Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-11-13 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on November 13, 2006 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN VAC 06-2315: (PAUL) Approved Page 4 ADM 06-2354: (GARLAND AVE ROW DED VAR) Approved Page 4 ADM 06-2353: (TOYOTA OF FAYETTEVILLE) Approved Page 4 ADM 06-2352: (MARRIOTT COURTYARD) Approved Page 5 ADM 06-2370: (MALCO THEATRE) Approved Page 5 R-PZD 06-2196: (WEST FORK PLACE, 565/566) Denied Page 6 VAC 06-2289: (ARCHER, 442) Denied Page 36 ADM 06-2297: (APPLEBY LANDING) Approved Page 41 CUP 06-2319: (JB HAYS, 373) Approved Page 50 VAC 06-2337: (PITTMAN, 361) Forward Page 53 RZN 06-2320: (GARNER, 561) Forward Page 58 CUP 06-2318: (CROSSOVER MINI STORAGE, 371) Approved Page 67 CUP 06-2295: (DIDCOM, 396) Tabled Page 71 Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 2 R-PZD 06-2212: (STADIUM CENTRE COTTAGES, 557) Denied Page 81 Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page3 MEMBERS PRESENT Jill Anthes Lois Bryant Candy Clark Hilary Harris Andy Lack Christine Myres Sean Trumbo STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Andrew Garner Suzanne Morgan Jesse Fulcher Glenn Newman CITY ATTORNEY: Kit Williams MEMBERS ABSENT James Graves STAFF ABSENT Matt Casey Sarah Patterson Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 4 Anthes: Good evening. Welcome to the Monday, September 11, 2006, meeting of the City of Fayetteville Planning Commission. I would like to remind all audience members and commissioners to turn off cell phones and pagers. Also, listening devices are available for people who are hard of hearing. If anyone needs assistance with one of those devices, please contact one of the staff members in this front row and they can provide a headset. Will you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call Bryant, Graves, Lack, Harris, Clark, Trumbo, and Anthes are present (Myres arrived later). Anthes: I would like to call the audience members' attention to the revised text on your "order of Planning Commission Meeting" handouts that are in front when you come in. As per our recent bylaw amendment, there are time limits for individuals, community groups, and applicants to make their presentation and if you would like to refer to those changes you could look at the forms that were available at the podium this evening. Commissioner Myres, welcome. We have seven members tonight and I would like to remind everyone that rezonings, conditional uses, and vacations require five affirmative votes and so applicants need to be aware of that when making your presentations tonight. Our first business tonight is the consent agenda. We have five items on consent: VAC 06-2315: VACATION (PAUL, 216): SUBMITTED BY ALAN REID FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2753 E PAR COURT. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED RSF- 4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE AND CONTAINS APPROXIMATELY 0.52 ACRES. THE REQUEST IS TO VACATE A PORTION OF A UTILITY EASEMENT ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. ADM 06-2354: ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM (GARLAND AVENUE ROW DEDICATION VARIANCE) SUBMITTED BY TONY CATROPPA FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1305 GARLAND AVENUE REQUESTING A VARIANCE OF THE MASTER STREET PLAN RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR GARLAND AVENUE IN THE MANNER INDICATED TO ALLOW THE EXISTING BUILDING FOOTPRINT TO REMAIN AND BE IMPROVED WITHIN THE MASTER STREET PLAN RIGHT-OF- WAY. PLANNER: ANDREW GARNER ADM 06-2353: ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM (TOYOTA OF FAYETTEVILLE): THE REQUEST IS FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE CH. 172, PARKING AND LOADING, FOR TOYOTA OF FAYETTEVILLE TO ALLOW FOR A CHANGE IN EXISTING PARKING STALL DIMENSIONS. Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 5 ADM 06-2352: ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM (MARRIOTT COURTYARD): THE REQUEST IS FOR MODIFICATION TO THE WEST ELEVATION FOR THE APPROVED MARRIOT COURTYARD. ADM 06-2370: ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM (MALCO THEATRE): THE REQUEST IS FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE CH. 176, OUTDOOR LIGHTING, TO PERMIT NEON AS INDICATED ON THE PROPOSED BUILDING. Anthes: Would any member of the commission or any audience member like to remove any one of these items for discussion? Seeing none, I will entertain motions to approve the consent agenda. Motion: Clark: I'll motion. Anthes: Motion by Commissioner Clark Ostner: Second. Anthes: Second by Commission Ostner, will you call the roll. Roll Call: The consent agenda was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 6 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. Fulcher: The request is for a Master Development Plan of a Residential Planned Zoning District with 59 single-family dwellings: 30 attached and 29 detached. West Fork Place Residential Planned Zoning District that has been heard by Subdivision Committee and Planning Commission, and was tabled at the previous Planning Commission hearing. It has been brought forward tonight. The overall development is for 29 single family units and 30 multi -family units resulting in an over-all density of 4.24 units per acre. All of the residential units will be located in Planning Areas 1-3; Planning Area 4 will be utilized for community green space maintained by the property owners association. Planning Area 5 will be dedicated park land. This request will not subdivide the property. It is a large scale development and all the commonly held property would be maintained by the POA. Since we have looked at this project a few times, I thought it best just to go over the major changes since Planning Commission review back on September 25. This was based on comments received by the public and by the Planning Commissioners. The applicants have gone back and made these changes. One of the larger comments that were made was the proposed street connection thru the platted lot of the Watson Addition. That has been removed with a revised plats and that is going to be replaced with 20 foot public alley for fire access and pedestrian usage. Break -away bollards would be utilized at the north and south end, which would prohibit vehicular use but allow emergency vehicles to access the property, in case of emergency. Another point of concern was connectivity. The south and east were quite prohibitive because of the existing flood plain of the White River. They have indicated a stub out to the west which would be constructed at the time of the development and would also be labeled on the plat so future residence would understand that connectivity could potentially take place with redevelopment to the west of this property. The public street and public alleys have been realigned to create a four-way intersection, somewhat of a change from the previous plats. A four -foot sidewalk has been added along the south side of the multi -family units, providing a second connection to the future trail, which would be constructed within planning area five, the park land. An eight -unit building which was located on the south property has been split into (2) four unit complexes and additional guest parking has been provided along the alleys, in addition to the on street parking and driveway parking. Finally, I believe that some of the public had some questions regarding the park land Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 7 development and how that would occur if this project were to be approved. When the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board met and discussed this project, they voted and accepted a park land dedication based on the units that required a dedication of 1.4 acres approximately. The applicants are dedicating approximately 6 acres. If this were to be approved, at the time the deed was submitted to the parks division, then they would schedule the development of this park area. The purpose is to create a time frame so that the current area residents that would utilize the park land area as well as the residents that would move into this development would be able to provide input to that development of the parks. Therefore, the actual development time frame would be based on the build -out of this development to allow both future and current residents to help determine the outcome of that park area. If you have any additional questions please ask. Anthes: Mr. Fulcher, before you sit down, we were asked to reserve our plats from October 2, 2006 and I see you have a list on page 2 of our staff report of all the changes that have been made. Are all of those reflected in those drawings we have? Fulcher: Yes. Anthes: Ok, thank you. Would any member of the public like to speak to this R- PZD 06-2196 West Fork Place? Please come forward. Madison: I'm Bernard Madison, my wife and I own property that is butted on this development on two sides. On the south and east side. The lot just next door to the proposed street that using, now not a street, it's called a, not sure if it's not a semi -street or something like that, with bollards. Anthes: It's a platted alley. Madison: Pardon? Anthes: Is that correct Mr. Pate? A platted alley? Pate: Yes, it's being called out on your plans. Just for future reference, it's a public trail and fire access. Madison: I've seen those things and I don't think it's an improvement actually. I think it's a down grade actually from a street because it occupies the land and looks temporary, it is temporary and so I don't think that's any particular improvement. There are several, several issues here. Many of Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 8 which were addressed by this Planning Commission on September 25, which we finally got your minutes today, on that particular thing, so we can look at them. First of all, the access to this division uses a lot, platted lot that we all depend on as what it's going to be used for. Now it's going to be used for this semi -street; that of course seems to me a violation of the public trust. The other access is along Ray Avenue; Ray Avenue is the avenue that as you cross Huntsville Road is the avenue that goes up to the Happy Hollow School. It's a very busy intersection, in fact I just came past there, you would never turn right there, you never turn left there, at this time of day. There are several hours of day you never turn left there. You might be able to turn right. So the access to this particular planned development is going to be very, very difficult. You must understand that this is the southern bypass of Fayetteville and part of the eastern bypass of Fayetteville feeds into this area. 6`h street and 15`h street come together and run right past this division. So there is a reason for significant traffic there, unless there is some relief from this traffic, there should be no further development that will double the number of cars. Actually, more than double the number of cars coming out of Ray Street and possibly Jerry Street. Although this semi -street seems to mediate that some what. Jerry Street is a very difficult street, because the sight lines are very difficult there in to addition to the fact that there is a lot of traffic. So, access is a major, major issue to this area. The density is incompatible with density in this area. That's partly because of your so-called PZD's, because PZD's allow you to make decisions that the residents have not counted on. In fact, the residences in that area would be a certain density and because of the PZD option; you can decided the density on the south part of this is going to be twice the density. In fact, almost three times the density of the adjoining property owners. So, the density, although the density sounds ok when you say its on thirteen acres, but the density is actually concentrated on about half of that. The other half of it, which is unbuildable, is being dedicated for parks. Now, of course we don't know what parks means because, let me go back a bit, tolerate me for just a moment, because some years ago, I stood here before at a different Planning Commission and we were concerned about so called nature trails that was built in Highland Park. Where we and many others had homes. The nature trails were used there as substitute for sidewalks. The developer, who was Jim Lindsey, said we want to build this nature trail instead of building new sidewalks. Somehow it got past everybody, and the nature trails of course turned out to be cross ties with gravel between them and they were never used. It was an enormous waste of money and there are no sidewalks now. When we came to the City on that, the City said we don't have any standards for nature trails. Now, what I want to know is do you have standards for parks? Can we depend on the City to have particular kind of park there, or Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 9 are we buying a pig in a poke, when we say we would use six acres of this land for parks. There is supposedly a trail along that park, but the trail seems to go nowhere on the east and nowhere on the west and so I can't imagine the trail being used by anybody outside this particular subdivision. If in fact, its ever developed. The major issue here is the upkeep of this development. It's proposed to be done by a POA and that of course takes the City's responsibility away from it and of course takes any protection that the residents have. Except, for going to court away from that. We don't know whether, we have been told that maybe the streets are public streets. We don't know if they're private or public streets but we do know that they are still proposed to be private owner, community ownership of the land. Now, we know what community ownership of land can be, it can be very good or it can be very bad. If it's very bad, then we have no recourse, the property owners of that area unless we go to court and try to get some damages without the City's protection. So, what the City is asking us to do is to accept a park that we don't know what it will be, and to accept a POA, which we don't know what it will be. So, in essence this is a total pig in a poke for any access to this. By the way, this was on your agenda; this has been on your agenda for three out of your four last meetings. The residents are working people, we can't continue to come here every two weeks and talk about this and because eventually you will wear us down. Eventually, we will be worn down and eventually something else will happen. The last time it was tabled was so that the developers, according to your minutes, could talk to the homeowners in the area. My wife and I met with Mr. McDonald and Hugh Earnest and we talked about this. We made our concerns clear. First of all, they said they were going to remove that house that was next door to our house. We noticed that it hasn't been removed. We told them what our concerns were and none of those concerns have been addressed. In fact, we objected to this bollard kind of semi -street and that of course is still there. They said they had access on another way and they would explore that. But there have been zero changes in conversations with us. We don't see that anything has changed from September 25. Your commission, your staff listed several things here and the only one of those that has any significant so whatever, is a stub out to the west that said there might be a street there someday but the City is not committed to this. We are seriously interested in the City making some commitments to protect this neighborhood and to help us to protect our property from the developers. The developers are not going to destroy our property, but the City may destroy our property because you may not build the park, you may not improve access and traffic on Huntsville Road. It will just get worse. We ask you not to do that to this neighborhood of people who have lived there for many, many years and who are some of the original residents of Fayetteville. We ask Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 10 you to consider the objections that you made on September 25 and note that almost none of those objections are met. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Madison, would any other member of the public like to address this? Madison: I'm Sue Madison and this will surprise a lot of people that occasionally I have need to add to what my husband said. I will be very brief though. I just want to be sure you all understand that the lack of attendance by neighbors here tonight does no way reflect on their diminished opposition at this project. We have one lady that has been seriously ill, one lady that just got out of the hospital, and when I called some people today, none of them knew that this was scheduled tonight. I guess there might have been a sign out, but I haven't driven by there lately. But their opposition remains for these reasons that my husband has gone over. I just wanted you to understand why they are not here tonight. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you Mrs. Madison, would any other member of the public like to address this PZD for West Fork Place? Seeing none, I will close the floor to public comment. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? McDonald: I will try to be brief and address just the items that have changed significantly since the last time I stood before you. I might mention that we did meet with Mr. and Mrs. Madison and at that time, we advised them that we were going to table it, for the meeting that immediately proceeded that and they had a trip to Little Rock planned and we let them know that it had been tabled for the evening. We did not do that without trying to let the neighbors know. They advised us, at that time, that they would call the neighbors that were most interested. We didn't table it as some surprise tactic; we did that, to try to make some of these changes. Anthes: Can I go ahead and get you to introduce yourself. McDonald: Sure, I'm Mike McDonald with Hometown Development. We did, in addition to meeting with the Madisons, met at Brenda Thiel's request with the Ward One residents and three projects were presented at that Ward One meeting that night. Oddly enough, the project that went before us, was not a PZD and it was apartments that were down on 15`h Street as was presented that night. As the presenter before me finished, Mrs. Thiel's commented to the audience that they might like our project much better because it would present something that they at least knew what they were getting because it was a PZD and it was a little more residential as opposed to apartments, that they objects too, so much. We did meet with those Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 11 residents and like Mr. and Mrs. Madison have said, we met with them, and we do believe we addressed some of the concerns. We obviously didn't go down and meet every single item that they discussed. As far as the common ownership of land which was one of the big things that the Madison's and we discussed. We really believe we have a three fold line of protection for someone taking care of this property. First off, as we mentioned to you last time, we plan on targeting first time home buyers. We won't spend a lot of time on that, but we do plan on having a housing fair and try and make these units affordable for people that would own the property as opposed to someone who might buy it to rent it out. Secondly, we will have POA. I know that is not a cure for all ills and you all don't like POA's in their entirety, but in addition to that, we would not be objectionable to a condition of approval similar to what we have received on other projects which would allow the City to have the authority, but not the responsibility, to impose ad valorum taxes to pay for any problems with the property. If there is an upkeep issue, the City can come in at their choosing, not at their responsibility, but at their authority, and correct that. I assure you, that the POA would act once they started being taxed for the actions of few of the residence if that did occur. We believe that it would help to address the concerns of about the common ownership of land. The Madison's also mentioned that there were concerns about exactly what the Parks Department would do with that land. We took the Parks Department on a tour of this property a long time ago. They seemed to be very excited and I realize we can't build the entire trail around the City with one project, but you do have to do it one project at a time. I realize the trail looks as if it doesn't go anywhere now, but if we said that on every piece of property, we would never have trail around the City. We believe, in talking with the Parks Department that they're sincere about putting the trail there and putting these upgrades there and we in fact asked them to send an email to Jesse and Jeremy today confirming what I'm sure Jesse mentioned to you earlier. In addition, we did add the stub in to the west tie in. Recall that it was talked about last time. Obviously, we don't own the property all the way out to Happy Hollow Road but we have shown that stub out to the west property line. We did not provided the fire and pedestrian access or change our full driveway access on the eastside because of the Madison's comment, but more the comments that we got from this committee last time we meet before you. We are amendable to making that a full access for cars and traffic or making it for fire and pedestrians. We have shown a more direct trail access there on that end and made that a four way stop that was mentioned earlier. We believe these changes will make it more amenable. I won't try to list all the items that Jesse went through. With regard to the fire access only that's going through the lot that is on the east end of our property: There is a utility and vehicle access easement on the Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 12 property that is on the end of Jerry, that is to the favor of our property. We did not use that easement, and don't intend too. We intend to use the lot, and that is what before you now. We do believe that that easement came into play when the right-of-way was vacated for Jerry and therefore presented some sort of flag that some day this property wasn't going to stay an island that could never have anything done to it. That there was access to that property. Even though we didn't use that particular access, it was there. We made other minor adjustments to try to break up the town homes a little bit. We do, like the last time I spoke to you, we believe this project meets many of the goals of the 2025 Plan and we think it's a good project and hope you'll consider it strongly. Anthes: Thank you Mr. McDonald. Let's get staff to clarify some of the issues brought up by the neighbors before we start our discussion. First of all, I don't know if Mr. Fulcher or Mr. Pate would like to answer, but regarding the appearance and the use of the connection through the lot. Can you clarify that? Pate: Sure, that would be built to our public alley standards, being able to withstand 75,000 pounds for fire access, fire apparatus access, what ever they require so that it will be a paved fully permanent surface that would tie into the curb and gutter, that is required along the east -west street, so that would be a permanent access. Anthes: Can you call out where a similar access exists in Fayetteville, so we can understand what that looks like? Pate: The alleys that are newly constructed in Rupple Row are very similar. They are all paved and actually provide two-way access to homes that are located along that area. Anthes: Okay, and the issue of traffic, can you talk about the capacity of the existing streets and when Huntsville Road might meet warrants for additional improvements. Pate: In terms of additional streets, and as we discussed several meets ago, we did some quick numbers and looked at the traffic generated by the existing homes that access Jerry, Ray, Lee, Helen, and other streets that are within the existing neighborhood, in addition to the 59 homes that are proposed with this development. Most of those streets are developed without curb and gutter. I believe the street to the west, Ray Avenue, has curb and gutter on the west side and there is an overlay that's being required with this project to improve that street, which would be the primary point of Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 13 ingress/egress. All of those streets meet our minimum standards in terms of width and actually may exceed those. So they would easily in terms of capacity carry well over what is proposed here. In terms of Huntsville Road, the improvements, just looking at the bond program sheet that I gave you all last time, the improvements are stated as project nine, listed there, in our bond program. That is a highway department project and it would carry the improvements from the existing improved intersection along the Tyson facility, east to Stonebridge. But that is one of the projects that we would work in tandem with the highway department for that portion of street. Anthes: And as far as the amount of upkeep that is a allotted to the POA on this PZD, can you compare that to the amount of upkeep on other PZD's? Pate: Sure, I think it varies dramatically, the one that comes in mind, most notability, four weeks a go you all approved a planned zoning district for [Woodbury], which was on Zion Road, that was mostly private streets. There was one public street, I believe. All the rest wereprivate and none of the property was subdivided. It was a very similar situation; a POA maintained all components of that particular piece of property. Residential subdivisions obviously, there are typically POA's. They maintain minor things, like private drives if there are some, signage, landscaping, irrigation, and things like that. A lot of times their dues will take care of that. However, in projects that are not subdivisions that are more large scale developments oriented those are very typical. A POA would maintain or a developer would maintain through dues the grounds and any other improvements. In response to some of the Commissioners concerns about that in the last meeting, they redesigned the streets in this project to meet public street standards so all streets that are wit in this project would be public and dedicated to the City. So, they would have to meet public street standards. Anthes: Can you, for just our information, maybe Mr. Williams, does the City have the authority to assess for improvements if something falls into disarray as Mr. McDonald suggested? Williams: Yes, we have enforcement powers in the code; specifically it states that to further mutual interest of the residence, occupants, and owners of the PZD Master Development Plan and of the public, in the preservation and integrity of the plan. Provisions as planned (inaudible) to the use of the land, statement of commitments to development architectural standards and the location of common open space shall run in favor of The City of Fayetteville and shall be enforceable at all times by the City, without Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 14 limitation of any power regulation or otherwise granted by law. There is another provision further on in the PZD ordinance, as you are aware, that says that if a street needs to be repaired, private street, of course here, we don't have I guess private streets, but if there were private streets that need to be repaired the City can in fact repaired that if it so chooses and then assess all the properties on their taxes to pay the cost of repairing the street. So, the PZD ordinance was written in an attempt to give the City those kinds of enforcement powers. Anthes: And that runs with any development plan and does not need a separate condition of approval? Pate: That's correct, we typically try and it's a hold -over, actually, the condition that Mr. McDonald mentioned is number five in your staff reports, simply because when this was drafted, we were still unsure if they were, actually when this came before you, they were still private streets. We try to remind the Commission of that by putting it specifically in here, but you are right, it's not necessary because it's within the ordinance. Whether we put it as a condition or not, it has to be abided by. Anthes: Can you speak to the parks board decision to accept this land and the trail construction? Pate: Sure. The original parks recommendation when they met with this property owner was for land dedication to satisfy what is on our Parks and Alternative Trails and Transportation Plan, which is a trail corridor multi- use, paved asphalt and concrete trail that in this case will run along the White River. There's a memo from the trails coordinator that's been in your packet for several agendas. And it states where that connection occurs. The trail once fully constructed connects west to Combs Park and would tie into The Town Branch Creek Trail. That's the area were the Crown Apartments has a trail constructed in that area and Razorback Road. To the east, it would connect to Eagle Park, Bayyari Park, and then ultimately to both Lake Sequoyah and the Wastewater Treatment Plant. There's a map also in your staff report showing those trail connections and how they all work together. The over-all six acres is proposed by the developer to allow for additional use of land as it will become a trail head or other uses such as smaller uses that would not be structures located with in the flood plain. Most likely benches and other things of that nature. Anthes: And the last question. Has staff calculated the density within the developable parcels? Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 15 Pate: Specifically, no. There's obviously a density here of 4.24 units per acre overall. They have clustered the development outside of the flood plain for the most part and most of the development lies outside of that area. It would be very easy to take 13.92 acres minus 6.07, but a lot of that 6.07 is actually developable, it's just in the floodplain. It could be developed, obviously the floodway could not, but a lot of that property could be developed if it were above the finished floor elevation. That specifically, if you took that out, would be about 7.5 units per acre, but again, a lot of that property is also developable. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Pate, Commissioners? Ostner: I have a question for staff or the city attorney, in this situation. I wasn't on the panel that night that we talked about this project at Zion. When you compared the POA responsibilities. If this passed tonight and we're faced with this situation and the POA, which is a private non-profit, is struggling, having trouble getting people to pay dues, not having quite enough money to pay for mowing. A few people start mowing their own yards, a few people aren't, waiting on the POA to do it. Then the City comes out and mows a few people's yards and assesses everyone. That sounds like it could happen and it's not planned, but it is a solution. That seems like a real problem to me. It almost seems like people are rewarded for not trying to keep up with their yards if the POA were in a financial crises, which they frequently get in trouble. Is that a fair assessment of how things could go? When you mix a simple non-profit almost a club in with municipal responsibilities. Williams: We've had PDAs not only in Fayetteville but through out the country. It's a very common way for a neighborhood to be able to monitor itself and to insure that common areas are taken care of. I think that the city needs to be very active in making sure that they do comply with what they are supposed to do. And I think generally POAs can be successful and should be successful. A lot of the PDAs were established a long time ago before we had the planned zoning district ordinance. We did not have enforcement powers by the City in some of these early POA's, like we do now with the Planned Zoning District. So I think that the problems that might have been in some areas in the past especially, with detention ponds and things like that. I think that hopefully that will not be reoccurring in any of the new PZD's that do require POAs as part of the ordinance. It gives the City actually enforcement powers. I think that even though, obviously there can be problems with any organization. I think there are a lot of remedies available to assess the homeowners. The POA's are democratically governed by their own property owners, to some extent. What they can not Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 16 do is undo the City's rights to enforce the common ground requirements that have been presented by the developers and accepted by you, and later the City Council. I think there are sufficient enforcement procedures now, to ensure that the POAs will live up to the statements of conditions that would be placed upon them. Hopefully, some of the earlier problems that we've had which when POAs were established. The only thing that they could do then is sue each other to some extant, because often times the City was no a party, had no enforcement powers on that, and so that made it much more difficult to enforce anything. Because then you have property owners that had to go to court themselves. That should not be the case now with POA that is adopted thru the Plan Zoning District ordinance. That gives specific powers to the City to enforce those. Ostner: So, the City could assess one homeowner for not mowing his yard or the City would have to assess the entire West Fork Place evenly? Williams: I would think that in this POA situation that is across the board assessment. I would think that the POA's would realize their own neighbors there. Either their all going to do it or none of them are going to do it. I think that if the City hadn't come in to enforce it, the City is going to use the POA system itself, and that one of prorate application of the taxes to pay whatever the City had to do. Its up to POA itself, if they don't like that, they have some problem with it, a lot of times they have their own enforcement procedures. They have other restricted covenants that the City won't have anything to do with that they can probably use that to assess their own members. That would require private action on them. If the City goes in, I think the City is going to probably assess everybody equally. Ostner: I guess that's my concern is if the City is assessing everyone equally to attempt to assist the POA, which is an improvement, that POA's were on their own. Part of the homeowners who weren't dropping the ball are somewhat punished somewhat, and it's a smoother path to quite trying, because the City is going to come in. Normally, these common lands are a separate piece of dirt: detention pond, a common small part or landscape area. For that to be kept up or the City coming in and taking over or assessing to take care of its maintenance instead of the POA, I can see that. We're talking front yards, backyards, people's homes right up to their front steps. That just doesn't seem like it would succeed to me. It just seems like a large area of land that one should own and maintain and in my mind it almost works better as a apartment situation. This is not an apartment situation, I'm just trying to understand maintaining these areas and keeping up with homeowners' yards if they were to drop the ball. I'll let that stand. Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 17 Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: My question is for Jesse or Jeremy. The last time I saw this development was actually in Subdivision, because I missed the September meeting where we heard it and tabled it, yet again. All I have in front of me are the plats that we had then. Could you come to the podium and show us the changes that are outlined on page two actually fall on this plat? Cause I'm very curious about where the right-of-way stub out is and the street connection were we are going to put the bollards on and even where the eight units turning into 2 four units. I'm trying to figure it out, but I'm really into visual aides. Anthes: Is this where we can get this on camera? Maybe you can put it against the (inaudible) and grab a microphone, if you would. Clark: Don't break the microphone. There you go. Fulcher: This was where the street was going to connect through the undeveloped plat of the Watson Subdivision. Although visually it may not look different, this been reduced from a residential street section to the alley section, 20' wide. Obviously, you can't see where the bollards should be located. The bollards should be located on north and south end. Clark: So there are two sets? Fulcher: Yes, there would be one at either end to prohibit vehicle traffic from leaving the subdivision and also entering the subdivision. Clark: Ok, so really the only entrance and exit we have then becomes on the east? Fulcher: The original extension of Ray Avenue where it terminates here currently would be picked up and brought in to City standards and through the development and loop through. The stub out has been shown here and would be constructed. That's the one to the west for potential redevelopment. This is where the units were split off. This was the eight - unit building at this point. It has been split into two four -unit buildings. This is the intersection that we referred to that has been brought into a "T". It used to be somewhat of cul-de-sac that came further down in here. The units were located on the north and east side of that. Those have been repositioned around that public trail and alley access. Again, this has a sidewalk connection and the proposed trail connection here from this sidewalk. That has been duplicated at this point where there is a public sidewalk coming off of the public alley and we have indicated as condition Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 18 of approval to show another trail connection going down these contours and going down to the proposed trail here again. So, we would have two public connections for the residence to the trail to be constructed by the Parks division. The additional parking, I believe is mentioned also in there, is in these places here and also here for guest parking. I believe this is the one unit that has been discussed as far as for removal that is shown by the applicants. Clark: So, it's going where? Fulcher: It's remained on there, that is one that has been mentioned by the public that may be removed, but the plans we have shown have that on there. That's counting the 29 detached single family units. Clark: So, we are going to have two connections to the trail? Two pedestrian connections, but only one way to get in and out for vehicular traffic? Fulcher: Yes, ma'am. Clark: And those are the changes? Fulcher: Those are the major changes. Clark: I just wanted to make sure that I was up to speed on what was changed because I had concerns with this development for many reasons. I know that infill is difficult, especially when you're talking about infill of this nature. But, complicated to me doesn't mean to me that we are forced to compromise some of the things that we insisted upon. I'm very concerned about the vehicular movement within this subdivision. Parking, people are going to get to the trails easier than then they are going to get to in and out of this development. The traffic on Huntsville, unless people cut across whatever that middle street is, to Ray to try and get out is murderous. You can not turn left on Huntsville, most of the day now. Even with that traffic light, which has provided a wonderful cut through down Huntsville, might I add. It's a wonderful improvement but still you are hoping and praying. A lot of people do turn right, go down to the service station, or go down to the doctor's office and turn around to come back. I've seen it happen, I've done it myself. I commend the developers for trying infill of this nature because we do need affordable housing but I'm very concerned, I don't know what anyone else has to say, I'm very concerned about the inherent limitations structurally of this particular piece of property. Lots of floodway here, lots of floodplain. I think the density is way higher than 4.24 when you actually do the math which, I don't even deal with, on what Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 19 is build -able verses what is plotted. The Parks land and Commissioner Anthes just reminded me, a lot of parks land is in flood plain, which I find very ironic. The floodplain is extensive on this piece of property. I'm still withholding judgment cause I need to be caught up to speed on some of this discuss that happened when I missed Planning Commission, but I still have some very big concerns. Especially about access, density, and the floodplain. The emergency vehicles are Ok with all these turning radii's and the fact that there are not two outlets here? Fulcher: Yes, that was one of the purposes of maintaining that second point of ingress/egress for emergency vehicles so that they would have two points of egress. Clark: Yes, we have bollards there. Have we ever had an instance - since I've been on this Planning Commission we've done two or three with the second access - has a bollard, which is kind of cheating to me, have we ever had a situation where emergency vehicles actually had to utilize that system? Pate: We would have to ask the fire department, I'm not for sure. Clark: I think it's kind of a recent compromise that we've hammered out and some places I can understand it. We did one over on Rockwood Trail. We did that one. But those are much larger houses, it's not heavy density. This being such heavy density concerns me in terms of emergency vehicular traffic as well. So, I'm going to listen what to all you all have to say, because I still have my same reservations, and thank you for putting all the changes. Anthes: Commissioner Myres. Myres: You can tell I want to speak, even without me asking. I probably, I am going to vote against this, not because I'm not in favor of affordable housing, I think we need hundred times the amount of housing that is truly obtainable for most people in this place, in this town. Bu, for exactly the reasons that Commissioner Clark just mentioned. I have real problems with a neighborhood with this much density, having only one way in and one way out. I think it's a recipe for disaster. Also, even if you get out of the subdivision, by the time you get to Huntsville Road, you can't get out and I said this several weeks ago. I'm ready to stop approving anything until the infrastructure is brought up to the level that can support the traffic and additional wear and tear. It's not that I have anything against the development per say, I think it's a good use of the land and I really would like to a lot more housing for sale that's obtainable by an average person, Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 20 unlike what is out there today, but I'm going to vote against it strictly because of the transportation issues. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Commissioner Lack? Lack: I have expressed on the two times that I've seen this project that I felt like it was viable and workable project. I would like to say while I understand the concerns of my fellow Commissioners and have some pause in its one means of ingress/egress and was actually originally in favor of using the vacant lot for other means of full ingress/egress, I still think that this is a viable, good project and I would like to mention a few things that I think are good and of quality and value to the City in this project. I like that the density is accumulated so that we can enjoy some green space. I like that it will be serviced by trail. I like that the density, the most dense portion of the property is placed adjacent to the park so we don't have people who live in a more dense situation being shoved to the center and big houses put on the perimeter on the amenities where they can usually generally get more money for it. That amenity is offered to the smaller, more densely compacted residence. I think that is an appropriate response. I like that this density would be adjacent to that trail and a mode of transportation that would be suitable for all of Fayetteville but certainly provide other options. I think that the POA is a means of control that people would have, the contract between neighbors that would allow them to police themselves and I know within most POA's that I'm familiar with, the POA itself has the ability itself to charge or to tag a certain land owner with a infraction. If three land owners were not mowing the lawn and the City had to come in and take that into account and charge the POA, which I would assume they would have to do because the POA would own the land in this development, then the POA should have and I would expect them to have the ability to recoup that or to charge that particular land owner or homeowner. I really wish we could get an eastern stub out. I would really, that is the one thing that I think would make this more palatable. I have accepted the idea in this exception from staff that the terrain there is infeasible. But, it is something I still would really preferred to have. Beyond that, I would still say that I think it's a viable project that meets the intense of the ordinance and meets the intent of development and plan to vote for it. Anthes: Thank you Commissioner Lack. Commissioner Clark. Clark: I think I have a question for the developer, will you tell me a little about the plans for this park area. Do you have anything on board? Or, are you going to let it drain and call it a park? Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 21 Earnest: Commissioner Clark, I'm Hugh Earnest, I've had a brief discussion with Connie Edmondson and discussed today the situation with Alison Jumper, who is one of the Senior Park Planners. I can tell you factually, that while we don't have any definitive plan to offer, there's a great deal of interest from the Parks Board and from key City staff on the Parks department to develop that. We've had dreamy conversation if you will, about fishing docks. I've had a conversation with the representative [inaudible] society to develop a community garden and there's discussion to put a small playground in that area. So, and by the way, if you step back and visualize for a minute what Mr. Pate was talking about on the Master Trail Plan, you can envision someone working for the City of Fayetteville in 2015 say, and getting on that trail and walking directly to the very large [inaudible] and Happy Hollow. Because, sooner or later, the principal impediment to that, that junk yard will be gone. Once the junk yard is gone, then there's no stopping of the trail situation to get up and down the river right there. I'm digressing from what you asked about the parks plan, but at least one of the key parts from my perspective is the Master Trail Plan and what it would offer for a connection up and down that river. Clark: Thank you sir. Pate: If I might add to that as well, it's usually our Parks and Recreational Board that meets with Park staff and come up with those types of recommendations with those improvements. They also meet with that neighborhood, so it would be both the existing neighborhood and the ones that are moving in to this area to provide the park amenities just as soon as they can. Clark: Thank you, Jeremy. Anthes: I have a couple of questions. Mr. Pate, were you able to research whether any screening requirements are still valid for the 8 ft. fence from the LSD of the junk yard that was approved in 1974? Pate: That is still an on going project that we're working through. As you mentioned, it was approved in the I970's. Conditions are scarce about the screening requirements for that. We have been looking at old aerial photographs to determine if the actual project has expanded beyond the limits of what it was originally approved for. We are working in tandem with Code Compliance on that project. Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 22 Anthes: Has the PZD booklet been updated to reflect City Plan 2025 instead of General Plan 2020? Pate: I don't know, because this project actually came in when we were under the City Plan 2020, so we would have to look through that and find out. Anthes: Okay, and has staff identified the construction traffic routes? Pate: I would assume it would have to be primarily Ray Avenue, simply because this particular street as discussed at the Planning Commission, most of the Commissioners were not support of a secondary means of ingress/egress for this particular subdivision. The applicant was given the direction to find an alternative, which is what they came back with, to not have a secondary full point of ingress/egress, and instead proposed the emergency access. I would assume that it would be from Ray Avenue, primarily. Anthes: Could I have the applicant address the construction traffic and what is the limitations on that, if any? McDonald: I know we discussed using Ray as we were talking about the condition of approval that you all placed on to overlay Ray Avenue. We would be agreeable to use Jerry and the temporary at least the pedestrian access there, up to some point in time. If that is what you wish to direct us to do, but I think unless you tell us to do something else, we would probably be using Ray Avenue. We would be agreeable with either one. Anthes: And a question to Engineering, have you reviewed the grading plan and do you have any particular concerns about the grading along the southern limits of construction? Newman: It's to my understanding we have reviewed that, and they have complied with all our requests at this time. Initially, like we said, we've seen this numerous times, they have adjusted the grading plan to make it more feasible for the project. But, we have no concerns that I'm aware of, at this time. Anthes: Okay, what about the stub -out to the west, I see that it looks like more like a dedication, instead of constructed stub out? Has Engineering discussed that, or Mr. Pate? Pate: We have actually included a condition of approval that we are recommending that is new from the last time, number 3, we are proposing that the western street stub out be constructed to City standards to the Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 23 property line or the floodplain per a public residential street at time of development. As opposed to right-of-way that is simply shown currently. Anthes: Has staff evaluated the possibility of an eastern stub -out located on the northernmost road, just extending straight out to the east? Pate: We did look at that and it's probably sheet number "F" in your packets, the easiest way to see the significant grade change between those two is (inaudible) you can see that those grades are all tying in. The darker lines are all tying into an existing drop in elevation that continues on to the north. That's really the biggest impediment at this point in time to construct the street stub out there. I would not say that it is impossible, but as we discussed with other projects recently, Planned Zoning Districts, it may or may not be probable to actually construct that when that property to the east develops. Anthes: On that sheet you referred to, there is a line that looks like maybe a platted easement or easement that would be left open for the future connection. I can't tell what those dotted lines are. Is that what that is? Pate: Those are utility easements. Antbes: So, that is utility easements? Pate: I believe so, I believe that's an existing easement that actually travels through this entire property as well as where the public street is located. Anthes: Commissioners, I guess we can start by talking about condition of approval number one, determination of street improvements. Clark: This is a question for Engineering, on sheet "17" of our stuff, it looks like their building this property up a lot? How much are they going to build it up? How much higher will it sit at completion at the level it is right now? Newman: If you give me a second to review the grading plan, and I'll answer that. Clark: Sheet "17" Newman: The head of the Engineering Department was the one that did the thorough review of these plains and he is unavailable. McDonald: I'm not sure what the new rules are, but can I come back up. Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 24 Clark: Go right ahead. McDonald: Art Scott, our engineer is here, and basically at the back of the property there's some portions where we raising it about 8 feet. Just along a limited portion of the back of the property. Most of the rest of the property is staying pretty close to grade. Anthes: Thank you Mr. McDonald. Clark: Thank you, the reason I asked is because I'm still concerned about the screening that we can't get an answer to because the salvage yard was done so long ago. Thank You. Anthes: Let's work through condition of approval number one, determination of street improvements. Do any Commissioners have comments? Commissioner Clark? Clark: Yes, I do. I don't think we're requiring enough for a development that only has one entrance and exit. I'd like to look at what Helen and Lee Streets are like. Because you are going to get an ordinate amount of cut through once people get out and they don't want to go to Huntsville and Ray Avenue. Do we have any idea what those two streets are like? Pate: The pavement sections look good and we did take some photographs that are in your packets, I believe. Clark: They're black dots, so talk to me about it. Pate: The widths are fine, they would meet our standards for width primarily. I think probably only thing they would be lacking are the curb, gutter, and sidewalks at this point in time, and storm drains. These were originally, I believe, developed in a subdivision. We had one property owner here that gave us a history lesson on how it was developed with gravel roads and the homeowners all chipped in over time and paved them. They're all paved at this point in time. Most of them, I believe, and we reference in our staff report, are actually wider. Clark: Did you look at those for potential improvement, Jeremy? Because, when I usually look at just the immediate streets... Pate: We did, we looked at the entire subdivision actually and considered where traffic primarily goes, with 59 dwelling units that's not an abnormal amount of dwelling units for a project. The amount of improvements that Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 25 are necessary, one can not ask for the entire subdivision for instance to be improved. We looked at what primary access would be. Originally, we were looking at two points of ingress/egress as well, that would distribute traffic, but then again the Planning Commission did not feel that it was appropriate, at least, several members of the Planning Commission did not feel that the location here as shown, was appropriate. So, it's all been pushed to Ray Avenue as far as public access. That is where we felt the primary improvement should go, and that would be an entire overlay over the street to provide, I believe it says a 28 -foot wide street width, 24' I'm sorry. Clark: That would be great, but it's just going to get you someplace you're going to sit and wait for a very long time. Ok, thank you. Anthes: Is there any reason that we're not requesting curb, gutter, and sidewalk in the area where we're asking for the overlay? Pate: There is already curb and gutter on the west side and sidewalk that this project would actually tie into. There's a sidewalk adjacent to street on the west side of Ray Avenue. Off the top of my head, I don't remember if there's curb and gutter on the east side. Anthes: I don't remember there being any when we drove out there, but it has been some time ago. Glen, would there be a reason Engineering wouldn't be looking for curb and gutter on the other side of the street, where it's missing? Newman: On the east side of the roadway? During the evaluation process I do not know any reasons at that time. Choices of curb and gutter on that side, I believe it was assessed previously at the roadway width and based on number of units and volumes that was determined would be adequate at that time. Pate: Commissioner, if you can refer to page, begins on page 39, the photographs following the road sections that staff took. I think you can see those pretty clearly. The condition of the street at that point is well over 24 feet in width, however, it does need an overlay because of numerous patches and cracks in that area. So, that is what we are recommending. You can see on page 41, that's where the sidewalk ends currently, so that would tie in to the existing sidewalk. This overall subdivision storm drainage is comprised primarily of ditches and culverts. So, adding curb and gutter without an overall drainage plan could actually exacerbate a problem without looking at the overall subdivision. Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 26 Clark: So, staff is recommending that we just allow the sidewalk on the west side? I remember this sidewalk; it's got telephone poles in the middle of it. Pate: It would be to tie into that. Clark: If the Commissioners would want to look at page 44 of 82, that's what we call an impediment. It looks pretty clear that Helen and the other one, Lee, have no improvements along. Which that makes sense, if the citizens had to pave it themselves. That still concerns me, it's not very pedestrian friendly, and I don't think we're helping it at all. Anthes: Is there further discussion on conditional of approval number one? Commissioner Ostner? Ostner: This is a question for staff, has staff evaluated whether a stub out to the west would be appropriate? I know you mentioned there are grade issues, it's not perfect. Pate: To the west? Ostner: To the west, near the sort of creek area, I suppose. Pate: Yes, as we drove out there, actually we've been out there a few times now, the location that they have shown stubbed out to the west is feasible. It would take a small crossing there. There is a very small drainage area that drains into the river. It would take a small crossing. The property, further to the west, is commercially zoned and developed and it's being utilized right now. However, there is much of the rear of the property that's not developed, so it does have that potential. I believe it is just one parcel that goes all the way out to 15`h Street, so with a future development of that commercial property there is a potential to have a cross access to get out to 15`h Street, Happy Hollow Road in that location. Clark: So, we are getting a real stub out there? Well, it's a condition of (inaudible) says we are. Ostner: It's simply not drawn in yet. I thought it was the eastern? Ok, so. Clark: It's going to be built in. Ostner: That stub out will be built, but the creek crossing will not. Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 27 Pate: Correct, it would be built to the property line. Ostner: So, if the next guy on the west side can't be convinced to cross the creek either, we won't have connectivity? Pate: That would be something for the Planning Commission to look at. Ostner: Ok. Pate: They could not cross there currently, without either purchasing the property or getting that property owner to allow them to do that. Ostner: Ok. Clark: Should we be assessing for a bridge? Or are we just going to leave it up to who ever in the west has to carry the whole bag? Doesn't seem fair. Pate: At this point in time, it's not a large crossing as I mentioned. The scale of the plan. Clark: It's a little crossing. Pate: It's probably 30 feet or less between us, I'm just scaling it out. What's called out there is flood way. It would not likely be a bridge crossing actually; it would probably be a culvert system that would just cross that. Antes: Moving on to condition of approval number two, Planning Commission determination of waivers from street design standards. Is there any comment? Clark: If two vehicles are cool with a 100' radius? Pate: Yes. Anthes: Are there any other comments on any other condition of approval? Any further discussion or motions? Commissioner Ostner? Ostner: There are things about this that are good. The density is helpful to the City. We need infill and it needs to be higher than 4 units per acre, which this is. I believe developed actually developed land is about 7.5 units per acre. My reservations are that Ray Street, I believe, is going to handle more traffic than is fair. When we are talking about rezoning, we are basically talking about, how the new project gets along with its neighbors. I don't think it's Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 28 fair. I don't think it fits with what's already there. I still have a lot of reservation about planning a subdivision where no one has to take care of their yards. I don't think that's right. When the City or the County is going to step in and assess, that can be years. It can be years for anyone to get their money. That's a very, very slow process. You don't just knock on their door and get paid. When the County or the City has to ask a homeowner for a special assessment, there are rules and they can wait for the next year's tax assessment. That person might not pay on time, they have a grace period. They might pay the next year. The 3`a year, their house might go on the chopping block for a two hundred dollar fee. They finally pay it. I don't think it's a good working system. I think the connectivity is a problem. The second connection that is now being called out with bollards, the second connection I think is important. Now, where it was drawn is not a solution, so in essence this place has one way in and one way out to the regular daily driver. I don't think that works. I'm probably going to vote against it. Clark: To follow up with staff really quickly on that, the original recommendation was for a full public access street through that lot? Pate: Yes. Clark: Would you remind us how we got to this compromise? Pate: After quite a bit of discussion concerning the utilization of a formerly platted lot, which is part of this property now, that was one of the concerns of the Planning Commission, was that utilizing that lot permanently as access would be paramount to be utilization of it as a residential lot which it was originally was platted to be utilized as. As we discussed this project and for the benefit of Commissioner Clark, there was a platted right-of-way to the east of this property, you may remember this at Subdivision Committee, that was vacated in 1996. It did stub out to this property much as Ray Avenue now does. I believe it's called Jerry, to the east. That was vacated and the house was built basically in that little notch there, to the north east of the property. Were that the situation, had it not been vacated, we probably wouldn't have a lot of that discussion now because there would be two points of ingress/egress readily available to the property. However, that's not the case, so we're left with what we have which is a property that really only has frontage onto Helen there, with a lot frontage, and then access to the stub out. A lot of discussion from the Planning Commission revolved around utilization of some other type of design to provide access to the subdivision but limit that one, because it was not intended for a public street. That's where the applicants came up with the Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 29 idea of utilizing it as an emergency access only type of access. Where it would still allow pedestrians to utilize it and be ready accessible to the trail and emergency access when they needed it. But it wouldn't allow traffic movements. Clark: Jeremy, since [inaudible] the multi family units, how long is the block length now? Do you have any idea? Pate: That's actually not very long because it's broken up; it's considered broken where those alleys are. Clark: Ok, the alleys break it up, never mind. Pate: It is a street that sort of just loops around with an alley now. It did loop back on to Helen. Clark: Ok, well I have posed many questions and I still have a lot that have not been satisfactory answered and I think my biggest issue is access and the traffic flow and again I think infill is needed. It needs to be dense, I just don't think this piece of property affords itself to that type of development and be a good neighbor to what is already there. I think it's going to be very intrusive, especially since you're forcing everybody out and in one way. I know a lot of kids walk home from school from Happy Hollow, right across that street, down the sidewalk that has telephone poles in the middle of it. Right now, the traffic is not extreme but I think it will certainly kick up a notch with this development. So, I will commend the developers for their insight and desire to build affordable housing. I applaud that, but I don't think we have to sacrifice everything else that we want to see in a development to get attainable housing. Especially connectivity and we have a lot of connections for pedestrians and I commend that. But, I think people trying to get back and forth to work and get their kids to school and get them to the places they need are going to be using cars far more than feet. So, for that, I will reluctantly, but feeling very secure in my reasoning, vote against this proposal. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Commissioner Harris. Harris: This has been just a tough project. Commissioner Clark and Myres, I believe were all on the original Subdivision Committee when it came through at that time. Generally the conversation was what Commissioner Clark just said that we want attainable housing and yet we do not feel as though we can sacrifice every other principle that we have. Like Commissioner Lack and Ostner, I certainly applaud infill. We're going to Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 30 have several contact zones in this City that is sort of the ideology of single family dwelling with suburban lot sizes next door to sort of dense infill and that's never going to be an easy, seamless transition. While I understand the neighborhood on that level, I have to think in a slightly different way, giving that I have City Plan 2025 in front of me. I'm also very sensitive to the fact that the developer has come back to us with the pedestrian and emergency access because we were concerned about putting a public street through what had been a plotted lot. I recognize that a series of compromises has lead us to this moment in which we have to decided whether this compromise is one that can hold. I have to say that with a great deal of reluctance, I too, am not able to vote for this tonight, for the reasons that have already been aptly stated, I think, by Commission Clark. Anthes: Thank you, Commissioner Harris. Any further discussion? Any motions? Well, I'll just say a couple of things. I agree with a lot of what Commissioner Lack said. I think he makes very good points about what is good about this subdivision. I agree with every single one of them. I remain, as he does, desirous of eastern stub out and I understand that we just have a topographical challenge that's probably too difficult to be met. I would like to revisit the idea of the house in the vacant lot on planning area three, I think that we had talked about the possibility of removing that one house and that might be better for the neighbors but I don't know if we discussed it fully. I don't want to repeat anything Commissioner Lack said, but so much of what this development does is right and then I keep coming back to the 59 units with one point of access. We do that a lot in the City, but only with ample provisions for stub -outs that are likely to happen. I'm just questioning how likely these other connections are, if a connection is to ever be constructed and under what time frame. Then, I'm also looking at the infrastructure that this is connecting to and often when we have a subdivision of this kind of density with one way in and one way out we're dumping directly onto a well-maintained state highway or some sort of road that is in good condition and well-maintained and I'm afraid we have a pretty big gap between this property line and where we get to a street section that has been maintained and contains a proper cross section and the right pedestrian access and that sort of thing. So, I really struggle with it because I want to support this project for all the reasons Commissioner Lack stated, and yet I question that it may be just too dense for the infrastructure, for the concurrency of the development of the infrastructure (or the non -concurrency of the development of the infrastructure) to support. Commissioner Clark? Motion: Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 31 Clark: I will move that we will deny R-PZD 06-2196 for the reasons stated. Ostner: Second. Anthes: I have a motion to deny by Commissioner Clark with the second by Commissioner Ostner. Is there further discussion? Yes, Commissioner Trumbo? Trumbo: I'm going to vote against that motion. I agree with a lot of the things that have been said on both sides. The 2025 map clearly showed that were not going to allow much development out on the out -skirts of the City and also within the planning boundaries, so we are saying it's gotta go here. Although there is a big traffic problem on Huntsville Road, it's going to be five lanes very shortly and I'm seeing, and when I mean shortly, it's been funded in a program, in engineering now, it's going to have a light on Happy Hollow Road and to deny a project that's going to be so close to a bypass, a southern bypass, doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. It's tough, a very tough issue and I certainly understand the neighbors but I think we all are going to have to make room if the 2025 Plan is what we're going to go with. It's saying we're going here and it's inside the City. So, it's kind of like we're dodging it now, but it's going to be an big issue for us coming up, so I'm going to go ahead and vote for this. Harris: Commissioner Anthes, can I ask Commissioner Trumbo? I'm thankful for to you for bring up City Plan 2025 and the particular way that you just did. That it doesn't envision a lot of developments on the perimeter and so it's coming back in. Would you mind discussing your thinking about the sort of, what kind of good neighborhood this development would be in terms of the neighborhood that already exists given that there is one point of ingress/egress? Trumbo: Well, that Ray Avenue, I guess is the one point you are talking about. They can still; people can still come through and go to the other eastern access to Huntsville Road. It's going to be added traffic, there is no doubt about that. It's going to be inconvenient for the people there. I don't think its going to be a safety hazard. That would cause me to vote against it. It's going to be inconvenient and that's what we are at in the City right now. Anthes: Commissioner Clark? Clark: I'll play devil's advocate on this one. Anthes: Ok. Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 32 Clark: I think that Commissioner Trumbo has some solid reasoning but when you start mentioning cut through of the other streets to get to Jerry, to get out on Huntsville, I think that's exacerbating the issue. If Huntsville Road were improved as it is on the boards to do, I'd probably vote this. Because it would be five lanes and it would have signalization. Traffic would flow much better. But that improvement is number nine on a list that's taking a whole bunch of money and I'll vote for it when it happens. I hate to take that position, but being a cynic is something that I'm growing into even more, these days and cynically speaking, we're going to approve development that does - can be built within a year. Streets are not going to be there then. I don't think Huntsville is going to be improved to the point that I can vote for this and think these folks are going to be safe. I think we will cause a lot of cut -through onto smaller streets that don't have sidewalk, curb, gutter, nothing. These people built these themselves. You will be forcing people still to sit at Huntsville for a long time and still probably turn right and go down and turn back around to come into the City. Because the streets are not improved. Now, the light at Huntsville and Happy Hollow has made a world of difference. It's nice, but I have also noticed a heck of a lot more traffic on it, because it is nice and you can get to where you want to go a lot faster. So, that's my devils advocacy to, I know infill has to happen, it does, I don't think we're prohibiting large development in the outlying areas of the City, although the map indicates future use is not going to be over favorable, that's a recommendation. People are going to build and we're going to hear it coming through, infill will be here too, but I really think infill must be done wisely and smoothly and above all with consideration of the people who are there now. Because, they are the ones that built it and they are the ones who live there and have their futures tied to it. I really want to look at that. If this neighborhood had been for this excitedly, I might be singing a different tune, because they are saying that they could live with something. I think their concerns are pretty real and reasonable. Anthes: Commissioner Trumbo? Trumbo: I would just like to point out, it's ironic, because one person's connectivity, is another person's cut through. (Laughter) Trumbo: And to the point about the map, just from my experience, if staff is not going to recommend it, it's an uphill battle to get something approved in Fayetteville without staff s blessing and recommendation. The way I Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 33 interpreted the colors on the map, and I asked pointedly, what is going to be staff's recommendation for a subdivision out in these areas that want to be on the step and it's going to be no. That's great, if that's where we want to go, but I understand your points and it's very difficult. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner? Ostner: I think there is a certain degree of polarization that is sort of happening and I don't think it's helpful. For me to vote no on this, does not mean, I don't think this piece of property should be developed. It means, the layout is inappropriate to me. That is why I'm going to vote against it. I'm for development in this neighborhood. I'm for something of a similar density, there. I'm not against infill. I'm not against higher density. I'm not against what this project is trying to do. The particularities of the way this is drawn in my mind, don't work, with what I'm charged to decide. I don't think it works well with the neighbors. Another drawing would work better. The developer says I'm sorry, that's impossible; I can't acquire the land over there to do another connection. Well, that's what would work, in my mind. I'm saying that as an example. Everybody owning land that they are not really supposed to maintain is a big problem to me. These are the details that I think makes this project not to my standards that I would vote for, for my decision. Since it's a rezoning decision. So, I don't think it's as black and white as yes and no, as the big map. Can't develop out here, you'll have to develop in here, vote yes. That's not a fair assessment of a "No" vote tonight. There are a lot of things that we've been down the list eight different ways. People have a lot of concerns about details. They could be drawn different, to make my vote turn to yes. So, I wanted to say that, I would be in favor of a project in this place, not this one. Anthes: Commissioner Lack? Lack: If I could request of the developer, it seems that the second point of ingress/egress is one of the major issues. The originally proposed second point is through a platted lot which is unpalatable and certainly not a good condition and I'm sure that you would agree. Did you look at purchasing the property at the corner where the original right-of-way came through? McDonald: We have not talked to that property owner. We do understand from actually one of the neighbors, that property might be for sale. We have not talked with that property owner. I `m sure you understand that we would prefer not to put in the limited access entry, we would rather put it in as a full access entry. We would certainly be amenable to that. I hope you understand that. We do believe there is an easement to the favor of this Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 34 property on that property at the end of Jerry. Obviously, it doesn't go through the house, it goes through the west side of his property which would be just to the east of us. We believe we could use that as an easement. Now, that would put less than a 150 ft jog in the street, which would require a variance. If your interest is simply having two points of access, we could move it there, but it does put a jog in Jerry, if you will, coming into our property that is shorter than the 150 ft. We're amenable to either one of those, but we have not talked to the neighbor. We think we have an access across this property and wouldn't need to buy it, unless we're going to tear his house down. So, that's where we stand with that. Lack: I certainly not in a position to tell you that you need to, but I think that using a easement there would probably be seen much like using the vacant lot. I don't know that there would be a distinction from the Planning Commission overall. I would be amendable to the idea of using that vacant lot, even though I think it's not a good condition. I still was not necessarily in favor of making a controlled access. I would still see that as an option, but if I count votes correctly, I would wonder if you had asked if that was an avenue that you could pursue. McDonald: Of buying that lot? Lack: Well, just something that to throw out. If I count votes correctly, then it may be necessary to look for other options. McDonald: At this point in time, yeah I believe, and Jeremy, you may correct me if you think I'm blatantly wrong here, I believe I have access across that lot now. I mean, we have an access easement in favor of our property that we can use that's on the books now. We think it got put on when Jerry's right-of- way was vacated and we would be agreeable to put our access point there and reconfiguring the east end of our property. But, I don't think that's a lot different in your eyes than putting it where we have it now. If it is, we are agreeable to doing that. That's all I have. Anthes: Any further discussion? I have a motion to deny by Commissioner Clark with a second by Commissioner Ostner, will you call the roll? Roll Call: The R-PZD 06-2196 for West Fork Place was denied by a vote of 5-3-0. Clark: Now, Jeremy, the applicants have the right to appeal to the Council? Pate: Yes, within ten business days. Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 35 Clark: Will neighbors be notified? Pate: There's no notification required to go to City Council. Clark: Ok, that's a big one for the neighbors, there's no notification if this is appealed to City Council. Ostner: Mr. Pate, when approximately would this issue first go to City Council? Pate: That, I don't know. It all depends on if and when the applicant appeals, it could be with in two months. Ostner: I mean approximately, six weeks, four weeks. Pate: I would say approximately, if it were appealed on next agenda, it could be placed on as early as four weeks probably more in keeping with four to six. Ostner: Roughly, thank you. Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 36 VAC 06-2289: VACATION (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: This item was heard at the October 23 Planning Commission meeting and it was tabled at that meeting to address concerns of the Planning Commission with traffic and pedestrian safety issues related to the private drive. The subject vacation area on Markham Road becoming a one way driveway unto the property which would require Evangeline Lane to become the primary exit. I won't go over this application in detail. Since that Planning Commission meeting, we have talked to the Solid Waste Division and they have discussed with us that they could us Evangeline Lane to exit the property after collecting trash. A condition of approval has been added per the Solid Waste Division regarding the use of that private drive. I did talk to the Fire Department and they generally indicated they thought in an event of an emergency, they would use the one way drive to come in. They would probably use it to exit as well, as opposed to going on the gravel drive. The applicant has submitted a letter and that was included, I just placed it in your seats before the meeting. They indicated that from the uses that they would access their property, which is the catering company or Rental Company would also use Evangeline Lane and would not have to exit against the flow of one way traffic. Those are the main issues, I think were discussed and those are the updates we have. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Garner, would any member of the public would like discuss this vacation request 06-229 for Archer? Mrs. Farris. Farris: My name is Felicia Farris, I reside at 2215 Halsell Heights, just off Sang near the south end. I would like to speak tonight about the safety issues of this one way street as well as the maintence issues of the shallow ditches. And the promises involved with both of these, but the one way street being strictly a one way street and the issues of the shallow ditches being maintained if they are not in the system of culverts when it comes and meets Sang and Markham and not functioning properly. I believe as we discussed in the last meeting, that we already have a problem with this drainage system not working well. Not only is this one way road a risk of life and limb, if a person casually cheats to use this street the wrong way, such as an employee. As reminders, I understand the Archers do not reside the majority of the time in Fayetteville to police closely the usage of this one way street usage. Be it traffic from one of these long rainy weeks that Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 37 devastates this gravel road doesn't bode well for any of these cars that would want to use to gravel road, especially there high priced car. But one of these events puts a lot of pressure on the event staff for these cars, who maybe want to use the street after they leave an event. Especially, after the gravel road would be damaged after some of these rains, especially this fall. But, most realistically it is likely that we would see a catering truck as they are rushing back and forth to try and get a party ready. Not wanting to go the long way around on these gravel roads but wanting to cut quickly down the one way against the one way street back down the hill to go for another quick trip to wherever they need to bring back stuff again back up the hill. As neighbors becoming accustomed to freely turning left with no hesitation of oncoming traffic, due to the one way street posing no threat, in other words, no oncoming traffic from down hill that's suddenly, unrepentantly vehicle, large truck would be disastrous for any one of us living who live on that hill. That's the fear of this promise that it's going to be one way and no traffic ever coming down the hill is the fear that this promise won't be kept. Secondly, the leaves and small limbs, large limbs clogging this storm system. If a person or persons in charge to keep this ditch does a haphazard job, it clogs the system. Promises of this keeping this ditch clean, I fear is not going to happen. By far, in light of the safety issues, the maintenance issues, the Commissions first proposal of curbing the storm drain the full length without the shallow ditch system would seem best. But most importantly, leaving out the one way street with private maintenance with this promises that may not be maintained, I fear, I think it would be best to just leave out the one way issues would service best these neighbors. Evidence of the potentials of these promises not being kept can be seen in the packet that I've handed out to you. The first one that we will start with is the Bill of Assurance that was set up for this barn. Anthes: Ms. Farris, I need you to directly address this development proposal or this vacation proposal, if you would. Farris: Just as one or two speeding tickets don't show a poor driving record several of them show reckless driving history. Just as one or two promises don't necessarily show a poor history of ability to keep promises, several of them show someone's ability incredibility of ability to keep promises. Anthes: We do not talk about applicants. Farris: It just shows that the probability or lack of safety issues for us as neighbors. I think you can see here the ability for someone to keep promises. There's an issue here of a violation notice presented to Mr. Archer. It's a whole Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 38 series of several parties that went on in that barn after the violation notice was given. This shows here several parties of weddings. Anthes: I really need to stop your discussion on that matter and redirect you to the vacation request. Farris: I hope you look closely to the issue, the fact that this is safety issue and that the one way street needs to be strictly enforced. It's going to be a grey area that's not going to be policed there. I think you can see that there are issues here and there's not going to be someone to police it. It's going to be someone that is going to have to over look it and that person needs to be in the situation that's going to be credible. The issues, as far as the ditches, that is as well going to be a situation where the issue is going to have to have credibility in maintaining it. This one last issue, as far as the lighting, when it was discussed before, we talked about the need for it. I would like to make a clarification that the area that's not going to be resurfaced in the ditches that are going to remain open. Just east of Cross, that we may look also, make sure that area maybe addressed because it remains very unsafe and it's a very dark area. Thank you very much for your time. Anthes: Thank you Ms. Farris. Would any other member of the public like to address this vacation request for Archer? Seeing none, I will close the public comment section, would the applicant give their presentation. Archer: Yes, Julian Archer 2115 West Markham. I want to thank you first of all, in taking the time to review this once again. I hope all of you received the letter and plus the attachments that I have sent to you by regular mail, and if you don't have a copy, I believe Jeremy or Andrew have copies already. So, you already have those in hand. Answering all, I hope, the concerns and questions that you had at the previous meeting. There is very little that I can add to what you have in hand. The only thing I can think of, a point that was not emphasized in the letter and to just return to this point. Granting this vacation request will not remove the obligation on us to replace the culvert that goes under Sang or to replace the culvert that goes under Evangeline. That's in addition to replacing the culvert that goes under Cross. So, the drainage question, which was the question from the beginning, that is still going to be address according the size that is prescribed by the Engineer. The mouth of Evangeline Lane would have to be paved back to required distance, which I think is 25 feet. It will have to have a radius curb, standard City radius curb opening up 25 radius curb as well. That same radius curb will also be put on Sang Avenue. So, there are a number of things that were in the original PZD approval that would still be there if you approve this vacation. The ditch on either side of Markham, Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 39 west from Sang, thanks to the plan that was presented to us, the illustration, what's done with the Parks service is the kind of fill that we plan to use. It was the one that was originally proposed to use. But, what you do not accept, but that is what we plan to carry through with. We will also, of course, have to widen the road to the standard 20 feet. We understand that obligation goes with it as well. So, those are the only remarks that I have to make. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Archer. Archer: Thank you. Motion: Anthes: Commissioners? Well, as we know this is the PZD, this is a portion of the PZD that went to City Council first. They sent the large scale development back to us specifically to work through the street and access, as far as I understand it. Engineering Staff, Planning Staff, the applicant, many members of the public, and this Commission have spent hours, literary hours, working through this section on this particular piece of roadway. This vacation and the petition that goes along with it would alter that section. As it was a very difficult compromise to reach, and one we invested tremendous amount of time in. I, for one, am not willing to undo those hours of work, and for that reason I will make a motion that we deny vacation request VAC 06-2289. Myres: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Myres. Ostner: I'll second it. Anthes: Okay. Ostner: Excuse me. Myres: I have to go along with both of you, assuming you agree, for exactly the reasons that you stated. We spend a lot of time on a lot of projects, but this one seems to be inordinately difficult in terms with reasonable compromise and I, too, am reluctant to set aside that time and effort, which I think was well done. So, I will also vote to deny. Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 40 Anthes: Thank you Commissioner Myres. We have a motion to deny by Commissioner Anthers, second by Commissioner Ostner, is there further discussion? Will you call the role. Roll Call: The VAC 06-2289 for Archer was denied by a vote of 7-1-0. Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 41 ADM 06-2297: ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM (APPLEBY LANDING): SUBMITTED BY MOBLEY ARCHITECTS FOR A MODIFICATION TO THE APPROVED BUILDING ELEVATIONS FROM LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT LSD 06-2133, APPLEBY LANDING LOT 12. Fulcher: This is an administrative item for a previously approved large scale development titled Appleby Landing. It was for a 76,000 sq ft medical office building at the southeast corner of Appleby Road and Bob Younkin Drive and part of the Appleby Subdivision. This was approved by the Planning Commission July 10, 2006; since then the applicants have revised the materials and some the physical characteristics of the building that were approved. It went to the Subdivision Committee on October 12`h and was tabled. Overall the Subdivision Committee agreed with the changes that it still met commercial design standards, although requested some additional vertical and horizontal elements to be added to the fagade of the building. The applicant came back to the Subdivision Committee on November 2"d with those changes, however did not receive the three favorable votes to be approved at that time and was forwarded to the Planning Commission for a full review of commercial design standards by the Planning Commission. Staff, looking at this, obviously we have recommended approval as it was an approved large scale development. Looking at the changes that have been made, staff still finds that with those changes, the structure, and independent of what was approved previously, still meets the commercial design standards as set forth in the Unified Development Code, and is recommending approval as submitted by the applicant. If you have any specific questions, please ask. Anthes: Mr. Fulcher, would you please outline all the changes that were made, because I believe it's not just the removal of the canopies. Fulcher: Yes ma'am. The major items that were changed were the materials. A lot of the building was to be constructed out of brick. The portion above the first level continuing up - that has been changed to EIFS material. Which we do have some material to show you, if you would like to look at those. Same color, just different material. The sunshade awnings which appeared on the original approval up near the upper floors of the building, shown on all four sides, those have been completely removed. That was one of the main points of discussion at both Subdivision Committee meetings. That was the strong horizontal line that gave the articulation that many Commissioners found were needed, was needed, for this structure. What's been replaced, in -lieu of the sunshade awnings is an EFIS band constructed along the top facade of the structure, all the way around. That is what the applicant has brought forward to replace the sunshade awnings that were Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 42 removed. The other minor changes to the structure were again a change of materials; it was a stone accent tile that has been replaced with a ceramic accent tile. There was also a larger arc element over the front entrance to the structure, which has been cut off to mimic the level that is presented around the other sides of the building. But again, I think the major point of discussion of the previous two Subdivision Committees meeting were the removal of the sunshade awnings and the applicant has replaced that with that EIFS band around the top. Anthes: And what is the change of material on the glass tower? Fulcher: On the glass tower, there was a stone tile inlay was showed on the glass tower, that has been completely removed. Anthes: Okay, thank you, Mr. Fulcher. Fulcher: You're welcome. Anthes: Would any member of the public like to address this administrative item for Appleby Landing? Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public comment. Would the applicant like to give a presentation? Jones: Good evening, Madam Chair, Commissioners, I'm Pam Jones with Dixie Development. I just wanted to share with a little bit of the history of this project. As you know, project from concept to completion takes a long time. That's why we're here tonight; originally this project started about 4 Yz years ago when we started working with architects on the concepts and ideas and how we wanted it look. Our goal was to create an aesthetically pleasing building that meets all designs standards and complements Washington Regional Medical Center and makes a continuation of the campus. As you know, our region is growing and Washington Regional is going to be one of our largest tenants. A lot has happened in 4 % years in our economy. As you know, Katrina, oil prices, everything, so we had to do value engineering on this building. We did not want to, it was a necessity. I think our architectural team has really done a fantastic job coming up with viable option that does meet design criteria. It's very hard, because it's our baby. I've been working on this project for almost 5 years when it was a landing strip and getting it through rezoning and all kinds of issues. I just want each of you to realize that it's not that we just woke up one morning and say "Hey what are we going to do to make this building less than what we original wanted it?" I think our architectural team really came up with a good option that is viable. Unfortunately, the reality is economics, I mean 30 percent increase in steel, concrete, all petroleum Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 43 products, so that is just the reality, which relates to rent rates. Which relates to everything, whether you are going to even have a project in the first place. I just wanted to express to each of you that if you look overall the City with Dixie projects, I think you know aesthetics are very important to us and we strive for that. I'm real proud of each of our projects that we have and I'm proud of this and wanted to just kind of let you know, why we had to come here tonight. Jernigan: I'm Julia Jernigan, I'm with Mobley Architects and my involvement with this project began this year as I was giving the responsibility of turning this concept into a building. As time has gone on and we have been able to get into more of the detailing, estimators were brought on. It became more obvious where we needed to try and look, as Pam has said, to do the value engineering, yet maintain the character of the building that you all approved at large scale. One of the things that I tried to emphasize to the Subdivision Committee when I was here the first time, was that looking at the sunshades, it is not just merely the cost of the sunshade itself that affects this project. That sunshade requires basically another steel structural element around the corner of that building in order for it to be attached. So, it's not just one thing it comes into the building, even into the structural system. And so it is, it is a good size cost to the project. Anthes: Ms. Jernigan? Jernigan: Yes. Anthes: This board is charged with evaluating commercial design standards based on a certain list of criteria which you are familiar with. If you can direct your comments to those criteria rather than economics, which is something we can not consider. Jernigan: Ok. When the sunshade was discussed, it was pointed out that the thing that was lacking in the design that we came to at the first Subdivision Committee was an articulation horizontally around the building near the top somewhere that the sunshade had provided. The Committee members were very agreeable to entertaining looking at an option that would use an alternative material that would not be as costly. So, we came back with the synthetic stucco EIFS material that actually does provides three- dimensional relief. It is not a flat color, it does has some three dimensionality at the top of the building, around the parapet. It does also bring in the colors and the forms that are used in the lower portion of building at the base at the pilasters and the brick that is utilized at those elements. I, as Jesse said, agree that this does still meet, although Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 44 differently, the design criteria that the City has established for commercial building. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you very much. Commissioners? Lack: Madam Chair. Anthes: Mr. Lack. Lack: If I could, I guess a report from our subdivision and the issue that we found, I guess most different with the building in regards to commercial design standards was the sunshades and the trade off of the horizontal landing of the sunshade with the coping. My assertion on the issue of the sunshades was that, I feel like sunshades are a beautiful articulation on a building but I hate to see them used only as articulation and when I see them on all sides of a building, and certainly on the north side, I think that they don't serve their primary function and I dislike seeing them as merely decoration on a building. With that tempering I was moved to think that the articulation and trade off articulation has maintained the idea of the commercial design standards, and has maintained the viability of the commercial design standards with just different material. That was my position on it, and I think Commissioner Myres also agreed; in the minutes and notes it states Commissioner Ostner felt differently about that. I would like to allow him to speak for himself on how he felt about that and the points he had there. Ostner: Thank you, I was the negative vote on the Subdivision Committee. Part of the bigger picture for me, is not sunshade or no sunshade. It's the fact that the sunshades were you all's idea, not ours. A lot of the discussion as how sunshades are not fair, not fair, don't make us do it. Well, we didn't do it, you all did. So, I just want to make that clear, you all brought forth the sunshade idea, everything got approved. We come down the pipe, that started, I want to point out, in June 06', not June 04'. We're not talking pre Katrina, we're just talking seven months ago. So, that's one of the dates on those drawings. Part of the reasoning that this banding doesn't satisfy as the shades do, is our commercial design standards, they only have four bullets and one of them is avoid box like structures. It might say large, I don't have it in front of me, avoid box -like structures. The awnings break the box, not side to side, not a decorative band. They break it, they break it forward, towards you. Yes, you have a four story building with glass and mostly the same color of way, but it's broken. And when this was all being evaluated seven months ago, to me that passed. To get 98 percent approval and then want to switch one little thing is not easy for me to do. What Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 45 about all the other things that might have changed had you not had the sunshades on it seven months ago? I'm not sure, I'm not there, but I'm sitting here trying to look at two drawings. So, there is a lot more than sunshade or no sunshade. Looking at the new drawing, I don't think the color change and the very slight depth difference breaks the box. It's a decision, it's a commercial design standard, it's not a code, it's sometime that each of us has to make. I simply don't think the very nice sunshade is replaced on the commercial design standards with the band. So, that's why I voted against it at Subdivision. I strongly suspect that had this current drawing come to us seven months ago, I'm not sure it would have gotten this far in the process. Personally, I' m not sure you would've gotten that approval to go forward and then go ask to get out of one part it. That's just my opinion so, yes, I understand they're expensive. A lot of things are expensive. But, this does not pass my standards that I'm being asked to hold up. Anthes: Thank you Commissioner Ostner. Mr. Fulcher, did you say that you had and actual sample board? Materials sample board? Fulcher: Yes Ma'am. Clark: Madam Chairman Anthes: Commissioner Clark Clark: Since, we've had one subdivision report. My subdivision saw it first and while we and I'm trying to remember? Shawn were you there? You and Hilary? Harris: No, we weren't. Trumbo: I don't recall. Clark: I'm not gonna comment. I think, I'm trying to remember back. The awnings were not there. But, we agreed it needed more in terms of articulation to meet design standards and I'm not sure what I am seeing in from of me is more. It's different. But, I don't know that it is more. And, yes I'm gonna be first person to go on record to say that Dixie Development does some beautiful stuff. Nelson's Crossing is ... I'm impressed every time I drive by it. But that's a bad thing too cause I'm looking at this building. And I'm saying it's not more. And it's pretty, it's a gorgeous building and it's going to be very functional and used... utilized heavily on that corner. But, I'm very disappointed that, not Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 46 necessarily that you took the awnings off. Although they are on Washington Regional. I thought that was part of your idea. But, that you didn't come back with the banding plus, a little bit additional. Because you still have some pretty blank walls here with just pieces of tile. I don't if that's gonna call it out as well as I would like to see it called out. So, I'm not sure if this would not have suffered the same fate at subdivision to be tabled to be asked for additional articulation. I think we have substituted and it's still minimalist. By my ...design standards FSMI.YUM Myres: Subjective. Clark: Yeah, I mean there very subjective so, I like the building. I like it a lot but, I think there're still some unarticulated facades. Anthes: I have a question of the architect. If you could come forward Julia. Just a question in general about the awnings. Did you run an energy model on the building, and were the awnings purely a reflection of something that was happening at Washington Regional or did they figure into your energy calculations? Jernigan: No, they did not. They were done originally in the design development that I was not part of and there was nothing done with engineering figuring out. It was just more or less as Andy said it, a decorative feature that was trying to pick up somewhat on Washington Regional. Although, Washington Regional really only has those awnings at their very entry portion. It's nothing that goes around the building, like ours, we're doing. While I am up here, if I could please say one thing. Our building is not a box. It has two wings projecting out and it has a central glass element that extends both directions on the building. It is not a square box by any means. And all of the brickwork at the base extends 2ft eight from the face building. So, it is a very broken structure. It is not a big box that the awnings only were breaking that face. I'm sorry I did not bring a plan of our building. It's never been a part of the materials that's been requested but, it would've have been seen at some of the committee meetings for large scale as far as development of the site went and it is not a square building by any means. Not even close. Anthes: Do you mind taking the microphone out of there and just pointing where each material goes on the building as well? Jernigan: It's not a box at all. These are the three colors of brick. They are the exact same bricks that are used on Washington Regional. The Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 47 predominant color would be this mediate, intermediate color here. The accent of the light is the smallest proportion used probably and then this darker color would be the greater accent of the two. This was the stone that we originally had on the building. That was going to be the little square -like colored accents you see all across the building along with the column that comes down the front of that central curtain wall element. We have maintained one of those brick columns and accent tile columns. The two that were on the side that actually were very small we got rid of. But, the one that is on that front element you will still see. Anthes: So on the North elevations? Jernigan: Yes, on the North elevation. What we have done is come in with this ceramic tile to take the place of that North elevation on that central curtain element wall for the stone accent. On the majority of the building where we're using is the synthetic EFIS material. We would have a cream colored EFIS making up that square 16 x 16 square element. We will be doing exact mock ups because I'm sure some of you in the business know that getting exact sample colors is sometimes a little tricky on brick. These are of course, brick that comes in an array of colors. It will not be a simple one -color situation so those will be made specifically to our direction to match when the building is up and under construction. But, that is the changes that we made with the materials. And to be honest at the height that those stone accents are going were going to be. Probably, people would never be able to tell the difference much between tile and a stone. Because you would never have been anywhere near touching, feeling relationship at the heights that were being installed. Anthes: And the red parts? Is that the metal? Jernigan: Yes. That is the standing seam metal roof and the framing on the curtain wall. Anthes: Thank you. Myres: I have a question. Thank you, Julia before you sit down. The banding at the top you mentioned had a reveal? How far out is it going to stand from the facade of the building? Jernigan: The overall, furtherest thickness will be three inches. Which is not tons but is something. It will create shadow line. It will do something to emphasize that top more than a flat color would. Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 48 Myers: And do I assume correctly that the square ones would probably be the ones that are most prominent? Will the horizontal element be back or is it the other way around? Jernigan: Kind of in between. There is an horizontal element that sticks out one inch. That is the lower banding, of the two. The squares that are 2 foot 8 stick out 2 inches and then the top banding would stick out the 3 inches. Myers: So it will do a zebra kind of thing stepping back. Jernigan: Yes, so there will be a myriad of shadow lines happening there. And also, one of the things that we had pointed out at the last meeting was the fact that the joint line that is shown on those elevations shows as a line. In reality that is going to be a 3 inch EFIS joint almost. And so every place you see one those that is going to create a shadow also. Clark: Can you repeat that one more time and tell me where those are? Jernigan: The joint that you see horizontally and vertically on the building. Just like a pencil line. That's a 3 inch joint almost. Two and three quarters inches, once we got into the technical detailing of it. Pardon? Wide, yes. Ostner: How deep? Jernigan: One inch deep. So it makes a good shadow line. If you have ever been by the Commerce Park 1 project, that has the EFIS with the scores on it. Those are about an inch wide and so it's going to be... I mean you will see those lines on that building. It will cause some articulation. Myers: I just have one more comment. I was on the subdivision committee with Commissioner Lack and Commissioner Ostner and I didn't have any problem at all with the substitution of the cornice detail. I think it meets the spirit of the design guidelines we have been given to work off of. And knowing now that there is some depth to that makes me feel even better about it. And I never particularly cared for the awnings in the first place. Because, I too think that they should be something other than decoration. They should be functional and if they appeared at all on this building. I would think they would be most appropriate on the West and the South side and not carried around the building itself. And again knowing the track record of the developers and also the architects, I do not have any problem with believing that this building is going to the attractive. And I think it fits very well into the, meets the design Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 49 guidelines very well. Trumbo: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Trumbo. Motion: Trumbo: I'm going to make a motion that we approve administrative item 06- 2297 Appleby Landing with the finding that the building meets commercial standards. Lack: I'll second. Anthes: Motion by Commissioner Trumbo with a second by Commissioner Lack. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The ADM 06-2297 for Appleby Landing was approved by a vote of 7- 1-0. Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 50 CUP 06-2319: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (JB HAYS, 373): SUBMITTED BY CRYSTAL GOEDEREIS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1882 STARR DRIVE. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED RSF-1, SINGLE FAMILY - 1 UNIT/ACRE AND CONTAINS APPROXIMATELY 5.73 ACRES. THE REQUEST IS TO RENEW THE APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, CUP 06-1952. Morgan: Yes, this property is approximately 5 3/4 acres. It is located east of Starr Drive and south of Mission Blvd. This property was originally, just a short time ago, in the county and the building on this property was utilized for a dental office. It was annexed into the City with the annexation of islands at RSF-1. The applicant attempted to rezone the property in order to bring the use into compliance with the zoning. That was tabled indefinitely, therefore, the use continued on the property as is allowed for a nonconforming use. On March 13th 2006, the Planning commission approved a change in the nonconforming use to another nonconforming use, a law office, with conditions of approval. Those conditions required things such as payment in lieu of sidewalk construction, construction of portion of the driveway, filing of a property line adjustment and other standard conditions. The applicant has accomplished all of those within the six-month process except for the driveway construction. The applicant is in the process right now of constructing the driveway as required by the Planning Commission. But because the applicant did not comply with the conditions within the six months allowed, they need to come back for an approval for a conditional use for the Law Office. So they are requesting this conditional use approval. We're recommending approval with all the conditions from the former conditional use permit as well as a condition that states "A building permit shall be issued for the construction already completed and under construction within 3 months of this date which would be February 13th, 2007 or else the conditional use permit is void." Anthes: Ms. Morgan, before you sit down. Morgan: Yes. Anthes: Will you clarify a couple of things? As I understand it, this is not an extension of time but an entirely new conditional use? Morgan: That is correct. Typically a conditional use permit is valid for one year. They have one year in order to make the improvements or else it expires if they don't request an extension. This applicant was granted six months to accomplish all of the requirements. They did request for an Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 51 extension before the six months expired. But because of the terms this is in essence a new conditional use and not an extension of an already approved conditional use. Anthes: Okay, and construction has been underway without a building permit? Morgan: Yes, that is correct. Anthes: And the building is occupied without a certificate of occupancy? Morgan: Yes. Anthes: And condition number ten of the previous approval required that the applicant process a property line adjustment to remove the lot line of the existing structure. Has that been filed? Morgan: Yes. It was filed on July 12th. Anthes: Okay. Thank you. Anthes: Would any member of the public like to address this conditional use permit 06-2319 - JB Hayes? Seeing none, I would like to close the public comment section. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Anthes: Hi Crystal. Geoderies: Hi. Thank you so much Miss Chair and fellow Commissioners. Bad timing, I became ill, down for 4 months. Things happened. We are underway finishing it right now. We did have some things that Suzanne helped us with to get straightened out. As far as the bridge and everything goes, I got Chuck Rutherford out there to tell us exactly where the sidewalk went. Everything is going just fine now. I apologize for any inconvenience that I caused to anyone and I will take care of it. Anthes: Thank you Geoderies: Thank you. Anthes: Commissioners? Clark: Madam Chair. Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 52 Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Motion: Clark: I've been dealing with this piece of property for three years and they've done what they're supposed to do. I don't think a Law Firm versus a Dentist Office is going to be ... it's going to be painful in a different way. I move we approve conditional use 06-2319 with the conditions... Suzanne are there any conditions in here that I am missing? Morgan: Yes, there are two conditions. Clark: I agree with all finding facts. Myres: I'll second. Anthes: We have a motion to approve by Commissioner Clark with a second by Commissioner Myers. Is there further discussion? You can call the roll. Roll Call: The CUP 06-2319 JB Hays was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 53 VAC 06-2337: VACATION (PITTMAN, 361): SUBMITTED BY KEVIN PITTMAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1985 PURVA LANE. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE AND CONTAINS APPROXIMATELY 0.31 ACRES. THE REQUEST IS TO VACATE A PORTION OF A UTILITY EASEMENT WITHIN THE SOUTH SETBACK TO ACCOMMODATE A NON -CONFORMING STRUCTURE. Garner: Yes, this property is identified as lot 14 in the Bridgeport subdivision, 1985 Purva Place at the Northeast corner of New Bridge Road and Purva. The easement vacation is a portion of 25 foot utility easement along the Southern property line that is adjacent to New Bridge Road. This subject portion of the easement is not being use by any utility providers. And you can see the diagram on page 4 of the area that is requested to be vacated. As background, this house was built in 2005 and the front building set backs of New Bridge Road. and Purva Place. The Board of Adjustment did approve a variance to allow the house to remain in the setback off of New Bridge Road. However, there is a utility easement that the house is currently over, so they're requesting a vacation of that portion of the lot. We are recommending approval of this request with some conditions. I would like to call your attention to condition number approval 3, which just states that the portion of the home that is within the front building setback and utility easement along Purva Place shall be removed pursuant to the Board of Adjustment decision on June 5th 2006, prior to commencement of constructing on the new portion of the house or any additional interior work. And Iwould be happy to answer any questions you may have. Anthes: Mr. Garner, would you please address the Board of Adjustment action on this property? Garner: The Board of Adjustment allowed the building to remain in its existing location along New Bridge Road. If you look on page 4 in your staff report I think you might be able to see that the shaded area was allowed to remain. There was a building setback variance to allow that portion to remain. I think it was a seven foot setback from the right-of-way . The portion of the house that was built into the building setback on Purva Street with the 15 foot setback was denied and that portion of the house that's kind of in the hatched area is required to be removed. Anthes: Thank you. Would any member of the public like to address this vacation request for Pittman? Seeing none, I will close the public comment section. Would the applicant like to give a presentation? Good Evening. Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 54 Pittman: I'm Kevin Pittman, this is my wife, April. And we would basically like to say "Please." It's been along year for us, up & down, and it took us a long enough time to decide, we're going to build a house. Obviously, the error by the builder where we placed the home, so we've hired a new builder and gotten estimates we've provided in writing for you guys in your packet to take the 10 feet off the one side of the house and then we'll build a new garage on the other side of the house. So, that's pretty much it. Anthes: Alright. Thank you. Commissioners? Clark: Madam Chair? Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Motion: Clark: I drove out to see this house this weekend and it's a sad looking house. It needs to be either finished or not. And I am inclined to say finish it. So I am going to be supporting this vacation, because I don't think there was any evil intent on the part of the Pittman's to violate all of these right-of-ways. And it was a mistake of a builder, a grievous mistake by a builder. So I move that we approve vacation 06-2337. Trumbo: I second. Anthes: Motion to approve by Commissioner Clark with second by Commissioner Trumbo with conditions of approval as indicated. Anthes: Does this require City Council action? Pate: It does. Anthes: Okay, so that's motion to forward. Clark: Yes, that's my motion to forward. Anthes Is there further discussion? Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Madam Chair, question for staff. Was the ... has anyone gotten into any serious trouble other than this? Was there any violation or anything like that, that happen for this piece of property? Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 55 Pate: By violation, you mean violation that is sent? Ostner: Sending a violation, as opposed to... " Hello, Mr. Smith, you're in more trouble personally or your business is in more trouble, or simply go fix the problem violation." Pate: The process that Mr. Pittman mentioned, it's taken quite some time. We were to the stage of final violation notices and copying these to the Prosecutor's office. We've been going through that procedure. Fortunately it did not get to that point. Mr. Pittman stepped in and started processing this vacation request, which is really, ultimately the final thing that needs to be accomplished. They are required to remove a portion of the house. We've had portions of houses, and whole houses removed before by the Board of Adjustment. But, at this point in time, no, there is nothing that's actually occurred. No penalties other than having to remove a portion of their house. Ostner: Okay. That's fine. Where did the process go wrong? This house was a... got a permit out of building safety. Pate: Yes. Ostner: Was it drawn wrong on the permit? Pate: No, it was actually drawn correctly on the permit. What we understand, speaking to the builder early on in this process, in early 2006, all their dimensions were pulled from the curb as opposed to actual right-of-way. Not many property owners, not a lot of property owners, not every property owner out there knows that they don't own to the curb. because, they certainly mow to the curb. But, most property owners only own to an imaginary line, called the right-of-way line. Which is ...? Ostner: It's more than imaginary. It's just invisible. It's real Pate: It's very real. If your pins are in place you can find that line. But, as you know in construction, those pins get displaced and have to be replaced. We did not find them in this case, so I think probably, that was one of the problems that revealed itself in this construction. Ostner: Okay, I can certainly see that. But, I am curious how the ... there are lots of inspections that happen before it got to looking like this, covered in Tyveck and shingles. And in the process the City goes out and inspects Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 56 slabs and footings and why wasn't it picked up months ago? Pate: We've been asked that question by the Board of Adjustments as well. And, actually, we took an item to the Ordinance Review Committee to try to address some of this. The Board of Adjustment actually, they see a lot of these, because of building setback variances. Not necessarily utility easements. Well, I say a lot, I think Steve Cattaneo, our Building Safety Director, said it's less than one-tenth of I% of the homes that are built that actually require a variance or a vacation. But, there are, as with growth, we are seeing more of those. The variances are now 4 and 5 items on the Board of Adjustment agenda for new, but mostly old houses. But, in terms of the inspection process, we try to address that to get builders stringing houses for easements and setbacks so that the inspector that's out there knows exactly where that line is supposed to be at all times. We did go through a training class with the Building Inspectors. My staff here, we're not out in the field when the house is constructed. We don't do inspections, but we do depend on our building inspectors to that. So, we did have a training class with all of Steve's inspectors, to go through that process that we've measured from. How to read plats appropriately. What are setbacks & utility easements, things of that nature. Ostner: So, who is ultimately responsible for setbacks? Building safety or Planning? Pate: Ultimately the builder is responsible for meeting the building setbacks. Ostner: Well... I'm talking about enforcement. Pate: Enforcement for building setbacks is Planning. We are the zoning and development administrators. So, once a violation is noticed, we investigate and a stop work order is issued immediately. Ostner: Okay... So, you all are responsible. Yet, Building Safety is out there inspecting on your behalf? Pate: Correct. Ostner: Okay. I don't like this situation. I know no one does. I don't want to just hand out vacations like this. When the rules weren't followed and they didn't work and so many opportunities to correct it were passed up by the builder or the inspecting parties. But, I can see this situation, being a time, when it's time to go ahead and grant the vacation. The right-of- Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 57 way shifts. This house sort of lines up with a lot of houses if you stand there and you're laying out a footing by sight instead of by pins. I can see how you can make a big mistake like this. So, I'll vote for the vacation. Anthes: We have a motion to forward. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The VAC 06-2337 for Pittman was forwarded with approval by a vote of 8-0-0. RZN 06-2320: REZONING (GARNER, 561): SUBMITTED BY JOHN G. Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 58 WALTERS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 904 WEST 15TH STREET. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE AND CONTAINS APPROXIMATELY 0.73 ACRES. THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL. Garner: No relation. This property is located on 15th street and from the North side of 15th street it is less than a half mile east from Razorback Rd. The applicant proposes to rezone the 0.75 acre site to C-2. The current zoning is RMF -24. They would like to allow for remodeling of the existing Church building for us as an Art Gallery, a Cafe, an Auditorium, an Art Studio, and Art Supply retail. The applicant has offered a Bill of Assurance with this rezoning to limit the uses on the property associated with those intended. Staff has received a few phone calls from adjacent property owners inquiring about the rezoning. A couple of these property owners did object to this rezoning stating they only wanted residential zoning. I did receive one call today indicating that as well. So, I actually received 3 calls total objecting to this rezoning. This property is identified for residential use on the future land use plan and is an intended growth sector. The proposed rezoning to C-2 in an area that is principally residential and surrounded by residentially zoned property is it not generally consistent with the future Land Planning use objectives for residential areas and intended growth areas. However, they have provided a Bill of Assurance which would limit the uses to uses that staff finds would be appropriate and compatible with the residential neighborhood area. We find that an Art Gallery, and Auditorium stage for Drama, Music, & Art Studio for workshops and teaching, Sale of Art supplies and Cafe and other complimentary Retail Sales would be appropriate in this Residential area. Rezoning with the Bill of Assurance, we are recommending approval of it. We have had this reviewed by all the public service providers in the City, as far as the rezoning impact to Police, Fire, Water, & Sewer Services and we have not determined that any adverse impact would occur to public services. So with that, we are recommending that this be forwarded to the City Council with recommendation for approval. Anthes: Mr. Garner, before you sit down. Will you tell us how you arrived at the recommendation for C-2 with the Bill of Assurance, given your report on page 12, about having looked at an R -O. That would have permitted units 12 and 25 by right and 4 and 13 for conditional uses and then also you looked at C-1. Gamer: Yes. There were several other options that we could have taken. I think we would have supported that. The email I initially sent to the applicant Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 59 kind of outlined some other options they could have done. We found that the Bill of Assurance that limited the uses specifically to those requested would work fine as well and is appropriate, and we would have felt comfortable as well rezoning it to residential office, getting conditional use permits for some of the other uses they wanted. In the same situation , they could have gone with the C-1 zoning and then had to get a conditional use permit for some of the cultural facilities they desired. But we also felt that the C-2 was appropriate. Anthes: Okay. Thank you. Would any member of the public like to address this rezoning request for Garner? Seeing none, I will close the floor to public comment. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Garner: I am Hershey Garner and I don't want to make any presentation. I support what the staff says. We're just here in case you have any questions about what we planned for the property. Anthes: Okay. thank you, Mr. Garner. Commissioners? Commissioner Lack. Lack: When I first look at this, I was maybe a little taken aback by the idea of a C-2 zone in that location. And somewhat startled even but when I analyze it further and I look at the uses that are proposed and that are regulated by the Bill of Assurance, I see those uses still having a lot of the character that the Church use had. The public meeting space, the gathering space, the space for the community. And I think that, with that it can still be that vital third place role. And I think that is something that even though the idea of C-2 in that area and in that neighborhood and inserted in the neighborhood on the .75 acres was startling, I can certainly get over the ... I did have a question about the Bill of Assurance. Item number two lists a proposal of allowance of remodeling of existing structures. And I wondered if that would by right include addition in to the foot print of the structure. By way of .. When we talk of remodeling, or if , not if it would be appropriate to regulate that to .. Garner: Not a significant addition to the foot print. There is a question, that in terms of changing the box on the front of the building, if we go up with some sort of bell tower or some vertical structure. That might require several feet out in front for some little foundation. But, essentially, we're just within that 5800 square foot structure. Lack: Okay. Do you need me to direct that to staff? I would like to ask staff, is that consistent with your intention? With your suggestion of approval for the rezoning? Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 60 Pate: This language came from the applicant. So they're offering this to you as a means to hopefully get their rezoning approved. Remodeling an existing structure would likely entail what most remodels do. As long as met setbacks, I would not expect, based on this Bill of Assurance, would not expect the cubic content or usable square footage of the structure to increase. Based on this language. I'm not really disinclined to say "strike that language" because I think an addition could be done potentionally properly. But that is something that they have offered to you. So, I guess my interpretation of that Bill of Assurance would be that the cubic content or habitable square feet of that structure could not increase based on what they offered. Williams: I would think if the applicant, if that was not his interpretation, meaning or intent, that he would need to have additional language in there, saying that the remodeling would not increase the floor space by more than 10% or something like that, which would be much more clear, one way or the other. I think I would agree with Mr. Pate on this particular case. Remodeling to me, does not mean increasing the size of the structure. Even, small ones. If you want to be able to increase the size of you structure at all then I think you need to put additional language in here, before the Planning Commission makes their final decision. Garner: Respecting setbacks, we might in talking to the architects as I said, want some addition, not really for habitable structure but for structural elements. So, if could modify that, write in what you said. Not more than a 10%. Williams: We can't. But, you can. You're offering this.... Garner: Can we get approval to modify that tonight? Williams: Yes. I think you can just go ahead and make a note on this copy right here. Ostner: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Lack, were you finished? Ostner: Oh, I'm sorry. Lack: Yes. Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 61 Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Well, my question is for staff since this structure which would require a permit and would require a setback regulation is not to be heated or cooled, it does seem to be a little bit different. But if, this seems appropriate to you guys I don't think that he's going to expand the structure. It's not habitable. Pate: I agree with the City Attorney. It makes it more clear. It doesn't lead to interpretation of any kind, especially with the Bill of Assurance. That's not part our zoning code. I think that certainly would be helpful so the applicant is not offering other restrictions including number and type of structure upon the property are limited to remodeling any existing structures not to exceed 10 percent addition to the existing space. Anthes: Commissioner Myres? Motion: Myres: I would like to make a motion. Anthes: Yes? Myres: To approve rezoning 06-2320 with the associated Bill of Assurance and the subsequent condition of approval. Do we approve at this level Jeremy? Pate: We would forward. Myres: Okay, because it says forward to the City Council with a recommendation for approval. Clark: I will second. Anthes: Motion by Commissioner Myers with a second by Commissioner Clark. Is there further discussion? Yes, Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Madam Chair. Thank you. The uses that have been requested by the applicant are terrific. Art Gallery, Auditorium, Stage for Drama, Music, Art Studio for workshop, teaching, Art Supply sales, Cafe and complimentary retail sales. Specific activities not to be on property: Bar, Liquor Store, Adult Entertainment, Gas Station, Hotel, motels, any activity not listed before. The one thing that makes me nervous, even Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 62 with this Bill of Assurance, we are rezoning this to C-2. Now, were not allowing everything in C-2, only these terrific uses. I just want to make my opinion clear for the record. That the Bill of Assurance is vital. It is absolutely tantamount to my vote. If something happens, this person sells this property, the Bill of Assurance is attached to the land. Pate: That is correct. Ostner: The man that who buys it, in the future, everything changes, He doesn't want to do this stuff. But He says "you know what? I`ve got C-2." I want to go back to those guys and try work on my usage. I'm here to tell you right now, don't try that on me. None of the C-2 stuff, except for these, fit. And I'm very nervous doing this. I would much rather do an R -O with a conditional use, which is the first thing that Mr. Garner suggested. It is more complicated for the applicant and I don't want to put that burden on the applicant. But, I don't like zoning inappropriately. But, we're gonna fix it with a Bill of Assurance. I just want to state that for the record. Nothing in C-2 is appropriate except for the usage they have offered. Which I do think are appropriate. I will vote for this because I think it is a good use and it's been nailed down very well by the applicant and the staff. Anthes: To follow up on that. In the text, they talk about a live-in manager. Would that live-in manager be allowed in a C-2 zone? Pate: Yes. Anthes: And is it always allowed in a C-2 zone or just because we have the Bill of Assurance for this? Pate: Attached uses are allowed by right in C-2 zoning as long as they don't supercede the amount of non-residential space in that same zone. Anthes: Okay, and signage. What signage will be allowed in this C-2 versus an R -O? Williams: It would be a larger sign. It would be a 32 square foot instead of a 8 square foot , I think. Anthes: And then with this Bill of Assurance, that assures this mixture of use. Does that mean that one of those into the mix could drop out or all of them in the mix could drop out for example and the whole thing could be a Retail Store for Art Supplies? Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 63 Pate: It would be limited to those uses that you see. The tricky part about this is that each one of those are in a different use unit. So, it's hard to find a zoning district that we could recommend by right without a Bill of Assurance and fit appropriately. The Retail really throws it out , because of Art Supplies. I think it is very specific to Art Supplies and things of that nature. Books and other gifts according to that. So I think that's very specific and important. But yes, you are correct, that any one of those uses could be potentially utilized on this property. Anthes: So the entire property could be turned into a Retail Store for books, art supplies, & unique gifts. Whatever unique gift is, right? Pate: Yes. Anthes: Okay. This is why I asked for Mr. Garner to clarify what his suggestions were for alternative zoning and the original letter and email. I too, would be more comfortable with a R -O designation. Allowing the use units 12 & 25 and then looking for use units 4 & 13 as conditional uses. I do believe this will be a great project. I do want it to happen. I just wish we were looking at an R -O zoning instead of a C-2. Pate: I would mention that R -O would not allow by conditional uses in with Retail use. That is one of the downfalls of the R -O we looked at when we were trying to fit this in to something different Anthes: And your look at traffic generation and the Retail use — You're still comfortable with knowing the entire building could still go to Retail? Pate: Yes, based on the use it generated as a Church historically before it was rezoned residentially. It was a non-residential use with peak hour traffic. Subsequent improvements would have to occur, obviously as we look at improvements to that structure. Anthes: Okay, I too would like to echo what Commissioner Ostner says, and in the case that any Planning Commission in the future looks back to our record, that at this point in time and with the current configuration of 15th Street and the structures along it this particular Use is very specific and salient to the vote. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Yes, Commissioner Clark? Clark: I think that this discussion points out the difficulties artists have, trying Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 64 to find a place to live, work , and prosper in the City of Fayetteville. I think it speaks very well in the need to continue to research an Arts and Culture District. Which is one of things that Commissioner Anthes is about to charge a committee with. Because you don't fall anywhere in all total. You have to have the Retail to support the Art to support what you want to do. This use is not only needed in Fayetteville, it is desperately needed in Fayetteville. We have a thriving Arts Community that finds no venue for their art. We need Galleries, we need performance spaces, we need rehearsal spaces, and I applaud you for doing this. I would be much more comfortable if we had a zoning that had it all together, because a C-2.... Trumbo: Art Zone? Clark: The C-2 just isn't right. But it's the best you cold come up with to accomplish what you need to do. And I'm glad you brought it before us tonight. Because it really does speak eloquently to the need and the need in that area as a matter of fact. And I'm going to whole-heartedly support this and wish you the best of luck. I think people will be beating down your door. Fulcher: Madam Chair. Anthes: Yes. Wherever that came from. Fulcher: Coming back to the question on the... what was allowable for signs in the R -O and C-2 zoning district just for the fact that when they come through with a sign permit. We will review it, if there was going to be any discussion on that, for a C-2 it is 75 square feet for monument or free standing and 32 square feet for monument and four square feet for a free standing sign. I'm just hopeful, because you're artists, that you'll be very tasteful and it won't be a 75 foot gregarious sign. Clark: I'm wondering when Mr. Newman will be official enough to get a name plate as Mr. Fulcher and Mr. Garner now have name plates. Although there almost illegible from here. Ostner: Are there other things that are reflected back to the zoning district? Trying to play cynic on down the line if things go wrong. Noise ordinance. Would this place be held to the C-2 noise regulation? Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 65 Williams: The noise ordinance is measured from the complainant's residence. And it's when they cross that line and measure from wherever the complainant's living in a residence. It's measured with the resident's standards not whoever is generating the noise. Ostner: I believe different zoning districts are allowed different decibels. Williams: And that's correct. Ostner: And Commercial districts are allowed a higher decibel than residential? Williams: So if there was a commercial district next to this it would be a higher decibel but, if there is a residential district next to this where the noise is entering it's the residential district that sets the standard, not the rezoning. Ostner: We were explained the opposite when the Industrial uses were being put next to a residential district. That the moving trucks would be allowed a higher noise next to the residential districts. Pate: I think that property owner explained exactly the opposite. He was discussing that situation if I remember correctly. Ostner: So, the residential zone over. Williams: It's the complaining zone, wherever it happens to be. Ostner: I do think the sign is too large to allow a C-2 zoning sign. But, I would be willing to let go for the other attributes. For cases like this, I wish the staff would push the limits. I'm not an expert on the code as you are. Other unique things that pertain back to zoning districts that aren't forthright such as setbacks. Because I think the mix of usage is good and I would to see more of this. I'm not thinking of other examples. Anthes: Anyone else? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The RZN 06-2320 Garner was forwarded with approval by a vote of 8- 0-0. Williams: I'd ask the Garners to come by sometime tomorrow or the next day and sign the original Bill of Assurance. So that when it goes to City Council, will be the original one. Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 66 Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 67 CUP 06-2318: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CROSSOVER MINI STORAGE, LLC, 371): SUBMITTED BY LETICIA YARBROUGH FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1757 CROSSOVER ROAD. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL AND CONTAINS APPROXIMATELY 2.66 ACRES. THE REQUEST IS FOR AN ADDITIONAL STORAGE BUILDING ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. Fulcher: This is a conditional use application for Crossover MiniStorage at 1757 Crossover Road. This ministorage facility was approved in 1993 by the Planning Commission. At that time, Ministorage was under Use Unit 17, which was a permitted use in the C-2 zoning district. Since then, ministorage has changed twice. Most recently it was adopted as a new use unit 38 mini storage units and is a conditional use in the C-2 zoning district. The applicants request is twofold in this case. What brought them forward was to expand this facility by one building, approximately 1400 hundred square ft, at the same to allow the storage to be a conforming use in the C-2 zoning district for future actions the property. Looking at some of the requirements under mini -storages units adjacent to a residential district on the west side: Currently there is over a 6 ft tall privacy fence that runs the entire west property line between this property and the residential subdivision. There's also a dense growth of mature trees along that same property line. So it is very screened on the residential side to the north - the south of the existing commercial uses. And to the west is Hwy 265, Crossover Road, and there is office use near the front for this facility. The office manager is at that location. A retail establishment shares that building which screens the use from Crossover Road, with its original approval. Finding it well screened from the residential use and from the right-of-way, Staff is recommending approval of the conditional use to allow for the 1400 square foot expansion and to bring the existing non- conforming use into compliance with current regulations. I did hand out a new site plan during the break from the applicant. They have, I guess based on, and I'll let them explain a little more, the clients request to have more space over the 1400 square foot space. They have requested to change that number from 1400 square ft to 3500 sq ft. And we can discuss that after the applicant presents that new information. Item number 2 & 3 are just compliance with any floodplain. There is a small stream that traverses the site from north to south. And item number 3 is exterior lightening. If new exterior lighting is to be used for any of this or any other part of the facility it should be in compliance with the newly adopted lighting ordinance. If you have any specific questions, please ask. Anthes: Thank you very much. Would any member of the public like to address this conditional use permit for Crossover mini storage? Seeing none. I'll close the floor to public comment and ask for the applicant's presentation. Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 68 Yarborough: Good evening, I am Latisha Yarborough., the owner, operator of Crossover mini storage. And we did receive staff comments and we agree with them and accept those comments and the whole reason for the expansion was because of a tenant that we have. We currently rent 2100 sq ft. and they had asked for 1000 additional sq ft. It's an Insurance company that stores records. We offered to custom build a building and one where we had room. And after we offered to do that, after they saw the red sign go up by the City, they came back and said " You know what?, we would really like to move all of our documents into one place." And so that's the reason to ask for the 3500 sq feet. Anthes: And is that footprint accurately represented in this new sketch you gave us? Yarborough: Yes. Anthes: Commissioners? Clark: I have a question for Staff. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: In these wonderful colored pictures we have as opposed to these black smudges that were in our original packet, what type of road work is required between the units? Pate: That's probably something you will have to ask the applicant. Clark: Okay, I'll ask the applicant. Is it gravel or asphalt? I can't tell. Yarborough: The portion in the back is gravel. And actually there won't be much that will change. Originally we thought we would have to have a turn around area. But, because there will only one tenant, one place where they go in, they'll use the original turn -around area. Motion: Clark: Thank you Ma'am. I live past this facility and there are some people who don't even know that it is even there. As far as I know, these folks are great neighborhood residents, along with everyone that is fronting with office space. It's very, very well concealed. It's not a detriment to the surrounding area at all and I will move to approve the conditional use 06-2318 knowing that Alan has questions. Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 69 Myres: I'll second. Anthes: We have a motion to approve by Commissioner Clark with a second by Commissioner Myres. Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: My question for Staff is, would this mini -storage be allowed in this zoning district? If it were an empty lot and the applicant were applying, or wished to build mini -storage here. Pate: Only by conditional use. The City Council, just recently in the last month or so, just took mini -storage out of the general warehousing use unit and put it in its own use unit. So, for instance, I-1 allows for warehousing but it doesn't allow for mini -storage. It would allowed only by conditional use. Ostner: Up until recently, until that zoning change, would the zoning district of several months ago have allowed this by right? Pate: Only by conditional use under a different use unit. Ostner: So the only change was the usage not the conditional use. Pate: Correct. Ostner: So, I'm guessing the zoning changed on top of the mini -storage or they came before the zoning? Pate: Actually, there was another change in the late 1990's , 1996 I believe, where prior to that mini -storages were allowed by right in C-2 zoning districts. Around that time it changed use units, and put into a use unit from mini -storage in some regulations for that into light manufacturing warehousing use unit Use 21, which is where it was. This was developed meeting all of the zoning and developmental codes. Williams: And just for history, the reason the rezoning was changed, was because of this mini -storage unit. Because when it was originally built there was nothing in front of it. So it drew a lot of attention and the City Council, which I was serving on then, changed the rules so we could have a little better protection. Fortunately, they did what they said they were going to do and built buildings in front of this. And now I agree with Commissioner Clark, that it is a very well designed development which serves its purpose. And yet is not obtrusive to the highway like it was when it was originally built. Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 70 Ostner: Thank you. The thing that jumps out to me is condition number 1. Is that we're bringing the entire piece of property into allowance, making them use with the conditional use permit, more than the little building they want to build. Bringing them into compliance is the word I'm searching for. The detailed plans I was looking at for this part of the front that is the shielding which, the buildings blocking the view, which are important and work very well. Well, those are my concerns. Anthes: We have a motion to approve, is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The CUP 06-2318 Crossover Mini Storage was approved by a vote of 7-1-0. Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 71 CUP 06-2295: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (DIDICOM, 396): SUBMITTED BY DIDICOM, LLC FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NE OF WEDINGTON AND DOUBLE SPRINGS ROAD. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED R -A, RESIDENTIAL - AGRICULTURAL AND CONTAINS APPROXIMATELY 0.83 ACRES. THE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW A TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER WITH CELLULAR ANTENNAS ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. Fulcher: This is a conditional use permit for a wireless communication facility, 150 ft tall monopole cell tower. It's located at the Northeast, not quite the northeast corner but northeast of Wedington Drive and Double Springs Road. There are currently some commercial facilities and residential facilities there on that corner. It is in the northern part of that field that is adjacent to the City limits or planning area boundary. In their application, the applicant stated that there is a lack of cellular coverage in this area of West Fayetteville, heading out Wedington. The closest tower is approximately 3 miles away that was recently approved on Dean Solomon and Moore Lane and another tower further up to the north on HWY 112. The increase in travelers and residents in this area is currently putting a strain on the current ability of this networking area. What I believe sets this apart from our average cellular applications is the fact that early last week we received information that the Washington County Planning Division was reviewing a cellular tower application for a 195 ft monopole tower just 30011 north of this, located just outside the City limits in the county, outside of our jurisdiction. Being that they don't have a conditional use application in the county a cell tower application may be approved administratively if certain criteria are met, which was the case for the 195 ft. tower in the county. It met those criteria and was conditionally approved by the planning director for Washington County. The county is waiting on the National Environmental Protection Act report to be submitted to their office, before they can actually allow the construction to begin on the tower in the county. Which is where we came up with our recommendation to have this item tabled. Our fear was to have two approved towers at approximately the same time and in the same area, to provide the same services. Staff's opinion was, that with two towers, neither one of them would reach their full potential for co -location. You would have the ability to co -locate on both towers, but based on the number of carriers in the area, the potential for neither of those towers would never be fully realized. The worse case scenario is one or two antennas on either tower within 300 ft of each other. Obviously it would be beneficial to all the area residents and to the City and County to have one tower in the area servicing the residents in the area. That is where our recommendation to table came from. The applicant submitted everything for the application. I believe there is one bit of information that we were looking lacking, specifically other stand alone Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 72 locations that the applicant investigated. Looking at that, the reason they picked this area was because of the coverage issues that they have here. The ability to co -locate in these areas is not very possible. If you have driven anywhere out there, there are not any tall structures. Most structures are residential, two to three story. There are no structures of significant height that will allow cellular carriers to co -locate on to get the coverage area that would be beneficial to installing it. With that, staff is recommending that this item be tabled at this time. If you have any specific questions please ask, I think we can get into a little longer discussion on this and staff can help at any time. Anthes: Mr. Fulcher, quickly, on page 7 of the staff report. Some clarification. The map has indicated that the tower would have a 3 -tone paint scheme. They have not proposed any vegetative screening, and have they actually clarified with you the type of antennas that are proposed? Fulcher: Within the written application, if I remember the statement correctly, was that vegetation would be provided if the planning staff or the planning commission requested or recommended that as a condition of approval. They would comply with that type of requirement. As far as the type of antenna used, like a slim T arm, I think we, as staff, have become a little more familiar with some of the options during the last 3 or 4 cellular tower applications in the last 2 years. I don't believe the ordinance specifically calls out for the applicant to provide that type antenna, but it goes more to stealth technology and having to blend in more with the natural surroundings. The applicant may be able to provide information on the type of antennas they might want to use. If we were recommending approval, conditions to utilize that type of technology to cut down on the visual aspect of this tower would be recommended. Anthes: And have they submitted to you an updated coverage map that shows the tower that is located on Dean Solomon Rd? Fulcher: No, they have not. It may show up on the RF imaging that they submitted after the original map. I believe on page 21 they show the existing tower locations. I don't believe at the time that I spoke with the applicants that they were aware of the tower, because the tower on Dean -Solomon was fairly new. I think it's only been up in operation for six months. That may not have shown up in their data, I'm not exactly sure. More importantly they may refer to whether or not that affects the RF imaging that shows their coverage areas. Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 73 Anthes: Thank you very much. Would any member of the public like to address this conditional use permit for Didicom? Good evening. Evans: Hello, my name if Brian Evans. I am speaking on behalf of my mother & father in-law that own the property on 1171 /1173 North Double Springs Road. From the description from the City Planning office the tower will be located directly out our front windows, directly out our front door. The duplexes face the empty lot, pasture land that the tower will be set on. My family requests the Council deny this request for the Conditional Use permit on the basis that this is residential agriculture use. A cell phone tower is neither agriculture or residential in nature. Thank you Anthes: Thank you very much. Is there further public comment? Seeing none I will close the public comment section. Would the applicant like to give a presentation? Taylor: Good Evening. I'm Joel Taylor with Didicom. Also, tonight with me is the land owner, David Moorland. He owns the property that the tower is on, plus the two adjacent commercial properties that face Wedington Rd. Also, with me tonight is Keith Buchanan, the staff engineer for Alltel who we are doing this project for. We have been working with Alltel for about six months. We are at the final stages of doing all our due diligence. There has been a lot of work done and we have tried to conform with every guideline and standard that y'all have. To this date, we have our information in, our FCC, our NEPA report. These are processes that take 4 to 6 months to receive and we have received these. As far as addressing a few of your questions that you have brought up. Yes, this tower will be a tri -colored tower, going from a green to vagrant white. Our compound fence will be an 8 -ft wooden cedar fence that will be surrounding the property. We left the landscaping alternative up to your decision because the tower sits in the middle of 4 acre tract. That tract has a perimeter of trees all the way around it. Along the fence line that buffers it from the adjacent properties and the streets Wedington Road and Double Springs Road. We might have pictures where we can show pictures of this man's house that you can see through the trees. It is screened at a 300 ft distance from his house. We were going along pretty good on this application until about 10 days ago. It seems our competitor got wind of our decision and tried to fast track a tower through Washington County. Washington County's permit process is a little different. They'll accept and then make contingent upon providing the information. For y'all I'm providing the information up front. I am ready to apply for a building permit tomorrow with your permission. The Washington County tower is months & months away. This is what they have for their package and this is what I've done for my package. And it's Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 74 still a speculation on whether it will get built. Our client Alltel is in a situation where their capacity in town in maxed out and this site is definitely needed. Because of the development out on Wedington Rd., the 5 -lane expansion, the subdivisions, we need a dominant server out there that will provide the penetration of coverage that everyone expects out of your cell phone. So at this time I would like a motion to approve my tower site. Because really, if you don't approve mine, this is what basically happens. You're speculating on something that's gonna happen in a jurisdiction that's not in your control. Washington County, you couldn't stop them if they wanted to build 50 towers on the other side of the road. There's no need to worry about just two, they can do what ever they want. And if you didn't approve it for us then it almost seems that you are showing favoritism to a competitor. That's not even your jurisdiction. It also denies my land owner who has been a business man out there for 15 years. It denies him the right to enjoy the benefits of the tower. It also delays Alltel, who is one of your major providers for cell phone coverage in this town. It delays them 4 to 6 months on getting a new installation. And their deadline was 06' to be up and complete. It also defers any tax money that would go to Washington County instead of the City. The worse it does, it sets you all up on a tower you have to look at that doesn't meet your standards or criteria. And you know that area's going to be annexed. It's just going to get swallowed up into the City. So you will be settling for something lesser. Anthes: Mr. Taylor, can I get you to stop your speculation and talk instead about your developmental proposal? Taylor: Sure. Anthes: Thanks. Taylor: And that will be all I have to say. If you have any questions I would be happy to answer them or Mr. Buchanan can talk about the urgency for Alltel and the necessity of this project. Anthes: Thank you, the Commissioners will discuss this project. I have a question for staff. I think when we talked about this at agenda, we were kind of scratching our heads that two towers could be permitted and built within 300 feet from each other. Obviously, it would be much better to build one of these towers and co -locate. But, it does seem that the applicant has been in the process for a longer period of time and has made the proper applications through the FAA. What kind of coordination can truly happen Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 75 between the City of Fayetteville and the County about these kinds of development proposals? Pate: As you know the County passed zoning last week that only allows for two uses in the zoned area, single family residential and agricultural . I don't know if it will be applied the same as the City of Fayetteville does, but this is a specific use that is permitted through a conditional use permit process that might very well be the case. And it might have to go through Washington County Planning Board. I'm not sure that's how these future applications will be processed as opposed to administratively. Prior to that enaction of zoning, there was no land use regulation whatsoever. There very well may be something that is on the horizon that we may be able to coordinate better. In terms of "do the competitors speak," we've had this conversation several times. We had a meeting with Kit here at some point earlier this year with a lot of different carriers and cellular providers in the same room. To discuss that, it's sometimes hard to share that information due to this very fact. I don't believe this board has seen this issue raised in the last couple of years. Where basically two competitors are going after the same market and the same idea, which is to capture that share. I think if they would work together, the carriers actually could solve the problem together and put the cost of two towers into one and hopefully save in the long run. However, that's something we can't force, we felt it would be best to table the discussion at this time and in order for them to get together. Although they are obviously two very large carriers and may not be interested in discussions because one is on a certain time track and one is on a different one. Anthes: To follow up on that suggestion that is on the table, I don't believe we have recommended conditions of approvals in our staff report. Pate: You do not. Williams: Madam Chairman. I rarely disagree with our Planning department. But, I think I will in this particular case for several reasons. Number one, all the reasons that were presented by the applicant that they have followed our rules. They have been working on this for six months. We know what kind of product we will get from them. We have no idea what the County might sometime approve, if they approve anything at all. If you look at our code, it really doesn't encourage co -location. It doesn't say `we should co - locate;" maybe it should. But it says you can do co -location without coming for conditional use. But it doesn't say you should co -locate. Maybe we need to look at that and change that. But, it does not say that, but regardless there is no place at this point for this applicant to co -locate to. Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 76 There are Federal Law implications in this. To turn down an application for a cellular tower, there must be specific reasons that we have. Aesthetics is one thing you can consider, but if there is no option for the applicant, which there was not during this whole process, and still is not a viable option. Because we do not know whether or not if the other tower will even be allowed. We certainly don't know if it will be more aesthetically pleasing or not as ugly as you might say as the one that would be provided under our ordinances. So I have real concerns for a turn down or a tabling of this case. Because I don't understand what our rationale would be to deny this if they have complied with everything we have in our, required of them in our unified development codes. We need specific reasons to turn them down and refusing to act may be interpreted in some circumstances as a rejection of this particular application. Especially if it looks like this rejections might be months as the other process goes forward. So, I think in this particular case, I would not like to see a mere tabling, or if I saw a tabling to a very short time for a clear decision to be made. So maybe you could table for 2 weeks, but I think it would be unfair to this applicant not to render a prompt decision and instead hold them hostage to the competitor who just jumped in the game at the last second. And if we do want to turn it down at some point, we need to have very good reasons and reasons we have is one person in the audience came out to say he did not want it because of his parents and that's something you can think about. But, in the cases I have seen that have been sustained, there have not been one person complaining about a tower. There have been lots and lots of other people and there have been other alternatives for the cell phone company. In this particular case we really haven't seen other alternatives. There's one possibility out there, we don't know if it will work or not. And so it makes me concerned that unless you are going to do a very short tabling I would recommend strongly against that. Anthes: I'm not speaking for the rest of the Commission. But, I feel we have enough evidence to hear the item tonight. What I am troubled by is that I do not have conditions of approval from staff and I don't want to sit here and construct those from the podium. So what do you suggest in that regard? Clark: I have a suggestion. Williams: I don't know if we have standard conditions of approval that we usually set forward. If we do not, if you do table, I would ask that you instruct staff to present conditions of approval at your next meeting that you can continue to recommend to table it or not. But to have to some conditions that if you Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 77 decide it's the right thing to approve that you have something you can go on. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: Madam Chair, I expressed my concern in agenda that this process is unfair to this applicant to hold them hostage to the action of the County and I'm very reluctant to go against staff s recommendations, but to me it's a issue of fairness. This applicant has gone through all of the elaborate procedures to get approval. Now, whether or not we approve it, that's not what I'm talking about. You followed the rules and did everything you were suppose to do to get it to this point. And to delay consideration because something might happen across the street in the county seems inherently unfair to me. Plus, we could still end up with 2 cell towers right across the street from each other. There's no indication that co -habitation... there's no guarantee that that's not gonna happen. So, I would make the motion that we table this item for 2 weeks with instructions to staff to please come up with conditions of approval regardless of the other tower going on in the county. That's my motion. I would also recommend that the applicant talk to the neighbors and see if you can't work something out that will make the neighbors also happy. If I understand this is going to be in the middle of a 4 acre field? Is that what I was told? I think you just need to talk so the neighbors will be in favor of this as well. But I would really like to see this back so we can deliberate on it and if the folks putting one in the county would like to join in, great, the doors open. But that will be my motion that we table it for 2 -weeks. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Madam Chair. I would wholeheartedly agree to a conditional use is too important not to have a conditions of approval. I think staff fully intended for this to be tabled, thinking the facts were incomplete and they brought it forward so everyone could have their say. I do not believe I have enough facts in front of me to make a fair hearing. I'm not completely against. It's not fair to make the guys wait on something that might not ever happen. But, I also think a fair shot by the staff to put a few conditions is very appropriate. In 2 weeks, or whenever the calendar allows us to come back quickly. Photos better than these would be helpful. Helpful to the people that live around there too. If you have to get them from a book or somewhere else, something that is close. So that's my request from the applicant. Real world photos that show the tower with trees or similar. Different distances maybe from the distance of this gentleman's house. Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 78 Maybe from further away, would help me to make a recommendation since how it looks is something we're suppose to look at. Anthes: We have a motion to table until the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission. That motion is by Commissioner Clark with a second by Commission Ostner. Is there further discussion? Mr. Pate. Pate: Madam Chair. Am I understanding that staff is to come up with conditions of approval as per our typical conditional use request? Anthes: That's correct. I would like to add that if you could examine the offer for additional landscaping and make a specific recommendation with regards to an obscuring fence with landscaping to make it look like a hedge row or something like that, it would be keeping with the residential and agricultural feel of the area. That could help the neighbors. And I just want to go on record as saying I apologize to the applicant. I want to hear this item tonight, but I don't feel like we can make a ruling without those conditions. Clark: And Mr. Pate I'm not recommending a motion that you approve it or you want to approve it or want to reject it. You still can make the motion to table or make the option to table it in your report as well in 2 weeks if you think that is what needs to happen. Pate: I think from staffs perspective, we can come up with conditions if Planning Commissioners want to do that tonight. I've got an old cell application here that I used to draft conditions while we were speaking. Our issue was, with our findings, the applicant was supposed to demonstrate a good faith effort to co -locate with other carriers. "The Planning Commission may deny a permit to an applicant that has not demonstrated a good faith effort." That includes a survey of all existing structures that have been provided. Contact with all other wireless communications, licensed carriers operating in the City and in Washington County. We have a letter submitted to the county that they have been looking for a site from a different carrier. Had those 2 carriers spoken, I think we could have potentially avoided this situation. Sharing information necessary to determine co -location is feasible and if the design configuration most accommodating to location and a letter stating why that is not feasible. We felt it was prudent to bring forth this application to you and not simply take it off the agenda. But, for the applicant and both carriers to speak because I don't think any carrier just jumps into the process one weekend and simply goes forward. But, I will certainly take your direction and come up with conditions of approval. Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 79 Anthes: Thank you Mr. Pate for bringing that up and I would like to encourage the applicant to, if the motion passes, to make contact with the folks that are trying to build that tower in the county and all of you can come to a common resolution. Because that would surely help us out and it will help you out when we discuss the item. Taylor: We have, but it was so late into the game that we had spent, Alltel had spent their money on developing. Three months ago and $20,000 ago, it would have been a lot easier to work out. But, we were in the eleven and half hour and Washington County didn't notify you all. My competitor notified you all, so I want to make that clear. Anthes: Maybe that contact at this point is inviting them to co -locate on your tower. Taylor: And also these pictures I took were on your guidelines from 300 feet out are taken from all four directions. That is the one to one image you get at 300 ft. We would be happy to, we decided not do the extra perimeter on the extra 2 1/2 sides on our fence. Because it is a hay field and we want our land owner to keep using it as a hay field. Placing landscaping trees around the perimeter of the fence reduces that area a little bit. It can be done and we will concede to that if that was our condition tonight. Anthes: Is there further discussion tonight? Yes, Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Yes Madam Chair, I think that Mr. Pate has some really good points. It seems a co -location is not a must, but a should. And I think that the evidence is not before us. We would like to see more of that. I'm also interested, since we're asking for the information, how the County is going to evaluate that other cell tower. Not as a way to turn you alll down. Simply, as more information. This is new and complicated for our borders to have dueling towers at the same time. If one of them had come in and got built the other one probably wouldn't by applying so, it's awkward. I understand that. But I fully support staff in their need to find out more information on the issues we haven't brought up. About co -locating, dialoguing with the County, and dialoguing with other carriers. And I would like to see more information on those aspects as well. Buchanan: Commissioners if I could. I'm Keith Buchanan with Alltel wireless. As early as Thursday I did contact the County applicant, who did indicate at that time that he was not interested in removing his application. Alltel does have a history of co -Locating on existing towers, City water tanks, if at all possible. If there had been an existing tower on this location. I assure you Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 80 we would be on it today. But, since there is no tower in this particular location and is equal distance form three existing towers. This is really where we felt we had to be. I will make the statement that I will work with the County applicant. Will work with this carrier and see if we can't work out some sort of solution. Anthes: Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The CUP 06-2295 Didicom was tabled for two weeks. Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 81 R-PZD 06-2212: PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT (STADIUM CENTRE COTTAGES, 557): SUBMITTED BY H2 ENGINEERING, INC. FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT OLD FARMINGTON ROAD, W OF ONE MILE RD. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE AND R -A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL AND CONTAINS APPROXIMATELY 2.45 ACRES. THE REQUEST IS FOR A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT (ZONING, LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL) WITH 11 SINGLE FAMILY AND 3 TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS (17 DWELLINGS TOTAL.) Anthes: Mr. Trumbo Trumbo: Madam Chair, I am going to recuse from this item Anthes: Alright, we will see you next month. May we have the staff report, please? Fulcher: Yes ma'am, this is a residential planned zoning district formerly submitted as Stadium Town Homes and known as Stadium Centre Cottages. This is located between Old Farmington Road and 6th street, just west of One Mile Road. It's located on a proximally 2 1/2 acres. This was heard at the previous Planning Commission meeting where it was denied. It was then brought forward for reconsideration based on the new site plan. That was approved and brought forth to this meeting tonight. The changes that have occurred have been fairly significant. The original proposal was for nearly 10 units an acre. Mostly attached units and classified under multi -family dwellings. The current proposal is for 11 single family units and 3 duplexes. Six units total for those. The eleven single family units will be along Old Farmington Road. fronting on Old Farmington Road. with rear access off of an alley type system which will link Sandra Street. to Old Farmington to the North and also connect to a stub -out out from the commercial development to the South. As discussed with the previous development this is proposed as a one way street to try to cut down on the cut through traffic though the existing neighborhood that is on Sandra Street. This will allow one-way traffic to traverse east to west and allow them to exist north onto Old Farmington Rd., which is a collector street and disperse that traffic to the east or west. Also, that will allow traffic to go south into the commercial development for those services to continue on to Sixth Street from that point. As proposed, the overall density would be approximately seven units per acre for the seventeen units on the 2.5 acres. Some of the comments that were brought up with the previous items were the increased traffic. A lot of those comments had to do with the unapproved streets, the traffic, vehicle speed on Old Farmington/One Mile Road and the density proposed at that time. With this development, they Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 82 are proposing quite a few improvements to Old Farmington Road. Being a Collector street, it's 18 ft from center line, including curb, gutter, storm drains, and a 6 foot sidewalk along the property frontage, 14 feet from center line on Sandra Steet including curb, gutter, storm drains, & 4 foot sidewalk. Compatibility, both between the existing large lot single family neighborhood to the east and how this was original proposed with a higher density and multi -family land use. Going back, it was staff's original recommendation to have this item tabled. It proceeded on to the Planning Commission, where staff had recommended denial. Again, not finding in favor of compatibility or that an appropriate transition had been provided. With these changes to the site plan, being almost entirely single family with three duplex units, significantly reducing the density and providing a more compatible type development for the residential neighborhood to the east and appropriate transition from the commercial development to the south, staff is recommending forwarding this item to the City Council with a recommendation for approval. I have gone over the proposed street improvements. That is a determination for the Planning Commission to make under condition number one. Condition number three, that in combination with the elevations in your packet go to some of the comments made by the Planning Commissioner about how the original proposal really did not present a front facade to the street. I think the elevations show that it is the intent, along with the combination of the site plan showing that the alley truly serves as rear access to these properties and their front yard and their front facades are onto Old Farmington Road. Condition number three just goes along to that, I know with some the elevations as they were submitted that the garage is shown in the front of the house, I believe that we've seen that on some other projects in the past where it's a matter of just rotate the garage section to have it face to the rear of the house. But, the elevations shown would be indicative of the units for these lots. I believe all the other conditions are fairly straight forward. There are some minor revisions for the applicant to make under item number four, item number nine refers to a six foot wood board privacy fence along lots I 1 and 15 along with some large species trees to serve as a screen between that existing lot on Sandra Street and this proposed development. If you have any specific questions, please ask. Anthes: Thank you very much, would any member of the public would like to address this R-PZD 06-2212 for Stadium Center Townhomes/Cottages? Good evening. Llames: Good Evening. Larry Llames 3047 West Sandra. I'm still against this. I still don't believe this is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. I talked to Planning Staff, they said ten foot setback between these single Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 83 family homes. Does that look compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? Not to me. I have a problem with the notification on this re -submission. The notification went out, it talked about the commercial development on Hwy 62, it did not talk about Stadium Center, single- family homes on Old Farmington Road. Now, you're either going to notify us or your not. Why didn't they just put a pizza coupon in the envelope? That would have been about the same notification. Clark: Madam Chair, That is out of line, we don't send the notification. Llames: I realize that, but you require a notification to go out. Clark: Sir, there is a nice way to say it. Llames: Well, I talked to planning staff about it, they originally told me that correct notification did not go and that it would not meet this meeting. Then, Jeremy Pate overruled that decision and said that he considered the notification of a commercial development on 62 as ample notification to the neighborhood that Stadium Center was going to go ahead and make the meeting tonight. I don't know how the two are the same. I don't believe the notification requirement was met. I don't believe that the area would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. I don't know how that they can enforce the one-way, whether you call it a street or alley, if it's not a City street, how can the City enforce the one-way on it? Does the City enforce traffic laws on private parking lots? I don't know, the last time I had an accident in a parking lot, the police said they could write it up, but they couldn't write a ticket, because it wasn't a City right-of-way. So, how can they enforce it, the developer may say it's going to be a one way street or a one way alley or whatever they decide to call it. But, who is gonna enforce it? I think that the traffic will increase on Sandra, because it's going to be one way from Sandra into the area. I don't see any improvements made on Sandra. Sandra is still a narrow City street, no sidewalks, and ditches on both sides of street. I'm sorry about the thing on the pizza thing, but it irritates me when you say we have to be notified and we get a notification that it was a commercial development on 6th street. How does that apply? We have talked about the past consistency; you've told us that one Commission may be different than the other. That's why the City has the problems it has now with zoning, because there has been. Anthes: Mr. Llames, please address this particular development. Llames: Well, this development is I think is inconsistent with the surrounding area and I believe it's going to be inconsistent with the City Plan 2025. It does Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 84 not help the neighborhood, it just detracts from the present neighborhood that's been there for forty years. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you. Searls: My name is Jerry Searls, I live on Sandra Street. I want to touch on, more or less, what Mr. Llames spoke about. I can not see, how in the world, this one way street into this all theses 10, 11, 12 units is gonna help the neighborhood, what so ever. I don't see how these houses being 10 ft apart, or what ever the 10 ft setback means. When we built our homes out there we lived by the rules and regulations but apparently, now they just keep coming back, coming back, until they finally get what the want. If the project is approved, it's not going to improve the 19 foot Old Farmington Road. It's not going to improve the 16 foot One Mile Road. It's not going to improve the ditches. It's not going to help the traffic situation. It's not going to, sometimes the traffic is, well 1 in the afternoon, I counted 57 vehicles in less than 45 minutes going down Old Farmington Road. That's 57 vehicles. Now, we're talking about putting a possibility of 26 to 30 more vehicles in the area. This is what we call cut through. They are cutting through from the access road to down Old Farmington Road to get to Walmart, Lowes, what ever the business is and back. We also have got motels visitors that come up the One Mile Road. One morning, as I was doing my morning walk, I noticed my neighbor had to get plum up on the one sidewalk that we have in the area, so a school bus could get by on the One Mile Road. I just don't think that this RSF should be changed. Most neighbors down there don't think it should be. Then, one last question is, they got some three duplexes in this project. If they don't sell these cottages, as they call them, are they going to be allowed to rent them? Like they are the duplexes? I just hope and pray that you all can see some benefit on where we're coming from and leave it as RSF-4. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Searls. Would anyone else like to address this item? Seeing none, I'll close the public comment section and ask for the applicant to present their project. Hennelly: Yes ma'am, I'm Tom Hennelly with H2 Engineering. I do appreciate you guys revisiting this project. I think we tried to incorporate as many as the neighbors concerns as we could from the previously September 25`h meeting as well as, I believe, all or a majority of your concerns with this project at that same meeting. I think we've gone a long way towards accomplishing that with the connection to the commercial development to the south and the reduction in density. The presentation of these buildings along Old Farmington Road and the neighborhood feels quite a bit less of Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 85 the multi family look that was presented at the previous meetings. The improvements to One Mile Drive are certainly agreeable to that. There may be, for that size project that were talking about, I think the improvements on Old Farmington Road are significant. And will go a long way towards improving a fairly long stretch of this road, comparatively towards the size of the project. Do you have any other questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Anthes: Mr. Hennelly, would you address the question about whether these are rental or for sale units. These are for sale? Hennelly: Okay. Built as spec homes for sale. Anthes: Okay, thank you. Commissioners? Harris: Madam Chair. Did we address the issue of the notification? Anthes: No. Harris: Could we do that. Pate: Sure, this item as you remember was denied, I believe at the 25`h of September meeting. At the subsequent meeting, the Planning Commission voted to reconsider that. The applicants did not bring in their revisions for the next, but did bring in their revisions for the November 13`h meeting, so they made that deadline to bring their item before you. When the motion to reconsider was voted on, it was also basically voted to table until the revisions came in. When an issue or item before you is on the table, it doesn't require re -notification, the applicants have met their notification requirements. They've notified for the Subdivision Committee meeting, actually it's ironic, because staff did not feel that they had notified properly for the Subdivision Committee and we were overruled at that point in time by the Planning Commission and forwarded onto this meeting and Planning Commission felt that it was appropriate notified, as well as the City Attorney. We, in terms of this meeting, there is not a required notification by an applicant. We always tell an applicant that if you are tabled, especially not date specific, kind of like I mentioned tonight, that notification is not required. We always require an applicant, just because our office goes above and beyond on application requirements to require someone to notify. So, that's what we, that's the discussion we had with Mr. Llames, last week. Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 86 Hennelly: If I can add a little more to that, there was a clerical error in the notification that did list the description for the Stadium Center Commercial development and when that error was discovered, we did resend notification as well as hand deliver notifications to all the adjacent property owners, last Thursday as well. With correct packets and plats, I believe that was all that was in that notification. Harris: Madam Chair. Mr. Hennelly. Hennelly: Yes, ma'am. Harris: Over here, are you saying then that the notification was sent out specific to this actually project along with the correct plats, full packet to all the adjacent property owners? Hennelly: Yes ma'am, it was. Harris: Ok, and that was again on Thursday. Hennelly: Yes ma'am. Harris: Thank you. Williams: Madam Chair. On the issue on whether or not an alley can be enforced to be one way, an alley is not a private drive. An alley is normally dedicated, just like a street to the City and is therefore, could be enforced. Obviously, the police can't be everywhere in town, but it is legal to enforce an alley if it's supposed to be one way. If it's a public alley, which I'll assume this will be, I better ask Mr. Hennelly to make sure that he is planning on dedicating that to the City and that's not a private drive. As long as it is a public alley, then the police could enforce this one way requirement on it. Pate: I do want to confirm that, you're showing right-of-way on the plat, but everything we've seen so far discussed as a private alley. Hennetly: I think at that September 25`h meeting, that it was requested that it would be made a public street, which we don't have a problem with and fully expect that to be built public street standards. But will function as an alley with parallel parking. The right-of-way will be dedicated. Pate: We can modify our conditions to reflect that. Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 87 Clark: I was not at the meeting that was denied. So, I'm not sure how different this plat is then the one that was presented there. But, from what I'm understanding, you are going to have a one way entrance into street A, from Sandra or coming in this way. Is all of street "A" is going to be one way? Hennelly: Yes ma'am, from the east to the west. Clark: So, really there is only one way in and one way out. Anthes: Pretty much. Clark: You can only come in here. Pate: Someone can also go south through the commercial area to get to HWY 62. That's two way there. Clark: But you can't come into this from the west, can you? Hennelly: You can not access the homes from the west, that's correct. Pate: Correct. Anthes: And that, Commissioner Clark, is in response to the neighbors to the east not wanting people to be able to travel this way through their street. Hennelly: Straight down Sandra to One Mile Road was one of the concerns that I was under the impression they had. Clark: Yet, you're still going to make improvements on Sandra and on intersection at One Mile Road. Hennelly: The improvements as far as I understand from the conditions of approval are for the off site improvements are limited to One Mile Road intersection with Old Farmington Road and the improvement of the radius there on that south west corner of that intersection. Clark: Ok, I wrote it down somewhere. Pate: The adjacent street improvements include Old Farmington and their property frontage onto Sandra, the front half. Hennelly: Yes. Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 88 Clark: Ok, condition number one, going to make Old Farmington 18' curb, gutter, sidewalk. Sandra 14' curb, gutter, storm drains, and sidewalk. Ok, even though you can't get out that way, you're going to be able to get in better that way. Hennelly: Yes ma'am. Clark: Ok. Are there any other significant changes that I need to be aware of? Hennelly: Density went from... Clark: Where did density go from to? Hennelly: 24 units down to 17 units. I believe it was 9.8 units per acre down to 6.9 units per acre. Clark: Ok, all right, thank you Mr. Hennelly. Pate: For Commissioner Clark, the other three issues, I believe were the primary access and how this accesses one way, the density of the project, and then also the connection to the commercial center. That was a key component. The staff could not agree with the applicant on it at that point in time and recommended denial based on that. They have now configured this so that we feel commercial traffic that might be, or neighborhoods that are utilizing commercial centers, the restaurants, retails, there located just to the south would be able to access that and have connectivity while not providing a cut through to the existing single family residential neighborhood. Clark: So, straight to the west is the connection, you're talking about? Pate: Correct. Clark: Thank you, Jeremy. Anthes: Mr.Ostner. Ostner: Madam Chair, I think this is a tough call because this is a difficult area in town. You all are putting up with some incredible traffic. Old Farmington Road is not safe. Something needs to happen on Old Farmington Road. I don't think this project is going to be the straw that broke the camels back to destroy Old Farmington Road. I don't think developing at R-4 would be Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 89 any better. The problems on Old Farmington need to be addressed on their own. I think part of the problem with Old Farmington it is a way to get around the log jam. Everyone headed west bound is backed up for'/2 mile on 6`h. Hopeful, the Arkansas Highway Department, when they improve the on ramp at 540, will alleviate a lot of that. All the traffic engineers agree, that light is a total failure. They are going to move that on-ramp to the north so a lot more traffic can get through there quicker. I think that has a lot to do with what happens on Old Farmington. I disagree with staff, that a 36' section on Old Farmington is part of the solution. A 36' section works on Township, with a heavy volume and lots of curb cuts, back to back, to back. A 36' section is inappropriate on Old Farmington Road. Number one, it will never be striped, it will just be 2-18' lanes. Because we don't stripe our roads after these developers build them. They're not required to stripe them, we're suppose to do it. We take 20 years to get over there, and in the mean time, people fly down 18' lanes. I don't see a continuous turning lane on this street being a benefit to anybody. I can see a turning lane at the major intersection. There are maybe four right now. I don't really see that. I think a proper 24', 28' road bed would be a lot safer then a 36' back to back road. I think this is a good project, I would like to vote for it. I would like to change Old Farmington to be a 28' section, however I believe its in our long term plans, and this is a question to you Mr. Pate, are we asking all the developer to go ahead and build this 36' section? Pate: Yes, I guess that would be my response, that it's not necessarily me that you disagree with, our Master Street Plan calls for this road section as a 36' wide road section. It's a collector street and that's what that standard calls for. We're recommending that it follow the Master Street Plan cross section that's adopted by the City Council. Ostner: I understand that, and that collector status, that definition has carried over with the new plan? Pate: Yes. Ostner: Ok Pate: We have not changed our Master Street Plan yet. Ostner: Well, I understand the Master Street Plan hasn't changed but the definitions of a lot of these roads have changed with the Dover Kohl. They pretty much did a way with the collector definitions, and replaced them with T-1 and T-2 and all these, that's not correct? Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 90 Pate: No, not that I'm aware of. Ostner: Ok. Pate: They've changed some designations in the Downtown Master Plan. We actually did a Master Street Plan amendment in the Downtown and there are numerous sections that are referenced by number. ST40, ST36, ST38, there are several different street and road sections in the Downtown Master Plan. Ostner: Ok, that's apparently what I'm thinking of, cause I think you can call this a collector, I think it ought to be historic collector, there are a lot of historic collectors through downtown that are still two lane and function beautifully. When volume picks up on 6`h, due east of Walgreens, just close to here, it slows down and it works and it's a heavy volume. People are driving thirty through a neighborhood and it's working. No one ever thought more volume would make that street slow down. Sorry, I'm going on about one issue, I would really like to see Old Farmington be safer. I'll probably vote for this project. Hennelly: Can I ask one question? On other projects that we've that were at a high street classification, we're required to dedicate the right-of-way for that street classification and only build 14 feet from center line. If there was anyway we could incorporate that requirement into this, we would certainly appreciate that, because I do agree that going from that narrow section to a 18' wide section that's almost as wide as the total width of the road in that area could be a hazard. Anthes: Mr. Pate, didn't we approve another development down the road here and how would that street section knit with this? Pate: All the street section that we've approved including the hotel and other commercial development and another PZD on this project have been required to have 18' from centerline sections. The reason for that, Mr. Hennelly's right, is in standard residential subdivisions that have a collector going through it, we do typical keep the 2 lane road section, because it's primary a single use type of application and in a residential neighborhood that's not usually accessed by traffic other than the residents and small delivery vehicles. In this case, Old Farmington Road functions much more so; I do not anticipate the classification of Old Farmington being decreased. It provides a functioning collector street status by definition connecting Shiloh and 62 along with Old Mile Road. We're seeing numerous Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 91 commercial projects in commercial zoning districts along this street being processed through our building permit process and Planning Commission, so I would not anticipate that to be changed. Anthes: Okay. Hennelly: Could we possibly consider constructing the 14' from center line to being assessed for the difference? That way you will still have the funds available to construct that extra four feet but it would not be necessary to have it constructed at this time? Anthes: That is certainly something that we can discuss. I think what Mr. Pate is saying though, is that we have projects that are already permitted that are being required to build that section, and if we deviate from that, we have a pinch in the road. Is that what you're saying? Pate: Yes. Ostner: How many of those other projects, which I can only think of one, how many of those have actually built both sides? Pate: None of them that I'm aware of Ostner: Ok, when you extend one side, like he's been asked to do, the road sort of shifts, which is a traffic calming device by the way for a road that gently goes back and forth. I don't see a problem with that. I'll be in favor of Mr. Hennelly's idea, in fact the difference in money, could be spent installing traffic calming, something. If City staff could approve it, find it somehow, to do some sort of traffic calming on a collector. I think it's a good faith offer. Anthes: In addition to the PZD that we have seen, are there commercial projects or other projects that were less than an acre that have gone through administrative review that we should be aware of in the area? Pate: I believe so, they are further east, but the one I remember specifically was a commercial development west of Shiloh. Of course, the banks on One Mile Road, but those more access 6`h Street than Old Farmington, until 6`h is congested and people utilize Old Farmington Road. That's the ones that I'm aware of. Williams: It doesn't appear to be very cost effective though, to go back and have to knock out all the curb that is probably fairly new and then bring your Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 92 equipment in and just put in a fairly narrow patch of asphalt at a future time. There are some time constraints about how long we can hold money from a developer without using it for that development or giving it back to the developer. We have time constraints within our code, which are reasonable because if we hold money, we shouldn't hold it indefinitely. So, that's some problems with that particular idea. I think that staff s position here for the long term improvement of Farmington is probably is more feasible and more surer that we are going to have the proper road section there as called for by the Master Street Plan. Anthes: That's a difficult one. Ostner: We will most like come to 18' lanes. I don't see tearing out curb, I do see a guy building 18' from center line and there is probably 8or 10 feet on the other side and the road is slightly shifting toward that curb, utilization it fully rather than a perfect street, having something a little bit different. Like this neighborhood, it's not by the book, it's unique. I'm uncomfortable with the role of following the rules when I believe they're making things worst. Not by this applicant's fault. Anthes: Let's talk about the lot configuration and density and see if we can find common ground here there. Clark: I have another question; it's along the lines of the configuration. What percentage of this is dedicated green space? Do we have green space? Ms. Anthes circled the detention pond. Pate: There's not a public dedicated green space on this project for 17 units. Clark: How about open space, as by our ordinance provision of more useable and suitable located open space recreational areas and other common facilities. That would not otherwise be required under conventional land development regulations. Where is that? Hennelly: It's not on there. There is, as far as open space is concerned, we did try to utilize the detention pond for tree preservation as well. For both this and the commercial development and there will be some substantial planting of trees in that area. But, outside of that and the attempted preservation of the trees in the right-of-way out along Old Farmington Road that are going to be coordinated with the Tree and Landscape Administrator to try and get the sidewalk into. Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 93 Clark: Thank you, Mr. Hennelly and thank you for that very honest answer. When our PZD's first were proposed, I was very excited because they're little communities, or can be little communities within themselves that offer amenities that aren't found otherwise in other large scale developments. I'm seeing some very unique use of setbacks, density etc. in this proposal. So, it's taking advantage of one part of the R-PZD ordinances while overlooking another part that I think is as equally viable. I'm having real trouble with that, it's almost as if you're wrangling the best and leave out the part that is not suitable. R-PZD's usually have a little open space, parks, even trails, or trail attachments. Attachments to trails, we've let folks get by with that as well. Detention pounds are not necessarily some place you want to have community gatherings. So, the trees are a nice aesthetic but I don't think it captures the intent of the ordinance. I'm very concerned with that. It seems like we're trying to take what you want to and leave out what you don't want to do and I don't think that's the intent of the R-PZD. So, I'm having a little bit of a problem with that and a lot of problems with the traffic and density. The rework of the entrance and exit, just kind of tells me there's one way in and one way out. 2 ways in actually, but only one way out and that's kind of problematic to me. Because people don't always follow the rules and unless I'm involved there's never a policeman around when you need one. I'm always on the receiving end of that. I have some trouble with that and I would like to hear the rest of the discussion because I didn't hear the first time that it was debated. I'm not inclined to agree with this for the same reason as the West Fork development we did earlier. You can't. You've got to do infill, infill is good, it needs density but it also needs to have some of the compatibility issues that we have talked about inherent with in our ordinance. That was a big word. Anthes: Commissioner Lack. Lack: I wanted to ask, first of all, maybe something very simple, the square footages that are listed on the, below the lot number, the house number. Hennelly: That is a little bit confusing, that is not the square footage of the home, that is the square footage of the lot. Lack: Ok, I thought I had seen a lot square footage at a different figure, but I just wanted to verify that. I want to say thanks for coming back with something that was basically what I would hope to see. I think that while I agree with Commissioner Ostner in the idea of Old Farmington Road and what that street section should be. I don't know if I should go so far as to deviate from the Master Street Plan and or fill the authority to do that. But, in the Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 94 modifications you have made to the plat and the density reduction. The focusing of the fronts to the road, I think you've made great strives. I think that this piece of property is not exactly the same as some of the other pieces of property in the area that are zoned and developed to RSF-4. I think as the wedge of the diagonal running of Old Farmington Road narrows and you end up with less and less property, at the back of the commercial zone it becomes more difficult to do traditional four unit per acre development. More and more appropriate to do more dense more marketable properties. I think that this while is not exactly the same is compatible with those density and those patterns. So, I'll applaud you for that. The connection from the commercial district will function well. I think that having that at the edge of the sight will not create the cut through that was the original concern, I think that will work. I think that this development will not only, not damage the area but I think it will enhance the area with street improvements that will be made and that's beyond the discussion of the appropriates of widths of streets. But, just in the safety factures of creating less dangerous streets with the drainage that is there now, in the street widths that are there now. So, I will plan to support this project in its current form. Anthes: Thank you Commissioner Lack, is there further discussion? Commissioner Ostner? Motion: Ostner: Madam Chair, this is not the first time that this body has gotten cross ways with the Master Street Plan. The Master Street Plan along 71, just a stones throw from this building, was for a long time, and I believe is currently is, much larger than all of our plans and all of our planners recommend. Everyone knows, it's better for downtown for that street to stay a little bit narrower. Downtown Fayetteville is famous; it's near and dear to our hearts. This is not the first time we questioned the Master Street Plan and have attempted to fix it. We can't do that here. But I believe a narrower section historical collector status, it might be a 28 foot back to back curb improved, or just thinking outside the box here, 36' foot back to back with sections having a small medium, an island. Those are very effective traffic calming methods. I would like to make a motion to change condition number one to read in the second sentence, Staff recommends the following: "developers shall improve Old Farmington Road to include 14' wide street section from centerline with curb, gutter, and etc." Anthes: Motion to amend, is there a second? I'll second it. Is there a discussion? Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 95 Newman: Madam Chair, may I speak? Anthes: Yes. Newman: Would you give staff the opportunity to review this area overall for the Master Plan for the engineering and to look at the total concept? Not to consider a ruling on a 500' strip, looking at this one residential development here. Give us time to review that and discuss that before we put a condition on this developer to reduce what the overall collector concept was and discussed previously. Anthes: How will that information get back to us, Mr. Newman? Newman: In a form of a report, I assume. What would you like, do you have any preference? Anthes: No, I'm just wondering because sometimes we send these things out and really don't know what happens. Clark: Are you asking us to table this? Anthes: No, what you are saying is that you would rather have us construct a condition of approval that doesn't have a specific width, but ask for staff to review the possibility of reducing the street section for Old Farmington Road. Is that what you are asking? Newman: Yes ma'am. I'm asking, not recommending tabling by any means, I just would like the opportunity to ask the engineering and planning staff to get together and revaluate this area before that change is made at this location. Anthes: That sounds reasonable. Ostner: I understand your request. However, it's been my experience that the rule book and mathematics always win over policy. We don't create policy here, however here at an R-PZD we are allowed a recommendation to the Council. Anthes: Would that also include in the assessment for the additional pavement? Ostner: Thank you, I believe my motion was incomplete. The difference in money between a 14 and an 18 foot wide street section. Help me out here for a second. What's the fairest thing to do with it? I'm not trying to let the Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 96 developer out of anything. I just want something better for the neighborhood. Clark: Shall improve Farmington Road to include 14' wide street sections. With the difference between the 18' and the cost of the 14' being paid in money in -lieu by the developer. The part that it asked for future improvements on Farmington Road. Isn't that what you wanted? Ostner: Well, that helps, I didn't think we could leave it so open ended. I thought it had to go to something. Pate: It would go to improvements along Old Farmington Road. Ostner: Well, that sounds great. Clark: Thank you. Anthes: I would accept that as a second on the motion. Ostner: So, basically the developer will have to spend the same amount of money, however he will only build a 14' section. The difference in money will gc to other improvements along Old Farmington Road. Pate: Does that include curb and gutter on that 14' section? Ostner: Yes, of course, everything except the street section. Anthes: As the second-er of the motion, I would like to address Mr. Newman's comments. This is a R-PZD, it will go forward to City Council, and this would be the recommendation if this motion even passes. To amend our recommendation to City Council, you would have a time between now and then to review the entire road and make your recommendation to Council whether that works for you or not. Newman: Thank you. Ostner: Thank you Madam Chair and in that evaluation I would hope that engineering would consider that this is at a base of a mountain and commercial development require square footage and it is very difficult to develop a mountain side to high density either residential or commercial to fill a street. 100 yards to the south is lots of flat land with a big street in front of it, however there is a hill just climbing straight up and that's part of Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 97 my reasoning that I just don't see this being pack with cars and curb cuts in volume. Anthes: We have a motion to amend condition of approval number one to read "the developer should improve Old Farmington Road to include a 14' street section from centerline with curb, gutter, storm drain and a 6' sidewalk. At the Master Street Plan right-of-way, etc. holding the difference between the construction of the 14' and 18' section in escrow." Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to change the condition of approval listed above was approved 7-0-0. Anthes: Is there further discussion on motions on the R-PZD? Ostner: Has there been a motion? Anthes: No. Motion: Ostner: Madam Chair, I like to move to forward this to City Council with recommendation of approval R-PZD 06-2212. Lack: Second. Anthes: Motion to forward by Commissioner Ostner, second by Commissioner Lack. Is there further discussion? My big hang up is that this is so far and above a better development than what we saw the first time. Thank you so much for that. I appreciate the two- way connection to the commercial property and the way you have been able to segregate it from the neighborhood use. I appreciate that you responded to the neighbors by Sandra by providing the one- way connection with parallel parking. I do have some questions about the very thing Commissioner Clark has been talking about. That is the uniqueness of a PZD, that we ask for a green space and some sort of community space. I find these lots to be very tight without hardly a yard for each individual tenant, much less community space, and I believe that it would be a better knit with the adjacent neighborhood if we actually lost unit number 11, and that was changed into an open space. When I look at units one through ten, I don't know about the total density there, but I look at the configuration on the lot and I would almost like to see the units moved to a zero lot line condition on the side lot so that the green space for the unit is actually all aggregated on the one side Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 98 of the building so there would be useable green space for each unit, which I think is more in keeping with in the area as well. Right now, if you fence these yards, you would have these narrow strips on either side. I grew up in southern California in a subdivision that had one of those narrow strips next to a house with a fence and there was really nothing to do in that spot. By sliding each of those units left or right and allowing that green space be a side yard, I think it would be much nicer development. I'm not sure if losing one of those ten units to allow a more generous green space there might be in more keeping with and provide a better transition to the adjoining neighborhood as well. So, those are my comments. Commissioner Clark. Clark: Because of what Mr. Williams has told us that we are voting against something we need to say why. I will not be supporting this R-PZD. I don't think meets, it says you gotta meet one or more of the following goals and although I commend you for changing it because everyone seems to think you done a good deal in terms of modifying it, I still don't think it's there. I don't think its harmonious with the area that's being fit into and I think with just a little bit more tinkering and think Ms. Anthes talked about a couple of them. You could certainly achieve a finer development that would work as an R-PZD and work in this particular area so I will not be supporting this in this configuration. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Commissioner Harris. Harris: I appreciate Commissioner Clark bring up the spirit of PZD. Because I don't feel as though this completely answers the call of PZD in same areas, especially in terms of open space, green space, and so on. So, I will too, be voting against it, in its current configuration. Anthes: I have a motion to forward by Commissioner Ostner and second by Commissioner Lack, is there further discussion? Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: I can see those comments. For the reason I think it's worth supporting is that list is not a must, it's a should. How on earth can you have both density and open space, period. It's always a conflict. It's a juggling act. It's a dance. I believe how you finesse it is the answer, not going down the list, did he do this, this, and this. That's why it's phrased in an open way in our ordinance. Try to do at least one of these things. There's not a park here. But, this is a size of a three regular house spots. It's tiny, there're packing in, they're being efficient. They're raising the density because that's what Fayetteville has to have and they got to make their business Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 99 plan work. They almost cut it in half, so it's a difficult call. I respect your no votes. Anthes: Any further discussion? Will you call the roll. Roll Call: The motion to approve failed 4-3-0. Pate: Motion failed Anthes: They do have an appeal right, to City Council in so many days? Pate: Right. Anthes: And if that happens, will the neighbors be notified? Pate: No. Anthes: Watch your newspapers. Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 100 Anthes: I do have some announcements, Planning Commission will be forming four committees, and they will be as follows: Committee Number 1 is the Downtown Architectural Code. This committee will review the Dover Kohl recommendations to the downtown master plan and provide commentary and recommendations to bring a draft code forward to Planning Commission and City Council for Downtown Architectual Standards. This Committee will be staffed by Leif Olson, it will be chaired by Commissioner Andy Lack. It will be comprised of the following committee members: Commissioner Alan Ostner, Robert Sharp of Robert Sharp Architects, Sharon Hoover of Allison Architects, Todd Fergason of the University of Arkansas and I'm waiting to hear back from a potential additional member, but should know tomorrow. The Second Committee is the Cultural Arts District Committee. This committee will review and recommend a boundary for Fayetteville's first Cultural Arts District. They will be working with Daniel Hintz of Fayetteville Downtown Partners under contract with the City of Fayetteville as staff. This committee will be chaired by Commissioner Candy Clark, and will also consist of Commissioner Lois Bryant, Dede Peters of ddp Gallery, Jodi Bennosca of The Walton Arts Center and Julie Gabel of Ceramic Cow Productions. The third committee is a Landmark and Significant Places Committee. This committee will research ordinances that recognize and protect landmark structures in other cities. This committee will make recommendations to city staff for a framework of ordinances appropriate to Fayetteville, particularly Downtown. This committee will be staffed by Karen Minkel, will be chaired by Commissioner Christine Myres and also consist of Commissioner Hilary Harris, Commissioner Sean Trumbo, and we will be looking for a representative from the Historical District Commission to serve on the Committee as well. I believe that Ms. Myres has indicated that this is mainly a research committee and may meet via email and phone. The fourth committee is really short. It's a Digital Presentation Committee and they will be asked to develop brief guidelines for applicants wishing to make digital presentations at Planning Commission meetings; it probably is a two paragraph recommendation that will be developed. Staffed by Jeremy Pate and chaired by Commissioner James Graves. Are there further announcements? Pate: We do have Subdivision Committee meeting this Thursday and agenda packets were passed out. Anthes: Ok, if that is it, we're adjourned.