Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-09-25 MinutesPlanning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 1 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on September 25, 2006 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN FPL 06-2211: (CLABBER CREEK IV, 244) Approved Page 5 VAC 06-2270: (ELSASS, 449) Approved Page 5 ADM 06-2277: (DRAKE HILL S/D, 561) Approved Page 5 R-PZD 06-2191: (UNIVERSITY CLUB TOWER, Tabled 135) Page 6 ADM 06-2282: (EMERALD POINT S/D, 474) Tabled Page 7 and Page 124 LSP 06-2200: (LINDA MAYES, 491) Denied Page 11 CUP 06-2241: (QDOBA, 483) Tabled Page 29 CUP 06-2239: (PEARSON FOR BBBQ ON 15TH, 600) Denied Page 34 CUP 06-2243: (SPEAKEASY, 484) Approved Page 36 CUP 06-2242: (ON THE ROCKS, 484) Approved Page 40 RZN 06-2244: (HENNINGSEN COLD STORAGE, Forwarded 717) Page 47 Planning Commission September 25, 2006 2 RZN 06-2240: (COMBS, 564) Forwarded Page 53 R-PZD 06-2212: (STADIUM CENTRE Denied TOWNHOMES, 557) Page 59 R-PZD 06-2196: (WEST FORK PLACE, 565/566) Tabled Page 81 R-PZD 06-2169: (6TH & WOOD, 524) Forwarded Page 103 ADM 06-2283: (PLANNING COMMISSION No action BYLAW AMENDMENT) Page 121 Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 3 Jill Anthes Lois Bryant James Graves Hilary Harris Andy Lack Christine Myres Alan Ostner Sean Trumbo STAFFPRESENT Jeremy Pate Andrew Garner Suzanne Morgan Jesse Fulcher Matt Casey/Engineering Glenn Newman/Engineering CITY ATTORNEY Kit Williams MEMBERS ABSENT Candy Clark STAFF ABSENT Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 4 Anthes: Good evening and welcome to the Monday, September 25th, 2006 meeting of the City of Fayetteville Planning Commission. I would like to remind audience members and Commissioners to turn off cell phones and pagers. I would also like to let audience members know that we do have listening devices available if you have difficulty hearing in the room, and if you'll just contact a member of staff they can help you out. Will you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call Ostner, Bryant, Myres, Graves, Lack, Harris, Trumbo, and Anthes are present. Clark is absent. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 5 FPL 06-2211: Final Plat (CLABBER CREEK IV, 244): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at N. OF CLABBER CREEK III, W. OF RUPPLE AND SALEM VILLAGE. The property is zoned RSF- 4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contain approximately 22.25 acres. The request is approve the final plat of a residential subdivision with 83 single-family dwellings proposed. VAC 06-2270: Vacation (ELSASS, 449): Submitted by KIRK ELSASS for property located at 620 ROCKCLIFF RD. The property is zoned RSF- 4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.55 acres. The request is to vacate a portion of a utility easement. ADM 06-2277: Administrative Item (DRAKE HILL S/D, 561): Submitted by ANNA MULLIS for property located at 836 S. HILL AVENUE. The request is to extend the approval of the Large Scale Development, LSD 05-1800, for the Drake Hill Subdivision on the subject property. Anthes: We have four items on consent this evening. We have approval of the minutes from the August 28, 2006 meeting, and I have forwarded my comments to Mr. Pate. We have Final Plat 06-2211 for Clabber Creek Phase IV, Vacation Request 06-2270 for Elsass, and Administrative Item 06-2277 for Drake Hill Subdivision. Would any member of the public or any commissioner like to remove one of these items for discussion? Seeing none, I'll entertain motions to approve the consent agenda. Motion: Graves: Madame Chair, I'll move that we approve the consent agenda. Tr umbo: Second. Anthes: I have a motion by Commissioner Graves, with a second by Commissioner Tr umbo. Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve the consent agenda carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Commissioner Clark was absent. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 6 R-PZD 06-2191: Planned Zoning District (UNIVERSITY CLUB TOWER, 135): Submitted by CRAFTON, TULL & ASSOCIATES INC. - ROGERS for property located at 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 have one item of old business tonight. That is R-PZD 06-2191, a Planned Zoning District for University Club Tower. The applicant has met with staff and discussed alternative street connections which would provide the connectivity required by the Unified Development Codes, but the applicant was unable to make the required revisions to the site, bringing tree preservation plans by the deadline for this September 25th meeting; therefore, the applicant requests that this item be tabled to the October 9th, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, and I'll entertain motions to that effect. Graves: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Motion: Graves: I'll move that we table R-PZD 06-2191 until the October 9th, 2006 meeting. Trumbo: Second. Anthes: A motion by Commissioner Graves and a second by Commissioner Trumbo. Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to table R-PZD 06-2191 carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Commissioner Clark was absent. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 7 ADM 06-2282: Administrative Item (EMERALD POINT SID, 474): Submitted by STEADFAST, INC. for property located S. Of WEDINGTON, E. OF DOUBLE SPRINGS RD. The request is for a major modification of the approved Preliminary Plat, PPL 05-1773. Anthes: On to new business. Our 6th item is Administrative Item 06-2282 for Emerald Point. Ms. Morgan. Morgan: On June 26, 2006, the Planning Commission approved Preliminary Plat for Emerald Point Subdivision. This property contains approximately 10 acres and is located off of Double Springs Road. The property is located south of a piece of property which we developed for mini -storage when it was in the county, and that's property to the north. Property to the south is undeveloped. There are two property owners located to the south. One owns one acre which is zoned Residential Agricultural and the other property owner owns approximately seven acres zoned RSF- 4, and it is that owner's intent to one day develop two RSF- 4 densities. With regard to the review of this preliminary plat for 40 townhomes and eight single- family lots, we did discuss street connections in detail. One street connection was being provided to the north in anticipation for future development of the property to the north, that street could connect to Legacy Point Subdivision. One connection was also provided to Double Springs Road, and three points of connection were provided to the south. Just a little bit of background on how that came about. Whenever this plat was under review by the Subdivision Committee, the applicant had proposed two street connections, one which would connect directly to the property zoned RSF- 4, and the second which would stub -out at their property with a cul-de-sac, a temporary cul-de-sac, and eventually could connect through Mr. Williams' property zoned R -A and to the south to the property which potentially could be developed to zone RSF- 4. There were discussions with the applicant and Mr. Williams, and Mr. Williams at the time was not amenable to dedicating right-of-way through his property to allow that street connection to go through to the property which will potentially be developed in the future. Therefore, the Subdivision Committee recommended a third street connection to the south, therefore providing two possible street connections which could go through. Those are the two westernmost -- excuse me, easternmost connection on the exhibit that you have. The applicant provided that and that is how the Planning Commission approved the preliminary plat. And review of construction drawings and analysis of the drainage, the applicant has found that the detention pond is sized too small for the drainage on this property as well as the runoff from the property to the north which did Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 8 not -- was not required to have detention because it was zoned under county regulations. The applicant, therefore, requests removal of the middle street that is stubbed out to the south -- it is labeled Integrity Way -- in order to increase the area of the detention facility as well as reducing the potential reduction of lots which will occur with the enlargement of that detention facility. The applicant has stated that this request is also made on the basis that the block links will not need exceed city requirements, which is accurate. The resulting block length would be approximately 1,173 feet from Double Springs Road to Rocky Crossing, and that is the distance between Georgia Trail, which will be a temporary cul-de-sac to Rocky Crossing. It will be 960 feet. The maximum requirement for block length is 1,400 feet. Staff has reviewed this and recommends denial of the request in modification to remove Integrity Way without the construction of Georgia Trail through Mr. Williams' property. Although the block length requirements have been met from Double Springs to Rocky Crossing, staff does not recommend the construction of lawn -street streets, which may increase traffic speeds, when there is a possibility of providing additional street connections. Additionally, the Planning Commission approved Integrity Way because Georgia Way would not be able to be extended through Mr. Williams' property. The applicant's proposal does not provide an alternative street connection, as Mr. Williams has indicated that the street connection will not be provided through his property. Anthes: Thank you, Ms. Morgan. Would any member of the public like to address this Administrative Item 06-2282 for Emerald Point? Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public comment and ask for the applicant's presentation. Do we have an applicant? Mr. Pate, have you heard from the applicant on this project? Pate: We have not. We spoke with them last week to let them know our recommendation, but have not heard from them since. Anthes: Mr. Williams, what do we do in this case? Williams: Well, you have several options. One, you can simply table this indefinitely until the applicant either appears or does not appear and it never would have to be brought back up again, or you could actually take action on it tonight. I think normally in this case you wait for the applicant to appear before you. Graves: Madame Chair. I'm sorry -- Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 9 Anthes: Considering that the recommendation is for denial, I would prefer that we give the applicant a chance to get their statement. Mr. Graves? Motion: Graves: I'm going to move that we deny this item which was Administrative Item 06-2282 for the reasons stated by staff. The applicant knew they were pursuing this appeal and chose not to appear, so for that reason I prefer not to have it on agenda again. Anthes: I have a motion to deny by Commissioner Graves. Do I hear a second? Ostner: I'll second. Anthes: A second by Commissioner Ostner. Is there discussion? Mr. Pate? (Mr. Pate starts to call roll.) Anthes: Pate: Anthes: Roll Call: Anthes: Ostner: Anthes: Motion: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were wanting to say something. Oh, no. Okay. Please call the roll. The motion to deny ADM 06-2282 fails with a vote of 4-4-0 with Commissioners Lack, Harris, Trumbo, and Anthes voting no. Commissioner Clark was absent. So the motion fails. Madame Chair. Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: I'll make a motion that we rearrange the order of the agenda and move this item to the end of the agenda this evening so that we will revisit it and keep it on our docket tonight. Instead of -- Anthes: Rather than move to table it, and we could bring it back up to -- Ostner: -- deciding the item, simply rearrange our agenda temporarily. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 10 Anthes: Okay. We have a motion to arrange the agenda in moving Item Number 6 to the end of the agenda, which would be Item 18. Do I hear a second? Graves: I just have a point of -- whatever you call it -- order or information. Do we have to have a motion to change the order -- Williams: I think you probably do, and I would say this is actually kind of suspending the rules, and so that would require a two-thirds vote in order to move this item to the end. Anthes: Okay. I have a motion to suspend the rules and move the item to the end of the docket. Do we hear a second? Motion dies for lack of a second. Trumbo: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Trumbo. Motion: Trumbo: I'd like to make a motion that we table indefinitely Administrative Item 06-2282. Anthes: I'll second. We have a motion to table by Commissioner Trumbo with a second by Commissioner Anthes. Is there discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to table ADM 06-2282 carries with a vote of 6-2-0 with Commissioners Ostner and Graves voting no. Commissioner Clark was absent. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 11 LSP 06-2200: Lot Split (LINDA MAYES, 491): Submitted by BLEW, BATES & ASSOC. for property located at 445 N. CANVAS RD. The property is in the PLANNING AREA and contains approximately 3.11 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into two tracts of 1.78 and 1.33 acres. Anthes: Our seventh item is Lot Split 06-2200 for Linda Mayes. May we have the staff report? Morgan: The subject property is Lot 21 of the Canvas Mountain Subdivision. It is located west of Starr Drive and north of Wyman Road. This subdivision is located in the Planning Area -- excuse me, east of Starr Drive. It is within the Planning Area as well as all the surrounding properties to that subdivision. The property consists of approximately three acres and the applicant proposes to subdivide the property into a 1.78 -acre tract and a 1.33 -acre tract. On August 17th of this year, the Subdivision Committee reviewed the site plan proposing to create a 1.5- acre tandem lot with zero feet of frontage, which would split the back half of this property off. This request requires a -- would require a waiver of lot width requirements. The city regulations for county property requires a 75 -foot lot width on an improved public street -- or lot frontage, excuse me -- and a 75 -foot lot width. Those regulations can be found on Page 4 of your staff report in bold. The Subdivision Committee forwarded this lot split request to the Planning Commission with a recommendation for denial. The applicant revised the plans to provide the required 75 feet of lot frontage and incorporated a proposed 30 -foot access easement into the rear lot, which gave it a 30 -foot -wide lot width. The applicant still requires -- or this lot split still requires a variance, or a waiver rather, for the lot width requirement, though it does meet lot frontage requirements. This subdivision was platted with a variety of lot shapes and sizes. The lots to the north and south of this property are approximately the same size in width and shape. The Unified Development Code states that, quote, "When a tract of land is subdivided into larger than normal lots, such lots shall be so arranged as to permit the logical location and opening of future streets and appropriate re -subdivision of the lots with provisions for adequate utility connections for such re -subdivision." It is apparent that the lots west of Canvas Mountain Road were platted larger than normal lots; however, the lots were not arranged as such to permit a logical location and opening for future streets and re -subdivision. Therefore, any subdivision of these three -acre lots similar to the one which you are reviewing tonight will result in a flag lot. Staff finds that the proposed lot is not compatible with the surrounding properties, particularly in size and manner in which it is being subdivided. Additionally. with the modification from Subdivision Committee to the Planning Commission, one of the lots has been reduced to 1.33 acres in size. Within the county Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 12 we require septic system approval for any lot less than 1.5 acres. We did not have that approval at Subdivision and did not look for it because all of the lots were 1.5 acres or more. Should this lot split be approved, we are requiring that the applicant provide written proof from the Arkansas Health Department that a septic system can -- an alternate septic system can adequately fit on this new lot at 1.33 acres. There's been significant public comment from those both in favor and against the proposed lot split. All of that information, the petitions for and against it, have been included in your staff report. If you have any questions about that, I'll be glad to answer those. Staff is recommending denial of this lot split, finding, though, that the subdivision of the land is inconsistent with the surrounding lots to the north and south of the property. However, should the Planning Commission find in favor of the proposal and recommend approval, we do have eight conditions of approval. Anthes: Ms. Morgan, isn't there a note that you would actually be promoting the previous scheme over the flag scheme? Morgan: Oh, yes. I apologize for not mentioning that. The applicant did propose the one scenario with the tandem lot in the rear with a 30 -foot access to that lot at Subdivision Committee and they've revised the plan for a flag lot situation which we find would create also an unusual size or arranged lot with shape and size, so if this were to be approved we would rather the former proposal with zero feet of lot frontage in order to -- access would be provided, but we believe that that lot scenario would be a better approach. Anthes: Thank you, Ms. Morgan. Before I take public comment, I'd like to ask Mr. Williams to discuss with us the applicability of subdivision covenants in our proceedings. Williams: Thank you very much. We do not actually enforce subdivision covenants, subdivision covenants or any kind of restrictive covenants in a preliminary plat or homeowners association or independent contracts, personal contracts between the owners of the property amongst themselves, and they can be enforced by going through the courts. However, we just need to look at our own subdivision regulations, our own Unified Development Code, and measure the project as proposed by our law rather than what the covenant should say, which are private agreements that really we're not in the business of enforcing. Anthes: Okay. And a second question. The conditional use, is that something that sets a precedent or are those considered individually? Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 13 Williams: Again, they're considered individually on a case-by-case basis. That's really why they are conditional uses, because there's not a set requirement for a condition for all of them, and that's why they must be brought before you individually, and you are to consider each one of them individually concerning all the conditions, all the surroundings, for that particular use and see whether or not that's appropriate in your judgment. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Williams. One quick question, Mr. Pate. There are some lot splits offered by the applicant in our packet and there was a comment at agenda setting session about research on those lot splits. Can you fill us in on those? Pate: With reference to some of the lot splits that have occurred in this area, this is within our Planning Area of the City of Fayetteville. Any lot split within our Fayetteville City Planning Area is required to go through the same process. We did not look at each and every one of these, but we did note a number that we did not find in any files or records of having come through our process in terms of lot splits. You'll note, especially several north of this area, that there have been lot splits without any kind of frontage whatsoever, so unless those are presented to the Planning Commission as a waiver request, they should have not been split out. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Pate. Would any member of the public like to address this Lot Split 06-2200 for Linda Mayes? Please come forward to the podium. if you would like to give us your name and your comments. Briggs: Certainly. My name is Robert Briggs and I'm an attorney here in town. I represent David and Julia Toothaker, who own land immediately to the west of the subject property. May I use your pedestal to set up an exhibit I brought? Anthes: Sure. You can lean it against that pole. If you could, orient things where the cameras can see them by bringing them up here. Actually, you might want to just bring it right up here. You can set it on that railing in front of that post. Briggs: And before we get started, I want to be clear on which proposal the Commission is considering tonight. Are we considering the initial application which called for the tandem lot split or the revised lot split? Anthes: The item before us is a lot split for the flag lot configuration. Briggs: Okay. Do the commissioners have a full copy of the subdivision plat? Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 14 Anthes: Yes. Briggs: You do? Anthes: Yes. Briggs: Do you have one with the proposed lot -- Anthes: I need you to stand in front of the microphone, if you would, because your comments need to be recorded for our minutes. Briggs: Okay. Do the commissioners have a copy of the plat with the proposed lot split drawn in? Anthes: Yes. Briggs: You do? Okay. Good. With all due respect to the applicants, I feel I'm duty bound to point out a few discrepancies in the information contained in the commissioners' packet. And I'm looking at the letter which has at the top "Jim and Linda Mayes, Lot Split, 449 -- or 445 North Canvas." I believe that would be in one of your addendums. They have a lot of paper in there. Anthes: Commissioners, that's Page 7 of your packet. Briggs: With the flag lot, of course, the 75 -foot width requirement for a lot is not satisfied except at the very point of entry onto North Canvas Road. Then the lot immediately reduces down to 30 foot a little over 300 feet and then it widens out again towards the rear of the property. Thus a waiver of UDC Section 166.08 would be required. I'd point the Commission's attention to the proposed lot split with a flag lot which shows the driveway of the -- the driveway heading towards the proposed lot located in the previously dedicated utility easement. Towards the end of the proposed driveway it actually overlaps the northwest quarter -- or northwest section, I should say, of Lot 21 A. I think the staff has already commented on many of the other deficiencies, including the sanitary requirements for the 1.33 -acre lot, resulting in Tract 21 A. But I would also like to -- and I appreciate Mr. Williams' comments on the protective covenants of Canvas Mountain Subdivision and I understand that any recourse to enforce those covenants would be through the circuit court. But I also think that the covenants as far as this -- Anthes: Mr. Briggs, we cannot hear comments on the subdivision covenants at this body. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 15 Briggs: Oh, I'm not saying that -- I'm not talking about the violation, I'm saying that covenants of a subdivision are clearly evidence of what those individuals within the subdivision have contracted amongst themselves, and part of the UDC code purpose is for the development of land use as which protect established neighborhoods, and you'll find that in the purpose of the UDC code. And although I know that this Commission does not enforce the covenants, the covenants clearly require that driveways not be gravel, which this proposal -- Anthes: Please, you really -- you need to keep your comments to the UDC. Briggs: Okay. Very good. Well, let me correct some information that is clearly erroneous. Again, this is in the application; thus, I feel duty bound to correct the information before the Commission. Item 8 of the same letter, the applicant reports that 19 signatures of property owners have approved the lot split and three of the four are next-door neighbors. I have researched who signed the petition, and I believe that is in your application packet as well, and six of those that signed it do not own property in platted lots within Canvas Mountain Subdivision. Two of them do own property, but their tax records are sent outside of the subdivision. One of the persons that signed the petition sold their property eight days after signing the petition, and one of them didn't sign it all. I happen to know this man and he's a client, and I talked to him today and told him his name was on the petition, and it was signed by somebody claiming to be his proxy. He was not aware of the petition. He did not sign the petition or give authority for signing the petition. In fact, after I explained the application to him, he opposed the petition. Anthes: Mr. Briggs, if you could, keep your comments rolling. We have a long agenda. Briggs: I know, and I apologize. I'm sorry. I don't get paid by the word, either. I believe that Mr. Pate had already discussed the other potential lot splits within the subdivision as the applicant had stated in their letter. One of those potential lot splits actually occurred before the adoption of the final plat. One of them was not within platted lots within the subdivision. One of them, again, the staff wasn't able to find records, but one of them, if true, was the conversion of a six -acre lot into three -acre lots -- or, I'm sorry, into two three -acre lots. And the other one would have been -- would have traded a lot that had access to Wyman Road at the far southern southeastern corner of the subdivision, which would have given an additional -- an access altogether different from the subdivision. My client is here and he's going to talk about the drainage issues that he has Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 16 experienced in the past and is fearful of experiencing in the future. His land is immediately to the west, Lot 6 of the proposed lot split, and with that I'll introduce David Toothaker. Was there any questions? Anthes: We'll get back with you. Thank you. Mr. Toothaker? Toothaker: Thank you all very much. I'll keep this very brief. My wife and I are the proud owners and residents of 4128 Mural Drive, which is Lot 6 on your diagram. We're actually happy to be the neighbor of Jim and Linda Mayes, so this is nothing personal. I spoke to you at the Subdivision Committee meeting as well. We have invested a significant amount in our home since purchasing it in March of 2000. We obviously moved there to that subdivision, if you've seen it, because it's remote, it's very serene, it's very wooded, and that's what we loved about the area when we purchased the lot -- excuse me, purchased the home. And we have spent and invested a significant amount of money to bring our property up to the standards of the community of that area when we purchased it, things like investing in the asphalt driveway and many other things. But I stand before you, and you'll notice that my signature or my wife's signature are not on the petition in opposition of this lot, but make no mistake, we are in favor of responsible development, but we are not in favor of this lot split. That petition is against all lot splits anywhere on Canvas Mountain, and it's simply not in our hearts to say that to you. We're not against everything -- any development on Canvas Mountain, but we are opposed to this lot split and that is why you will not find our signatures on that. But make no mistake, we are very much opposed to the lot split. We do agree with the planning staff s position and understand that information about incompatibility to the subdivision. But we're also opposed to the lot split for some very specific reasons, notably drainage and runoff impact we've already experienced and paid quite a bit to correct. In the spring of 2003, the Mayeses chose to clear what you see now as most of Lot 21 A, the back portion, the west side of their lot. So from your view, it's the left portion of Lot 21. Which as you note on your paperwork, it's not enforceable, but it certainly is in the Hillside and Hilltop District as well, so it's a very steep grade. When we saw that portion of land being graded with a bulldozer, we were very concerned. We actually went out to the man on the bulldozer and said, "What are you doing? We're concerned because we are directly downhill from that property." You know, we approached the Mayeses about it and asked them not to clear any further. They cleared not quite to the edge of their property, and for us we were very fearful that the drainage problems we had when we bought the house would get worse in that situation -- we did have some drainage problems when we bought the property -- and, in fact, that is what happened. The drainage did get worse. You also have some pictures from me from the Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 17 western boundary of the Mayes' lot, so that is the boundary between Lot 6 and Lot 21 facing up the hill. That is the area that is cleared with trees on the left and on the right. I think you can see that in your pictures. That is the removal of trees and underbrush of that lot that exacerbated our drainage problem. With that increased drainage problem, we began construction of our retaining wall and a water management system on September 16th of 2004 after several months of planning. This was the installation -- this was not the installation of a few landscape blocks or a couple of railroad ties. I think you can see in your packets -- I don't know if this is available for the camera, but if you can see these in your packet -- They exist? Great. Thank you. But this was a very extensive wall and water management system to help alleviate that groundwater and drainage coming onto our property. This has been a very large expense for our family, one that we were forced to incur to protect our investment in our home. We made the decision to buy there and we want to stay there. And we're very concerned that further reduction of ground cover and the surface soil from a home, a driveway, a sidewalk, patio, that would sit directly uphill from our home, that that would significantly increase the already substantial runoff maybe to the point where our retaining wall wouldn't do its job anymore, and we're very concerned about that after the investment we've made. We look forward to staying there for a very long time and we think this is a very real and demonstrated threat to our property. My wife and I respectively request that you deny this lot split and we certainly thank you for your time and for your service to our community. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Toothaker. Would any other member of the public like to address this lot split for Linda Mayes? Please come forward. Carfagno: Hello. My name is Michael Carfagno and I'm in Lot 22 to the north of the Mayes' proposed lot split. I'm about the second home that was built in there. About 13 years ago I built my house there. When we originally built the property, like Mr. Toothaker said, the property behind the Mayes' home was all wooded, as well as all of our lots. They're extremely wooded. When we first started clearing out for our driveway, Linda Mayes came over to us at that time and said, "Please, don't clear out any additional woods, we want our privacy between everyone. That's why we bought these large lots." That's exactly why we moved out there 13 years ago. I've raised my family there, continue to stay there, and anticipate on staying there. Since then, they've cleared out the property in the back, like you're already aware of. The proposed driveway goes right up past our house, which opened up the woods. I went ahead and put up a privacy fence in order to help block some of the traffic because they -- the way their house is designed, they come into -- the bottom part of the home is Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 18 their basement, so now they drive around back and park their vehicles in the backyard in order to access the main part of the home, which is the upper level. We have additional traffic beside our home which we never anticipated. If the lot split was to occur, the new home would have to be built right up at the top of the lot, which means the house would look right into our backyard. We would lose additional privacy there. We're also concerned with the water main that was installed there years ago. I cannot tell you exactly what size it is, I have no idea, but I know that when there's a lot of watering of the neighborhood going on at peak hours, being on top of the hill like we are, we're already short for water usage. The subdivision was put in, I don't know, 17, 18 years ago. The mains weren't run as large then as they are required to be now. We are a little bit confused on why the lot split is even trying to be occurred other than the fact that, to our knowledge, they're anticipating on selling their current home where they've been for maybe 17 years now, moving to a different location, and so they're trying to sell that back property for -- I suppose, for profit. I have no idea. They've never approached me on the matter. They just started doing it. For those many reasons and other ones that are too numerous to even mention, I'm definitely opposing the lot split. Thank you for your time. Anthes: Thank you, Michael. Would you spell your last name for the record? Carfagno: Sure. It's C -A -R- F, as in Frank, A -G -N -O. Anthes: Thank you. Carfagno: Thank you. Anthes: Would any other member of the public like to address this item? If you all would just keep coming up behind each other. Jandik: Okay. Good evening. My name is Tomas Jandik. I am a financial professor at the University of Arkansas and I am the neighbor of the Mayeses, I think directly south of that lot. I don't know which number that would be, but basically directly south. If you noticed I am not signed on that petition that opposes the lot split, but after careful consideration I'm here to express my opposition to that lot split. Basically I can go over the reasons, but they're already said, so I'm going to be brief. I have bought that property very recently, actually in April, and a lot of the reasons why I have chose to spend almost a year looking for my dream house. I'm a first-time homeowner. It was basically to get to a place which was going to have lots of privacy, also wooded area. And I think that this proposed lot split basically lowers the properties of all the people Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 19 in that neighborhood. I'm obviously not against the responsible of the workmen, but this is something that I don't consider any -- That's basically it. I think you would like me spelling -- it's Tomas, without an H, T -O -M -A -S, and last name is going to be J -A -N -D -I -K. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Jandik. Would any other member of the public like to address this item? Seeing none, I will close the floor to public comment and ask for the applicant's presentation. Broyles: My name is Hank Broyles. This is my sister, Linda Mayes. I'm here to assist Linda in her presentation. I'm certainly glad there's two sides to each coin, because the information is going to be quite different from us than what you've just heard. First of all, this is for us a fairly simple request. The property is three acres. Anthes: Can we please have that cell phone turned off? Broyles: Well, it may be hers. And it -- half of the property is on one side of the hill and half the property is on the other side. The front half that fronts on Canvas, that's where Linda's house is. On the back half of the mountain, that's where the second lot is that she's requesting the lot split. When you build a house on that side, you won't be able to see his house, or his house, or his house, from this one. And we're willing to deed restrict that to be only one house to be built on it. Secondly, we've looked at the terrain on the property, and the house that Mr. Huffaker has back there is built on the very corner of Linda's property on the southwest corner, and her property slopes more to the north than to the south, so if there's water going onto his property, which I'm sure it is, he's on the side of a mountain and water has got to go somewhere, but it isn't coming off of Linda's lot onto his property. The request here for the variance is that Linda's house has a pool on the side of the house. She has a 75 -foot frontage on Canvas. The lot would go up, it narrows for a few feet to allow for the pool, and then it widens back out. The lot where the house would be is 190 -feet wide and, what, 4 or 500 feet long. As a matter of fact, her -- the house that would be built on here is over 300 feet away from Mr. Huffaker's house, which is in the corner. Mayes: The length of a football field between here and here, where they would build, a fine place to build. There's a 50 -foot setback from here, and when this drops off and you come to this area, you can't even see my house that's here. The Carfagnos' is here and his house is here. We had a topo map done -- Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 20 Anthes: Ms. Mayes, if you're going to continue to speak, I need you to go to the microphone, if you would. And you can take that microphone out if you want to walk with it. Just kind of pull it over. Mayes: When Mr. Toothaker came when we were clearing our lot, he asked us to leave him a buffer, that he had had trouble before where he was, and so as you can see right here, we left this tree line. There's tree line between Tom's house -- I'm not sure how to pronounce his last name. He just moved there. We left this tree line here and we brought the property -- we cleared the property down at the bottom and left this -- our property line comes like this. This whole tree line here is a topo map -- so that he wouldn't have any problems with drainage. So if there is problems, they were there before we ever cleared the lot, because we've only cleared this part, this side of it off to here, as you can see from the top. And where someone would want because of the view -- the property drops off, which the whole subdivision is on a mountain, so everybody has retaining walls. I have six of my own. And where they would build this house is the length of a football field from his house, so -- and the way the property -- Tom's house is at the top of the mountain. This starts sloping this direction, and so if any water is coming down, it's going to slope this way. Okay. And about traffic, this road has already been here, as you can see. We already have a paved driveway with an entryway that's been there. The driveway has been there over 10 years, and it is asphalted up about 150 feet up, and nothing at the road would stop -- would change. That's done. It's already been that way. As for traffic coming through to Mr. Carfagno's house, as you can see on this topo map, he has a drive that comes next to my house this way, and he runs a plumbing business out of his house and he has all his backhoes and trucks, and all. They run up and down this driveway all day long. So traffic, he doesn't have much to speak of. When I took off my deck this is what I see, all of his work trucks, dump trucks, all that stuff. Anthes: Ms. Mayes, please talk about your tot split, if you would. Mayes: Well, I'm just -- you're taking into consideration the driving. But we would like to split this lot off. This part of the property is pretty well useless. If it was a wide lot of three acres and separated our houses from each other, it would be different, but because this lot is 720 feet long, there's no use of this property back here. It's more -- its better use is to have a house built back here. And we've had people approach us that want to buy it. We're close to town. We're right on the city limit -- city limit property lines and everybody would like to live close to town and have an acre and a half. And that's what we would like to do is split that off. As for the tandem lots, we already have tandem lots (inaudible) it Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 21 should be right here. Lot 26 is a tandem lot. It was already in the subdivision. They had to do the same thing for these lots. This was one 40 -acre tract originally. They built a tandem lot. There is an easement. You all have copies in your reports for this easement through this lot to get to these four lots, including this lot here. So there's two tandem lots already in there. You've already split off this lot, this lot was split, and these two lots were split from three acres to an acre and a half. So when we bought the place 27 years ago, I know you don't listen to covenants, but it's in the covenants that you could split these -- the larger lots could be split off. We bought it with the intention of splitting it off. We built our house on the front so we could split it into two one -acre half lots, which 20 of the lots in the subdivision are an acre and a half, so it is compatible with the rest of the property. There's acre -and -a -half lots next to seven -acre lots, next to 10 -acre lots. I mean, the whole subdivision is just different size lots. So an acre -and -a -half lot next to a three -acre lot is nothing compared to these two -acre lots are next to seven -acre lots. guess that's good. Broyles: We think that summarized it. Thanks. Anthes: Thank you very much. Quick question of staff. Can you tell us about the applicability of the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District in the Planning Area? Pate: It is not applicable in our Planning Area. That is a zoning ordinance that is to be established within the city limits. Because when they established the actual map, it went outside our city limits, so that as properties are annexed in the future that boundary is already established, but it does not have any applicability here. It only just shows what areas are located within and without. Anthes: And the emergency services to this lot if, it were created, are there any comments? Pate: These are not served by our emergency services, so that would be likely the volunteer fire department and the sheriffs office. Anthes: And do you know of any existing utilities in the easement that's shown? There's a 30 -foot access and utility easement as noted on the plat. Pate: I don't know that there are any public utilities. There may be a private service line within that utility easement serving the house already, but I'm not aware of anything at this point in time. Anthes: Thank you. Commissioners? Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 22 Trumbo: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Trumbo. Trumbo: Just a clarification. On the -- in our packets we have a plat with the lot split on it. Is this -- that's the one in front of you, I believe -- is this -- if we were to approve a certain form of this, is this how you would want it to be? Pate: The plat that you have in front of you have been revised since the Subdivision Committee meeting that forwarded this to the full Planning Commission. What the applicants have done in this case is to essentially change the variance request. The variance request at the -- or the actual lot size that the Planning Commission -- the Subdivision Committee saw, essentially at the -- it would be the west -- the northwest property line of Lot 21 A, that extended to the north, essentially -- I'm sorry, to the east. North is -- I'm sorry, north is up, so to the north, and that was a 1 1/2 -acre tract and a 1/2 -acre tract, essentially identical tracts here. There was no frontage in that case, so the waiver was for 75 feet of lot width frontage. That was the waiver. In this case the applicants have created a tag lot or a flag lot and they have the 75 feet of frontage that's required by ordinance; however, as you can see, there's a section there of the lot that's only 30 feet wide. That does require a minimum 75 feet of lot width, so that's definitely a requirement, the waiver that's being presented at this time. If the Planning Commission chooses to approve this lot split, I believe it's been stated we would prefer the former option, not the one that's been presented to you. I don't believe it would take another plat to show you. Essentially it would just be two 1 1/2 -acre tracts without frontage. The reason for that is we also spoke with the applicant before the Planning Commission agendas were distributed. They agreed to deed restrict their 1 1/2 -acre lot. I believe some of the concerns that we've been -- have been voiced to us is the future development potential of this having 10,000--square-foot lots, which are allowed by ordinance as long as the frontage is there and the lot minimum, lot widths, and everything can be met. So I think we would prefer the option that had just two 1/2 -acre lots with the access easement. That's typical, and already in the lot. Anthes: And then we would have to process a conditional use permit for the tandem lot? Pate: No. There are no conditional use permits in the -- outside the city limits, because it's a zoning issue. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 23 Anthes: Thank you. Graves: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Graves: I have a question -- well, first for staff and then probably for legal. On the research concerning the tandem lots that are already out there or the lot splits that have been done unofficially, do we know how long ago those were done or --I mean, I'm just kind of trying to get an idea. Is this something that's just occurred recently or is it something that's been out there for quite a while? Pate: I think several of these have been out there for quite some time. We did not go back and do any deep deed research into when the actual deeds were filed. That's really how we would have to determine that, is when the deed records were changed to reflect a new deed, essentially, creating those lots. I don't think many of them occurred very recently. As the applicant mentions, some of these lots were platted as larger tandem lots, however. Graves: For my follow-up questions to the city attorney, when we're considering compatibility we're confronted in this case with things that are out there. Although they may have not been done the way they were supposed to have been done, they're nevertheless there in looking at the compatibility issue, and I didn't know -- are we -- is that something we should consider concerning compatibility? And please don't tell me, "That's up to you." Williams: Well, I think you probably can consider it. You can consider reality as well as maybe what should have been out there, but I think you can consider reality, what's out there right now, even if the lot splits were not done according to what our code requires. Pate: I would mention, too, that any of the lots that were split off or essentially there prior to 1985 -- that's when our code goes back to nonconforming structures and nonconforming situations -- that was the date that the county offices changed their parcel numbering system and that's what we utilized for our own code. Those essentially would be grandfathered in, but again, I'm not sure what the dates of some of those are. Graves: I mean, my thinking was just teeing it up for discussion, I guess, and I don't know how I feel about it yet. But these lots, if they were split some time ago, to some degree many of the folks who live there now may have moved there with those lots splits already in place, legal or not. And so I Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 24 was trying to determine view and compatibility through that lens, the idea that those lot splits, unofficial or official, were there and something that was visible and available and known to people as that area developed. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Thank you. I guess where I sort of fall is the -- I'm afraid sometimes that two wrongs still don't make a right, and even though there are a lot of split lots out there that didn't go through our process, in fact, they are still there, and when people bought the land the covenants suggested and somewhat promoted this sort of split scenario. It's almost more a problem of process. These lot splits are probably going to happen more, it's just that did they come to this body to be discussed in a formal fashion or did they just go down to the county and file for a lot split without the neighbors and the formal discussion that's going on here? Both ways seem to be somewhat legal, apparently. If this process is the way it should be, then it seems like the applicant ought to be able to get a lot split tonight. In other words, the split itself is not the problem, it's the way we're getting there, in a sense, and if we're going to look at it that way, then all the other lot splits are really off the table. The fact that this lot split could happen tonight is okay. So in my mind I can put aside all the other lot splits and just listen to the neighbors, for one, and most of the neighbors seem to be against it. There are some that are okay with it. So I don't know if that really adds to that discussion, but I don't believe I'm in favor of this lot split tonight. If we're -- if the applicant were to sit down with the people opposing him and her more thoroughly and come up with a more formalized agreement, deed restriction, things like that, layout, I think progress could be made, because I believe it's a process problem. A lot of these people are mad because this isn't going the way theirs did. I know I'm not making a lot of sense here, but I would be against this tonight because I think a lot of progress could be made outside this room. And we could come back and have more consensus in the neighborhood. Thank you. Lack: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Lack. Lack: This is a difficult subject to broach, I guess, because I really appreciate densification in many forms at different times. I think that this particular case is one that I see that, as all lot splits would be, as being an individual case that has to be heard solely on its merits, and the fact that there are other lot splits in the neighborhood would be somewhat irrelevant to me because I don't know the particulars of why those lot splits would have Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 25 been acceptable or unacceptable when they were heard. So I think what we have to look at, what I feel compelled to look at, is the merits of this particular lot split, and where I have problems with this particular lot split is the image of the plat that shows me a series of fairly normal conforming lots stacked together where each of these homeowners has grown accustomed to the amenities of the fully -treed lots, the density that they built adjacent to. When I look at the lot split and adding individual houses in the midst of that, I am compelled to listen to the neighbors, and when I hear such comments from the neighbors then I think that it certainly gives me pause. And I would certainly agree with what Commissioner Ostner has stated, in that if there was some consensus with the neighbors and some ability to work with the neighbors so that they could be comfortable with the surroundings that they had bought into, then I could have a much different feeling about this, but I think at this point with the information that we have on this particular lot split, I would not be able to support it. Anthes: Is there further discussion? I have one question of staff. We don't see lots of this size so often, but we're well versed in them. And the Unified Development Code that you quote in the staff report says, "When a tract of land is subdivided into larger than normal lots, such lots shall be so arranged as to permit the logical location and opening of future streets and appropriate re -subdivision of the lots with provision for adequate utility connections for such re -subdivision." This is what you have called out as one of the cases for denial of this request. Can you talk about that a little bit, because this seems to be talking about re -subdivisions, and I thought that was not going to be an issue on this property? Pate: It certainly could be unless the applicant does offer that -- if the Planning Commission approves that and the applicant offers the deed restriction to loan it to one single-family home; however, that's not necessarily the case. The current proposal would allow for, I believe, 30 feet of lot width if this were re -subdivided in the future, with 10,000 -square -foot lots. It would not allow adequate right-of-way for a public street, whether to city or county standards, in terms of right-of-way, street width, and sidewalks. That would be required by city ordinances. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Pate. Is there further discussion? Harris: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Harris. Harris: I'm a little concerned that -- I feel as though we sort of have one proposal on the table and then we have this other ghost proposal behind us, that if Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 26 we don't like this one we can go to Plan B, and I would appreciate, I guess, a bit more discussion. If this is still seriously on the table for us to consider tonight, the original proposal, -- excuse me, I'm understanding correctly that if we were going to say yes to a lot split tonight, the staff would prefer that we say yes to the original proposal? Pate: That's correct. That would be our recommendation. Harris: Okay. Anthes: For the audience, it's basically the same lot split except for the access easement and the flare at the end are removed and then you just share access from the two lots on that drive. Harris: And I would like to follow up, if I may, on something Commissioner Lack brought up, the sort of specific contextualization of any decision about lot splits; that is, there are other lot splits in this area, but he's not taking them to be particularly relevant in this when given that it's -- we're looking at specific circumstances. There are other lot splits in the neighborhood; however, do we need to in any way consider the specificity of those lot splits, Mr. Pate? Pate: I don't believe so. The specifics are all unique to each property. There are many lot splits that are shown here that would likely meet our ordinance requirements -- well, not many. The one that I'm noting is the red split. I guess it's the ones at the east Canvas and north Canvas intersection. That split would likely meet our requirements for 75 feet of lot width and 10,000 square feet of lot area, so that may very well have met our ordinance requirements. To be quite frank, it's very rare that the Planning Commission sees a lot split that it cannot approve. Literally, if it meets all the ordinance requirements, if it meets the base requirements, the Planning Commission is bound by the code to approve it. Tandem lots are one of those examples and then waivers of the requirements in the Planning Area are another. And so it is rare also, in our opinion, that you see a tandem lot within an existing platted subdivision. I think that's the most significant reservation staff has about this particular application is that this is a platted subdivision. It's not necessarily a density issue, because if this had 75 feet of frontage and 75 feet of lot width, the Planning Commission -- and 10,000 square feet, the Planning Commission would be bound to approve that, whether it liked the density or not. It would meet the code requirement. In terms of this application, it simply does not meet the code requirement. We did look at the subdivision as a whole. Obviously, it's a difficult decision because there are other lots within the subdivision that are 1 1/2 acres. In this particular north Canvas Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 27 Road, there simply are not. You've heard from the neighbors, as has staff, and at this point in time we're not comfortable with the split as proposed. Harris: I feel as though I -- I was just by coincidence in this neighborhood today and by sheer coincidence I happened to be on the lot that you're talking about that has a tandem split that probably would be approvable by us this evening, and so I've thought a lot about this today. This is very difficult tonight. The immediate neighbors and their reaction to this particular lot split, I have to-- I feel as though I need to take onboard. That is one of my major concerns here tonight. At the same time, why I keep coming back to what Mr. Lack said. I think it's so important. Yes, there are other lot splits in this neighborhood. At the same time we take each lot split on its particular merits. We have, if I'm understanding it, the three adjacent properties to this one registering their negative response to this tonight. And I so have not completed my decision-making process yet, but I'm just saying that that's in the mix for me this evening. Anthes: Thank you. When looking at this subdivision as a whole, we toured this after agenda session and the thing that I struggle with is that I wouldn't even notice that Lots 1, 2, 3, 11 and 12 were part of that subdivision. It's like once you turn in there and you go up the hill on east Canvas Road, it's like this area from Lots 18 through 26 almost become their own thing and it feels very separate out there. So it's harder with the topography and how this lays on the land and where it is and how you move through the subdivision, it's hard for me to look at this and see all these lots as contributing to the same place. Is there further discussion? Ostner: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Motion: Ostner: I'm going to make a motion to deny Lot Split 06-2200. Anthes: I have a motion to deny by Commissioner Ostner. Do I hear a second? Myres: Second. Anthes: A second by Commissioner Myres. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to deny LSP 06-2200 carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Commissioner Clark was absent. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 28 Pate: Madame Chair. Anthes: Yes, Mr. Pate. Pate: Before we go to the next item, I wanted to let you know that the applicant for the previous item that was tabled indefinitely is in the audience and is present. It would take a motion to reconsider by one of the members that voted in the affirmative to table. I'd just like to put that before you. Anthes: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Pate. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 29 CUP 06-2241: Conditional Use Permit (QDOBA, 483): Submitted by QDOBA MEXICAN GRILL for property located at 603 W. DICKSON STREET. The property is zoned C-3, CENTRAL COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 0. 12 acres. The request is for a conditional use permit for a portable, temporary dance floor for specified evenings only. Anthes: Our eight item this evening is Conditional Use Permit 06-2241 for Qdoba. Can we have the staff report? Morgan: The Qdoba restaurant is located on Dickson Street. It is located at 601 West Dickson Street, north of Powerhouse Avenue, and the applicant has requested a dance floor within this restaurant, measuring 15 feet by 21 feet, a total of 315 square feet. Staff has reviewed this conditional use permit proposal in light of our findings and we find that the proposed use to be operated from the hours of -- excuse me, 9:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. would be compatible within this area, within this entertainment -type district, as there are several other restaurants, eating places, and even dance floors with conditional use permits in the area. We find that it will not adversely affect the public and we have proposed conditions on this requested conditional use which would limit signage, trash pickup, as well as the types of music and noise that could be there -- not types of music, but that music shall not be played so that it could be audible to the adjacent properties. We are recommending approval of this conditional use with a total of nine conditions. Anthes: Thank you, Ms. Morgan. Would any member of the public like to address this conditional use permit for Qdoba? Good evening, Ms. Marinoni. Marinoni: My name is Paula Marinoni. I'm a neighbor to the north, and we have been through quite a history with noise coming from Dickson Street. And the property to the east of it, George's, enclosed their patio, put in a sound wall restricting the sound and such. I've heard this is a wonderful place. 1 know a lot of people that enjoy it. My concern would be that when they first opened this up I noticed that the whole front wall of the building appears to be windows that open up like this. So, in essence, the whole wall would open up and if they had a band or any amplified music in there, it would funnel it straight to our house and to the Gregg House. I would ask that you add a stipulation. I have no problem with them dancing in there and people having fun and enjoying themselves. I ask that you add a stipulation that when they have music in there that they are required to shut those doors and the windows and provide any sort of ventilation that anyone else would provide for a dancing situation. Thank you. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 30 Anthes: Thank you very much. Would any other member of the public like to address this item? Mr. Underwood. Underwood: My name is Bill Underwood and I'm a neighbor of Qdoba. The Underwood building is about 150 feet west and the property where we're going to build the law office is adjacent to Qdoba. I like Qdoba. I frequently eat there. I think they're a good neighbor. My concern is the parking. They have no parking of their own. In fact, we have made our property where the law office is going to go available to them at no charge for the last year or two, but that's about to change. And the excavation is going to start there next month, and then Mr. Tux across the street is starting their excavation. So my concern is the parking and the congestion that this might create, so for that reason I'm opposed to the dancing permit. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Underwood. Would any other member of the public like to speak? Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public comment and ask for the applicant's presentation. Oh, don't tell me we have another one. Myres: We're batting a thousand tonight. Lack: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Lack. Motion: Lack: I would like to move that we table Conditional Use 06-2241 indefinitely, as we have no applicant. Myres: Second. Anthes: A motion to table by Commissioner Lack, with a second by Commissioner Myres. Is there further discussion? Graves: Madame Chair. Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Graves. Graves: Well, I'm just going -- you all know how I feel about this already. All this does is inevitably cause us to have a 25- or 30 -item agenda a few weeks from now whenever these folks decide to show up. If they don't care enough to appear at a public meeting where they're on the agenda and present their item, then we shouldn't continue to extend them the courtesy. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 31 They're not extending us a courtesy and we shouldn't continue to extend them the courtesy of prolonging meetings and prolonging the public having to sit through long agendas before we get to their items just because they didn't have the courtesy to show up on the night they were scheduled, and so I'm going to consistently vote against tabling these and I'm going to vote to deny them when they don't show up. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Thank you, Madame Chair. A question for staff. If you had to guess, approximately how many conversations or meetings have you had with this applicant since they decided to apply for this? Morgan: I briefly met with the applicant shortly after the application was submitted, whenever he submitted a floor plan. We didn't discuss too much of the details, but just briefly. I assume that he knew the schedule for when this would be at Planning Commission. Ostner: Has he ever called you? Morgan: No, he has not. Ostner: Has he ever had any other contact that you know of with any other staff, front desk, or whatnot? Morgan: Not that I believe. I let him know I'd get in touch with him if there was a problem, and never had a reason to. Ostner: What is the exact process where applicants are notified of their meeting schedule, when they need to be here? Pate: The applicant submits on a published schedule that's published every winter for that year. They submit on a cycle and they go to a corresponding Planning Commission meeting. It's been like that for several years, I believe. Ostner: I'm just wondering when he understands when his time to come is. Pate: It should be at the time of submittal. When they submit, they are submitting for a very specific Planning Commission. Ostner: He is basically handed that calendar that you just spoke of.? Pate: That's correct. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 32 Ostner: This is the night? Pate: That's correct. They also -- applicants also receive our staff reports either by e-mail or e-mail showing them that it is on our website after the agenda session. Ostner: Ms. Morgan, did you ever have any e-mail contact with this applicant? I mean, I'm not trying to -- Morgan: I did not. I'm not the one who sends those out. We do have an e-mail address, though, for a Mr. Roberto Reyes, though, so I assume that's to whom it was sent. Ostner: Okay. I'd like to agree with Mr. Graves. A great deal of staff time and effort has gone into this and I -- there are many avenues and many chances that they had and knew of. They could have called many times. I understand that emergencies do happen, but I believe we could hear this item fairly without their presence tonight. So I'm going to vote against tabling it indefinitely. I believe that is improper. Harris: Madame Chair. Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Harris. Harris: Just a sort of point of clarification. It seems that two proposals on the table are to go ahead and hear this tonight, and the other is to deny it. The reason that I would hesitate to deny, and I recognize this is fairly farfetched, but on the off chance that every member of the petitioner is in the hospital having babies or doing something else, I guess I would like to know if we deny, I assume that's just the end of it. Is that correct? So if in fact they have met with some completely unforeseen and catastrophic emergency, have we denied a project that we should wait to hear? Anthes: Mr. Williams, can you address the time frame on reapplication for conditional use? Williams: Up through the next meeting someone that voted in favor of denial could move to reconsider and place the item back on the agenda if you felt like there were grounds to reconsider and place the item back on the agenda. And if the majority of the Planning Commission voted in favor of that, then the item would be back before you. That would have to be done before the end of the next Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 33 Harris: I would like to say, Madame Chair, that to be consistent in my votes tonight I would go ahead this evening and vote to table this indefinitely, because I did on the first one. I will say, however, that I couldn't agree more with Commissioner Graves. I think it's one's civic duty, if nothing else, to give the city a phone call. However, since I've already said table tonight, I will continue to say that tonight. I will serve notice, however, that in the future I probably would recommend to deny as well. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Commissioner Harris. Is there further discussion? We have a motion to table by Commissioner Lack, with a second by Commissioner Myres, and that's to table indefinitely. Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to table CUP 06-2241 carries with a vote of 6-2-0, with Commissioners Graves and Ostner voting no. Commissioner Clark was absent. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 34 CUP 06-2239: Conditional Use Permit (PEARSON FOR BBBQ ON 15TH, 600): Submitted by C. THOMAS JR., PEARSON for property located at S. OF 15TH ST. AT THE END OF VAN BUREN ST. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI -FAMILY- 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 5.00 acres. The request is to approve a conditional use permit for a temporary campground during the Bikes, Blues and Barbeque festival. Anthes: Okay. Our ninth item is Conditional Use Permit 06-2239 for Pearson for Barbeque on 15th. Would the applicant raise their hand? Okay. We've got somebody here. All right. We're going to hear the staff report then. Garner: Okay. This property is a 5 -acre site and it's located on the south side of 15th Street. It's adjacent to Van Buren Avenue. The entire site is located within the floodway or floodplain of Town Branch Creek. The surrounding uses are primarily residential with -- developed as single- family detached residences. There has been existing grading and dumping violation that has not been resolved on the property. It's currently being pursued by the city prosecutor. The violation was that the property has been graded without a permit, leaving exposed soil. Concrete has been dumped illegally onto the property, leaving exposed concrete and rebar, along with a depressed area/sinkhole with standing water. The property is a public health and safety concern for the city. And the applicant is now proposing to allow a temporary campground on the property during the Bikes, Blues, and Barbeque festival September 25th through the 30th of 2006. And in discussing their application they have told me they wanted to just allow RV parking and camping only on the property without any utilities, water or sewer, or electricity to those campers. They did submit a hand -drawn site plan showing where the site would be roped off and where the RVs would be parked. It was difficult for staff to determine the number of RVs or the number of campers that would be allowed on the property just because of the lack of information provided and the hand - drawn nature of the site plan. Staff has received two phone calls from property owners in the vicinity and an e-mail from the Town Branch neighborhood association. The comments were generally opposed to the request citing concerns with noise and compatibility with adjacent residences. Staff has also received several communications from our Police Department and Code Compliance Division, and after the applicant dropped the request for outdoor entertainment, a beer tent, vendors and uses, the Police Department has no formal objections to this application, but did cite some health concerns with the RV park without appropriate facilities for waste discharge. The Code Compliance Division citing ongoing prosecution for existing city code violation on the property is not in favor of the proposal to allow this use. Staff is not in favor of this use. We are recommending denial. We do find that it would adversely affect Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 35 the public interest. The property has unresolved code violations, as mentioned. The violation has left the site in a disturbed state. We don't find that it would be safe to allow camping on this property, and additionally, without assurance of proper controls in place, potential detrimental impacts could result in surrounding residential uses or potential impact such as loud noise, unsafe traffic, and general public safety and hazardous conditions, and the applicant has not been cooperative in resolving the current violations on the property, so we don't have confidence that they would meet any conditions that were placed on this project. So those our reasons for denying the project, and we'll be happy to answer any questions you might have. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Garner. Would any member of the public like to address this Conditional Use Permit 06-2239, Pearson for Barbeque on 15th? Seeing none, I'll close the public comment section and ask for the applicant's presentation. Mr. Pearson? No, wait Somebody raised their hand and said they were here a minute ago. Oh, my gosh. I don't believe this. Audience: (Inaudible) -- is standing outside talking. Myres: It's miked outside, so they should know that this is -- Motion: Anthes: This one, I am so clear about how I'm going to vote on this thing, whether or not I hear -- you know, I think that the amount of persuasion in the staff report and this argument is enormous as compared to with the other applications and, therefore, I'm going to move to deny Conditional Use Permit 06-2239. Harris: I second. Anthes: We have a motion to deny by Commissioner Anthes, with a second by Commissioner Harris. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to deny CUP 06-2239 carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Commissioner Clark was absent. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 36 CUP 06-2243: Conditional Use Permit (SPEAKEASY, 484): Submitted by MILLER, BOSKUS, LACK for property located at 509 W. SPRING STREET, SUITE 250. The property is zoned C-3, CENTRAL COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 1.08 acres. The request is for a dance floor in the new nightclub. Anthes: Will the applicant for Speakeasy raise their hand? Thank you. The next item tonight is 06-2243, Conditional Use Permit for Speakeasy. Mr. Garner. Lack: Madame Chair. I want to recuse on this item. Anthes: Thank you, Commissioner Lack. Garner: This property is located at 509 West Spring Street in the Metro District Building, located off of Dickson Street and West Avenue. The parcel is Suite 250 in the Metro District Building. It contains approximately 3,900 square feet. The applicant proposes to have a small dance floor approximately 475 square feet within the building. Nightclubs, taverns and other eating places are allowed by right within the C-3 zoning district, which is the zoning for the subject property, and those uses aren't in the subject of the request. The request is solely to allow dancing within the building. Staff does find that this request would not adversely affect the public and the applicant has complied with the rules governing this request. We have made findings of fact that are required and we are recommending approval. We do have conditions that we are recommending. We are recommending Condition Number 2 which is that music shall not be played that could be audible to adjacent properties. Again, Condition 4 is referencing noise, that no outdoor music or amplification of music out of doors shall be permitted. And Condition 5 is limiting the square footage of the dance floor. Condition 6 is limiting the hours of operation. Those are the size of the dance floor and the hours of operation that the applicant requested. And we will be happy to answer any questions you might have about the request. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Garner. Would any member of the public like to address the conditional use permit for Speakeasy? Ms. Marinoni. Marinoni: Paula Marinoni. Neighbor close by. Same thing. If they would just shut the doors and the windows, because then -- if they open everything up, then it kind of becomes outdoor music, only it's not. And I don't think that's the intention, and the intent of a conditional use for dancing is to make sure that all that activity stays inside as opposed to the cafe -type thing of indoor/outdoor, and I think that would clarify that to make sure that the noise doesn't come out. The ordinances are complaint -driven, and Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 37 so it's not enforced. The police do not drive around and go, "Oh, music is coming out of this building" or "It's too loud." The police don't do anything without a complaint, and so once you complain, then they go, they do something about it, they leave. Then the people can turn it up again or open the doors again. Then it has to be complaint -driven again. So it's very important, as is the intent of these things, in a conditional use to clarify up front how everybody can live together in peace. Did you give my letter to them? Okay. I'm sorry, I have to leave. I wanted to address the next issue also. I have two boys getting awards at Scouts and I don't want to miss their award presentation. Kit has a letter on the next item on the agenda that he distributed to you and that is very concise of both the history and the facts on that issue. Thank you very much. Anthes: Thank you, Paula. Would any other member of the public like to address this conditional use permit for Speakeasy? Seeing none, I'll close the public comment section. Will the applicants come forward? Good evening. Baker: Hello. I'm Sara Baker. I'm one of the owners and the designer for Speakeasy. For the sound ordinance, I would just like to make clear that our dance floor is located in the basement. None of its direct walls are on exterior walls of the building, and as well as that, the interior shared partition walls will be highly insulated for sound. That's one of our chief concerns. We do not want to upset anyone in our building, much less our neighbors. If we do that, that causes problems, and we'd like to avoid it at all costs. Other than that, we do agree with all the conditions that you've set forth and we have no other objection. Anthes: Thank you, Ms. Baker. Baker: Thank you. Anthes: Commissioners? Ostner: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: I have a question of staff. It's basically about the mechanics of these noise complaints. If it's midnight or 1:00 a.m. and a citizen is wanting to complain, they call the police department, the way I understand. What happens? Where do the police measure, for one thing? Do they measure near the nightclub under question or do they measure at the citizen's house Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 38 and what happens if they go in and do try to get them to turn it down and then 20 minutes later they just turn it back up? Pate: I'm not sure of all the policies and procedures of the police department regarding that issue. I know that they do typically take noise measurements at the property line in question, sometimes both the violator and the person who is requesting the measurement, but I'm not sure exactly all the procedures for that. Williams: Part of it depends on the time of night. Early on it is measured at the complainant's property line, and of course that -- and also the type of zoning the complainant lives in. A residential zone has a lower allowed decibel level than a commercial or industrial use does, so they measure it when it crosses the residential property line, usually of the person that's complaining. However, later at night there is a requirement that music cannot be audible, and at that point then, at the property line of the owner, and so at that point in time they would be measuring it at a different location and it should not be audible. I should point out that the condition that has been placed upon this establishment and that has been agreed to by one of the owners says that "Music shall not be played that could be audible to adjacent properties." That is the most restrictive sort of noise restriction. That's beyond our noise ordinance except for the very late times, and so I think that that should alleviate any neighbors' concerns, because if in fact the music is audible, if you can hear it, then it's a violation of this condition. Whether or not it's a violation of our noise ordinance, it's a violation of this condition, and so they could lose their conditional use. So I think Ms. Marinoni's concerns would be alleviated by this condition that has been placed upon this conditional use. Ostner: Thank you. And when you mentioned "later in the evening," where the policemen measure is different. At what time was it? Williams: Well, I'm trying to remember exactly. It is fairly late. I think it's either 11:00 or 12:00. It's fairly late, and I think it's 11 o'clock, but don't hold me to that because I don't have that ordinance memorized and I don't have that code section with me, I'm afraid. Ostner: Okay. And you mentioned after that late date the police department measures at the bar owner's property, not the complainants?. Williams: Yes, to see if in fact music is audible beyond their property. Ostner: Okay. Okay. Well, that seems very fair to me, so -- I appreciate it. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 39 Trumbo: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Trumbo. Motion: Trumbo: I would agree with Commissioner Ostner and Mr. Williams. I believe thal Condition Number 2 is pretty clear and should answer any concerns of the neighbors, and based on that, which was my only concern, I'm going to make a motion that we approve Conditional Use 06-2243 and the seven conditions placed on it by staff -- concur with. Graves: I'll second. Anthes: We have a motion by Commissioner Trumbo and a second by Commissioner Graves. Is there further discussion? I just have one question. Aren't there residential uses within this building itself on this same property? Pate: Yes, I believe so. Anthes: Okay. Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve CUP 06-2243 carries with a vote 7-0-1. Commissioner Lack recused. Commissioner Clark was absent. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 40 CUP 06-2242: Conditional Use Permit (ON THE ROCKS, 484): Submitted by EVAN REYNOLDS for property located at 339 N. WEST AVENUE SUITE 3. The property is zoned C-3, CENTRAL COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 0.67 acres. The request is for an outdoor music permit for the rooftop deck. Anthes: Our eleventh item is Conditional Use Permit 06-2242 for On The Rocks. Will the applicants raise their hands? Okay. May we have the staff report, please? Fulcher: This is for property which is just north of the previous request at 339 North West Avenue at On The Rocks. It occupies approximately 8,000 square feet. Approximately half of that is interior space and the other half is the rooftop bar which is currently in operation. That rooftop bar was approved by the ABC back in August of 2003, quite a bit later than the outdoor music establishment ordinance that was passed by the City Council in 2002, which is why the applicants are present to request a conditional use tonight. And the neighbor that was just here also referenced that letter that you all did receive Thursday at the agenda setting session. Staff is supportive of this conditional use for a few reasons, those being the specific restrictions that we can put in place on a conditional use, which we've outlined in our conditions of approval. Then also as was referred to on the last item, the noise ordinance that's currently on the books which is within your staff report. It outlines Chapter 96, noise control, which is enforced and regulated by the police division. With those two in place, the nearby residential properties which are to the north and to the west of this property should not be negatively impacted by this outdoor music establishment. When the City Council passed this ordinance in 2002, one of the comments that's actually written into the ordinance is that "It is the Council's policy to encourage outdoor music establishments," and actually specific to this location on West Avenue between Spring Street and Lafayette Street, and it continues to say, "as long as such establishments are reasonably compatible with the adjoining neighborhoods." This property currently is surrounded by C-3 zoning. To the north and south are existing businesses, bar uses. To the west is the railroad right-of-way and then to the east is a university property parking lot, so the immediately adjacent properties it is compatible with. And then with these restrictions set forward in the noise ordinance and the conditions of approval, it should not negatively affect that neighborhood to the north and west, a few hundred feet away. The conditions of approval I'd like to go through a little bit. There are nine of those. One is just referring to a Certificate of Zoning Compliance for this business just so that we can ensure that all the conditions are met if this item is passed tonight prior to them being approved through the planning division. Item 3 was referred to a little bit in the last item, and that is referring to Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 41 violations of the noise ordinance. If investigated by the police department, would constitute grounds for revocation of the conditional use to operate an outdoor music establishment. Item Number 4 refers back to the site plan that the applicant has submitted, which is on Page 11 of 34. It shows the stage area and two speakers at the northwest portion of the rooftop bar. Obviously by looking at that, it is a very small space, usually for a one- or two-man performance, with two speakers facing to the south and southeast. That is also covered in Condition Number 4. That would be towards the Dickson Street area and entertainment district, and obviously not towards the residential uses to the north and west. Item 5, based on the site plan this is what will be approved, the stage location, the number of speakers. To alter the location or increase the number of speakers, the applicant would have to come back to the Planning Commission for that approval. Item Number 6 is the hours of operation. Staff felt that having this use end at 11:00 p.m. on Thursdays through Saturday, again, would help with the noise into the residential districts. That is Condition Number 6. And then Number 7 obviously complies with the city's noise ordinance. And then Number 9 is specific, again, to that letter. And when this rooftop bar was approved in 2003, the ABC director did specify that this should be for acoustic music, not amplified. That letter that you received Thursday goes into a little bit more detail on that. It is up to the applicant to clear those permits and any proposed changes with the ABC, and if the ABC does not want to change that limit to acoustic music, the condition would placed on this request that it would be limited to acoustic music also by the city's provisions under this conditional use request. 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 On The Rocks? Please come forward and state your name and your concerns. Pollard: Good evening. My name is Stephen Pollard. I represent the interests of the ownership of Maple Street Apartments as well as the greater apartment communities -- 28 households. We have some serious concerns about the unimpeded noise transmission that would result, seemingly so, from live music being played on the rooftop. If it's going to stop at 11:00, that doesn't sound like too much of a problem, especially if it's acoustic only, but if it's not, if it's anything other than that, it's definitely going to be a dis-amenity to those 28 households in that apartment community. It's elevated and it is a straight line distance right to the rooftop. There are no trees, no walls, nothing there. The music would travel right into Maple Street Apartments' back door. It's about 75 or a hundred yards at best. So I would ask that you give some serious consideration to some restrictions Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 42 on the playing of live music up there and then even consider denying the request for conditional use for live music up there. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Pollard. Would anybody else like to address this item? Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public comment. Will the applicant make his presentation? Reynolds: Most everything that I needed to say was in my -- Anthes: I'm sorry. Could you state your name, please? Reynolds: Oh, sorry. I'm Evan Reynolds, the new owner of On The Rocks, and I'm trying to abide by the new rules. Coming in, I know that the former owners didn't have their conditional use permit, and when I came before you on the 1 st of June, none of us were aware of whether they did or did not have their conditional use permit, and so I applied for mine. And here I am standing in front of you now and I didn't get a chance to address the West Maple Apartments, but I'll look into that, and I thought that the restraints that were put upon our outdoor music were adequate. I don't think that we'll bother the neighborhood association very much at all. And Ms. Marinoni, I know, wrote you a letter and -- but I have a copy of your meeting from June 1 st on DVD that was obviously broadcast on Channel 16, your local government channel, but during that meeting she says that she specifically has no problem with us having live outdoor music, it was merely a zoning issue. And I recently purchased a decibel reader and drove and parked in front of her house last Saturday night and turned it on and there were no readings coming from my establishment or any establishment, for that matter. And so if anyone would like a copy, I get you copies of this DVD, but I'm sure you've seen it because most of you were there. And I guess that's all I have to say. Thank you very much. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Reynolds. Commissioners? First I have a question for staff. It looks like from the staff report that in 2002 there was a lot of negotiation between the current Ward 2 alderman and the neighbors. What I now hear is the property owner has come to some agreement in order to get the ABC permit. Can you speak to what has happened on that site since then? Has there been acoustic music only there up until this point, or has there been amplified music? Pate: The applicant may be able to speak better to that. It's my understanding, however, the applicant spoke to the question of whether there was a conditional use permit or not. Most of us thought there was because of all the negotiations and the correspondence that we had on file; however, Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 43 there was not, based on our research. I believe that amplified music has been playing since 2002. As you noted in your staff report, and I think Jesse noted, we did do a search into police records and they sent us police reports. In those four years of operation there was one noise complaint. I believe it was from a loud car. So if that has indeed been occurring for the last four years, certainly no specific complaints have come in to the police department requesting investigation of that particular use. The applicant may be able to speak better, although he also is a new owner to this property, and so I'm not sure if he would have knowledge of that either. Anthes: Mr. Reynolds, would you come to the podium? Reynolds: Yes, ma'am. Anthes: You know what the ABC has said in their conditions for your liquor license about the acoustic music. Do you intend to now apply to them to change that to allow the amplified music as well? Reynolds: I am considering doing it. It really doesn't make that much of a difference with my business upstairs, whether it's acoustic or amplified. We're having single performers with acoustic guitars and sometimes people listen to them and sometimes they don't, so whether they're amplified or not, it's not like it's that big of a deal either way. So I have no problem if it just wants to remain acoustic, but again, we've had no noise complaints, and I know the previous owners because I've lived here now, and last summer there were several full bands set up, and I think if there were no noise complaints with that, then surely there would be none with acoustic music or slightly amplified acoustic music. Anthes: I do appreciate that you've put the cutoff time as 11:00 p.m. because I think that's helpful for the neighbors and would tend to agree with your statements. I'm looking at Page 9 of our staff report where it indicates that "It is the City Council's policy to encourage outdoor music establishments in this general area as long as such establishments are reasonably compatible with the adjoining neighborhoods." And then it also talks about "The Planning Commission may require noise -reducing measures and structures be incorporated into an area," and the other things that are actually in our report. Have there been other noise -reducing measures considered, like a wall that would be an absorptive wall behind the speaker area that would separate it from the neighborhood, or have you just found that there hasn't been enough noise leakage to matter? Reynolds: If we were to have amplified music, I think that a noise -reducing wall would be necessary, because just simply that fact, putting in that wall, Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 44 would limit all music going towards Lafayette Street. And there would be absolutely no reverberation of music coming back towards those neighborhoods. It would all go towards Dickson Street, because there's nothing for it to bounce off of, no big walls, no big buildings, and if -- actually, I did consider that because I am considering applying for the ABC to approve me for amplified music, but this is, you know, maybe for next summer. It's already getting a little cold outside and I haven't put too much thought into it, but I have considered that. Anthes: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Reynolds. Reynolds: Thank you. Williams: Actually I have one question for him. I noticed on Condition 9 there's a lot of things about the ABC permit, but I would suggest that we just add one sentence, that "The applicant shall comply with the ABC permit," in other words, until the ABC does change your permit that you will only have acoustic music there. And I think that really up until the ABC changes it, we should require compliance with the ABC permit and then put the burden on you, if you want to have something else, to go to the ABC and get that changed. Reynolds: All right. We actually didn't have music on Saturday night, and it was louder than any night previous than when we've had music, just because of the sheer number of people on and around Dickson Street, but that was with no music anyway. Thank you very much. Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Graves: I just wanted to state for the record, first, how appalled I am that an applicant would threaten us with watching one of our own meetings, but -- (Laughter) Motion: Graves: -- I think that the Condition 2 and 3 concerning the power to revoke, those are pretty strong words that I haven't seen before in a conditional use permit. I know we probably have that power if they're violating noise ordinances, or maybe we do, maybe we don't, but certainly here it's pretty clear that the applicant has to stay within the strict confines of the noise ordinance or he could definitely lose the conditional use permit. So I think that that language covers it, and I also thought the same thing on Condition 9, that it ought to just say they would comply with the ABC Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 45 permit, whatever that is. And so I will move to approve Conditional Use Permit 06-2242 with the stated conditions of approval with the suggested amendment to Number 9 as stated by our city attorney. Anthes: A motion to approve by Commissioner Graves. Do I hear a second? Myres: Second. Anthes: A second by Commissioner Myres. Is there further discussion? Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Point of clarification. Could the motioner more clearly restate his suggested changes to Condition Number 9? Graves: That the applicant shall comply with the Alcoholic Beverage Control Division Permit. Ostner: Thank you. Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: I do have a couple of other questions. On this Table on Page 2 of 34, it talks about the decibel levels allowed and the hours that they measure them. "All residential zones are only allowed 60 decibels from 7:00 a.m. until 11:00 p.m." My question is for staff. We're promoting mixed use in the Downtown Master Plan. We're going to have a lot of new zones. How are these new zones -- well, I guess it's a rhetorical question. It seems like our new zones that we're -- that the City Council is about to enact or has partially enacted doesn't really fit with this little chart. Our new zones are very mixed up and very unclear. People are suggested and invited to live in commercial areas, so I would like a few words from our zoning administrator on if someone were living in, say, The Lofts, that will probably have a mixed-use zoning district, how would they complain and would the police say that they were valid and "Oh, you're not living in a residential zone, sir. You can't complain unless it's above 70 decibels"? Pate: We currently have mixed-use districts that already are under this situation, that residential lots or units are located within commercial districts. I'm not sure how the police department manages that situation. I'm not sure. In some instances they may -- or in all instances they may make the most restrictive apply. I will certainly be happy to -- as a Zoning and Development Administrator I don't administer the sound ordinance, so I'll be happy to pass along your comments to the police department and I can Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 46 hopefully get an answer back to you how they administer it now or if they need to change that in the future for a mixed-use development. Ostner: Thank you. I think more information might be better in the future. Thank you. I am in favor of this. This seems like a good fit and I would agree there are a lot of restrictions on it, so thank you. Anthes: Is there further discussion? I would just like to encourage the applicant to look into some sort of sound -absorptive wall to separate you from the neighbors if you do go to ABC and get a permit for amplified music. Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve CUP 06-2242 carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Commissioner Clark is absent. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 47 RZN 06-2244: (HENNINGSEN COLD STORAGE, 717) Submitted by JERRY HORTON OF HARRIS MCHANEY REALTORS for property located at SW CORNER OF SUNRISE MOUNTAIN AND S. SCHOOL (HWY 7 1 B S). The property is zoned R- A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL AND C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 16.14 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to I-1, Heavy Commercial, Light Industrial. RZN 06-2244: (HENNINGSEN COLD STORAGE, 717) Submitted by JERRY HORTON OF HARRIS MCHANEY REALTORS for property located at SW CORNER OF SUNRISE MOUNTAIN AND S. SCHOOL (HWY 7 1 B S). The property is zoned R- A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURE AND C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 16.14 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to I-1, Heavy Commercial, Light Industrial. Anthes: Our twelfth item is Rezoning Request 06-2244 for Henningsen Cold Storage. May we have the staff report? Fulcher: This is approximately 16 acres located south of Sunrise Mountain Road and west of South School Avenue. The Frisco Railroad right-of-way is located on the west boundary of this property and there's an existing commercial facility to the south. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and R -A, as shown on the maps included in the staff report. The applicants are requesting to zone the entire tract to I-1, Heavy Commercial, Light Industrial. The applicant, Henningsen Cold Storage Company, intends to develop a storage facility which warehouses and services local food producers. Looking at the, I guess, as we're in somewhat of a transition or have transition from the General Plan 2020 to the City Plan 2025, both of those do point out that this district is to be utilized for industrial use on those Future Land Use Maps and the Interim Future Land Use Map. Also within kind of the written descriptions under Industrial Districts it refers to -- to be appropriate to locate industrial areas obviously in the Fayetteville Industrial Park and then also in the vicinity of Drake Field and the railroad line that runs on the west side of School Avenue. Obviously this request is consistent with those two objectives. Additionally, based on what the applicant has submitted, and they have submitted, I guess, two separate letters, one on Page 11 of 20 -- and I'll also let the applicant maybe go into this a little further -- from my understanding one of their main search criteria is to have a railroad line adjacent to their property, that they utilize that for bringing in or exporting out products from their facility. Also this is located close to I-540 and gives them access to the north and to the south. Based on the General Plan or the Interim Future Land Use Plan and City Plan 2025, staff is recommending approval of this request, finding that it meets those Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 48 objectives set forth, and is actually recommending that this item be forwarded with a recommendation for approval to the City Council. If you have any specific questions, please ask. Anthes: Would any member of the public like to address this rezoning request for Henningsen Cold Storage? Please, come forward. Spears: Hi. I'm Carolyn Spears. I live on Sunrise Mountain. I've lived there for 22 years. I'm against this proposal to rezone the property for Heavy Commercial, Light Industrial for several reasons: Loss of habitat for our birds and animals, which we're losing too many; loss of sound buffer zone created by existing plants and trees that cut down the noise from 71 Business Highway; Number 3, extensive road work will have to be done on 71 Business and Sunrise Mountain Road to handle the tractor -trailer rigs and any other heavy equipment as well as cold storage facility. This is a dead-end road. It's Sunrise Mountain. There's a horse ranch there and nine other families. We all have an extensive large property there that we treasure and are trying to keep as we have. My neighbor Johnny Mike Walker has close to 400 acres, and he will be next to this property. Number 4, will create heavy traffic area and safety hazards. I don't want the smell or pollution from the diesel rigs or the mountain where we live to be covered by diesel fog. I have been to storage facilities as this and there is a large amount of diesel trucks that will be coming in. And where this is located off of 71 Highway south, to the south of that is Dennis Home Furnishings, and the airport is down the road, yes, but there is an incline there to where it's very hard for me, if I'm even going north on 71 Highway, to take a left off onto Sunrise Mountain. It's almost a singular lane. It's not a wide road. It's only traveled by nine families that live there. The noise pollution created by the proposed project will conflict with your earlier decisions to shut down noise -polluting raceway, which is off to the east of us on Willoughby Road. Are the developers not held to the same accountability? Have concerns about power line structures. We are on Ozarks Electric on the west side of 71 South. It will not accommodate the facility, as we have outages all the time now, constantly. Thank you for your time. Anthes: Thank you, Ms. Spears. Would anybody else like to address this item? Spears: I beg your pardon? Anthes: Oh, I just said thank you for your comments and asked for any other public comment. Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public comment. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 49 Horton: Thank you. I'm Jerry Horton with Harris-McHaney Realty. I'd like to mention that when this company proposed coming to Northwest Arkansas the main consideration was access to rail, because in their business of cold, dry, and frozen storage, they have to have the railroad, and there are not many parcels of land -- they needed between 15 and 30 acres -- that would fit that description. So that's why we did not go to the industrial park, that we had to go there. This is a company out of Portland, Oregon. They have approximately eight different distribution centers around the country, a very environmental -concerned company and a good neighbor. And in working with them they have been, you know, very concerned that they meet all the requirements of the city, and we would propose that you pass this and we would appreciate it. If you have any questions, I would be more than happy to answer them. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Horton. Commissioners? I have a question of staff -- Mr. Pate or Mr. Fulcher. The staff report states that the Land Use Plan and the General Plan 2025 designates the site as Industrial, as well as the Future Land Use Map. How long has this been the designation in this area and was it the same in the General Plan 2020? Pate: I believe it was the same in the General Plan 2020 when we looked at that. We did not change many of those existing designations between the two, if you remember that conversation that City Council and Planning Commission -- Anthes: Thank you. And you would expect that there would be offsite improvements or road work needed with any development request on this property, I assume? Pate: There would likely be, specifically Sunrise Mountain Road. School Avenue here, I believe, is a five -lane section. It may take some different turning radii. Would obviously look at what type of vehicular traffic would be accessing this site, but yes, there would likely be improvements specifically to Sunrise Mountain Road and perhaps to south School Avenue. Anthes: And what ordinances do we have that protect adjoining property owners from odor nuisances? Pate: I'm not sure, to be honest. The large-scale development process, we actually have a couple of criteria that require a development to come through large-scale development if it has objectionable uses such as noise, explosives, things -- odor, I believe, is one of those. Being an I-1 type of Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 50 industrial district, it's not a heavy manufacturing. If you compare the use units in 1-1 and I-2 , they are very different in terms of smokestacks and the heavy manufacturing of textiles, and things like that are not allowed within this type of district generally. This is more suited to your light manufacturing, warehousing, wholesale type of distribution centers, and that type of use. We believe that that primary function along the rail line is important, obviously, to utilize a variety of sources for transportation needs. Being also, if you notice, on your maps on Page 19 and 20, you can see this on the approach for the airport. There are already properties here in the area that are owned by the city and restricted from development. They're zoned for residential use, but restricted from that development because of that very fact. So there are limited uses. There are several parcels of property in this area already. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Pate. Mr. Williams, did you care to elaborate? Williams: Well, it is possible. I think there could be some argument made that this could be termed an odor -producing facility, if in fact the evidence was that it would require diesel trucks to come and idle overnight or something like that, the common refrigerator trucks that sometimes you see, and if in fact that was correct, then it might actually have to go through a conditional - use process that we have for odor -producing facilities. That's something that probably the planning staff needs to get with the applicant in this particular case to see whether or not that is the case, and if it is, is there something that could be done that would keep it from becoming a odor - producing facility in order to protect the neighbors. I think that maybe there could be some things that could be done in order to somehow alleviate that problem, whether there be some sort of electrical supply or something like that for the trucks, so they would not have to idle. Because in some parts of the country this is a problem. I know that in California there are some major distribution areas and the trucks coming in to pick up the goods create a lot of smog and problems. And certainly, I think the neighbors are wise to look at this as a possible problem, hopefully this will not be a problem, and I urge the applicant to get with the planning department and try to look at this. They obviously have experience nationwide with their other centers and hopefully have figured out how to control this so this will not be a problem in the future. Anthes: And, Mr. Williams, could you also comment about how the Planning Commission can weigh, if at all, about loss of habitat in an area? Williams: That probably is really not something you could take into account. You know, a person has a right to develop their property according to all our development standards, which does require in commercial areas that some Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 51 area is left, you know, not covered in concrete, but beyond that, you know, I think that we don't take the position that you cannot develop your property in most cases. They have to follow the Tree Ordinance and other ordinances like that, the Landscape Ordinance and things like that, but beyond that, they have a right to develop their property, so that even though there might be habitat there that we would all like, unless the city is willing to use taxpayer dollars and buy it all up, a person has a right to develop their property. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Williams. Commissioner Myres. Myres: A couple of questions, or maybe just one, and, I guess, for staff. On Page 15 of 20 in the packet the site plan indicates phases for this building, and 1 realize that what we're doing here is rezoning and we're not talking about the actual development, but do you have any indication at all that this would take -- the construction of this would take place over time, or am I just reading more into it than is there? Pate: I'm not sure exactly what their plans for development are. The plan you're referring to, a simple diagram, is phased, obviously. Quite a large facility, 122,000 square feet on the first phase, 87,000 on the second, and 62,000 on a third. So I would anticipate a structure that large probably would be phased, and so we would look at improvements accordingly. Myres: And it would take some time to completely build out the whole site? Pate: Most likely, yes. Myres: You would reasonably guess that. Okay. That's all I wanted to know. Graves: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Motion: Graves: Just looking at the proposed land use, it clearly has a lot of I-1 around it, and taking into consideration Mr. Pate's comments regarding the types of uses that we see in an I-1 versus an I-2, and, you know, noting that for all intents and purposes we believe the cold storage facility will go there, but they could sell tomorrow, so looking more along the lines of whether this is an appropriate place to have an I-1 zone, it seems that it is, and so I'm going to move for approval of rezoning 06-2244. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 52 Anthes: I have a motion to forward by Commissioner Graves. Is there a second? Ostner: Second. Anthes: A second by Commissioner Ostner. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve RZN 06-2244 carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Commissioner Clark is absent. (There was a brief recess in the meeting.) Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 53 RZN 06-2240: Rezoning (COMBS, 564): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at SE. CORNER OF MORNINGSIDE DRIVE AND 15TH STREET. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 61.98 acres. The request is to rezone 52.65 acres of the subject property to Residential Multi -Family, 6 units per acre, and the remaining 9.33 acres to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Anthes: We will now reconvene the meeting. Commissioners, I would like to let everyone know that some members of the audience are having difficulty hearing us tonight, so if you would, be sure to lean into your microphones. Also, if we do have people that require hearing assistance, we do have listening devices available and if you would ask somebody here on the front row they can get you one of those. Okay. Our next item is Rezoning Request 06-2240 for Combs. May we have the staff report? Garner: This property is located at the southeast corner of 15 Street and Morningside Drive in south Fayetteville. It consists of approximately 62 acres of undeveloped agricultural land. The surrounding properties are mainly undeveloped and agricultural in nature with some industrial use bordering a portion of the eastern side of the site near 15th Street. As a background, the applicant applied to have this property rezoned from RSF-4 to RMF -24 at our May 8, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. The planning staff recommended denial of that rezoning request and the item was tabled indefinitely at that meeting. They are now proposing to rezone the approximately 62 -acre site with approximately 9.3 acres adjacent to 15th Street, rezone it to C-1, and the remainder, 52.65 acres, RMF -6, which would have frontage onto Morningside and also approximately 32 acres in a floodplain. Staff does recommend approval of the rezoning and we have made positive findings of fact in your staff report. The City Plan 2025 Interim Future Land Use Map designates this site as mixed use. Rezoning the property to C-1 and RMF -6 in the layout proposed is consistent with that plan. There are multiple transportation corridors in this vicinity on 15th Street and Morningside and a mixture of uses would be able to be provided. The residential uses in this area would be able to utilize the proposed C-1 services and neighborhood goods, and the entire frontage being rezoned commercial would prevent residential property from backing up or being assessed off of a principal arterial. City staff has reviewed this and determined with regard to public services -- police, fire, water, sewer and street -- that there would be no substantial adverse impacts with this proposed rezoning. Street improvements would be required at the time of development and they would be evaluated in detail at that time. But we do find that this rezoning is consistent with our land use planning documents and we are recommending approval. I would be happy to answer any questions. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 54 Anthes: Mr. Garner, would you also expect to see an assessment for the stoplight at 15th and Morningside as part of any development proposal? Garner: We did include that, as we would be looking at that, yes. Anthes: Thank you very much. Would any member of the public like to address this rezoning request for Combs? Please come forward and state your name and your comments. Cooper: My name is Laverne Cooper, and my husband, Keith. We've been out of town for 12 days. We're both losing our voice, so we're going to try get through this together. This letter was in the mail when we got home yesterday, so we really haven't had a chance to talk with anybody about this. We are opposed to the density that they're wanting to rezone it. Right now it's zoned for -- am I correct on this? -- single family, four units per acre. Anthes: That's correct. Cooper: I think that is more than adequate for that area, and we're very much opposed to the density that they're wanting to put in there. Town Branch runs through our property to the west, through this property. If you're going to put multi -housing units in there, that's going to mean there's going to be a lot of kids in that area. This is not going to be a safe area for a lot of kids. Town Branch in this area with a few days of rain becomes a fast-moving river, and it always has. There's always been flooding in that area. Year round there are deep pockets of water along this area to the east and to the west, and this will be a hazard for children all year round. When it ices over in the winter they're going to be out there skating. They're going to be going through the ice. They're going to be over there swimming. It's not a safe for multi -housing, and we're very much opposed to it. The traffic that you're going to add to Morningside and 15th Street, there's already a problem with traffic there because of the industrial park. This is a bus route and you're just going to be adding a lot more traffic to the area if you approve this. Cooper K: We really are not opposed to the development there, we are just opposed to changing the zoning to multi. Cooper L: Right. It's way too dense for the area. And our son could not be here tonight. He's at his son's football game, which we would be there if we weren't here waiting on this. He is also opposed to this. And we own the property just west on -- across Morningside. There are two houses in that Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 55 area and we own most of the frontage, our son and us own it. We own most of the frontage directly across from it. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you for your comments. Would any other member of the public like to address this rezoning request for Combs? Seeing none, I'll close the public comment section and ask for the applicant's presentation. Hennelly: I'm Tom Hennelly with H2 Engineering. We recommended that our client try for the RMF -6 zoning, as we weren't involved with the property when the initial rezoning or the recent rezoning came through at a higher density, but we advised against that because of some of the recent developments in there. I thought that RMF -6 was a more reasonable density along with the C-1. It seemed to fit with the Land Use Plan and fully expect assessments for or construction of widening on both Morningside and 15th Street when we bring a development through, as well as signalization there at that intersection. Other than that, I can answer any questions you might have. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Hennelly. Commissioners? Myres: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Myres. Myres: After going through this packet, I was looking at Table 2 on Page 2 and also had read Mr. Hennelly's letter that's enclosed in the packet, and it's my understanding that because of the floodway in the lower southern part of this lot or plot or property, the available acreage for construction is really only 30 acres rather than 52. Is that pretty correct? Hennelly: Yes, ma'am. Myres: So instead of a maximum of 315 units, we have a maximum of 180. So that's a big difference in terms of density, to me. Still, 180 units, I think anything more than three is big, but -- Did I do the math right? Yeah, 180 units. So I don't have as much heartburn about this as I might have otherwise, because looking at those figures initially on that table I was just sort of awestruck. And I'm also assuming that because of the C-1 zoning any residential units would be -- what's the word I'm looking for, Mr. Pate? Pate: Accessory. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 56 Myres: -- accessory to any commercial development there. So what you could supposedly have would be a first and second floor, maybe, that would be office space and that sort of thing with residential units up above, either on the second or third level. So I'm a lot more comfortable with this and plan to support it. Anthes: Thank you. Mr. Pate, a clarification of the comments by Commissioner Myres. As far as I understand it, they're looking for a C -I section and an RMF -6 section and not for any kind of mixed-use zone. Is that correct? Pate: In a C-1 zoning district accessory dwelling units are allowed. I think that was what she was referring to. Those are allowed by right. Anthes: Thank you. Ostner: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: This is also a sort of follow-up. If part of this property is in the floodplain, Mr. Pate, and part of it is not, I'm not understanding how the number of units would be reduced simply because part of the property is not -- Myres: Buildable? Ostner: -- developable. Is the entire parcel not going to be RMF -6 and if six units per acre of the entire property -- not simply the developed area, the entire property -- so you can count the floodplain when you're figuring your density? Pate: That's correct. Myres: Sure. But they can't build in a floodplain. Ostner: So the 300 and -- excuse me, the 540 units would still potentially be built on half the acreage? Pate: Not necessarily. Because you do have an area requirement, like a lot width and lot area size that limits your ability to develop very densely clustered and not in other areas, so it still limits that to six units an acre over the overall site, or six units an acre as it lays near the property. Ostner: Right. But I believe the comment was that this maximum number of units will be cut in half, and I don't believe that's accurate, so I just wanted to Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 57 clarify that -- Pate: As staff, we always place the maximum number of units. That's what we reflected there. Ostner: Of course. Pate: This 315 dwelling units would a be a maximum number allowed on this property. Obviously, that does not include the right-of-way, the setbacks, the lot area, the floodplain, floodway, so that number is taken over the overall property as you're referring to. Ostner: Okay. I just wanted to -- Myres: Right, and I did take that into consideration. And when we are talking about normal RSF-4, in actual fact, by the time you do grant right-of-ways and build streets and allow for greenspace, the actual density usually ends up closer to three units per acre rather than four. So I'm assuming in a multifamily development you have the same kinds of reduction and density that's typical. Anyway, it made me feel better, even if it is 250 instead of 180. Ostner: I'm inclined to -- to give a lot of interest to the neighbors who spoke, who live directly west of here. When the City Council looks at this, I would hope that they would consider some of the vision that can go on in some of the parts of our town. There is a developed area to the east. I believe that's where there's a Hanna's large building. It's zoned I-1. It's not a nocuous industrial plant. There is property all around that is either underdeveloped or undeveloped, and I would hope that simply because 15th Street is slated to be wider that we wouldn't just throw up our hands and say, "Okay, it's got to all be multifamily, commercial." There is a lot of single-family dwellings and single-family uses around here. There are also a lot of multifamily. I'm not certain I would support the RMF -6 and the commercial tandem at this point. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Mr. Pate, as far as I understand it, RMF -6 does allow single-family, two-family and three-family dwellings in addition to the multifamily. Correct? Pate: That's correct. Anthes: Now, I'm not sure that that's what the applicant actually intends, but it is allowed in that zoning? Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 58 Pate: That's correct. In looking at our Land Use Policy and guiding policies for residential developments, it does encourage zoning districts that will allow for the different type of housing unit. Now, as you mentioned, that doesn't necessarily mean that the developer will propose that, but it does allow for a different housing mix and different density within one single overall development. Anthes: Are there further comments or motions? Myres: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Myres. Motion: Myres: I'll move for approval. Does this go forward or does this -- Pate: Yes. Myres: Okay -- forward to the City Council with a recommendation for approval of Rezoning 06-2240, with the findings of staff as stated. Graves: Second. Anthes: We have a motion to forward by Commissioner Myres, with a second by Commissioner Graves. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to forward RZN 06-2240 carries with a vote of 7-1-0, with Commissioner Ostner voting no. Commissioner Clark was absent. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 59 R-PZD 06-2212: Planned Zoning District (STADIUM CENTRE TOWNHOMES, 557): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at OLD FARMINGTON ROAD, W. OF ONE MILE RD. The property is zoned C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 2.00 acres. The request is for a Master Development Plan for a Residential Planned Zoning District with 24 attached residential dwelling units. Anthes: Our next item is R-PZD 06-2212 for Stadium Centre Townhomes. Mr. Trumbo. Trumbo: Madame Chair, I'm going to recuse from this item. Anthes: Thank you. May we have the staff report? Fulcher: You bet. This is for approximately two and a half acres located north of 6th Street and west of Sandra Street. I believe it was last year we approved -- or the Planning Commission approved a large-scale development for Stadium Center Commercial on the southern portion of this property. The north portion of this property is zoned RSF-4 and R -A, Residential Agricultural. The applicants are proposing a residential planned zoning district which will contain three single-family dwelling units which are detached, and then 21 three-family and multifamily attached units, resulting in a density of 9.8 units per acre. Looking at the development portion of this, they are proposing a one-way private street through this development. As you look at the plats you'll see that there are two interior streets, one being in somewhat of a private alley, providing access to six of the units, and then the main private drive connecting Old Farmington Road and Sandra Street. Once staff had time to look at the proposal for this one-way street, we kind of understood its function more, not being so much as a street, but more as an alley. It provides rear access to the majority of the units, which you can see face out into Old Farmington Road, and this actually does require a waiver from the Planning Commission from the street standards because it does connect two public streets, and after reviewing more of its function in relation to this development particularly, staff was supportive of the use of this. Also they had it set up as a one-way street running east to west, which also is a good thing from staff s point of view in that it will reduce the amount of cut -through traffic through Sandra Street, which is the adjacent established residential neighborhood there. This will force the traffic, obviously some of it will come in from One Mile Road or Old Farmington and cross Sandra Street, but the residents, once they're there, will leave and hit Old Farmington Road, which is a collector street, and funnel them out to the adjacent principal arterials, 6th Street or Shiloh, at that point. This item was heard at the previous Subdivision Committee Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 60 meeting. At that time staff had recommended the item be tabled so that we could have more time to work with the applicants to work out a few of the concerns that staff has. Those are listed in our staff report somewhat as items under Condition 4, which are items to be addressed or corrected. I think our biggest concern right now is the compatibility and transition of this development adjacent to the established single-family neighborhood there on Sandra Street. Those homes are fairly large -lot single-family homes that transition immediately into this, the majority being multifamily units, a density of 9.8 units per acre. Staff just feels that a more appropriate transition could be made, possibly increasing the size of the lots on the east portion of this property, which would provide more of a transition from large lot to medium large lot and then into the smaller lot and attached units. That would also potentially result in a decrease in the density, which would be more compatible with the somewhat four units per acre and R -A zonings to the north and to the east. Also, I believe six Commissioners may have reviewed the major modification to the commercial development where they are to provide an access or cross - access between the commercial development and this proposed property here. Those drawings are included in your staff report -- I'll see if I can thumb right to them -- but -- here they are. Pages 11 or -- excuse me, 41, 42, and 43. They show the various proposals. The original one showed the cross -access on the east side of that commercial building. They had come back for a modification to that to eliminate that. It was tabled at that Subdivision Committee meeting. They came back with another alternative which was to have it on the west side of the building, which was approved at that modification, and the purpose was to allow the Planning Commission, the full Planning Commission, to review the need for that connection and whether it was appropriate, depending on the development, that they would propose on this 2 1/2 acres. Staff would still like that to be shown so that can be evaluated to see if it is appropriate to connect a commercial development and a residential development, which also would connect 6th Street and Old Farmington. Albeit the way that it's been designed, or hopefully would be designed, would limit construction -- or actually truck traffic -- because of the sharp turns that this driveway would take would be more for the benefit to the residents of the area rather than for delivery trucks, UPS, so on and so forth. It should limit them to utilizing 6th Street. Also, staff has some concerns with the drawing that has been shown at the intersection of One Mile Road and Old Farmington Road. That is on Page 34 of 58. One of the conditions as far as street improvements was to improve that radius there so residents coming off of Old Farmington Road turning south onto One Mile would have a safe turning movement at that point. If you've been out to the site, it's not really conducive to a safe turning movement, and when we received the drawing we realized that the improvements that are shown are Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 61 not in the existing right-of-way. Now, that may be something that the applicants have figured out how to negotiate that constraint right now. That's just one of the other issues that staff wanted to have worked out before this came to the full Planning Commission when we recommended tabling at Subdivision Committee. Based on those concerns that staff has as far as potential improvements, compatibility, and transition with existing land uses, staff is recommending denial of this residential planned zoning district at this time. If you have any specific questions, I'll be happy to answer them. If you do choose to forward this item onto the City Council, we've obviously outlined 19 conditions of approval. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Fulcher. Would any member of the public like to speak to this Planned Zoning District for Stadium Centre Townhomes? Please some forward and state your name and your comments. Lames: Hi. My name is Larry Lames. I live at 3047 West Sandra. I'm against this for many reasons. I believe there's been at least two times in the past that the Planning Commission has seen fit to turn down similar requests for high-density housing in this small parcel of land and I would hope that you would continue to do so for the same reasons that you did so in the past. Traffic is a problem in this area. The roads are narrow. There are ditches on both sides of the roads. The traffic is even worse now than it was in years past because Shiloh has been designated a one-way road north to south and the only way that you can get to the motels on that portion of Shiloh Road from either the south, east, or west is to cut through on Old Farmington Road and One Mile Road, which has greatly increased the traffic in that area without any major road improvements. When that did happen, somebody saw fit to overlay part of the Old Farmington Road from Shiloh to the One Mile Road intersection, but that is the only improvements that were made. Also, with all the development along 6th Street, Old Farmington Road has turned into a cut -through from Shiloh to 62 West, and even though the speed limit is 25 miles an hour through there, I doubt that one in 10 cars obeys that speed limit -- 40 and 50 miles an hour, and even more, are an everyday occurrence. And we don't have sidewalks. We just have to live with it. We've complained. I don't see any traffic -combing measures being proposed in that area. I haven't seen any increased police presence to slow down the traffic. We've just had to put up with it, and I don't feel that as taxpayers we should have to put up with that and even more traffic if this development is approved. Sandra runs down on a slight downgrade or downhill from this property. I think that it will increase our drainage problems. It used to be that the water came down Sandra in the drainage ditches, at least on my side of the street, which is the south side of the street, and drain through the old Modern Fence which was there at the corner where Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 62 Liberty Bank now is. Well, since Liberty Bank has developed that corner and it's no longer just a gravel lot, the water that comes down my side of the street no longer goes through that area. It stops, it backs up, and we're starting to have a lot of water in our backyards and it doesn't drain in the ditches. They've proposed to fix the streets in front of this or to widen the streets in front of this housing area, and also one that's further up the road, I believe at 2950 Old Farmington Road, and that leaves Old Farmington Road being narrow, then wide, then narrow, then wide, then narrow, and with no improvements to Sandra and Old Farmington Road. And I believe this is an accident waiting to happen, and I don't think that's acceptable. I don't see where any other streets are like that through the city. I don't think it's safe and I think it will just increase the traffic problems and the speeding problems that we have through there. Let's see if there's anything else -- oh, also, if this road that -- or alley, or whatever you choose to call it, that goes through this property is a private drive, then what's to ensure that it stays a one-way road? If the city has no say over it, then, you know, it could be one-way road tomorrow and a two-way road the next day. I think that all the cars that would go into this property would probably come in off of either One Mile Road or Old Farmington and most of them would probably use the stoplight at Wal-Mart, and we would have much more traffic down One Mile Road, which is, if you've ever been on it, is a narrow city street, single-family housing, and I think that this property would be incompatible with the surrounding area and be detrimental to the neighborhood that had been there for 40 years, and I don't think it will do anything for our property values. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Lames. Would anybody else like to address this item? Good evening. Moody: Hi. I'm Josh Moody. I live at 3083 West Sandra Street, which is immediately east of this proposed development. Obviously, I am opposed to this development, certainly as it is proposed. Like most of my neighbors, one of my main concerns -- or one concern is certainly the number of units they're wanting to put in there; however, my primary concern -- well, I have two small children, and I combine with my neighbors who are quite a lot of retirees who've been there 30 and 40 years. Each of us and whatever amount of time we've been there have certainly grown accustomed to the somewhat -- well, not too badly congested -- at least Sandra Street. I agree with my neighbor, One Mile and Old Farmington have become pretty congested, but at least Sandra Street has remained relatively quiet. As it is proposed, the one-way road would come out of Sandra and lead out onto Old Farmington. That sounds good, but perhaps people will be leaving on Old Farmington and stay clear of Sandra; however, with the amount of units they're proposing, it is Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 63 certainly going to triple the congestion that is on Sandra. People coming in, basically going home to those townhouses, would certainly be coming through Sandra. I know I do, and I even come north off of Shiloh. I come from the north. Certainly people coming from 6th Street would be coming through Sandra Street. And it's a safety as well as a noise and just general congestion and concern that I have. Also I understand that it's the same owner that has this commercial property just to the -- or commercial area just to the south. They have completely disregarded the neighbors' complaints. They have had construction at 3:45 in the morning with lights blaring into neighbors' windows. I hope that if there is going to be some kind of construction here that that certainly would not happen. There's got to be some kind of boundary of time. Also screening, if something is going to happen, there's got to be some kind of reasonable screening. A 6 -foot privacy fence just won't do it, because these are two-story townhouses, and clearly, 6 -story privacy fences won't do much of anything. But back to the one-way street. I don't understand why exactly they can't be, coming off of Old Farmington, why it couldn't be a two- way street with a dead-end by Sandra. I don't see why it has to be connected to Sandra. It could be two-way coming from the other end, then that would ease the congestion at least on Sandra Street. I think those are my primary concerns. I hope I made sense. I'll answer any questions if there are any questions. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Moody. Would any other member of the public like to speak to this item? Surles: My name is Jerry Surles. I live on Sandra Street and have for 39 years. I'm like my neighbors, I don't think that -- I just don't feel like 24 units on two acres of land is very appropriate. I mean, it -- gosh, for our neighborhood down there we've got yards that we mow and take care of and stuff. This townhouse, apartment complex, whatever you want to call it, will not have very much of a yard. And as far as people living in this thing and using that private drive, yes, they'll use it by coming right down Sandra Street into their private drive. School buses come through out there on the One Mile Road. A car and a school bus has got to almost stop to inch by each other to get through. I've seen it time and time again. Like Mr. Lames said, we have deep ditches on both sides of the street. One of the sidewalk that we do have down there right now is so covered with grass and weeds you can't even walk down it. The other side is only a block long. No sidewalks anywhere else. So improving the Old Farmington Road from wide street, narrow street, back to wide, and then we've got a narrow bridge, and I'm like Mr. Lames, that's just waiting for an accident to happen. And when they approved that commercial building down there, I was with the understanding that there would be no access Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 64 road of 6th Street back over to Old Farmington, and to and behold, now understand that's what the city wants, that's what these plan -- these people on this development wants to do, so I don't know. We're kind of lost. So if you can help us, we would sure appreciate it. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Surles. Would any other member of the public like to speak to this item? If you would, just keeping queuing up behind the person before you. We have a long evening, and it would help us save a little time. Daughtrey: Yes, I'm Karen Daughtrey and I live at 3050 Sandra, and I agree with my neighbors. I'd like to express my opposition to the request for rezoning of this property. On the southwest corner of Sandra and Old Farmington it would totally destroy the little neighborhood that we have. I go from Sandra to Old Farmington, and so I would get the traffic both my front yard and my back, and Sandra is one block long and in the past we've had people that have lived on the west end of Sandra that have squealed out and screeched in this one -block area and then slam on their brake when they get to One Mile Road. And when you leave Sandra or even if you're on Old Farmington and you try to drive on One Mile or on Old Farmington, you meet the school buses, you meet the tour buses, and all the traffic going to the motels. There's high traffic coming from Shiloh, which my neighbors have already discussed with you. There's trucks. There's tour buses. There's school buses. We have children that walk. We have children that play. We have children that ride bicycles. People walk. And there's driving. But all the streets, Old Farmington, Sandra, and One Mile, are narrow. Old Farmington is already a high -traffic area with excessive speed and a cut -through off of 62 toward Old Farmington and Lincoln. I've lived on Sandra for the past 12 years, and with the hills and the several curves and the narrow streets, we've already had our neighbors' fences cut through -- or run into by cars. We've had mailboxes torn down. We've had cars in the ditches. We've had cars smashed in its own front yard on Old Farmington. There's also been an accident on the narrow road on the corner of Old Farmington and One Mile Road, and Old Farmington will also be increased in traffic with all of the density that's going in in Farmington and Lincoln, and now we're going to put -- try to put these excessive units and destroy the value and the property of us who have worked hard for our homes, and yes, I do go from Sandra to Old Farmington and I will have it in my front yard and my backyard. And I thank you for considering our needs. Anthes: Thank you, Ms. Daughtrey. Anyone else? Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 65 Brandon: My name is Mark Brandon. I live at 3110 Old Farmington Road, kind of cattycornered from this project. I'd just like to reiterate what my neighbors are saying. Narrow, very narrow street. Overused. No sidewalk. I have two kids. I've lived there 14 years. And it seems excessive to have 24 units, to me. Looking at that neighborhood, the size of the road, and the structures we have there, it seems out of place, and I'd just like to tell you I'm opposed to it. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you very much. Would anyone else like to speak? Going once, going twice -- Audience: (inaudible) Anthes: I just said would anyone else like to speak? Okay. I'm going to close the public comment section and ask the applicant for a presentation. Hennelly: I'm Tom Hennelly with H2 Engineering. Let me just address some of the concerns that were raised at Subdivision Committee. I would like to -- there was some question about notification -- I would like to make you guys aware that we did re -notify all the adjacent property owners with plats. Those were hand -delivered so that they were at least able to see what the project looked like. We did modify this since Subdivision Committee with the one-way access through the development, the new street requesting the waiver, so that we could have a street that connected two public streets be considered a private street. It seemed like -- well, I've been addressed several times with other projects I've brought through about how they don't -- you guys don't want to see residential units backing up to the main street, and so we tried to front them to Old Farmington Road and provide the access in the back. In making that one way, we think that it does minimize the amount of traffic that would -- that would either go through Sandra or run through that neighborhood. Sure enough, there will probably be some vehicles that would use Sandra. I would imagine they would probably use Old Farmington Road. We would be -- would be interested in possibly some traffic -combing measures. It appears that the major concern is speed and congestion and that type thing. It's a -- I get kind of confused sometimes. When I put these down on paper, we call it connectivity, and then when we actually get it built on the ground, it gets called a cut -through, and we're talking about connecting a retail development to Old Farmington Road and really exacerbating a problem that is apparently existing. So we're not in favor of connecting the Stadium Centre retail to Old Farmington Road. We think that that's counterproductive and really does encourage people to come down Shiloh and increase the traffic on Old Farmington Road. Speed tables would be something that would certainly be helpful either on Sandra or on Old Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 66 Farmington Road that we would be willing to look at. We did -- are in agreement with the offsite improvements at One Mile Road and Old Farmington Road at that intersection. It does come in at a skew. There is not available right-of-way. We showed what we thought would need to be done and would take steps to procure that right-of-way or put in the largest radius curve that we could in the existing right-of-way, if that right-of-way was not able to be secured from that property owner. But we don't feel that the resolution of that issue prior to bringing this to Planning Commission is really appropriate because of the time and effort that could be required to get that approved. The drainage for this development does run south -- or northeast to southwest away from Sandra. We are in fact doing improvements to Sandra adjacent to our property, widening it, I believe, 14 feet from centerline -- isn't that right? -- 14 feet from centerline with curb, gutter, storm drainage, and improving that intersection of Sandra and One Mile to bring the drainage across it. We are doing the improvements as we've done -- or this developer has done -- at Scottswood Place to the east, and while we see the need to improve Old Farmington Road with the size developments that are available to develop along Old Farmington Road, it's not feasible to improve the entire length of that road in association with one development. The improvements are being made. As each one of these projects come through, more and more of this street gets widened. It's a practice that you guys know is common all over town. But we do feel like as these developments come through they will be -- the improvements will be made and ultimately get to a point where there's a small portion left that the city will be able to improve and improve the -- level the surface of the entire street. That's really all the issues I need to address right now. I can answer any questions or whatever you all would like. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Hennelly. May I have a report from Subdivision Committee? Mr. Lack? Lack: Yes, Madame Chair. At Subdivision Committee when we heard this item we felt like the notification was a primary concern and that staff had suggested that they did not feel that notification was adequate. In looking at the notification and the descriptions that were on that notification and the comments and remarks that had come back from the neighborhoods, we did not feel like that was a sufficient matter to table the item. There were several items that were discussed and were resolved within that Subdivision Committee, and I feel like the private street being deemed one way helped in a couple of measures, as is mentioned. The one-way street as a private street has made it more palatable to connect the two roads to different streets with a private street. The other item that I think that cleared up from staff's concern was the issue of individual driveways, and Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 67 certainly, for me, onto a private drive I didn't mind having as many curb - cuts, if you will. So those were a couple of the issues that we wrestled with at that time. The access, I think, is certainly appropriate. I think we did not talk at length about the access, but would certainly expect to see, as staff has suggested, that if this development moves forward that that access be implemented simply from the access point which exists, which was deemed to be available and suggested that it would be continued from the commercial development through as a two-way access, as staff has suggested, to Old Farmington Road. I think beyond those issues that were discussed at Subdivision, my greatest concern with the development is certainly the density, and I believe that while the -- while a greater -than - four -units -per -acre density would be appropriate on this site with the transition between the commercial development and the single family residential, I don't believe that this density is appropriate on this site, and in that I would not be able to support the project going forward to Council with that density. I did vote to send this on from Subdivision with a -- with a feeling that this was the applicant's presentation and that we should honor that presentation that they make in their desire to move forward with the density; however, I would not support that density. Thank you. Graves: Madame Chair. Anthes: Thank you, Commissioner Lack. Commissioner Graves. Graves: Just in follow-up, I was also on that Subdivision Committee. I would say that probably a quarter to a third of our time was spent discussing the notice, because that was the primary reason given by staff in their report for tabling it at that point, and obviously, that's a -- that's a definite stopping point for the discussion if notice wasn't properly given, and so there wouldn't have been necessarily a need to talk about a lot of other things if we had determined that the notice was inappropriate. So a good deal of time at Subdivision was spent talking about that. We also, of course, talked about the private drive and that as it relates, as Commissioner Lack said, as it relates to the driveways. You'll notice in your report that it doesn't have findings on some of the other sub -items under Number 4, and that's because we didn't make findings on those items and felt like on most of those it was more appropriate to send it on to full Planning Commission. Either that the right-of-way -- the proposal is within the right-of-way, or it's not. Either this body is going to determine that the density and the lots shown are compatible, or they're not. It didn't seem like something to hold it up at Subdivision level for, particularly when the applicant wanted to go forward, and this was the second Subdivision Committee to see the items, so we had six commissioners who had already looked at it. Nothing substantial had changed and what Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 68 we were confronted with if we tabled it was that all nine Commissioners would have seen it at Subdivision and we were still going to have to see it again at the full Planning Commission, and so it seemed appropriate to go ahead and forward it at that point. Anthes: Thank you, Commissioner Graves. Before we go forward with our discussion, let us ask staff a few questions that were proposed by the neighbors that spoke. One is the designation for Old Farmington Road. What is that currently shown on our Master Street Plan and when do you expect it to be built out to that designation? Pate: I can answer the first, but not the second. The first is a collector street on our Master Street Plan. That is -- typically in residential subdivisions that's a two-lane street; however, this is a very mixed-use type of area. It connects Shiloh to Old Farmington Road and also to One Mile Road, which is another connection to Highway 62. The Old Farmington Road corridor, as you've noted, we've had the Planning Commission seen approval for a hotel, another PZD with a lower density, but smaller lot type of single-family -- primarily single-family development that was referenced earlier, Scottswood Place. All of those developments are making improvements to Old Farmington Road; however, without those types of developments it will take some time to have that improved to a sufficient level for access for a collector street standard. Obviously a collector street standard has a higher capacity and can sustain a higher traffic volume than a typical local type of street. Anthes: And what assurances are there of the private drive staying one-way in a planned zoning district? Pate: It would likely be much as any type of one-way street. I'm not sure -- I would have to discuss with the police department whether they can ticket on one-way streets, but it is accessing public rights-of-way in two locations, so I believe that we would have the ability to enforce traffic movements in that location. It would need to be signed, obviously, and there could be some minor revisions to the plat, specifically at the east end, to make that -- take away one of the parallel parking spaces potentially and making sort of a bump -out so that it's only one-way at the east end where it does access Sandra --I think that would potentially limit two-way traffic from just naturally occurring there -- but also recommend that the parallel parking spaces, which is one of the revisions that did come from Subdivision Committee be striked, as opposed to just allow. That way it would clearly designate that area as parallel parking and not another traffic lane. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 69 Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Pate. Commissioners? Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Madame Chair. Thank you. In your Subdivision request for reports, the part that didn't really get talked about was the accompanying -- not really accompanying commercial area to the south. That's just the first thing that sort of concerns me. This was primed for a master development plan. Give people the idea of what's going on. Get the zoning and approach for development rights as you see fit. Instead, we got piecemeal, first the southern part development and now the northern part, and different groups have different ideas how they should connect, maybe they shouldn't, should they be on the east side or the west side, so I just want to express the dissatisfaction with that, having to play catch-up. It's like we're hemmed in. When we have fewer choices, your choices get fewer too. I think this is a little bit too dense. I can see maybe eight or seven units per acre here. It would need to be, for me, a very different proposal at that seven or eight units per acre to be palatable. This is very apartment/condo like and I don't think it's appropriate for this parcel for what surrounds it. I think that the connection, the vehicular connection through to the commercial property, is crucial and I'd like to share that I believe that connection -- if a driving connection drove through to that commercial area would actually lessen the traffic on Old Farmington. It's not going to be an exciting, fast, cut -through to wheel in to this commercial structure off 6th Street, go through every stop and turn, dodging pedestrians and shoppers, finally get a around the building, and dodge all the way back. It's not worth it. You're just going to go to the next street. You're going to go to where Old Farmington connects. Now, getting through slowly and getting out slowly is going to be something that's going to be worthwhile. So in other words, if you're in a hurry and you're driving poorly, it's not going to be attractive to you, I don't think, to drive through if this connects. If you're a local resident and you want another way, I believe you would follow it and be respectful. I believe that's how connectivity works, and Mr. Hennelly is getting every different opinion from every different group. That's my opinion. I believe they should connect. This proposal does not connect. I wish the building had not been allowed to fill in the eastern spot. I was on the Subdivision Committee several months ago that looked at that and we tabled it because we thought this accompanying northern residential was going to come through and we could dovetail the two. Well, the next Subdivision Committee -- or I'm not sure, maybe it was administratively, it was allowed to -- the commercial building was allowed to build in this area that was going to be a drive-through, and what do you know, his plan that we have today, wouldn't that be nice if that vehicular connection were there? If that vehicular connection were there and four of these units were removed and it was spaced out, I could entertain approval. That's how close I am in my Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 70 decision-making. I think the neighbors have really good points about traffic. I would hope that traffic -combing measures are built by the applicant if this is approved -- several on Old Farmington. The speed humps, or whatever you want to call them, near Wilson Park, I think are terrific examples of how they can work effectively. This layout I do not think is appropriate. So those are the extent of my comments. Anthes: Thank you, Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Thank you. Anthes: Are there further comments? I have a few. In the project booklet on Page 3 there is a -- it's towards the bottom ,below the half, under "Tree Preservation Area" is "None. The site plan reflects the meandering of the sidewalk along Old Farmington Road to help protect the existing tree canopy within the right-of-way." The site plan I'm showing, it's hard to tell, but it looks like there's a sidewalk that runs straight, which I also believe is appropriate in an urban area. Will staff clarify this meandering sidewalk comment? Hennelly: I can clarify it. Anthes: Sure. Go ahead, Tom. Hennelly: When we initially submitted it, we did have a meandering sidewalk. That was an attempt to minimize the impact of it to the existing canopy that runs along the south side of Old Farmington Road. There was some discussion between Engineering and the Urban Forester as to whether or not the sidewalk should be straight or -- It was requested by engineering that we show it straight and then a comment was made at Subdivision Committee that we coordinate with Sarah to try and minimize the impact to those trees but show it straight on the plan. Anthes: So what do you think is going to happen? Hennelly: Well, a lot of that will have to do with the survivability and Sarah's determination of the survivability of those trees because of their proximity to the right-of-way and the improvements we are going to be doing to Old Farmington Road, so some of those may or may not need to have the sidewalk run around them. Because of the impact that's made to them from the construction, other ones may -- the survivability may be such that she would want to try and have us run the sidewalk around there. I believe Chuck Rutherford was -- suggested that we coordinate with him as well to try and accomplish all that. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 71 Pate: Madame Chair. Anthes: Yes, Mr. Pate. Pate: Condition Number 10 does specifically state that "The location and construction of sidewalk along Old Farmington Road shall be coordinated with both the Urban Forester and Sidewalk Administrator at the time of construction." Anthes: For the record, I'd like to state that I'd like to see that be as straight as possible. Obviously, there are significant trees and the sidewalk could make a detour around those particular trees, but not to go to a meandering kind of squiggly configuration along that urban street that's designated as a collector. You know, Mr. Hennelly, you read us right when you said that we like to see building fronts face streets. I think we've established that over and over again. However, I look at your building fronts and you can't see a door. It doesn't look like an entrance. There's not a porch. I don't see a sidewalk leading up to them. You know, to me, you say that this internal street is going to function like an alley for rear access, but really, it looks to me like it's a street and it's a street with a bunch of garage doors lined up on it and secondary doorways going in, and it's not really functioning the way you've said. So I have a big problem with the basic design and organization of the building fronts versus back, versus alley, versus street, kind of configuration. I think those front doors need to be clearly visible and a true front to the building to make that point. I also agree with Commissioner Ostner. I have some real hesitation about approving this without a vehicular connection to the commercial. We knew when we heard it previously that there was a lot of discussion from the neighbors about how that would work. They were very concerned about cut -through traffic in their neighborhoods, and we respected that, but we also saw that there was a need and asked for options to be seen when this part came through. I don't see any options in the presentation we got this evening. Its just not there. I'm concerned with staff's comments about guest parking. They feel that the guest parking is inadequate and that the distance between the alley or street width to the garage doors does not allow for the stacking of an extra car, and that leads to the question about density and lot size. Because the density is what it is, there's just not enough room left on the site to accommodate some of the things like guest parking that are required. I do have a problem with the transition for the reasons staff stated and I will not vote to support this request. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 72 Hennelly: If I could address a couple of your issues. That was one of the benefits of turning that street into a one-way as it did allow for parallel parking on the south side of it. For guest parking there is additional stacking distance for one vehicle outside the sidewalk -- I'm sorry, outside the garage, on the driveway. A reduction of units on this is certainly not out of the question. Commissioner Ostner suggested a reduction of four units that would possibly get him thinking about it. That could certainly be accomplished. The connection to the retail center, while we do agree with the neighbors that, sure, the cut -through traffic -- somebody coming down 6th Street probably would not use it to get to Old Farmington, somebody coming down Shiloh may take Old Farmington to get in this residential or into this retail center rather than use 6th Street, and that would increase the traffic on Old Farmington Road. While we agree with that, we can certainly -- I mean, you guys have been consistent about your desire to have connectivity, and we can certainly accomplish that by running that out to Old Farmington Road. We're not adamantly opposed to that. What we are opposed to is funneling that traffic through this residential development. The reason why we didn't provide various exhibits on making those connections is because there is really only one connection that we do support, and that is to run that straight out to Old Farmington Road and not run it through the -- and parallel to Old Farmington Road and it would come up around the detention pond and turn back to the east, having two roads running parallel and then having an intersection -- so close to this intersection with Old Farmington Road. The geometries of it didn't work. We can certainly extend that road out to -- or that access drive out to Old Farmington Road. If that's done -- I can't believe I'm saying this, but I would almost insist that we put in some traffic -calming measures on Old Farmington Road or Sandra in the form of speed tables, something to that effect, to try and address some of their concerns about -- and I've been out there looking at the site, too, and I've seen traffic that appears to be heading towards Prairie Grove late in the day flying down Old Farmington Road, and some speed tables would do -- go a long way to slowing them down. Any traffic coming from the Supercenter down Sandra to get back to this development would certainly -- they would benefit there as well. A reduction of four units on this site could be accomplished in any number of ways, whether it's reducing the quad- plexes to tri-plexes or tri-plexes to duplexes. These units have been remarkably popular. They sell very well. They sell in the affordable housing range. These are not condos. They're not apartments. They're single-family attached residences that are sold as such and they sell in the $150,000.00 -- Audience: 125 to 130, 000. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 73 Hennelly: -- $130, 000.00 range. I think everybody is familiar with the need for that type of housing. I'm kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place, because if you find a small parcel to put pockets of these affordable housing areas around town, they're opposed, and if you find a large tract of land and try and put the same density on there, you're stuck with the same situation. They get opposed as well. While this may not be some people's favorite architecture, they are quality built, they are brick with the majority of brick and the cultured stone. Again, they are built to be affordable housing. I believe we can get the density down to something that is more palatable. I believe the connectivity issues can be handled very simply and I do think that for a small portion of property here that you have very limited options in providing transition and compatibility -- well, not compatibility -- there are various ways to accomplish that -- but transition with the -- the size of this property transition is a difficult thing to accomplish. Separating these units, I think, would go a long way, and that can be accomplished by reducing four units off of here. I just wanted to throw that out and see if you guys are -- if that would make it more appealing to you. Lack: Madame Chair. Anthes: I just want to say one thing. A Katrina cottage is affordable housing and much more affordable than this, and yet it can still be elegant and address the street. So, you know, just because something is affordable does not mean that it has to be designed in a way that does not provide that amenity. Mr. Lack. Lack: Thank you. I would certainly let Commissioner Ostner speak for himself as to his reduction proposal. I had expected that his reduction proposal was in the four -units -per -acre designation, which would be more in line with where I would be comfortable with the development, but I would certainly ask him if that was -- for a clarification of his view on that. Ostner: No, I would -- I could foresee a higher density than four units per acre; however, I did not flesh out my comment thoroughly enough. Absolutely not with this architectural elevation. Mentioning the Katrina cottage, which I hope a lot of people are aware of, it's a really neat, very small, very narrow home that they're using in New Orleans to help replace without having to destroy the fabric, because the homes that were there were narrow and small, and it is elegant. It's not attached. You can see the front door. It's viable. It would be a neighborhood. I'm sorry, I don't see this as a neighborhood. I see this as apartment living with a mortgage. I'm not trying to be mean, that's how I see it. The buildings and the layout are apartment -like; you simply have a mortgage instead of a Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 74 landlord. I don't think that market, that type of neighborhood, fits with a rural area that has been pretty much farmland with homes on it and suddenly, boom, there's Supercenter, Lowe's, there's everything -- it's a big explosion and I think we're going to ruin the neighbors who are living there if we push it with things like this. I could see some density. I'm not stuck on four units per acre. Lack: A reduct -- Ostner: But -- Yes. I can see some density beyond four units per acre, maybe up to eight, but it would have to be completely different elevations proposed. Is that -- Lack: Okay. Yeah, I was saying a reduction of four units per acre, which, where we're at, about 10 right now, so at about six. Ostner: From 10 units per acre reduction to six units per acre? Lack: To six. Ostner: Okay. You're talking six. I said eight. I believe I said seven or eight, specifically, so -- Lack: Okay. Ostner: Thank you. And my math was wrong. Eight units per acre would not be a reduction of four units, Mr. Hennelly. I'm sorry. If it's eight units per acre, that would come to about 17 or 18 units total, Mr. Pate? Pate: 19. Ostner: Okay. 19 on the site, and right now you have 24, so -- Okay. Lack: Pretty close. Anthes: Mr. Lack, just so that the applicant understands, it sounds like you would be more in support of something around an RSF -- or RMF -6? Lack: Yes. I think that's -- that's where I was going with the reduction of four units per acre from what is proposed on the plat. It would take us to about a six unit per acre, which is about what I would suggest I would be comfortable with in an ideal setting. It's hard to say exactly and I certainly would look at a proposal, and I don't want to dictate an exact density in looking at a PZD form. Certainly, a lot goes into how those Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 75 units are placed and the density is more a factor -- or is more affected by how the units are placed and how the greenspace is used, how they address the street, than strictly the number of people. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Myres: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Myres. Motion: Myres: I'd like to make a motion. I agree with -- substantially with things that my fellow commissioners have said and I have also a real problem with the density. I don't feel it's a transitional density from single-family homes to something this intense, and I also agree about your comments -- with your comments about the design of the building, so I'd like to recommend denial of R-PZD 06-2212 as it is submitted. Anthes: I have a motion to deny by Commissioner Myres. Do I hear a second? Harris: I'll second. Anthes: A second by Commissioner Harris. Is there further discussion? Graves: Madame Chair. Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Graves. Graves: I'll test this out. I'm going to move that we table it indefinitely to allow the applicant time to make some of the revisions that he suggested that he's amenable to. Anthes: I have a motion to table which trumps the motion to deny. Do I hear a second? Lack: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Lack. Lack: If I may ask the applicant. I think we've been fairly clear to our threshold. We're looking at a -- probably a major architectural revision, we're looking at a lower density, and we're looking at connection. Those are three things that I specifically have in my mind. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 76 Hennelly: I think with the -- that we can come up with a project that will work on this site that you guys can support. These buildings are obviously not it and this density is not it, and the connectivity through the development, we don't believe, will work. Those three things combined, I think, would change this development so much that tabling it may be counterproductive. I believe we would have to scrap everything -- Graves: Then I'll withdraw the motion. Hennelly: Obviously, you guys can vote on denying it. I would like to get some clarification, though, for when we bring this back, seeing as I have you all together. This connection to the retail center, is it -- is it only going to be appropriate from your standpoint if it runs through the development? Could it run straight out to Old Farmington Road and not be connected to this development? That's going to be an issue when we redesign this thing. We do not want to run the traffic from that retail center through the residential portion of this development. We can understand your concern about wanting the connection from the retail to Old Farmington Road and we can certainly make that part of the redesign, but we certainly would not want to funnel all that traffic through the development for obvious reasons. Lack: Madame Chair. Anthes: Well, let me take one run at that. I'm not telling you how to design it, but I would not like to see two parallel roads running with curb -cuts right next to each other on Old Farmington Road. So I don't know how you're going to solve it, but I wouldn't be opposed to seeing it connect to the street through this development, because I believe people from this development will go there, and as we know, people don't necessarily walk. Even if it's a block, they drive their cars. But I think other commissioners had some comments. Commissioner Lack. Lack: Yes, Madame Chair. I think that the way I had seen and the way I see staff's recommendation, that if we had gotten comfortable with everything else with the development, the way that they had proposed was to take the access, which is to the west side of the retail center now, and take that straight out to Old Farmington Road. I would be amenable to that. I would want to see greater separation between the two drives. I think that you have the potential to have the 60 feet, which is minimum, but with the decrease in density that I would see appropriate I think you could probably increase that even beyond that 60 -foot separation, which if I'm correct, Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 77 and I'll ask Mr. Pate, if that 60 feet is accurate that would be our code - required separation of drives. Pate: Typically, and of course we would look at what type of ingress and egress, if it's all one-way, I think there are a number of different ways, as you mentioned, of shifting this main drive potentially to the east and providing that separation in this area if that connection is not made to the street. I personally believe there are other ways that it could be made into the street, but that's certainly something that we feel we can work out with the applicant through this process, which is how we -- how PZDs do typically work. Ostner: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Thank you for asking. I do not think a straight connection -- if we're talking about the same thing, you're talking about just what if it did that. Bryant:? Well, that's a cut -through. Ostner: That's worse. I mean, come on, part of connectivity is inconvenience. That is very convenient. When you brought that Bellella ***, or whatever the name of it was, you had all kinds -- it was awful to get through. Hennelly: It was 80 acres. Ostner: The people determined to get through would have done it slowly. The people in a big hurry driving improperly wouldn't have done it. The speedsters who are going to cut through and drive wrong are going to zoom through straight, so I do not think that's a good proposal. I think it's counterproductive, I think it's dangerous, and it's a poor use of land. If you're hurting for land density -wise and you're just slapping a street on there to satisfy these commissioners, come on, come on, we can do better than that. That street that connects should be that. It should satisfy some frontage. It should be a part of this neighborhood. It should operate. I'm sorry, sir, we're not going to have the public speak. I know that the chair would tell you that. That is my take on that. I'm going to vote against that. I think it's dangerous and bad for the neighborhood. Connectivity, in my mind -- Well, I've already said it. Now, I don't want to minimize the architecture, no way, anything close to this. I mean, Commissioner Anthes talked about front doors. Yes, that's a requirement for the front of a house. These front doors face the side just like apartments. It's got to be different. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 78 Hennelly: Well, just because the front door doesn't face the street doesn't not make it a front door. It is still a front door. Ostner: In my mind, it does. We're starting with a blank slate. You're massaging, you're getting a custom zone. Hennelly: They won't look anything like that, I can promise you. Ostner: Okay, okay. I just want to be clear on that. You're -- you've got a lot of options here at this point. That's a minimum option. Hennelly: I would like you guys -- there is a minimum geometric criteria that we have to meet in laying these streets out. While inconvenient is good to reduce cut -through traffic, there's also just being able to maneuver and stack vehicles and not getting them crossing oncoming lanes with intersections that are too close, and a portion of this property is only 149 feet deep. Ostner: This would be connectivity to me. It would come by, it would connect. Now, you've got lots of drainage and contour and earth problems. I'm just talking ideas. I want my idea to get to your idea, so -- Hennelly: Okay. Pate: Madame Chair. Anthes: I have question of staff. Jeremy, it sounds to me as though the applicant is willing to come back with a greatly revised proposal. Did I read that correctly, Mr. Hennelly? If that's true, is it -- would that receive a new R- PZD number or would you rather see it under this number, in which case tabling would be more appropriate than denial. Because if it's denial, you would have to wait a year, right, to come back? Pate: If it's denied in this configuration. If it changed substantially, which we would just have to take a look at and review, then yes, it potentially could come back before you before that year period is up. Anthes: Okay. So we can move to deny it in this configuration so that we're very clear, and then they can come back with a major modification of this request within a short period of time and it would not hamper their schedule? Pate: Yes. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 79 Anthes: Okay. Pate: I would like to just add a couple of comments, though. As we saw with the project two weeks ago, we did not have reigning residential design standards, and there's nothing to base those against. So just keep in mind that comment, which we cannot deny or approve a project just based on the architecture of the structure alone for a residential component, so I just wanted to make sure that's very clear in your thoughts in processing this project. Anthes: Absolutely. Ostner: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: But that does confuse me a little. Our PZD and Master Development Plans include architectural elevations and general -- general concepts as toward the architecture; am I correct? Pate: That's correct. Ostner: Okay. Pate: They ask you -- to submit for Commercial Design Standards, it says you do have to meet our Commercial Design Standards; however, it does not -- our PZD ordinance does not establish any criteria -- or design criteria for residential structures, so just because they're submitting it for you to see does not necessarily mean that it's something that can be judged for denial or approval for a project. Ostner: However, the converse, the fact that if he were approved tonight, that drawing would stick with his approval somewhat? Pate: Yes. Ostner: And when it came time to pull building permits and they weren't anywhere near, you guys or someone would say, "Wait a minute. This was in your approval"? Pate: That's correct. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 80 Ostner: Okay. So I just want to be clear that, sort of, that is sort of what we're talking about. I mean, we're sort of -- Pate: However -- Ostner: -- giving or considering approval to that elevation. Pate: Yes, you are. Ostner: Thank you. Pate: As a project in total, yes, you're giving approval of that project when we permit the buildings accordingly; however, again, as opposed to Commercial Design Standards, there's no baseline for you to judge those architectural standards against, and so there's really not a -- there's no way to make a finding on architectural design standards when there's no criteria with which to make that finding. Anthes: May I interject? I think what you said was you can't use it as a basis to deny a project, and I believe that's true. My comments are guided towards -- you know, a lot of times PZDs are a negotiation, and sometimes you might allow something that was a little bit more dense or, you know, a street that was a certain way or something if you felt like the whole character of the neighborhood was a positive contribution. My comments are geared towards that, which is making that positive contribution that makes for the transition with the neighborhood, and if the architecture can help with that, so much the better. We have a motion on the floor to deny by Commissioner Myres and a second by Commissioner Harris. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to deny R-PZD 06-2212 carries with a vote of 7-0-0. Commissioner Trumbo recused and Commissioner Clark was absent. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 81 R-PZD 06-2196: Planned Zoning District (WEST FORK PLACE, 565,566): Submitted by PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS, INC. for property located at THE END OF RAY AVENUE, S. OF HUNTSVILLE ROAD. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY- 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 13.92 acres. The request is for a Master Development Plan of a Residential Planned Zoning District with 58 single-family dwellings: 28 attached and 30 attached. Anthes: Item 15 is R-PZD 06-2196, a Planned Zoning District for West Fork Place. And this one is Jesse's. Fulcher: This item has actually been at the previous two Subdivision Committee meetings, on August 31 st and September 14th. The property contains approximately 14 acres. It is south of Huntsville Road at, I guess, the end of Ray Avenue and just south of Helen Street. There is an existing subdivision there, a residential subdivision, the Watson Addition, which was platted back in the 1960s. The applicants are proposing a residential planned zoning district totaling 59 dwelling units. 30 of those would -- Anthes: Jesse, could you lean into the mike a little more? Fulcher: You bet. Anthes: Thank you. Fulcher: -- 30 of those units will be attached, some of those being duplexes or two- family, four -family, six -family, variation of those attached units, and then 29 will be detached in single-family dwelling units. Overall this will result in density of 4.24 acres -- or units per acre, excuse me. All of the of the residential units will be located in Planning Areas 1 through 3. Planning Area 4 will be greenspace maintained by the property owners association, and Planning Area 5 will be dedicated parkland. The parkland dedication requirement based on the number of units, I believe, was 1.39 acres, kind of based on the layout of the site, its being adjacent to the West Fork of the White River. They're going to be dedicating approximately six acres to the city for parkland. The first time this item was heard, on August 31 st, the three Subdivision Committee members -- I think the comments that they left us with to look into was the salvage yard, which is adjacent to this property to the south and west. Really, this being a residential project and that being an existing industrial use, there isn't a screening requirement for this development, but we have looked into that. That was a project that was approved as a large-scale in 1974. They did have some screening requirements and we will continue to investigate those. On the meeting on September 14th, when this item was Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 82 forwarded to the full Planning Commission with a vote of 2 to 1 with one of the members voting against the project -- and this kind of goes to some of the comments from the neighbors against this project and from the discussion at the last Subdivision Committee meeting -- two of those two items being the use of a platted residential lot within the Watson Addition, which is the eastern and northern extension of this loop street through the development, and the potential or availability of connectivity in the future for future development, with some other documents we have and hopefully with the maps that we've included in our staff report. Obviously, with the river to the south, it pretty much precludes any stub - outs or development to the south. Staff feels that there's not much of an opportunity for a connection to the east for the same reasons. There's a steep incline or decline off of this property, and again, this is where the White River bends around to the north and, then again, back to the east, but connectivity to the west is available. Ray Avenue, the current right-of- way, as it extends to this property is adjacent to all the properties that bound this on the west and, therefore, with future development or redevelopment of any one of those tracts that have access to Ray Avenue, that connection could be made. As I said, this project will utilize a loop - street system. It's going to come from the extension of Ray, providing access to about half of the lots and then come up through the platted lot onto Helen Street. Then there will be a private alley somewhat looping underneath the public street. Obviously, that public street would be constructed to city standards and the private streets constructed to private street standards per our UDC. As I mentioned, we have received some staff -- or some comments from the neighborhood, obviously utilizing that platted lot for connection, and some of the other issues they've brought up is increased traffic, obviously, from the development, noise, and the addition of multifamily units in the proximity. We've also included in one of our maps -- we went out and measured the street system there. Obviously, these are not improved streets, but for the most part they average 24 feet wide, that being Helen Street and -- or Jerry Street and Ray Street, which run north and south, and would provide the ingress and egress from this property to Huntsville Road. While not improved, but like I said, they are wide. We also went out and did kind of a sweep to see what type of zoning and uses were out in this Watson Addition, and that is shown, I believe, on one of your maps on -- I won't turn exactly to it, but there are photos of the street sections in there showing the current condition, and actually that is Page 33 of 68. It is majorly RSF- 4, but there are about six duplexes in the area. There is a little bit of RMF -24, RSF-7 zoning, and some C-1 there at the intersection of Huntsville and Ray Avenue. So as far as the compatibility and land use transition, staff feels that the way that this is designed does provide that transition. They have located all the single-family -- detached single-family units on the Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 83 north property line, which is adjacent to the existing single-family and duplex uses in the Watson Addition. They've spread the multifamily units on the south side away from those single-family uses along the parkland area, which staff feels provides well for compatibility with those existing uses. Staff is recommending this item be forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation for approval. I'll go over a few of the conditions of approval. Condition Number 1 is determination of street improvements. Staff is recommending an asphalt overlay on Ray Avenue -- that is why we included the photos, just to show you a little bit of the condition of Ray Avenue. As you go from where it ends -- where it would begin for this development and where it connects to Huntsville, you can see the condition of that road -- to provide a 24 -foot -wide street width. There is an existing sidewalk which shows up in the pictures on Ray Avenue on the west side. We would ask that that be extended to the south with a crossing over the extension of Ray Avenue so we get that pedestrian connectivity from the old neighborhood to this proposed development, and then also a 4 -foot sidewalk constructed on the north side of the private alley, and then obviously street lights every 300 feet along the public and private streets and at all intersections. We've made comments as to Subdivision Committee on 9-14, finding in favor of that requirement. Condition Number 4 are two street waivers, and we can have Engineering go into these a little bit more. The first one is the street radius of 150 feet. They're requesting a hundred feet. This is based on some existing utility pedestals that they're having to design around. We are in favor of that request. When we reviewed at Subdivision Committee, also found in favor of that waiver. The second is actually one that we did not have at the time of Subdivision Committee. We've reviewed it and this is the minimum jog requirement, which is where Jerry Street intersects Helen and where their proposed street will intersect Helen Street. The requirement is 150 feet between those jogs. They're proposing 147. We feel that losing 3 feet would not obviously create a dangerous traffic situation. I think all the other requirements are fairly straightforward. Condition Number 7 is just referring to large specie tree requirements in between each of the lots. Those are shown on the landscape plan. And Condition Number 14 are just some minor revisions to the site plan if this item is forwarded. If you have any specific questions, please ask. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Fulcher. Would any member of the public like to speak to this R-PZD for West Fork Place? Please come forward. Good evening. Madison: Yes. Commissioners, I'm Bernard Madison. My wife and I own property that adjoins this proposed development on both the east and the north, and so there are -- I'm here speaking on behalf of several residents of the Helen and Ray and Lee and Jerry Street development. I would like for Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 84 them to raise their hands so you can see who they are. Some of them may speak, but we're trying to save you some time at this -- Anthes: Thank you. We appreciate that. Madison: Okay. As you heard, this is a proposal to develop about almost 14 acres and about half of which is buildable, as you also heard, which makes it a very high density. It's actually more than the four per acre even if you were to not have the un -buildable area, and it's going to be a cooperatively owned development. There are some six-plexes and four-plexes in here, which is not compatible with the use in that neighborhood. There are 59 units which approximately doubles the entire -- more than twice the area between there and Huntsville Road. Now, there's nothing wrong with developing high-density areas if they're done correctly, but it should raise questions and it does raise questions in this particular area about access and connectivity and build -ability. But build -ability is not my issue, it's the developer's issue. I want to talk most about access and connectivity and how this development is supposed to be accessed by intruding itself through established neighborhoods. There is one stubbed -out street in the area, that is Ray Street off of Huntsville Road. Ray Street crosses Huntsville Road and goes to Happy Hollow School. I'll get back to that in a moment. There is the other access. The so-called connectivity of this development is a loop, I think you even call it a loop, that goes from Huntsville Road down Ray Street and then around this development and back up through an existing lot. There is no stubbed -out street on Jerry. There is no indication that there would ever be a street there. There was once an easement there, but it was vacated by this Planning Commission and there is no indication to the neighbors that this would ever be a street in off of Helen Street. And what this development proposes to do is take an existing lot that's developed on Helen Street and build a street through it and access their property that way. Now, in the recent past this very Planning Commission has denied that kind of action even where there were stubbed -out streets. You have -- you owe that same consideration, at least that consideration, to this neighborhood, where there was no indication that that would ever happen and there was no reason to believe that there would ever be a street through one of those lots. Now, there -- let me talk about the area through which this is going. As you heard, there are a few duplexes in this single-family residential housing, but that was in an R-1 district when this was -- when R-1 district -- when this was developed, it was by right, it wasn't a special dispensation. It was -- you could build a duplex in an R-1 -- in an R-1 certification. It is through an area that has Ray, as you heard, which needs an asphalt overlay, as do the other streets in that neighborhood. There are no sidewalks, there are no curbs, there are no gutters, and there are some very deep ditches alongside Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 85 those streets. That's -- that area is in -- already in need of help. The streets are not wide. The streets are narrow. The streets are -- have ditches on the sides and they're not streets that can carry much more traffic than all they have. Now, if this is built it will have an enormous impact on Jerry, Helen, Lee, and Ray. Now, let me get back to the street that they're proposing to develop. They're proposing to build a street through an existing lot, but it doesn't line up with Jerry. It jags. You have to come off of Helen. You have to come up the street through this lot that they're proposing to build and then you have to jag down Helen one way or the other and then get onto to either Jerry or Ray and go out to Huntsville Road. Now, the -- let me talk just a little bit more about what you find when you get to Huntsville Road. If you go out Ray you are at -- you're at -- one block away from the new intersection, the million -dollar intersection -- the million -seven, I think, intersection -- at the corner of Huntsville Road and Happy Hollow Road, and where there will be an enormous traffic light. That means that there's never likely to be a traffic light at Ray and Huntsville Road because it's very close to that. So what we've got here is a road that goes to an elementary school and already has lots of traffic on it, already is very difficult to access Huntsville Road, and so therefore this development is bound to double the traffic coming out of that side of the -- of Huntsville Road. Now, let's go to the other end. You go to the other end, Jerry Street, and I'm surprised that the planning staff did not notice that you can't see the traffic coming down Huntsville Road on Jerry Street -- from Jerry Street, because it comes over a rise and you have about -- about 35 or 40 yards that you can actually see traffic there, and there's no chance of getting out there ever going left. You might be able to go right, right now. So the access to Huntsville Road, which by the way, is a two-lane road there and is likely to stay a two-lane road for the foreseeable future and carry this additional traffic that is coming on from the improved Huntsville Road into Fayetteville and the improved Happy Hollow Road from 15th Street. So there are already water problems on the back, drainage problems on the back of the lots on Helen. We don't know what the drainage problems are going to become once this is developed. We don't know how the drainage will be affected, because when Ottis Watson owned this property and developed the Watson Addition he was told that this was un -buildable land, so it has been used by former owners as a dumping ground for trash and building materials and things like that. Now, that's very likely to cause difficulty with not only building, but on maintenance of streets or whatever is built in that neighborhood. Let me pause here just for a minute, because Mr. Watson's widow, Helen Watson, after who Helen Street is named, is with us and I would like to have Mrs. Watson hold up her hand -- stand up. So the -- this was -- the access to the east, as the planning staff said, would be difficult. You have to cross a stream. Well, we've crossed streams before Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 86 and we are going to have to cross that stream again. We're going to have to cross the White River more than once on that end of town. The access to the west is perfectly okay. The city actually owns property that would allow you to extend Lee Street to Happy Hollow Road. Unless that is done, this is going to be an unnecessary and unbearable burden on that one neighborhood. The city has an obligation that if this thing goes forward that it has to do several things. It has to say that we are not going to treat this neighborhood worse than we've treated other neighborhoods in Fayetteville and we're going to build streets through existing lots. That cannot happen. The streets that are built should line up with existing streets. We should not have jags that this proposal proposes to build and we need to be assured that there are east and west connectors out of this area. We can't continue to access whatever is developed back in there, and there's other land back in there, and access that through these two -- this neighborhood. Now, if this neighborhood is to be used, then you owe it to this neighborhood, and it has to be done, that the streets inside that neighborhood have to be improved. You have to build sidewalks more than just on Ray -- Anthes: Mr. Madison, that's outside the development approval for this project and it's not something that the Planning Commission can order, so if you would please contain your comments to -- Madison: But I have a right to say that the city owes it to the people to do that, and if you can't do it, then maybe we can get somebody else to do it, but this neighborhood is going to be severely impacted by carrying this out, and if this neighborhood is impacted in that way, then the neighborhood -- the developer should be required to pay for upgrading the neighborhood streets and sidewalks, and you can do that. Now -- so this is not the proposal that I heard described by your people, it is not compatible with that neighborhood, and it is mistreating this neighborhood in ways that you have -- this very Planning Commission has not done to other neighborhoods in Fayetteville in the last several months, and you know they are. Anthes: I think there are a lot of neighborhoods that might not agree with you on that point, but please, go on. Madison: I'm talking about building streets. I'm talking about your connectivity issue. Anthes: So am I. Madison: And you have vacated -- you have vacated -- you have vacated Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 87 easements -- Anthes: Please, what we've done in the past is not precedent -setting for a planned zoning district, so please talk about this development. Madison: Well, what you're doing here is taking an existing lot and building a street through it, and that's not fair. So I'm asking you to be fair to this neighborhood and to not allow this development to go forward as it's proposed. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Madison. Please let the record state that I believe about 12 people raised their hands as being from the neighborhood and Mr. Madison speaking for them. Good evening, sir. Curtis: My name is Roger Curtis. We have some 40 people that live in this neighborhood and some of us have been there for 43 years. We have a lot of elderly people that get out on the street of a morning and walk with their dogs. One lady walks with a stick. Have any of you people ever been out to Lee Street? Anthes: Yes. We toured it at our agenda session. Curtis: Have you ever been out there when the school starts or when school gets out? Anthes: We were there after our agenda session, so it was about 5:00 p.m. Curtis: But the man done a wonderful job, we agree with him. Everybody stand up that agreed with that man. And I think I can get over 2 or 300 signatures against this. Very simple. All I have to do is just stand out there of a evening and everybody that comes by will sign it. Because you can't get on the road -- and how in the world are they going to get to school? You've got kids that's got to walk up there and cross that double lane of traffic -- double lane -- Ray Street of a morning. He said about the stoplight -- there will be a stoplight down there and when that stoplight is on red, traffic will be backed up plumb past Jerry, so you've still got two lanes of traffic. And he mentioned the only way that a lot of us get out is get on -- go east and go down to the shopping center and turn around and come back, and that -- that's for just us 35, 40 people there of a morning and evening. I worked for 36 years for a company, and at 7 o'clock, if you get there at 15 till 7:00 you get on the road. 7 o'clock till 8:30, you have to sit there and wait, but anyway -- He talked about the street. Our street was improved about 30 years ago. And the gentleman said something about the city. I think in the paper -- the city is out of money. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 88 We've got a 60 -million sewer debt out here and they -- I know they ain't going to work on streets -- Anthes: Please, would you confine your comments to this item. Curtis: -- and you're going to put 50 people behind us and our streets has got holes in it and -- Anthes: Sir, can I please have you calm down and lower your voice. Okay. Curtis: I mean, the thing about it is, even if we come up here, youins is going to -- because there was one man proposed something, a great big -- and youins said no, but two or three weeks later youins said yes and he went ahead with it. So I know that a lot we say is just going in this ear and out this one here. But the streets are narrow and we've got old people walking, and we haven't had no street improvement for at least 12 to 13 years. Ray Street there that has all the traffic, you ain't going down it. They put a pipeline up and they left a big hole right there and we had to -- it took us three or four months to even get them to fix that, but the city is not going to fix the street. He said they're going to overlay it. Well, he'll have to buy the concrete or the blacktop to do it, if he can. But the man told you, youins never put in a subdivision without putting in streets, and they ain't no way then. You've got 13th Street over there you can bring across that junkyard and into that subdivision, and you can -- he said you're already on 13th -- or Lee Street and you can go across there, but you can do that. There is a way to get it in there without coming across the river. You can go to this side, the land is for sale there, and you can go across this side of 13th Street into that subdivision. And our streets are narrow and they're caving off. They're already caving off on each side. So if this subdivision goes in, I think -- I'm new at this, you know that, but I read somewhere that, when these developers make these subdivisions and things, that they have to make walking trails for the people, and that needs to be done because we've got older people that walks around, and we're all too fat. But we need to realize that we've been there for several years, and we're going to fight it. We'll fight. I'll fight it just tooth and toenail, I'm just that bullheaded, unless they come up with a -- but the streets are going -- like I said, no sidewalk is on Jerry Street down there. The people have to walk down the street when they walk around the block. But they can build a new subdivision, no matter how nice it is, there's no way to get in and out of it without causing lots of trouble and accidents, and the kids having to cross the street up there with no stoplight, and the double traffic of a morning. And I would invite you to come out about 7:30 of a morning or about 4 o'clock in the evening and just sit and watch the traffic, and then add 40 or 50 more people trying to get on the road. Thank you. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 89 Anthes: Thank you very much. Does any other neighbor have something to add to these comments? Good evening. Colwell: I would like to excuse my voice. I have asthma. I've been out there over 40 years. Anthes: I'm sorry, will you state your name, please? Colwell: I have lived in this Watson Addition over 40 years, and I worked for Orris Watson when the addition went in. He bought it and subdivided, and later I got to -- I got to build a house there. And at the time he proposed his plat, he was going to build three streets there going east and west, and the city wouldn't let him because it was low back there for the flooding area, even though he could have built it up, because he had dirt -- he needed dirt and a place to get it, and compact it and everything. But the city wanted to put a sewer line back there, and the sewer line I couldn't begin to reach around, and it -- the city -- they put it through and it was in the air most of the way. And down there on -- the lots off of Lee -- or off of Jerry, people just dumped trash, and he let them put their load of rocks or load of lumber or whatever -- or trees, a lot of shrubbery. They didn't have anywhere to go with it and he just -- out of the kindness of his heart he said, "Well, it's never going to be useable, so they might as well use it." And they did. And finally, then, somebody came in and put some dirt on all that and built a duplex, and they have another lot there they had planned to build on. And then here just a few years ago, not very long, a contractor was going to build a strip lot behind 265 and 16 back there in the corner where that used to really flood, and they hauled in lots of dirt, several hundred loads. Well, after they got it in, they compacted it and everything. After they got done, the city didn't approve it, which I can understand, because it -- I mean, when that river gets up -- a little creek gets up coming down through there, it gets up. So they had to move the dirt, and the fellow that had built this duplex said, "Well, if you want to you can dump it on me down here. You know, you've got to get rid of it," so that's where that dirt came from. Now, it hasn't been long, I don't know if there's been a perk test taken on it, but Ottis Watson, when he built this addition, he built it for people that couldn't afford a big home. They were common, ordinary people and he did it about to what he thought they could afford, and let them have it, and he made $2,000.00 on each house, and they could pay their loan out -- the second loan out however they wanted to, $10.00 a month or $20.00 a month. Well, it was so dusty, it was terrible. Of course, we weren't in the city, so he said, "Well, if you can get all of the homes down through there to give me a hundred dollars, and they can pay it out $10.00 a month, if you'll collect Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 90 it, I'll blacktop that street." So he did, and each month I went down the street collecting the 10 dollars from each house. But there never was anything done to Lee Street because a lot of those houses were sold for rental and the property owners didn't say anything about it. But it wasn't very many years then until the city came out and built them a dandy street with a sidewalk. We never did get a sidewalk, but it's my understanding that about 12 years ago money was set aside to curb and gutter and blacktop the street, but it hasn't been done yet, but we're looking forward to it when it gets there. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you. Ma'am? Culwell: Yes? Anthes: Could you state your name for the record, please? Culwell: Thelma Culwell. Anthes: Thank you. Would any other member of the public like to address this item for West Fork Place? Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public comment and ask for the developer's presentation. I see you have a PowerPoint queued up. In the interest of time, I would just like to ask -- think that the neighbors have reviewed your proposal and certainly the commissioners have read it. We've toured the site, we've read your packet, and looked at your plats, so if that presentation consists of additional information to that, that's great, but if not, if you could speed through it or consider not giving it and just doing the verbal presentation, that would be great. McDonald: I'll be gone in four minutes or less. Anthes: Okay. The clock is ticking. McDonald: Great. You're familiar with where it's located. The neighbors have done a good job of telling you that. Here's Highway 265 and here's the Happy Hollow intersection that's been revised. In the paper today the list of future street improvements does talk about improving Huntsville Road from here down to the Stonebridge intersection, so hopefully at some point in time there will be some work done on that section of road. If we could go to the closer shot there, Brian. This is the junkyard that everyone refers to that bounds our property. This is the property that comes through here. This is Helen Street that the neighbors have talked about. As they mentioned, there are duplexes. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 91 Anthes: We are familiar with the layout out there. We've been out there. McDonald: Okay. And this is the parkland dedication that we have talked about with you. We do have a PZD area. You're familiar that we're talking about some cottages and some townhomes that go in here. There's about 29 cottage units that are two-bedroom and about -- this is, you know, a typical layout of a cottage. What you'll have is a two-bedroom with a carport that we're trying to target in the area of about 120 -something thousand dollars a unit. We'll have some townhomes that are two-story with a single garage that, again, would be targeting affordable housing in the $140,000.00 range. Actually, the cottages are about 140 and these townhomes should be about $120,000.00. You're familiar with the third PZD area, which is the parkland dedication that's down here along the river. Here's the trail that the neighbors mentioned. They would like to see a trail in the area. This is the six acres that we're talking about dedicating this down adjacent to the White River. There's been items spoken of in our discussions with the city ranging from a garden to a fishing dock to playground equipment and so forth. I would like to run through -- go to the -- that just has all six of them on the front so we can hurry through it. Just to point out a few things from your 2025 plan we think apply to this project and try to hurry through those, -- Anthes: Again, we're very familiar with the goals of that plan, if you could just move ahead. McDonald: Okay. We believe that if you're familiar with the first two goals of that plan that talk about vitalization -- revitalization and infill, that if we could go to the -- one more through, Brian. Keep going. Right there. We believe that if you look at this area that, you know, it's an area we believe is in need of revitalization and would provide some workforce housing for this, and it does provide infill and discourages urban sprawl. And so we believe that meets with your 2025 plan. If I could go to the next slide, Brian. Obviously, here is the parkland dedication that's goal number five in your 2525 plan, and we believe that this is a significant contribution to the parkland that obviously encompasses a trail and there is a stub -out here that would provide not only residents of this, but adjacent residences a stub -out to get down into this parkland. If you could go to the next slide there, Brian. Obviously, these units -- I mentioned to you that the goal here is to get some attainable workforce housing. We're trying to sell these cottage units for in the 140s. And, Brian, if you could go to the next one, these we're targeting in the 120s, and we believe that that's something that the City of Fayetteville desperately needs and is a target market and is something that your goals obviously state. If you'll go to the next -- we've actually had conversations with city staff and local banks Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 92 about having a housing fair for this and had some interest from the city and those banks at that housing fair. Our goal would be to pre -qualify people for these even before the construction is complete and to target first-time homebuyers, and we think that's something that yourself and we could benefit from in this neighborhood in this affordable range. We do have -- we agree with staff's recommendation, obviously. They did ask that we overlay all of Ray Street. We would ask that it be considered -- there are a lot of other -- the city and others that front Ray Street, and it's been in that condition for a while -- we would ask that that be cost shared for the overlay along Ray Street. You know, this type of project, with the 2025 plan, if you read all of that, it talks about possibly waiving impact fees or minimizing building permit fees. We're not asking for any of that. The sole consideration we would like for this development is maybe cost sharing of some of the cost to overlay Ray Street. And we think this project is something that meets the city's goals that both you and the neighbors can be proud of. Obviously, a big issue with the neighbors is the connectivity, and we thought we were doing the right thing by providing connectivity on that end of the project. If you have any questions, we'll be glad to address them. Anthes: I did interrupt you at the beginning, but would you go ahead and state your name for the record? McDonald: I'm sorry. Mike McDonald. Anthes: Thank you, Mike. Does that conclude the developer's presentation? Okay. For the neighbors' benefit, let's get staff to answer a few questions, and we have two people from Engineering here tonight. Can you talk about the streets in the area and what the city's plans are? Casey: As was mentioned earlier, we do have plans to improve Huntsville Road from the Happy Hollow intersection east all the way to Stonebridge. It's going to be part of our transportation bond program. As far as the neighborhood streets in this area, there are no plans at this time. It's one of the reasons we had requested that the overlay be associated with this development on Ray Street. Anthes: And how does a neighborhood petition for some consideration in that regard? Casey: That's a good question. Pate: The neighborhood can be involved in our -- obviously, their aldermen. That's probably the best place to start is to start with the City Council Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 93 members that represent this ward. We do have a street committee that looks at capital improvement projects as we go through budget cycles. Every two years, I believe, is when we look at capital improvement projects, and the street committee typically makes recommendations for the city with regard to those policy decisions to the full City Council. So I would encourage them to be involved with their aldermen. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Pate, and Matt -- Mr. Casey. The other thing I'd like to ask Engineering to comment on is the visibility of the Jerry Street and Huntsville Road intersection. Casey: That is not something that I can comment on. I've not evaluated that myself. We can ask prior to -- if you choose to forward this on to the City Council we can ask that the engineering firm evaluate the site distance and provide those calculations for us. Anthes: Okay. And another thing, Mr. Casey, you know we continue to see additional development in the southeast part of Fayetteville and even approaching the city limits toward Elkins, and one thing that continually comes up and is something I've said numerous times is we have a lot of floodplain and floodway in that area, so often the east/west connections are not deemed feasible or plausible, but that puts all the drive traffic on Huntsville Road, which is already very problematic, as everybody knows. Is the city doing anything to look at other east/west corridor connections in the southeast part of Fayetteville? Casey: At this time I believe the Huntsville Road corridor is the only one that we're looking at as far as our transportation bond program. Anthes: May I ask you to consider other routes and alternative routes south of there, because I don't think there's a way to solve the problem and let development happen the way it's coming at us without alternative ways out down there. I digress, though. Commissioners? Myres: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Myres. Myres: I'll just have my say now and shut up. I've declared a personal moratorium on any more development that's going to dump traffic onto Huntsville Road, and as worthy as this project is, it's a lot of extra traffic especially at a place that is a school crossing and on a very busy street, so because it's going to exacerbate an already serious traffic situation on Huntsville Road, and also because of the street coming through the single- Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 94 family lot, I have a real problem with that, and there doesn't seem to be any other feasible way to connect on the east side, I'm not going to support this. Anthes: Thank you, Commissioner Myres. Graves: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Graves: I was the recalcitrant member of the Subdivision Committee that's referenced in our packet. I heard part of Commissioner Myres' comments. A large reason why I didn't think that this -- that I could support this particular application was -- was the way that it went through the lot that is there. As referenced by some of the members of the public, we have had situations in the past where prior to staff's requirement of signage advising the public of street connections or possible future street connections, we had situations arise where the right-of-way was dedicated, streets were stubbed out, but there wasn't really anything necessarily advising someone unless they went down and saw a plat that there could be a street connection right between two homes. In this situation, we've got a circumstance where even if you had gone and checked the plat you wouldn't know that a street would come through there. And you know, I -- my problems go beyond that, which I also expressed at Subdivision, in the fact I don't think triple and quadruple plexes, or whatever we've got on some of these buildings, are compatible with what's already out there in that neighborhood. There are a couple -- two or three duplexes staff advised us at Subdivision, nothing beyond that as far as multifamily housing goes in that neighborhood, and so some of the buildings that are proposed were also not compatible. And then the lack of connection to the west, or at least some kind of stub -out. I understand they're hemmed in with Ray over there. I guess what it boils down to is, I understand that the applicant has requirements from the fire department on what they need to do to have adequate emergency access and that you've also got a sloping property with steep grades that sort of puts you between a rock and hard place. And while I have sympathy for that, to me, this is just not appropriate, and if you can't -- if you can't build it appropriately, then maybe it's just not buildable, but I just don't see how it would be appropriate to build a street through a vacant lot that no one had any notice that a street could go through there, how you can throw in multifamily buildings that don't jibe with what's already in the neighborhood, and then you're using that street to satisfy connectivity requirements that can't be -- that can't be met or that you don't want to meet expense -wise going to the east or the west, and so I can't support it either. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 95 Anthes: Thank you, Commissioner Graves. Is there further discussion? Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Madame Chair. I'm not going to repeat those excellent comments. I agree with all of them. I believe someone stated we can cross the river, and they should. They should connect over to 13th Street and make that happen. I'm guessing here that this land was not exactly a million dollars an acre. I think it could be a viable business plan if the multifamily were put aside and these, these cottages that you've shown us in your proposal, these, these were everywhere, with reduced setbacks, everywhere, a connection that did not take a buildable lot and attempt to encroach on that neighborhood. Fix the streets that you're going to impact. Since you would be connecting westward, you would have less impact, but you should fix Ray at the very least. Those are my minimums. I'm going to vote against this, but if you wanted to bring it back to try to get approval, those are my minimums for considering it again. The multifamily is just not appropriate and I appreciate the affordability standpoint. I do have a specific question. How do all the lawn areas get maintained and who pays for that? Is there a -- I don't want to say POA because that doesn't -- well, is it a POA? Well, that's a problem to me, because if I were in the city and a POA -- which is a dicey deal. PDAs go out all the time -- a POA is responsible for all this maintenance, that's a guaranteed failure. POA quits meeting, somebody quits paying a maintenance company and two months later there are 6 -foot -tall weeds. The city comes in. We're going to have to take care of the health issue. Who are we going to have to charge? Everybody. I don't see that as viable for a POA. Now, if there were a responsible -- maybe not for profit -- some sort of a company that could be held to task, more substantial than a POA, I could see that. It's got to be a legitimate business venture just like an apartment landowner who is going to vouch. I'm a businessperson, I'm going to vouch for this maintenance; if not, you come to me and I'm in trouble. It's got to be viable if it's going to be like this, in my opinion. So that's where I stand. McDonald: How would you propose that be funded? Ostner: I'm not sure. It sounds very complicated or a big challenge, but a POA is something -- I don't know if you were here earlier, but we've got no -- I mean, the city has got no control. POAs can just disband whenever they want, and then what? Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Commissioner Ostner. Are there further comments? Lack: Madame Chair. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 96 Anthes: Commissioner Lack. Lack: Having seen this at Subdivision Committee and having taken somewhat a different view on it, I think this development has a lot of things that are worthy, that are good and would be good for the neighborhood. I think the density at 4.2 units per acre, while an RSF-4 never really gets to four units per acre, it's still very close to the density that exists in the subdivision that it would attach to. The west property line is adjacent to and abuts the road right-of-way, and so a stub -out to the west is actually created with the road and that road could be tapped at any time because the right-of-way is actually on the property line. The park area, I think, is a wonderful amenity for the neighborhood and for those in the neighborhood who would want to walk and to come through this new section of their neighborhood and get onto the parks and trail system for which this connection of the trail will go for miles, and the city has adopted funding to enhance that program and to try to ensure that the pedestrian connectivity would be held, and while that doesn't provide another route for vehicular access across the river in traveling east and west through this area, it at least does allow that pedestrian access. The location of the more dense sections of the development along that park area are a nice benefit. That's a very good thing that this development does. I don't like that the development cuts through the existing developed lot, but I can't in my mind allow that dislike to override the other items that I feel are a benefit to the overall neighborhood and to the developed area and the infill. I think that I would say that the house placed on the buildable lot where the road is going through takes that a little too far and I would say that I would not agree with the additional lot, and that would be PA 3, where the single-family residence or the cottage is placed adjacent to that cut - through of that buildable lot. But with that exception, and that would be a strong exception, I could support this development. Anthes: Thank you, Commissioner Lack. Anyone else? I have a couple of questions or comments. Again, I think there's been some very good comments stated by both the members of the public and of commissioners tonight. I think I agree with Commissioner Lack in that whether multifamily may exist in some proportion on this site is not extremely concerning to me, particularly because it's located next to the trail, which I think is great. I do, however, wish that I could see a stronger connection through this development to the existing neighborhood and to that trail, because I think that's an amenity that everyone would share and benefit from. And, you know, it doesn't really encourage or welcome the adjacent neighbors to come through the development and get to the trail the way it's currently designed. The other thing is is that we have all these Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 97 units and they're backing -- and that's in Planning Area 2 and 1 -- and they're backing up to Planning Area 5, and if you look at the tree preservation and grading plan, there's a considerable amount of grading behind those properties that to me does not, again, foster that kind of connection to the river front and the trail system that I'd like to see, and I'm kind of concerned about -- the plats are so small that I can't read the numbers on there, but there are a lot of contour lines. It's a pretty steep slope there and I'm not sure about the viability, or at least I have some concern about it. I also would be concerned if those areas were going to have an opaque fencing behind them, because I think that the greatest amenity to this project is that it's riverfront property. If you go out to other places that have lots that face the White River and other rivers around here — that is waterfront property, those are the highest and most valuable lots in those subdivisions, and yet this is almost designed as if it's just sort of over there and this is the back door, and I think that's a weakness of the plan. I think I share everybody's frustration. I disagree with the street vacation that was made in 1996. It put us in a little trouble here today, but there's nothing we can do about it. City Council made the decision to allow that vacation to occur and I am concerned about reversing that decision by just slipping it over to a lot that seems to be conveniently available, and would rather see east/west connections made. Let's see. I think that's the bulk of my comments. Harris: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Harris. Harris: I think in fairness to the developer, when we saw this at Subdivision one of our -- just that sort of first blush primary concern at Subdivision was in part that this was putting attainable housing in the kind of margins, if you will, of what we consider viable neighborhood building sites because of the salvage yard next door, and the opaque fence was probably actually even suggested at that point from Subdivision as one way of perhaps delineating spaces and providing some safety for children in this neighborhood and so forth. Having said that, though, I too, as much as I think our votes would show us all quite consistent on this, as much as I think we all want to, and -- I will speak only for myself -- as much as I want to, vote for attainable housing whenever possible, that neighborhood must still meet all of the other requirements that we have in play. I think the transition of density is inappropriate here in terms of how it addresses the community that is already there. And I too find that building the street through that platted lot is unacceptable for me. And so for those very simple reasons, I will have to not vote for this at this time. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 98 Anthes: Thank you, Commissioner Harris. A question of clarification of staff. On the first page of the staff report in the middle paragraph you indicated that there was going to be some investigation into the current circumstances at the salvage yard to determine what, if any, screening requirements may be valid from that old large-scale development. Have you located that information? Pate: We have not. We have -- I believe Jesse mentioned that. We will continue doing that separate from this project. Anthes: Okay. Thank you. Pate: I would also mention that I believe the Planning Commission agenda session asked staff to discuss with the fire department their recommendations, because obviously the connection through the lot was a sensitive issue, and it has been through this entire discussion. It's certainly not a requirement. The Planning Commission can say, "No connection," as they've done in other projects. We did want to have something on the record and whatever -- We passed out some information from the fire department that we got today. The fire marshal, David Williams, indicated that it would be considered a -- the most -- how does he word it here? -- "The most stringent code for these type of developments when they're mixed would be applied here. You have a code for multifamily residential developments, which requires two access points with more than 100 dwelling units and then for single family or two-family residential developments it would be more than" -- if the number of dwelling units exceed 30, they have indicated that it would at least need two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. If you'll notice, there are two exceptions, and one of those has been utilized with the approval of the fire chief if there is an access road that will connect with future development and that's determined by the code official, which essentially is a stub -out, because all properties cannot obtain other properties, obviously, to develop two points of ingress and egress. So that is something that is built into the international fire code with regard to those exceptions. So in terms of the connection -- I've heard it, I believe, from probably every commissioner -- and we realized this was a sensitive issue coming forward. That connection was recommended to allow two points of ingress and egress to this site, simply. The fire marshal's office would be fine if that's just a fire apparatus only. It does not have, for them, to be a full access point. So I wanted to make that point be known for your consideration. And of course it is your decision and ultimately, if this goes forward to the City Council, their decision if that connection would be even warranted even with the development as indicated. So I did want to let you know it's not a situation where it's all or nothing for Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 99 your consideration. There are alternatives here if you want to discuss them. Anthes: So, Mr. Pate, what you're saying is is that if we wanted to ask the applicant to strengthen the walking connection between the existing neighborhood and the city trail system and park, -- the option would be to go through that lot and also provide a fire apparatus access through that connection rather than a full vehicular access? Pate: I believe that would certainly be a possibility. In discussing with the applicants I don't think that they have necessarily a desire one way or the other of how this connects, and they can certainly answer to that point. Obviously, we're looking for points of ingress and egress wherever possible. We believe the west connection, as indicated along Ray, would provide -- because it's adjacent to the property line -- would provide a connection. You know, obviously, the one thing we would have to look at here is probably a waiver of our street design standards for length of a dead-end public street because it would function as a loop for emergency vehicles but all access for the public would be directly off of Ray instead of off Jerry. Anthes: And what do you think about the viability of the east/west connection options that have been mentioned by different people tonight? Pate: In terms of the extension of Lee Street, that would certainly be difficult at best. If you look at the map -- I'm looking at aerial photographs -- obviously, the former industrial building there, Mexican Original, I believe, building there is in the way of an extension of Lee Street. Helen, obviously, there are some structures to the west there, but again, there is a commercial property that looks to be, I would say, underdeveloped. It's not -- the full property is not developed. Most of those properties front onto Happy Hollow Road, so with a future development in this area it would likely -- it would be probable that a connection, if this entire development were submitted, that a stub -out would also be -- or a connection would also be required to Ray Avenue if that property were developing. I think at this point it would not be staff's recommendation for this applicant, however, to try to connect to 13th. That would go through the existing junkyard, salvage yard, that's in operation, a very busy operation currently, and it would also take quite a bit of acquisition of property to get there. We have recommended in other subdivisions acquisition of property. I believe we did one for 2 or 300 dwelling units off of Crystal Springs Road -- Crystal Springs Drive, but that's quite a bit more impact than what we're seeing here as well. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 100 Trumbo: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Trumbo. Trumbo: My main issue was with the lot, and we have every other meeting, it seems like, somebody coming through and wanting a lot vacated or an easement vacated into something. I was going to ask staff if there was an alternative -- a compromise that could be reached. I would be in favor of a compromise to use the lot as an emergency access. If other commissioners agree and we can get that done, that would be a direction I would head. The density I don't have a problem with. I'm sitting here thinking of neighborhoods with apartments in them, and East Oaks comes to mind and it's a -- there's a residential part of it, there's condos, there's some apartments, and it all functions very well. And with the connectivity through Ray and the other three streets back up, I think this would work and it would be something I'd be in favor of, either tabling to have changes made or forwarding with those recommendations. McDonald: Just for the record, we'd certainly be agreeable to limiting the access at the Jerry end of the property to, I guess you mentioned foot traffic, and emergency fire, and it's certainly not a problem for us. And as Commissioner Lack mentioned, if there ever did afford itself an opportunity for a stub -out to the west, the right-of-way edge of our property aligns with the property line so that, you know, you could have a stub -out if that property ever became available to the west. Anthes: I guess I would like to see that stub -out on the map formalized -- Trumbo: Yeah. Anthes: -- on the plat. I would also like to see how the possible foot connection with the emergency egress would work and connect to the river through the system of streets. I'd also like you to take a took at the number of units and the grading necessary to make those happen, and have another run at that, and also the connection between the development and the greenspace. To me, you've got a tremendous missed opportunity there, especially for a planned zoning district which has a directive to incorporate recreational and outdoor space by ordinance. Commissioner Graves. Graves: I would certainly also be supportive of not making a street connection through there, obviously, based on my earlier comments. I would certainly want to see the stub -out over to Ray going to the west so we didn't end up especially with a problem later on and somebody saying Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 101 that they didn't know a street was going to go through that way. And so we would need to see how that was going to connect over understanding that until it develops later on it wouldn't actually go beyond the edge of your property line. It's still -- I'm not sure that the comments I've heard would address my concerns about the compatibility of the multifamily -- and I'm not necessarily talking about the duplexes, but my understanding from Subdivision is there were some three- and four-plexes, which I think are -- it's not necessarily a density concern, but it's -- I just don't think that type of housing is compatible with what's already in the existing neighborhood, and so it wouldn't -- what I've heard would not address that concern on my part, but certainly the other comments and the willing that you've expressed would address those concerns. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Madame Chair. I'm also not optimistic that this project could be repaired tonight, talking. I think it needs significant, significant changes, almost to the point of total reconfiguration, in my opinion. I don't think I will vote to try to fix it with a crash barrier and a stub -out. I think there's significant things that I'm not satisfied with, and I don't think the crash gate is a good thing for a neighborhood. I think connections need to be bona fide cars. The car is king. We might run out of gas, but we're going to make a way for our box on wheels to go. The car will always be the king. It might be electric, I don't know what. And cars are the bona fide connection that we all use. Even if we have to go a block to our neighbor, we're possibly going to drive. We all do it. Those crash barriers, I don't think they're good for neighborhoods. They're not good for towns. I would like this -- some fashion of this development to be in a way that I could approve it. There are a lot of things about it that are very nice. It is attainable. It's almost affordable. People's responsibilities would be lowered that they wouldn't have to do the yard work and they could afford to get in these smaller units, but there are too many things about it that I can't vote for. Thank you. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner, I guess I'd like to follow up on the crash barrier comment, because I would agree with you. That's a design issue that isn't so conducive to neighborhoods. Do you think that there's another way you could design that kind of a connection that would be visually and appropriate and neighborhood -friendly? Ostner: Well, I just have to politely disagree with our zoning administrator. believe a connection westward needs to happen. Anthes: I see what you're saying. Okay. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 102 Ostner: I think if we stub out and wait on it, it ain't going to happen. That is not marginal or potentially developable area. That's going to be the last thing in the square mile. It's too problematic. It will be 30 years -- 20 years before someone voluntarily makes that connection. I'm almost saying it's a minimum requirement to go westward. I'm not sure. But the vacant lot connection I'm not -- I don't see being possible with my minimums for the neighborhood. Anthes: I guess I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about this barrier in the vacant lot. I thought you were -- Okay. Ostner: I was. Anthes: Okay, okay. Fine. Ostner: I just can't see another way to do it that would -- Anthes: Okay. Comments or motions? Trumbo: Madame Chair. Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Trumbo. Motion: Trumbo: I'll make a motion that we table R-PZD 06-2196. Anthes: A motion to table by Commissioner Trumbo. Do I hear a second? Lack: I'll second. Anthes: A second by Commissioner Lack. What date would this be tabled to? Trumbo: I would suppose indefinitely. Anthes: Okay. Is there a discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to table R-PZD 06-2196 carries with a vote of 5-3-0, with Commissioners Ostner, Myres and Anthes voting no. Commissioner Clark was absent. Anthes: Okay. We'll see you back here soon. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 103 R-PZD 06-2169: Planned Zoning District (6TH & WOOD, 524): Submitted by N. Arthur Scott for property located at 6TH & WOOD. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 1.80 acres. The request is for rezoning and development approval for a Residential Planned Zoning District with 20 multi -family units. Anthes: Item 16, R-PZD 06-2169, a Planned Zoning District for 6th and Wood. Mr. Garner? Garner: Yes. This property consists of approximately 1.8 acres. It's on the south side of 6th Street. It's about 300 feet east of Wood Avenue. It is zoned C- 2. It's generally flat with the exception of a significant slope adjacent to 6th Street. When 6th Street was improved, a slope a had to be built and there is now a really large right-of-way for that street in that section. It's approximately 72 to 82 feet from centerline. The surrounding land uses consists of residential to the north, undeveloped and residential property to the south, some commercial and undeveloped commercial lie directly to the east. To the west is single-family residential. The applicant requests to rezone and also requests large-scale development approval for an R- PZD on the property for 20 multifamily units and five buildings. They are also including in that some greenspace, which includes a 40 -foot drainage easement through the central portion of the property, and some greenspace along the perimeter in the east and the west as well. Access to the property is provided off of two driveways directly off of 6th Street that provide a loop through the property. In each of the five structures, as mentioned, is a four-plex, each having one garage parking space and one driveway parking space. The proposed zoning criteria allows for a density of about 11 units per acre over the site with a 10 -foot building setback off of 6th Street. Staff did receive written comments from adjacent property owners objecting to the project, citing concerns such as increased traffic, reduced tree cover, increased noise, loss of neighborhood character, crime, and decrease in property value. We also heard comments at Subdivision Committee from some of these neighbors. Staff is recommending forwarding this to the City Council for approval with conditions. Conditions Number 1 is determination of street improvements. We do not recommend street improvements to be required with this development, finding that the surrounding street system is adequate to support the development. 6th Street is already improved and we find that with 20 residential units this is appropriate not to require anything additional. Condition Number 2 is cross -access. Staff does recommend that there be some sort of cross -access to the south. Condition Number 4 is referencing some revisions to be completed prior to City Council. Those are pretty straightforward, so I won't go over those. Condition Number 6 is just referencing that the building shall be constructed to be consistent with the Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 104 photos and concepts depicted. We did receive comments back from our police department and fire department, engineering staff looked at the water and sewer prevision and storm drainage, and we don't find that rezoning this would be a problem. We do find that it meets the intent of our City Plan 2025 and the intent of our PZD ordinance. The downzoning from C-2 to residential is providing infill in this area for residential development with a density of 11 units an acre. We do find that this is an appropriate transition between some of the commercial zonings to the east and some of the single-family zonings to the west and the other surrounding areas, and we are recommending forwarding this. We will be happy to answer any questions you might have. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Garner. Would any member of the public like to address this R-PZD for 6th and Wood? Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public comment and ask for the developer's presentation. McDonald: Hi. I'm Mike McDonald. I represent the applicant. I will try to be brief, but I am going to go a little bit slower. This was submitted to Subdivision Committee twice and recall the first Subdivision Committee we talked a lot about trying to make the development more in the spirit of the community, somehow involve them, and as a result of that, rather than having two entrances, we provided the loop through the property that did cross over the drainage. In addition to that crossing over the drainage basin, we've also added a pedestrian bridge and you will see a sidewalk that is going up to 6th Street along the access on the east end of the property. We did try to contact the neighborhood association that you asked us to and did contact the president, but they haven't been active in a while. At our second Subdivision Committee, most of the attention was on the detention and we did address that and obviously have engineering staff satisfied with that. We would remind you, as you heard from Andrew, that this is a downzoning. You know, it's a residential development with 20 units. It's not nearly as much traffic as you would get if you put a Wendy's there or whatever. It is a residential area -- it's only one mile from downtown -- that we think is viable, and we agree to the conditions that have been suggested for this. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. McDonald. Commissioners? Harris: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Harris. Harris: I've seen this development go through at least one, if not two, iterations and I think that the additions and amendments to it have been significant Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 105 and good. My ongoing concern is, and this is just -- I'm going to take it back to Mr. Pate -- visiting the site and looking again, the stacking distance, if you will, as you turn left onto 6th and then Mashburn right there, the city is convinced that this is going to be safe? Pate: Are you questioning turning left out of this development? Harris: Yes. Pate: With the amount of units that are actually proposed, it's quite insignificant, to be honest. If this were zoned -- it is zoned C-2 -- or developed as a commercial development, I think our concerns would be much greater simply because if you're looking at a -- even an office -type use, which traditionally has a lower traffic peak hour, there's still a lunch period and still a dinner time and everyone getting there at the same time. Your peak -hour traffic would be much greater, in my opinion. I think this will be more staggered. Typically, it is with residential areas, as opposed to an office or a restaurant where everyone is gathering or leaving at the same time at that some location. In a residential setting, while everyone may be going to work at 8 o'clock, they're usually staggered, so I think that the way they have been able to connect these two drives is critically important simply because it allows for two means of ingress and egress from the property. While I think the proximity to Mashburn could be better, they're also limited by the property that they have, and we did work -- the applicants did work quite diligently to get those as far away as possible. As you can see, the one part to the west has been pushed back as far probably as it can away from that intersection. So we feel that the stacking will be adequate. As I mentioned on the tour, that slope will be brought back, which really in effect makes a steeper driveway because we aren't creating a section there for it to allow for that turning -- stacking, turning movement. I'm not sure if engineering has any other comments to that. Newman: We have no comment beyond that. Thank you. Harris: Thank you. I would also like to just reiterate what was said earlier, that this is a downzoning. Certainly, I think at Subdivision Committee we heard citizens speak about this and they had concerns about density and just about fitting in with the neighborhood and so forth. But I really am -- I do think that the developers, the applicants, have made tremendous strides in making this sort of community -friendly and addressing the community in a way that wasn't in the original presentation, and so I will be in favor of this tonight. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 106 Anthes: Thank you, Commissioner Harris. Are there further comments? Ostner: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: A question for the applicant. How much fall is across this property north to south? McDonald: From the street to the back or from the lower front? Ostner: From the street to the southern -- Scott: Hi. Art Scott, Project Design Consultants. There's a slope of approximately 10 feet off of 6th Street down to where the property begins to flatten out and it drops probably 4 or 5 feet across there. We do have some grading to list the buildings up, and so at the end we do have some more grading to make it conform with the south end of the site, but the driveways are a little over 6 percent on the east side, a little over 9 percent on the west side, with a flat area at the top of both, 2 percent or so, 2 to 3 percent, so the drives themselves are fairly decent. Pate: The majority of the slope is actually outside the property. It's in the right- of-way that's shown there. I think there's -- it ranges from 72 feet to 82 feet south of centerline for that right-of-way, which is one of the reasons this application came before us as a PZD as opposed to zoning in typical large-scale development. Because, obviously, having 82 feet as opposed to 25 feet from centerline of right-of-way was quite excessive, and not being able to really vacate that right-of-way because it comes down to the toe of the slope but obviously reducing the setbacks or something, I don't see an issue there because you're so far away from the street and also downhill from the street. That was one of the primary reasons that this came through as a planned zoning district. Ostner: I was more concerned with the site and its appropriateness than I was with who owns which part of the slope. This is a steep little area for large block buildings, in general. We generally see these four-plexes on more gently sloping area. Are there any retaining walls planned? Scott: Yeah. We have a couple of walls that are 4, 5, 6 feet on the south side, southeast side, and then also a little on the northeast side next to that commercial area. Ostner: But on the west side you see it all being with grading? Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 107 Scott: Yes, sir. Ostner: So on the northeast it would be retaining earth and the project below, and on the southeast it would be project above off site at the bottom of the slope? Scott: Yes, exactly. Ostner: A 9 -percent driveway is steep. Scott: You know, 2 percent would be better. Ostner: You bet it would. I think concrete can handle a half -percent, but, I mean, that's -- Scott: Obviously, it's what we had to work with. I think it's safe enough, and they can use the 6 percent. We did at one time have two separate drives. Ostner: Well, you've still got two, they just -- Scott: They can access it -- Ostner: -- have a choice. Scott: 6 percent isn't too bad at all. I mean, there's a lot of streets and driveways in Fayetteville that are beyond that. Ostner: Right. Okay. It's the site and how it's being manipulated that I just can't get over. This is appropriate to have multifamily here to some extent. I'm glad they're trying to do a PZD. I do not think it's -- it has to be the transition between a commercial district and a residential. This commercial area, quote, is ripe for redevelopment. It's just kind of hanging around. You know, these guys haven't invested millions in their commercial buildings. I don't think all that grading with 9 -percent and 6 - percent driveways and all the retaining walls is going to work for the neighborhood. I think it's too intense. Scott: I think the issue with the commercial is it's very poor visibility for anything that went in there unless they filled it 10 or 15 or more feet. Ostner: That's my point. Scott: So it's not -- we felt like it was much more, as a building site, much more Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 108 viable for a residential. Ostner: That's what I'm trying to say. I don't think this has to be as heavy multifamily as you all have drawn it. The way you all have drawn it is a good transition from a viable heavy-duty commercial zone down to a residential zone. I don't see that heavy commercial zone next door. I see a commercial zone that hasn't really been developed yet. Scott: Okay. Ostner: So I don't think all this impact on the neighborhood is appropriate. Because this is heavy impact with building this many buildings this tight in here, having to do all these retaining walls. I understand why the neighbors are concerned. My next question, the staff has added a condition of approval that a stub -out to the south occur, and it should. Have you all looked into that carefully? It sounds like that's a pretty steep part of your site. Scott: I guess -- that's the first time we've heard of it was this evening. I think probably on the west driveway would be the most feasible place. I would have to look at that and see if we can do something with our design to make that work or maybe just provide an access easement since it's not a public street, it's just a private driveway. Ostner: Well, for me, I'm pretty much moratorium on access easements that aren't built. If it's going to connect, it needs to be built. I would suggest that -- that might be significant, that condition of approval. I would hate to approve it tonight with that condition of approval in writing, and six months from now when you all are trying to get your permit, "Whoops, we can't make it that way. I've got to come back to the Planning Commission and try to get out of that connection. It's too steep. It doesn't work." I think that's significant. I don't think we should approve it without you all drawing that in, making sure you can do it. I'm not sure that building can still be there after you grade for that stub -out to the south. Scott: If you would like us to try and design something here, we can take that time, but it seems like there's a -- there seems to be some solution. Maybe -- I don't know if staff has looked at that, a reasonable -- if there's a way to do that on the west or not. I don't believe you can do that on the east driveway. Anthes: Mr. Scott, if you could speak into the microphone so that we can get it for the minutes. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 109 Scott: I do not believe we could do that on the east driveway. That is too steep in that area. Ostner: Is the condition of approval on the west side, Jeremy? Pate: It's not specific. We thought it was actually a relatively minor comment. The entire loop drive is to be located with an access easement, and one of those, whichever was more -- in terms of construction, whichever was more feasible, we would look at for a southern stub -out. It's most likely the one to the west. It's got probably less than half a percent slope across the parking area currently. So that would simply relocate the Dumpster to a different location, probably a little further to the west than where it is right now, and provide for a 24 -foot -wide drive -- curb -cut on that area. There are no retaining walls or anything on that southwest side. Ostner: But it's a steep slope. Pate: Not on the southwest side. There's about a half a percent slope, I believe, on that driveway. Is that correct? Ostner: Well, he didn't seem to think so. Is that fairly at grade connection at the southwest corner -- Newman: Based on the -- Ostner: -- where the Dumpster is and make that stub -out connection without a major redesign. Newman: It's -- well, right now with the retaining wall it looks like they're showing about a 5 -foot fill at that location. So without some earthwork, it doesn't appear that that would be simple in either location. On to the east is very near an existing pond right now. You need to be south of it. But the one to the west would more than likely be closer in elevation and it's a possibility if that is -- that is something they can work out and look at. Scott: I think what I would propose is, that because of the drainage there, the off- site drainage, that we leave that high and stub it out with it high, and whoever connects to it connects to that high also because of that drainage. Newman: What be's also referring to, the existing ditch, the 40 -foot easement there, a hundred -year water service elevation is requiring the duplex or four- plexes to be at the elevation shown, which is within a foot of what they're showing their driveway, so grading does reflect what the finished floor Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 110 needs to be next to that drainage. Connectivity may be -- I don't know if it would be better for the next developer to get to that point, but any grading in that location we looked at before without the retaining walls, the commissioners that were at the Subdivision Committee, was a little too steep in those areas, so that's why they came back with retaining walls. Does that answer your question? Ostner: I believe you just said that the stub -out could possibly be worthless because the land to the south would have to be filled up to it. Newman: Yeah. Ostner: So if the land to the south didn't want to fill up to it, no connection. Newman: That would be correct. Ostner: I mean, possible. Newman: Possible, but they would also -- to meet the drainage that's immediately adjacent to this development to get to the hundred -year flood elevation, they need to be above, so they would be need to build -- Ostner: I understand. Newman: Okay. Ostner: I'm not saying they lower their project down to the flood -- Newman: Yes. Ostner: I'm saying the opposite, that the stub -out is probably not viable with the pond and the retaining walls. Pate: It may not be. Ostner: To me, the stub -out is important because there's a lot of vacant property to the south. I'm just suggesting that that will probably never happen, since it's not drawn and it hasn't been put through the hopper. Pate: Obviously, we can remove that condition if you don't feel that it is a valuable condition, but our look at this, a lot of the grading for this project is based on what finished floor elevation these buildings have to be at. So they're established at a minimum floor elevation. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page I I I Ostner: I'm thoroughly familiar with that. I'm trying to say the opposite, that since we're calling for a stub -out, I don't think that will ever happen. It will be a Dumpster pad 5 feet above grade, compared to the southern property. And the southern property would have to fill up to it for that stub -out to go through. Pate: Or to develop, period. If they -- Ostner: Well, he might have another access point. I mean, he could develop at a different grade. That doesn't have to be a building right there. So I'm just suggesting, since we haven't put it through the hopper and haven't drawn it, that that condition of a stub -out is probably never going to happen. So if that's important, then it shouldn't be counted on. That's all I'm saying. Thank you. Those are the extent of my comments. Anthes: Well, when we went out here on tour we all just kind of stood around and shook our heads and thought what in the world to do. Obviously, the environmental impact on this site is large, and that drainage easement, I'm still a little confused about the detention and the weir and how that's all going to work and if that's safe and, you know, how that's going to be handled. I would love for engineering to tell me a little bit more about the weir. But the other thing I looked at is that the site immediately -- in fact, where we parked to look at it -- the site immediately to the east has been filled up to the level of Huntsville Road, and I'm not sure that that's a great way to handle things either, just to dump a bunch of dirt in there and compact it and say, "Okay," you know, "we're done." And now there are no egress problems or slope problems or grading problems or anything else. It also kills every single tree and does all sorts of other things that aren't necessarily great. So could engineering describe this weir and how the water really runs through this property and talk about the safety of that for the residents? Like, how deep is this thing? Newman: Okay. Yes, they are proposing detention on this site within the 40 -foot drainage easement that basically splits the site right now. And the normal flow up to a 25 -year rainfall event is designed to go through or underneath the connection through three culverts. Beyond the 25 -year storm event, the water will overtop that access between the two -- between the developments. And up to the hundred -year storm event is designed with a water elevation of just under 8 inches, would be overtopping the road for the hundred -year storm event. In our conditional approval we have requested that the developer put a guardrail on the down -stream side of the access roadway to prevent anyone or any vehicle from being washed downstream during a large rainfall event, because the water in the ditch downstream, even though above the road it would be about 8 inches, the Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 112 ditch itself would be full of water, which would be about 5 feet deep. That's what we're looking at in that area. Anthes: So that ditch would be 5 -Foot deep of water during the kind of rain we had last week? Newman: I'm not sure the rainfall intensity we had last week, but it would not be -- it should have been closer to maybe a 10 -year storm event we had, and that would still be probably about 8 to 9 inches below the roadway from their design they proposed. Anthes: Okay. So 8 to 9 inches below the roadway, but still quite a deep amount of water in a structure that children might be playing in. Does that occur very often in our city? Newman: The frequency of the rainfall events that we've had? Anthes: No, I meant structures like this that have a lot of water flowing through them right adjacent to multifamily structures. Newman: I may have to ask Mr. Casey to finish that response. Casey: I can't think of anything specifically, but we have large drainage structures all over town, and they're accessible to people who want to be in them. Anthes: I'm sorry, Mr. Williams, did you have -- Pate: You're referring to the park system which has floodway and floodplain and major drain systems through them? Anthes: Uh-huh. Okay. So you're convinced that this can be handled well when it's properly engineered and we shouldn't be worried and -- Pate: There are single-family structures in the general vicinity right now, and obviously, the pipes go under 6th Street right now that the city constructed, I believe. Anthes: Commissioner Harris. Ostner: Well -- Harris: Go ahead. Ostner: Thank you. Just a question for engineering. This drainage structure has Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 113 vertical walls, does it not? Newman: No, sir, it does not. Ostner: Okay. It's angled, sort of rip -rap or -- Newman: No, they have not stated rip -rap at this time. I would propose it would be sodded and lined as a normal detention, but yes, sir, it would be sloped, a sloped ditch as they propose. It appears a head -wall at the upstream end of the crossing and then it would top the road, and then basically a sloped to the other side, to the existing ditch downstream and continue on its path. Ostner: Okay. So let's say this thing is built as drawn and I'm on the south side looking up at Huntsville and facing north, I'm going to see concrete side slopes, concrete bottom, probably fences so people don't go into it, and then I'm going to see a concrete slope this way for the spillway, for the water to come over at a pretty good rate? Newman: Yes, sir. Ostner: It's not going to be like grass, probably. Newman: No, it would not be grass, but you're first description of the concrete at the channel itself, that has not been proposed in their design. They've -- it may be as they go -- Ostner: I'm just thinking this thing is probably going to carry a lot of water. Newman: Yes, sir. Ostner: And it's going to erode if it's not held down, so -- Newman: Yes, sir. Ostner: I mean, let's say the chances are 50150 that it looks that way. McDonald: Yeah. We talked about it being some type of decorative river rock, you know, when we talked about it at the first Subdivision Committee, making that channel some type of rock channel that goes through there -- what we had envisioned. Ostner: Okay. But it does sound a little bit dangerous and it's probably going to have fences or some sort of barrier that's all rock and big. I mean, I'm not Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 114 going to hold you to it. I'm just -- McDonald: Again, you know, the flow that's coming through here, one of our arguments in the beginning was we would rather not slow the flow down because -- I don't know the exact percentage, but a very, very large percentage of the flow isn't coming from our development, it's coming off the hill. And, you know, we're putting this weir in there to provide detention, but we're really just slowing the water down just ever so slightly. It's coming off the hill, in essence and so, you know, it's not anything -- we don't need to retain it too much, we need it to go on through the -- I think they're 36 -inch pipes that are on -- Newman: I believe that's what you have. Three of them. McDonald: Three 36 -inch pipes that go under the road that let this water go on through. Ostner: Okay. McDonald: And again, the type of rain you're talking about that comes over the road is designed to happen once every 25 years, you know, a 25 -year flood. Motion: Ostner: Okay. Those are frequently wrong. We've been getting 25 -year storms every five years -- three in a row every five years. I'm just saying this to try to visualize the significance of this drainage structure. It's not just a little thing. It's a big thing compared to the size of this site, which is very small. I think it's a significant structure. Here again, my point, if the site weren't being developed so heavily, that structure wouldn't be so prominent and it wouldn't be such an obtrusive part. So I kind of go back to my opinion that I believe this site is being developed too heavily for this proposal. I'll make a motion that we deny R-PZD 06-2169. Anthes: I have a motion to deny by Commissioner Ostner. Do I hear a second? Myres: I'll second. Anthes: A second by Commissioner Myres. Is there further discussion? Harris: Madame Chair. Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Harris. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 115 Harris: I take on board discussions about the engineering of this project, at the same time I would put those -- that discussion down as an appropriate and good discussion about the challenges that are going to face us when we discuss infill in this city --because there's a reason this site hasn't already been built on -- and a commitment to infill and especially to infill that is not sort of endless franchise chains. Nothing against them, but we're looking at particular neighborhoods, which I think it's appropriate not to bring in endless franchise chains to make it Hamburger Strip, or whatever that is called. I continue to want to work with the development that's proposed here. So I don't know exactly what the procedural strategy will be after we finish with your motion, but I want to, if in fact your motion fails, I would like to come back and think about what might we try next to table this. We've either had people not show up tonight or we've tabled it. That seems to be our jobs here tonight. But those are my comments for now. Thank you. Anthes: I struggle with this one because I think this development actually does a lot of things right: that it provides density in an infill growth sector of our city that's been identified; that I think the residential use in this area is good rather than the C-2 that it's currently zoned; that I agree with the development team in that they've avoided the urge to completely fill the site and start with something level up at the street and kind of destroy the natural terrain and vegetation in the area. I want to support it for a lot of different reasons, but I just keep coming back to one question, and that is: are we asking more of this site than it can actually deliver and deliver well? And I'm afraid I'd have to agree with a lot of the questions Commissioner Ostner was asking. You know, he's kind of getting at, well, can we really get connectivity? Can we really support the kind of grades we need to get in these driveways? Are we putting the right amount of concrete and asphalt on this site where there's a lot of fast runoff already and a big drainage structure. What are we doing to the adjacent properties by doing this. And I'm just to the point now -- well, I came to this meeting thinking I was going to just bite the bullet and say yes. Now I'm thinking we might be asking more of this site than is really possible to do on it and do well. Is there further discussion? Ostner: Yes, Madame Chair. I'm sorry, I do have one question of the applicant. You mentioned you attempted to get in touch with the neighborhood group. Who did you try to get in touch with? Because I'm friends with some of those folks and -- Earnest: I visited with Ralph Meson, and Stan Lancaster is the current president. According to Mr. Meson, they have not met in over a year. He volunteered to contact Mr. Lancaster. We're certainly receptive at any Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 116 time to meeting with the neighborhood group and telling them about this project, but that association, as you well know, Walker -- Jefferson was formed for the specific purpose of dealing with the Jefferson situation and they have not been active recently. I'm quoting Mr. Meson. Anthes: Mr. Earnest, will you state your name. Earnest: Hugh Earnest. Sorry. Ostner: Okay. Well, that's sort of a different take than the way I heard it. I mentioned it to a friend in that group today and he said, "You've got to be kidding me. We want to know about this. We've never seen it. I missed the sign. Who's in charge?" It was not the two guys you mentioned. So I just wanted to make that clear. I don't think -- Earnest: Well, we went to a past president and a president. Ostner: And it's not your fault. I just wanted to try to get to the bottom of it. Earnest: Fair enough. Ostner: I think the neighborhood would have a great deal to say, and it's not these guys' fault. McDonald: May I make one more comment, if I hurry? Anthes: Yes, go right ahead. McDonald: We've spent a lot of time talking about the drainage structure that's in the center of the project. Please remember when we brought this forth we didn't have that drainage structure in the center of the project. We had two driveways going down in this, and we added that after our first Subdivision Committee, to try to provide a crossway between the project and put a pedestrian bridge over that, and we thought we were trying to respond to some of your comments with that. Anthes: I think you have. I think you've been working this thing that's really difficult, really hard. We have a motion to deny. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to deny R-PZD 06-2169 fails with a vote of 2-6-0 with Commissioners Bryant, Graves, Lack, Harris, Trumbo and Anthes voting no. Commissioner Clark was absent. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 117 Motion: Anthes: I'd like to move that we table R-PZD 06-2169 indefinitely. Harris: Second. Anthes: A motion to table by Commissioner Anthes, with a second by Commissioner Harris. Is there further discussion? Ostner: Madame Chair. Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: I think it's appropriate to be very specific, even if we have to go down the line, as to what each of us might require if a tabling motion passes. I've said a lot, but I'm just one person. Anthes: I think I was pretty clear about my list. Any other commissioners want to add to that? Lack: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Lack. Lack: I would have voted for this PZD in its existing form. I am disappointed to see four-plexes on, you know, kind of a flat -slab building on this kind of a sloped hillside lot, but I don't know that I see a means that we regulate that. We do in the Hillside Ordinance. We've started talking about depth of retaining walls, but even with the depth of retaining walls that we've suggested might be appropriate, those are in the range of what we're seeing with the retaining walls here. So in that I had not gone on record with comment, I will just say that I would have voted for this in its existing form. Graves: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Graves: I would echo what Commissioner Lack said and I'll vote against the motion to table for that reason. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Ostner: I'm sorry, Madame Chair. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 118 Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: I would just like to ask engineering and possibly the applicant, what about putting pipe in instead of leaving this drainage easement open? Has that option been investigated? Newman: You're referring to completely enclosing the ditch that's between the development; is that what I'm understanding? Ostner: It's completely enclosed going under Huntsville, except for Huntsville's runoff, so yes, just extending that -- Newman: The purpose of the weir and the smaller pipes in that location was for detention, so putting pipes just to fully pass the flow would not meet the intention; however, they could use subsurface detention onsite in another location, other than the ditch may be an alternate that may be less costly and may satisfy your concern, but that would not fully enclose that. That's more the developer would look at the expense and determine if it's viable to enclose that. The structure would be rather large to convey all the water in a pipe system, similar to what's underneath 6th Street right now. I believe it's a 4 -by -6 box, if I'm correct. Ostner: Well, I saw them do underground detention at the Auto Zone on 6th. I mean, they had 800 miles of pipes and they put it under their site and it was detained, and I was just curious how that would -- on tiny sites with a lot of drainage, it's a problem. McDonald: And we've put in underground detention before, but it would be a massive structure that would have to go all the way across this site to take all the water that's coming off of the surrounding development through there. You know, if we need to put a fence alongside this ditch and that would make everyone feel more comfortable, we could do that. I don't -- you know, I'd want to entertain whether that's really safer, having a fence on each side of it, if someone were to get in it during a catastrophic flood, one way or another, but -- Ostner: I guess I didn't know you were required to detain other people's drainage. I thought detaining his own -- McDonald: But we have to do it in the scope of all that water coming off the hill. Ostner: We have to manage theirs and contain yours, the way I understand it. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 119 Newman: But they have chosen the way they have proceeded with their drainage design to basically combine all the water and release the total at a little bit smaller rate. They would be permitted to allow the entire flow from offsite to go through their property if they detain individually on either side or combine for that site. The way they have proceeded with detention on this development is why they're doing -- is why the proposal you're seeing in front of you. Ostner: So if we separate the two problems, the water that's created by your site and the water that's passing through, actually that detaining issue is much, much smaller? McDonald: Much. Ostner: Am I right? I just want to make that clear. McDonald: A few weeks ago we were contending it was negligent. We've been convinced otherwise. Ostner: Well, it might still be if other options are investigated. Thank you. Anthes: Yes, I'd be concerned with the velocity coming out of that pipe on the other end of this project and what that would do to the adjoining property. I've just seen water -- Ostner: It's coming out of it right now. Anthes: -- shooting out of a pipe over near Mullins Creek that looks like a fire hose just eroding the bank, and I guess I'm happy that they're trying to actually slow down the water on this property. Is there further discussion? Okay, this is a motion to table. Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to table R-PZD 06-2169 fails with a vote of 3-5-0, with Commissioners Ostner, Bryant, Graves, Lack, and Trumbo voting no. Commissioner Clark was absent. Anthes: Okay. Lack: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Lack. Motion: Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 120 Lack: I will make a motion that we approve or we send forward to City Council with a recommendation for approval R-PZD 06-2169 with staff's stated conditions of approval, giving special consideration to Item 1, street improvements, in which they state that no street improvements are recommended. Graves: I'll second. Anthes: We have a motion to forward by Commissioner Lack, with a second by Commissioner Graves. Does anybody want to say anything? Let's vote. Ostner: I have a question. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: I have a question for the motioner. When you say special consideration, what do you mean? Emphasis? Lack: Well, I have -- they have asked for a determination on that one particular item, so specially considering that we have -- or special attention that we have considered that item. Ostner: Thank you. Anthes: Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to forward R-PZD 06-2169 carries with a vote of 5-3-0, with Commissioners Ostner, Myres, and Anthes voting no. Commissioner Clark was absent. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 121 ADM 06-2283: Administrative Item (PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAW AMENDMENT) Requested by the Planning Commission, proposed amendments include limiting time for presentations/public comment, clarifying rules for abstention from voting, and adding rules for adding items to a final agenda. Anthes: Our next item, Item 17, is Administrative Item 06-2283, Planning Commission Bylaw Amendment. What I understand is that this is for our review. The vote will actually be held on this item at our next regularly scheduled meeting. Does staff want to make a presentation? Pate: Sure. As requested at the last Planning Commission meeting, this -- several amendments were requested, and I have simply made what I felt were appropriate statements and comments and revisions and amendments to your bylaws and highlighted those. Those start on Page 1 of your -- sorry, Page 2 of 8 of your report. It would strike out a sentence in Item B for the chair to transmit reports and recommendations of the Commission, as obviously, staff does that for you. Also instead of sending out mail notice, I've just replaced that with notify and giving telephone notice, struck that as well. We do many things by e-mail now, so I just took that out altogether. Under Article III(e), this language for the abstention was added. So it states that at this point in time, and it's certainly up for discussion, "Any member who abstains should inform the Chair of his or her intention prior to commencement of discussion of the item." That's what exists now. The following will be added, "At that time, prior to commencement of discussion of the item, the abstaining member shall withdraw -- or members -- shall withdraw from the Planning Commission meeting and shall not speak of the respective item until a vote has been cast by the remaining members of the Commission. Following a vote concerning the matter, the abstaining member may return to his seat." And that is simply a proposal for that language. Item G, again, changed mailed to distributed. Item H discusses, "The presentation by an applicant on an item of consideration shall be confined to information pertinent to the application and shall be limited to a period of time not to exceed 20 minutes for the applicant. A speaking time limit of 10 minutes per citizen or 20 minutes per neighborhood group shall be enforced by the chair, and all comments should be directed to information pertinent to the application, as determined by the chair. Extension of said speaking time for any person or group shall be only permitted by the chair upon petition." And, of course, by emphasizing this, this would, I think, do two things: One, it would notify the applicants, and the public citizenry, we would notify them on the front sheet -- as you've seen, we've changed that -- and post that outside, probably very legibly, maybe even create their Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 122 own sheet for this meeting, laminate it or something of that nature. But it also, just for your knowledge, will give them the right to speak for that 20 minutes or that 10 minutes or however long the Commission decides that to be. So just make sure that by clarifying it you're also opening yourselves up that they do have the right to speak to that length, so I just want to make sure you're aware of that. We don't typically see that very often, to be honest with you. I doubt we had anyone exceed much of that time limit tonight, but that's for your consideration. And then Item M, "An item may be considered for consideration to the final agenda of the Planning Commission only by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the voting members," which is essentially a super majority, "and if the item has met all notifications requirements of the Unified Development Code." That essentially is to clarify allowing items to be added to the agenda at the meeting as we did two weeks ago, I believe. We didn't really have any direction to do that or not do that, and so we've added that language in. Most items would not be eligible for that, just so you know, so I don't see a watershed of items coming on your agenda at the meeting. Most items, with the exception of administrative items, there are a couple of others that don't require notification, but most of our items require notification be in place. That just gives the Commission direction in its bylaws to be able to do that. Anthes: Mr. Pate, I have a couple of questions. On Page 1, Article II, Item (b), it says, "All plans, plats, etcetera, requiring the signature of the Planning Commission will be signed by the chair or vice -chair and the secretary when authorized by the Commission." It was my understanding that the secretary only signs those plats. Pate: When -- Right. Perhaps we could change that to "or secretary," instead of "and." Anthes: Okay. Pate: We do like to have the ability if the secretary is not available to have any of the others sign, so -- Anthes: This seems to indicate, though, that two signatures are required, and really only one is, right? Pate: That's true. Anthes: Okay. So if we could clean that up. On Page 3(g), at the top. "The order of business at all regular meetings shall be as follows": and it has, Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 123 "reading of minutes of the previous meeting." I don't think we ever intend to read our minutes. Pate: That next paragraph, that's in most bylaws, to be honest with you. Anthes: Okay. Pate: The next sentence there says, "except reading of minutes may be dispensed with by unanimous vote or a copy of the minutes as distributed to the commissioners may be approved without reading." I think that's the language that's typical to most -- most bodies that vote, appointed or elected, reading of the minutes, and, of course, most of them suspend or dispense those rules and just vote on them. Anthes: Okay. So you don't think there's any need to clarify that. All right. And then -- Graves: We're going to make you do it. (Laughter) Ostner: And watch it on TV again. Myres: And who would get to read it? Anthes: One last thing that I thought I'd pose to the commissioners, on the bottom of Page 5 -- oh, it's Number 4, Item C, about the Subdivision Committee consisting of three Planning Commissioners serving as a standing committee. We seem to have decided that we like the three -team approach and I wondered whether we wanted to formalize that approach in our bylaws or leave it standing. Commissioner Myres. Myres: We can always take it out. What Jeremy feels -- Pate: I started with that, just because I knew the change has been, I guess, relatively popular -- popular from the Planning Commission. I started trying to create that language. Anthes: It sure is popular for those of us that sat on that sucker for years on end. Myres: It seemed -- only seemed like years. Graves: They conveniently started doing that right when my term ended. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 124 Pate: After I drafted it I read it again without the language and it really gives the Chair the option to appoint those three. If something changed again, I'd rather have -- probably have the -- just the availability of that, but it's your bylaws, so if you want me to come up with language that says three members shall serve every three terms, etcetera, etcetera, I can do that. It's your call. Ostner: I'd be in favor of changing to promote what we're doing, if anything else to shed light to the poor guys who are going to try to volunteer who read this and say, "Oh, maybe I don't have to be on that committee." Myres: Every single week or every single -- Yeah. Ostner: And you can still phrase it "or chair can have" -- Myres: Yeah. And we change the bylaws all the time, and if it seems cumbersome or a future Planning Commission doesn't want it, they can change it. Ostner: We never change the bylaws. Graves: I was going to say this is the first time we've ever changed them. Ostner: Two and a half -- we talked that we can, but we don't, two and a half years ago. Myres: But we're doing it now. Ostner: Don't jinx it. Anthes: Anybody else have any comments regarding that? Would you mind drafting new language (inaudible) there. Okay. So we don't need to take any action on that? Pate: No. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 125 Anthes: Okay. We have one other option available to us tonight. Earlier tonight we tabled indefinitely Administrative Item 06-2282 for Emerald Point. The applicant notified me at the break that they were actually here for that meeting but they had stepped out of the room. So if we would like, we could -- I would entertain a motion to reconsider that item this evening. Graves: I have a point of clarification or -- I still don't know what it's called, but does somebody who moved to table it, does it have to be one of the motioners -- Pate: Yes. Graves: -- that moves to bring it back? Pate: That's correct. Graves: Who -- Anthes: Or the affirmative votes, I think. Pate: Right. Anthes: I have two or three different motions written down on my sheet. I think we -- Graves: And then to put it back on the -- to put it back on the agenda, what does the vote have to be? Pate: It has to be a two-thirds vote to reconsider. Graves: Two-thirds vote to put it back on the agenda? Pate: That's correct. It was 6 to 2, and all but Ostner and Graves voted to table. So any member besides Ostner and Graves would have to motion to reconsider. Motion: Anthes: I'll move that we reconsider Administrative Item 06-2282, adding it to tonight's agenda. Trumbo: I'll second. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 126 Anthes: A motion to reconsider by Commissioner Anthes and a second by Commissioner Trumbo. This will take how many affirmative votes to pass? Ostner: Six. Myres: Five. Graves: Six. Pate: Six Anthes: Six. All right. Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to reconsider ADM 06-2282 fails 5-3-0, with Commissioners Myres, Graves, and Harris voting no. Commissioner Clark was absent. Pate: Did not get the required amount of votes. Anthes: I'm sorry. The motion failed 5 to 3. I guess we'll see this item on our next agenda. Pate: Yes. It will be on old business. Anthes: All right. Myres: You'll be first. Anthes: Are there any announcements? This meeting is adjourned. The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 127