Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-10-23 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on October 23, 2006 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN ADM 06-2321: (VANTAGE CENTER PZD) Approved Page 4 FPL 06-2192: (ROCKHAVEN, 245) Approved Page 4 FPL 06-2260: (STONEBRIDE PH 5) Approved Page 4 PPL 06-2280: (STEELE BUSINESS PARK, 173) Approved Page 4 VAC 06-2290: (GRUBBS, 248) Approved Page 4 LSD 06-2265: (MAYNARD, 717) Tabled Page 5 R-PZD 06-2196: (WEST FORK PLACE, 565/566) Tabled Page 6 ADM 06-2322: (NORTH STREET ROW DED VAR) Forwarded Page 7 VAC 06-2289: (ARCHER, 442) Tabled Page 14 R-PZD 06-1884: (WESTSIDE VILLAGE, 439) Forwarded Page 36 R-PZD 06-2107: (CHAMPIONS CLUB CONDOS, 599) Forwarded Page 72 CUP 06-2284: (CALYPSO PROPERTIES, 595) Approved Page 90 RZN 06-2291: (HWY 16 ANIMAL HOSPITAL, 567) Forwarded Page 110 ADM 06-2252: (FUTURE LAND USE MAP) Forwarded Page 113 ADM 06-2323: (URBAN RES. DESIGN STANDARDS) No Action Taken Page 129 Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 3 of 139 MEMBERS PRESENT Jill Anthes Lois Bryant Candy Clark Alan Ostner Hilary Harris Andy Lack Christine Myres Sean Trumbo STAFFPRESENT Matt Casey Andrew Garner Suzanne Morgan Jesse Fulcher CITY ATTORNEY: Kit Williams MEMBERS ABSENT James Graves STAFF ABSENT Glenn Newman Sarah Patterson Jeremy Pate Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 4 of 139 Anthes: Good evening and welcome to the Monday, October 23, 2006 meeting of the City of Fayetteville Planning Commission. I would like to remind audience members and commissioners to turn of cell phones and pagers. I would also like to remind the audience that listening devices are available if you have difficulty hearing. If you let someone in the staff know they can provide you with a headset. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call Bryant, Ostner, Lack, Harris, Clark, Trumbo, Myres, and Anthes are present. Graves is absent. Anthes: We have six items on the consent agenda this evening. The first is approval of the minutes from the Sept 11, 2006 meeting, and I have forwarded my comments to staff. ADM 06-2321 (Vantage Center PZD) Submitted by Jerry Kelso requesting an approval extension of the mixed-use Planned Zoning District for a period of one year. FPL 06-2192: Final Plat (ROCKHAVEN, 245): Submitted by STEADFAST, INC. for property located east of SALEM RD., north of Crystal Springs Phase I. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 10.00 acres. The request is for approval of a final plat for a residential subdivision with 31 single family dwelling units. FPL 06-2260: Final Plat (STONEBRIDGE PHASE 5): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING for property located at GOFF FARM RD., E OF CRESCENT LAKE S/D. The request is to approve the final plat of a residential subdivision with 70 single family lots. PPL 06-2280: Preliminary Plat (STEELE BUSINESS PARK, 173): Submitted by MCCLELLAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS for property located at THE NE CORNER OF STEELE BOULDEVARD AND VAN ASCHE DRIVE. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 22.75 acres. The request is for 5 commercial lots ranging in size from 1.7 to 7.35 acres. VAC 06-2290: (GRUBBS, 248): Submitted by RICHARD L. GRUBBS for property located at LOT 6, BLOCK 1 OF THE NORTHPOINT S/D ON POINT CIRCLE. The property is zoned C- 2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL. The request is to vacate a portion of a utility easement on the subject property. Anthes: Would any member of the public of the Commission like to remove one of these items to be heard? Seeing none, I will take motions to approve the consent agenda. Roll Call: The consent agenda was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 5 of 139 LSD 06-2265: Large Scale Development (MAYNARD, 717): Submitted by MILHOLLAND COMPANY for property located at SE WILLOUGHBY AND MCCOLLUM. The property is zoned I-1, HEAVY COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUST and contains approximately 2.95 acres. The request is for extended development, grading and entrance paving for an existing industrial use structure. Anthes: The applicant has requested that this item be tabled indefinitely. Do we need to hear any sort of report? OK. Motion: Clark: I motion to table indefinitely. Anthes: Motion to table by Commissioner Clark. Myres: Second. Anthes: Seconded by Commissioner Myers. Ostner: Madam Chair. Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Ostner? Ostner: I do have a question for staff. I was just wondering why this applicant has requested this be tabled indefinitely? Garner: The applicant disagreed with staff recommendations on street improvements. And, they have a letter they have sent to us deciding they wanted to table it to be further discussed with staff. I'm not sure if Suzanne has any other thoughts. Morgan: The only thing I would add to that is that the applicant would just like to reevaluate the extent of proposed development on this site, and may withdraw it altogether. Ostner: Ok, thank you. Anthes: Thank you for reminding me of that. Roll Call: The LSD 06-2265 for Maynard was tabled by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 6 of 139 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 59 single-family dwellings: 30 attached and 29 detached. Anthes: I understand that this applicant has also requested that this item be tabled. Can you enlighten us, Mr. Garner? Garner: The applicant has discussed with us that they would like to meet with the neighborhood to discuss some of the issues that were brought up at the previous Planning Commission meeting. So that is the main reason. They plan on bringing this back to us after they have had further discussion with the neighbors. Anthes: And I assume that's until the next regularly scheduled meeting? Garner: I believe so. Fulcher: Yes, that has to be tabled until the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Motion: Clark: I motion to table R-PZD 06-2196. Ostner: Second. Anthes: A motion by Commissioner Clark a second by Commissioner Ostner, can you call roll. Roll Call: The R-PZD 06-2196 for West Fork Place was tabled by a vote of 8-0-0. Ostner: Myres didn't vote. Myers: I didn't get a chance to vote (laughing) Garner: I'm sorry, Commissioner Myres. (general laughing and talking) Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 7 of 139 ADM 06-2322: (North Street ROW Dedication Variance): Submitted by Josh and Eloise Pettit for property located at 1104 N. COLLEGE AVENUE requesting a variance of the Master Street Plan right-of-way for North Street in the manner indicated to allow the existing building footprint to remain within the right-of-way and additions to the building which will further encroach within the Master Street Plan right-of-way. Morgan: This application is for 1104 N. College Ave. It is the northeast corner of College Ave and North St. This site was developed in 1966 for a pharmaceutical store, and it recently was the USA drug store which has been relocated further north on College. The building is 1800 sq feet on the property and there is parking associated with that building. An evaluation of the location of this building and the site plan, which was surveyed, was prepared by the applicant. We can see that the existing structure encroaches into the 55ft Master Street Plan rise grade for North Street. The building is compliant with the building setback and the right of way requirements for College Ave. The applicant would like expand this building adding to the northern portion of this structure, as well as adding a 172.25 sq foot addition to the south east portion of the structure and redoing the roof of the structure and thereby adding a one -foot eave around the entirety of the building. In order to connect any improvements onto this building or receive approval for any improvements the applicant would be required to vary the master street plan right of way for North St. They are coming before you now to ask for that variance. The total variance would be 11 feet for a total 44 ft right of way from center line of North St. Staff finds and recommends approval of a resolution to vary North St. master street plan right of way at this property, finding that this will maintain the integrity and purpose of the master street plan and allows for reasonable use for the existing structure where it is currently located. The applicant has gone to the Board of Adjustment to request that the additions and such could be made up to that master street plan right of way which would be a very important setback and have received approval. However, the applicant would need to go back if an enlarged building were requested. We are recommending 3 conditions of the approval to vary the master street plan right away. Those include: first, the applicant shall dedicate right of way for a total 44 feet right from center tine of North St. The City recognizes that the existing parking which would be located in the right of way. The parking may remain until such time as the right of way is either necessary for development or the property is completely redeveloped or there is an expansion of 100% or more of the existing structure. A similar requirement was also made on 620 North College where the applicant was required 55 street from center line on College Ave and was proposing to do improvements to the existing building and therefore they dedicated 38 feet from center line as a condition of approval for the variance of the Master Street Plan, gladly. Second condition is that, at the time of Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 8 of 139 Anthes Pettit: Anthes Pettit: Audience: Pettit: Anthes: Pettit: Anthes: Motion: development of change of use of this property, the curb should be cut to modify a right in right out ingress and egress only. The curb cut onto College Ave may allow two-way traffic with the existing traffic limited to right out only. And we would expect signs and markings on the pavement to be installed to indicate such. And the third being that landscape shall meet city code requirements, and shall be installed as determined appropriate. Thank you, Ms Morgan. Would any member of the public like to address this administrative item for North Street Right of Way Variation ? Seeing none, and I will ask for the applicant's presentation. Good evening. Hi, I'm Josh Pettit. And would you like to tell us about your project? Basically we just want to expand the existing block building on our side, and I guess it would be the south side. Excuse me, the west side. East side. Oh yeah. You've got it there. You've got the plans there. Thank you, Mr. Pettit. I get nervous sometime when I am publicly speaking. We do too. Commissioners? Commissioner Clark. Clark: Based on what you have explained to us in agenda very briefly, this is not... though it is unusual, it is not unheard of. Staff didn't have a problem with it. And although I have nothing against cars and guitars on consignment ... I think a restaurant would really be nice on that corner. So I make the motion that we approve 06-2322. Myers: Second. Anthes: A motion by Commissioner Clark and seconded by Commissioner Myers. Commissioner Ostner. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 9 of 139 Ostner: Thank you. I have a question for staff. Um, this sounds like the north side of north street the applicant is going to go ahead and dedicate... even though that is sort of a built -out parking lot. Is that accurate? Pettit: That is correct. Ostner: Ok. So if North Street were to be widened at that intersection... that part of the parking lot would be available to be... Pettit: Apparently that is one of the conditions that I have heard of. Though I find it most likely I wouldn't think that that one is true. But most likely all the utilities and everything are on that side of the street. So my guess is that if they did expand it it would probably go the other way anyway because everything is on that side of the street there. Ostner: Ok. I am just wondering from staff... if I think it's a 2 lane section right now and that does back up. If the funds were ever available to make that a 3 lane section and part of that parking lot needed to be bumped into... that that is possible with this. Garner: We are requiring them to dedicate the right of way. I'm not sure if Mr. Casey would like to expound on how the design of that might work. But, I think that that was the intent, to recognize that that parking lot is within that master street plan right of way at this time. And, that if the city does need it we would be able to use it. Ostner: OK, I don't want to take away his parking lot. I'm just seeing an intersection that could be widened if traffic picked up. Pettit: I understand. I see. Ostner: I'm not having anything to do with utilities, I'm talking about streets. Pettit: I understand the difference. Ostner: OK. Thank you, that answers my question. Anthes: Did you want a clarification from Mr. Casey? Ostner: Not really. Nah. You know, there are no plans. I just want to know about availability of right of way. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 10 of 139 Anthes: I had a couple of questions of staff. I understand that this item has already been to the Board of Adjustments and they approved a 0 foot site plan variation. Can you tell us a little about the reason for the change? And now this will have to go back to the Board of Adjustments? Is that true? Garner: I wasn't aware that it had to go back to the Board of Adjustments, Suzanne. Morgan: I'll address that. The applicant did get an approval for a specific site plan which showed an addition of approx. 132 sq feet on southeast corner. That expansion to the east was 5 feet with a 1 foot overhang. The applicant did reevaluate their plans and could probably enlighten us with their plans and probably why that needed to expand a foot and a half to the east. The request that you are looking at is for the 174.25 square foot expansion. It is on the docket to go back to Board of Adjustment as for that addition... that change. Anthes: And I also had a not here about visibility. Did... and was that a concern of the Board of Adjustments as well? Morgan: It was mentioned by... it was mentioned I believe. I did go out to the property and exit south onto North Street. It didn't appear that visibility was a problem with the building as far south as it is. If it were to expand further to the south we may have had issue more. Evaluation would have been necessary. Clark: It's a pretty clear line of sight. Anthes: And as this is actually an administrative item, it has to go to City Council, is that true? Ostner: Madam Chair, I have another question. We had a similar issue, well, sort of related issue a couple of blocks to the north. This is a question for staff ...if this is approved and this applicant builds his restaurant... well I guess it's a 2 part question: Where? I don't want to get into another problem where a restaurant doesn't have enough parking and a restaurant wants to erode the nice buffer that we are trying to create along College. Could you address that, that issue. Garner: With our preliminary look at that floor plan and the square footage for this proposed restaurant, we really didn't develop it in detail. But we did feel like there will be enough parking on the property. They will be able to meet our parking ratios. We will be reviewing that in detail and they will be required to Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 11 of 139 meet that at the time of the building permit. There shouldn't be a problem. I think that they are fine on that. Ostner: And since we are asking for extra right of way along North St ... I mean the next question is what if North Street had to be widened? What if they lost some parking do you still think they would have enough parking? Garner: Probably not with the square footage they are proposing. They are likely....if that right of way does have to be taken and those parking spaces are taken away... they wouldn't meet our parking ratios. They would have to look at getting shared parking somewhere. Or they would have to reduce the square footage of the restaurant or change the use in the building. Ostner: Well, I would like to vote for this and I probably will. I just don't want to back into a corner... developing in a sort of downtown area is awkward and you can run out of parking. I just don't like seeing that. Pettit: I think our ratio, even by losing a few spaces are well within reason. Ostner: Ok, my concern is sort of on down the line. Pettit: Yes, I mean even down the line. If by losing some spaces if North St were to expand that direction. Which, as I said, I doubt very seriously since all the utilities are on that side of the street. But if it were the case, I believe that even with our ratio and losing 4 or 5 spaces we will still have enough parking for our square footage. Ostner: Well, staff tends to disagree... that it would be tight. So I would just like to say that that concerns me and I would hope that a spirit of shared parking... of committed shared parking. Having to cross a street. Doing things that are different not just pull up to your building would be promoted by restaurant owners, by the city. That's not an intersection that people like to cross. If there was a shared parking agreement with... that's not Washington Regional... it's something else. But if there is a parking problem in the future I would strongly hope that something could be worked out instead of expanding parking into the driveway. Which it currently is completely into the driveway of College as I understand it. Which is another concern that is ... I'm going to vote for this ... so. Anthes: Mr. Williams, I wondered if I could ask you, in the approval, condition number one it does state that the applicant shall dedicate the right of way. And then the staff comment says "the city recognizes the existing parking which shall be located in the right of way. The parking shall remain until such time as the right Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 12 of 139 of way is necessary or a new development or expansion of 100% of the existing structure occurs." Since we understand that the applicant does want to have a restaurant in this location, we have had problems with inadequate parking with restaurants before. How does this condition of approval affect the desired use of the property and what can the applicant expect if the city decides to go ahead and use that right of way? Williams: Well, I think this actually is adequate at the time. It is hard to tell what the future... exactly what will happen in the future. Whether this will remain forever as a restaurant or something else. Obviously in the future there is some chance that the applicant could lose some of the land that has been dedicated and not be able to use it as parking anymore. It is very difficult to tell what will happen in the future. It might be that the cars are smaller in the future so there might be more spaces. There might be more use of mass transit or bicycle. It's very hard for us to predict what will happen in the future. And I think that this is going to work for the foreseeable future and so I think that that is why the staff recommends it. And that is why they are willing to go through with it too. Anthes: So is there ... by us approving this is there any implication that even if they weren't able to have adequate parking in the future this use could remain? Williams: I think obviously we have... there's a 30% up or down as to right, basically. But they can appeal past that. And I think with an established use, when there is a parking lot right across the street from this that is not being heavily used. Even though who wants to cross North St? There is a light there, and so I think that that is something that could be quite feasible in the future. We don't know exactly what's going to happen to neighboring properties of this. So there may be other parking areas or opportunities there. I think that this is probably a good decision at this point and time. And all land decisions and all development decisions it is very difficult too far beyond the line... and what the changed circumstances will be. Anthes: So you don't feel like we are blocked in anyway that will negatively affect the City or the applicant? Williams: Not ... no ... there is obviously some risk that there could be negative impacts in the future to this developer. Personally, North St is obviously on the Master Street Plan as a major thoroughfare. This is one of the few sections of North St which has not been finished to a thoroughfare fair type status being only a 2 lane road. So I think it is reasonable to assume in the future that at least that intersection might need to be enlarged. But I do think there are several opportunities for Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 13 of 139 shared parking right immediately next to this property if that ever happened. And so I think that this is a feasible development and a reasonable risk for this developer to take at this point in time. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Williams. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll. Roll Call: The ADM 06-2322 for North Street Row Ded. was forwarded by a vote of 8- 0-0. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 14 of 139 VAC 06-2289: (ARCHER, 442): Submitted by CRAFTON TULL & ASSOCIATES for property located at THE W END OF MARKHAM, W OF SANG. The property is zoned C- PZD, COMMERCIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT. The request is to vacate a portion of a right-of-way on the subject property. Garner: A large scale development was approved on the subject property by the Planning Commission on Sept 11 of this year for the Pratt Place Inn: a guest room Inn and a 60 seat restaurant. The property is accessed directly off of Markham and Sang. Markham Road dead -ends directly on the subject property west of Sang Ave. At the time of the large scale development approval for Pratt Place Inn, it was discussed that the applicant has a desire to vacate part of Markham road west of Sang which dead ends into their property. Their request before you is to vacate the Markham road driveway onto the property. The applicant has submitted required notification forms to the utility companies and the City. There have not been any objections to this drive way vacation. Staff recommends that vacating the driveway in question would not adversely affect access to the property or adjacent properties. The subject portion of Markham Road dead -ends into the property and has not been identified for street connection through this property. The right of way being vacated would turn into a private drive or a private street into the Pratt Place Inn. And the public street improvements that were required as a part of the large scale development for that section of road would not be required. So as a part of this vacation approval we are recommending condition number 1: That the street improvements for Pratt Place Inn shall be modified to require that the public street portion of Markham to be improved to 20 feet of pavement with ditches on both sides sized to the appropriate design storm. Those ditches should be lined with native stone. The condition of approval from the large scale development also required a sidewalk up Markham and also required a curb and gutter. And so that is how that condition would change. And since the agenda session, some of the Planning Commissioner at the agenda session expressed concern that the sidewalk on that section of Markham would be removed. And we have talked to the applicant and discussed with them the possibility of striking the 20ft section to allow for an 8 foot pedestrian walkway within that paved area. And to note that that drive, with this proposal, is now to be a one way drive. So you would have a 12 ft one way drive and then an 8 foot area for pedestrians to walk. We do feel like that would be appropriate if you feel like adding that to condition number one. The other conditions that are listed there are relatively straight forward. And I can answer any questions that you might have. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Garner. Would any member of the public like to address this vacation request? Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 15 of 139 Ferris: Hi, my name is Felicia Ferris, I reside at 215 Haskel Heights. Currently where Markham and Sang are set there at the T, we have a drainage problem and erosion problem. The road was recently paved there. Probably a year ago or even less than a year ago. The culvert pipe that goes underneath there already is visible. Probably 6 or 8 inches... maybe more. I didn't really stop to look for a measurement. From the water run off and where those 2 ditches intersect there as it goes underneath the culvert. The water has been rushing over that area because of the tremendous amount of water volume and velocity as it comes down the hill from Markham... as it rushes down eastward.... and from Sang as it comes down the hillside northern.... Not just from the horse pasture, but as the water comes down from the mountain there. There is .... my concern in this effort of bringing the proposal as I've read ... that you plan to bring the two shallow ditches into a curve and a storm drain system and then leave the rough ditch that comes off of Sang and bring these 3 type systems together into that one corner where all this water velocity is. Have they taken into consideration the large volume of water that comes into this one section? Is this shallow ditch system that's been proposed by the Archers and the engineers... have they taken in the volume of water? So I have a few questions for the engineers. Have they really calculated the cubic foot per second in the amount of velocity of the amount of water that comes out of this particular section of the mountain? Certainly with the amount of erosion that has occurred in this one year or less amount of time just at that one particular corner certainly brings to mind the amount of volume that we have going on right here at this particular corner. And at the same time, I don't have privy to how this connection is going to be brought about, but is all this debris, leaves, limbs ... is heavily wooded there ... the water does bring in a lot of debris. Is the storm drain system ... is this all going to clog up? And how does the size and the opening of this storm drain in the new system compare to the old? Is it going to be larger or not? We already have it get clogged at times. Water's rushing over the road as it is. I want to make sure that they are aware of how much volume of water is there. Is that being taken into consideration? Have we done a full amount of calculations in we are going to have an open ditch system from the top? Meaning the water as it comes down from Sang. This is a situation that we deal with all the time and we live there. We don't want to be putting all this money into a system for a private sector. And then to be left bare there with a privet road a public road and then battling in the end on who's going to fix what when it doesn't work in the end. So those are questions that I have for the engineer. Has he looked at it that closely? I also have a question about how all the sediment is going to be dealt with when it all comes together. And again, the opening and the size as these two waters come together. And then how are the sediment and these natural pavers going to be dealt with as it comes down the Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 16 of 139 hill? Are these natural pavers a good system for the sediment as it comes off the hill there? Is this a good system for that? And then to the council I want to ask if the proposal of this natural ditch system doesn't work in the end... if we find this whole system was a bad idea... and we are left with a system that doesn't work .... it's all clogged up all the time ... we have this water rushing over the road ... the road breaks down ... where do we go from here? Who's going to pay for this? Who is going to fix the system? Thank you very much. Anthes: Thank you very much. Mr. Williams? Williams, J: I would to like to see ... to see a map of what we are talking about. There might be 2 possibilities of what we are talking about. Anthes: Ms. Morgan right next to you will show you the drawing. (inaudible) Williams, J: I think Ms Ferris ... I think Ms Ferris covered very well some of the problems with this area. With some of the problems this would create with this area that is indicated. My concern is ... and I am getting old so .... it might come up in a few years and I might not be here. After this project is completed there is likelihood and a possibility that the Fire Dept would request a second way to get to this property. There are two possible ways as I see it. Both of them Sang. One part of it is north of this property and touches it on the north. It is directly north of the proposed restaurant facility. Now then one way to reach this property would be all on Mr. Archer's property. This would be to extend Sang until it touches the north end of Mr. Archer's property. The south end of north Sang, Ok? It would come straight up the hill there and would come fairly close to this. That is one access if a second access becomes necessary for fire protection. The other access is the one that I would like to remind you that you have already made decisions about. That is the part of Sang that comes to Markham from the south. You have made us condition of approval for that part of Sang which comes out by Ramie Junior High and a very secluded neighborhood of houses. Now that part of Sang touches Mr. Markham, Mr. Archer's property as well. It would be extremely difficult to use Sang coming from the south for Fire trucks. You have indicated a request, or a grant, that you would not try to widen it. That was a condition of improvement. I realize that this request is trying to do that. But I don't see it as serious as making Sang up by Ramie Junior High up through a very pleasant private neighborhood ... that would be damaged very seriously if Sang was brought that way ... Because what it would do is to provide an entrance say to the University. I'm saying. That would increase the property... I mean increase the Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 17 of 139 traffic. Increase the traffic on Markham and Sang greatly. And you have also as a condition of this project, you have indicated that you would not require that that part of Sang be widened. I think if it's that... any, any work on Sang or Markham at the intersection of Sang and Markham, that corner would require major, major work to make it accessible by Fire truck. I just want you to keep that in mind. And if there is a request for another way to get to this project, which is Mr. Markham... I would like for that access not to be on Sang from the south, but from Sang from the south ... which would be entirely on the Archer property. It would be big and extremely... extremely more direct route. Thank you very much. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Williams. Would any other member of the public like to address this vacation request of Mr. Archer? Please come forward. McDonnel: I'm John McDonnell. I live out on W. Wheeler road. But sometimes it seems that I live up on Markham Hill. I did want to address the City on what, about the sidewalk. Don't do it on our account because, actually, a lot of times runners don't run on sidewalks. If you are driving around the street, you see them around the side of the road most of the time. Joggers or runners or whatever. And the reason they are all running all up and down and up and down on the sidewalks, because of the driveways coming out. I don't know how many driveways would be coming out up there, but we are quite happy with 8 ft , 6ft would be fine. A line like a bicycle path. Because bikers ride out there all the time... and we just get used to them. Slow down a little bit for them. And there are lots of them. So, I'm ... I'd be quite satisfied... and we are very happy with the line put on the blacktop road. We want it to stay up there and not have 6 or 800 houses built up there. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. McDonnell. O'Meara: I'm Kelly O'Meara and I coach Fayetteville cross country team. I'm here to support the Archers. I pretty much repeat what John said. Please don't build this sidewalk on our account; runners are programmed to stay of the sidewalks for safety reasons. We run on the roads when we have to. We'll run on the sidewalk when we have to. But it is an issue, and you see people around town on the roads and not on the sidewalks. I'm hoping, you know, if they get this approved and it turns into a one way road, that it will be very safe for my runners. We usually follow the rules that we normally do ... run against traffic and go up one route against traffic and come down it again against traffic where we can see it. So please don't do this on the runners account. Because it's be tough to make them get on the side walk without being up there beating over there to it. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 18 of 139 Anthes: Thank you. O'Meara: Thank you. Anthes: Would any other member of the public like to speak to this item? Seeing none I'll close the floor to public comment. Mr. Archer. Archer: Yes, good evening. Julian Archer, 2115 w Markham Road. I'd like to first of all distribute to you uh.. 2 copies of plans that illustrate what we are requesting. Probably, you know, you have my amateurish arrows on here. It's clearer then what you received in the application. Primary purpose of our application is to create the traffic pattern that you see illustrated on the 2 handouts that I have just given you. It is to create a circular traffic pattern into and away from the inn. And it would greatly enhance this, and it would greatly facilitate it, if you grant this vacation of the western part of Markham road where Sang happens to cut off to the left or the south to the end of Markham at the top of the hill. Those of you who have driven on Markham know that after you pass Cross there is a dead end sign - actually 2 dead end signs there, indicating that Markham is a dead end road. And if you grant this vacation, we will be able to create this circular pattern. Without it traffic can indeed turn around and come down Markham from the top. We own the property as you have been informed on both sides of the road from Sang westward. We own of course the property where the Inn property takes off ..the parking lot and then from the parking lot the parking lot feeds out onto a private lane called Evangeline Lane. It is sometimes seen on City maps indicated that way. Other times it is not. It is a dirt road that comes back to the east and then turns back to Markham just below the Sang Street cut off. So with this approval... this project from you we will put up one way signs there. We will of course allow City dump trucks and fire trucks to go the other way as is illustrated by the red arrows and the following. And just to address the concern that was raised by some of you that there would be no side walk. We have had a suggestion after that concern was raised ... have had a very good suggestion from the planning staff that a section of the road 8 feet wide be designated. And just as you have certain City streets with bicycle lanes designated. This would be designated the a pedestrian lane ... very clearly marked... probably a yellow stripe whatever the staff thinks is the best kind of marking and then the 12 foot wide drive there which is of course the width you have per drive on the interstate. So that traffic would all go one direction up the hill. The runners would go up the hill there and return down it. So it is an advantage whether they are running up the hill or down the hill. To answer a concern raised by someone who preceded me, here, about the engineering of this. This has been thoroughly... the watershed Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 19 of 139 has been thoroughly engineered by Crafton and Tull. I'd be happy to share that with anyone who would like to see it. Of course it is a matter of public record because it has been turned over to the engineering department for study and for evaluation. And if the engineering department deems it insufficient it will certainly let us know that fact. The, just for, just for your information... even if you grant this vacation the culvert which you will cross when you turn off of Markham onto Sang, that culvert is going to be replaced. It still has to be replaced and we are going to replace it with a much larger culvert and a much larger entrance to that culvert. They have designed the fact that there will be a larger culvert will not change. The commission as you may recall a few weeks ago has already approved the type of ditching that we intend to do. That is on the section between Cross and Sang there on the north side. It is a 4 foot wide 8 inches deep to be lined with stone. You may also recall from our previous application that from Sang westward on the north side it required only a 1 and 'h foot wide ditch and only 3 inches deep. So even if in a bizarre situation that someone didn't respect the markings for this 8 foot wide pedestrian or jogger or runner pathway there would be no trouble getting off the road itself when the ditch is only required to be 3 inches deep and a foot and a half wide. On the opposite side, the ditch would be, as designed by our engineer, 2 and ''/z or 2 and 1/4 feet wide and 4 'h inches deep. Actually on the north side for the ditch is only really needed for the first 134 feet and for all these years... for the last 243 feet... we just went out and measured this today. There is no ditch at all. Water has not worn a ditch there. SO for all those reasons I hope that you will vote in favor of this vacation. It will create a very logical and semicircle and safe traffic pattern on this western most portion of Markham road. Do you have any questions? Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Archer. Does that conclude the applicant's presentation? Sometimes there are 2 at the end. Archer: I've got 20 minutes so, I could go on ... but. Anthes: Commissioners. Myers: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Myers. Myers: I really like the idea of making Markham one way west of Sang. I don't know how formally we need to include it in the conditions of approval. But I would like to do that if my fellow commissioners are of like mind. It could in fact improve the safety and, I don't know... the traffic I think would be improved by Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 20 of 139 only being able to go one way. I don't have any problems with any of the other suggestions or conditions of approval. But if we need to include a statement or a sentence or another paragraph... Either a separate condition Andrew, or a... OK a separate condition. As you can tell I have had a cold and my brain is not really operating real well. So I'm not sure I could craft that in the way it needed to be said, but I am very much in favor of doing something. Anthes: Thank you Commissioner Myers. Perhaps I could ask some questions of Mr. Casey to follow up on some of the public comment? Clark: Please. Anthes: Would you please address Ms Ferris' questions and statements about the volume and velocity of water, existing erosion, and then how the culvert would be replaced and maintained if it were moved on to a private property? Casey: As Mr. Archer stated their engineer Crafton Tull associates have developed construction plans and a thorough range report that has been submitted to the City, however it has not been reviewed at this time. However that is going to occur sometime this week. We will review that for the planner calculations to see exactly how much water is expected to come through that culvert. We have talked with Mr. Archer on the side about the replacement as he mentioned of that culvert. We would like to up size that to an appropriately designed storm. And as to the maintenance the portion within the city right of way would be our responsibility, our being the City, our responsibility to maintain and make sure that is kept in working order and clean. Anything upstream from that along Markham... along the portion that we are vacating would be the responsibility of the property owner to keep cleaned out and maintained. And as far as the appropriateness of the open ditch with the stone lining that was proposed, that's a very easily maintained storm sewer system. It's easy to get in there and clean it out if it gets silted out. And again that is going to be the responsibility of the City of Fayetteville to make sure that happens in the right of way. Another question that was brought up was the question of erosion control and the sediment during construction. On the plans they will have to show us what they propose in order to be able to handle that sediment control. We will review that and approve that and our inspectors will make sure that that is installed and kept in place. They will also have to submit proper notification to the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality to make sure they are following their regulations. And that will remain in place until the vegetation is established. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 21 of 139 Anthes: Thank you Mr. Casey. Can staff also provide some comments about whether the... whether the vacation, if it was approved, if this section implies that this loop becomes a one way loop and with that carries with the PZD or if we need to clarify it with Commissioner Myers statement? Williams: That needs to be clarified. Anthes: OK. And can you comment any further on the discussion about fire truck access and turning movement? Has that been looked at if this loop was put in place? Garner: I think that the Fire Department has commented on reviewing the large scale development and the PZD. That they needed 20 feet of paved access into and out of the property. In addition to this large scale development there is a turn around right by the house for emergency access. And likely they would have to go back out through the wrong way on this drive. They probably wouldn't use the dirt/gravel drive to get out. I would imagine. Anthes: Then a question of Mr. Archer: Can you, if we were to grant this vacation request... what I understand is that from the intersection of Sang and Markham going west, you would have the 20 foot paved section striped with a 12 foot lane and an 8 foot walking - pedestrian walking area. When it comes up to the property where it adjoins your current property now, and it starts to make the loop, please describe what happens the whole rest of that segment. Archer: Are you speaking of the striping? Anthes: The surface, the width, the striping... Archer: All right. We haven't had much time to reflect on the striping because it was just mentioned on us Friday of last week. The driveway continues to be 20 feet wide. This is a requirement that has been brought to our attention from the very beginning of this project. And so the .... what is the .... for Markham, the road up to the Inn and all the way back to the fire hydrant which is to the west side of the Inn, that has been made 20 feet wide. And then the turn around area which is required also to be 20 feet wide, that actually is in the pasture. That was the most convenient way to do it. So all of that is in the plans and has been approved by the Fire Department. Anthes: And that's, that's all an asphalt surface. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 22 of 139 Archer: That's all an asphalt surface, up to the gate to the pasture. All an asphalt surface. There's probably no reason why the Fire trucks after they have turned around could not go back through the Inn parking lot and out. It will all be the proper width and there are no sharp curves. They could return that way. Though the more practical way for this once... well lets hope the Fire trucks never have to come up. But for that occasion, then they can return down the one way street. Well the one way designation is our own designation it is not a City designation so there is no violation of any city rules. We would quite naturally give them permission to go the opposite way for that rare occasion when they would come there. And fire trucks leaving would not be going fast in any case. Anthes: Remind us what the paving surface is on the parking area and on the Evangeline Lane section on the return part of the loop. Archer: I didn't quite get the question. Anthes: The paving material or the surfacing material of the parking lot and the Evangeline loop returning? Archer: The parking lot will be paved. Once you have left the parking lot and gone down off the hill, Evangeline Lane is a dirt road. And it has been, we've been allowed to keep it as a dirt road. We will be 20 feet wide... approximately... but it will remain a dirt road. Graveled as it is right now. Anthes: If there's no further comment? I'm sorry Mr. Williams, we've closed the public comment section. William, J: I do have a question. I could ask him afterwards. Anthes: That would be good. If you could do that. If you would ask him after the meeting, that would be ok? Williams, J: (Inaudible) Anthes: OK, come on. Come on up. Williams: (Inaudible from Mr. Williams to Mr. Archer) Anthes: Thank you Mr. Williams. Commissioner Clark. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 23 of 139 Clark: My memory is not what it should or could be, but I need clarification from staff on the use of Evangeline Lane. Because I certainly don't remember in the original PZD discussion that we had which went on for ever! That this was ever an exit or an entrance into this PZD. I thought it was just kind of there. Now all of a sudden it is becoming a major element to this. Am I, did I space an entire conversation about another intersection? Garner: It was included in the original PZD, and it was identified as a possible exit route from that parking lot as part of the traffic flow around this property. Clark: Was it designated as THE exit route from this PZD? Garner: Not as the only one. Clark: I didn't think so. Are we requiring any improvements at that intersection because it's not... and I've seen it... and I passed it by because it was like a wooded logging trail or something. Suddenly we have what is now going to be a major intersection not aligned with Sang Avenue. Is that what I'm seeing that we are talking about doing? Garner: We don't really feel like it will be a major intersection. We wonder.. Clark: Now go with me on this... It's got to be an intersection. Garner: Yeah. Vehicles will exit there. That as part of the PZD the requirement was to include... I think a 12 foot concrete apron at Evangeline Lane and Markham. And that was what we felt was appropriate for traffic generated for this development. Clark: But you didn't know that it was going to be the only exit at that point either did you? Garner: No. Clark: Ok. And I am hearing from engineering that we don't know.... you haven't evaluated the drainage numbers to know if this culvert is going to sufficient or... Casey: A review of the construction plans has not been done at this time. However that existing culvert on the south side of Markham that goes under Sang will be upgraded with the construction. Clark: And that will be sufficient for the runoff that is going to happen. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 24 of 139 Casey: If it's being replaced it will be replaced with an appropriately sized culvert. Clark: I'm not amused. I all of a sudden... and Mr. Archer I'm sure this was not your intent, but it seems this exit off of Evangeline Lane has now become your bona fide exit out of this whole project. And I think I would have given a little more scrutiny had I known when it came before in the PZD if this was your intent. And we might have talked about serviceability. How wide it's going to be. What the surface is going to be. If it will be sufficient for emergency vehicles. There's a whole lot of questions I would have had at that point. So, and you know a lot of this discussion has nothing to do with this vacation might I add. But you sure have raised a whole bunch of new questions in my mind. And I, I'm suddenly not very comfortable with this vacation. Sure when I first read it but... Archer: If I may, add... from the very beginning... Anthes: Mr. Archer... Hold on I don't believe she's addressed a question your way yet. Clark: Uh-uh. Anthes: I guess what I would say Commissioner Clark, is that the vacation request does... that these things we're talking about do pertain to the vacation request, because it modifies how the PZD traffic pattern will be. Clark: It does now, yes it does. Anthes: And if you recall, a lot of the details of the PZD were worked out in Council, because this was the only planned zoning district that went directly to Council and did not come to Planning Commission. So the fact that we didn't work through that particular issue has to do with that. We did see this of course as a large scale development. And I am sure they are all painfully aware of how much time we spent discussing this section of road ad how we were going to provide pedestrian access onto and off of the mountain, and vehicular access onto and off of the mountain safely on this stretch of road. Vacating this section of road nullifies a lot of that discussion that we had. And then places the burden on that loop on Evangeline Lane. Clark: I guess that that's what concerns me the most. Trumbo: Madam Chair. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 25 of 139 Anthes: Commissioner Trumbo Trumbo: I guess the way it stands we are worried about the improvements to Evangeline Lane. Since now it looks like this is... This is going to be the only exit. It makes sense. I understand why you are here requesting this. But, I guess I would need a little bit more information on Evangeline and Markham Hill and where they connect. Because right now it's just too... it's just one open ditch if you are headed east out. Is that where the apron is going to be? The improvements? Garner: That is correct; right where it exits off onto Markham. Trumbo: And do you all feel that a dirt road or a gravel improved road which will be Evangeline will be adequate to handle the projected traffic coming in and out of here? Garner: I think when we first... we did evaluate this at the large scale development and street improvements we talked about it. At the time we felt like it was appropriate just to require that road to have the concrete apron only to keep gravel from spilling out onto the road. And as far as emergency access getting into and out of this property.... We anticipated and we still anticipate that we would use Markham even though the applicant would have it... an arrow for the private traffic to want to go in that way. The City would still use that as two way essentially. As far as the volume of traffic leaving the site. It was more of a case of that's the applicant's private drive and that's how they choose to get their ... make their traffic drive out. And we felt like that was not something that we could make them improve. We didn't feel like that was proportional to the development. Trumbo: To improve Evangeline Lane. Garner: That's right. We didn't feel like it was necessary. Trumbo: And now that they're proposing to make that the only exit for vehicles other that emergency vehicles. You still feel that way? That would be staff s recommendation... you would think? Garner: Yes, I think so... unless, Mr. Casey, you might recall the same conversations we had when the large scale went through. That traffic would be able to use the gravel road, but it was basically the applicant's own private property. And if they needed to improve it themselves they could, but we wouldn't make them do it. Casey: That's what I recall. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 26 of 139 Anthes: But, correct me if I'm wrong, that discussion was in place was when there was a second way off the mountain on a city street. Casey: That is correct. Anthes: And therefore, if you had 300 and some odd people in this party barn and they needed to get off the mountain they had an improved city street, with a walkway, with a grading, and with a way to capture water and put it in a... in a... some sort of a system. That didn't require them getting off the mountain on a gravel or dirt track. Is that correct? It's not the same discussion. Mr. Williams. Williams: Something I am concerned about is not the fire truck, because I hope you are right and the fire truck will never have to be there. But, twice a week there is going to be a solid waste truck. One recycling and one trash. And if it is going the wrong way down the street twice a week, that does concern me with someone who might be coming to the Inn that might not be familiar with the situation. From that point of view I would be concerned. I don't know if you correctly talked to Solid Waste about your deliveries going the wrong way down this one way street or not. Garner: Yeah we... well I haven't talked to Solid Waste personally, but my understanding from talking to Mr. Pate and also the applicant and their conversations with Solid Waste is that Solid Waste would be able to go... would go reverse of what the private drive would be arrowed for. Similar to sometimes in a parking lot or something they might not follow the stripping patterns in a parking lot for access purposes. Anthes: But we will have one 12 ft lane and an 8 ft walking track. And we will have 12 ft of paved purpose that is striped for vehicular use, and we could conceivably have cars that met head to head on that. Well, a solid waste truck and a car... coming to an Inn, maybe their first time up to the mountain. Garner: We would anticipate that that 20 ft of pavement would be ample room to get those vehicles past each other on a private drive aisle, or driveway... Clark: Visit me on Wyman Rd one day when a trash truck is coming down the street. Madam Chair, I just do not... well how wide did you say Evangeline Lane is? Archer: It depends upon the section. It is certainly 12 ft wide all along it. And it can be widened if it's necessary. If you find it... Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 27 of 139 Clark: Gravel? Archer: Yes, it's gravel. So it's a 12 ft wide section. Just as a point, from the very beginning when we applied over... I guess a year and a half ago, this traffic pattern that I just described to you was always stated in this. The parking lot design reflects that. Just let me hold this up for you. You will see ... (inaudible) Anthes: Mr. Archer, I need you to... when you are speaking you need to speak into a microphone so we can get it recorded in the minutes. Archer: And the parking lot turned in this sickle shape. The parking lot itself designed to direct traffic back on to Evangeline. The secondary lower parking lot and here's Evangeline itself there. So the traffic pattern, even before this vacation request, from the very beginning was build into this. I know there are so many details build into this project, which is... which there is nothing standard. It may have gotten buried for you, not being the focus of your attention. But there had been no attempt to hide this. And this has been part of the narrative of this that was presented and was discussed... and discussed with Planning... and discussed with Engineering. And we certainly will make... if that road needs to be widened any, we will make it somewhat wider. If we find that there is an inconvenience. I think we can actually run a test with the City trash truck. At least their pick up time now is about 6:30 in the morning. I don't know whether that's going to continue, but anyway that's what it is now. When there is no other traffic. They would have no problem making a return on this with a grading that we are required to do simply to make this parking lot a usable parking lot. SO there will be convenient access, and I will certainly talk to the city sanitation people to have them exit that way. It will be so much the better. Trumbo: Madam Chair. Anthes: Mr. Trumbo Trumbo: Can we... can city trucks go down a dirt road? Or can we improve Evangeline enough where the traffic flow would work for the city trucks? Garner: I wouldn't anticipate our solid waste trucks going down a gravel road. Anthes: A steep gravel road. Relatively steep isn't it? Garner: Yeah, I wouldn't think that they would make that movement unless it were improved. Probably 16 feet of pavement. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 28 of 139 Williams: When I thought of solid waste trucks. Obviously they have been approved to go up and down this 20 ft Markham paved street even if another car was coming. The only thing that concerned me is that if we are making it private now and we are striping it differently, so that if someone assumes it's a one way street... because that's what it says. They are going up and there is a solid waste truck coming down the other way. If it wasn't wrongly indicated that there was on- coming traffic, then I think it would be very safe for the solid waste trucks to navigate that. There are many narrow streets both on Markham Hill am Mt Sequoia that they navigate that way safely. I am a little concerned about the different striping and how that might confuse a driver who thinks he has a one way in and is not anticipating a big truck coming down the other way. Ostner: Madam Chair Anthes: Commissioner Ostner Ostner: Andrew, if this were denied, what are the current... what's the current section they would have to go build with this piece of dirt still under city ownership? Garner: They would have to as part of the large scale development approval, you can see on page 9 and 10 in you packet, no, page 6 and 7. On page 6 that's what was approved by the Planning Commission for the improving of Markham St onto the property. Which included a 20ft section of pavement and sidewalk on the one side adjacent to the curb. So if you remember that. So that's what that drawing indicates. The next picture over there is also what they would propose to improve which is a 20foot paved section with just ditches on both sides. What we are talking about here is just potentially just putting a stripe down there. Ostner: OK. So basically what we are talking about is vacating city right of way, changing ownership. But also we are talking about eliminating a curb, I'm assuming, and a sidewalk. Anthes: And a storm water.... a sub -surface storm water system. Ostner: Sub -surface.... ok... storm piping and it would go to ditches. Um, there are other trucks that are associated with this street other than City that concern me. Since the PZD was recently approved. There are lots of support vehicles that attend a place like this. Bands might have large trucks, bigger than a vehicle. Caterers. Lots of delivery vehicles often go to places like this. If we are only talking ownership and a sidewalk and a curb, I'm.... that's not enough for me to change Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 29 of 139 the whole system. I believe when the PZD was looked at. You're right Mr. Archer, that Evangeline lane was on there. But it wasn't a primary exit. Just because it was drawn doesn't mean we looked at it and go "that's the only way out". We looked at it differently. The lines drawn meant something else at that time. Archer: It has always been.... Ostner: Hold on. Because this street was labeled public right of way all the way up. So we looked at it differently. It gets improved and now we have to work backwards and think about making this less capable... a little less capable of carrying traffic. And Evangeline becomes more important. It's already been approved. I'm... I'm not sure I'm willing to grant the vacation if we're only talking a curb and a sidewalk. Umm.. And a storm pipe. I don't see the need to eliminate those and vacate the property simply because there happen to be no sewer or wires underneath this land. If there were we wouldn't be here because the city can't vacate land that it has utilities on. So if it happens to be empty of those utilities, but I think it serves an important function for the City. Thank you. Anthes: Is that a motion? Ostner: Well, no. Not yet. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Commissioner Lack. Motion: Lack: I think I find a very similar concern to the rest of the Commissioners. And the idea of Evangeline Lane, we did understand that it would be a means of egress from the parking lot. We understood it fully to be a secondary means of egress from the parking lot. And that is the way I believe the PZD was approved. And I believe the reduction of Markham dramatically changes that. And the item we have before us today would dramatically change the conditions of approval. Not wanting to outright deny an application. I would I" say that we look at it and try to find a way to make the application work. Try to find a way that we can maintain the public safety, and facilitate an owner's wish to vacate a right of way. What I would like to do, I would like to make a motion that we add three items... recommendations for approval. Following number four of staff's recommendations. Number five would be: That the... an 8 foot striped walk way be added to the south side of the 20 ft private drive. Number six would be: That the private drive be one way, and the extension of the.... continuing along from the Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 30 of 139 extension of Markham Rd through the parking and continuing through Evangeline Lane. And number seven: That Evangeline Lane be improved to a 20 ft wide paved section trafficable for service vehicles and fire vehicles. And that Evangeline Lane be aligned with Sang at its exit. Anthes: Question for the City Attorney. On that, I had thought of a similar thing, but I didn't know if that was an appropriate condition of approval of a vacation request, since that's really a condition that would be more of a development request on a large scale. Williams: I think, I think you probably could have that as a condition of approval. Of course, it might be a condition that would be so expensive that the applicant may no longer want a vacation. In order to satisfy that condition of approval, that would be up to the applicant. That would be more expensive, I think, than the cost would be just to build the Markham as approved in the large scale PZD. I think you could make it a condition as to what you would be recommending. Obviously this body is recommending to the City Council either for or against this vacation. If you are recommending for this vacation, under what conditions would you recommend to the City Councilthat they would impose upon this vacation. Anthes: We have a motion to amend the conditions of approval. Do I hear a second? Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Madam Chair, point of clarification. The motion specified an 8ft walking section. Would that be elevated above driving lane as in a sidewalk, or would it simply be a 28 foot street? Lack: I was simply complying with staff s recommendation that it be an 811 striped section of the 20ft paved section. I think that the reason would need to be is for the fire trucks requirement for a 20ft driveway. Ostner: I thought you meant an 811 section in addition to the 20. You are going along with the 12 and 8? Lack: Right Ostner: OK, Thank you. Anthes: Motion to amend by Commissioner Lack. Is there a second? Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 31 of 139 Myers: I'll second. Anthes: Second by Commissioner Myers. Is there further discussion? Because my comment on that is that I would be more amenable to that motion if we were actually constructing that portion of the road as we hashed out in the large scale development, and it required the same improvements as required by the large scale development whether or not the property was vacant. Or whether or not the City owned it or the applicant owned it. Ostner: Madam Chair Anthes: Commissioner Ostner Ostner: My concerns are that... we... that our actual item is the vacation of a right of way. And if we forward that on, even with these conditions... it's not our call who vacates right of way. We're simply advising the Aldermen. They are going to go through the whole thing again and they are going to decide whether Mr. Lack's ideas have merit... the people who show up. It's completely on the table. When we forward things like zoning its simple yes or no. RA or RS, yes or no. This is a big forward. And the reason I'm going to vote against it is because it leaves lots of development decisions on the table. Where the Council has appointed me to go ahead and do that part of my job. And leave these vacations to them. So in other words... well. I'm going to vote no. Harris: Madam Chair Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Harris Harris: I would agree with Commissioner Ostner. I normally to try to move towards a compromise. I feel as though in this instance we are doing this on the fly just a bit too much for my comfort. I will be voting against this as well. Anthes: So, further discussion on the amendment? We wilt vote on the amendment. Roll Call: The motion to amend by adding three items which were listed by Commissioner Lack was denied by a vote of 4-3-0. Lack: Madam Chair Anthes: Commissioner Lack Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 32 of 139 Motion: Lack: I'd like to make a motion that we deny this item. I will call out the number here. VAC 06-2289 for Archer. Ostner: Second. Anthes: I have a motion to deny by Commissioner Lack. Second by Commissioner Ostner. Trumbo: Madam Chair Anthes: Yes Commissioner Trumbo Trumbo: If we deny, what is the course of action set out for the applicant on a vacation denial? Can they appeal to City Council? Williams: Yes, I think they have 10 days, 10 working days to file an appeal at the City Clerks office, of the decision if it is one of denial. The City Council would have to make the decision in the end one way or another. Although, they will not unless you appeal if there is a denial here. Motion: Trumbo: Madam Chair, I'm going to vote against the denial. I would rather Table and see if we could get some of the suggested amendments the Mr. Lack pointed out. I think with a little bit more time I could be very comfortable. Especially if we iron out the garbage trucks and the city service trucks coming back down the hill. If we get a better since of time. And any other issues that might come up with that... so... Anthes: Is that a motion? Trumbo: I'd be more in favor with tabling, and I'll make a motion to table. If I'm allowed to do that at this point? Williams: Yes Trumbo: Instead of having them appeal. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 33 of 139 Harris: Second. Anthes: Motion to table by Commissioner Trumbo with a Second by Commissioner Harris. Is there a discussion on the tabling? Ostner: Madam Chair. This is a question for staff. How much into the planned zoning district can this issue encroach? In a way it's not fair to go back to the PZD. And yet, it seems pretty clear to me that they are asking for an alteration of their own PZD. That's my question. Garner: I think it wouldn't go back to the overall PZD, as much as it would go back to the large scale development. The actual large scale development details. Ostner: Thank you, that's.. That's what I meant. Garner: I think you can look at what you think you need to look at in order to vacate this right of way. In order to make your recommendation. Williams: And since the City Council is going to have to decide on the vacation. They obviously can go back and look at that, just like they could go back and amend the PZD if they wanted to. So I don't think it's unfair to suggest different alternatives in order to grant a vacation request. Or recommend granting a vacation request. Anthes: Would it perhaps be a cleaner course of action though, to ask the applicant to bring forth administrative item that clarifies the large scale development, and have the vacation. And that's the development issue, and the infrastructure issue. And then have the vacation request be just that... a vacation request? Williams: I'm not sure. I mean he has to. I mean if he wants to attempt to vacate this he still is going to have to come through the vacation request. And I think it could be appropriately handled by conditions placed upon that vacation request. And then it could be heard all at once. And then eventually not just be heard by this body, but by the City Council. And they would probably want those kinds of conditions as part of the vacation request because that makes them much stronger, really, than an administrative item would be. Anthes: OK. Thank you. Ostner: My follow up question is for Mr. Casey. On this large scale development, did .... what's the name of this little gravel street/ Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 34 of 139 Clark: Evangeline. Ostner: Was Evangeline evaluated with steepness, or was Evangeline just something they were going to use privately? Or do you recall? Casey: It was not evaluated for steepness. It was just considered an exiting gravel drive. Ostner: Thank you. That's part of what concerns me. And I agree. I would like to see this as an alteration of a large scale development. I'm concerned the Evangeline will be too steep to hold gravel. You run a gravel road up a steep hill and it just doesn't work well. It needs to be looked at. Scrutinized as an exit. I would be willing to consider this vacation if all the items were on the table. So I am probably going to vote to table it. Anthes: Is there further discussion on the table? The motion to table. Commissioner Trumbo Trumbo: Well, just a point of clarification. Evangeline is sort of on a bench, so it does drop down a little bit in the beginning. But those things do need to be looked at, I agree. Anthes: We have a motion to table by Commissioner Trumbo with a second by Commissioner Harris. Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The VAC 06-2289 for Archer was tabled by a vote of 5-3-0. Anthes: Thank you. Shall we say that that was to the next regularly scheduled meeting or indefinitely? Williams: Next regularly scheduled meeting. Anthes: Can we nod approval to that? Is that alright Mr. Williams? That we do it that was or do you need it officially in the minutes? Williams: No, I think that's sort of the default understanding when you do a table. Anthes: Mr. Williams? Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 35 of 139 Williams, J: Ms. Chairman. Mrs. Archer... her name... the little street was named for her. And her name was Evangala. So I believe that if Mr. Archer agrees with me, that should be called Evangala Lane. Anthes: I think that maybe we mispronounced it up here. That's what happened. I'm sorry about that. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 36 of 139 R-PZD 06-1884: Planned Zoning District (WESTSIDE VILLAGE, 439): Submitted by TODD JACOBS, CRITICAL PATH DESIGN for property located at SOUTH OF WEDINGTON, EAST OF RUPPLE ROAD. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 21.91 acres. The request is for a rezoning and large scale development approval for a Residential Planned Zoning District with 352 attached dwelling units and 74,255 square feet of non-residential and mixed use space. Garner: This item was heard at the March 16, 2006 Subdivision Committee meeting. At that meeting, the Subdivision Committee discussed that the residential project should include some non-residential uses or was suggested to introduce non- residential uses would be highly desirable for so many residential units in this residentially developing area. The applicant substantially revised the site plan and has included nonresidential uses and several new building types and a new layout. The item was subsequently heard at the September 14`h and October 12`h Subdivision Committee Meetings. So there were several months in between, when they were re -designing their project. The Subdivision Committee forwarded this project with favorable recommendations to the Planning Commission. The property contains just under 22 acres. It's on the east side of Rupple Road, south of Wedington, and north of the Boy's and Girl's Club. Its currently zoned RMF -24. The applicant requests a rezoning and large scale development approval for a mixed use development within an R-PZD district. All of the land would be under a common ownership, it's not anticipated to subdivide the property at this time. Table 1 in your staff report on page 2 lists the square footages and the breakdown of the different types of buildings and uses proposed, which would result in 352 residential dwelling units. Approximately 17,000 sq ft of retail, about 43,00 sq ft of office, and approximately 6,000 sq ft of restaurant, along with the 5,000 sq ft civic building. Access into the development would be directly off of Rupple Road along the western property line. Four public drives are proposed to be constructed. These streets would feature parallel parking on both sides of the street. Meadowland Drive, which is the main street, would extend east from Rupple Road, stubbing out at the easternmost property line. Three other public streets would extend north from Meadowlands Drive to the northernmost property boundary. Public 2 is a divided street and it features parallel paring on the interior and angled parking on the exterior. Staff is recommending that this street is particular not be a public street, but be a private, as it does not meet street design standards and functions as a parking lot, or parking drive aisle for this development. A private two way parking drive is around the perimeter of the development and this drive has parallel parking on the interior portion and perpendicular parking along the exterior. A pedestrian green way starts at Rupple Road and traverses east through out the whole project and subs out to the east for future pedestrian Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 37 of 139 connections. Street connectivity proposed includes an access easement stub -out and public right of way stub -out to largely undeveloped property to the east. An access easement and right of way stub -outs are also proposed for the three streets to undeveloped property to the north. Staff does recommend that the location and number of street connections are appropriate. We do recommend, however, that all the street stub -outs be constructed with pavement to the property line. The applicant proposes only to install signs and leave it unpaved. Street improvements that we are recommending with this project include: Fees assessed based on a contractual agreement for residential units on this property. The contract was agreed to as part of the final plat for this subdivision. Staff also finds that additional improvements are warranted for the nonresidential and commercial uses proposed and we have agreed with the developer on the dollar amount for approximately $44,000.00 that's listed there, in your staff report, for those assessments for commercial impact to Rupple Road. We are recommending forwarding this R-PZD to the City Council with a recommendation for approval with several conditions. Condition number 1, we are recommending is the determination of street improvements, which I've gone over. Condition number 2, is the determination of adequate street connectivity, which I've also gone over that one as well. I just wanted to note on condition number 2, the Subdivision Committee did recommend in favor of street connectivity presented, but recommended that full stub -outs be constructed to the north and that the right of way and easement only and signs be provided for connectivity to the east. And just to note that if the Planning Commission determines in favor of not constructing the stub -outs we would recommend that the applicant pay an assessment for the construction of those stub -outs and that assessment amount should be determined and agreed upon with the engineering division before building permit. Condition number 3 is Planning Commission determination of a waiver of street design standards. The applicant requests a waiver to allow a 15'curb return radius at all street intersections, in contrast to city code. At that Subdivision Committee meeting they had this request and we requested more information in order to be able evaluate this waiver. They provided us this information late last week and we are still in the process of evaluating that when we were writing our staff report. I'll let Mr. Casey go into detail about that. I'm not sure if we have a formal recommendation right now. I believe we have some potential we feel we can work that out, or least some of the waiver request and some of the locations. Condition 3B is a waiver to allow a different street cross section than are required current Master Street Plan standards. That's just to allow the streets as proposed with parallel parking and several of the street sections they are proposing simply are not allowed in our Master Street Plan. But, we are recommending in favor of these streets as proposed. Condition number 4 is Planning Commission determination of Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 38 of 139 commercial design standards for the commercial structures. We are recommending in favor of those and we have elevation boards and you should have elevations in your packet and materials showing all four sides of the commercial structures. Condition number five is Planning Commission determination of a waiver to allow less than the 24 ft wide drive aisles. The Unified Development Code requires 24ft wide drive aisles for two way drives. They have several incidences where they are requesting less than that. We are recommending denial of that waiver finding that in some of the areas that they are requesting the waivers, we don't find that there will be enough room to have thm traffic and cars backing up out onto that traffic. I wanted to bring your attention to condition number 17. This is a civic building on the site and would be required to come back for conditional use permit. They haven't presented elevations of that structure at this time. I see most of the other ones are relatively straight forward and will be happy to answer any questions you may have. We are recommending that you do forward this with recommendation for approval. We find that this meets the intent of our City Plan 2025 and does meet compact, completed, connective requirements and many of the things we are looking for in our policies for City Plan 2025 and our general plan and just let us know if you have any questions. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Garner. Would anyone from the public like to speak on this project R-PZD for Westside Village? Seeing none, I will bring it back and listen to the applicant's presentation. Jacobs: Good evening. I'm Todd Jacobs with Critical Path Designs. We are extremely happy to be here tonight to bring forward a project that we are very proud of from a developer point of view, from the design firm, and personally. Back in March we were before Subdivision Committee for strictly just property zone RF - 24. We had strictly apartment. At that time we had no problems, but Commissioner Ostner asked if ..why we weren't looking at mixed use as a project. And to us it was kind of a straight forward project apartments. But we took that opportunity with Dover Kohl being here, and the 2025 Plan. And we took the opportunity to do a project based off the goal of the City. What I like to do is just briefly go through the project, and kind of point out the high points of what we... what we are proposing. And address just a few of the items in the Staff report. I think that we are agreeable to all of them. I see no big issue. Just briefly to get you oriented here. Here is Rupple Rd. The Boys and Girls Club is to the south here. So, here are the Rupple Rd Homes that just had there grand opening. To the north is vacant. And to the back, to the east here is utility owned by... what is it? Ozark Electric? Or Swepco? We looked at this opportunity to do a compact, dense, type of development. With the opportunity Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 39 of 139 with the Boys and Girls Club to the south. The new elementary school opening up. And we looked at the opportunity to bring in a small amount of commercial office space, and the live/work. So people will not have to get out onto Wedington to the... to fight the traffic... the strip malls of sorts. Hopefully they will be able to work at this development, or at least do some of their errands.... getting rid of some of the day to day errands.... getting rid of the everyday use of the car. That's never going to happen, but at least we are trying to provide the opportunity for it to occur. Moving into the site, you've got the three mixtures: Buildings A, B, and C. Those elevations are in the big board of your packet of what you would be looking at if you were on Rupple Rd looking east. That would be your main elevations. The bottom level is divided into commercial, retail, and office. The second two are apartments, condos to be for sale. Also on the elevation you will see that buildings A and B are linked together, providing connection. One of the big things we looked at was the pedestrian, and how they work in this type of environment. With it being a... we wanted it to connect out to future developments. One of the big things here for us was to connect a pedestrian green way. You see it moves through the site east/west. It allows people to live in the town homes, the flats, the condos to get out an get access up to the mixed use, and then up the sidewalk to the Boys and Girls Club. And also for future development... that occurs in the future, to allow them to move through our site as well. The next part is the town homes. We looked at how we could transition.... also with the mixed use, we've wrapped the corners here to hide the interior parking, so it's not viewed from Rupple Rd or from Meadowlands Dr. And here we provided landscape and buffering and trees to help screen that parking from the town homes. That is one of the reasons that these town homes face out onto the green way, is so they will have their own area to look at... courtyard. I think that we've provided some pictures of what we will be proposing in the booklet. This area, as I said, is town homes. They are alley loaded, so the garages are in the back. They would be two stories. Here at the mixed use building C, these colors here are what we are referring to as live/work. I know Dover Kohl has talked quite a bit about it, and people have gotten a little more familiar with it. They're in the town home form, two to three stories. And what that does is provide people the opportunity to have a small office ... um in here and not have to have a condition use. So these are live/work units wrapped and hiding the interior parking here. So it kind of transitions from mixed use, to live/work, back into the multi -family. One of the big things here in the center is... these are one-way streets. This is running north. This is running south. This is what we are proposing: a bio -swell here. We're wanting to drain into this as a way to lower infrastructure. But, also a way to be environmentally friendly, and to be a sustainable project. This is lined up on what we are referring to as our village green, so we are looking for opportunity. With this we Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 40 of 139 are going a little bit more compact to provide a place for people to get together. So here is what we are referring to as our village green. Town homes look out on the village green. We have a pool. A civic building here. Hopefully this will be where our post office will be, and an area for the neighborhood POA to have meetings, and potentially a sales office. Here we envisioned just passive recreation, block parties. Just opportunities for people to get to know their neighbors. Additionally we have provided connection here to the Boys and Girls Club, so there is a connection here to this opportunity of activity. So people can walk their children out through here and over to the football games, soccer games on Saturdays. Moving through a third of the site, what you see the brown colored buildings are three stories... some of them may be four, just to give the architect opportunity to play on the elevations much as they have up here on the mixed use buildings. As you'll see on the elevations, the corners are a little bit higher, just to give the signal that you are entering Meadowlands. But we just envisioned those being three stories with certain pieces of the building maybe going up to four just for architectural. I'm also... we've looked at providing courtyards within the interior of these, these two buildings. We've wrapped the corner here with more live/work units. This will be the largest condo unit. Live/work units again wrapped around to hide the interior parking. Also we added additional room. So instead of doing traditional landscaping, we're going to do a bio -swell interior here. Moving back to the fourth part of the site is just town homes again. These face onto the green way and then ally loaded. So the big features again are the mixed use in the front, three buildings with a pedestrian green way moving east/west to allow pedestrian activity. And then setting up the access for a nice community center. At this time we just weren't ready to provide detailed elevations of what it would look like. But we intend for this to be an extremely nice building with that view set up, and kind of provide a secondary hub for this. That's kind of the big idea of this project. We went back and spent a great deal of time trying to work through these issues. It is a little bit complicated, looking into how do you work with on street parking, provide enough green space for pedestrians and people who will live there. They feel comfortable. I think this ties in well with the goals of 2025. We are extremely proud of this project. Just a couple of issues on the findings of the reports that I would like to address. We are ... does it reflect it here? This is an older rendering. But we are fine with connecting with the north here and providing the stub out.... three stub -outs; here, here, and here. We are fine with that. We would like not to provide this stub -out at this time. We'll sign it and dedicate the right of way, and pay for the assessment. Just due to the fact that we are trying to create the pedestrian, walk able environment. And this is going to be a staging area for utilities. We are extremely afraid that they will move through the site... larger vehicles tracking mud. And it kind of doesn't tie into it. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 41 of 139 So until this project comes through at a later date. And the City has opportunity to look at it and evaluate, we would propose just to curb this, sign it. I know in the past the City has had trouble with residential people put out.... curbs not built out.... and 10 years later the city comes in and stubs -out and it's a problem. Here it is vacant land on three sides of it. Plus there is no adjoining property or housing right next to those stub -outs. But to north we are fine with that. On this east side we had sort of talked about subdivision. One other issue that I'd like to talk about is... When we talk about this type of "new urbanist" development, we looked at road sections in quite a bit of depth, and curves and how that affects pedestrians and their safety. You'll find in your packet that we provided several waivers, requesting waivers, asking for a 15 foot radius. We've talked about this a little bit before with Well Spring. We reached a compromise. Here we are coming back and asking you for a 15. We have provided some more information to Mr. Casey that he asked for. It's also in your packet. What we've referenced is what most new urbanist communities, or compact, or TND's (traditional neighborhoods) have referenced. And that comes directly from the ITE, that's the Institute of Transportation Engineers, which predominately sets a lot of our transportation guidelines. What you'll find in there is... the short version is.... based on... you should design a curve based on what you call your control vehicle. A control vehicle is what's your day to day vehicle. Well, for us it's going to be a typical passenger car or medium sized truck. What that... what we provided hopefully support our quest for the 15 It radius. We just feel .... it slows traffic down. We're going to have a great deal of pedestrians walking through this area. It's something that is done here in Fayetteville in the historic district. You can find it everywhere. We have made some construction revisions where we will increase the curve radius... err the PSI of the concrete to help protect it from being torn up if it is hit. But the bottom line is you set your control vehicle, which is a passenger car, in a 15 ft radius. According to this report it's fine. Here in Fayetteville we use 20 to 25 as the standard. The difference between a 25 ft radius and 15 is a difference of 8 ft of walking distance between one sidewalk and the next. It's just a little bit bigger radius, so you have pedestrians farther into the road. Other... with the other findings I think we are totally fine with those. We don't have an issue. John, you want to say anything? With that I think we'll end our presentation. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Jacobs. Commissioners? Commissioner Clark, would you like to give us the subdivision report? Clark: Oh, sure. We saw this at the Oct 12 Subdivision meeting. Mr. Trumbo, Ms. Harris, and myself. And we were enthusiastically supportive of it. We had two issues that we talked about at Subdivision that are reflected in your staff report. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 42 of 139 One would be the stub -out to the east. The staff was recommending that we do the full stub -out and (unclear) through the meetings where we didn't do them and we paid for them, yeah. But I don't... Subdivision was in concurrence that I don't would happen this time, since Ozark Electric is their neighbor to the east. We thought the signs and the dedication of right of way was sufficient. And with the landscape that would also be a buffer between a very nice residential area and Ozark Electric, and you wouldn't have the big trucks tempted to come through that neighborhood. The other stub -outs are provided for and I think they are needed. The other issue we had was the curve radius at 15 ft, the waiver request. And we talked about emergency vehicles and larger vehicles traversing the streets. And we were going to get some more information, because nobody was really at a consensus. And we can talk about what Engineering is recommending now. I'm looking through my packet as well. Because I still have a few issues on that. I'm not sure that we are going to get all small passenger cars and not some of the big Suburban trying to go down some of those streets. But I think that that is something that we can easily work out. The other thing that I think warrants mentioning in the Subdivision report is developments.... developers who give us detailed plans like this for PZD, set the standard that I like to see met coming to Planning Commission. You know what you are getting, it's full blown. There are not going to be any surprises. And we reflected our appreciation of that at Subdivision, and I'm going to act with it at Planning Commission. Because this is what I thought that our PZD was supposed to look like when it came to us. And I think, this... and I don't commend developers often... but this has been consistent with this group, and I appreciate it. And what they built is exactly what we saw. That it not the instance in everything that I've seen pass through this body in the three years that I've been here. So, we did support it enthusiastically. Anthes: Thank you Commissioner Clark. Casey: Well as presented, I am not in favor of the request to waiver on the minimum street standards. Just to clarify, in the staff report it says 25 ft the minimum. It's actually 30 in our minimum street standards. They're presenting 15 ft, and technically it's really only along the public drives that we need to grant the waiver. And, by now they show 3 public drives. Staff is recommending the removal of one of those and making it private. So, if that's the case, we are looking at 2 intersections where we would have to grant that waiver. The information that was presented.... Ostner: Which intersections might be... I'm sorry... Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 43 of 139 Casey: I'm sorry. That's with Meadowland's and public drive one. And Meadowlands and public drive three. And then whether or not you agree with staff's recommendation on the center... on public drive two. Anthes: Can someone with the laser pointer point that at the intersections? Ostner: I know exactly which intersections. Jacobs: (Speaking away from the microphone. Explaining the locations of the public drives and the intersections) Casey: Thank you for that, because it also clarified something for me with the intersections on Rupple road... the public drives. Those will need to be 30 ft as well, or a waiver will need to be granted for that one. They have shown 25, and I would support their request for that. On the 15, they have presented the information that I believe you have in your packets from the ITE. I interpreted in a little bit different than what Mr. Jacobs has. And on page 161 of the ITE report, one paragraph says that curve radius should be designed to accommodate the largest vehicle type that will frequently turn the corner. I interpret that to be a trash truck. We are going to have trash trucks out there on a weekly basis. I think we need to design that... the turn radius to accommodate that. On the next page, 162, it's on the right side of the page, it says "a typical minimum curve radius of 10 to 15 feet,(which is what they are requesting) should be used where?". It lists several examples. One of those it says "the width of the receiving intersection approach can accommodate a turning passenger vehicle without encroachment into the opposing lane". I've not been provided any information to show that what they propose will meet those criteria. On the next page, 163 of the ITE report... in the left hand column, it says "Curve radius will need to be larger where?". And on number three it says "Receiving through fair does not have parking or bicycle lanes and the receiving lane is less than 12 ft in width". While they do have parking along these streets. The way they have the radius designed, it's not long enough. It's not along a normal curve. They have those bump outs to protect the parking. So that's taking up the affective turning radius in that area, and you're tightening it up. So I have reviewed this, and I've sketched on here a 25 ft curve radius. It does not significantly alter their design at all. It widens it out a little bit and does not affect the sidewalk. It does not affect the building location. I do not see a significant affect by asking that to be something larger than they are requesting. One thing I do want to qualify. The justification for the smaller turn radius that keeps coming up, is that is shortens the distance that the pedestrian has to travel. That is not the case in the City of Fayetteville the way we require our handicap access ramps. We require them on Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 44 of 139 the tangent, not in the middle of the curve. If you put a handicap ramp in the middle of the curve, then that is the case. But we require it on around the curve where it's straight, and that distance does not change. Were as if you put them in the curves, then yes, the bigger you make the radius the larger that distance is. So, the increasing it to what we require will not increase the amount pedestrians have to travel. Anthes: Mr. Casey. Can I ask you to clarify something? On page 163 of the ITE booklet, which is page 51 of our staff report. You said that the receiving thoroughfare does not have parking or bicycle lanes or the receiving lane is less than 12 ft wide. And you said that it was the bump out that made that not work. If they removed the bump outs and the parking was there, would support the reduction in the radius? Casey: Yes. Anthes: So that's the option. Casey: Right. Anthes: And another question is, that drawing on page 162 of the ITE report which is page 50 of our staff report. I believe that that... the way those curves are drawn to me signifies kind of like the situation that we have at the corner of Dicks on and West. Where we take the intersection and we depress the pavement down. We've done that on campus too at ... by the new Health Center by Garland and Maple Street. What that effectively does, is you have heavy duty pavement there that allows a truck to actually make the turning movement of the truck at grade level with the street. But visually the radius is tightened, and most cars keep to the smaller radius. Is that something you've considered in your recommendation in looking at that diagram? And would you allow it or not? Casey: This is an argument that the applicant has made in support of this, and it's just... it's my opinion that the street system needs to... including the turn radius needs to be designed to accommodate the vehicles without having to go off the road. Which in effect would be the case here. They would have to hop up on the curb and drive along. This... they are not proposing to depress the curb.... as you mentioned. And I believe in the diagram here it's showing the depressions at the handicapped ramps only. Anthes: So, but if the curb was depressed, would that be something you would also consider as an acceptable alternative? Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 45 of 139 Casey: My fear is that a pedestrian would be in that location and they think they are safe... they are standing in the handicap access ramp waiting to cross the street... and a car comes and tries to make that turn and they are in the way. So I would rather design something to where the pedestrian is safe and liability is not there for the driver. Anthes: Has that happened at Dickson and West? Do you know? Casey: I am not aware of that. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Casey. Ok, I have a couple of questions. Just a brief comment.... comments... on the book before this ends up in the next phase. I believe there are, in the table of contents there is a reference to General Plan 2020. I believe you have fixed the text on the inside of the document to refer to City plan 2025, but if you could bring the entire booklet into that... into the plan 2025 language, that would help. Also I believe there were at least one or two references to Wellspring. And you might want to do a search and replace on it for the name of this development. I was wondering if staff could comment on the status of the artists live/work definition that has been forwarded by this body to City Council? And whether that would be something that would be added to the use units in these areas? Garner: We weren't anticipating using that in this particular PZD. We anticipated the live/work units to have the standard office use unit in the lower floors. And they specified a specific square footage of office space in a certain specific area in a live/ work unit. So we didn't anticipate using the new definition. Anthes: Ok. But won't that definition be added within the other use units and not as a separate use unit? Garner: I'm not sure. Anthes: Ok. Garner: I'll have to get back to you on that. Anthes: On page 4 of the PZD booklet planning area 1, mixed use development, "height regulation shall not exceed 60 ft". I believe in the presentation you clarified that that's predominately three stories but with some four story accents. Is that true? Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 46 of 139 Nock: Yes it is. Anthes: And, I believe there were some building sections and there were some alternates shown. There was a 55 ft deep building, with a single loaded corridor, or a 20 ft deep building with a double loaded corridor. I may be in the wrong planning area for that. Can you tell me which you plan to use? Nock: Well, our vertical designs are still ongoing. We may be using both since we have both A and B and C. It gives a little bit of variety to those units. And, we may use both. We may use just one. One tends to be a little more of an urban feels, and the other is a little bit more of an apartment feel. It's.... a lot of it has to do with the market place. Certainly we want ownership of property. We thinks that's a high... and the best use for this project. There is going to be a case for rental units as well. And so with that we are really leaning towards what our architects come back with. We should have that in the next couple of months or so for sure. But we are proposing it both ways, because we want to have the flexibility to do what the market really needs. Anthes: Well I am just thinking, urbanistically, a 70ftbuilding, that's pretty deep. It's pretty large, and it provides a less comfortable transition on your site between the planning... the different building types. And personally I have a preference for finding compatibility within the development with the narrower building than the 70 It building. Nock: We hope you live there. Anthes: How.... can you speak to the trash collection system within this development? Jacobs: Yes, trash collection. We looked at this quite a bit. What we propose in our latest set of plans is, in the back corners we're looking at.... we're shown doing the trash compactors. That will reduce the amount of dumpster; therefore reduce traffic... how many times they're going to have to come to the site. It'd be much like the Crown apartments where they have trash compactors. Apparently those can be served once or twice a month. They are capable of handling that. We would propose keeping the other dumpster closer to the mixed use. Those would have to be served more often. But, two large trash compactors which, what the waste department told us would be more than adequate for this sight. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Jacobs. Before you sit down. We are just trying to understand the difference between these diagrams and what you're asking for on the curve radius waiver again. On page 19 of your booklet under item on the left hand Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 47 of 139 side. You show a 6in thick driver reinforced mountable concrete curb and depressed section. And then you reference the ITE section on this drawing. Have you..? What is your experience in designing that section and how it's used? And how would you make your case to us to support that waiver? Jacobs: I make my case in two ways. One is, we looked historically here in Fayetteville first. Where there any 15 ft radiuses? l Oft radiuses? And 8? We went out though Fayetteville, mostly in historic district Willow, Wilson Park area. And we found them. They are here in residential areas. They're not residential in the transition to IGA, but you can find them. You do have to look for them. Second what we did, was we researched around the country at other projects and made sure we knew what we were asking for. What we found from other cities that allow 15ft radius on a neo -traditional TND type development is that there are certain requirements that the city will place upon you. One is you need to increase the PSI of the curb so that it can withstand people running over it if that does happen. So we have provided engineering that we will increase the curb to 4000 PSI. Stronger curb should stand up. Secondly we looked at, you can't push you fire hydrant, stop signs, stuff of that nature, to allow if emergency vehicles do enter, they have the capability... if they needed to they can run over the curb. Third, kind of what we looked at, is it all right for a vehicle to encroach into another lane. Is it ok for a fire truck to come in while making a turn and encroach into oncoming traffic. What we looked at regardless if you build a 30 ft radius, from the diagrams we've run in AutoCAD, and the computer is that a fire truck can't make it anyway. A fire truck would have to encroach on what the City of Fayetteville has. Staff, would it encroach into the oncoming lane regardless if it was a 30 ft? I believe it will. I mean, we are willing to compromise on this. It's something the City is looking to promote per district, and compact neighborhoods are something we have to look at as a whole. With this, we just kind of open up the opportunity to have this discussion. If we can reach some type of compromise we would be more than happy with that. We just, we're trying to look out after the pedestrians of this neighborhood. Anthes: Thank you, Todd. Is there further discussion? Commissioner Ostner? Ostner: Madam Chair. I'm in favor of this PZD. There, there are some details that I think we might be getting hung up on. I think... I was at the meeting. I think it was in March, the first time this came through. And I really appreciate the developers sort of changing gears. Things were very simple. It wasn't this fleshed out. I don't think it was a PZD at that point. It was a simple re -zoning. And I really appreciate that. The ... the quandary of engineering not feeling comfortable with the 15 ft radius is awkward. Todd mentioned that the tighter Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 48 of 139 radii are hard to find. They are not hard to find. They are right out in front of this building. You walk, and turn left, and there is a 3 ft radii. It functions fine. My entire neighborhood.... I live downtown. I don't think there is a single radii that is bigger than 10 ft. And on page 49 to 56 it talks about "occasional turns by vehicles that are larger than the design vehicle could be accomplished by turning more slowly and possible encroaching into oncoming travel lanes to complete the turn". That happens every day ... every day. The trash truck, he knows he can't make it. Man, he's going one mile an hour. I know this doesn't fit into the rules, and I respectfully disagree, I suppose. I think it's... I think it would be ok if the 15 ft were built. I've always thought the turning radii... they basically.... they basically dictated speed more than anything else. If there's a 30 ft radii in front of, I think it's Denny's... off of 6`h St... Man, you just punch it. You can just "whoosh". And then there is a 3 ft radii right out in front of Planning, ironically, and you don't. You crawl. That's the way I see it. I am in favor of the waiver. I think it helps bring the intersection tighter. It makes people more aware. So that's I guess where I fall. And I understand that it is a conflict with the rules that we're trying to comply with ... so... Anthes: Thank you Commissioner Ostner. I think I would tend to agree. Let's work through conditions of approval. Planning Commission determination of street improvements is condition one. Are there any comments on that condition? Planning Commission determination of adequate connectivity is item two. And I believe that this is the one that talks about the stub outs. Obviously Subdivision Committee recommended in favor of the connectivity and recommended that full stub outs be constructed to the north, and allowing the right of way easements only in the signs provided to connectivity in the east. I believe the comment made tonight was that .... if we supported that position, then we would need to add an assessment for the construction of those stub outs at a later date. And I believe the applicant said that he'd be amenable to that. Is that correct Mr. Knott? Nock: We would agree to such an item. Anthes: Does anybody feel any differently about those? Would you like to see those constructed? Or are you OK with that recommendation? Lack: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Lack Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 49 of 139 Lack: I would be... I would be amenable to that idea, and accepting money in lieu. But I would how we assess that, or if the applicant would be willing to leave that open ended at this time. It's a fairly small crossing there, so it would probably be a fairly small amount of money. But, to leave that open ended? Nock: Madam Chair, may I address the question? Anthes: Certainly. Nock: The idea there is obviously that we are trying to make it a beautiful spot for long term. And we've talked... we've talked to Ozark Electric. They have no intention right now of selling that property. It's a staging area for their trucks. If anything, what we'd like to do is spend that money on screening for landscape. However, if the City would like us to do something else...? I'm not sure what the precedent is. I'm sure there is something that has been done in the past. But, there's this idea that if you don't put the street in, that you have cost savings. But if you do it right, your landscaping not only adds value, but it also costs you money. And so, I'll leave it up to your determination. But we certainly don't plan to say `will we save some money there?'. Instead as you can see on the plans, it's to do complete landscaping as well as signage. Who knows, there might be a bench or two. The idea is, don't do something that's going to maybe developed 20 years from now that is ugly throughout that whole period of time, plus is a safety issue. But we will pay to post the signs, put the landscaping down, and make that work. So... we're certainly open to that idea. Anthes: I think that this Commission is wary of the.... of those kinds of... of leaving those connections out. And the reason why is that, when they're not there it's trouble for us later or for future commissions. Because the level of expectation is not there that a road could go through. And that is not necessarily for the residents for the adjoining property, but also for the residents that purchase these units on your property. So, in this case I think I would be more amenable to making an alteration on our standard of requirement because of the truck traffic. And if there is ... I understand the thought is that the... these trucks going to Ozark Electric might be lured into rumbling into this development over that area.. Clark: With a 15 ft turning radius (laughter) Anthes: And my question is I guess ... do you really think that that's the case? Couldn't that be handled by doing the stub out and sticking a bollard at the end of it ... or... and how real is that? Or by sighting them and telling them to please tell their trucks to go another way? Would staff maybe comment on that? Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page SO of 139 Garner: If this is dedicated driveway, even if the street stub out is not constructed, Ozark Electric could immediately connect into it or use it as right of way. So, just because the pavement isn't built would not preclude them from using that and being able to tie into that. Nock: Madam Chair. One of the discussion points that we had at Subdivision level was putting the easement subject to it being used for residential purposes. And that would be one other way to dictate, that way the easement could only be utilized for a specific purpose. Now, none of us knew the legal way for that to be done, but that would... at some point or time, if there was a proposal that came to the city to do something with that land, then something could be done. But if, again, if you're putting an ongoing operation for utility trucks it would preclude them from doing such a thing. Anthes: Well, I would hate to limit it only to residential use being able to make that connection. I'd certainly be amenable to mixed use, commercial, and all sorts of other things going through. I just think that if it's more of an industrial or truck storage use, that's where my heartache is on it. Does anybody have any thoughts? Ostner: Well, I'm very hesitant, in all due respect, not to build the stub out. As positions change, as commissioners change, and land owners. You are all going to sell property. You made that important point... which is important. The people who live there in 10 years when it's time to build it won't be happy to have that built. No matter how many promises we make. There are streets that say no trucks allowed. What, how is that... how does that go about? Garner: I'm not sure. Ostner: That's not your division. (laughter) Williams: Not only that, but these are... these sorts of trucks are usually allowed on those streets. Utility trucks. Usually they are talking about major semi's, not the Swepco trucks or Arkansas Western Gas, or other trucks like that that go out and service residential areas. Nock: I think this is real... Williams: Is that the kind of structure that would support there? Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 51 of 139 Nock: This is a real key issue. I mean, I don't take this lightly. This is a major issue here, because if we're talking about doing a multi -use development for residential purposes. We're going to all the specific trouble to narrow the streets, to increase pedestrian access. Next to the Boys and Girls Club we are going to constantly have young kids going around there. And then you are going to allow utility trucks? I'm not sure investing the money for the infrastructure is a smart idea when the people that are going to move there are going to say "wow. You mean utility trucks can come through here?" Think about the long term affect of that. And I usually don't come out quite a bold. I usually try to be very minimal to everything that we talk about here. This ah.... that could have a really detrimental affect upon this property for long term. It's something we can make a decision on very quickly, but it could have a very prolonged affect. Ostner: If we did not do that.... I'm sorry ... (Both talking at the same time) Ostner: Well I was going to ask Mr. Nock. If we did not build this, how are the utility trucks going to get out? How do you propose that they... Nock: The utility trucks already have their own access. They have direct access to Wedington Rd as well as they are planning to do another access to the south that will hit Persimmon. So you are already going to have.... the notion that we understand they are already going to have additional access points anyway. And so, I don't think their operation is downsizing. As more growth goes on, including this project and others. They are going to need more man -power. I'm not trying to make them out to be the bad people here. They are going to be providing us utilities. But the idea is that there is appropriateness. Ostner: It's a cut through that.... Nock: Yeah, I mean, let's think about it. Ostner: Conveniently.... (both talking at the same time) Nock: What.. Connectivity is one of our founding beliefs, but from a city and and development perspective. But sometime there is appropriateness and sometimes there's not. And I believe on this side it is not. To the north it absolutely is. Clark: Madam Chair? I am a major proponent for connectivity as Mr. Nock knows. But I think the case to make the exception is warranted in this case. I think it was at subdivision and I still do. We have connectivity to the north, which is a logical RA.... lots of RA property that will develop. I think you have Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 52 of 139 connectivity there. There's not going to be connectivity except a walkway to the south end. That is more than appropriate for the school and the Boys and Girls Club. We talked about infill, we talked about urbanism, we talked about an urban environment. I think this... our PZD speaks to that in 99% of what it is presenting us with in that 1% exception I can live with. And that would be the connectivity to the east. I think dedication, signs, make it apparent that this could happen. Mr. Pate was the one who suggested we write the easement in such a way that it would not have industrial or heavy truck usage. And if anybody can do that, it would be Jeremy. So if it does develop in the future as a neighborhood then great. We can open those connections up and have them come through. This is not.... I mean you're talking about an area with the town homes.... if it were single family residence or regular neighborhood maybe I would be singing a different tune here. But, I don't see Ozark Electric turning that land over anytime soon for anything other than their use. And I think buffering between pseudo -industrial use and this community is well worth it. And I think the landscaping these folks are proposing will accomplish that. But we still have the opportunity to do the stub outs in later years. Now, I will not make this argument 99% of the time. And you know that. But., this one just kind of speaks to it. And I think they've gone out of their way to give us stub outs other places. Still not real happy with that 15 ft radius, but.... I see engineering... I see Matt's point that a pedestrian could easily go out to the tip of that 1511 and think that's where they are supposed to stand to cross the street and end up getting smushed by a truck. And anybody who says that traffic slows down... oh come on! Come into the real world. Some does, some doesn't. And all of you are guilty of it at one point or another out there. So, that one still. That one's a much bigger issue to me than the stub outs quite honestly. And if we are confident that our emergency vehicles and our trash trucks can still handle it without smushing pedestrians... which I'm not confident of! I can go for it. But the stub out was the least of my concern. And this is a very well thought out, I think, development. Casey: Madam Chair. Anthes: Are you, are you addressing the stub out? Casey: Yes Ma'am. One thing I might add. If you choose that that stub out be constructed, normally on a public street stub out we require a type 3 barricade be constructed at the end of that street. That's 3 large boards with the red and white stripes on it. That would be on the end of that roadway. So that's... something to consider as far as restricting the truck traffic. That will be installed. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 53 of 139 Clark: And aesthetics.... Casey: Yeah, it's going to look pretty bad. But that's what we require. Anthes: My question is to Mr. Williams. I believe Andrew said earlier that if we actually dedicate.... if they dedicated that stub out and whether or not we construct it. The adjoining property owner then has the right to then make that connection. Do you think there is viability in Mr. Pate's assertion that we could write that dedication... or that easement dedication for that stub out in a way that would only allow it to be finished out and attached to.... with... with redevelopment of that property into something other than what it is now? Williams: I think we would have to be very careful, and it should not require a standard dedication. Because of the fact that it then would certainly open this up to the access. And we couldn't build up one of those boarders if the... if the person on the other side.... the owner on the other side wanted to access it. They we would have to take our boarder... our blockage down. Even if it wasn't paved or anything. Instead we should receive only an easement that probably will not be sufficient if this is ever actually constructed. But what that easement would do is reduce any possible cost that the then owner of the... of that 5 ft strip of land would want to charge us. Assuming that might happen. If we already had an easement across it for residential and automotive traffic only.... then we've gotten a lot of access across there and so any further possible damages for condemnation would be very slight. So we need to get something there. Not saying that you would ever try to charge... but just to protect the citizens in the future in case someone would. I don't think we should have a regular dedication there. It's not going to be fair to the citizens that will be living in this particular development if this becomes a short cut for all those trucks to go up and down. And it would.... I think we could protect our taxpayers in the future considerably by just obtaining a carefully drawn easement so that if we ever did have to do it it the future... which I think we will.... then it would be of very minimal cost to the taxpayers. And maybe there should be, rather than one of our standard giant signs there, that you know... with the big... I've seen these things at the end of stub outs... something else that we could agree on with the developer that would clearly indicate that this is a future stub out without having orange and black and everything else to make it not look very attractive for this subdivision. I think... I think we could probably work that out with the developer in this particular case. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 54 of 139 Motion: Anthes: I would like to move to amend condition of approval number 2 to say that we would accept that full stub outs be constructed to the north. And that the applicant work with the city attorney's office to find.... to draft a carefully drawn easement.... that would allow for future connectivity for all the things we've talked about tonight.... and work with city engineering to come up with a suitable indicator for the possible future connection. And also that we would require the applicant to pay an assessment for the construction of the stub out in the future. Clark: Isecond. Anthes: Motion to amend by Commissioner Anthes. Second by Commissioner Clark. Is there discussion? Ostner: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Since we are basically doing a stub out without a stub out, I'm wondering about utilities. If.. I mean let's just say... Ozarks sells in 10 years. And it's not crazy. Land is doing amazing things around town. It's not the highest and best use for them to be there, frankly. Could the easement be worded in such a way that any looping of water mains, or future access of sewers or other utility easements be included in this easement? In other words, if this... if this becomes a road is there gonna be a way to have sewer and other things under it? Because right now there's not. We're talking about cars only. That's a general question. Maybe Mr. Casey could help? Casey: It's like on sheet 6 of 8 in your packet. On the plan of sales. It shows that as a utility easement to be dedicated with this development. Williams: This would not affect that at all. Ostner: Ok. Good. Casey: So that right will be there with that dedication. Ostner: So any stub outs will probably already be in the ground. And they can be tied onto later? Ok. Planning for that. Ok. That answers that question. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page SS of 139 Anthes: Is there further discussion on the modification of to condition 2? Will you call the Roll? Roll Call: A motion to amend condition of approval number 2 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Anthes: Ok. Condition of approval number 3 is "Planning Commission determination of the waiver of the street standard". A here is the waiver to allow 15 foot curb radius at the street intersection where the City code requires actually a 30 ft radius I believe. And then Mr. Casey also mentioned that he might be amenable to accepting a waiver to 25 ft from the 30 ft standard at the entrance and exit drives onto Rupple Rd. Is that correct Mr. Casey? Casey: Yes Ma'am. Anthes: Well I would be in support of both of those waivers. Is there... does anybody else have any other comment? Trumbo: Madam Chair. Anthes: Yes Commissioner Trumbo. Trumbo: I believe that originally they were asking for a 10 ft radius. And we suggested 15 based on the fact that we allowed Well Spring to change some of their curb radiuses to 15. And I'm wondering... I guess Mr. Casey.... Was that a different situation with Well Spring, or... Allowing them to have 15 ft radiuses. Casey: No, unfortunately I wasn't involved with the review of that project. So... Trumbo: Ok. Nock: Can we get the other person to review it? (Laughter) Garner: That one was approved with a 20 ft radius, I believe. Trumbo: Reduced. Gamer: Yeah. The requirement was 25, and it was approved at 20. They requested 15 on Wellspring. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 56 of 139 Nock: Madam Chair. May I address this? I promise I won't take too much time. I've got a little excerpt. I promise I won't read you the whole book. It's a couple of inches thick. But it's from New Urbanism. It kind of prints a report. Just a couple of things that I've underlined that are important here. This is from the Institute of Transportation Engineers. So they are probably smarter than I am. They reference North Carolina Department of Transportation. Obviously it doesn't involve us at all. But it says here that 15ft should be considered a maximum for most TND streets. The exception being boulevards and main streets where 25ft is the maximum. And it goes on to and refers to the range typically being from 10 to 15 ft. It does refer to emergency vehicles as well as trash trucks. Sometimes in design both vertically and landscape wise we have to design for Easter Sunday for a church. You know, you build it for your maximum possible outcomes. And one of the things it points in here is that larger vehicles may have to cross the center line. Talking about on narrower streets. But this is an acceptable design condition where a situation of this sort will be an infrequent occurrence. Typically when you are having emergency vehicles and there is a pedestrian there, they had better get out of the way because there are sires blaring. The other thing is trash trucks typically come quite early in the morning and where they can have the opportunity to cross the center line if they need to. We don't want to propose something that is unsafe. I run the risk of going.... making comments at all that will conflict Mr. Casey's who I respect a great deal and work with quite often on different projects. But we would propose a compromise. We certainly did come in at 10. 30 is the number, I believe, the City standards normally see. And we would certainly target in that 15 to 20 instead. So if there is any consideration there, we would submit that under one more plea. Clark: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: Does 20 sound better Mr. Casey? Casey: I'm sorry, what? Clark: Would 20 be more acceptable? Because we did compromise on that at Well Springs. Casey: I would.... I would appreciate that much more than the requested 15. Yes. Clark: Do I hear 20 Mr. Williams? Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 57 of 139 Nock: If this is an auction, then yes... I would buy that. As long as Mr. Casey still wants to work with us on future projects. So... yes, 20 would work. Motion: Clark: Then I will make a motion we amend condition 3A to read "waiver to allow a 20 It curb radius" and add the verbiage of the 25 ft curb radius into the entrance off of Rupple. Trumbo: Second. Anthes: Motion to amend by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Commissioner Trumbo. I will state that I will vote against that motion because I am in support of the 15 ft curb radius. I would rather have the 15ft radius with the strength and the depressed curb as proposed in the project booklet. I believe it is more in keeping with the goals of our City plan. With the goals of this development. And I have seen it installed successfully in many very successful developments where the traffic moves exceedingly well, exceedingly slowly, and exceedingly safety. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Ok. I would agree. I am probably going to vote against this. The book Mr. Nock read from. The New Urbanism book.... that's something that's... There's a lot of research as you stated.... there are a lot of people smarter than me writing it. Things can take years to affect. The rule books governing engineering and many other development standards can take decades. And it starts with people just going out there and pushing for it. And then other people write some books. And then it gets more established. I think Fayetteville is a progressive town. I think Fayetteville looks to these other areas, North Carolina, the New Urbanist to tell us where are things going? What things are working better? Because kind of like politicians, sometimes the people have to speak and the leaders will follow. Mr. Casey has great points, but I believe the rules are changing. They haven't completely changed. So I think it's larger than just.... I think 15 ft will work.... or no I don't think it will work. I think it's who's writing the rules. And I believe these successful towns that are promoting tradition neighborhood developments... T and D's have got something that people in Fayetteville want. I think the Downtown Master Plan spoke to this. It didn't codify a 15 ft radius, but it spoke of tightening intersections. There is lots of verbiage.... and the look.... People know it when they see it. Dickson... I don't think there is a single radii on Dickson that is larger than 15 ft. I would challenge anyone... maybe at Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 58 of 139 71... maybe. It looks different. It works different. And I think it's important to keep this here. And I applaud the developer for pushing for it. And I also applaud him for being willing to compromise. I'm going to vote against this.... against this motion. Anthes: For further discussion on the amend... the proposed amendment to Condition 3A. Harris: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Harris. Harris: I believe on Wellspring I was one that went for that compromise too. But I really appreciated what both you and Commissioner Ostner are saying, because I would very much like to support a 15ft curb radius here. So, while if this.... if I need to I will attempt to compromise, but I will vote against the compromise at this point as well. Anthes: Will you call the roll? Roll Call: A motion to amend condition of approval number 3A was denied by a vote of 6-2-0. Motion: Anthes: I'll move to amend condition 3A to accept the waiver of the 15ft curb radius at the street intersections with the addition that the applicant provide a strengthened and pressed curb as proposed in the project booklet. And, look at contrasting materials and to provide the best visual clues of what is going on at those intersections. And also that we accept a waiver to 25 ft from 30 ft at the intersections at Rupple Rd. Myers: I'll second. Anthes: A motion by Commissioner Anthes, seconded by Commissioner Myers. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: A motion to amend condition of approval number 3A was approved by a vote of 7-1-0. Anthes: Ok. 3B. This is the waiver about the cross sections, and the applicant is proposing on street parallel parking. When the master street plan does not have a Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 59 of 139 cross section that allows parallel parking as proposed. Mr. Casey, can you clarify this a little bit? I'm a little confused as to what we are voting on. Or maybe someone can point it out, where it is on the site plan. Casey: If you will give me just a minute. I'm not familiar with this condition. Anthes: Maybe Andrew knows. Garner: Yeah. What we're looking at is the street cross sections allow parallel parking on both sides of the street. And they also have the right of way within it. Like from Meadowlands Dr it is a 63 ft right of way with... that particular street section is just not in our Master Street Plan. They are customizing streets for this particular development. And that is the case as well for public drive number 1. With parallel parking it's a 61 ft right of way. And it's the same as well for public drives 2 and 3. Those particular types of street sections with angled parking and paralleled parking on both sides of the street. And it doesn't fall under our standard cookie cutter streets that we've laid out. Anthes: And is that basically more because of the way the parking movements work? I mean, is it because of the angle that the back out parking that's the biggest concern? Garner: Are we still talking about 313? Or... Anthes: Yeah is that only... or is that just for the parallel there? Garner: 3B is really referring to just the street... the streets as a whole as they're proposed. The one regarding the.... you know... the drive aisle that was a waiver also in condition number 5. Anthes: OK. Gamer: Condition 3B was talking just about..... just ah, just the public street cross sections as a whole. Anthes: Ok. So basically you just want to see public drive number 3 labeled as a private street. Gamer: Right. Anthes: And I believe the applicant agreed to that. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 60 of 139 Nock: Ah, reluctantly. Obviously we believe that streets should be for public use and maintained by the public. We did understand Staff's recommendation. We did not want to make a debate out of every issue. We did want to point out at this level thought that there are other streets in town historically that have both parallel parking as well as diagonal parking.... especially on the square and around the University. And so, yes, it does not fit, as we've heard. The cookie cutter standard road. But I'm not sure that anything in Fayetteville that's great has been cookie cutter. So we are willing to compromise where ever we need to. But, our proposal was, and still is that this would be a public street. It is unique and is different. But the idea hear is to have the public access it and it be maintained. Anthes: Will you indicate the road we're discussion on this item with the laser pointer Todd? Jacobs: This street here goes one way north and then parking. And then one way south with parking here. Nock: Madam Chair, another thought here that you need to know is that because we anticipate growth to the north over some period of time, having a connection there from a public street is more ideal from a long term perspective to connect to the property to the north. This is obviously part of the transect from the north/south and then east/west. Meadowlands Dr. and then this middle road as well. So we didn't want to turn this into a parking lot because obviously we want to slow down traffic, but let it be a public street. And then there is the possibility longer term that there... and we've talked about having a stub out there... that this would also connect to the north. It couldn't connect to the south, obviously because of the Boys and Girls Club there, and also because you're civic building is there. Anthes: Question of Staff. I'm confused. The drawing seems to indicate angled parking on one side and the... the actually paragraph in our Staff report and the condition talks about parallel parking. Gamer: Right. The plan I believe is correct. This is just more of a conceptual plan. Unless the developer can... correct me if I'm wrong, but public drive number 2, I believe has parallel parking on one side and angled parking on the other side. And on sheet 3 of 8. And essentially our position is that it is... it would function as a drive aisle, and basically a parking lot for this development. And the City isn't interested in maintaining a parking lot. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 61 of 139 Nock: That is correct. Anthes: Let's see. Well, I guess I agree with both. I agree with the comment that if this could be basically classified as a boulevard section and connect to the north, which would be a beneficial city street and beneficial connection. The way this is drawn, it really is a parking lot with an island of trees down the middle of it. And I can really see where Staff is coming from with that. Anybody else have any comments? Ostner: Yes Madam Chair. Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: My concern is... the applicant has provided a very nice stub out to the north... which, this parking lot with a median could very well function as a street the way they have it drawn. At first blush is seems unfair to me for their street to be private drive. But they have provided connectivity for the whole world to use from the north. And we didn't want to maintain parking, though we promote on - street parking. Rarely delineated so nicely. The angle is more than usual, but the parallel has to count as on street parking. If you think about a 28 ft street in a subdivision, people park on one side.... that's half of what we're looking at. Would there be any middle ground where public right of way would stop before the angled parking? Because I... I see that functioning as a street. Which is really what the applicant is offering. Anthes: Mr. Casey, would you speak to our standards in regards with 90 degree angled parking backing into a lane of traffic? Casey: It's not a topic that I am very familiar with. I can definitely check our code book for you and see what our standards are for that. But I agree with Planning Staff's recommendation that this would function as a parking lot. And I have some concerns with the stub out that Mr. Ostner mentioned. Since this is a one-way, and it's going up. And it's only stubbing out in one direction... if that is a public street.... I think we would probably need to modify that to accommodate two- way traffic. Ostner: I thought it was simply a two-way offset since its 23 ft section. It's not marked one-way. Trumbo: Could we eliminate that connection? Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 62 of 139 Ostner: Mr. Nock, did you intend for that to be a one way..... Nock: Yes... Ostner: Well it would just be a parking spot for a while. Nock: Yes. That is the correct design. Ostner: To be one way northbound? Nock: Yes, that is correct. Anthes: I think that's difficult. If that's going to be a street stub out... it needs to be allow... it needs to allow.... it would need to allow a two-way movement of traffic. I don't think you should get into a one-way stub out. Ostner: The stub out is not delineated one-way. I just.... It is not. Just because it's one- way at the south of it.... two cars can easily fit on a 23ft section. Anthes: Yep. Nock: The idea there is obviously that it could easily be two-way.... you know, it depends on if you want to narrow that connection. Lack: Madam Chair. Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Lack. Lack: I could ask of the applicant if it would be possible and if you would be amenable to the idea of continuing the two one-way drives through the stub out, and actually continuing the boulevard idea to the property line. Which may, at that point, be converged at a Y and brought back together. But that would clean up the intersection at that point and allow for a little bit more easy travel coming south into the development. Nock: And so if I understand correctly, you are talking about basically extending it on, but putting a boulevard in the middle of that stub out, assuming it were to be built today and it has a lane both to the north and to the south. Is that what I'm hearing you say? Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 63 of 139 Lack: Two 2011 lanes. Nock: But no parking on either side of it. So now we are talking about a.... what a 28... 28ft curb to curb. Does that sound right? Or is it wider than that? 32? Lack: It would be 2 stub outs. And I would say they could be narrower. Trumbo: Two 20's. Anthes: With the center lines aligning with the center line of the drive all. Nock: I can't say no... but I can't say yes. I don't have a copy of what you're looking at, unfortunately. So that doesn't give us a real good clear indication. (Unclear talking and laughing. Looking at maps/plans) Anthes: Ok. Moving on to Condition number 4. "Commercial design standards for the commercial structures and overall comparability in transitions in the proposed development." Looks like everyone is nodding `yes'? Commissioner Ostner? Ostner: Madam Chair. Anthes: Yes. Ostner: I'm still back on the last one. Anthes: Oh. Ok. Ostner: It all ended in yes? Yes to do those stub outs, and we're not going to talk about right of way? (General laughter) Anthes: Oh! Jacobs: Right of way I think is already there. Nock: I think it's already indicated on the plan. If I saw that correctly. It looks like it's indicated. Ostner: Yeah, that whole street is called a private drive. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 64 of 139 Nock: But... well it.... my yes, if I understood it... was the question is are we allowing that to be both the north and south access and it being a public space that would ultimately connect to the north? Am I hearing that? Because that's what I was answering yes to. That's what I thought I was answering yes to. Ostner: But you have the dual stub out with the lanes that alien with the center line of the length.... of the travel aisle of the private drive, allowing for the illusion of the boulevard section. It would have to be moved from one property to the other providing for an easier transition, I believe is what Commissioner .... (interrupted) Nock: And part of my yes was predicated upon the idea that this becomes a public street that is eventually going to go all the way up to the north, all the way.... hopefully at some point to continue past the property line. Anthes: The Commissioner Ostner's correct in that we actually, actually haven't worked through that... whether or not to accept that as a public street... or... Ostner: The answer is no. I was pretty sympathetic to it... it should be public right of way. And I... Nock: And the answer is no? (Laughing) Ostner: Next issue! (more laughing) Anthes: So Staff's recommendation is that public drive number two should be a private street. Ostner: That's.... right. And if he's offering a median boulevard connection to the north. I'm back to where I don't think this is quite fair to make this a private drive... just because it's got angled parking. Can it not be right of way, stopping before the angled parking? Clark: We're going to have to maintain the parking.... Ostner: We can maintain the angled parking and the city maintain the street. (Unclear talking and moving around) Gamer: As far as the maintenance of those.... I mean, my understanding is the city transportation department would not be interested in maintaining a street that essentially functions as a parking lot. As far as the right of way ending at the.... Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 65 of 139 at the end of the drive aisle and having to maintain that... I guess it could be maintained as some sort of an access easement. I think that would be a better situation for the city... probably, as far as the maintenance is concerned.... to eliminate that angled parking. As far as from a city ownership. Ostner: Why? I mean, why is that a problem? I'm just not seeing... Garner: I think, just from the maintenance stand point.... Well, Mr. Casey if you want to.... Casey: Madam Chair, if I may. Anthes: Yes. Casey: Sorry to disagree with you Andrew, but it's very difficult to draw a line in the pavement and say that's the end of our ownership. I think if we are going to take ownership we need to take it as proposed for the right of way. Lack: Madam Chair. Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Lack. Lack: I think Mr. Nock was quite astute in referencing the square.... as an example of a public street with diagonal parking. I even... more than what this has in that it has diagonal parking on both sides. I think the width for the diagonal parking is a minimal difference. The only concern that I have is if we do have a regulation about backing onto a public street from a parking space. Which, I remember, that having come up in other developments... other things that we have looked at. And if that were that case I think that I would still look at this favorably. And I would like to try to amend that for this condition. But I don't want to go forward and do something in error. So I wonder.... Myers: The City Attorney's got his book out. Anthes: I'm thinking that that came up when we were... Williams: I'm sure that's not a problem or else we wouldn't allow it on the square. Anthes: Right. Well, I'm thinking about it. When we looked at that Plan Zoning District that I understand is not going to be built where the huts are off of Center Street? And we are looking parking under that building and backing out onto that drive, Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 66 of 139 and there was some question about the status of that street and allowing that to happen. Lack: It may be that it's only 90% parking. Because that's the condition that I had... that I remembered. Or that it's a classification of the street issue. But I know that we did address that on other developments. Anthes: But you are correct that it does function on the square. Lack: Quite nice. Ostner: It was on Dickson 10 years ago. It hasn't been that long. Angled parking. Anthes: As a condition, I prefer parallel parking. I would love to see this boulevard with parallel parking, but I understand they won't meet their parking numbers with development that way. Ostner: I don't quite... if we're talking that the city doesn't want it because it's a maintenance issue. To me that sounds like picking up trash. Because the people owning the store fronts are going to maintain their plants. It's not like there are acres of mowing.... I'm in favor of this entire area being public right of way. I think it's proper. They are building a node. Not a town, but a tiny spot. It's very centralized and it's very much like a square. It deserves a different type of guy who goes out there and does a different type of maintenance. And I think it's fair to actually make the public street a public street. Anthes: Would you like to state.... how will you.... how you would like item 3B to read? Motion: Ostner: Sure. Myers: Is it 313? Aren't we on 5? Anthes: Well, we kind of went back.... Ostner: Where it begins the italics on 3B.... "Staff recommends in favor of the waiver to construct the street cross sections as requested ...... and allow this to be public right of way. Anthes: And do you want to address the stub out issue? Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 67 of 139 Ostner: The stub out to the north will be a similar boulevard section. Myers: Period? Ostner: Period. Anthes: Alright. Motion to amend by Commissioner Ostner. Lack: Second Anthes: Second by Commissioner Lack. Trumbo: I assume that you are meaning 2 stub outs to the north.... 20ft sections. Ostner: Yeah. Trumbo: With a median in the middle. Ostner: A boulevard. Trumbo: Boulevard type. Clark: So there will be 4 stub outs to the north? Anthes: Well, no... it might... well that one would be just an extra wide one that would allow that boulevard section to continue. Clark: Yep. Great. Anthes: Is that right? Ostner: Yes. Trumbo: I'll second it. Anthes: Will you call the roll on that? Roll Call: A motion to amend condition of approval number 313 was approved by a vote or (motion carries) Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 68 of 139 Anthes: Ok. I think the last tough condition is number 5. Basically we are looking at, "the applicant has requested two way drive aisle around the perimeter of the development as 23ft". And then there are other drive aisle that have 22, 23, and 25 ft. Our unified development code calls for a 24 ft drive aisle, adjacent to parking. Is that correct? Is that what we are really saying? And you are saying that you need the 24 ft in order to maintain those parking movements? When you are backing out? Garner: That's right. The 24 feet is for parking lot, a two-way drive aisle, and that.... We do find that it is necessary to offer safe traffic movements from parking spaces into that. Anthes: Could you do the laser pointer to where this is? Is this just within the parking lots themselves? Or it's the perimeter? Jacobs: It's the perimeter around the parking on the off side.... Anthes: Todd, could you come up to the microphone please? Jacobs: I think Staff's biggest concern was, we're showing 23 feet around this perimeter here. So we have head in parking with parallel, so... 24 feet. What we're showing is 23 feet. We are using a smaller curb. A typical curb is 2 feet with an 18 in lip. Same as we did on Wellspring is a 6in curb with a 12in lip. And that is commonly what we see in T and D communities, and new urbanist communities. You've got the same driving lane, same amount of asphalt, smaller curbs. So that makes up. Visually it's a little more appealing. Esthetically, so it kind of falls under... down street parking... and pedestrian, and what we're after. Anthes: So question of Staff. If the driving lane can be accomplished to be exactly the same width as the driving lane in the 24 ft section, would you be amenable? I think that the concern was... that the driving lane... that was the main concern, the driving lane. But just because the curb is more narrow... I don't particularly follow how that would prevent him from backing out into the turning lane. So.... didn't really follow that. If the curb is more narrow... it would even force it closer to the middle... sounds like. Anthes: I read it the other way, which was that the driving aisle will maintained. It's just that the overall section would be reduced because the curb takes up only a foot of room rather than two feet of room. So if... Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 69 of 139 Garner: I mean... I think... Jacobs: If I may? That is correct. You have the same amount of driving lane that the city requires... just a smaller curb for appeal. It's the same amount of asphalt there. Just a 6 inches smaller curb on each side. Anthes: What about the gutter? Is the gutter the same? Jacobs: A typical gutter is 24 inches, this would be..... I'm sorry. A typical gutter is 18, this would be 12. So there is your foot that you make up on each side. Anthes: So, basically, you use... you will lose 611 of pavement with it... that cars can maneuver on. Jacobs: 6 inches. Correct. Anthes: 6 inches. And then 6 in on the back side. Lack: Madam Chair? Anthes: Commissioner Lack. Lack: If I may, I have a couple of questions. One on the actual parking spaces. I see a 17 ft dimension... and then a.... then we're looking at the 23 ft. Jacobs: That is correct. We are showing the 17 ft because we have the landscape buffer on the outside. So that is allowed by code. Typically your car will still pull up to the curb and you have the 2 ft overhang into the landscape... which would be sawed so that... the landscaping will provide the buffer. Lack: The 17 ft space is allowed? With in the parking? Jacobs: As long as you have the landscape overhang buffer. And Andrew can verify that. Lack: Good. So that 23 ft would... would start at the end of that stripe... Jacobs: Correct Lack: To the edge of the stripe of the.... Jacobs: Correct Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 70 of 139 Lack: to the edge of the opposite parking space. So it is a 23 It drive aisle. Jacobs: Correct Lack: And the other question that I had. I have found the 23 ft to be fairly consistent. Staff has noted that you have a 22 ft... one at 22. And one or more at 25? Can you point out the.... Jacobs: I think we've gone back through and tried to be consistent where we are. I think Andrew may have to point out where those are at. We do have some... some smaller 20 feet right in here that go into parking at the live/work units. Overall though we went back and tried to be consistent all the way around so we could cut out the confusion. There may be a few dimensions left over that we did not get changed. Lack: Ok. And I do see one... one 22 where it is parallel parking on both sides. Which is.... pubic drive 3. So the 25 ft section I would assume is probably one that has been changed? Jacobs: Correct Lack: Ok. And I think that with the parallel drives that is certainly easier to assume that a 22 ft drive will work fine. I have a little bit of trouble with the 23 ft drive. Although it is only 1 ft shorter than the vast wasteland that we commonly call a parking lot. But I do on occasion drive a vehicle that takes every bit of the road. Jacob: This type of development we're looking after, looking for every foot every inch we can to, like I said, provide that type of develop for the pedestrian and we don't like to try and argue on every item. Yes, every foot does count in this type of project. Lack: And I will support the 23 ft, I just will be selective with which vehicle I'll drive when I come to this. Motion: Trumbo: Is that a motion? Ostner: Is that a motion? Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 71 of 139 Lack: I will make a motion that we accept the 23 It drive aisle and the 22 ft drive aisle as the public drive number 3 where the parking is parallel on both sides. Ostner: Second. Anthes: Ok, motion to accept those waivers by Commissioner Lack, second by Commissioner Ostner. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: A motion to accept the 23ft drive aisle and 22 ft drive aisle as the public drive number 3 was approved by a vote of ?. (Motion carries) Motion: Anthes: I move that we forward Planned Zoning District 06-1884 to City Council with the conditions as amended and with a positive recommendation. Ostner: Second. Anthes: Motion to forward by Commissioner Anthes, second by Commissioner Ostner, is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The R-PZD 06-1884 for Westside Village was forward to City Council by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 72 of 139 R-PZD 06-2107: Planned Zoning District (CHAMPION'S CLUB CONDOS, 599): Submitted by CRAFTON, TULL & ASSOCIATES for property located at SW CORNER OF RAZORBACK RD. AND 15TH STREET, E OF THE CROWNE APTS. The property is zoned I-1, HEAVY COMMERCIAL/ LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, and contains approximately 4.20 acres. The request is for Master Development Plan rezoning and land use approval for a Residential Planned Zoning District 4 -story condominium building with 144 residential units. Garner: This property contains 4.20 acres its located south of 15`h Street and west of Razorback Road. It is zoned I-1, and is generally flat, and the Town Branch Creek is along the western border of the site. The applicant requests rezoning and land use approval only, for a residential development within an R-PZD zoning district. All the land is anticipated to be under a common ownership and the proposed zoning would allow for maximum of 144 dwelling units in a condominium building. You can see the conceptual rendering of the building there on the board. In addition, the zoning would also allow for a maximum of 71 of those units to be allowed to be used as condo/hotel units. And this is located right across from Baum Stadium, the Razorback Baseball Stadium, and the intent is to be able to cater and allow some hotel use for some of the uses in that area, I believe. The Crowne Apartments are located adjacent to the south side and the west side of this site and it's zoned RMF -24. As mentioned, to the north is Baum Stadium to the east is also University of Arkansas property and the RV park. Access into the development would be directly off of 15`h Street and Razorback Road along the northern and eastern property lines. The parking lots would be constructed interior to the property with a drive aisle connecting 15" Street and Razorback Road. Street improvements would be fully evaluated at the time of the large scale development review. We are anticipating that 15`h Street would be required to be improved to 18' from centerline with the development, and some existing storm drainage improvements as well. Sidewalks will be required along both streets, with a larger width than normal, based on the proposed development pattern with the building closer to the street and more urban type of street scape. We have had this rezoning requests reviewed by the City Rezoning team and had the Police Department and Fire Department and our Engineering Staff look at provision of water and sewer service and police and fire service. They have found that this development wouldn't have any adverse impact to those services with standard review and improvements to the infrastructure at the time of large scale development. We are recommending forwarding this R-PZD with recommendations for approval to City Council. The one determination for Planning Commission, I wanted to bring to your attention was Condition number 1. Is City Council determination of a waiver of Section 166.12 of the UDC to allow for a structure over a public utility easement? There is currently a 20' utility easement on the property site and this building entrance, one of the Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 73 of 139 entrances would spanned over that utility easement and we are recommending in favor of this waiver to allow for the structure over the easement. The clearance proposed in that breezeway is 14.5' and we find that would appropriate in order to provide for maintenance. We would also require that it would be on an easement plat, signed by all utility companies prior to building permit and actual design would be required to be reviewed in detail at the time of development. The main issues I wanted to bring forward and just let me know if you have any questions. Anthes: Thank you; could you please define a condo hotel unit? Before you sit down. Garner: It's a, from my understanding, it would principally be used as residential structure and it would have the flexibility to be able to be use at times as hotel. It is similar to what we saw in the Divinity project were some of the units would be for either use depending on the applicants discretion. And so, the development review would look at those, as the parking requirements would be the worst case, these are all one bedroom units, so its one space per bedroom or one space per hotel unit. It also is, would be more clearly defined with our Building Safety Division, I believe as far as firewalls and those sorts of things when the actually design review moves forward. Those units would have to be specified. Anthes: So, at development review, we would know what the number of condos verses hotel units would be? Is that what you mean? Garner: Right, at this point we have a maximum number 71. Anthes: Ok, thank you Mr. Garner. Would any member of the public like to speak to this R-PZD 06-2107 for Champion's Club Condos? Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public comment and ask for the applicant presentation. Beam: Good Evening, my name is Steven Beam with Crafton Tull and Associates. I will keep this short. This project is not under the typical PZD maybe like what you just looked at. Where it's a large piece and we're coming up with a Master Plan with this one. It's a little bit untraditional in that it's a small piece of property. We are trying to something that's not necessary allowed under the regular zoning criteria. We don't necessary meet the standard setback requirements to be able to shield the parking back behind. Also, in this particular development interest is to try to incorporate this build into the atmosphere around Baum Stadium and all the athletic activities that take place down there. In so, again, achieve by pushing the building forward. Putting the parking behind as I mentioned. Then I also, I just lost my train of thought. I did want to address the question to maybe clarify the hotel/condominium use, also something that is not allowed under the standard Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 74 of 139 zoning criteria. May I elaborate a little bit more? These would all be for sale units. The developer may intend to retain a few of those, but then also the residence that purchased them would have the option to put those units back into a pool to where there would be staff on site that would manage those particular units as a hotel would handle the leasing, I guess the renting, or however you want to term it, of those hotel units. They would be purchased and owned individually but then the owner would have that option to put those into a pool to lease. What we are doing thm this zoning criteria is setting that maximum on those units. This is just a conceptual or preliminary or whatever the proper terminology is PZD. We would plan on coming back before you all with a large scale development. Where we would finalize the site plan. I don't anticipate we change, but it would have the detail, such as landscaping, parking requirements, and those type of things. As well as, coming back with elevations to present at that time that we are meeting architectural standards within this PZD. And with that, I'll just answer any questions that you all might have and appreciate your consideration. Anthes: Thank you. Commissioners, we are reviewing this for Master Development Plan approval. Of course, that carries with it rezoning and land use approval. Clark: I have a question. Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Clark. Clark: You just said, you got my attention Steven, that you'll come back with elevations as if those aren't your elevations? Beam: This being a conceptual, these would be as Andrew pointed out, conceptual elevations. I think they would be for the most part what you are looking at. Through the large scale, there may be a slight variation. We don't call out the exact type of material as far as specific. As you may normally have material boards and those types of things. We would come back with those details at that time. Clark: Ok. But they are going to be pretty close. Beam: Yes ma'am. Clark: Thank you. Beam: (inaudible) kind of building, we're going to keep it that way. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 75 of 139 Clark: Yeah, exactly. Question for staff. Since this is going to be hotel/condo, so part of this is commercial? Will the Design Standards come into play? Garner: They will not. It's less than 50% of it. It would be hotel units, so that is were the threshold would kick it into commercial. So, it's principally residential structure. There will be some hotels inner dispersed through out. But, because it's primarily residential, it doesn't fall into those. Clark: As long as it stays residential, we don't have Design Standards. Garner: Right. Clark: Ok. That's what I thought. Ostner: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Thank you, is it that 50% even including all the condo owners who opt to go to the hotel during big baseball game? I mean, it could be 100% hotel, if the options, if the condo owners opt to do that. The way you described earlier. Beam: There are 144 units in this development; I believe it was, 70 of them could be hotel units, so that's less than 50%. So that would be the maximum amount would be 70. Ostner: Ok, ok. Tr umbo: I believe you said 71. Ostner: Ok, the hotel units are hotel or condo? Beam: Right. Ostner: Ok and the condo units are just condos. Beam: Condo only. Ostner: Right, ok. I had it reversed. Ok, ok, thank you. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 76 of 139 Anthes: You bring up a point though; I believe we saw a project last week on Garland. It had two floors of commercial space with residential above. It was basically a residential building, but we were able to look at the first two stories and apply commercial design standards. Is that not what we would do here for the hotel portion? Garner: Mr. Beam can tell us how that hotel would actually function but my understanding is that the condo units would just be able to be basically rented out for those weekends. It's not a commercial as a principal use. It's primarily a residential development overall. It's a Residential Planned Zoning District. There's not any separate potion of it that we would technically review as commercial. There's not a retail space on the bottom that would be subject to those design standards. Clark: Madam Chair. One unit can be a condo and a hotel unit. Is that what you are telling me? Mr. Beam? Beam: Yes, ma'am. Someone, for instance, if you wanted to purchase a condo unit, but you didn't want to stay there all the time. So, you live in Little Rock and you wanted to come up here for game days, you want to have it then. The rest of the time, for business travelers, you could put that unit into a pool, that than, a POA or some entity would than rent out on the weekly bases. Clark: That's a way cool concept. But, I think does bid Commissioner Anthes question. At some point 100% of it could be commercial. Myres: No. Beam: No. Clark: So does it have to be? Myres: No. Beam: No. Trumbo: There's a maximum. Beam: 71 of the units. Clark: 71 of them. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 77 of 139 Beam: Would be placed into that. Clark: Ok. Beam: And I believe that the intent to would not be just 71 units at any one time or leased out. But rather, 71 owners would choose or maybe one person may own five units. But 71 of the units would be dedicated into that pool that then would be turned around and leased. Maybe unit 25. Clark: Ok, it makes sense. And if you stick to these design standards, what I'm seeing elevations of; it's not going to be a problem. Beam: Yes. Clark: Because it's really nice. If you stick to it. Beam: Yes, ma'am. Ostner: But we will see that soon enough. Clark: Yes, we will. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: I have comment. Since we are not granting development approval. This is simply a rezoning, custom rezone. I would like to say I think it's an appropriate use of land. I think it's a nice looking building. If you are go back and wonder what to present for large scale development, the frontage along Razorback concerns me. I understand these are just sketches. But, what happens to pedestrian, and I have said this before, what happens to the pedestrian experience? You are sort of building almost an urban situation. The parking is hidden; people along the public street have direct interaction with the building. The sort of wall of shrubs that almost makes a backyard is very awkward. I could see that turning into something more significant. If those people want that to be private, I think they're going to be disappointed and you're going to have to change it. That just seems awkward to me. I would really look at that more as a public space. Its not retail and it might not be public per say, but it if were their front doors or some sort of situation that addressed people walking by. Who don't know what that building is; I think it would function better. But that's just information, just my opinion; it's not really on the table. I think we have a little bit of discretion of the Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 78 of 139 PZD level, not equivalent to our design standards, but somewhat to comment on how it looks. I think it looks nice. I think it's a pretty fair building. I'll be in favor of voting for it. Anthes: Ok, I'll proceed with some question I have about the booklet. Beam: Yes ma'am. Anthes: On page 1, I believe you, under C1, you said general the development would consist of high rise condominium structure. I would not state that a four story building in this City is qualifications for a high rise and would ask you to remove that language. Beam: Yes ma'am. Anthes: On page 8, you've referred to General Plan 2020 before this ends up in Council please revise to reflect City Plan 2025 and its goals. On page 9, the question about, I guess its N7, a ten foot wide pedestrian trail would be constructed along Razorback Road and will tie into the existing City trail along Town Branch Creek. Correct me if I'm wrong, the sidewalk along Razorback Road that is a state highway and that would be provided by the State Highway Department or you actually constructing that sidewalk? Beam: No ma'am. We are having to construct that. The Highway Department improvements that are being done are only to 15`h Anthes: Oh, only to 151h Beam: Yes ma'am. Anthes: Ok, so you are going to take that same alignment and carry it south of 15`h Street. Beam: On the trail? Anthes: Well, the sidewalk. Beam: Yes, it's going to be adjacent to the right-of-way. I don't know exactly where the trail sits on the north side of 15`h but there will be a crossing, pedestrian crossing there on 15`h. I think it will be lighted in the future and then we'll take the trail along south and connect into the trail that running east and west that was associated with the Crowne project. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 79 of 139 Anthes: I just asked that if you can, if there is any possibility to make that align with the State Highway. Beam: Oh sorry, across the street, on the crossing. Anthes: Yes. Beam: I'm sorry, what page was that? Anthes: Page 9, item 7 at the top. Beam: Ok Anthes: And then, my biggest problem with this development is also on page 9. 04, please discuss what the rational for gating the parking lot thru access. Beam: It's maybe not the gate as your thinking of a large gate. Anthes: I'm thinking of a barricade that prohibits people who don't have a card from accessing it. Beam: No, the pedestrian movement thru this development will be. Anthes: No, in cars. Beam: Oh, I'm sorry. Anthes: If you're in a car and you don't have a little card to let you thru, will it block you? Beam: I'm sorry; you said without a card, I didn't catch the "d". The idea behind that is with the location of this project you drive down there on game day and you can see that whole field is full of cars. People are accustomed to parking on this property. We come in and we develop on this piece property and there are a certain number of residences who expect this to be their place of residence. And there are spaces becoming occupied by people. Not only for games, but now that the track center gets used as, or the former track center, gets used as a convention center. The events that take place there will be parking demand and such. At this particular project. We had discussion at length with staff about this. This particular project doesn't have the benefit that some other projects. Take the Legacy Condos that are downtown, behind Dickson Street. You have ample Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 80 of 139 public parking available, should someone be in your space. Well, in this particular development, in south Fayetteville, that development is just taking place. There are no public facilities available, without having to walk some significant distance and cross a major street. So, it's very important, not only for a safety stand point, but from the developer stand point of actually going thru with this project. To be able to have the parking on-site in reserve for those residence. There's not going to be cross connectivity as staff pointed out on their report to any of the adjacent properties because of the natural barrier of Town Branch or Town Center Creek. The one on the west side of the project. And then obviously, we are there in the corner where you're accessing. There's no cross connectivity there. To the south, you also have the larger Town Branch Creek, the trail and such. So, there's really not a likely hood for any connectivity from this project and those parking control is only for that to reserve spaces for these residences that purchased units in this area. Anthes: Well, I understand what you are saying, and let, I also know that there's other ways to control parking on those days. If this is being used for this kind of use. First of all, people could be trained. Second of all, there can be a security guard station there. I know that they are stationed up and down that road all the time. There is just other ways to handle it and we have a specific directive with in the City of Fayetteville that prohibits gated communities. I'm worried that this starts to emulate what that does on a City street, with a gated community and I would not be in support of that gate. Or the gated nature of the site. Let's see, can I ask, and I know we'll ask in the future, but the type of glass that you expect on this building. Particularly, the large expanse on the curb fagade? I'm just looking at the representatives from WDD and asking and if your, shake your head, reflected yes or no. Unknown: Something that would have some, to get some depth to that facility. I would think it would have no reflectivity to it. Anthes: Ok, it sure would be nice if we could have some vision glass thru that would, could see what's going on. Unknown: Yes, some of the clear type of glass that you can see into the facility. Anthes: Thank you. And, as far as the wavier to expand the utility easement, I don't seem to have much problem with it. Myers: No. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 81 of 139 Anthes: Anybody else? Are there further comments? Commissioner Myers. Motion: Myers: I like to make a motion that we forward R-PZD 06-2107 to City Council with recommendation for approval with the attached 13 conditions of approval finding in favor of the waiver for putting the structure over a public utility easement. Trumbo: Second. Anthes: We have a motion to forward by Commissioner Myers with a second by Commissioner Trumbo. I'll ask other Commissioner if they feel similarly about the gated aspect of this design or if that is something that we would see during large scale? Ostner: Madam Chair. Anthes: Yes. Ostner: I'm not comfortable voting for this and I would hate to vote negative just because of that. But, I think there's been lively debate about this issue. It is tiny little paragraph, but is a, I think it is part of the vision that the Alderman have reflected. That the public has spoken too, clearly to not allow this. I can think of ten different ways to handle it. How about a sign at each parking space. You're going to be towed. You're not the one who parks. There is one guy who parks here, you're not it. He knows who he is. I'm being sarcastic. The tow trucks are busy the whole day before a game and during a game. Towing the people who are not allowed. The people might decide to park a mile away and hire out their spaces and like everyone else does. Allow the game people to park there and they make several thousand dollars. I like to ask staff if we approve this tonight, this PZD, the way I understand it, this booklet, we are approve that too? We are only going to look at buildings and lines on a paper. Large scale development in the future, not this booklet. Garner: That's correct. Ostner: That's correct. Garner: I mean the PZD booklet on page 7, we did make findings of fact with regards to access and connectivity and we did include discussion on the gates. We did find in favor of that, as we discussed it, it is not City policy to allow gated residential Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 82 of 139 streets and that's what the connectivity, for the gated situation is. From a policy stand point, in general, we wouldn't recommend in favor gating condominium or multi -family development like this. However, there is no potential for; we didn't see any potential at all for any connectivity with any other areas in this. There's a creek along the west, there's streets on the other sides. In addition, just the situation with it being so close to the University and the Razorback game parking. I know there are other solutions that they could do without gating. But, we didn't feel like, this was the exception to the rule where gates would be something that would be reasonable. Motion: Ostner: I understand staff's position. But, it's also my position to be the citizen volunteer; well I use to be a volunteer, the citizen whose speaks not the paid staffer. I don't think gates are Fayetteville, for the reasons I stated. I would like to offer amendment that number 4 on page 9 simply be removed. Beam: May I address a little bit further? Ostner: Hold on. Anthes: Hold on. Ostner: We'll let you talk. I think that's fair. Anthes: I'll second that amendment. Ostner: I'll make a motion that the booklet be altered to remove item 04 on page 9. Anthes: I'll second. Commission, a motion to, well do we actually need to put that in the conditions of approval rather than amend their offered booklet? Williams: I think that would be better. Anthes: So, can you offer as a? Ostner: Yes, as a condition of approval, I would like to offer removing item 04 on page 9. Anthes: Ok, so we are accepting as a friendly motion amendment? Ostner: Ok. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 83 of 139 Myers: Yes. Anthes: Commissioner Trumbo, are you Ok with that as a second? Unknown: Does that prevent us from asking the City Council to review that? Williams: It does not. Unknown: Ok, are position would be, we would not like be put in a position where we couldn't ask the City Council. Anthes: We are making our recommendations to City Council, they are the final body but we need to make our recommendation clear to them. Trumbo: I would like to leave my second on the motion that was original proposed. Anthes: Ok, we will just offer as an amendment, do you just want to make a second motion? Ostner: Don't we usually have a vote? Anthes: Yes, we will just do a separate motion. Ostner: Lets first vote on mine. Anthes: There's a motion and a second Commissioner Ostner and Commissioner Anthes to add a condition of approval that would prohibit the use of gates on this site. Which would in affect strike a paragraph in the development booklet? Beam: May I address that a little bit further before you... Anthes: No, we're in the middle of voting. Is there further discussion? Harris: Madam Chair, if I may. Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Harris. Harris: This issue of gated community comes up occasionally, could we just expand on this just a moment for the folks watching as well, as for me. Because what Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 84 of 139 Andrew is saying is that it's primarily tied to the issue of connectivity. And I would like some further discussion. Anthes: Sure. Ostner: That's staffs' stand point. Anthes: I think it does have something to do with connectivity but it also has something to do with perceptions of openness and welcoming that we have in our community. It also speaks to, what happens when you are a guest? Think if you go to Pinnacle and you have a delivery to make or you're a guest to somebody and you want to go visit and you have to go to this guard house and there's gates. That's a completely different feeling and different kind of situation than it is if you just drive up and park on the street in front of someone's house. Yes, this is just great property and its more to their parking lot but I just don't feel it's in the spirit of the ordinance or in the spirit of this community to allow that kind of barricade to be erected for private property. For access that people are coming and going to that property. Harris: Ok. Trumbo: Madam Chair. Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Trumbo Trumbo: I understand the issue of gated public right of ways, but I believe that a private developer also has a right to gate something. Especially something like this when we are not going to have connectivity in the future. And I may not be against it personally, or for it either way. I think that especially in this case, the developer or the private property owner has the right to do what he thinks is necessary to enhance his development. Geared to marketing to whoever he wants to. But if it was a public street, or we have.... what's the property in Johnson that's gated? I understand. I think that definitely goes against the spirit of what Fayetteville's not about. And that's gated neighborhoods and things like that. Anthes: I can definitely respect what you are saying. I just... Those are private streets, too. You know, usually those are not city streets behind those gates. So, it is private in either case. And I also think that there is a city trail? in that area. It's just... I guess I can see both sides of the argument. But with the Planned Zoning District, I would rather have the development go more to the goals of the City Plan. And more to the goals of visual connection and exclusion. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 85 of 139 Anthes: Commissioner Lack? I believe you have something on your tongue. No? Commissioner Ostner? Ostner: Yes Ma'am. The argument is often made that people who own property need to go ahead and shoot for their marketing plan, and I respect that. It is difficult to build projects like this. But I don't think that we should forget that we are part of this, too. We don't own that land surrounding them, but it is called `public right of way'. When the public lets people develop, they simply write a book and say `here's all we require in this little town'. And every town is different. So there is a voice for the public in how they want developments to go. Now, they have to abide by the law. But, the law usually allows... and Mr. Williams can correct me... the law usually allows the City Council to make an ordinance, and they did a year or two ago. It was a little bit different. It talked about a gated community with public right of ways inside it. But, I believe the dialogue surrounding that talked about the public. And they said `Gee, how's the mailman going to get in? Is he going to ring the bell? Is he going to have a key? What if the UPS man wants to get in?' It's the same here. Is the mailman going to have another way in? The waste management giant truck? Things get funny. They get different. They get complicated. And, we've seen that. We all know gated areas. We've been in them. I.... I think.... I'm not on the City Council. But I think the City Council has spoken. That they have heard from their constituent that that is not the kind of town they see this becoming. When they crafted the welcome mat to the developers they say, "you're welcome if you do it the way we like'. So that is my opinion... Beam: I think we've addressed some of those things in our... Lack: Madam Chair? Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Lack. Lack: I will go ahead and release that.... what was on the tip of my tongue. So.... I think when I look at this particular case I tend to agree with Staff. That I don't find it necessarily a gated community and meeting that criteria. I think that people are welcomed and invited into this property as pedestrians. Just not as drivers with cars to take up parking spaces. And I think that when we look at the parking, and the idea of gated parking, we can also look at an analogy of our downtown right now where we have started to modify requirements and are allowing gated parking... and for paved purposes. And so, maybe what the developer here needs to do is assign a dollar value to the parking spaces and call it paid parking. And Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 86 of 139 then maybe it's different. It's not a gated community, but paid parking lot which our city has embraced. Anthes: I don't find the same analogy. And the reason why is because nobody is coming to a paid parking lot to visit somebody in a residence, or to deliver a package, or whatever. They are coming there to park. And I personally don't like the gates on the parking lots either. I like the parking lots by the... you know... the River Market in Little Rock where there is an honor system. You go in and you park in a numbered spot. You put your dollar bill in the slot. And you don't have that barricade in place. As you can see we have a split on this Commission. I am sure that City Council will have their own opinion. Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Clark. Clark: I actually have a question for the applicant. Lack: Thank you. Clark: Commissioner Ostner referenced it. With the gated parking. I understand what you are talking about. How will service vehicles enter and exit the facility. And how will emergency vehicles enter and exit the facility safely? Beam: These ah.... first I'll answer the service vehicles, and then also I think the guests that were mentioned. There are facilities available outside of these..... gates.... for lack of another term. Clark: Don't you wish you could find a better term? Beam: I've been looking for one that is not so.... Clark: Gatish? Beam: Exactly. There are some spaces outside. We had desired to get some on the fronts... out along 15`h Street. But Staff wouldn't allow that. To kind of enhance, but also to provide some more spaces for visitors. But for the service vehicles, there is room to turn around in the back. Coming through here.... I can't really turn away from the microphone. Anthes: You can take the microphone with you if you would like. It comes out of the... Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 87 of 139 Beam: Oh, excellent. Through here underneath the covered breezeway for vehicles. There is room though here for a service vehicle to turn around. There is also provisions for trash collection and also for fire protection, emergency vehicles. These gates are equipped with, what I believe is called a `knocks box', which disables those where the.... those types of... fire department and trash and things can disable the gate and it will actually open up. And they are very common in particularly the fire protection, and ambulances, and emergency services. To be able to disable and come in and through the development. For pedestrians, obviously this area is open and we have the access breeze way between the two phases though here where pedestrians will be able to come in. These along the backside are courtyards that are not locked off from anybody to move through or such. The whole idea of this development is to be pedestrian friendly as Commissioner Trumbo pointed out. We just need some level of comfort and controls so as not to burden the developer with... Excuse me, I'm sorry... Clark: Can I ask a question, not about this amendment? Anthes: What about... why don't we... Ostner: There is a motion on the table. Anthes: Why don't we work the amendment and then we can come back to that. We have a motion to add an amendment prohibiting the gated areas. Will you call the roll? (some talking and Commissioners expressing the difficulty of this vote) Roll Call: The motion to add an amendment prohibiting the gated areas was approved by a vote of 6-2-0. Anthes: And now we have a motion to forward? Clark: Now I have a new question. Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Clark. Clark: What's the green space? Beam: Green space as far as the strip? Clark: Well I just remember, if I'm not mistaken, that the PZD ordinance requires some degree of green space for the use of patrons and property owners. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 88 of 139 Beam: Yes, and it's all, as you can see, primarily clustered out along the right of ways. Clark: The 20 ft setback? Beam: Yes. The ah.... on the back side of each of the units, and this kind of goes to what Commissioner Ostner had mentioned earlier as far as trying to put the fronts out there. One of the things the developer is doing is... the backs of these are all going to be green... as courtyard areas for each of the residents outside of the particular units. And so will the... Clark: Where is this in the plats? Because I can't find it in this. (unclear talking and papers rustling) Beam: I'm sure Staff had us put it on here somewhere. Clark: Andrew, do you remember? Garner: Not off the top of my head. The PZD ordinance, you can just look up an exact percentage that is required to be green space. We would require that it be met. We would review those exact numbers at the time of development to make sure that they've met that. I believe that it is 25%. Beam: 25% is the minimum. I do know. And there is a 20ft strip along the eastern boundary. And then actually on the northern boundary it's a 5011 wide strip for the whole width of that. You know, less the drive aisles. And so I think, with that width, it will certainly exceed. I came up with some rough numbers, and I don't see the numbers right off.. Clark: I asked you the question because I don't see the numbers in the book. And, if you are going to reap the benefits of the PZD, I want you to follow the provisions of the PZD. And I was thinking that a front yard is not necessarily what the ordinance had in mind. Now, when you bring this back for Large Scale Development, I think that it's something they will be looking for, and called out. I see that you list amenities, but they are all internal amenities. Like a weight room, etc. The ordinance specifically mandates some degree of communal green space. And I hope that you can incorporate that. Because, this is a piece of property that I think speaks very well to this type of development. I'm the one who said we needed a hotel on that comer when we were talking about Divinity. And I still think that it is a great place for a hotel. The condo/hotel I think kind Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 89 of 139 of.. is interesting. But what the heck? I think it's very appropriate for that area. But, I want to see some more green space. I am not enthused. I know you want the internal parking, but maybe you can work something out where you don't have to use a gate or a petition. Or you can be creative and do something else with it. In terms of appropriate land use, I think it is... yeah, really good. I think what you are putting there is a good project. So I will be supporting the over all amendment, the over all motion. As soon as somebody makes it. Anthes: There is one. We have a motion for by Commissioner Myers and seconded by Commissioner Trumbo. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The R-PZD 06-2107 Champion's Club Condo's was forwarded to City Council by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 90 of 139 CUP 06-2284: (CALYPSO PROPERTIES, 595): Submitted by CALYPSO PROPERTIES for property located at 4170 W. SIXTH STREET. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 2.95 acres. The request is for a restaurant in the R -O, Residential Office, and Zoning District. Morgan: Suzanne Morgan stated the following, in her description and request to Planning Commission: The 3.35 acre tract of land was created in 1993 with the approval of a lot split and an accompanying conditional use permit to create a tandem lot for the remainder of the tract, north of the subject property. In 1994, the owner of the property requested the property be rezoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and requested approval for a conditional use to allow the development of a commercial shopping center and warehouse/mini-storage. The Planning Commission denied this request. In December 2004, the owner of the property requested to rezone the property from R -A to C-1 in anticipation of developing the property for retail use. Staff recommended denial of the proposal suggesting instead a zoning of R -O. The Planning Commission recommended and the City Council made the policy decision to rezone the property to R -O. On August 14, 2006, the Planning Commission considered and denied a second request to rezone the property C-1. The property owner's reason for the second request was in response to the several requests from retail businesses and restaurants to locate in this development. The Planning Commission raised concerns with rezoning the property to C-1 but did suggest that the applicant apply for a conditional use permit for restaurant so that items such as lighting, refuse service, noise, and hours of operation could be addressed. The applicant requests a conditional use permit to allow an eating place (Use Unit 13) to occupy approximately 2,000 square feet of the overall 22,725 square feet development. This area is identified as the two units closest to 6`h Street within the western building. The eating place, specifically a pizza parlor, proposes the following hours of operation that is listed in your staff report. Anthes: Thank you Ms. Morgan. Would any member of the public like to address this conditional use permit for Calypso Properties? Please come forward. Good evening. Wilkes: My name is Steve Wilkes. I live at 4180 West Sixth St. I am an adjoining home owner. And indeed, my access would parallel this restaurant. First thing I would like to do is congratulate the developers for putting up some very attractive buildings. They have done a good job of putting buildings in, that I think suit the landscape. They look nice. They've built a nice office park. There are still some drainage issues that we need to discuss, but that's a different issue. And I hope for their success with their office park. That said, allowing a restaurant to come Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 91 of 139 in here, particularly at the head of my driveway..... It literally is the entrance to my home... I have a lot of problems with. I would like to begin by addressing a letter that was presented by Kevin Santos to you at the August 14"' meeting that we had. And he said... and he is talking about this property.... "And this property was owned by Mr. Wilkes and he got a lot -split to sell the property off, and he could have put the covenant on it at that time if he had wanted to control the future use of it. But now he is trying to control the future use of it and he has already sold it for what he could get for it." And now I would like to mention the Planning Commission Meeting from July 11, 1994. When Kevin Santos, the same man, was representing my wife in a very similar... Anthes: Mr. Wilkes, could you please.. Wilkes: This has a point. Anthes: Yeah. Please, please do not direct comments at any particular individual. Just talk about the issue at hand. Wilkes: My point here is that I didn't have an opportunity to say that we didn't own the property. We never owned the property. We never had anything control of it. Anthes: Ok. Wilkes: Ok. "Staff has found the conditions were met to satisfy the CUP requirement to insure compatibility with residential uses." I would argue it's been turned down twice and if this isn't commercial zoning, then I don't know what is. A pizza parlor is about as close to a fast food restaurant as you can get. I anticipate that there would be delivery drivers coming and going. I anticipate that there will a liquor license sought, at least beer license. It goes hand and hand with pizza. There's all kinds of problems that I see with high vehicular traffic, high foot traffic, odor, late nights, weekends, trash, etc., etc. The closing at l 1pm is problematic in that, just because a restaurant closes at 11 doesn't mean that the activity is over at 11:00. It means that is when you start cleaning it up. That is when the radio actually gets turned up louder, and the cars come in to pick up the kid that is getting off work, and so on and so forth. My point here is just that 11:00 closing does not mean lights out, everything is quiet. It means that there is another hour or two of clean up and trash removal. And all sorts of things are going to happen. So realistically, that's not as early as it sounds. I am also concerned about the likelihood of a liquor license, that's a problem in my opinion. Not because I am against liquor, but because I'm against... I am afraid of it amplifying all the other issues that can come here: traffic, trash, noise, and all Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 92 of 139 those sorts of things. There is a finding that the location is the most removed from our home. I would argue that that is not true. In fact, it is located really at the entrance of our home- the entrance to our driveway. In my opinion it is probably the least desirable position. When someone enters our home, the first thing they are going to see is the back of this restaurant. And the backs of restaurants, over time, tend to get pretty ratty. I can see break tables out there. Where are people going to go to have a smoke break? Throw down their cigarette butts, their drink cans when they are done. They are going to end up in my driveway. I have a great concern about that. I'm concerned about.... even though I realize that Staff has recommended that deliveries and such be made to the main entrance. I just feel that that is an unenforceable stipulation at 11:00 at night, when the delivery guy decides to use the driveway to come and go to deliver pizzas or whatever. Who's going to enforce that? Who's going to take care of that when the trash is left? Who's going to put the teeth in that stipulation? It's just not there. I would also argue that larger vehicles might take the chance of getting down in there and tear it up. It's my understanding that it is my responsibility to keep that road up. I don't feel like I should have to allow commercial use to damage the road. And it will happen when big vehicles get down there. So I am really worried about that. The other thing that I am worried about isn't just this restaurant. It isn't just this particular lease on this particular restaurant. It's that once a restaurant has been allowed to come in here we have established that this is no longer really an office park. It is an office park, kind of, but it is also a strip mall, kind of. And once the restaurant is there it is going to be awfully hard in the future to say to a future restaurant owner `well, you can't be in here'. And my point here is that restaurants tend to fail pretty regularly. In fact a study by Ohio State pointed out that within a 3 year period 57% to 61 % of restaurants failed: 26% the first year, 19% the second year, 14% the third year. My fear is that even if the folks applying tonight are the best people in the world. There is no trash, there's no cigarette butts, there's no noise. Everybody is happy and friendly and so on and so forth, I don't see any guarantee coming down the road that the next owner, the next person who takes over this space doesn't turn out to be a neighbor that nobody wants to have around them. My best offence against that is to argue for consistency in finding that residential offices what was approved and residential offices what would be enforced. And allowing a major restaurant, a 2,000 sq ft restaurant.... particularly one that will most likely serve liquor. And again I am not against liquor .... but will most likely... you know it depends on high foot traffic. It depends on high customer count in order to make a profit. (Changing tapes- missing some dialogue) ....problem for me. And that creates a problem at the head of my driveway. And when you come to my home, and the first thing you see is the break table, and the smoking thing, and some coke cans laying by the door, and two or three trash cans by the back door ... they Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 93 of 139 ultimately get put by the back door because that is where it will have to come out. They're not going to empty the trash out the front doors, that's not realistic. It is going to come out the back. And that is going to create trash and all sorts of problems that come down that road. It's just life. I worked in restaurants when I was a kid. I mean many of us did. It's just how it is. And so, I'm trying to state that I think on paper the stipulations sound great. In reality I don't think that most of them will work. Now, obviously the things about signage and all that, that's fine. I'm talking basically about access into my driveway. I am concerned about upkeep and I am concerned about maintenance. Finally, we submitted a petition at the beginning of this with 32 names of Fayetteville residents that live nearby. A couple of those residents have written letters a couple of times to you all about this. In the packet that was presented, only one person came forward and said `yeah we support this'. And he said specifically that he looked forward to a restaurant nearer than Denny's to eat. The gentleman that made this proposal.... or who agreed with this... lives in Farmington. And I am happy to report that Jim's Razorback Pizza opened up in Farmington, much closer to his house than my home. So I am asking you to not approve this. I don't think it's in keeping with what was intended when the developers came forward. And they, in their own words, `compromised' and they went to residential/office. They agreed to build an office park. This is morphing into just another strip mall quickly. It has also been suggested that they have turned away at least 25 different people that were requesting retail space or restaurant space. For about a year there was a big sign up in front of it while this was being constructed that said "office and retail space available". I would argue that it probably has not been marketed very wisely. That, in other words, if you are offering retail space when you never had the zoning to get it in the first place. No wonder you had 25 different people that you had to turn away. It doesn't surprise me. So I am asking that you be consistent in your findings. And I am talking about the quality of life in my home, and the value of my property. Which I sense and I feel will be highly degraded by allowing a restaurant, especially one like this, to come in at the head of my driveway. Thank you very much for your time, and I apologize. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Wilkes. Would any other member of the public like to address this item? Sherwood: Hi. My name is Jeff Sherwood, and I'm the person who would like to put that restaurant there. And really all I would like to say is that I would like to put a restaurant there that is an asset to the Fayetteville community. Anthes: Are you the applicant? Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 94 of 139 Sherwood: No. Anthes: Ok. You're a neighbor, right? Sherwood: I'm the person who wants to do this. Sorry I didn't make that clear. And I'm a school teacher, so I think I'm a good person. You know, I don't want to.... I understand some of those concerns, and I would do my best to do whatever.... to follow whatever guidelines I would have to follow to make this work. So thank you for your time. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Sherwood. Would any other member of the public like to speak to this item: Conditional Use Permit for Calypso Properties? Seeing none I will close the floor to public comment, and ask for the applicant's presentation. Odam: Good evening. My name is Tony Odam. I'm the co-owner of the property that is located there, and as Mr. Sherman has explained, he is the restaurateur. I'd just like to add that Mr. Sherwood could have gone anywhere to open up his restaurant, and probably would have been in business by now. He has chosen to locate on our property, and we would like to have him there. I would also like to add that Staff's conditions are acceptable for us. There is going to be some extra cost to that, and we'll accept those costs.... and adhere to those and comply to those conditions. My presentation, I believe I have provided documents for everyone. And, just to kind of save time and not be redundant, a lot of Staff's comments had my presentation in it. I would just like to address some of the concerns of the neighbors. This isn't a fast food restaurant. It is going to be a family run restaurant. As far as the odors and trash, and debris coming out of the dumpsters, in addition to it being enclosed on three sides and also having a gate, so it will be enclosed on four sides... the dumpsters will have lids. We have someone on staff whose job it is to maintain the property. And we take a lot of pride in the ownership of this property. And if trash, odors are coming from the dumpsters, we have paid attendants, hopefully inside this complex who are defiantly going to bring it to our attention as well. The dumpster location, where this would happen is approximately 2511 away from the building. It is over 280 to 300ft away from the neighbor to the north. And again, we take pride in this. We have some hired staff who will take care of these problems. The back of the restaurant is, you know, something we will put in everyday when we go through there and collect the trash and keep the property looking nice. It's ah... The other thing I would like to call your attention is that we submit 84 signatures of people who are directly impacted by this and live within a half a mile of the property... all of who support this restaurant being there. I did not talk to one person who is not in favor of this. And um... they think it is a good idea, and we think it will be Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 95 of 139 a positive impact on the community. Therefore we ask for your approval of Staff's recommendation of this Conditional Use Permit. Anthes: Thank you very much Mr. Odam. Let the minutes reflect, too, that Mr. Sherwood is part of the applicant team. Commissioners? Myres: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Myres. Myres: I always hate to go against staff s recommendations. However, that never stopped me in the past. My real concern is, number one: We've discussed this several times. Exhaustively, as far as I can tell in my, granted, very bad memory. But, when this proposal came forward the last time one of the things we did discuss at great length was the uses that were allowed in this zoning. And the fact that restaurants were not one of them. Many of us were very vocal about feeling very strongly that this was going to be a commercial zone, then it should be office space. Offices are generally open during business hours. People come into work at 7 or 8:00 in the morning and go home at 4 or 5:00 in the afternoon. And I have a real problem with a building within this development being open until 11:00 at night during... Monday through Thursday.... or 10:00 excuse me.... and 11:00 Friday and Saturday... and 9pm on Sunday. That is an extension of the use of the area that was not intended when the original project was approved. It was assumed that the activity, that the traffic of people coming and going would be during normal business hours and not into the evening, because there are adjacent residential space. And the only way I think I could even begin to feel comfortable about voting in favor of this use... this conditional use... would be if the hours of operation were curtailed to 9:00 on the weekdays and on Sunday, and maybe 10:00 on Friday and Saturday. Also, if it's a family restaurant, most people like to get their children home and in bed before 11:00 at night. So I would imagine that the later night crowd would probably be younger folks. And consequently, possibly nosier. With the amount of restaurants available within a 2 to 3 minute drive of this property and the contiguous residential areas, I don't really see the need for the restaurant. That is just my opinion. And I am going to stick with my original vote several months ago.... a couple of months ago... and I don't intend to vote to approve this Conditional Use. Thanks. Anthes: Thank you Commissioner Myers. Is there further discussion? Harris: Madam Chair? Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 96 of 139 Anthes: Commissioner Harris. Harris: In our packets, and I think we have alluded to it here, is a summary of the August 14 meeting in which the Planning Commission raised concerns about rezoning the property to C-1, but did suggest that the applicant apply for a Conditional Use permit for a restaurant so that the items so that lighting, refuse, service, noise, and hours of operation could be addressed. And so, I guess I would ask.... the reason that we have... that we gave some direction to come back with a Conditional Use permit is precisely so we could have some control over these items, correct? Thank you. Anthes: I believe that the initial rezoning, and I flicked through the minutes to see if I could find it here, but it was... there was a comment made by Commissioner Shackleford at the time, during the votes to recommend an R -O zoning that specifically addressed the fact that there may be restaurants and asking that the conditional use be requested in that instance. Does anybody else remember that? Ostner: Yeah, Madam Chair. I was.... Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: I voted at that meeting with Mr. Shackleford. That was not a consensus. That was not a Planning Commission agreement. That was simply a comment. Anthes: Right. Ostner: It was pretty sound and fair and agreed upon, even then, two years ago when the C -I was proposed and the R -O was negotiated that retail, especially restaurant was inappropriate. That was a side comment of one Commissioner as I recall it. It was... Myres: Yeah, that's the way I remember it... Anthes: I wish we had... Ostner: It was not vague. That meeting was very clear. Anthes: No, no, I believe that it was very clear that the R -O was the recommendation of this body and not the C-1. I, though, read the comment about the possible.... the fact that R -O allowed a restaurant by condition use as being a mere statement by him that was not necessarily endorsed one way or the other. But I didn't get that Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 97 of 139 that was an absolute negative from the rest of the Commission either. So I don't know. The minutes aren't in front of us, so it's up to us right now. Ostner: Right. If you are asking about the rezoning since. Lack: Madam Chair. Anthes: Yes. Oh, sorry, he is still talking. Ostner: I am going to go ahead and finish saying that I don't think this conditional use is appropriate for this property. I feel like... I almost feel like a broken record. We've done this two or three times now. My opinion has not changed. And I am a little confused by staff. Staff's recommendation to approve it. They talk about how last time staff said that wasn't appropriate unless there was a conditional use. Now, they are offering a conditional use with, I think, pretty generous terms. And I think... if we're gonna.... stipulate that this restaurant needs to fit in with the neighborhood... you can't give hours like this. These are... these are every restaurants hours, just about. Lots of other things. The way the back doors are situated along Mr. Wilkes' access drive is... that will become an ally. And an ally changes significantly with food retail. If there's an access ally for offices that's someone bringing you supplies between 8 and 5:00. Food retail is a totally different beast. I agree with the Commissioners. Anthes: Thank you Commissioner Ostner. Commissioner Lack. Lack: I think that, I did read Commissioner Shackleford's notes in the minutes, similar to what I think you're perception was; that that was a... a way that he could accept down zoning from the C-1... and I only had the notes to read, so I may be in error in that. But I think that that was certainly something that worked to my perception when we talked about C- or R -O. I think the idea of C-1 where a restaurant would blanket be approved or be used by right is not palatable. And the idea of putting one, which I had anticipated the idea of putting one to the north end.... more closely tied to, and more closely impacting the residential would be a location in the development that I would not support. I think the... when we looked at that.... I anticipated that we would see restaurants. And I think that was a given in my mind that we would have some greater control in an R -O district, but that restaurants would not be precluded. Not necessarily. And I think that the issues with this particular restaurant, I think this is an appropriate portion of the site. I like the idea that the idea at office here or other parts of some commercial that might get in here, have a place to eat. That they don't have to go and get on Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 98 of 139 to 62. But we do practice some of the mixed use ideology that we talked about. And with that I would be in support of this conditional use. Anthes: Mr. Lack, can you comment on.... do you have any comments about the hours of operation? Because that has been brought up by a couple of the Commissioners. Lack: I would go with the other Commissioners as a compromise to reduce the hours of operation. I would not make it a contingent portion of my approval. I think that when we look at the zone directly adjacent to Hwy 62, I think we have a different area. And the fact that it is contained within and in the overall R -O zone park is less relevant than the fact that it is along a major arterial road that can stand the traffic. And it is certainly going to be carrying a lot of traffic well past 1 ]pm. Anthes: Thank you Commissioner Lack. Is there further discussion? Clark: I have a question for Staff. Andrew, we have been dealing with this particular development for a very long time. And I am trying to recall when we did the private drive to the west. Did we require any type of screening from the back of these buildings along that drive? Garner: I don't recall. Suzanne? Do you remember that? Morgan: As for requirements I can't recall for sure what the large scale required. But the applicant has planted some evergreen trees- maybe one per leasing space. Maybe they can say exactly how many. But they have planted a row of.. not continuous to screen it... but a row of coniferous trees along there. Clark: Would it be in..... I mean.... in a conditional use, would it be appropriate for us to add a condition to include a fence? A boarded fence along the side and back of this property? Garner: If it was something that you found to be required to fit into the neighborhood. It would be something you certainty could add in. Clark: Well, I understand the concern about turning in and seeing a potentially bad looking back of a restaurant. It happens sometimes. And this is a private drive to a home, so I can understand their concern. I don't understand why the restaurant is on that side when if it was on the other side, gee, we wouldn't have this issue. But that's your decision. How would the Commission feel about doing a boarded, a wooden fence along the side and the back of this restaurant? Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 99 of 139 Anthes: I guess... I usually... I guess I would like to look at the conditions of approval on the large scale development... but usually when we have residential separated from a commercial use.... then we do require screening. But maybe not with the R -O. Odam: I'm not sure if it makes a difference, but it is an easement along that. It is not a private driveway, I guess, per say. Anthes: Yeah. Morgan: We did... Odam: It's an easement across our property to get to... to ingress and egress. Morgan: We did require a continuous screening along the north property line of this R -O. But I don't recall anything specific along the access easement. I'll double check the conditions of approval and make sure that before we issue certificates of occupancy there, meeting at least all of the large scale development requirements. Anthes: So, on the continuous screening on the north end. Was that called out whether it was a fence or a vegetative screening? Morgan: It was vegetative screening. They had shown trees to show a continuous row of trees along the north end. There was a lot of existing vegetation, so they only planted a certain number to fill in a gap there. Anthes: So I guess my question of the City Attorney; would it be proper of us to be talking about fencing around this entire property when we are looking at the conditional use for one restaurant? Or would it only apply to the area adjacent to the specific restaurant. Williams: Well, you do have a lot of discretion in a conditional use. Your screening would have to... you would have to base it on a good rationale of why you are doing it. To make it more compatible to the adjoining residential neighborhood or home. I certainly think you could do some screening here because of this. Because this is changing it from a residential office to a commercial use. And normally you do screen commercial from residential. So I think a fence or some other form of screening.... at least for the restaurant. I don't know if you could do it for the entire development. Especially the part that is away from the house. But I think for the restaurant that would be an appropriate condition if that's what you wanted to do. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 100 of 139 Anthes: Thank you. Commissioner Ost.... Trumbo. Trumbo: I'm unsure where the house sits. Is it just a drive all the way up the back, and then the house sits? Anthes: In the north. Trumbo: Not adjacent to this area? Clark: You can kind of see it on page 24 and 26. Anthes: This is the drive and this is the house. Trumbo: So you would just be screening the drive? Clark: Yeah, all I was talking about was screening possibly from the corner and then to the back. Just of the back. Just of the restaurant. Though I must point out that other office buildings are much more prone to have smokers standing in and around the front or the back, doing their thing that looks really disgusting. But, having said that, a restaurant.... I understand the concerns, so I am trying to come up with a compromise. Because I voted against.... I think I did. I think I voted against making this commercial and making it R -O. Williams: It was unanimous. Clark: But we did talk about the possibility of some conditional uses coming it. And personally I think a family Pizzeria is more than appropriate. It certainly is better than maybe one of the chain restaurants that would certainly have high traffic all the time. And I agree with Commissioner Lack's assessment that we are giving these people in this office complex some place to eat so they don't have to get back on that road and make those turns which I am still incredibly uncomfortable with. But I understand the homeowner's fear of how it looks when you turn into the driveway, because that's important. So I would... if the rest of the Commission, those who are favoring this want to... I would be in favor of requiring a boarded fence to go from... to hide the back of the restaurant space. Harris: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Harris. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 101 of 139 Harris: I would absolutely... I would support that condition Commissioner Clark. I agree with Commissioner Lack's assessment as well that the particular location of this restaurant is really on the highway. So that seems appropriate to me in terms of the hours. So, for me, I can allow those hours to stand. But I do think it is important, while yes smokers are in the backs of most office buildings, that the particular kind of refuse that a well run restaurant can none the less produce in its back I think warrants having a screened fence. Myres: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Myres. Myres: Can I ask for some clarification from Staff? On the discussion, well, on the findings you presented? On parking, I'm not sure I exactly understand ... um ... exactly what is going on here. 2000sq ft of restaurant you only need one space for every 100sq ft. That's 20 spaces. The sales office apparently needs 104 spaces. The professional offices 70. The parking required is 124 sales or 90 spaces professional. Then they get some kind of an allowance? And the minimum is 87 spaces sales or 63 professional. And the parking that is provided is the minimum of 87 spaces. Is that really enough to handle the extra parking that would be required of the restaurant? Granted, they are only required to provide 20 spaces. But when I looked at their floor plan, they have seating for more than 40 people. So I would expect that maybe there word be a little bit more traffic than that, a little bit more parking than that. Could you clarify this for me so that I know there is enough parking all day and into the evening to handle the extra traffic from the restaurant? Garner: They are meeting our parking requirements per code. And I don't... Suzanne do you want to expand upon the parking for the sales and the professional? Morgan: Sure. Just to go over what Commissioner Myers had stated, if there was any confusion with regard to this parking chart. The first list on restaurants. We do calculate on 1 per 100sq feet regardless of the number of tables or seating arrangements. We have obviously have had situation in the city where they go to the minimum required which is 30% below 1 per 100 and that has, you know, caused some problems for some people. But that is certainly allowed. So what is required with restaurant is 20 spaces. They can go under that to 14 minimum. And if you take out the 2000sq ft from the overall development, say only sales office goes in. Sales office is the highest ratio or the highest number of parking for all types of office. They would be required 104 spaces in addition to the 20 spaces of restaurant parking. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 102 of 139 Myres: Got ya. I am with you so far. Morgan: If it were all professional office and no sale it would be 70 spaces required, and then plus the 20 spaces for the restaurant. So that is why for the parking required it is 124 for sales.. Myres; Including the restaurant. Morgan: That's right. Myres: Or 90 for professional, including the restaurant. Morgan: That is correct. And then that minimum required is 30% below for each of those 2 numbers. So if the entire office... or the entire development were developed for the 2000sq ft of restaurant and all sales office- which is the highest 1 per 200 sq feet, then they would meet the very minimum required because they have 87 spaces there. The required minimum of 87 spaces. Myres: But that's the minimum. Morgan: That's the minimum. And that's if you were to develop for sales on that whole entire... Myres: But if went professional they would need fewer than that, so they would have more available. Morgan: That is correct. Myres: And combination. Morgan: And we didn't take into account that obviously you are going to have some overlap on the maximum times of parking. Because usually you see rush... Office spaces are high during the day and low during lunch hour and then high during the rest of the day. So you're parking for the... you are not going to have too many conflicts after 5:00 most likely. Or after 8:00, depending what type of sales offices those are. But... So we just calculated it without any kind of shared... Myres: Ok. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 103 of 139 Anthes: I have a question of the applicant. Can you address the hours of operation that you have requested and let us know if you have any variability in those? Odam: I would have to ask the restaurant owner. Anthes: Mr. Sherwood? Could you come up? Sherwood: To take away those hours that I have requested would be like.... If you went to a high school football game, what time does that game get over generally? I mean 9:30 - 10:00, so you are eliminating a group of people right there that you could depend on some of those to come and frequent your restaurant. Anthes: I'm particularly asking about the Monday through Friday closing time? Sherwood: What do I have? Until 10:00? Anthes: Yes, I believe that's what's been requested. Sherwood: Same thing. Junior High football games. Things that go on in the evenings with your kids. And you know you might stop by and get something and take it home. Or, often times, I know with my kids, they'll go with a group to a place. And they are out late. You know, later than you would like to be, but you are still available for that. Anthes: Thank you. Trumbo: Madam Chair. Anthes: Yes Commissioner Trumbo. Motion: Trumbo: I am going to make a motion for approval of Conditional Use 06-2284. In agreement with Staff's nine conditions of approval to add number 10 for the construction of a privacy fence to go around.... I guess we are talking about the 2000sq ft to be leased outside the back. I am not sure exactly how much space that is to do that, but it... Myres: Is there a utility easement? Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 104 of 139 Odam: Yeah, there is a 50 ft utility easement from the back of our property to the end. And however wide you would request that to be? The specifics of it. Morgan: There... if you look on page 24 you can see that there is a 60ft access easement to the building. And a 20ft access easement from the building to the west. Just to clarify that. Clark: So interpret that. Trumbo: How big can our fence be? What I'm envisioning is just a wood fence that starts somewhere around the drive and just runs north and south along the edge of gentleman's drive. Ostner: To kind of shield that. Trumbo: That's what I'm envisioning. Ostner: In the back area. Williams: Are you going to put a height on this fence? Trumbo: What would be the standard height? Garner: 6ft. Trumbo: 611t fence. Clark: I have a question for the Commissioner before I second this. You don't mean to fence along the entire side frontage of that building, but starting at the back edge? And then out and over? Is that what you're talking about? Trumbo: I'm not sure what your question is. Clark: Well, you know when.. Trumbo: No, not... just running along the drive where the building starts running just the space to the... Clark: So coming out to the west and then going north/south. Trumbo: That's right. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 105 of 139 Clark: Ok. So, not along the frontage. Trumbo: No, just from the... Williams: Just the part of the building that is being occupied by this tenant. (More overlapped talking) Anthes: Ok. We have a motion by Commissioner Trumbo. Do we have a second? Clark: Second. Anthes: Second by Commissioner Clark. Is there further discussion? Ostner: Madam Chair. Anthes: Yes. Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: I've stated that I am not in favor of this. But if it were to pass I do believe that concessions can be made in neighborhoods for restaurants and neighbors to get along. And staying open until 10:00 I don't think is a concession at all. If this is going to be a family pizza parlor, and we are talking about High School football games... you know... that's too late. I would like to offer an amendment that the hours stop a 9:OOpm. Sherwood: Can I comment? Ostner: I think that's.... hold on, I'm making a motion. It's not perfect. I understand that a lot of restaurants stay open later than that. A lot of restaurants close at 9:00, too. It doesn't put them out of business. Myres: As we know very well (laughing). Motion: Ostner: So I would like to offer that to the Commission. It is not a perfect situation. If you want to think about mixed use, the concessions have to be made all around. I believe Mr. Wilkes is making some concessions. I think I have seen this a lot longer than the rest of you. I am still kind of stunned. If we were sitting here and no building were built, and there was a piece of dirt and these guys told us they Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 106 of 139 were going to open a restaurant, I think they would be voted down. And now suddenly something is built and it looks good we're saying yes? I just don't think we are being consistent. I think... the way I recall discussions it was pretty clear that to eliminate strip development along this street we need to just hold back at certain areas. Certain areas need to be office you guys. I mean Jeremy preached at us and tried to get us to understand that just because 6`h street is wild and woolies, we don't have to just through up our hands and let it go. And that's how I recall this. R -O is not C-1. Well this restaurant is in C-1. We are changing the zoning. We're partially altering this zoning to allow a different use unit in this little corner. And I think... I think it's inappropriate. So I would like to offer an amendment that the hours Monday through Friday stop at 9:00... Myres: Monday through Thursday. Ostner: OK, Monday through Thursday. That's the way they had it at the beginning. Anthes: Do all other hours remain the same in that motion? It's just the closing time Monday through Thursday. Ostner: I think on the weekends it should stop an hour earlier too. I'm sorry, but 11:00 at night on the weekends? That is not a concession at all. That is a wide open. Trumbo: So you are saying l Opm on Friday and Saturday? Ostner: 10pm on Friday and Saturday, and Monday through Thursday at 9:00. Anthes: And Sunday? Ostner: Sunday I think it should stop at 8:00. I think it should back up an hour the entire way. Anthes: Ok. We have a motion to amend condition of approval number 3; for hours of operation of restaurant use shall be restricted to 11 am to 9pm Monday through Thursday, l lam to IOpm Friday and Saturday, and l lam to 8pm on Sunday. Is there a second? Myres: I'll second. Anthes: Second by Commissioner Myers. Is there further discussion? Clark: Madam Chair. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 107 of 139 Anthes: Yes. Clark: I have a different. You have been dealing with this longer than I have I think. But I read back through the minutes that are in our packet and I think that there was... and the way I remember it... and maybe we just have different memories is that this applicant could come back with conditional uses and a restaurant was specifically mentioned. And that is what they have done. I think the fencing will alleviate one of the potential problems. And I can't believe that we didn't require it to begin with, but we didn't. In terms of setting hours of operation, as a business owner, I've got to oppose that one. I think the market is going to set the business hours. I think this place will be closing a lot sooner than 10 and 11 on most nights, quite honestly. Because I just don't think you are going to have your employees sitting around and paying them when there is nobody coming in. Now, for a football night, maybe it's different. It's been a long time since I have encountered a football night, so I don't know what the going rate is these days. So I am going to respectfully oppose the amendment that you have offered, simply because I think the market will set the time much better than we could or should. Trumbo: Madam Chair. Anthes: Yes Commissioner Trumbo. Trumbo: I am going to vote against the amendment, too. If this restaurant or any restaurant was (inaudible) I might be more inclined to change the hours of operation. But I see a 2000sq ft restaurant no more than 10011 away from a highway that is carrying 50,000 people a day on it. I just don't see any advantage to the public or Mr. Wilkes for bringing the hours back an hour across the board. I'll vote against the amendment. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: Motion Fails. Anthes: We have a motion. I think there is a motion on the floor to approve by Commissioner Trumbo, second by Commissioner Clark. Is that correct? Clark: Yes, that is correct. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 108 of 139 Anthes: And that was adding the 10`" condition about the board fence. Is there further discussion? I guess, I would just like to say that I respectfully disagree with Commissioner Ostner. I don't think that this constitutes a rezoning to C-1 of this 2000 sq ft. And the reason why is because our ordinance allows restaurants in as a conditional use. And that I think that a conditional use is different than a rezoning, so I wouldn't be able to make that equivalent. But I appreciate your comments and I understand them too. Ostner: Thank you. If I might, and I believe the City Attorney could back me up ... But a conditional use is an alteration to the zoning law. Anthes: Well, it is an alteration, but it's not making C-1 is what I'm saying. Ostner: It's pulling a use unit up from a different zoning district... Clark: Yes. Ostner: And allowing it. With certain conditions. It's a lot like a PZD. It's a piecemeal custom zone. We have to forward this, it is not our call. It's a zoning issue. Anthes: Actually conditional uses we don't forward. (Unclear speaking to which Commissioner Ostner is about to reply) Ostner: Yes. And here. And the Council can treat them like a zoning issue and over -turn them. Anthes: I see what you're saying. Ostner: It alters the zoning. We do have the chance to change the zoning at this point. Thank you. Tr umbo: Madam Chair. Quickly, for the applicant, a conditional use can be appealed or revoked if you have complaints and they prove to be valid. So things you are agreeing to... let's make sure that you abide by them. Clark: Now I've got a question. Anthes: Do we have to vote on calling a question? (Laughter) Myres: We just want to vote in a timely manner. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 109 of 139 Anthes: Let's just vote. Garner: This is the motion to approve? Anthes: This is the motion to approve. Roll Call: The CUP 06-2284 Calypso Properties was approved by a vote of 6-2-0. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 110 of 139 RZN 06-2291: (HWY 16 ANIMAL HOSPITAL, 567): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES for property located at 2805 E. HUNTSVILLE RD. The property is zoned RSF- 1, Residential Single-family - 1 unit/acre, R -A, Residential Agricultural, and C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, and contains approximately 3.46 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Morgan: Suzanne Morgan stated the following, in her description and request to Planning Commission: The subject property is located at the southeast corner of Huntsville Road (State Highway 16) and Stonebridge Road. The property consists of approximately 3.42 acres developed for an animal hospital. The property is zoned R -A, RSF-4, and C-1, with the majority being R -A. Surrounding properties to the north and west are developed or are in the process of being redeveloped for commercial use. Properties to the west and south are residential and rural in nature. The applicant applied to have the 3.42 -acre subject property rezoned from R -A, RSF-1, and C-1 to C-1. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning based on findings stated herein. The proposed zoning would be compatible with adjacent zoning, existing and approved development, and the future land use plan. Anthes: Thank you Ms. Morgan. Would any member of the public like to address this re- zoning request for the Highway 16 Animal Hospital? See none I will close the floor the public comment. Does the applicant have a presentation? Trumbo: Madam Chair, may I interrupt for a second? I am going to have to recuse myself. I didn't realize exactly where it was. Anthes: Thank you Commissioner Trumbo. Jorgensen: Good Evening. Justin Jorgensen of Jorgensen and Associates. I think Suzanne hit everything. If I can answer any questions I will be glad to do it. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Jorgensen. Commissioners? Commissioner Myers. Motion: Myres: Well, I'd just like to recommend that we approve. Are we forwarding this? Anthes: Yes. Myres: Forward this to the City Council with a recommendation of approval on this re- zoning based on the findings here and with the.... are there any conditions for approval? Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 111 of 139 Morgan: No ma'am. Myres: Ok. With no conditions of approval. Anthes: That is a motion to forward by Commissioner Myers. Is there a second? Lack: Second. Anthes: Second by Commissioner Lack. Is there discussion? Clark: I know that the neighborhood association across the street is going to be very interested in meeting with the developers when this does develop. So I encourage them to stay in communication, because there is great interest in what is going on in that corner. And I also have a question for Staff. Suzanne, when is that light going to go in? Morgan: Most likely when .... the funds are available and the State says yes. I don't know when that will be. Clark: I'm asking every time. (Laughing) It needs a light! Anthes: Ok. I have a couple of questions of the Staff. Does the street realignment, would that be something we would expect of this development? Morgan: Street realignment? I'm sorry? Anthes: Do they align? Clark: They align. Anthes: There were a couple of comments made at Subdivision: One about street alignment, and another about the fact that the applicant should expect a significant right of way dedication with development. Clark: Trust me, I do this corner every day.... Morgan: Yes, I'm sorry. I wasn't at agenda secession, but the applicant has proposed, or shown on page 9 of your Staff report dedication of right away in compliance with our Master Street Plan. So, though there will be significant dedication, it Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 112 of 139 appears that the applicant is aware of that and that the dedication on Stone Bridge is great enough, I believe, to add a turn lane in there. Anthes: Ok. And is there anything in the report that then also makes clear that we would discourage additional access drives? Other than the existing? Morgan: Yes. I believe under the findings, um, under finding number 2... or excuse me, 3: "that measures shall be taken to make sure that the access shall not exacerbate any dangerous traffic situation and that multiple curb cuts will be discouraged onto Highway 16". And then we've just included that we will certainly look at site distance at the time of development. Anthes: Thank you Suzanne. Is there further discussion? Ok. Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to forward RZN 06-0291 Hwy 16 Animal Hospital to City Council with no conditions of approval carries with a vote of 7-0-1. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 113 of 139 ADM 06-2252: Administrative Item (Future Land Use Map): Submitted by Planning Staff to amend the Interim Future Land Use Map. Anthes: We have Mrs. Minkel with us. Minkel: I'm going to walk though this for the benefit of the public. Most of you recall the history of this, but on July 17, 2006 the City Council and Planning Commission had a joint meeting and the outcome of that meeting was that the City Plan 2025 was approved and adopted. As part of that meeting, both bodies requested staff to look at the Future Land Use Map and go back to it and make sure that it embodied the principles and goals of City Plan 2025. I think I speak for the collective memory of the planning staff that this is one of the projects that they think that everyone in planning staff has actually touched it and evaluated it, to make sure that it was consistent with our general plan. In doing research around this map, I realized that most cities actually incorporate the Smart Code into their cities incrementally and will do something similar to what we did with the Downtown Master Plan. That they apply it to a discrete area. So, this was an interesting exercise, that we were applying it to a much larger area and a larger scale. As you remember, one of the goals in the City Plan 2025 was to do a series of complete neighborhood plans and that hasn't been forgotten and you will notice on the map that the Downtown Master Plan is identified as a complete neighborhood plan and the goal would to be to keep adding complete neighborhood plans to this map. We have identified areas within the Smart Code Transect that would seem appropriate for Fayetteville's current development pattern and also for the vision. I'll walk though those different areas briefly. In the first area, is the Natural Area. If you move though your packet there is a description of that, and each of these areas will be identified from an image from the transect that was used in the City Plan 2025, we used examples from Fayetteville, and we have a brief description of the area that is followed by guiding polices. Those guiding polices were taken from both the General Plan 2020 and then looked at by all the planners in the office to make sure that all the polices were included that could be used as tools. For the Natural Areas, we actually used the Fayetteville Natural Heritage Association, which they have been involved in a project where they have been identifying areas that are significant environmentally and need protection. We looked at their analysis and incorporated that into this map, as well as identifying floodways and other areas where we might want to restrict growth. The main piece of the Natural Area is an area that requires... Anthes: Mrs. Minkel, could I interrupt you? I believe our other staff just left, and we have two items coming up. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 114 of 139 Minkel: It's just you and me. Anthes: Are they coming back? Clark: Their stuff is still here. Anthes: Oh, Ok Morgan: Do you guys need us? Anthes: We have a development, item to discuss after this that sure would be nice to have current planning here for. Morgan: Ok Anthes: Sorry. Is that possible? Morgan: Sure. Anthes: Ok, thanks. Sorry to interrupt you. Minkel: That is fine. One of the important things to remember about the Natural Area is that this is an area that requires conservation and preservation in any development pattern. The next area is the Rural Area. There are two pieces to the Rural that we have identified. One is, they may indeed be valuable agricultural land. The second piece, these are also areas that do not currently have the infrastructure and public services to support high density type development. These are areas where we would strongly encourage conservation and preservation in any development pattern. The third area is the Residential Neighborhood Areas, which you see in yellow. These are all exclusively residential.... Ostner: Mrs. Minkel, I'm sorry, that area that you just mentioned before you got to the yellow? Minkel: Yes? Ostner: Was that the lighter green? Minkel: It is the light green. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 115 of 139 Ostner: In the first area you talked about was the dark green? Minkel: Yes, the dark green. Ostner: Ok, I'm with you. Minkel: These are almost exclusively residential in nature, although they would allow for potentially home offices. They also recognize conventional suburban development, but we would encourage a more traditional neighborhood type pattern where we would have complete, compact connected neighborhoods. It would also recognize area where the topography doesn't allow for that complete, compact connected neighborhood. For example, Mt. Sequoyah is used as the example. We also really wanted to recognize neighborhoods that are settled and have been in place for a long time and we don't imagine that they will be re- developing at any point in the near future. The next area we identified was City Neighborhood Areas. These are primary residential but they do allow for commercial, mixed use development at intersections. They do encourage the complete, compact, connected neighborhood type development and would include a wide range of residential type buildings. The next area is the, and that's in the blue, and it also recognizes several conventional commercial stripped development, as well. The next area would be our most intense type development which is the Urban Center Area. It is the equivalent of a main street. It would incorporate many types of building types. It accommodates retail offices, row houses, and apartments. This is where you would have your taller buildings, the most intense dense development patterns within the city as well as the greatest variety of buildings. Then we have a number of areas that are not part of what you would see in the transect pictures, but are important areas of town and that is civic and private spaces, and park areas recognizes not only parkland but also private open space, so our golf courses and cemeteries are all in the olive color. The Civic Institutional Areas recognize areas that include both our municipal government as well as other non-profit. An example would be The Boys and Girls Club or The Blair Public Library. I mentioned complete neighborhood plans earlier, and in that case, we would refer to that specific plan, for example, The Downtown Master Plan. There are also other projects that are in the pipeline that, I will finish this one and you can stop me. Ostner: Ok Minkel: That... Ostner: You keep forgetting colors. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 116 of 139 Minkel: Yes, this is in the red. Ostner: Ok, in the Civic Institutional? Minkel: Civic Institutional is in the dark brown. Ostner: Ok. Minkel: And for the Complete Neighborhood Plans, there are projects in the pipeline that might also be considered a Complete Neighborhood Plan. What staff would recommend is that these be determined upon the final plat approval. The next area is the Industrial Areas which are in the light blue and I want to emphasize that this doesn't include all industrial, so this just would be heavy industrial or industrial uses where by function or because they have a certain noise or odor they would not be compatible with other uses. Currently, there are a lot of industrial uses that could be mixed with housing and office space and it wouldn't be a problem, so this is reserved for those industrial uses that couldn't be integrated with other uses. One example is the Industrial Park. The final area we have is the Non -Municipal Government Areas that are in the light beige. Those are areas that city's does not have jurisdiction over, such as the University of Arkansas or county areas. These area designations are consistent with the City Plan 2025. They meet all of the goals that have been laid out in that plan. The City Neighborhood Areas and Urban Center Areas generally reflect the in fill and intended growth areas in the City Plan 2025 sector map. I have brought some of the maps that also helped us complete this map. We recommend that the proposed Future Land Use Map be forwarded to the City Council for adoption. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you Mrs. Minkel, before you sit down, would you talk about the level of staff involvement in rendering the map? And how that has compared with other efforts. Minkel: I would say that all of the planning staff members have touched this map. And not just touched it, but really looked at it and evaluate it. Both the text and the images. All Current Planning and all Long Range Planning have looked at it independently and then also as groups, multiple times and in workshops where we have spent several hours looking at a large map and also looking in different sections to make sure it reflected both what was currently there, what we wanted the city to be, and then just cleaning up different parcel areas. One thing that we are still working on making sure is completely accurate are the conservation easements throughout the city; there hasn't been a comprehensive map Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 117 of 139 developed, as far as we know by any organization, so we have been trying to gather that data and we have some general ideas of where they are. We would ensure that it was completely accurate before final adoption. Anthes: Thank you very much, as there are no members of the public here to speak we will go forward and ask for the Commissioners comments. Myres: Can I go ahead and not comment and make a motion, that we forward ADM 06- 2252 The Future Land Use Map to City Council for adoption with a recommendation for approval. Ostner: Second. Anthes: I have a motion for forward by Commissioner Myres, a second by Commissioner Ostner. Is there any discussion? Trumbo: Since we are going to use this map to, I believe, staff and all of us look at this map when any development comes though, the Rural Areas, which is quite a bit of property there. I guess this is a question for staff, if someone wants to put in a subdivision in a rural area, which we have happening now, the infrastructure is not, they are putting in the steps system and other things to get around that, how's staff going to look at this? If its green and what are they going to recommend for a subdivision that someone wants out in the middle of a green area? Minkel: I would imagine staff would not recommend rezoning, if it is currently zoned as rural. Morgan: And a lot of the areas identified on this map as rural, or natural, are not yet in the city, so we don't have the zoning regulation. We do have some criteria for lot minimums and etc. in the planning area, but at this point in time, if we are looking at development we have to go on our regulations for the County, or what the County requires. Trumbo: But, what about the part that's in the city? Morgan: The part that's within the city, if it's not yet zoned for RSF-4 to develop as that or some other zoning, then we would take this map into consideration when recommending our rezoning. Trumbo: For denial? Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 118 of 139 Morgan: Most likely yes. We would have to look at all the circumstances but we would use this as our Future Land Use. Our interim Future Land Use Plan says broad residential, so if they came with commercial, we would really scrutinize that, since its going against what our... Trumbo: What about residential? Specifically? Morgan: In an area that is identified in the green? Trumbo: In the green area in the City Limits. Morgan: We do have this, Karen can explain maybe how it's written, but it does call for very large lots. It would most likely be not in favor of a rezoning that would allow high density in these areas. W171 MIS ufl�$ I Minkel: I should also mention to you that we have shared this map with the county planners as well, because, as you know, they're going though their discussion of zoning in the county. So we have talked a little bit about on how this map might reflect what we would like to see in the immediate area around our city boundaries. Anthes: Maybe follow up, if I might, there was some discussion that maybe was at agenda and you were talking about how this map would be used that it's a tool, that there are others things you weigh, and then also the fact that there was some statement about how this map changes over time. Can you elaborate on that? Minkel: Right, and I think what Suzanne said is completely true, that this is one of several tools that staff uses to analyze whether something should be rezoned. The other issue we wanted to really identify in this map with the rural areas is that, if we do in fact think it should be a rural area then what kind of density does that mean, and we threw out one unit per fifteen acres, which we think is truly agricultural and rural. However, we also think there are areas that may develop over time and could be updated every 5 years and we re -look at where can our infrastructure support urban development. I think that it is true, that this map would have to be re-evaluated every 5 years, in terms of where we do the infrastructure and public services to service urban development. We looked at this map right now, we looked at what was currently there and the rural areas (coughing in background)... Sparsely settled or because of topography or other Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 119 of 139 different natural features, high density urban development wouldn't be appropriate. Anthes: Any further comment? I'm sorry, didn't realize you weren't finished. Trumbo: I understand that there are other things we look at, but this map, being on the Commission for three years, its real easy to at the map and say: "Well, it's not on the 2025 Plan, I'm not going to support it" It's one of the reasons I don't want to sound like I'm for development of these rural areas to any density. Particularly, its case by case, somebody will take case by case bases, but I'm going to vote against forwarding this map until we get a little bit more clarity on how that can be developed if someone so chooses. I think, we're almost, what I'm hearing is that we wouldn't approve any subdivision or dense standard housing development in these areas, and that's a big switch from what we're doing. So, I'm going to vote against it, just at this level. So, City Council wants to stop and take a good look at that and make sure that's what they want to do. Also had a question in the southern part, on 71 where the airport is, it's in the beige, that's my understanding that's not for profit area? Minkel: We felt that area was governed more by the FAA than the City, which is why it is shown in the Non -Municipal Government color. Clark: First of all, I applaud the fact that we are getting a collection of the conservation easements. I think that's long overdue. I think it's something the city needs to keep up with. I'm really glad that it's finally going into play. Secondly, thank you for adding the Industrial designation, I think it's very important. Although, I do have a question about it. The way I see this map, I think we had this discussion awhile back, if I'm thinking about moving my business into Fayetteville, this may be one of the tools I'll look at. Let's say I do have a heavy industrial need, there's not a lot of blue on that map, which might make me say: "Ok, Fayetteville is not my town, I need to go someplace else". At that point, we have lost a potential employer, potential tax payer, and a potential good citizen. Without having every having a hearing, without even coming here, just looking at the map. That concerns me a little bit, and the way industrial is written, the verbiage concerns me even more. It really sounds like industrial areas are for the bad things. I can't find my stuff, of course, because it's in the back. Here we go, "...intrinsic function, disposition or configuration cannot conform to one of the other designated areas and/or may generate noise or odor associated with production and requires the area to be separated from other uses." I'll point out that our industrial park; one of the guiding principles there is to encourage green development. Yet, you've kind of counter defined it with this wordage and Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 120 of 139 verbiage. Wordage and verbiage, isn't that good. Ok, I'm much better before nine or ten o'clock. And that kind of concerns me because I really think this is a good PR tool for the city. I think we need to encourage industrial residents that are green, and that is what the industrial park is supposed to do. I don't see it yet in this map. I'm a little concerned by that, and I certainly, I understand what Commissioner Trumbo is talking about as well. I think we still have some fine - turning that might be done. I know that there's incentive to just send it on to Council but I'm not so sure that we shouldn't keep working a little bit more on and I will be willing to sit down and meet, if you want to, to go over this stuff so we have it where we want it to be before we give it to the Council, so they don't have to do this committee work. Myres: Where do you want more blue? Clark: I think I want more, the verbiage is what I'm really having difficulties with because it's counter to what the industrial park is already defined as. It promotes green use, that is what we said inside and industrial park. That's not how it read, this is where all the smelly, noisy stuff is go to and we don't want smelly, noisy stuff, so.. Myres: But we do have. Clark: I'm building out there, bite your tongue. Myres: No, but we do have industrial areas that do smelly, noisy things. So do you want a light industrial? Clark: Well, we (overlay in voices) allow them but I'm just saying if I don't have a smelly, noisy place, and I'm looking for industrial property, and I'll look at that map, I'll go: "Forget it, I'm not gong to Fayetteville, I'll go someplace else." Myres: But you're also forgetting the Chamber of Commerce. Clark: I try to do that on a regular basis. Myres: I know but... Clark: But, this is a city tool. Minkel: Madam Chair, may I respond to Commissioner Clark.? Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 121 of 139 Anthes: Yes, and I was going to ask you to clarify, I believe you said something during the initial discussion about that this is to designate Heavy Industrial areas and if that's the case, can you suggest verbiage that would clarify it? Minkel: Right, I was going to say, I think it's a difference in how it should be worded rather than intent because, we also would encourage green industry and I think our feeling was that if you were a green industry, you probably could be integrated with other uses. Therefore, it would fit into the Urban Center area, possibly. That was our thinking on it, but we did need areas reserve for industries that couldn't do that. It was challenging to find areas in the city where this map I think would be welcomed by the majority of population with that heavy industrial type use. I wonder if something could possibly be added to the Urban Center area that says something about green industrial uses being welcomed in those areas, which would open up a lot more room on this map for the type of industry you are talking about, and I would welcome any suggestions you would have on possibly rewording our current industrial area description. Clark: I would also point out that land is reserved especially for green industry and that why it's priced so low, which is controlled by the city. People need to know. A lot of people don't even know we have acreage out there for $20 thousand an acre, could be land run down, but encourage all types of tax place buildings stuff would be a good thing. Myres: Now that you've announced it on late night television. Ostner: Both people watching just perked up. Ostner: May I have the floor, are you done? Clark: Sure. Myres: Sure. Ostner: I have a question that goes back to Mr. Trumbo's comments, where is the City Limit, currently? Is it basically between yellow and green? Minkel: No. Ostner: Basically into the green a tittle? Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 122 of 139 Minkel: No, there is an orange line that is probably difficult to see from were you are sitting. It's here, the orange line. Ostner: OK. Minkel: If you can see here, it comes up though here. Morgan: And if you can see, it comes from here to here, the red line shows (can't hear them) Ostner: Ok, that's our old one that we were discontent with. Right, you are just showing me the city limit. Anthes: But that is the sector map that we did adopt. Minkel: Yes, it's not the Interim Future Use Map. Ostner: So, it's safe to say that you tried to ignore current City limits and really looked at land? Because you've got yellow land that is outside our City limits and you've got green that's inside the City limits. Clark: Absolutely. Minkel: That is true. Ostner: Ok, so you didn't necessarily say the City limit is here and it's all green out there. Minkel: No, we looked at it as an entire planning area. Ostner: Ok, that's a difficult issue. The Council needs to, this will take awhile. I would wonder though, if this doesn't balance the areas that could be annexed and could be yellow, especially out west. While trying to preserve the rural atmosphere of a bunch of that land. I would hope that as we use this, we break the General Plan all the time now. It's just something that staff looks at. They say, you know what, this is really not in the General Plan. It's almost, which came first? The chicken or the egg? If we could agree on something like this, of course we don't have to do it tonight, but we've got something to change. I guess that's my point. Maybe there should be more yellow out there eventually. But I think it's, I think it might give people a sense of security that we are actually putting a line on a map. Hey today, this is enough yellow, cause there's a bunch of yellow that's not developed. I don't want to say no to subdivisions. I guess I want to find a balance. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 123 of 139 Trumbo: I agree with you, I agree and my point is that I know that this could have been approved unanimously pretty quick, but that's a gray area and my fear is, I just want to make sure we're not go in and just say no. Can't have it, there's a lot people involved here, property owners. I would assume the vast majority of them would want the preservation, protection. But, my message to City Council is they might want to take a good luck at that and then see what you want there in these areas. It's been debated in various forms back and forth. I want more to vote to take a look, and why did one person say no. Everything else is great, by the way, the commercial, the mixed use, the purples, and the dark blue. I looked all though that's great, and I love definitions and where were heading and it all makes sense, including the yellow. Clark: I think what you two both were pointing out is that it's incumbent upon us to keep this map relevant and up-to-date. Because I think it will change as City services encroach further out from the center of town into these developing areas, some of that's got to change. I mean that's what some of the subdivisions come in, but right now, I like having that so that when we have somebody out in the central lands who proposes a two hundred forty- house subdivision we can say RSF-4, no we can't do that yet, because sewer is not there, water is not there, we don't have the infrastructure. But I do think this makes it incumbent upon staff and the City to keep this as a very ongoing updated map and not just let it sit around until we do a 2035 or 2045 plan. Maybe that will solve some of your problems. Maybe when you see it gets closer, than ok, these services are there, we'll change the color. Anthes: Commission Clark, were you finished? Clark: Absolutely. Lack: I remember when Dover Kohl made the presentation for the 2025 Plan and one question even in the charrettes, when we met with them, with Mr. Dover, the question that I had was how do you tell Farmer A that his land is suitable for conservation and Farmer B that his land is suitable for development. This is something that I expect, I fully anticipate a very health debate over, as this gets to City Council and obviously nobody anticipates that we are an authority on it, so they will, because they are not here tonight, they will wait and make their comments at that time, I'm sure. But, there were several different avenues that Victor expressed at that time. In the equalization of value, and that's were my concern comes in, is that when we restrict and regulate where development can happen and we denied development rights to certain people and not to others, then we alter values of property inconsistently. His discussion was that as we Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 124 of 139 seek to by our 2025 Plan, to densify our downtown, that there would be need for maybe banking of green space or natural environment and that you could establish a system in which you get points. Then which you can actually pay into a land trust a farmer B who we suggested that he not develop his land can receive funds to hold his land in a land trust to counter and offset a more dense development elsewhere. I think that the thing I would really to see would be a more mixed plan so that were not just a concrete city with green fringes. I would like to see more green area introduced and that become more and more difficult because the land in the areas that are already developed are already perceived as having that greater value. That just compounds that problem. I don't know if I am 100% comfortable with the amount of yellow, amount of green, or the restriction of regulation in such a hard manner in what we are proposing, but I do believe that it is consistent with the 2025 Plan that the City has adopted. With that, I'm comfortable to send the map forward and let that debate begin were it counts, at City Council. Anthes: Are there any other comments? Ostner: I think if you've been the third fastest growing city in America and you are currently the 12`n/15r' fastest, you shouldn't do this every five years. You should do it, you should do it every year if you could afford it. Every three years would be incredible. The amount of time, excuse me, the difference the past five years have made this map could have changed tremendously, for the better. For us to have more tools and for the Council to have more tools, I would strongly urge staff, I know it's expensive, but now that you've got hopefully something like this I would hope you don't have to completely reinvent the wheel every time. I would hope the map could be looked at more frequently than the entire document. I've thought that before, the reason I am comfortable with it, is that if a package plant were proposed today as we have grappled with, frequently, and we are going to see a lot more of them, in one of those green areas we have a leg to stand on. To say "No", not today. Look how far away you are from what we think is appropriate. We don't have any tools like that now. Now, if he was real close , we have a line in the sand that we have drawn, no wait a minute, maybe, you are only two hundred feet of sewer extension. Those package plans are changing everything and I think this is a good start towards this a leap frog, domino development that can really ruin our country side. Cause water is lot easier to obtain out there, with rural water authorities. Anthes: Thank you Commissioner Ostner, Karen will you read the number one goal of the 2025 Plan? Clark: This is a test. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 125 of 139 Minkel: We will make appropriate infill and revitalization our highest priority. Clark: There you go. Anthes: I think that when we look at our number one goal of our plan and we start to formalize that on a map, this does it. When you talk about that your highest priority is infill development, then other places have to be given lower priority for development. It goes hand and hand. I appreciate that the staff has looked at slope and waterways and flood planes and all those other things. Looked at other groups, like the Fayetteville Natural Heritage Foundation when you start seeing how the future can lay out on the actually ground that's out there . Its just not color blocks on flat land that's of equal character from edge to edge. I know that's pretty much how (inaudible) and zoning was done. So, what we have here is a tremendous step forward in that it relates to the specifics of, it begins to relate to the specifics of our region and our place. I also appreciate that it starts to talk about concurrency and infrastructure development and I know that's in our plan and I look forward to the City working on that further and planning stuff coming back to us and talking about what concurrency and development really means. As we talked about last time, we saw this when we asked you to go back and we said ok, we looked at a small set area of the city and we looked at these definitions and we said that the definitions looked good, make these modifications, and the method you are using looks to be correct, lets see it on a wide -scale. When I see it on a wide scale, I can wholeheartedly endorse the work that staff has done and said that the method is absolutely correct that this is the best embodiment that I could see that we could do on a broad, city-wide scale, to begin to visualize the patterns that would be created on the ground by the goals that we've unanimously adopted in City Plan 2025. So, I'm thrilled to see it, I'm wholeheartedly going to vote to forward this tonight, and my only question would be on the definitions, just to add heavy industrial areas to the blue and then maybe not putting it, the green industrial comments into the other zoning districts but making some clarification at the body of the industrial zoning page and talk about the fact that we do have areas and would encourage these other kinds of industrial development and we would be happy to look at those projects and see where they would fit into the other zoning uses, zoning areas appropriately. Ostner: I do have a specific question, why isn't our only I-PZD shown as blue? Another quick test. Minkel: I'm not sure. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 126 of 139 Ostner: Karen, you don't have to know it. Clark: She's like the deer in the headlight look.. Ostner: Our only industrial PZD is at the corner of 6'/540. It's Wal-Mart Optical. It's not blue. Clark: Yes it is, you're right. Andres: But is that considered heavy industrial? Ostner: I don't know, it's an I-PZD, our only one. I'm not sure if it's called heavy but right now this is just industrial. I think this covers heavy and light, if you're altering our current zoning to sort of mesh into this. All of our industrial lands I,-1,2,3 are all blue, light, medium, and heavy. Minkel: Right, it wasn't our intention, though, to make sure that light industrial was specifically included in, but we are calling this the industrial area designation. We thought there were light industrial uses that would be compatible with residential, office, and other commercial uses. Ostner: And that would fit in other colors too? I haven't read this word for word, but it sounds like you are trying, I just wanted to throw that out that it's zoned industrial PZD but it's colored, what's Purple? Minkel: Urban Center. Ostner: Urban Center, Ok. Clark: I have no problem if the conclusion of the Commission is to forward this, I have no problem forwarding it, I think you guys can fix the language and ensure what we have talked about. I would hope, however, that City Council gets the minutes of our discussion on this particular item. I don't care if they get the minutes for the rest of the meeting, but on this particular item, I would very much like to make sure that they can at least read what we reflected upon and hopefully we'll elaborate on it and/or fix it. Motion: Andres: I may suggest too that they also look at the minutes of the meeting were we discussed this previously, when we went though the definitions and descriptions. Ok, we have a motion to forward by Commissioner Myres with the second by Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 127 of 139 Commissioner Ostner. Commissioner Myres had to leave and the City Attorney's not here and I'm not sure about how we act on motion that was made by someone who's no longer in the room. Does anyone have any thoughts on that? Trumbo: I think it would be appropriate to go ahead and vote. There is not much else we can do. We could vote no against that, her motion, then come up with another one for approval? Anthes: However we think is legal, we will just go for it. Ostner: I think it's fine if we just go down the line. Before we vote I would like to pose the question, we have never visited with the City Council. If members have comments that they feel are important, I don't think a personal visit would be out of bounds. We are not bossing their business, it's very clear that this is their deal and we're just looking at it. I think they value our opinion and this is our thing. If other members are amenable, I would be willing to just walk down there and just talk to them, as a group. Instead of asking them to read our minutes. They might even ask us questions that group meeting we had awhile back I thought was fairly productive. It's just a suggestion. Anthes: Karen, does this go to ordinance review first or directly to Council? Minkel: It goes to ordinance review. Anthes: Well, that I might say might be the best time for something like that to happen and you might tell Mrs. Theil who I believe is still chairing that committee. Thank you for Mr. Ostner, for the comments and offer. Ostner: I can't make meetings during hours like ordinance review, but I can come up after hours to City Council. I believe ordinance review is during the day, right? Minkel: I know it begins earlier, but I think it usually goes past the typical day. Ostner: 3 or 4ish? Anthes: I think I had been to one at night, I think, but I don't know, maybe it was just a long one. Ok, are there any further comments? Ostner: Who's going to call the roll? Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 128 of 139 Minkel: I have the roll in front of me. Anthes: Oh, Karen's going to call the roll. Minkel: I'm doing both. Roll Call: The item was forwarded by a vote of 6-1-0, with Commissioner Trumbo voting no. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 129 of 139 ADM 06-2323 (Urban Residential Design Standards): Discussion of Urban Residential Design standards for staff to prepare an ordinance regarding the same. Anthes: Our final item this evening is Administrative Item 06-2323. It's about urban residential design standards. I believe this is here to begin a discussion. We aren't expected to vote on this evening, but that Staff wants our feed back. And I guess Karen is going to present it. Minkel: Karen Minkel stated the background and recommendations for this discussion, which is stated in the staff report. Anthes: Thank you Ms Minkel. Again, there are no members of the public to comment. So we'll start the discussion with the Commission. Commissioner Lack. I know you have something to say about this. Lack: I would like to first just start with.... as I told Tim.... I really appreciate the idea that we are trying to regulate with this modification of the ordinance. The way buildings and not the style of buildings or the particular materials of buildings. We see with this a regulation that I think starts to come from an understanding of quality. Not just as a matter of materiality, but quality as a factor of how we create good urban space. And I say urban space because when we talk about space for communion of people, we get into the category of urban space. One thing that I was going to ask at agenda secession: I believe you mentioned something about promoting parking on the street.... and.... within our city streets. I am remiss that I am not seeing that in the comments. And I may have just missed it. But I wanted to ask. Is that enumerated in some of the guideline that is before us? Minkel: We don't specifically address parking in these guidelines. But it is something that we are open to looking at. When we developed these we were looking at something that would stand alone and changing parking ratios would touch another part of the code, which is why it's not included in here. But, we think it certainly would be appropriate to address. Lack: I think that that helps the idea of being able to get buildings to face to the street and not, not be turning their backs to the street. Because I know we are going to look at... people have to be able to see the door from at least part of the parking. And if we promote the very urban idea of at least parallel parking on the street, then we start to have that connection with the car and the door that we know is going to be important. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 130 of 139 Anthes: I would agree with Commissioner Lack. And perhaps if we look at guideline 3, on the third page. Requirement 3.1 says "locate parking to reduce its visability from streets and other public and communal spaces". Maybe we need to say parking lots. And actually add.... because that would actually be counterproductive if... and add something that says promote on -street parallel parking. And you could state several reasons why you should do so. Also with regards to how this is written. I like statements that give you the words like `promote', `provide', `incorporate', `vary', and `locate', `employ', `focus', and for the sake of readability of the document, I would like you to look at the statements that aren't structured that way, and see if there is a way to parallel sentence structure. Because then we have... you know, we go from these statements and then we say like "windows on the ground floor of buildings with commercial uses shall be predominately transparent" and it doesn't quite read the same way. Do any Commissioners have any comments about how they fit? They think this fits with our UDC and how it might be incorporated? Ostner: Yes. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: It's mostly a question. Where do they apply? Is it urban? I mean, these aren't appropriate out in your average RSF-8 subdivision. RMF -8. Whatever. Minkel: The way we have defined urban residential is single-family attached. Two- family, three-family, multi -family dwellings. Ostner: And that's.... is that in here? Anthes: It's at the top. Minkel: It's at the very top. And.... by the asterick. Ostner: I guess I am still a little confused, because .... um.... if I'm coming in from out of town with my bags of money... ready to spend it... and I want to buy a piece of land that is zoned for triplexes. A lot of this isn't appropriate. Anthes: You don't think? Ostner: No. Not out in a hayfield. And he's going to see that. Any investor is going to see that. I love these. They are very appropriate for a lot of spaces. I'm just Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 131 of 139 wondering where. I mean it specifically says "urban residential design standards." It could have said "guide to residential design standards." It didn't. Anthes: Except I believe when we spoke with Mr. Conklin about that he said that "Urban" is within the city limits of Fayetteville. That urban is city. And it was Staff's... correct me if I'm wrong, but it was Staff's recommendation that these would apply city-wide. And you know, I do think a lot of this is applicable no matter where something is built. Look at "provide building entrances that are oriented to the street. You know, you know fencing materials, entrance porches. How to locate parking. How to screen trash. How to locate vehicular access. These are, you know, good planning principles no matter whether you are on an infill or a greenfield site. But I... you might have a different view and be able to point out a contrast to that. Ostner: Well. I'm being cynical. I'm trying to put myself in.... As we know, this goes, this goes in the book of the welcome mat. If you want to bring your bags of cash here, just check out the book because this is what it takes. So he opens it and says, "Wow, wait a minute. I just wanted to build duplexes." I'm just struggling with that. Because I think that this is very appropriate for a lot of stuff we see. Minkel: Madam Chair Ostner: And maybe not completely appropriate for all the stuff we see. I was actually hoping when I first asked the question that you said "yeah, as a matter of fact it's 1/3 out from the town center to our city limits." And I would think "ok. I can handle that". All the way out to that... way out past 45. Not everything is Wellspring. Anthes: Well, that's true. Ostner: I wish it were. Clark: Oh, I don't! Ostner: So, if we had a choice those things work. Can you help me? Minkel: I have two comments to make, actually. One is that when we first started looking at this we did have a discussion about whether it should just apply to on the sector map to what was identified as the infill area. But then we thought that maybe that wouldn't be fair to some of the other residents who live beyond that area and would like to see quality design standards applied to all urban Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 132 of 139 residential development that happens across the city. That was one of our concerns. And the second is that I thought you might just be interested to know that we have taken some of the projects that have come through the Planning Office and are more typical of, what I guess you'd say, the conventional subdivision multi -family type development, and had our designers play with the placement of those buildings to see whether they could be reconfigured in a way that would comply with these design standards. And so it has been an interesting exercise for us internally to see if it possible. Um... and it is. To a... to a pretty high degree in terms of being able to reconfigure building placement and change it so they do comply with these standards. So, I'm just throwing that out there because you might... this is for discussion only but you might be interested in seeing how those can be redesigned in a way that would comply with these standards. And perhaps, I think in what you were saying... that something like that should be available to developers who are looking to develop. So maybe they could see how maybe what they've been doing in other cities could be reconfigured in a way that they do get the same number of units per acre, but it is... I guess... a more pedestrian -friendly, urban design. Ostner: Ok. Here is my follow up. Do y'all remember Aspen Ridge? It hadn't been built yet. Do you remember sort of the... the lay out? These blocks, they all have garages. We are seeing a lot of those. Would that fit? Clark: I mean, at first blush it follows some of these. Again, I am being cynical. I'm being a developer who looks at this and thinks of a way to comply with it. Um, I haven't studied these, but I have read through them. Those big blocks, which I call them apartments with a mortgage. They face the street. They're close. They all have little porches. Yet, I don't see those as what we are shooting for. So... Anthes: Maybe even more so than some of the other things we get. Ostner: What? Just a question. If you create a big multi -block building, is that going to fit? And are we going to see more of them? I'm being ugly. Trumbo: I... kind of.. Anthes: Commissioner Trumbo. Trumbo: What you point... the point you are trying to get out. I... on a big... big overview.... there are some apartments that we approved out on Huntsville Rd. And we didn't have anything really to look at as far as commercial design Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 133 of 139 standards. And I drove by them... I guess a month ago... We were looking at something out there. And I would never approve that. Never. They are just cookie cutter, flat back, no porches. Bottom line, "we are going to build something as cheap as we can, and call it affordable. And put people in it.". And they are cheaply made. They look bad. And I defiantly think we need to put something in place so we have something to say no to that type of `come in, throw it down, leave'. And it's not housing that is going to be here in twenty years. Especially if somebody doesn't take care of it. And this is a big step. And I haven't even begun. Maybe I'm not... maybe I just don't have the experience you all do in urban design and things. But I have learned quite a bit. But, we need to get something in place. Especially with all the condo's and other things on the peripheral that are coming through. Our big, huge project.... the project next to Lowe's. It is a nice project, but it's huge. And it stands up very tall. And everyone is going to see it. And we didn't have anything to help. What if it was just a giant ugly tower. And that's pretty relative... but.... Ostner: It's not. Trumbo: It can be seen that way. But... we can't even discuss it now.... Anthes: We then lets... Let me follow up with Staff about how this would be implemented. When we have commercial design standards, we have a list of things. And as our City Attorney and Staff consistently remind us, you don't have to meet every one of those things. There is an intent and there is a list, and if we feel like those projects substantially comply, relative to their particular area and site and pressure, then we can approve the project as being in compliance. Perhaps that would go to what you are talking about Commission Ostner when you say "does this really work in a green -fill site for duplexes?'. Perhaps we can look at this as a doctrine of intent. There is this list of things that the City likes to see in residential projects. And then does this project substantially agree with that intent in its specific site and condition? Ostner: Sort of like the PZD ordinance. A giant text.... and now, go for it. Anthes: I think what it really does. It puts predictability on the system. And instead of telling people what we don't want, we start to show them what we do want. We make it easier to understand what we are looking for and how to comply with that. Clark: Madam Chair. I want... I like what you're saying. And I would go one step farther. To say if we are going to show folks what we want. Shouldn't we give Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 134 of 139 them some incentives to do it? And that dovetails beautifully into affordable housing. You can through out all the specifications and all the guidelines you want. But unless you give somebody incentive to do it, why should they? Now to make it mandatory I would be absolutely against. Because that takes developmental rights away. But, give incentives for doing it. And maybe make one of those incentives to make it affordable... Ostner: What is it? Clark: To follow guidelines like this. Restrictive guidelines. To meet what we want. What our planning department says is optimum. This is the type of development we wish to encourage. We also want part of it to be affordable. So here are the incentives that maybe we can talk about to encourage developers to do the package that we would really like to see them do. Until we get off dead center, and until we offer developers incentives, then I do not think that we will ever obtain affordable housing, in my lifetime. Why should they? And we continue to put impediments; I think it would be in the way of affordability. I think that this would be a wonderful opportunity for us to try to mesh those two objectives. Optimum design standards plus incentives that also help afford ability. Ostner: Like what? Clark: Well, we.... it's 11:30pm. Let's have this discussion when we are all fresh. And maybe talk about it with other perspectives at the table as well. But I think you can talk about... you know... we have given people incentive to use a PZD by set back variances and all types of neat little things that they can manipulate and use. But we still didn't catch the boat on that one to give them incentive to make some of it affordable. And I think that that was a missed opportunity. This is another opportunity where I think much sharper minds than mine can sit down and come up with some ideas to really give developers, when looking plan A, or what the City would really like to have; "Ok. We can afford to do what the city really likes to have because we are going to get some breaks. And we are going to make some of it affordable.". That's the trade off. That's my... my wish. Anthes: I agree that this is a... I mean... but to dovetail that discussion makes some sense. But I also think that these urban residential design standards don't necessarily add cost to a project. And that they should be applied now, and across the board. And that... that... you know... how to site your buildings.... like Ms. Minkel says, she has proven that with just minor modifications and sort of planning efforts you can achieve the same density units per acre, the same kind of development Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 135 of 139 cost, and you can do that immediately. And if I don't see that you need to give an incentive to do that. Clark: But it's an opportunity. It's an opportunity. Anthes: Right. But I guess what I'm saying is that you don't need give an incentive to comply with these standards if we adopted something similar to this, in this package. Now, you could take that one step further and say, if we want you to then provide X number of obtainable units within this formula, then you place the incentive. Clark: You are back loading the incentive. I said put the incentive up front. I mean, it's a lot semantics. A lot of this is semantics. A lot of developers are going to look at this and say "I'm not going to comply with all that. I want to put up what I am used to putting up. Even though, comparatively speaking it could still be financially feasible." Put the incentive up front. Say " this is what we want you to do here, and here are your incentives to do it. And then we can show you that you can also save money and provide something that this city desperately needs.". I don't know, that's just.... we have different perspectives on it. But my perspective is very dull at this hour of the night. Ostner: Well they also talk about dropping impact fees. And that is something that people talk about right off the bat. Impact... you show us true affordable housing, and you are going to prove it and guarantee it, we'll back off our impact fees. Cities can do that. And cities do it. In Washington DC they did a very upscale 200 per sq ft condos, and every 5`h one was affordable. And it was free because the ones that paid the cash... 200 per sq ft paid for it. Now, nobody likes that. The thing got filled up before they could turn around. People loved it. The people paying the 200 per sq ft were all about a real urban experience with people living near them that were of different economic classes. It all went great. It's in a magazine. I'll bring it. There are some options right there. Because a big chunk of money is the key. Big bowl of money. Anthes: This one... I agree that all of those things, we need to ..... What I don't understand is that.... Commissioner Clark, do you believe that.... that just like commercial designs standards are to a commercial project.... that this is not an equivalent step for the design standards to a residential project? Clark: Do I? Run that by me again? Anthes: Well, our commercial design standards around a commercial project... Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 136 of 139 Clark: Do we need residential design standards? Yes we do. Yes. I believe that we do. Ostner: You just see this as an opportunity to.. Clark: I just see this as an opportunity to get some affordable housing out of it. I really do. Trumbo: I want to point out too... when we say residential design standards we are not talking about single-family detached housing. I mean I know when people hear residential design standards and I don't want to answer all those calls tomorrow. It's multi -family that we are talking about. Ostner: You're so popular! (laughing) No one calls me. I guess my feelings should be hurt. Anthes: So what are our directives for Staff? To work on, kind of refining the directing statements. And look at drafting this in an Ordinance in a way like our commercial design standards fit within our development ordinance? Ostner: Yeah. Anthes: Does that make sense? And then also, to look at the attainable housing element and the attainable housing goal. And start to propose ways how to achieve that within this structure. Minkel: And I'll just reiterate what I've been scribbling down as you've been talking. And I also wanted to mention that we have been receiving some comments from City Council about this as well, they have received drafts and are eagerly following what the Planning Commission will do. But what one of the comments was specifically about was seeing it as an opportunity for attainable housing. And there has also been a push to do some analysis as to whether and how much this would increase construction cost for developers. And so we, Staff actually wants to look at some of the projects that have come through recently with both sort of styles. Sort of conventional suburban multi -family development with some of the more urban multi -family development that we have seen, and compare yield per acre and how that might change. So we are hoping to have more numbers that maybe will add some meat to what everyone is discussing. And it sounds like, in terms of incentives, increasing yield per acre. Possibly allowing something by right. Looking at parking ratios that could also be an incentive. And also including something about meeting the intent of Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 137 of 139 the standards, rather than saying you have to meet everything that is listed here. And then using strong verbs at the beginning of each statement. Is that... does that cover it? Ostner: No. Minkel: Ok. Ostner: If you are asking. These pictures don't do it justice. If you take the 20 minutes to read it, you get a completely different idea than by glancing at the pictures. These are urban pictures. These are downtown. You have got to go outside of Fayetteville. You are not going to be able to take them yourself. You've got to find something that a guy could picture.... Clark: Or a girl could picture. Ostner: A girl developer. The money bags. Anthes: There might be site plans attached or some sort of... Ostner: Maybe ... well, these are very effective. If you could get photos like this of something that was more greenfield. And these could be green field, but for a guy to picture that, he's going to go to another town. This is... this is our PR. And this says "build the multi -family where there is already a city". And that's important. So yeah, the pictures have got to be different. They have got to go beyond this. Clark: And I would. Alan is absolutely right about that. But I would really like to see Staff knock themselves out with all kinds of ideas for incentive. Throw it open. Give us something that we can actually discuss no matter how crazy it might sound on the surface. Go from conservative to ultra, ultra liberal. Please. So we can find something in the middle of the spectrum that we might be able to put in place. That would actually accomplish what that goal of the 2025 plan is. Which is to build affordable, attainable housing. Ostner: Well, here's a short list of what developers would say. "Don't make me spend so much on engineering." Which is nuts, but... "Don't make me wait so long at City Hall." Clark: That's a big one. Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 138 of 139 Ostner: "Don't make me have to spend more on parks and sidewalks than I want to." They're always begging for this stuff. Could the city do that part? I don't know. There again it is the big bucket of money. Anthes: "Why don't wildlife preservation areas count for parks." Ostner: Maybe. Maybe there is land somewhere else that the City can help broker to get that area to qualify so they didn't have to give it away. Or stuff like that. Clark: And we're talking about limited development. Not every development. But only a development with attainable housing. Ostner: Exactly. You give us. We'll give you. Clark: The City can compromise something. Ostner: So that's just off the top of my sleepy head list of what.... Clark: I'm sure that Planning has heard even more creative suggestions. Some that you could actually print. Anthes: Now, can I ask Commissioners? If staff can put together a presentation where you show us the site plan analysis that you did, and start putting these numbers to it. We could forgoe a tour after agenda session and look at those.... so we don't have to do it all. You knowwe can be prepared and look at that information and then have them come back sometime. Does that sound good? Minkel: Sure. Anthes: So is that everything you need. Does anyone else have anything to add? Minkel: I think it gives us enough to begin an ordinance form. Anthes: Are there announcements? Just ask Staff. Suzanne and I were talking and we have changed our bylaws to include some verbiage about timing of presentations and that will be on the sheets that are at the front starting the next meeting. So people won't misunderstand. Ostner: Who's keeping time? Trumbo: I will. Ostner: I just had to ask. (general joking and laughing) Anthes: Alright, so we are adjourned.