motion that we deny R-PZD 06-2191 for that exact reason. Anthes: We have a motion to deny by Commissioner Myres. Do I hear a second? I'll second it. Second by Commissioner Anthes. Is there discussion? Commissioner Clark. Clark: I just -- this is just a real interesting thing. I remember when we approved the commercial area -- Timberlake. We really stretched to give them a variance for one entrance and exit, and now we're going to funnel a whole lot more -- and we asked at the time what that -- because there was that large piece of property very close to it and we were kind of given some assurances that this would be and 8:00 to 5:00 traffic situation. Well, it's not going to be, now it's going to be residential, and that really does concern me. And I have lots of empathy for the petitioners, because that is a very interesting piece of property, but I don't think jumping off that cliff is an entrance or an exit. It might be a good exit, but it's not a good way to get into this development. So without any other concrete options, I don't see that we have a choice in terms of safety and compliance with our own code but to deny at this point, unless somebody can pull something quickly out of the compromise hat. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Lack: Madame Chair. Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Lack. Lack: I find myself here in agreement with staff's recommendation and for the safety reasons of the number of people to put at the end of this single way in and out, especially in residential as our ordinance has dictated, and with that I will also be supporting the denial of this. Anthes: Is there further discussion? I have a motion to deny. Will you call the roll? Pate: Madame Chair. Anthes: Yes. Pate: Before I do that, I don't want to belabor this point, but I would assume with a Planned Zoning District and development approval this applicant will appeal this decision to the full City Council. For their benefit and the Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 70 minutes, are there any discussion points that you would like to make in our findings or conditions of approval as this goes forward? I would certainly think that Council would benefit from that. Anthes: Thank you for bringing that up. Commissioners? I guess that I would state that the street improvements, I would agree with staff, but I'm worried about the concurrency of development and how that's going to work out, whether Timberlake will actually build out in advance and how that's going to work out. I assume that's going to be worked out within staff at the permitting process. Pate: Yes. The condition here stated that should it not occur, this PZD, and if this PZD were approved, it would have to come back before this body and likely the City Council. If they could secure the right-of-way and go ahead and build the street in, that would obviously meet the requirements of that. But we are stating that a building permit could not be issued for this property until that street was accepted, dedicated, and constructed to the city standards. Anthes: And the length of that already being excessive, that would be a very onerous prospect on this developer to construct that length of road. Pate: Yes. Anthes: Does anybody else have any other comments on conditions of approval Number 1? Moving on to condition of approval Number 2, sign regulations. Staff s recommendation looks good there. Commissioner Clark? Clark: It's residential, so -- but it's really ironic, and for those wondering why we're not mentioning the phrase "commercial design standards," there are no design standards for residential complexes. So that's the reason we're not even going to get to talk about them, which is good , but the signage, I think, is very appropriate. Anthes: Conditions 3, 5 and 7, I think, are the salient issues about why this recommendation to deny is in place. Are there further comments on those three? How about the condition for the overflow parking area? Are we in agreement with staff on that request? Clark: Yes. But I have another comment about parking in general. A question of staff. Jeremy, do we have any regulations that govern construction of underground parking? Because we are seeing so much of it now coming Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 71 through because so much of our building is height oriented, so people are going underground for parking. Do we have any rules or regulations? Pate: We do. What's in our current code, obviously. So the dimensions thereof, the dimensions that are in current code are applicable unless their waivers are granted through the Planning Commission process or by the city if they're compact spaces, things like that. We still look at standard drive aisles, standard dimensions -- Clark: I guess I'm more worried about geological issues, because I'm very aware, being a native of Fayetteville and once having lived in Wilson Park, we live on a fault line and things tend to shift and move, and that kind of concerns me. Pate: It certainly -- the foundation permitting is obviously different for a project of this magnitude as opposed to a single-family residence, for instance. So the permitting process through our building safety division certainly is important and the correct geo-technical reports are required, as well as full foundation engineering and design. So that's something that we do look through in our permitting process. Clark: Good. Because we're seeing more and more of it. Pate: In terms of what the Planning Commission will see, we will likely be reviewing design standards for parking structures. That is something we're seeing more and more often. At times those are much smaller and much tighter types of configurations, and so we're going to look at that pretty soon. You'll likely see this in the next -- coming forward. Clark: Okay. Thank you. Anthes: And about the overflow, do you concur with staff on the removal? Clark: Yes. Yes, I do. Anthes: Anybody else? Lack: Yes. Bryant: Yes. Anthes: Okay. Item 6, no reflective glass. I assume everybody's in favor of that. Everything else looks pretty standard except for the request for the waiver Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 72 of the 15 -foot landscape and tree area on the property line. I think on that one I would like more time to think about it and look at it. I didn't have the option to review it, since it wasn't in our packet before this meeting, and I don't know that I -- I'd know how I'd vote one way or the other on that one. Does anybody else have any thoughts? Clark: Technical drawings have always intrigued me and this is one of the more technical ones I've ever seen, but it really does make the point, and I -- when I read that's it's 194 feet from the road and 40 to 50 feet above the road, I have no problem with this waiver. I mean, if this goes, it's going to save a lot of trees. Anthes: My only question would be is that if they needed to put the preliminary landscape in, North College can surely use perimeter landscaping. So without actually looking at it, I just don't know how I'd vote. Anybody else? Commissioner Trumbo. Trumbo: Madame Chair. May I go back to item 5 for a second? Anthes: Absolutely. Trumbo: I have a question. The condition states "private street." The units allowed on a public street, is it the same amount, 80 units? Pate: No. A public street, obviously, could have private streets off of that, but it's not considered in part of that. The regulations are specific to private streets which are owned and maintained by the developer, not the City. Trumbo: So the entire street coming in off of Zion, is that a public street or a private street? Pate: It's a public street currently with a cul-de-sac at the end. Trumbo: And then the drive from the cul-de-sac to this development is what we're considering private? Pate: That's correct. Trumbo: I'm going to vote against this motion. It's very problematic. It's not necessarily a dead end, but it's certainly not a complete loop street, so it sounds like I'm probably going to be the only one voting against, but I'd like the City Council to take a look that if you appeal or come back with Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 73 something else, probably not 83 units, more closer to the 80, but still I'm going to be voting against. Anthes: Thank you, Commissioner Trumbo. Is there further discussion? Chapman: As the -- Anthes: I'm sorry. We're closed to comment. Do you have something material to the application that you would like to offer? Chapman: I'm sorry? Anthes: Do you have something material to the application that you would like to offer? Or will you be restating your request? If you have something you would like to change or new information, please come ahead. Chapman: I have some reasons, hopefully, why the variance might be -- for the two ways in and out might be waived, and one would be that there's not going to be any 80 -some commutes. But I guess what I'm saying, if you -- Anthes: Would you come up to the microphone so we can hear you on the record and record your comments in the minutes. Chapman: My name is Dave Chapman. I'm proposing this project. I had some reasons written down why I was hoping that we could compromise. This may be something, according to Mr. Williams, that can't be compromised on. If it is, I'm just poop out of luck. But I feel like through this whole project I've gone way far and -- I mean, I've done everything -- anything. I don't care, I'll do anything. This is the only problem I've got on this whole project. And as you'll notice, it's really not controversial. I would just hate to lose this project simply because Lowe's -- Lowe's is not going to allow that to be opened. They will let me have a -- not a lock box. This lock box also gives a second way in to that Timberlake Office Park since -- in case there's a problem out in front of there, I mean, which they don't have now, and we're working with Timberlake, so we're -- also I'm buying three acres from Timberlake Office Park. Well, I'm not developing that. I'm paying developed office park price for land that all I'm going to do -- I'm not going to build anything on it. I could build offices on it. I'm using if for part of the 10 acres for the project. I mean, I'm trying to make this a nice project, walking trail, gazebos. That's one reason I decided not to develop the three acres R -O. I mean, it's just part of the project. But, you know, if they're -- I guess that's all I can say. If there's nothing you can do, there's nothing you can do. Thank you. Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 74 Williams: Before he sits down, I have a question and it might be kind of a follow-up from what Commissioner Trumbo said. The restriction in the Unified Development Code talks about maximum density being served by a private street as opposed to a public street. Now, I think Timberlake had to get a variance to have a dead end as long as it was, but I don't think there is the same restriction on density at the end of a dead-end street. That's a public street. And so I was wondering what your rationale was to have a private cul-de-sac serving your residents as opposed to a public street, since they have to be built to the same standards anyway. Chapman: Yeah. If -- to me, if it makes a difference, I don't care. I'll do anything. The -- and really right now I'm only showing 64 units in the -- I'm not sure why we're talking 80 -something, because I think that meets one of your zoning requirements or something, but 64 units is what's planned at this point in time, and hopefully, if that could be considered part of a compromise, well, you know, I'm willing to say, "Well, that's all we'll build." My only question and maybe yours is too is whether or not you can even grant this variance. I don't know. Anthes: Mr. Pate, can you clarify where the 83 dwelling units came into, because I think this was an issue at Subdivision as well. Pate: It was an issue and that's essentially what is in the application. They have a maximum of 83 dwelling units as proposed, and so that's what we go with on the applicant's request. Mr. Chapman has indicated several times that it's likely not what he would build it out at, but that's what's being proposed at this time. Williams: You know, I know this has been before the planning department a long time. They worked on it a long time, but it seems like there's some new information out tonight that might actually give you something else to look at in a couple of weeks if they could get the actual number of dwelling units more precise and then maybe another look at the street situation. It might be that some of those issues can be resolved if you would table this for the next meeting and allow them some more time to really clarify where they're at right now with the planning department. I mean, I don't know -- that might not change anything, but it might change something. Anthes: I think that's the same discussion we had at Subdivision about whether to table it there or to bring it forward, and the thought at that time was that he knew what we needed to know to come forward. Might staff comment on what they would like to see? Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 75 Pate: I think I agree. That was -- we had the same exact discussion at Subdivision Committee before we got to this point. We could certainly table and work with the applicant to narrow down the number of units to something that's more exact potentially. We're still going to be addressing concerns with 64 units even with one point of ingress and egress, even if it's a public street. A single-family subdivision, I don't know of any single-family subdivision with 64 units that we would recommend approval of without connectivity or at least stub -outs for future access. I think that's very different, because it has the potential for another property to connect onto that at some point in the future. So we will know -- even our fire department International Fire Codes recognize that, that with a stub -out there's a potential for future access. Anthes: Well, I guess I have another question. Because I agree with Commissioner Myres when she said that she did not feel the applicant could meet the conditions of approval and that those conditions are very, very important to the project. And I also have a concern that 40 units may be way too much at the end of a street, whether it's extended or not, because the cul-de-sac is already extremely long. So my question is this, this -- I would agree with denying the proposal in this form because I feel it's too far away from what would be allowed under ordinance and what would be a safe condition. If we table it, would they -- you know, whether it's denied or tabled, they would have to come back with something substantially different in my mind in order to meet ordinance. Would that be better as a new request or as a modification to this request? Pate: In terms if they -- if this project went forward to the full Council with -- Anthes: No. I'm weighing between denying the request tonight or tabling the request tonight. Because the amount of modification to me would almost be a new application rather than a modification of this one, but I'd like to hear your thinking on that matter. Pate: If the applicant is willing to sit down and discuss amendments in two weeks, that's certainly something we are always open to do. Mr. Chapman and I have sat down many times and discussed these very issues, and I'm not sure where we could get. We could look at the potential for that being a public street. It's still not going to -- whether it's public or private, still not going to address the issue of a secondary means of access at this point. And the applicant may have a different opinion. I would certainly welcome or encourage you to ask the applicant what their preference would be, whether it be tabled or sent on through denial or approval to the City Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 76 Council. It may very well be that he would simply like a decision made, and the City Council being the deciding body, that might be the appropriate place to do that, but then again he might want a different look with staff and the Planning Commission as well. Anthes: Mr. Chapman, do you have comments in that regard? Chapman: Ask me that again. Anthes: Why don't you come on up to the podium. Mr. Ellis. Ellis: We would respectively request that you would table it for two weeks and give us a chance to meet with staff and see if we can't work out a possibility for the second access or reducing the units or public roads or come up with some alternative that will meet the spirit of the unified development code and leave this issue, and we think that we can come up with something within two weeks. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Ellis. Ellis: Thank you. Motion: Myres: Madame Chair, I'll be happy to change my motion, withdraw the original one and make a motion to table until the next Planning Commission. Anthes: I'll second that. We have a motion to table. Is there further discussion? And this is tabling to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to table R-PZD 06-2191 carries with a vote of 7-0-0. Graves is absent. Anthes: Thank you. Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 77 R-PZD 06-2190: Planned Zoning District (WOODBURY, 137): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC., for property located SOUTH OF ZION ROAD, AND EAST OF TALIESIN LANE. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 11.66 acres. The request is for rezoning and development approval for an R-PZD with 67 single-family dwellings and 45 multi -family dwellings. Anthes: Our next item is another residential planned zoning district. That number is 06-2190 for Woodbury. May we have the staff report? Lack: Madame Chair. Anthes: Yes. Lack: I will recuse from this item. Anthes: Thank you, Commissioner Lack. How many do we have left? Myres: Six. Anthes: Six. I would like to advise the applicant on Woodbury -- is the applicant here? Clark: Yes. Anthes: -- that a Planned Zoning District requires five positive votes in order to forward. We have six commissioners here. It's up to you to decide what you would like to do. Thompson: I think we can make it work. Anthes: Okay. Let's go. Gamer: This property contains approximately 11.6 acres. It's located on the south side south of Zion Road, it's .3 miles west of Crossover Road, and it's zoned R -A. The property is generally flat and is developed for rural residential and pasture use. The surrounding zoning and land use is Zion Gardens R-PZD is under development right now and is in the process of requesting final plat approval. The south is undeveloped, to the east is multifamily residential, and to the west is single-family residential. The applicant requests rezoning and large scale development approval for a residential planned zoning district. The proposed use is for 45 multifamily units and two buildings adjacent to Zion Road, Planning Area 2, and 67 single-family dwellings, Planning Area 1, around a 1.12 -acre common area Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 78 with a clubhouse, pool, and green space. The property would all be under one common ownership under a property owners' association and the units sold separately. Access is provided directly off of Zion Road into Woodbury Drive, which is the main north/south public street through the development and the road transitions into a one-way public street around either side of the central common area and continues south, stubbing out to the south. Private streets traverse east and west from Woodbury Drive around the perimeter of the property providing access off of the shared driveways for the pods of the single-family residences. And entrances for the two multifamily dwellings are off of private streets with a courtyard area interior for parking. The proposal includes a number of pedestrian paths between the single-family units and the multifamily units connecting to the central common area. Parking -- the private and public streets all have sidewalks and are lined by trees planted with a spacing of 30 feet between trees. And the zoning criteria and site plan proposed for this rezoning allows for a dense layout of single-family residences at approximately 8 1/2 units per acre through the single-family portion of the site and approximately 17 units per acre in the multifamily portion of the site. Street improvements that staff is recommending with this project include adding curb, gutter, sidewalk, and storm drains on the south side of Zion Road along the frontage of the property and extending these improvements approximately 220 feet to the west to tie into the existing improvements at Taliesin Lane. Staff does find that this proposed zoning and development is compatible with the surrounding residential use. There's multifamily units, as mentioned, to the east, single-family to the west, and then to the north is another residential planned zoning district with a similar type density as proposed. We don't find that this project would result in any adverse impact to the surrounding public infrastructure and we have had this project reviewed by the police and fire department, and the engineering staff has looked at all the water, sewer. No sorts of issues. We don't find that this rezoning from R -A into this residential planned zoning district would create any adverse impact. We also find that this planned zoning district meets the intent of our PZD ordinance. It has some elements of traditional neighborhood development. They have also throughout the development process provided some additional tree preservation areas and are providing some essential addition green space they originally didn't intend on, I don't think. So we are recommending forwarding this to the City Council with recommendation for approval. We have several conditions here. I'll go over a few of these and be happy to answer any questions you might have about some of the others. Condition Number 1 is determination of street improvements, which I've mentioned, street improvements we're recommending along Zion Road. Condition Number 2 is Planning Commission determination of offsite drainage Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 79 improvements in -lieu -of onsite detention. Staff recommends that an assessment in the amount of $33,537.50 shall be contributed to the City of Fayetteville in -lieu -of typical onsite detention requirements. These funds will be utilized in an ongoing storm water drainage improvement project in the immediate vicinity. Planning Commission determination of adequate connectivity is Condition Number 3. The applicant indicates street stub - outs to the south and the east and a connection to Zion Road to the north, which is the main access. There is a developed single-family subdivision to the west. Connectivity is not feasible in that direction. Staff does recommend that the applicant provide a signed and recorded access easement from the adjacent property owner to the east to allow for emergency access. We have been provided with a letter of permission indicating that emergency access would be allowed. Condition 3 (b) is that additional stub -out be provided to the south between units 43 and 45 as indicated in the drawings. This would provide for two stub -outs to the south, allowing for future access. Some of the other main issues, Conditions Number 12 and 13 are related to the building elevations and we do have the elevation boards presented here. These are just notes that at the time of building permit we would review the building elevations and make sure they are consistent with those proposed. And as indicated in these drawings and the packets that you have, buildings would be designed to front onto public and private streets. And for those structures that don't face onto a street they would face into a pedestrian green space or access area. Those are the main issues and I would be happy to answer any other questions you might have. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Garner. Would any member of the public like to address this planned zoning district for Woodbury? Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public comment and ask for the applicant's presentation. Good evening. Thompson: Good evening. My name is Jeremy Thompson. I'm with H2 Engineering. We're representing Woodbury. Staff has done a good job of presenting it so far, so I'll just say that we are in agreement with the conditions of approval and would be happy to answer any questions you have. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Commissioners? Clark: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 80 Clark: I only have one question of staff. Andrew, the other southern stub -out -- our conditions say between 43 and 45. Do you mean 43 and 44? Picky, picky, picky. 45 is kind of back there, but -- Garner: It is 43 and 44. Motion: Clark: Madame Chair, I saw this in Subdivision. I think it is a marvelous development, I truly do. I think it is a very uniquely creative utilization of a piece of property and will compliment the R-PZD that is going in across the street from it. I think the applicants have worked hard to get necessary stub -outs and I just think it's very creative, walk -able, mini -community, which is exactly what we are asking for. So I'll just go ahead and make the recommendation that we forward R-PZD 06-2190 with favorable findings and fact on all indicated conditions of approval. Anthes: Thank you. We have a motion to forward by Commissioner Clark. Do I hear a second? Trumbo: Second. Anthes: A second by Commissioner Trumbo. Is there further discussion? I have two quick questions. Would it be possible to clarify that second south stub - out on the drawing a little better? With a lot of those color renderings, if a potential property owner was buying there, it's not very clear and I just want to make sure that anybody that's buying 43 or 44 knows what may be coming. And also I had a question about how will the commercial design standards for the clubhouse be visited, because I know that's something that was mentioned in the staff report. Garner: We did have a condition in here that the structures will be required to be constructed as presented in the concepts and elevations presented, and that would apply to the clubhouse as well, and it's not a commercial structure, but just the intent of all PZDs is that part of it are the concepts that are presented, and that would include the clubhouse. Anthes: I guess I have -- okay, Mr. Pate. Pate: If I could add to that too, there are images also in the back of your booklet that are images of the types of clubhouse type of development. Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 81 Anthes: But they say concept. They don't say that that's actually what they are proposing, so I'm a little curious. Maybe the applicant can clarify that. Thompson: Sure. The concept is what they are. Our intent is to get very close to what you see in those photos with similar materials. At the moment we don't have any detailed drawings or detailed design -- I guess design work is the right word there -- of the clubhouse itself. But those photos are -- we're trying to model this clubhouse after those photos as closely as possible. And would at the time of submittal for that building permit would look to staff, I guess, to evaluate how close we are to those photos and make sure we're being consistent with the intent of our proposal. Anthes: Is staff comfortable with that process? Pate: Yes, ma'am. Anthes: One other thing. On that stub -out to the south between 43 and 44, since that -- and I know we discussed this at Subdivision -- because they can't really make the radius and construct that to the property line, I thought when we didn't do that we usually held a little bit of money to finish that out so that if the next person coming up built to the property line there would be a little gap and we would have money to fill that in. Is that not something we're recommending here? Pate: We do typically recommend that, but usually only on public streets. This is actually a private street that will be held within an access easement. We do have conditions that they are required to be signed, meaning that there will be a sign located basically on that property line stating that that's where the connection will occur, just as it would with the public street stub -out. I don't think the applicant would have a problem paying for that small portion of that if we can work that out as an assessment prior to City Council if that's your desire. Anthes: Would the motioner be amenable to that? Clark: Absolutely. Anthes: And the second? Trumbo: Yes. Anthes: Okay. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 82 Roll Call: The motion to forward R-PZD 06-2190 carries with a vote of 6-0-0. Anthes: Thank you. Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 83 ADM 06-2252: Administrative Item (FUTURE LAND USE MAP SECTION 1): Submitted by Long Range Planning, proposing draft amendments to the Future Land Use Map of the City of Fayetteville for one section of the City ( northwest). This item will also be heard at the September 25, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. Anthes: Our final item this evening is Administrative Item 06-2252 for the Future Land Use Map Section 1. And is Tim presenting this? Mr. Conklin, thanks for staying up with us. Conklin: You're welcome. Good evening, Madame Chair, members of the Commission. Tim Conklin, Planning Development Management Director for the City of Fayetteville. On July 17th in a joint meeting with the City Council we adopted City Plan 2025. At that time we had a lot of discussion with regard to a future land use map. At that time we adopted an interim map which basically reflected the existing General Plan 2020 Map with direction for staff to go back and look at how to incorporate City Plan 2025, principles, goals, policies, that were adopted back in July. This evening we have put together just a section of the City of Fayetteville in order to get feedback from you as a commission before we complete the entire project. The idea is to -- if this is the right direction you think we're going with as staff to complete this part of the City Plan 2025, we will bring it back to you on October 23rd and do the proper notification and complete the map and begin that process for adoption. The existing or Interim Land Use Plan is basically a plan that's based on land use only. The proposed City Plan 2025 land use map incorporates different development pattern -based mapping, and within your staff report we have shown you a graphic image from everything from am undeveloped scenario development pattern to an urban development pattern scenario. Within that are land uses that are included. It incorporates principles from the SmartCode that was developed by DPZ and integrated into City Plan 2025. We've also looked at our GIS or geographic information system and have looked at what the Arkansas Natural Heritage Association has done with regard to looking at areas that need to be protected and preserved in the future. There are eight categories that have been identified and those categories also include definitions for designations. What I would encourage you this evening is to give us feedback as staff as to if these eight designations are appropriate for mapping purposes. The first one is Natural Areas, basically wilderness areas, and we've included examples of Lake Wilson, Clabber Creek wetlands; Rural Areas, which are not as settled as residential areas, more sparsely settled, open, still under farming; then we have residential neighborhood areas, almost exclusively residential. Conventional setbacks a lot of times are found within these areas, but also recognizing that City Plan 2025 encourages traditional Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 84 neighborhood development, more complete, compact, connected, and so at the same time we would use this category to map our more suburban conventional subdivision -types area and also encourage more traditional neighborhood development. Then we have the General Urban Areas which are primarily residential; however, you find mixed uses at the corner locations. And we've also used this designation to recognize what's commonly termed as conventional strip commercial development, but in the same acknowledgment of encouraging complete, compact commercial development and neighborhood development within that area. And then we have Urban Center Areas which would be like the Square and Dickson Street. And we've classified Civic and Private Open Space/Park Areas. That would be like Gulley Park or cemeteries that are found within our city. And then we have Civic Institutional Areas including like the Library, Boys and Girls Club, educational facilities. And then Special District Areas which may include office parks, airports, industrial parks. So those are the categories that we have mapped. It is something that not too many communities have attempted. Communities that have attempted to use more of a form -based development pattern -type map or code have done it either in an incremental way, a geographic area, for example, like our Downtown Master Plan, or have done it as a zoning code for the entire city. So this is a new method and we just wanted to provide you this opportunity this evening to give us feedback before we map out the entire city and set this for public hearing. At this time if you have any questions I would be more than happy to answer them. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Conklin. As there is no public in the audience, I don't believe we'll ask for public comment and we'll just get right on with the discussion. Commissioners? Myres: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Myres. Myres: I just have a couple of things that I would like some help on from my fellow commissioners. I know this is something that we discussed briefly at agenda the other day, but I have a little bit of difficulty with some of the titles of these areas and would like to hear what everybody else thinks about the General Urban Area, which is primarily residential, and for some reason General Urban does not say that to me. Urban to me says City, and to me City says certainly residential but not primarily residential. So I have no suggestions particularly for a better name for it, but I think it could be clearer. And also the Special District Area, it's basically things that don't conform to other designations and maybe we could say that more clearly. I Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 85 don't know that we want to use the term nonconforming, because that's such a negative, and the city attorney is over there shaking his head madly, so obviously that was a good guess. But I think maybe something just a little more specific than Special District would make me happier. So I would like to hear what other people have to think -- have to think -- you have to think, but have to say about that. It's late. Anthes: Maybe we can start with Mr. Conklin. Can you talk about the General Urban Areas title? Conklin: Just listening to the comment, and I think that's a very good comment, that we do want to be descriptive in how we designate these areas. I liked how you used the word "city," because I think we are trying to build a city here, and it consists primarily of residential areas when you look at it geographically. One idea I'll just throw out off the top of my head is you could call it General Residential Urban Areas to be more descriptive, however, with the understanding that there is mixed use within that, and that's why we used examples of existing conditions in Fayetteville. So that's just one idea that I had, but the idea of urban is that we are not segregating land uses. Myres: Right. Conklin: But at the same time, I understand your concern when we say urban. I'm not sure if everybody has the same vision of what an urban place is. Myres: Semantics are such an iffy thing. Conklin: That's just one suggestion or idea that I have. On your second question with regard to Special District Areas, I think that's an interesting comment. "Special" has probably different meanings to different people. I thought about single use, but it may not be single use and that's something that staff -- I think on both of these I probably don't have an answer this evening, because I think of even Drake Field as it has changed over time. Myres: Yeah. Conklin: It potentially can change over time even further, and so I'd hate to say single use, so I'm not sure how to deal with that, but we could look into those two areas. Because the idea is for staff, the public, the Commission, the Council, to be able to utilize these categories when you make your zoning decisions and development approval decisions. Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 86 Clark: Madame Chair. Myres: Can I say one thing before I lose this thought completely? What his -- what Mr. Conklin replied actually gave me an idea for the General Urban Area and call it something like City Neighborhood as opposed to Residential Neighborhood. Clark: Why not just General Mixed Use Area? Myres: Well, that's so inelegant. (Laughter) Anthes: I'd like to follow up on this Special Districts Area because that's one I had comments about. It seems to me like, and I hate to create yet another layer or designation, but maybe it's appropriate here, and that would be -- it seems like half the things that are in there are parcels of land that are governed by a higher authority than the city, state or federal agencies that are not subject to city regulatory review, and it seems like that is its own color. And then things like industrial parks, etcetera, that are subject to city regulatory review might be a different color and that might lead to a better way to describe those. Clark: That's what's missing. Industrial is not really called out in any of this and it just dawned on me that we have an industrial park and we have lots of pockets of industry throughout Fayetteville, and I think Commissioner Anthes has really hit upon it, and maybe that would be a better division. Because we do have some regulatory authority over industrial property, but we don't over university properties certainly, and for a minute I thought you were call it a divine district. Anthes: I would not do that. (Laughter) Clark: Yeah, I'm sorry. Did I interrupt you? Myres: No. I was just laughing. I'm sorry. Anthes: Commissioner Harris? No? I thought you were ready. Lack: Madame Chair. Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 87 Anthes: Commissioner Lack is. Lack: I have thought of Special Districts and I like the idea of breaking the classification down because I think what's important there is that we do recognize that are areas of our city which are not necessarily under our regulation, and for the purposes of this map that only went as far east as College, you have declared an unclassified zone and I wonder if it would be appropriate to maintain that for properties such as university or maybe the airport, certainly more for the university, to where we just don't assign a classification for that, because it is not necessarily within our regulation. And I think that on the General Urban, while I understand the need to be more descriptive to what we're looking for there, I'm cautious to put in the word residential and actually bring about or key in on the zoning code that we have now. Because I think we start to -- if we throw in one particular zone as we have it now, then I think we start to perpetuate that, and I'm really eager to see it develop as mixed use, especially where you've shown the blue. I would possibly even expand the blue and I hope that that will develop with a lot of diversity of use in those areas and be of increasing density above the residential neighborhood areas. Clark: Madame Chair. Anthes: Are you finished? Lack: Yes. Anthes: Okay. Commissioner Clark. Clark: Three things. First of all, you all have done an awful lot of work on this and it's very creative and easy to follow and I really like it. I'm looking forward to the rest of it. Kudos to your staff -- and to your color copier. Secondly, in terms of -- this is supposed to be our future land use map. It's supposed to tell people where we think things are going, so it seems kind of mandatory that you break out industrial, because it is -- it is kind of overlooked and maybe it's because of the area you started in. I don't know how much industrial is in that particular area, but I notice you get to the southern part of town and there's a lot little intense, industrial developments. And if -- if you're looking at this from another state thinking of moving in, you're going to look for where you might fit. And if you're an industry you need to look for where you can go, if you're heavy industry. In terms of the General Urban Areas, I don't like the word urban, period. The Urban Center Areas, however, call out intense, lots of people, lots of things, very intense use. I think that that is more than appropriate Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 88 for the Urban Center Areas, but I think it's misleading in the General Urban Areas and I agree with Commissioner Lack that to me mixed use implies it's going to be more than residential, it's going to be more than commercial, it's going to be both, and that's kind of what we want there. And if that's what we want, then let's be linguistically specific and say that -- a little mixed use here. Anthes: So do you have any problem with the definition statement? Clark: No. Anthes: So does everybody agree with the definition statement on that one? Myres: Yes. Clark: I thought of that -- Anthes: So it's basically coming up with a better title? Myres: A title. Clark: What people are going to look at are your titles, and if you don't like the titles they're not going to go further. I mean, I'm sorry, that's human nature. So give them something that's realty going to be a clear-cut indicator in a communication dynamic that this is what we're talking about. So even if I don't read the definition, I know you want mixed use. Anthes: Well, I think urban actually is a very good definition and indicator, but if it is garnering this much controversy at this level, then we can probably expect that citywide and we might ought to look for another name. Clark: I'm just a janitor and you all are architects, but, you know, the word urban makes me flinch. Anthes: So we need them to look at that. Clark: But I love your definitions. I think they're great. Harris: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Harris. Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 89 Harris: I would just like to weigh in on this (inaudible), just one more person behind the word urban. Because we are trying to build this city and especially the neighborhoods here that you call out, they -- to me they begin to exemplify the kind of city that we're looking for, except the one on the left is entirely residential and has no mixed use whatsoever, but nonetheless, the general form of it does look a bit like what we're going for here. So I would still like urban, even though I agree, some notion that it's mixed -- unless the word itself has no connotative weight and public discourse today that we don't need to add mixed use in front of it. Clark: I'm just looking at the perspective of somebody outside wanting to move into Fayetteville. You send them our future land use map and they're going, "Okay, I want to be a combination residential, commercial. Where do I go?" Anthes: And you're saying that because that's a primary residential area you think that might be misleading to the general public? Clark: I think it could be. I don't know. Anthes: I had a couple of comments. I wondered if you might add the T-1, T-2, whatever designations, next to the color bar in each of these so all the nomenclature happens at the heading for each group. So it would be T 1, green bar, natural area, picture, you know. Conklin: Okay. Anthes: Then on Page 4, on the T-3 Residential Neighborhood Areas, on the Conventional Subdivision Development, delete the number 1. "Complete, Compact, Connected Development," delete the number 1. And then add "Recognized" under the Conventional development pattern and "Encouraged" under the "Complete, Compact, Connected Development." Conklin: And before that "Recognized"? Anthes: Yeah. Under "Conventional Subdivision," "Recognized" and under the "Complete, Compact, Connected," "Encouraged." And that, I think, ties into the language in the definition, but it just calls it out again and makes it clearer in the diagram. On T-5, Urban Center Areas, I'd ask that you look for a different photo to the one that's on the right. There's something about the drive-in bank area that's depicted that I think is not necessarily the best example of a desirable street condition in an urban area as far as pedestrian activity. There might be just a better photograph that could be used. Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 90 That's the one on the right. And then on the next page, I have a question. It calls out that urban area in the last sentence of the definition as saying, "These areas have the greatest variety of buildings, with unique civic buildings in particular," and yet, then the next thing is Civic and Private Open Space and Park Areas. So what you're saying is the Civic buildings are in the urban fabric, but the Civic open spaces are in the following one; is that what we're saying? Or should all Civic be together? Just a question. Pate: I believe it's all indicating that's open space and park areas, both civic and private. Conklin: Yeah. Pate: Open space and then parks. Anthes: So that's related to form? There's an open form or a built form? Pate: Right. Anthes: Okay. I understand. And I think that's all I had. Pate: Madam Chair, if I may. Anthes: Mr. Pate. Pate: The one comment that you mentioned, adding a T-1, T-2, we actually intentionally stay away from that -- and I don't know if Tim was going to bring that up -- simply because we did revise these definitions pretty dramatically. I don't thing there's a problem with coming up with something, but we were actually -- and it's not a problem to add them in -- we were simply trying to stay away from that a little bit. And also because our -- for instance, some of the Civic Institutional Areas and Civic and Private Open Space Areas don't really fall into -- it would be T-2.5, something like that, so -- Anther: Well, then maybe what I should say is remove the T designations from the map key. Pate: Okay. Anthes: Just so there's consistency between them. Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 91 Conklin: I would prefer -- yeah, I would prefer removing them from the map, -- Pate: That's good. Thank you. Conklin: -- moving away from that. Anthes; Just so that, you know, it crosses over cleanly. Lack: Madame Chair. Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Lack. Lack: I did have one other question that I failed to pose earlier. There's a section called "Complete Neighborhood Plan" designated with red that we don't see, at least on this quadrant, of the map. And I think we had some discussion about that last Thursday. But we have a few new developments that have been proposed and approved by this Planning Commission and by the City Council, which I would suggest, at least start to, fulfill that designation, and I wonder if it would be appropriate to color those in accordingly. Because I think that's -- it's important to do that in that -- that's our goal. If we have large residential neighborhoods or a traditional residential neighborhood as we've depicted in the packet, we want to try to create that as an entire neighborhood with it's commercial nodes. Conklin: And I do recall that discussion at agenda session and just would like to get some more feedback from other commissioners. The idea -- we did show the Downtown Master Plan as a complete neighborhood plan when you get to that level. I think in this quadrant we've seen part -- or you have worked with Mr. Hoskins and Park West and Wellsprings, the Barber Group, and if that's the type that you are looking for, we could map those as complete neighborhood plans because they are very detailed plans that are on large acreage, over 100 acres. Anthes: Well, I had a question about that. Was the intention of staff to show those areas as areas that had received an intensive planning effort on the -- with a lot of public input with city involvement, you know, like the Downtown Master Plan? Because you guys are talking about, in City Plan 2025, going out into different neighborhoods and developing these plans in advance of development. Is that true? Conklin: That is correct. We're seeing -- we're all seeing master planning done on the private sector with Park West and Wellsprings and some others, Ruskin Heights recently. And then staff does have plans to identify geographic Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 92 areas and do the same level of planning -- type of planning for those areas, so-- Anthes: Is there any usefulness in keeping the planning that's done by the city with that kind of planning effort distinct from these areas that are mentioned here or not? I mean, maybe there's no value in keeping them distinct. Lack: I would suggest you either create a complete neighborhood plan or you don't, no matter whether it's a private developer who does that or deed it to the city. Pate: I think in addition to that, if I may add, different from every other designation the complete neighborhood plans will be a reaction to a neighborhood plan. We're not going to show areas on here that are complete neighborhood plans because we don't really know where those are going to occur. I think it's an important distinction to happen when it does happen. It gives a very -- it lends itself to give that community a sense of feeling that this has occurred in that community that they have and then can understand on the future land use map that that's what has occurred for their community for future generations. I think it's important to retain that designation. Anthes: That makes a lot of sense. Is there going to be come criteria set that says this has met enough threshold of that or not? You know, my question is if you do it for development plans that have come through, where's the dividing line on who gets bestowed this designation or not? Conklin: Well, the map has to be adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council. I know the question you're asking and I'm trying to find a good answer where that line is, but I think on some of these projects we have been fortunate as a City and as a Commission to be able to see how it's all going to work together, and they may have 10- to 15 -year build -out programs along with them. So I think it's just going -- you as a Commission and the Council will get to decide whether or not that deserves that designation as a complete neighborhood plan. Anthes: Thanks, Tim. Clark: Can I ask -- Pate: That will be a Planning Commission determination condition. (Laughter) Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 93 Clark: I have a semantic question. When I read complete neighbor plan, an R- PZD jumped to mind. Because supposedly that is the whole picture that's crafted and we know what it's going to be. Please tell me the difference between an R-PZD that hits every standard that is set and a complete neighborhood plan. Conklin: The difference? I don't think there is a lot of difference. I think R-PZD, basically our PZD ordinance reads that whatever the majority land use is, you call it either commercial PZD or R-PZD. But we're seeing a lot of residential and so we see a lot of R-PZDs, and those are complete neighborhood plans, most of them. Clark: Well, they're supposed to be, aren't they? Anthes: I would not agree with that. Clark: Well, I'm talking in a perfect world. Aren't they supposed to be? Conklin: We strive to use the PZD ordinance to implement the policy that we adopt as a city. Clark: Well, that would seem to give another reason to keep this designation to give another -- another weight. When we're talking about an R-PZD, does it meet this additional criteria? Can we then call it a complete neighborhood plan? And we've seen some that don't even come close, and we've seen others that I would say that's a red dot, that really does. If that's the same criteria we're talking about, I'm really comfortable with it. If it's something different, -- Conklin: Thinking through the developments that you're talking about, I would tend to agree that not everything deserves a red dot. As -- (Laughter) A gold star. Conklin: -- yeah, a gold star -- because the PZD process has evolved over time. I think we all realize that and some of the earlier ones were not complete, so I -- let me just correct myself on that. Anthes: We tabled one this evening that I would say was not complete -- Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 94 Clark: I thought we passed one, the one on Wedington, Wellsprings? Is that what I'm thinking of? I mean, they've shown us everything, from parkland -- Anthes: That comes closer. Clark: Yeah, parkland, streets, connections. They've shown us -- Anthes: But it doesn't have any mixed use in it. Clark: Yeah, it does, in the front of it. Anthes: Huh-uh. Clark: There's come commercial in the front of it, isn't there? Conklin: At Wellsprings? Clark: Yeah. Anthes: No, not Wellspring, the one tonight. Clark: Oh, tonight. I'm not talking about that one. But Wellsprings to me would begin to meet the ambition of a complete neighborhood plan if they stick to everything they've, you know, kind of shown us. Conklin: I think we're just going to have to evaluate it as staff. Then as a Commission, you'll have to make recommendations and then bring that before Council. Clark: No, Tim. I want a rule. I want a clear-cut rule. Conklin: You want a clear-cut rule? Okay. (Laughter) Anthes: Commissioner Trumbo, I think. Trumbo: Thank you. Tim, we have -- currently we have -- our zoning map shows C- 1, C-2, and specific designations for commercial uses. You now -- if this is approved, the 2025 plan doesn't have C-1, C-2, it's more broader, the blue, for instance, the general urban. Are we going to have -- but we're talking C-2. Are we going to have ordinances and things we can and can't do it general urban areas? Are we going to have a specific list and -- Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 95 Conklin: We have not tied it down to specific lists. I think some of the uses, when you read the definition and you consider if it's a PZD or we amend our development regulations, we will have those discussions, but at this level we have not narrowed it down to that. I mean, if it's going to be an auto park, it's going to be fairly clear that it's -- Trumbo: Where would an auto park go? Conklin: Yeah -- a special district or some, I mean, unique area like that, so -- Trumbo: Okay. I guess that's my question. We're sitting here and we're going to be looking at some future uses and this is vague, and I understand we're just starting with this and we're kind of moving from one to another as far as codes, but--. Anthes: And this is a way to depict in a visual way the desired development pattern as described by the intent of City Plan 2025 which has been adopted. So right now it's a guiding document. And then if you'll recall, in the City Plan 2025 there were also specific benchmarks about when different parts of -- Trumbo: Right. Anthes: -- the formalization of that might occur. And I would say that would be the time that we would then go through and focus in on what, if any, regulatory changes need to be made. Is that correct, Mr. Conklin? Conklin: That is correct. And I think it's important to keep in mind that we are trying to move towards more of a form based or development pattern. I worked on the previous Future Land Use maps and today I would tell you that it's impossible to predict where Park West, the urban core center, would be on that piece of property without having a design -- or Wellsprings. And in the past we would look at arterial streets and we would create a little red dot there for a commercial node and, however, what we haven't seen is that when you are designing a very large site you can create an overall complete neighborhood or complete development. And so it makes it very difficult on this map to identify those future areas, and so we're trying to describe in certain areas what kind of development patterns would we like to see. And I know that makes it somewhat difficult on a very small lot -by -lot basis, but at the same time we've shown that we would like to see redevelopment also occur within those areas and we are seeing it on College Avenue and other areas. So I think if we can articulate Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 96 what we desire as a community and encourage it, we can get closer to achieving that goal. Anthes: I think what's really interesting to about the way staff has gone about this is they took our current interim map and then they looked at Fayetteville National Heritage Association guidelines, they looked at the Sector Map that we've developed, and they've overlaid all that to come up with this map and I think it's pretty successful. The technique looks very successful. Trumbo: I would agree. Anthes: And I guess that structure is the next part of this conversation, which is -- is everybody pretty happy with the definitions with the changes we've discussed, and then the next thing staff wants to know is do we agree with how -- the technique. Because now they're going to spend a lot of time in the next four weeks developing the full city map for us to look at, and if we see any major reservations about the technique and how to develop the map we need to point them out now before they go to all that trouble. Clark: I really like the idea -- I know this is going to be more work, but I think it is important to call out city property versus university property versus government property, things that we have ability to govern. And industrial, because industrial is nowhere in here and, you know, that's our tax base, or at least it certainly helps. Anthes: I have a question about that. Do you agree, though, that an industrial area could have other uses integrated with it? Clark: I would think it should, but right now, you know, with our current zoning it's all kind of different and you have to do -- get variances and conditional uses. I think it would be great. I think you could integrate it, but then again you have industry versus light industry, green industry versus nasty industry, and that's -- I think we need to call that out where we want it to grow in the city relative to our neighborhoods and our commercial nodes. Lack: Madame Chair. Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Lack. Lack: And I would tend to agree with that. In looking at this quadrant, we hadn't really looked at industrial. Industrial is something that maybe does tend to fit the zoning ordinance a little better than the form -based that we're looking at. And I think that it certainly does have factors to it that require it Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 97 often to be separated from the mass of residential. But I would also hope that we could allow some residential or some commercial in an industrial park so that people wouldn't have to drive five miles to get a Coke on a break from an industrial factory job. Clark: Which is kind of what we have now, honestly, in the industrial park. Lack: It is. I think I would like to ask Mr. Conklin, though, to clarify how this map will supercede not only our Future Land Use Map, but in the future the Zoning Map, because right now we do have two maps: we have a Future Land Use Map and a Zoning Map. Conklin: That is correct. This would -- we would repeal the Interim Future Land Use Map and we would adopt the new Future Land Use Map based on this methodology, and that would be a Planning Commission recommendation adoption which would be referred to the City Council for adoption. Pate: It would not replace our Zoning Map. Conklin: It would not replace the Zoning Map. We -- thank you, Jeremy, and let me be clear about that. We would use this as a policy framework as we look at rezonings, and also we have the benchmarks that were adopted back in July that talked about ordinances, amendments to the UDC that we should make as a city to implement the plan. Pate: Let me add to that. To clarify, too, the staff report does point out at least two, Miami and -- Conklin: Leander, Texas. Pate: -- Leander, Texas. Those are -- they're looking at actual zoning and applying the same philosophy, but a much smaller, I think, land area mass in terms of that, so it's a little bit different step. I'm not sure we've found another one to compare it to yet. But I've looked at just a land -use type policy, a decision guiding policy, decision document. But at this point in time we're not proposing this to be our zoning. Lack: And I just wanted to clarify that. I have that kind of open. I think it's going to certainly enhance the number of PZDs that we see when we overlay kind of a better system of form -based over the zoning code that we have in place now. Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 98 Anthes: Mr. Conklin, what do you need from us on this? I know that you wanted us to talk about the direction and then you proposed to bring this back to us on October 23rd. Conklin: I don't think you need to make any formal action. Feedback that I believe I'm getting from the commissioners here this evening is that you agree with this methodology and that we should move it forward to complete the map, do the notification, and have a public hearing on October 23rd. Anthes: Would hardy applause help? (Laughter) Clark: Tim, someone did mention that you were going to pop for the budget to send all of us to Miami, Florida, to see how they're converting to this type of system, and I think that's admiral. (Laughter) Conklin: There's also Google Earth that you can look at. (Laughter) Clark: There you go. Anthes: Thank you very much for coming, Tim. We appreciate it. There's one announcement. The Sidewalk and Trails Taskforce, our representative will be Andy Lack and the alternate will be Christine Myres. Thank you both for agreeing to serve on that taskforce. Are there other announcements? Pate: I do have one, or a request, actually. I've been speaking with Chair Anthes to discuss bylaw amendments to our current bylaws and if it is the desire of the Planning Commission to bring that forward. Our current bylaws state for amendments that you present them at a meeting in writing and in the following meeting you actually approve or deny them. So if that is the direction I'm given I will present to you at the next agenda session a written bylaw amendment. I'm trying to think of the issues that we're looking at. Timing for public discussion, bring that up again and look at potentially a different time limit than we discussed last time, and we'll look at that. We'll also -- I can't remember the others that are -- Anthes: Formalizing the process for when you recuse from an item. Planning Commission September 11, 2006 Page 99 Pate: Right. Anthes: There was an issue about -- I'm blanking. Pate: Adding items to the agenda. Anthes: Adding items to the agenda, because what we did tonight, City Council has an actual process in their bylaws about it, but we don't. And there was a fourth thing. Pate: I have it written down, but I don't have it with me. You'll see four things at your next agenda session. Clark: When you're working on the recusal one, could you also, maybe, just put some clarifying verbiage into when it is appropriate or legal or required that you recuse? That will challenge Mr. Williams. Williams: Not very often. Clark: That's a good rule. Lack: Madame Chair. Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Lack. Lack: I would like to say that certainly if anybody is still watching at 9:30 that means that they're a dedicated citizen of Fayetteville and they should go and vote tomorrow. Myres: Thank you. Williams: Absolutely. Anthes: Are there further announcements? Pate: Not here. Anthes: We are adjourned. The meeting was adjourned at 9:32 p.m.