Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-12-11 MinutesPlanning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 1 of 86 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on December 11, 2006 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED VAC 06-2362 (SPRINGWOODS, LOT2, 286) Page 3 ADM 06-2406 (EAST SQUARE DEVELOPMENT) Page 3 RZN 06-2344 (DUNNERSTOCK-WINDSOR, 513) Page 5 R-PZD 06-2299 (RUSKIN HEIGHTS, 370) Page 11 ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved Forward Tabled VAC 06-2363 (CRUZ BAY/5TH STREET R -O -W, 523) Denied Page 13 VAC 06-2364 (CRUZ BAY/ ALLEY, 523) Approved Page 13 CUP 06-2367 (TEMPLE SHALOM OF NWA, 442) Approved Page 27 CUP 06-2360 (POORE/TOWNSHIP, 294) Approved Page 39 RZN 06-2366 (WONACOTT, 436) Forward Page 42 R-PZD 06-2349 (WESTBROOK VILLAGE, 284) Forward Page 46 ADM 06-2379 (OUTDOOR LIGHT ORD AMEND) Tabled Page 49 ADM 06-2380 (URBAN RES DESIGN STANDARDS) Tabled Page 68 Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 2 of 86 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 CITY ATTORNEY: Kit Williams MEMBERS ABSENT James Graves STAFF ABSENT Matt Casey/Engineering Glenn Newman/Engineering Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 3 of 86 Anthes: Good evening and welcome to the Monday, December 11, 2006 meeting of the City of Fayetteville Planning Commission. I would like to remind the audience members and commissioners to turn off cell phones and pagers. I would also like to remind you that listening devices are available if you find if difficult to hear in the chamber. You can contact a Staff member at the front desk and they will assist you with a headset. Will you call the roll? Williams: Yes, I will. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call, Bryant, Myres, Ostner, Lack, Harris, Clark, Trumbo, and Anthes are present. Graves is absent. Anthes: If any members of the audience are here tonight for item number 5, the planned zoning district for Ruskin Heights, the applicant has requested that the item be tabled so we won't be hearing it tonight. Our first item tonight is the consent agenda. VAC 06-2362: (SPRINGWOODS, LOT 2,286): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at LOT 2 OF THE SPRINGWOODS C-PZD, THE ARBORS AT SPRINGWOODS. The property is zoned C-PZD, Commercial Planned Zoning District, and contains approximately 25.23 acres. The request is to vacate utility easements that have been moved and replaced for the approved Large Scale Development, The Arbors at springwoods within Lot 2 of the springwoods, PZD. ADM 06-2406: (EAST SQUARE DEVELOPMENT): Submitted by ROBERT SHARP ARCHITECTS for property located at the northwest corner of Mountain Street and College Avenue. The property is zoned C-PZD 05-1610, COMMERCIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT and contains approximately 1.01 acres. The request is to extend the development approval for the issuance of building permits for a period of one year. Anthes: Would any member of the public or commissioners like to remove any of those items for discussion? I would just like to pass down my notes to Jeremy. I will entertain motions to approve the consent agenda. Motion: Clark: I motion to approve consent agenda. Anthes: Motion by Commissioner Clark. Ostner: Second. Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 4 of 86 Anthes: Second by Commissioner Ostner. Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve consent agenda carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Commissioner Graves was absent. Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 5 of 86 RZN 06-2344: (DUNNERSTOCK - WINDSOR S/D, 513): Submitted by DAVE JORGENSEN for property located at NE CORNER OF DOUBLE SPRINGS RD. AND SELLERS RD. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 34.50 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF- 4, Residential Single Family, 4 units per acre. Garner: This item was heard at the previous Planning Commission meeting and it was tabled at that meeting at the request of the applicant because Staff had recommended denial and the applicant wanted to discuss Staff's recommendation further. Since that meeting the applicant has submitted a site plan showing how they would propose to develop the property with 78 lots they also submitted a plan showing how the development would connect to city sewer to the north. They also submitted a bill of assurance offering to limit the number of lots on the property to 78 lots. Staff's original recommendation for denial of the requested RSF-4 zoning request has not changed. We still find that even with 78 lots as proposed it is still premature as far as the density and the lot size and configuration. Our recommendation is the same as we discussed in the previous meeting. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Garner. Would any member of the public like to address this re- zoning request for Dunnerstock/Windsor? Please come forward. Please state your name and give us your comments. Keith: Sandy Keith. I again request that you deny these 78 lots. This would not compliment the housing that is already there. We have acreage lots from 3 acres to 8 acres. Again, this would take away from our country living. This would.... because people in that area, they do have some livestock, cattle and horses. And again. I say that this won't compliment that. It would take away our green space. If they leave it at the one resident per acre then we won't have to be building all these fences. We could use the landscaping as our divider and keep our green space there. I respectfully request that you deny this. Anthes: Thank you Ms Keith. Would any other member of the public like to speak to this item? Seeing none I will close the.... Oh, please come forward. Hamlin: Hi. My name is Kelly Hamlin. I don't wish to repeat all the comments that I had last time, but I would like to add a bit of information that I did find out. I know that there is a subdivision that is proposed in Farmington that is just south.... I'm sorry, just west of this on the other side of Double Springs Rd. I would like to bring it to the Commission's attention that Farmington only has one.... Their lowest residential zoning is an RSF-1 zone which is what that is zoned. It is kind of a take it or leave it scenario there. I understand. I think I talked to... excuse Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 6 of 86 me. I think I talked to one of your Planners earlier, and I think Fayetteville was in that predicament several years ago. You know, I feel like if you compare it to the development in Farmington you are kind of comparing apples and oranges because, you know, one of the reasons for most of us going into Fayetteville was so that we had a little bit more protection with some of the additional zoning districts that Fayetteville has. I don't really feel like we would be getting that benefit like we had hoped for whenever we went into Fayetteville. As I said before, I do agree with Staff recommendation for an RSF-2 zone. I am completely fine with that. Anthes: Thank you Ms Hamlin. Would anyone else like to speak? Please come forward. Good evening. Jones: My name is Ted Jones, 152 Double Springs Rd. As I said two weeks ago, I was the first person to build a house out in this region in 1991. I have a map still in my closet of the planning areas from 1990. Farmington had no business zoning anything north or Sellers Rd. It was designated in 1988 for Fayetteville planning area. After speaking to a few people around the city.... back up a little bit. When I addressed the City Council in 1995 about the sewer plant my argument was not against the sewer plant but against where they put it. They were knocking out 1500 homes that could be used to pay for the plant. I built houses when I was a firefighter. I know what the limits builders go through. I have built several houses myself. I built the one I am in now. The point is that in 1995 I told the city that the west side is Fayetteville's growth area for a boom waiting to happen. What I am going to get at right now is that this doesn't need to be done piecemeal fashion. We need a massive zoning district for that whole region. I think that anything that comes up for re -zoning north of Sellers Rd, Highway 16, all the way over to the east side of the sewer plant should be included in this zoning district that I am going to propose. So, I just want to say this for the record so everyone can start thinking about it, put it in the back of their mind. These big chunks of open land cannot be piece mealed in. It is going to take a lot of your time that you need to spend doing other things, with the downtown district and so forth. Just look at all this land out there, the big open spaces, and do it in massive zoning districts. That is going to be the easiest thing on everybody. We get the meetings over -with and be done -with it. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you. Would any other member of the public like to address this re -zoning request? Seeing none I'll close the floor to public comment. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Good evening Mr. Jorgensen. Jorgensen: Good evening. My name is Dave Jorgensen, and I am representing Dunnerstock/ Windsor. As you know, this came before the Planning Commission two weeks ago. We have presented some additional information to the Staff, and I have Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 7 of 86 talked to the Staff quite a bit. Our request is to go to RSF-4. However, in my years of dealing with the city, it is hard to fight city hall. Can't do that. In this situation I guess we are going to have to agree that the RSF-2 recommendation from staff is what we will agree to. Anthes: Thank you very much. Commissioners? Question of staff. Have you reviewed the plats as approved by the county at 28 lots? Or Farmington at 28 lots? And have you convinced yourselves that the RSF-2 zoning district would allow that development? Pate: The 28 lots? Yes, it would. Anthes: And you are not concerned that the RSF-2 is a spot zone as you have stated in the staff report for RSF-4? Pate: I think in terms of a transition in this area staff would recommend the RSF-2 finding that the lot size and density in this area would be more compatible, as would any area that is all R -A and any variation of that zoning district is going to be somewhat of a start to some change in zoning. We had concerns with the RSF- 4 Simply because of the timing of infrastructure. There are findings that are required to be made before the zoning is justified and needed at this time. Also whether it would be consistent with the proposed.... er.... the city's land use plan objectives, and would it create or appreciably increase traffic and danger? We determine making positive findings in all of those regards with regard to RSF-4 zoning even with the build assurance that has been proposed. It was, It is our intent, and to make this public, we do feel that this is an area that will be more dense likely for (unclear), maybe even greater at some point in the future. It is simply the timing of this request is somewhat difficult to overcome from Staff's perspective. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Pate. Is there further discussion on...? Clark: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Motion: Clark: I am fairly... I am completely convinced that an RSF-4 zoning is way too dense and there would be spot zoning in that area. I'm inclined to say RSF-2 might be as well, but I don't think that this developer needs to be punished for a plat they have already had approved at one level. I will make the motion that we amend this recommendation to RSF-2 stating the fact as presented by staff and vote that Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 8 of 86 we.... make the motion that we forward it on with a favorable finding for RSF-2. Anthes: I have a motion to forward by Commissioner Clark. Do I hear a Second? Myres: Second. Anthes: Second by Commissioner Myers. Is there further discussion? Ostner: Madam Chair. This is a question for Staff. Currently the zoning here is RA. Is that accurate? Pate: Yes. Ostner: They do have approval to build this subdivision from Farmington when it was in the growth area of Farmington? Pate: That's what they have. Ostner: Ok. I'm just trying to imagine if no action were taken tonight, then this subdivision could possibly go ahead and get built... Pate: Yes. Ostner: And simply remain R -A. Pate: We would honor the previous approval... Ostner: Of course. Pate: Because obviously it was under a jurisdiction that was not under the city's at that point and time. It was under the City of Farmington, Washington County. However, like you mentioned, it would be sort of in -between -land because we wouldn't have the zoning to actually fit the lot size unless the lots in this particular property are 3/4 and acre to an acre to allow for septic or something that needs your.... Obviously with RSF-2 there may be more lots. It just depends on how the project lays out. We do have a larger lot standard for the RSF-2. Much larger than the RSF-4. Ostner: Ok. The current state of development with sewer taps, and whatnot... Would the current lot layout would be in compliance with R-2, of course? Pate: The current layout is all on a septic, so there are no sewer lines in the subdivision. Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 9 of 86 Ostner: Ok. Pate: If this were brought through the... Ostner: There are water taps planned at least. Pate: Did you say water? I'm sorry. Ostner: Well. I said both, but I was assuming water, of course. Pate: Ok. Yes, water is within the subdivision. I think this is City of Fayetteville water? Williams: Yes. Pate: Yes, so it would be within City of Fayetteville standards in that regard. Ostner: I was just wondering how many...? If water taps are in? If lots need to be shifted to comply with the RSF-2? Pate: We'll see eventually. This Planning Commission will actually approve a new preliminary plat under the RSF-2. If the City Council should decide to approve that we will go back through and look at it from the new plat to make sure that it meets those requirements. Ostner: Ok. So I guess the question for Mr. Jorgensen is that, is the RSF-2 satisfactory? You've already spoken with staff and you are not going to fight city hall on that one? Jorgensen: Our request was RSF-4, but we can see that is not going to happen, So RSF-2 is our revised request. That is true that we will have to bring a preliminary plat back through Planning Commission. Ostner: Ok. Jorgensen: Starting from the beginning. Ostner: Ok. You will just make it work with whatever has been installed. Jorgensen: Right. Ostner: Ok. Ok, thank you. Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 10 of 86 Anthes: I have a question for Staff. Did you also evaluate RSF-1, because I am assuming that if it was in the county and had septic systems, then they had to have minimum 1 acre lots. I wondered if you evaluated that as well. Pate: Actually this went forward before the one -acre lot was required, so they had less than an acre. You can go down to 10,000sq ft by county and City of Fayetteville regulations which is much less, obviously. It is about a quarter of an acre. This particular case they had individual septic systems on each one. It was about 3/4 of an acre, I think was the average. Is that correct? Anthes: About that. Right. Thank you. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to forward RZN 06-2344 Dunner/Windsor with recommendations carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Commissioner Graves was absent. R-PZD 06-2299: Planned Zoning District (RUSKIN HEIGHTS, 370): Submitted by COMMUNITY BY DESIGN, LLC for property located at WEST OF HWY 265/CROSSOVER RD., AND SOUTH OF MISSION BLVD. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 28.92 acres. Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 11 of 86 The request is for rezoning, Preliminary Plat, and partial development approval for a Master Development Plan of a Residential Planned Zoning District with a maximum of 295 attached and detached dwellings as well as 58,500 s.f. of non-residential space. The Preliminary Plat approval is for 67 lots containing 57 residential units and 19,182 s.f. of non-residential space. Anthes: Our first item of new business tonight is R-PZD 06-2299 planned zoning district for Ruskin Heights. The applicant has requested that this item be tabled indefinitely. I would like dispense with the staff report and go right to the vote if that is OK. Pate: We have not prepared a staff report for this item. We were informed that the applicant would like to table, and so no plats or booklets were distributed for your WI&INVA Williams: The only suggestion that I would have is that if someone had come here and decided to stay, they should maybe make a comment before the motion to table. Anthes: Would any member of the public like to speak to this planned zoning district? Seeing none we will go right to motions. Ostner: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: First I have a question on the notification. Since this is a proposed zoning change, do the adjoining neighbors have to be notified again? Pate: Actually, with a planned zoning district it is everyone within 100ft of the property. So it is usually more than just the adjoining property owners. When something is tabled indefinitely, this issue has come up before. Once an applicant has notified of a meeting and it is on your table and you table it indefinitely or until the next meeting there is no legal requirement to notify again. However, the City notifies in the paper before the meeting. Usually twice because we get the revisions that week ahead. Also, it is our policy as city staff in the Planning Division to require an applicant to go ahead and notify. That requirement I guess is more a request than a requirement. By code we can't require that. However, when an item is tabled indefinitely we do speak to an applicant and have them notified. Almost without exception they comply with that. Ostner: Ok. I just want to be clear on that because there are a lot of property owners who were talking about this tonight. Specifically by the letter of the law they will not Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 12 of 86 be notified again about the next meeting, but hopefully in a more informal way they will be notified is what you are saying? Pate: Yes. Actually, hopefully formally by certified mail. That is what we get, is certified mail. Ostner: Yes, but it is not actually a legal requirement. Pate: Correct. Ostner: I think that's important. Motion: Ostner: Madam Chair, I will request that we table indefinitely R-PZD 06-2299. Clark: Second. Anthes: I have a motion to table by Commissioner Ostner and a Second by Commissioner Clark. Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to table indefinitely R-PZD 06-2299 carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Commissioner Graves was absent. VAC 06-2363: (CRUZ BAY / 5 t STREET R -O -W, 523): Submitted by MANDY BUNCH for property located at NW CORNER OF 5TH ST. AND S. LOCUST. The property is zoned MSC, MAIN STREET CENTER and contains approximately 0.28 acres. The request is to vacate the right-of-way of 5th Street between S. School Ave. and S. Locust St. Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 13 of 86 VAC 06-2364: (CRUZ BAY / ALLEY, 523): Submitted by MANDY BUNCH for property located at NW CORNER OF 5TH ST. AND S. LOCUST. The property is zoned MSC, MAIN STREET CENTER and contains approximately .04 acres. The request is to vacate 150' of the 12' alley on the subject property. Anthes: The next two items are tandem items: Vacation request 06-2362 for Cruz Bay/ 5`h Street Right-of-way, and Vacation request 06-2364 for Cruz Bay alley. I will be recusing from these items and will ask Commissioner Ostner if he would Chair. Ostner: Thank you. If we could have the staff report, please? Fulcher: Mr. Chair, did you want to hear both of these item's descriptions at one time? Or...? Ostner: Sure. And we will vote independently on them. Fulcher: The first request is for the 5`h Street right-of-way vacation request by the applicant. This is a small section of 5`h St located between S School and Locust St. It is just north of 6th and just south of Archibald Yell. The applicant is requesting to vacate this with a proposal to redevelop the three lots that access 5th St at this location. The development would also cover the 5`h St area if vacated. There is a project booklet included in your packets for your review showing the proposed development design and layout. With the vacation of 5`h St, if it were forwarded and approved by City Council, the applicant plans to relocate existing overhead power lines and utility lines on S School, Locust, and 5`h St. Place all of those underground and also widen the existing sidewalk that is on the north side of 5`h St for a more pedestrian friendly mode of transportation between Locust St and S School. Staff is recommending that this item be forwarded for a few reasons. I'll cover a few of those. There is a minimal amount of traffic that currently utilizes 5`h St, mostly do to the fact that there are only 14 residences on Locust St and no businesses directly access this. The only properties that have frontage on 5th St are on the north side and are owned by the applicant/owner/developer for this request. Also there is only a short distance, approximately 300ft between the location on 5`h St and Archibald Yell to the north, and 6`h St to the south. There is a controlled intersection at S School and 6`h St that help facilitate those residences on Locust St. Also looking at redevelopment of this property, if 5`h St was not vacated, but only the lots on the north Side of 5`h St if redevelopment occurs obviously additional traffic would be generated. That traffic heading west on 5`h St comes to the intersection of S School. In Staff's opinion that location where that intersects S School is somewhat of a peculiar situation for vehicles, especially with a great deal more Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 14 of 86 traffic that could be generated to the south. Approximately 30ft south is the curb - cut for Walgreen's which has full access in and out of that property. Also when trying to turn south onto S School you are going to run into conflict with the traffic light which is approximately 30011 to the south. So really the traffic conflicts that could be generated with this street remaining and redevelopment of those properties on the north; Staff feels could be a dangerous situation in the future. That among other reasons is why Staff is recommending that the vacation of the 5 t St right-of-way be forwarded to the City Council with the recommendation for approval. On the alley request. The subject alley is located, again, between Locust and S School. It intersects 5`h St, and to the north it intersects Archibald Yell as you come down the S -curves, as they're called. Staff is recommending that this un -constructed alley right-of-way be vacated. One of the reasons is that the alley south of this, the platted alley, has been vacated by the City Council previously. A connection could not be made any further beyond 5`h St. Also, looking at where the alley would intersect Archibald Yell there is a steep incline. It may not even be possible to necessarily construct it, but more importantly your site line distances to your east and west where that intersected, because of the curves and terrain on Archibald Yell, Staff would not be supportive of that right-of-way to be constructed any time in the future because of those reasons. Staff is recommending that the item, the alley vacation, be forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation for approval. There is a fairly long list of the conditions of approval for the right-of-way vacation, and approximately two conditions of approval for the alley vacation. Those are very specific to the utilities that are existing between these lots within the alley, crossing the alley with the right-of-way. Multiple comments have been made by the various utility representatives, and that is what those conditions of approval cover. Specifically, if either or both of these vacations are approved by the Council the applicant should pay very close attention to these conditions of approval and coordinate the installation, relocation, or removal of these utilities with all the appropriate utility representatives. If you have any specific questions, please ask. Ostner: Ok. Thank you Mr. Fulcher. Are there any comments from the public? Would anyone like to speak to this issue? Ok. I am going to close public comment section and ask the applicant for a presentation. If you could introduce yourself and show us your project. Bunch: Sure. Hoping I'm not going to lose all these papers tonight. My name is Mandy Bunch and I am here representing Cruz Bay LLC. Jesse has covered all of the issues extremely well. I thought that the staff report was very thorough with those items. The owners, first of all, want to go ahead and give.... We have been working with.... The owners have been working with Walgreen's to actually procure something in writing that they are in favor of all these things, and they Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 15 of 86 just got it tonight. I am going to give this to Jesse. Also, further, I just want to address that they are in agreement with all the conditions of approval on both items except for item number 6 on the right-of-way vacation request. That basically is to.... I've discussed this at length with staff after I received their report. Staff is wanting to ensure access between School and Locust with a dedicated access easement. A couple of items we discussed in that regard. It is customary for commercial multifamily residential uses to actually have some semblance of a cross access between those. That was originally what I thought the comment was regarding. Apparently that was not. What I want to speak to you the issue regarding the safety of the intersection at 5`h St. I feel like what we have done is we have worked through this and we have worked with Staff through several iterations of a development plan trying to maximize the use of that property there while maintaining - sticking with - all of the ordinances. They have changed since we have started. We are actually trying to create a good transition zone between (unclear development name) in the downtown districts and the existing neighborhood residential zone that is directly to the east across Locust. What the owners are proposing to do is to improve Locust St along our entire frontage and also to take all of the overhead power lines, including an aerial crossing that is currently over S. School, underground. To compensate we believe some of the things the city may think they are losing with the 5`h St right- of-way. Once I've drawn the block lengths in the area - and I don't want to give you too much because I know you all don't want to hear all the nuts and bolts here - but basically we had some discussion about keeping access open and available to residences on Locust. I want to point out that because of the geometry of the roadways in the area closing 5th St actually.... People on Locust have access to the same street in both directions with the same distance, and that is around 300ft. The code requires a block length of 300 to 1400ft and existing block length is right at 30011. If we closed this street it goes to 66511. We are well within that expected range. We are right at the halfway point, as a matter of fact. Also I want to point out that this street is not open to the west across School, and it is also not open to the east across Locust. That decision was made a long time ago for that not to be any resemblance of a connection between School and to the east. We are here for any questions and I know Jeff Collins is here to address some of the housing issues and some of the economic considerations there as to what we are actually offering with this project. I am here to answer anything, hopefully! I will try to answer any questions that you may have. Ostner: Now I just have to interject here that the economics of this project are not allowed to be considered. Collins: I understand. Ostner: We're not allowed to... Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 16 of 86 Collins: I only intend to speak to the vacation. Thank you though. Ostner: Ok. Collins: I appreciate that. First, my name is Jeff Collins. I am one of the owners of the property. Thank you very much for giving me an opportunity to speak to you. When we began to look at this particular development we immediately went to Planning Staff to... It had always been our intent to work with the city and be to be a good partner to the city. We... The iterations of the project plan that you have in front of you, I think most of you have a booklet that shows sort of where we've been. Those iterations were really in conjunction with our conversations with the city. This isn't something.... we didn't.... we never came up with the idea that we would ask for a vacation and that that was going to be part of our overall development strategy. It is something that evolved as we looked at the piece of property that we had. We were trying to think about all the best ways in which we could use that property to encourage redevelopment of S Fayetteville. One of the great things about Staff is that they were very creative as we worked with them and talked with them. Again through this process we came up with the plan that is in front of you today which is the vacation. I realize that it is a very unusual circumstance for us to be in front of you asking to vacate a city street. I think that is probably right. I think that vacating a city street ought to be something that is a very unusual occurrence, and so I wouldn't be here in front of you if the circumstances didn't warrant my being here. Again, those circumstances come from the way Archibald Yell curves and how it creates a very strange sort of geographic area. The block is truncated at the north because of the curve. It is a difficult piece of property to work with so you have to be creative when you start to try to deal with that piece of property. We want to be good partners and we know when we ask for a vacation we are asking for something from you. We want to give back to you. Not you, per say, but the citizens of Fayetteville. The street is... if we were to think about the value proposition here, the street is a very underutilized street. There is a conflict with the ingress and egress to the Walgreen's right there. It is a very short distance between where 5a' St is and where the ingress and egress is to Walgreen's. If you have had a chance to drive down there you can see that is a very short distance. In addition, there aren't many cars.... 66 on average, according to Traffic, that utilize that street. 66 cars is not a lot of cars, particularly when those cars are trying to circumvent the light. Basically people are saying "I don't have to wait for a light, I'll go around." In the end, because it is an under utilized street, we thought about how we could give back and that came down to baring lines. Things we would not normally have been asked to do. Improving the street along Locust and dedicating a pedestrian access back and forth. We are more than open to suggestions, but what you need... What I hope you understand is that this has been Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 17 of 86 a process. We have been at this, not for a month or two months or three months, but for multiple months working with Staff trying to come up with the absolute best development possible for the city. So if you have any questions I would be happy to answer them. I hope that maybe you have had an opportunity to look at the site and you can see the unique set of circumstances that we deal with on that site. Again, I am more than happy to do anything I can to answer your concerns. Thank you. Ostner: Ok. Thank you, Mr. Collins. If that concludes the presentation I will ask the Commissioners for their comments. Myres: Mr. Chair, I am not real clear... and I don't know who can answer this for me? Why is that 24ft access easement is not going to work for this project? Somehow I just didn't pickup on that. So whoever can... if Ms Bunch can answer that I would appreciate it. Bunch: I'll try. I haven't been directly involved in these conversations with Walgreen's, but the fact that if we were to dedicate a 24ft access easement through that parking lot in the event... You know, 15, 20 years.... standard retail cycle.... something changes in that property and a new owner is being looked for and all those sorts of things. Basically that easement encumbers that property. There is an existing utility easement, a 20ft utility easement already so if we add another 24ft we have basically chopped off 45ft of usable property on that commercial corner. That is the short and long of it. Our thoughts are that there is no way that Walgreen's are going to agree to do that. We feel like if we have to meet that requirement we won't be able to proceed with the project. I mean it is pretty much a deal killer. Myres: So, Jeremy, am I clear that what we are asking for here is an adjacent property owner to dedicate a 2411 access easement on their property? Pate: It is. On the Walgreen's' property. This right-of-way, if vacated, typically half of each goes to each property owner. This particular property owner is purchasing or acquiring that right-of-way back to build upon where the right-of-way originally stood. We felt that it was prudent to have an access point here. There is obviously already an access point. If you were driving along Locust St tonight and utilized Walgreen's site you are entering private property to do so. However, we do feel that the project as a whole, this project at 5`h St stayed where it was, the density that this unit proposes occurs having both 5th St and that Walgreen's access side-by-side could potentially present a conflict simply because you would have additional traffic on the street plus the Walgreen's site access making turning motions in very close proximity to one another. So I think that supersedes a lot of our concern here. The access easement was primarily to provide another Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 18 of 86 means of ingress and egress to.... I think it is noted that there are 14 property owners to this entire block, including the property owners east of Locust. Obviously it does meet our standard block length. If you look at the maps that are provided for you with your standard application package it is page 16 of 18. You can see if that right of way is not located along that area in that one block it is very similar to other blocks in that area in terms of block length. That was simply one of the conditions we were recommending to you. If you don't feel it is appropriate you can remove that condition. Myres: I really liked that. Thank you very much. Williams: I think that I would strongly support that condition being included. It is extremely rare to close a city street. The last time I remember one being actually closed, the applicant was required to build a replacement city street several feet away. The reason for that is that all the people on Locust there that you see on page 15 and 16, at least the ones that are up there around the.... in northern area of Locust St all have access easements on 5th St. 5`h St is still being used, as the applicant stated 66 cars a day, so it doesn't meet one of the tests for vacating streets which means they haven't been used in 5 years. Well, this gets used everyday. The other part of the test is that there is no corporate purpose for this street. Well, it is being used so it seems to me there is a corporate purpose. That might be able to be rectified by the access easement that would be granted by Walgreen's which stands to earn money out of this deal by selling their portion of the vacated street back to the developers. If they don't want to do that then I think that this is a questionable project from a legal point of view. I have yet to see.... You know it is possible that they still would be able to meet one of those standards, but I would certainly think the city would need to see consent and agreements signed by every landowner on Locust St from 6`h St north who all would be able to have access to that. And, of course, there are other citizens who are not going through that light who are using it who don't live there. This is a very unusual situation and there are.... Unless you believe, and of course this would be the City Council's final decision. You are making a recommendation to them. But the recommendation must be that there is no corporate purpose for this street or that it hasn't been used in the last 5 years. I think that that is a difficult standard and probably justifiably so. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Williams. My questions are for staff. I guess this is very rare, and I believe in the 5 years I have been here I have never seen it. Sorry, I will get to my question. The 24ft access easement staff basically wants preserved for possible traffic circulation. Am I understanding that? Pate: Yes. Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 19 of 86 Ostner: Ok. So it is sort of a small street, possibly, or something that will go through in perpetuity as opposed to nothing. Or that is what the point of number 6 is, if I am understanding it. Pate: Yes. It would be along the north side of the Walgreen's building which already has access onto Locust and has access onto S School. Essentially the same tract pattern that is being provided by 5`h St as it currently exists. Probably 25ft, 30ft. south of 5`h St. It would provide the same function as a public access easement allowing ingress and egress from Locust to 6th St and vice versa.... or.... S School and vice a versa. That is the intent of that condition. Williams: That would do two things. The owners of the property on Locust St have access easement rights to the street. But if you substituted this other access easement that is parallel to in maybe you would have satisfied there constitutional rights to maintain their access easement. That is why I think that is a good condition of approval and might make this... It does make this much more legally defendable. Ostner: Ok. So that 24ft would be basically half of the right of way that we, the city, would be vacating? Or... I'm not quite understanding which 24ft? Is that half of the current 24ft right or way? Pate: Not in that location. Its 24ft on existing drive isle that is north of Walgreen's. It is already constructed pavement. Ostner: Ok. Pate: It's just in that driveway essentially. Ostner: It is through Walgreen's' parking lot. Pate: Exactly. Ostner: Ok. That is what I suspected and that worries me. I am wondering if we have ever required access easements through private parking lots as a substitute before. Pate: In my... Ostner: Where circulation was important and well... Pate: We have required access easements in lieu of a street. There was vacation of right or way on a street that was not constructed. The purpose of that was to build a private street and then have an access easement over it. It was constructed to public street standards. The only reason for that was because of setbacks Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 20 of 86 essentially. That was in south Fayetteville, southeast Fayetteville. It was not constructed to street (unclear), so yes, you are exactly right that this is very rare to have a constructed public street to be vacated. That is why this vacation has 10 conditions of approval in our review of it. And as Mr. Collins mentioned we have been working at this for several months to come to some terms where we as Planning Staff felt that it was appropriate to recommend it to you with these conditions. Ostner: Thank you. That just worries me to call a parking tot a somewhat street or a way that the public needs to get through from here to there. Parking lots aren't set up right. People stand around and walk. Streets are different. People don't walk around in them looking for their cars and stuff. That worries me. Also, the low volume on this street might only be 6 cars a day, but this entire area is under development right now. Just a sec... Collins: Sure. Ostner: The Mill is established but the Walgreen's is really the only other part of this entire intersection that is even approaching what I would call an appropriate sense of development. The southeast corner is totally underdeveloped and I can't believe that it hasn't already happened. It might be happening on someone's desk right now. I see that 60 a day jumping to 120, 180, 200 a day. The only people really using 5th are people, it would seem to me, who live nearby. People who are going long distances probably don't think that way. There are other ways that you can go up Locust and you can just go straight to the right. So I think that on down the line as development happens, this street could be used more. Also, when the Dover Kohl group came one of the justifications of the street grid downtown... And I forget the gentleman's name who was the traffic engineer... He explained lots of lefts. When you are driving you need lots of options to turn left. He illustrated that if you are heading north on 71 and you go past the County Court House you have lots of lefts. You don't have to go to Dickson. In fact, people turn left early to avoid Dickson `cause it is a heavy intersection. And that is how this little street is used right now. Very few people. 60 a day. But a very, I think, underdeveloped area. Those are some of my concerns. The fact that there is s curb -cut 30ft to the south of here, I believe.... talking about that is trying to make two wrongs make a right. That curb -cut shouldn't be there. I am afraid that we are going to rely on an improper parking lot layout to solve future traffic issues. Collins: If.. Ostner: Just a second. I just want to make sure any other Commissioners wanted to speak. Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 21 of 86 Trumbo: Mr. Chair. Ostner: Yes, Commissioner Trumbo. Trumbo: We have turned down projects for not allowing for paved stub -outs. There are several issues with connectivity, and I agree with you. There's ah... this area is going to become more dense. If there are 66 cars already using it today, as this area densifies, that is going to increase. I guess I have a question for staff. Is this not connectivity? Do you not consider this....? Does staff not consider this an important part of connectivity? Pate: Sure, in terms of street connections through to connect these two blocks. I think in looking at the overall block length, however, it is still a very short block even without the street. The 600ft is the... our low is 400, so it is still very low in terms of actual block length to connect from 6`h St to Archibald Yell. The amount of traffic utilizing it currently is not great. 5th St has been vacated on both sides; the east side of Locust and the north side of School. So the actual connections through aren't, as a true grid system, aren't possible anymore. There is simply one remaining remnant piece of street that has been constructed. Otherwise it has been taken out by previous City Councils. In terms of conditions we felt that the redevelopment, there are two vacant houses currently on the property that are quite dilapidated. Two or three. There are significant improvements which would include the relocation of overhead electric lines that go along Locust, 51' St, and across School Ave which would put all of those underground. We thought that was a huge improvement on the south side of Fayetteville to go on revitalizing that area. Promoting walk -ability, obviously, with pedestrian connections, we felt was important too. But you are exactly right. In terms of connectivity we utilize that and promote that as certainly a positive thing. Street frontage also is something that we talk about a lot in terms of revitalization. In this case, and to be quite frank with you, it was not an easy decision. That is why there are 10 conditions. You usually have 1 or 2 and it says relocation of utilities are at the owner/developer's expense. But we felt with everything that has been added we actually have an additional condition that we would like for you to consider as well basically stating that this is a project that if this vacation is approved this project in concept should go forward. Otherwise it is null and void. In balancing all of these things we felt that vacating right-of-way in this particular application there were more benefits than there were detrimental impacts. Harris: Mr. Chair. Ostner: Thank you, Commissioner Trumbo. Yes, Ms. Harris. Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 22 of 86 Harris: Just, I need to go over some ground we have already covered with Mr. Pate. The staff is actually finding against the Transportation Superintendent's findings, in a sense. Is that correct? Pate: That is correct. Harris: And just to tell folks watching that the City of Fayetteville's Transportation Superintendent wrote that he objects to the closing because of 5t" St uses by local residents as an outlet when the 6`h St traffic signal backs up to Locust. If I am understanding this correctly Mr. Pate the only reason you feel capable, or you feel fine, with doing... with finding against the superintendent is this 24ft easement. Is that correct? Pate: That is certainly one of the reasons that we are finding in favor of this. Harris: Good. Are there others that I am missing? Pate: All of the conditions that you have listed. Harris: Ok. Ok. Pate: Everything that you have there and all of our findings that we have made. It's also unique that we have a utility representative or representative from the city that doesn't agree. There are times when the Fire Department or the Police Department, for instance, doesn't agree with the zoning and we still make a recommendation. We as staff are given the position to make a recommendation compiling all of these comment sheets and giving them to you. So... Certainly taking into consideration every finding that you have... That's why we included them in your staff report last week. You should go over them, of course, in detail on all of these findings that are included as part of that packet. Harris: If I may just say..? I certainly do... Of course, this is a vacation and so Mr. Chair really I am not looking at any proposal. I really need.... I want to sort of bring it back down to that. Ostner: Basically, yes. They've provided those as a courtesy. Harris: Right. Ostner: It is just a vacation. Harris: Because you look at that and you think "boy that sure would look nice sitting Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 23 of 86 down there on that corner". On the other hand what we have to do here.... again, just to remind the folks watching us, is to speak specifically about this vacation and whether or not we feel the traffic issues can handle that. Let me pull back for a moment. Thanks. Ostner: Ok. Commissioner Clark? Clark: Jeremy, this is a question for you because I am just a little confused. There is a street that runs behind Walgreen's and beside this property. There is 5`h St that is a perfectly good street, curb there and the whole nine yards. Pate: It's not fully constructed on the south side. Clark: So we are wanting to vacate that right-of-way, but make a different way into Walgreen's? Give up 24ft for an easement so people can still get from Locust to S School instead of using what we are vacating? Pate: That would be up to this applicant to acquire that access. Clark: But if it is acquired then we are going to require that Walgreen's let people drive in their parking lot to get across. So we are going to be condoning parking lot transecting two streets. We are going to be encouraging people to drive through a parking lot to get from point A on Locust to point B on S School. True? Pate: Yes, that is our policy of cross access on streets and neighborhoods... Clark: Once upon a time I was told it was illegal. But you know, who knows. To use a parking lot as a ....? Williams: Not if there is a public access easement there. Clark: Ok. It seems like this is.... I'm way uncomfortable with doing this simply because there a street there. People are using that street there. There are not a lot of them using that, that is very true but, you know, it is not their fault they live on a short street. I don't see a compelling reason to vacate this right -off -way. The alley, no problem. Slam dunk. I think that is an easy vacation. I am struggling with the right-of-way. Yes, I know that I am not supposed to look at the building and stuff. It is a beautiful building, etc, but I don't think that a beautiful building should still circumvent the rights of the people who are using the street that they are used to using for transportation. I certainly.... Surely there could be something else worked out that would allow everybody to get what they wanted. People to get from Locust to S School and this building still be constructed. I'm not personally willing to compromise so much in terms of this right-of-way, Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 24 of 86 however to facilitate that. I will not be supporting this vacation. I will however be supporting the alley vacation if you sill want that. Lack: Mr. Chair. Ostner: Mr. Lack. Lack: I always really hate to be totally negative, so I am really glad that we are looking at the alley dedication as well. (Laughing) Lack: I see that as an easy vacation and one that a segment that would be impractical to build. I do think that with 5`h St that is an active street for the length and the access that it carries now, I, too think that the proposal is attractive. I hope that something can be worked out within the bounds of the allowable land that exists there now for development. I would not be in support of the city giving away an active street. I wouldn't go so far as to be amenable to the easement through the parking lot as well. Ostner: I see. Motion: Lack: I think that that is.... I think that with that I will go ahead and make a motion that we deny vacation 06-2363. Clark: I'll second. Ostner: I have a motion to deny by Commissioner Lack and a second by Commissioner Clark. Before we vote the applicant has asked me to speak. Collins: Please. Ostner: If you would like to, go ahead. Collins: The process is certainly interesting and certainly appreciated; the City Attorney's comments and your deliberations. Here is what I would suggest to you. If we sat here tonight and there was no street there and I was asking you to put that street there I guarantee that your decision would be exactly the opposite based on the number of people who drive on that street. The fact that there is no connectivity to the next block or the other direction. The size of the block being so short I have to think that the counter would be an entirely different discussion. Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 25 of 86 Particularly if you thought we were going to somehow going to make money from the creation of a street as an opposed to the vacation of a street. I think it is disappointing when you look at the point that, for example, the block that I live on is no longer than the block that we would be asking you to create. We drive that street everyday and I don't look for my neighbors to vacate their property so you can put a street through so it can be two shorter blocks. I find it just very, very disappointing. I think there are other... there are a lot of ways when you start talking about development in the area... Well who develops it? Who are these people who are going to develop it? Welt, it's my partner and I who are looking to create the reason for those streets in the first place. There are very few people who live on Locust St as you well know. There has been redevelopment on the Mill side. On this side of the street, with the exception of Walgreen's there has not been any real redevelopment. There aren't a lot of people beating down the doors right now. It is a very odd piece of property. That block is a very oddly shaped block. We are looking to create value for the city and it we did not come to the process thinking about vacation. We arrived at vacation after many, many hours of... Ostner: Mr. Collins I need you to kind of wrap up the comments.... Collins: The point being... Ostner: These have all been said already. Collins: The point being that I doubt I will change any of your minds, however there are a lot of things to consider here and I hope that you will take all of them into consideration. Thank you. Ostner: Thank you. We have a motion to deny by Commissioner Lack. A second by Commissioner Clark. Are there any further comments before we vote? Myres: I would just like to make one comment. Ostner: Thank you. Myres: The reason that I am going to support the denial has nothing at all to do with the value of the project or the fact that it would be a wonderful addition to that neighborhood. I think there needs to be something worked out so that people are not using a parking lot, whether or not it is vacated. Or access easement, pardon me. I don't think that is a useful, or safe, or intelligent solution to providing access from one street to another street even though everybody does it everyday. That still doesn't make it ideal, and it doesn't make it right. The reason that I am going to support the denial has really nothing to do with the project itself. It has Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 26 of 86 to do with the fact that there will be no safe access from School to Locust in the middle of the block if this is approved as presented. Thanks. Ostner: Thank you, Commissioner Myers. Any further comments before we vote? Will you call the roll Jeremy? Roll Call: The motion to table VAC 06-2363 carries with a vote of 7-0-1. Commissioner Anthes recused, Graves was absent. Motion: Ostner: Commissioner Clark. Clark: I would like to move that we approve vacation VAC 06-2364 with agreement with the findings and conditions of approval. Myres: I'll second. Ostner: Thank you. On our next item, our tandem item, VAC 06-2364 we have motion to approve by Commissioner Clark and a second by Commissioner Myres. Is there any discussion? Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: The motion to approve VAC 06-2364 carries with a vote of 7-0-1. Commissioner Anthes recused, Commissioner Graves was absent. CUP 06-2367: (TEMPLE SHALOM OF NWA, 442): Submitted by PARK CO. ARCHITECTS for property located at 699 N. SANG AVENUE, S END OF CLEVELAND. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.82 acres. The request is for a cultural/recreational facility (Use Unit 4) in the RSF-4 Zoning District. Ostner: Our next item. I'm not sure where our Chair is, but she should be notified. Clark: Here she is. Ostner: Thank you. Our next item is conditional use 06-1892 for Temple Shalom of Northwest Arkansas. If we could start with the staff report? Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 27 of 86 Garner: This property is located at 699 Sang Ave. It is immediately west of the intersection of Cleveland St. There is an existing single family house on the 0.82 acre property. This site is surrounded by residential land in an RSF-4 zoning district to the north and east. There is agricultural use and pasture to the west and the south. The applicant proposes to remove the existing single family structure on the property and construct a new 6,640 sq It Temple and 30 space parking lot. The site plan and architectural renderings of this facility have been included in the packets. These are the exhibits there that Jesse just put up. Staff has not received public comment on this application. The applicant did meet with members of the Sang Valley Neighborhood Association at their request to offer any information about the request that was available. Staff does find that granting conditional use for this temple would be compatible with the neighborhood appropriate design measures and conditions of approval in place. On the surrounding properties, they are all single family residential or agricultural and the proposed temple would not adversely change the character of the neighborhood or other uses in the area. The agricultural uses would not be adversely impacted either. Other uses in the vicinity include a Senior Activity Center to the north. The University of Arkansas is pretty close to the east. There are also some commercial properties on Wedington in the general vicinity. The general uses and architectural design of this temple we feel would be compatible with the neighborhood and we are recommending approval with several conditions. I will go over a couple of these. Condition of approval number one is determination of compatibility. I have just mentioned what Staffs recommendation is. Condition number two is determination of sidewalk improvement. The City Sidewalk Administrator recommended that money in lieu could be paid instead of construction of sidewalk. As we discussed in our agenda secession, if the applicant wishes to construct a sidewalk they have that right to do so. We have several conditions here to make sure that the design and the lighting and so forth would be appropriate for the neighborhood. Condition six is related to the types of light fixture that would be allowed. We are recommending that they be reviewed not only for our regular lighting ordinance, but also for some type of architectural standard, a low scale type of lighting to blend in with the neighborhood. Condition number eleven is just that the design of the temple should be consistent with the concepts and their renderings that are presented. There are also some grading and drainage issues in the area. We have discussed this with the applicant and we have added condition number twelve that the City Engineering staff will need to review and determine if off-site draining and drainage improvements may be required for this development. These would be evaluated in detail at the time of construction review. That covers the highlights of what I wanted to bring forward. Just let me know if you have any questions. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Garner and Commissioner Ostner. Would any member of the public like to address this conditional use permit 06-1892 for Temple Shalom for Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 28 of 86 Northwest Arkansas? Please come forward. Heckathorn: I'm Donald Heckathorn, I live at 601 Sang. I own the property to the west and to the south. I didn't have any idea that it was pasture/agriculture. It has all been subdivided but hasn't been developed yet. The lots are all there. I don't know if anybody.... if the Commission if you have looked at this property. Anthes: We have. Yes. Heckathorn: The actual building that is there now is 6ft below grade, lower than Sang Ave is. The building that's there now has 2,050sq ft in it. This building they are proposing is three times that size. It's going to be a.... I don't see how they are going to get it on there. The thing about it is that this lot slopes to the south and to the west. And actually, the lot is two sides where my property adjoins it. The third side is the pits. The water is going to have to go somewhere and it is not going across my property. There is no way you are going to get drainage to go uphill. I have no intention of giving anyone an easement which someone had mentioned the fact in conversation we had given permission to do that. Well you don't have permission to do that. I don't know, and I'm not familiar with zoning, but is there a particular zoning that is all RA -1 now, but is there a particular zoning for churches? Anthes: No. Williams: They are allowed in RSF-4 with conditional use which is what they are requesting now. There is also the P-1 Institutional where they are allowed as of right. Heckathorn: Ok. Because the nearest church is seven blocks away. I don't... there are several things that bother me and I am going to through them. I made notes here this afternoon. The property is, the driveway is directly across the street from where Cleveland intersects with Sang. I have lived there since 1964, and I bet I've seen 15 cars go out of control down Cleveland and go straight through that lot and back to my property. The Pitts property which is just north of there has a big highway blockage, or whatever you want to call it. A guard rail? The city has to replace that about twice a year from people coming down that hill. So the thing I'm saying is the driveway... I thought there was, and I may be wrong, but I thought there an issue with a driveway being closer that 100ft to an intersection. Anthes: Mr. Heckathorn? We are not considering the development plan tonight. We are only considering the conditional use. So we really can't talk about alignment or driveways or anything. Heckathorn: Ok. Alright. Do I need to... Do I have the opportunity to voice my objections? Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 29 of 86 Anthes: Well, we really need to confine the discussion to the conditional use itself. If this goes through and passes there will be a time to review the development plan. Heckathom: Alright then, thank you. Pate: This will not come... Anthes: Oh, that's right. This is under an acre? Pate: Yes. Anthes: So that will be administratively approved? Pate: That is correct. Anthes: So how does the public get their comments to you for one of those? Pate: If they wish to submit any comments they are always welcome to. But usually building permits simply come in through our process. I would mention that really the closest thing is item A under findings "ingress and egress to the property and proposed structures with reference to automotive and pedestrian safety is considered with conditional use". So the access, and maybe Mr. Heckathorn hasn't seen the plans, the access is proposed to be relocated from where it currently exists to much further south on the property. Roughly across from the house that is on the east side of Sang Ave. I'm not sure if you have seen the plans that we have here. Anthes: If you would like to come back up and address the development issues I will allow it since it is an administratively approved item. Heckathorn: Well, I guess I don't know where to go with this other than I haven't seen a plot plan. The thing is this will affect my property. The value of my property will go down. This is all subdivided. The reason I am being kind of hard headed about letting them put a drainage structure across my property is because it would have to go across some building lots that are already platted. And I am not going to devalue my property to get drainage off this lot. It is a dangerous intersection. I don't know if any... there have been several wrecks since I've been there with people coming out of that driveway going up onto Sang. Even if you move it down you still have a very busy intersection. There is a traffic counter, one of those things going across the road, and I think if you will get that information of that here very shortly you will find that that is very busy street. It's a dangerous intersection. The thing about it, with this lot sitting as low as it sets, which I say Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 30 of 86 is 6ft below the street level on Sang, that means they are going to have to build this lot up an awful lot. And like I said, there is no place to go but through my place for the water. So... if this thing does go through, and I know this is not time to discuss it, but we will have problems with that. I appreciate you all listening to me and I know this is.... You are going to have to hear it again I think. Thank you. Anthes: Would any other member of the public like to address this conditional use permit? Good evening. Pitts: I'm Carmen Pitts and I live on Sang Ave. at the foot of Cleveland St and my property joins this. I just don't think when it is zoned residential it should be changed for any reason. And the other thing is how many of you would like to live next door to a 30 car parking lot? I don't think that is very desirable. They may not know it but when there is a game, after the game there is about 2 hours before the traffic is anything but bumper to bumper. If their services are on Friday night I don't know how they will get in and out. I hope you will consider. I have lived there for 39 years, and I know that water has stood in an underground spring next to my property where they are proposing to put the driveway. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you Ms. Pitts. Would any other member of the public like to speak? Heckathorn: Thank you. I'm Jack Heckathorn I live on 2117 Lauren Circle. It buts into Sang Av, so for 20 years I have lived there. I make that drive every morning to go to work. Even during the times that you would think that it wouldn't be busy when you go north on Sang approaching Cleveland I have seen.... During the weekday's cars, 8 to 10 cars backed up waiting for traffic there at that intersection there to make the turn to go up Cleveland. That is a dangerous intersection and I have seen wrecks there too over the years. Because, you know, a lot of times people won't yield. There is also a lot of pedestrians that walk over in that area. That is a residential area. I am all for their plan, but I would like to see it build into more of a commercial area than a residential area. There is a lot of traffic there, and as Ms Pitts was saying game days or game nights I have to wait for certain times before I leave my home to come back to Sang because traffic is lined up bumper to bumper. I personally I just don't think that it would be a safe move to do this. Thank you very much. Anthes; Thank you very much. Would anybody else like to address this item? Seeing none I will close the floor to public comment. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Ostner: Madam Chair. I'm going give my drawing to Mr. Heckathorn. Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 31 of 86 Feldman: My name is William Feldman. I live 16 N Sang and I am presently serving as president of Temple Shalom. We have been formally a congregation in Fayetteville for about 25 years. We have been informally a congregation for longer than that. At least for the 35 years that I have been in Fayetteville. We've never had our own home, so we are looking forward to having the opportunity to have a home of our own in Fayetteville. This we hope will be a viable option for us. I'll turn this over to our architect who knows more than I do. Park: I'm Bret Park. Park Co. Architects is designing this facility. We are really happy to be here and happy to answer any questions that you have. A few very brief comments that I would like to make: One is in response to some drainage issues. There are some existing conditions that happen uphill, east on Sang from us, that this property necessarily sheds that water as well. We won't be attracting any more rain to this property as a result of our building here. We aren't really changing the net amount of water that comes to this site. The greatest issue, and we've talked to the city about this and we've been in an ongoing conversation with our civil engineer about it, that there are some conditions that probably will require some attention in addressing drainage issues. So any issue of any neighbor would be an issue of this property as well and we are prepared to address those. I think another important thing I would like to point out is that we have tried very sincerely to attend every neighborhood meeting that we could. We have been to an officers meeting of University Heights and I presented the project at that time. We went to a Sang Valley Neighborhood Association meeting and presented the project there. We also attended a Ward 4 meeting on November 27, I think, and presented the building at that time. Until tonight we have had really broad support from everyone. We haven't heard.... We've had some serious questions. Questions that are very similar to the comments that were made tonight, but we had the opportunity to address those at those meetings and I feel like we had a good positive result from that. Besides that, it has always been the desire of the temple congregation and their building committee to develop a design that is consistent with the neighborhood. We don't want to try to make a building that looks like a house, but we would like to have a design that fits well within a neighborhood of homes. The traffic use, the congregation has been meticulous in measuring their own use and their own schedule and their own patterns. I think the assessment is a really valuable one and a valid one that their total traffic actually results in something that is something very similar to two single family houses per year in terms of number of trips. I think those are some important points to make. I would be really happy to answer any questions. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Park. Commissioners, any comments? Trumbo: Madam Chair. Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 32 of 86 Anthes: Commissioner Trumbo. Trumbo: Question for Staff. Can you talk to me about the detention on this site? Pate: Sure. Typically a project of this size I don't believe would require detention. However, that is exactly why we put condition number twelve in there. We heard some concerns from neighbors at the neighborhood meeting and also spoke, the applicant has spoken, I believe, with their engineering staff and were looking at possible improvements. There actually are existing conditions that a developer would not typically be required to fix. I don't that we are looking at them in this application to fix every problem that is existing coming off the mountain on the west side coming down onto Cleveland and Sang. However there is, I think, something that could be done in proportion to the development that is occurring here that might include the detention on this property. That is something that our city Engineering Staff would review. There is a grading, drainage, and a tree preservation plan required for this project. My thought is that a building permit will have to go through that review as well. Obviously it cannot exacerbate any off site drainage condition. And if this takes detention to do that, then that is what it would take. Trumbo: I think that's important since we won't see this again and it will be administratively looked at. There won't be any excess water coming off this property from this development. That is what you are saying? Pate: Correct. Trumbo: Ok. Thank you. Myres: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Myres. Myres: I just wanted to bring up condition number two. There was some discussion, and I don't even know where it came from, about the congregation preferring to actually construct the sidewalk rather than pay money in lieu? And I don't know if this needs to be discussed or... Pate: City Staff did look at our code, and it states that if an applicant is.... Well, essentially if an applicant.... for any conditional use a Sidewalk Administrator makes a recommendation. If the Sidewalk Administrator recommends waiving the sidewalk construction then the applicant has two choices. Either they can go ahead and construct the sidewalk or they can pay the money in lieu option. Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 33 of 86 Myres: Ok. Pate: They had, the Sidewalk Administrator, has recommended payment in money -of - lieu, but if the applicant wants to go ahead and construct that sidewalk in accordance with city regulation they can do so. So I do want to clarify that comment that we made at agenda session that the applicant can construct the sidewalk as long as it meets our city regulations. Myres: I just wanted to make sure that that option is still available. Pate: That is provided in our ordinance. It is not an ordinance I am that familiar with, so... Anthes: Following up on that, I would like to ask some questions of the applicant. Have you looked at the grading for that sidewalk? And would you be able to construct that sidewalk to city standards given the fall there along Sang? Park: I don't know the answer to that at this time. Anthes: Ok. Then I want to follow up with some questions based on the public comment. Have you confirmed that the building that exists on the site is indeed 611 lower than Sang Ave? Park: Specifically I don't know the answer. The floor level is somewhat lower than Sang Ave and that's what precluded us from including that structure as part of the design of the new building. We took some effort to try to find a way to preserve the existing building as part of the new temple, but because the finished floor level of that building is so low it would have established a finished floor level that is lower than we would desire for the overall project. That in addition to some other considerations led to our determining that the building wasn't usable. Six feet sounds reasonable, but I don't know specifically how many feet lower it is. Anthes: Can you describe to us in relationship to that existing building how much higher your proposed building will sit at finished floor? Park: The finished floor would probably be 2 to 3ft higher. Anthes: And so would you then be filling this property in order to.... Park: It will be... There will be some fill involved but there is also some cut involved towards the east side of the property. It is an averaging of the existing grade. It is that the building is farther to the east than the existing building so it is naturally... Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 34 of 86 The floor level would be moving uphill as a result. That is how a good part of the change in floor level would be described. In addition I'd say that the existing house sits low on the site. It is very close to sitting on grade. So it is lower than is should be. Anthes: Do you have any comments about how your project may affect the traffic on Sang Ave? Or turning movements on Cleveland? Park: We have relocated the driveway 7011 to the south of the location of the existing driveway. We are hoping to address the concern of the thrust of traffic coming west on Cleveland. Rather than just rocketing across that intersection. We can't legislate or address out of control vehicles, but our driveway will be 7011 farther to the south than the existing driveway is, which is very close to the intersection of Sang. In terms of traffic flow and traffic load the congregation meets one Friday evening per month. That will be the highest use. They expect probably half the capacity of the parking lot during those services. The rest of the time there might be two or three cars there per day coming and going a various times. And during there High Holy Day celebrations which are primarily in October.... September/October they would expect to have three services. Two main services and one other. The two that have a really full capacity and one that has less than that. I believe it is fair to describe this as a pretty low use building. Pate: Madam Chair. Let me add to just the traffic discussion. The city is also undertaking a study currently to determine if the intersection at Sang even qualifies for a three-way stop. That is something that has been requested by the neighborhood. You may know from visiting the site that one traffic calming speed table has already been installed on Sang. The city has been looking and Engineering division has been looking at either installing another one or looking at the three-way stop. So that is something that we have already recognized through the neighborhood petition as an issue. So we are looking into that as well. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Pate. I think that highlights... What I think he means on this is that this project doesn't appear to be adding a considerable amount to an already existing situation. That situation needs to be solved whether or not this project goes through. I can't burden this project with the thought that it is going to be adding an undesirable about of traffic to that neighborhood. I did have a question about the parking lot. In the previous application you guys had talked about using grasspave for the portion of the parking lot that you may not use very often. Is that offer still on the table? Park: We haven't talked about that yet for this property. Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 35 of 86 Anthes: The reason I am asking is because obviously you have a problem with water when you have drainage and grading issues, the more impervious surface you add to the site the more you exacerbate the need for water collection and retention. So if you were looking at some time of porous surface for that pavement, that could help ameliorate the problems that might occur from addition impervious surface in the area. It looks like on our map, it's kind of hard to tell how it is cut off. This property is not within the floodplain. Is that correct? Pate: This is correct. Anthes: Ok. Could I follow that up with a question about signage? What kind of signage is proposed by the applicant? Pate: To be honest, I don't know if they have proposed any signage. Park: If fact, to offer some levity, we've discussed that a 40ft neon Star of David would be kind of appropriate. (Laughing) I think the subtlety is the general rule that you can apply to this project in every way. I don't think that there is any desire to advertise the temple's location. Low profile signage is perfectly fine. Anthes: And one last thing, just so we are all clear, do you intend to have other sorts of events at the facility other than the Friday night service? Feldman: The religious school meets once a week. Anthes: Can I get you to move to the microphone? Feldman: Religious school meets once a week during most of the academic year and it would have, presently, about 25 students. Various meetings as well. Adult education. Various subgroups of the temple would be meeting at various times in smaller groups than with the regular services. But they are not on scheduled basis, but much more of an ad hoc basis. Yeah, and we also hoped that we would offer the Sang Valley Neighborhood Association that they could meet there as well. We hope that there will be other groups that may want to use the facility from time to time. Motion: Anthes: Ok. Thank you. Well, I am glad to see a conditional use permit for churches rather than P-1 rezoning request because it's more comforting for the neighbors to understand just what they are going to see on that property and not the range of other uses that are allowed by P-1 by right. I like the CUP. I also believe that places of worship are very appropriate to be built within neighborhoods. Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 36 of 86 Designed correctly, they contribute to the neighborhoods rather than detract from them. For that reason and the reasons stated in staff report, I want to move that we approve conditional use permit 06-1892. Trumbo: Second. Williams: Madam Chair? Anthes: Yes. Williams: Could I ask the applicant what the street frontage is? Because the computation of the sidewalks are not sure they can build according to the city standards. We need to put a dollar amount down and that is by the frontage. So do you know what your frontage is? The frontage length along Sang? Park: Off hand I don't recall what that is. Anthes: Do we have a drawing to scale? Clark: Is it scaled? Anthes: I'm sorry. The public comment section is closed. Clark: Can't we just leave it like it is stated? $3.00 per foot and then measure and fill in the blank? Williams: I think Jeremy has found 179 '/z feet of frontage. Which would be times the rate of basically $12.00 per running foot. Ostner: For a 4ft wide sidewalk? Pate: Correct. That would be roughly $2,153.54 if it were not constructed. Anthes: $2, 154? Basically? Pate: Yes. Anthes: Ok. Williams: So I would suggest that that recommendation that condition now read that the site sidewalk shall be build pursuant to city standards along the length of this property or money in lieu there of in the amount of the $2,000 figure be assessed. Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 37 of 86 Anthes: Ok. I would accept that. Would the second to the motion also accept that change? Trumbo: I have a question on that. Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Trumbo. Trumbo: Another point. I find it quite ironic that the staff Sidewalk Administrator stating that there is a not existing sidewalk in the immediate vicinity. First, that is a new one for me. I guess it is a night of firsts. But we often require developers to put in sidewalks that connect to nowhere. So is there a change of policy or...? Do you know? Pate: Every situation is unique. Our Sidewalk Administrator goes on site and visits the surrounding area. So I don't know his rationale on this particular one. Trumbo: I would suggest that if a sidewalk can be put in there than makes sense in front of the church. I'll leave that at that. One more thing for Ms Pitts, the neighbor to the north whose property will be by the parking lot. Condition number 9 states that they will build and maintain a 15ft buffer with continuous planting of trees and shrubs along the north to provide a solid vegetative screen. It's not just going to be a parking lot. You are going to have a buffer. All lighting, assuming there is lighting, it will all be downward lighting and not allowed to leave their property to come onto your property. Hopefully that will provide you a little bit of reassurance. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Yes. On the lighting I'm not... Question for staff. Is that applicable in the R-1, the single family residential zoning district, that this place would still have to...? Pate: By this condition, yes. Ostner: By condition of approval. Ok. Pate: It is lighting in parking lots. The underlying ordinance isn't specific to zoning district, it is specific to the actual use. Ostner: Thank you. Anthes: And just to be clear, our condition of approval number 6 does say that lighting shall be of a pedestrian scale as opposed to a standard parking lot pole fixture. Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 38 of 86 Pate: Yes. Anthes: Do we have further comments? Motion to approve by Commissioner Anthes and a second by Commissioner Trumbo. Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve CUP 06-2367 carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Commissioner Graves was absent. Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 39 of 86 CUP 06-2360: (POORE/TOWNSHIP, 294): Submitted by ALAN REID for property located at 3188 E. TOWNSHIP ST. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 7 acres. The request is for a tandem lot. Morgan: This property is located north of Township St. It is adjacent to several subdivisions within the city. It contains two parcels, a total of 7 acres. It is zones Residential Agricultural. These two properties are considered as one for the reasons that one does not meet the zoning criteria of the RA zoning district. The applicant has an existing house on the property towards the northern portion of the property and would request a conditional use permit in order to create a tandem lot for the existing home thereby creating a lot that can be built for a second single family dwelling on the overall property. This can be accomplished through a property line adjustment since there are two parcels. That is why you are not seeing the typical lot split as part of a conditional use permit request. This property though zoned RA is next to several subdivisions zoned RSF-4 and built at that density. Staff does not find that creating this one additional single family home in this area would be in anyway detrimental to the property values or the quality of life for the adjacent residential areas. There are some significant, or some situations on this property such as a creek and floodplain which would present some difficulty for developing it at this time for full development. The applicant does just wish to create one additional single family dwelling and Staff is recommending approval of this conditional use with a total of 6 conditions. Those conditions address the recordation of the property line adjustment and ensuring that there is adequate access easement for this new single family dwelling from the existing private driveways. If you have any questions I will be happy to answer those. Anthes: So, Ms. Morgan, are you saying that the access easement that would be dedicated is along the existing access? Morgan: It will need to be along..... We are proposing that it be along an existing private drive that accesses Township. That can be either from those existing driveways along Township that exist to access the existing home, or there is a private drive that follows along the creek. That could be utilized as well. We will just talk to the applicant and see where they feel like a home could be built and what driveway they feel would be most adequate to access those. Anthes: Would any member of the public like to address this conditional use permit for Poor and Township? Seeing none I will close the public comment section and ask the applicant for a presentation. Good evening Mr. Reid. Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 40 of 86 Reid: Good evening. My name is Alan Reid. I will be representing Ms. Freda Poore and her attempt to get this tandem lot split tonight. We want to thank the Staff for their hard work helping us out on this. It has gone through several changes. We have gotten the variance on the road frontage along Township which is the frontage for the greater piece, the piece that is about 5 acres. The 2 acre piece in the back which I guess is the tandem lot has an existing structure on it. That is where Ms. Poore lives. It also has frontage along a 3011 access easement which has been recorded for years. This is actually the end of Township Rd before the new subdivisions were put in, Campbellwood and that area. But if you have any questions I would be glad to address them. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Reid. Commissioners, is there discussion? Trumbo: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Trumbo. Trumbo: I asked Mr. Pate this in agenda. There was a tandem lot request out in the Planning Area a few months back that we denied. I didn't, at that time before I asked the question; I didn't know what the difference was. I was wondering if you could go over that one more time. Pate: Sure. The primary difference in that application, one of the differences, from a staff perspective was that it was within a platted lot of a subdivision that was developed according to the ordinances that were in place at that time. It would not have met those ordinances. This is remnant property as Mr. Reid mentioned that is kind of left over between three subdivisions on the north, the west, and the south. Actually a part of this property was owned by the school before Township was extended. There is a remnant piece that the property line is being adjusted from. It was part of the school property before Township went through there. That is facilitating the property line adjustment here. Both of these properties are well in excess of the properties surrounding. One is 4 %2 acres and one is 2 1/z. As you know for tandem lot requirements only one single family home can be built on that tandem lot. We thought this was an appropriate application of our tandem lot ordinance in this case. Trumbo: Thank you. I would agree. Anthes: Commissioner Myers? Motion: Myres: I was going to make a motion that we approve a conditional use permit 06-2360 Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 41 of 86 with the 6 conditions of approval as stated. Trumbo: I'll second. Anthes: We have a motion to approve by Commissioner Myers with a second by Commissioner Trumbo. Are there any other comments? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve CUP 06-2360 carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Commissioner Graves was absent. RZN 06-2366: (WONACOTT, 436): Submitted by MELISSA WONACOTT for property located at 655 AND 657 N. GENEVIEVE. The property is zoned R -A, Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 42 of 86 RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 1.50 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, Residential Single Family, 4 units per acre. Morgan: This property contains approximately 1.5 acres. It is located just west of Genevieve. It is adjacent to Sundance Meadows, a subdivision that was recently developed in the city and zoned RSF-4 as part of that development. To the south is property that has been approved for development and it is also zoned RSF-4. This property, however, remains RA as do several of the smaller single family and duplex developed tracks to the north, south, and west. This tract is developed right now for a duplex. The applicant requests the RSF-4 zoning which would allow a maximum development of 6 units per acre, an increase of 4. Staff does not find that the population increase would negatively effect or impact services in this area. Nor do we find that the increase in traffic by four additional units would negatively impact this street network in this area. It has been improved recently with those subdivisions as developed. We are recommending approval for this re -zoning based on the findings of fact within the Staff report and those items mentioned. Anthes: Thank you Ms. Morgan. Would any member of the public like to address this re- zoning request for Wonacott. Please come forward. We haven't seen you for a while. Hysell: My name is Don Hysell. I own two parcels adjoining the property in question. I have been there in residence in both of them for a period of about 20 years. I have watched the area develop, and I am absolutely not against the development. As a matter of fact I will probably be up here in the near future myself with the same situation that you are in with this property as well. My duplex, as well as the other two duplexes there, all were built by Bill Growell on an acre and a half with their own septic systems. In approximately 1992 the sewer system came through and we were all obligated to hook up to the sewer system. It cost me right up $2,000 to hook up my house and my duplex both. But for some reason or another, the duplex across the street, the one we are talking about, they never complied with this. In my understanding in 5 years or better it had not complied. Now we are almost 10 years into that and I still feel it has not yet complied. It is because of this sewers existence that the capability of dividing up this property into lots for multifamily use is capable of happening. We have to have that sewer system in order to do that. If it has not been complied either now or in the past I think it is.... somebody should look at it to actually changing this over to be a multifamily. They need to deal with one improvement at a time. I leave this up to you. I am not against the actual splitting of the lots whatsoever. It is the idea that I think they should comply with the past situation before starting on something Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 43 of 86 new. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you. Would any other member of the public like to speak? Seeing none I will close the public comment section. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Hi. How are you this evening? Wonacott: Good. I purchased this piece of property in 2001. Anthes: Would you go ahead and introduce yourself? Wonacott: I'm Melissa Wonacott. I live at 655 Genevieve. I bought the piece of property in 2001. Obviously all the adjoining the two to the north and the south are all duplexes. I guess I am open for comment. Over the last couple of years I have spoke with the Planning Commissioners, the Planning Board, to try to develop this parcel property where it would fit into to 2020 Plan. Now it is the 2025 Plan. Not to create a large dense RT -12 zoning at which a duplex normally is in. I have spoken in depth with Suzanne about it and what we both felt best suited the area. So, I am open for questions. Anthes: Thank you Ms Wonacott. Commissioners? I have a question of staff. What is the applicability of the sewer comment? Wonacott: I can address that, actually. Anthes: Ok. Wonacott: At the time when I purchased the piece of property it did have an existing septic system on it. Several parcels in the City of Fayetteville which have access to sewer are actually not on. There is more than myself in the City of Fayetteville that could... I'm sorry, I work for the Health Department. ....that could tie onto city sewer and have not been made to until such time as Mr. Hysell was speaking of. His system malfunctioned. He tied onto city sewer. What had happened is because of the ditch that is in front of my property back in 2001 of October when I bought the property. I spoke with the city. I got clearance from the Health Department and the City of Fayetteville to keep that existing septic system until such time as it malfunctions. It is going to require me to actually put in some sort of pump or something to that effect to get to the actual tap that is facing this piece of property. When the development occurs my intent is one other duplex and for me to have a long life home in the City of Fayetteville. At that time it would be attached to City sewer. Anthes: Mr. Pate, with the rezoning request, is it normal to create a condition of approval to require a connection to a city sewer system? Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 44 of 86 Pate: No. We don't have conditions of approval for rezoning or annexation requests. think by virtue that this property will have to come back through as a lot split or some other method of development if development occurs on this property. If sewer is reasonably accessible, then by our city ordinances then it would need to tie in at that point and time. Williams: I think that would be the appropriate time. I don't think it would be proper to try to tie that with the rezoning request. Anthes: Ok. Further comments? Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Madam Chair. In essence the septic system was sort of grandfathered? Since it was legal? Wonacott: Right. Ostner: It is only required to be taken away as soon as it requires a major... Wonacott: Exactly. What has happened was that I talked to the City about it and they said.... The State Plumbing Inspector actually came out and wrote a letter to City of Fayetteville explaining the situation, that it was a difficult situation. I have since in my professional career done lots of easements in city property on septic systems so that lot splits could occur even though there was availability for city sewer. There are two or three on North St that because they had to put in an actual pump to pump up the city sewer the city will allow them to actually keep the existing septic system. There are lots of other examples. Mine is just one. I've had approval. It wasn't, I forget the gentleman, someone was off in the army or something and left. It was whoever replaced him that I spoke with in 2001. That would be something that would be addressed at the time of development. Ostner: Thank you. You have taught me something about State health codes. Since you work for the State Health Department, I appreciate it. Wonacott: There was the State Plumbing Inspector and the City of Fayetteville and our office, not just myself. I wouldn't circumvent the law because it is my job. Right now it is because there is a very large ditch that is about 5ft wide that goes about 411 deep that is in front of the property. It would probably make me put money in lieu of sidewalks in front of the property because of that ditch. It makes it very difficult for this piece of property to tie on because there is only a 611 distance between my house and the property line to the north. It would actually have to go around the property to the south. That is all something that we would work though that we will have to do at the actual development lot split stage. Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 45 of 86 Motion: Ostner: Thank you. This rezoning request seems appropriate to me. I'll make a motion we forward with a recommendation of approval to the City Council Rezoning 06- 2366. Clark: Second. Anthes: I have a motion to forward by Commissioner Ostner with a second by Commissioner Clark. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to forward with recommendation of approval RZN 06-2366 carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Commissioner Graves was absent. Anthes: I am going to call a short break before the next item. R-PZD 06-2349: Planned Zoning District (WESTBROOK VILLAGE, 284): Submitted by PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS, INC for property located at SALEM ROAD, CLABBER CREEK DRIVE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.38 acres. The Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 46 of 86 request is for a Residential Planned Zoning District -containing 11 single-family lots. Fulcher: Yes Ma'am. This is two lots that were created as part of the original Salem Village P.U.D. which was patted in 1997 for a maximum of 156 dwelling units. In actuality 111 were platted at that time. They reserved 3 lots for future development of various sorts; retail/office, residential, depending on those proposals to be brought forward. Tract 3 actually ended up being combined with some parkland dedication and a wetland area to the south of the development. However, tracts 1 and 2 did remain for future development. The applicants are requesting approval for 11 single family lots on these two tracts. All of the units will be located in Planning Areas 1 and 2. Planning area 3 is a small portion that will remain as green space on the corner of the lot interior to the subdivision. With the addition of these 11 lots and the existing 111 that were platted this is well under the 156 that were originally reviewed with the Salem Village P.U.D. And although these lots are somewhat smaller than the ones that are existing out there, they are consistent with the land type and land use and lot size that was platted with the Salem Village P.U.D. They are very consistent with the type of in -fill and density we look for. Obviously, they are right across from a school in the area. The parks fees that were paid for the original 111 lots did not include future development. Parks fees are due in the amount of $6,105 for these 11 lots. Also, all of the streets and the majority of the infrastructure was installed with Salem Village. However there is one alley that will need to be constructed on the north side to allow the rear access to all or these lots. Also additional 5ft of right- of-way is required to be dedicated. As with the original Salem Village it was not a collector designation at that time, however it is now. Staff is recommending this item be forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation for approval with 17 conditions of approval. If you have any specific questions please ask. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Fulcher. Would any member of the public like to address this Planned Zoning District for Westbrook Village? Seeing none I will close the public comment section. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Broyles: Good Evening. My name is Lex Broyles. I am a developer on this project. As staff is well aware our group has been working with these two lots for several months now. We are very excited about the completed design. I would also like to thank staff for their assistance on it. We enlisted Tosh Banglerand Walsh?, architects out of Atlanta. They specialize in new urbanism design. This is the original design of the neighborhood out there, the existing neighborhood. We worked to just flow seamlessly with the rest of the neighborhood. What we have is 11 lots and one green space all of which front onto the entrance of our neighborhood with alley loaded rear garages. They will be similar in lot size, shape, and home design to the remaining lots in Salem Village. Home prices will Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 47 of 86 also be in line with the existing development. I would also like to add that I am a resident of Salem Village and that we have met with the neighborhood P.O.A. multiple times on this project. I have provided in the packet a letter of their support on this project. Thank you for your time. Anthes: Thank you very much. Commissioners? Commissioner Lack. Lack: Madam Chair could we hear a Subdivision Committee report on this item? Clark: Yes. In the relatively short Subdivision that we had last time. It lasted just until 2:30. We heard this item, and once we clarified that our agenda was wrong where it said it was going on .09 acres. We were a little concerned about that density. Once we got the density issues worked out we found that this was compatible with the surrounding areas, entrance, exits in ample supply. It will finish out a little area of land that just kind of got overlooked in the rest of the developments being built. Street sections were fine. I don't think we had any dissension. We talked about the green area and wanted a little bit more detail on that. But other than that it got a recommendation to pass. Was I forgetting anything? Motion: Lack: Finding in favor of that and in agreement with that I think that I would go ahead and make a motion that we go ahead and forward R-PZD 06-2349 with a recommendation for approval to City Council. Ostner: I second that. Anthes: We have a motion to forward by Commissioner Lack with a second by Commissioner Ostner. Are there further comments? Myres: I am assuming that all conditions of approval are OK with the developers? Broyles: Yes, they are. Myres: Ok. Thank you. That is all. Anthes: Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to forward R-PZD 06-2349 with recommendations for approval carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Commissioner Graves was absent. Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 48 of 86 ADM 06-2379: (Outdoor Lighting Ordinance Amendments): Submitted by Planning Staff to amend the City of Fayetteville Unified Development Code Chapter 176: Outdoor Lighting. Anthes: Our last two items are Administrative Items. Item 12 is ADM 06-2379. The Outdoor Lighting Ordinance Amendments. Mr. Olson can you present? Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 49 of 86 Olson: Sure, good evening Planning Commission. Madam Chair. Leif Olson, Long Range Planner. This item is an Administrative Item. It deals with the outdoor lighting ordinance that we have in place. City Council approved that ordinance in May of 2005. Planning Staff has been Administrating the ordinance for approximately a year and a half. Working with the current Planners we have identified some issues that have repeatedly come up, and the amendments proposed by Staff would address some of those concerns. Planning Staff is recommending that we amend three sections of the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance. The first section dealing with applicability just deals with clarifying that the Outdoor Lighting and Sign Ordinance are considered separate and distinct from one another. The second amendment identifies the variance procedure that exists for applications that do not meet the general standards of the ordinance. This is just some clarifying language there. The major changes come in section 176.03 Exemptions. We would propose that we add an emergency lighting exemption whereby we can meet building code for emergency security lighting. We are proposing an exemption to allow for the up -lighting of architectural elements in buildings which would use non -shielded lighting fixtures. The third amendment exempts pedestrian walkway and bollards which are less than 42 inches in height. Along with this we also are proposing, clarifying, and allowing the use of LED and neon lighting as accents to architectural features. The third section, the general standard section that we propose amending would opaque canopies, awnings, roof structures to be considered the shielding for the outdoor lighting fixture. In other words, if the fixture is located up in the awning or the canopy and it is not visible from the horizontal site line then it would be considered the shield for that lighting fixture. So Planning staff recommends forwarding the proposed outdoor lighting amendments to the City Council Ordinance Review Committee for their discussion and adoption. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Olson. Would any member of the public like to address this Administrative Item for the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance? Seeing none I will close the public comment section. Commissioners? Lack: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Lack. Lack: I think this is a case where we are proud to have our lighting ordinance and we are proud of the issues that we are trying to take care of, light pollution. I think that we have all agreed when we forwarded this ordinance and gave a favorable nod to the City Council for this ordinance that it was a good, clear, enforceable ordinance. I think that with any ordinance such as this there will be things that tend to not work out quite as planned, things that bear review at a later date. With Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 50 of 86 these modifications I am still comfortable that we are not creating light pollution. We are still looking at methods to shield the light from scattering into the sky. We are simply looking at building eaves and other items to assist in that. Not requiring only the light fixture to take care of all of the ordinance requirements, the good environmentally appropriate requirements. So with that I think that.... I have read through these and was possible somewhat alarmed when I first heard that we were going to look at modifications and allow some other conditions. I am maybe still a little bit leery of the ground mounted fixtures directed at a facade without a horizontal projection to ensure the trapping of the light. Even with that I think the modification that we would make with that is far and above regulating that trespass more than what the landscaping lighting does now. I see that we have allowed by ordinance currently landscaping lighting that can shine into deciduous trees that have no blockage through much of the year. We are certainly inside that argument. I have read through these and I find myself comfortable with these amendments. Anthes: Well, I wish I were comfortable as you are. While I agree with the modifications that allow building appurtenances or architectural elements as shielding, in substitution for that shielding being completely contained within the light fixture I find it hard to support up -lighting on landscape elements or up -lighting on building facades. I think we have an ordinance that was very clear in its intention to provide shielding so we don't have light leakage and trespass into the sky. I think allowing any kind of up -lighting in deciduous landscaping, whether we did it before or are doing it now, or for up -lighting onto buildings which can be adjusted past the roof line by merely a lawnmower going by and running into them is undoing the good our ordinance has put in place. Perhaps to the extent that it is too far for my comfort level. Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Madam Chair. I would tend to agree. Most of the changes here are good and helpful. The movement toward, I don't want to offend, toward making the building advertise for itself separate from a sign is important if you are running a business. You want to market in anyway you can. You want to light up your building. You build a great building it's going to help you advertise. It doesn't matter if there is a word on it. But, that has its drawbacks. It is the ground mounted accent lighting that does bother me. I think it is really going to allow a lot of illumination as it is written. If I might ask Mr. Lack to elaborate. He mentioned horizontal control on that. Could you explain your thinking behind that? Lack: I think the section that allows for overhangs, awnings, and building of pertinences to act as a shielding. Ostner: Is that K.2? Building mounted accent light. Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 51 of 86 Lack: 176.05, General Standards A. Awnings, canopies, and roof structures and other opaque surfaces that are designed to shield the directed horizontal surface of the light. Ok. That is the part that I am picking out. I feel like whether the light is mounted on the wall or in the ground that goes further to limiting the trespass of light than the vertical surface does. So shining to the bottom of a horizontal surface is a step further than, and more controllable, then shining on a vertical surface. You start to think of reflections and the angles of the reflections, the type of material. If we have a mirrored glass building, which we don't see much of; if we did then if you shined that light with that angle you would certainly be casting a great amount of light into the sky. And so, the.... As I said, the ground mounted directional fixtures at a vertical face is... I think that I would even go so far as to be comfortable with the way this is written in projection onto the vertical surface. We may talk about the material, the reflectivity of the material that it would be projected on. It certainly makes a different condition if project onto a brick surface as opposed to a glass or a shiny metal surface. Is that the clarification you wanted? Ostner: Yeah, a little bit. I guess it still bothers me about.... Just flat out, up -lighting is OK even if it is not a reflective building. I mean buildings can start to glow. I just wish this ordinance had a little more control over the up -lighting. I am not even sure I am seeing how any up -lighting.... It is just so much more small when you can't do up -lighting. You have to do other things. When you do up -lighting you can just.... It can be accidentally abused, I believe. I guess that is my fear. Myres: I'm sorry, I stepped over you. Ostner: I'm done. Thank you. Anthes: Commissioner Myres. Myres: When I look at 177.03 K.3 which speaks about ground mounted accent lighting which is what I believe we are talking about. It says "ground mounted accent lighting for buildings, when so approved, shall be directed onto the building". What is the approval process for someone coming forward and saying that they have a striking facade that cannot be lighted from any other position except the ground? Is there an approval process for the lighting plan for a building? Pate: Yes, there is. We require light fixtures and cutout sheets for each light fixture to be submitted to our Planning Staff before a building permit is issued and before any light fixtures are installed. That is something we review. Myres: Ok. And that is probably the reason I don't have as much concern about this Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 52 of 86 issue. Obviously, regardless of what your ordinance are there is going to some accidental or on purpose abuses. And you know, there is only so much you can control. I would hope that if you have a designer involved. If you have an architect involved that they are using that lighting for the purposes in which it was intended. To enhance the building and not to violate city ordinance or pollute the atmosphere with too much light. Working as a lighting designer in the past I have run into situations where there was not opportunity to light a very important facade on a building from anywhere other than the ground. There were either no building overhangs that allowed for that or no structures close -by that could be used as a platform to direct light towards it. No vegetation or trees that could be used for lighting. The only option that you had was to put it on the ground. But I think the way this is written the fixture shall be located as close to the building as possible. The ground mounted spot light shall not be located in such a way that the lamp or the bulb is visible from a pedestrian or vehicular point of view. I think they have done as much as they can to safeguard the use of that particular technique. I don't, unlike some of my fellow Commissioners, I don't have a problem with the way this is written. I agree with Commissioner Lack that it was a long time coming and something that was definitely needed. I think what these additions are doing is simply improving an already effective document. I am happy to support it as written. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Madam Chair, I have a question for Staff. Right above submitted there are A B C D e, lower case, and e reads "flashing or color fluctuating lighting or sounds are prohibited". At Agenda we talked about the situation where it is not really flashing, but it is one going off. It looks like there is animation. Have you all thought about that? Pate: Yes. As mentioned at the Agenda secession what we would like to do is propose an amendment in lieu of letter e. In lieu of the language stated in letter e is for us as Staff to present this for review to City Council. Utilizing Chapter 174.08 pertinent fluctuating illumination, to utilize that chapter modified to be specific to outer lining as opposed to signage. I can read that paragraph if you like. Basically it says that "it is unlawful for any person to erect additional attraction devices or signs or to continue operation of and attraction device or sign which flashes, blinks, or is animate. Illumination of an attraction device or signs located in the City that fluctuates in light intensity shall be prohibited. Electronic message boards" - this probably will not be in there - "Electronic message boards using flashing intermittent or moving lights are prohibited provided however only message boards displaying only time and temperature for not less than 30 seconds are permitted." The rest of it has to do with electronic message boards. That really wouldn't be applicable here. The first couple of sentences there define how Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 53 of 86 we have as a city defined our sign ordinance in court. I think we could use some of the same language of section E. Ostner: Ok. Thank you. I would be in favor of that. Anthes: I'll just go paragraph by paragraph with the amendments. In the Applicability Chapter 176.02. I think I am fine with any of those. My big questions are in 176.03 on the Exemptions section. On 176.03 G I just got finished specifying emergency lighting, and I was able to find emergency lighting that was shielded and cut off. Can somebody talk about what emergency lighting this would be permitting that would not be shielded? What are the conditions we are allowing there? Pate: We have had discussions with our Building Safety Director who indicated that some of the criteria for the City of Fayetteville evidently conflicts with our lighting ordinance with regard to emergency lighting. These are little lights that come on for a certain period of time when all other lights have shut off. If electricity shuts off to the building or there is an emergency. I believe they are required, one above each exit on the exterior of the building. They indicated that of course that code would prevail whether or not we had this clause in here or not. We are simply recognizing that for anyone who asks us, to show that we understand that. Anthes: Ok. I can accept that. The accent lighting, the spotlighting? Right now we allow spotlighting on landscaping and foliage that uses incandescent lamps or bulbs of not more than 150 watts. I guess I don't necessarily like the amendment, but I also don't like the original language in that it specifies incandescent tamping. If you are looking at energy usage and sustainability policies, other types of light sources definitely use less energy and would be a complementary addition to this. To outdoor lighting, can somebody talk about why this was crafted this way? Olson: Originally that was crafted with 150 watt incandescent, I believe, because you can't throw light as far. You put a halogen bulb in a fixture and put it up into landscape and you can get a much brighter, higher intensity light into the landscape or the foliage. I was never really happy with that either in that we don't regulate anywhere else in the lighting ordinance the type of bulb to be used or the wattage or the output of that fixture in any way. I think that the way it has been reworded is a much tighter direction than the previous language that is shown stricken thru. Anthes: But is that also part of the ground mounted or up lighting? Or is this talking about landscape elements that are lit from above? Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 54 of 86 Olson: That is just talking about accent lighting on landscape. All the accent lighting that deals with the structure are in the next sections there. Anthes: So couldn't those landscape elements be illuminated from overhead and meet the cut off requirements? Olson: If those landscaping elements are tall enough on the location to have light fixtures placed up in them to direct the light downward, then yes. That would be possible. Of course that is not always the case. Anthes: Well, I am assuming that the ordinance review committee is going to get our comments. I would encourage them to look at tightening up that language to allow other kind of illumination other than incandescent. Also to encourage them to look at landscape lighting from above that isn't up -lighting. Let me back up onto "I" there. I know this isn't one of the proposed changes, but I understand that the street lighting located within the Downtown Master Plan boundary was exempted because the existing light figures were purchased before we had a lighting ordinance. They don't comply. Isn't it our intent that any additional light purchases would be shielded? Pate: Actually, all of our street lights are exempted. All street lights in general. Most of those are street lights also. I believe all the new trail lights, for instance along Skull Creek, will be purchased and I believe they meet all of our.... They are outside of this boundary anyway, but I believe they all meet our lighting ordinance. Anthes: And so is this just to kind of grandfather in what we have done from an existing standpoint? Because I surely would like to emphasize that any additional street lighting we purchase would comply. Olson: The streetlights on S School would comply with the new ordinance. However, the streetlights that were installed on Dickson St, in this case that language was put in there to exempt the streetlights that exist on Dickson St. Anthes: Couldn't we just say that existing street lighting can be allowed to remain until which time they are replaced. They will be replaced with compliant fixtures. Olson: Yeah, I mean, it depends on the fixture. I am not sure if the insides of those fixtures can come out and be replaced with something that would meet the ordinance, or if you would have to replace the whole fixture. You know, I don't know if the City.... I would think that as the parts wore out the City would want to replace them with a fixture that met the intent of the ordinance. However, I don't know enough about those fixtures to know what the cost is or when that would Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 55 of 86 happen or any of those. Anthes: The way this reads that doesn't have to happen. Olson: Yeah, the way this reads you can just put the same thing back no matter what. I mean, if it... You may want to be able to do that. If the bulb burns out you might want to be able to replace that bulb and not spend $1,000 to fix one light at a time. Anthes: But surely changing out a burned out lamp is not cause to kick in the ordinance. It would be if you were replacing the fixture or adding new fixtures entirely. Pate: That is correct. It would not be for replacing a lamp. Maybe this point is not important, but I do want to reiterate that most of these are streetlights and all streetlights are exempted from that ordinance whether you are in the Downtown. Anthes: I know. But I am questioning why we've exempted streetlights from the ordinance. You can purchase streetlights that meet our regulations. I understand exempting the ones that are in place in order to grandfather them, but I don't see any need to exempt further purchases from meeting the intent of prohibiting light trespass. Conklin: Streetlights were exempted based on the issue of being able to.... The utility companies provide the streetlights within Fayetteville. There are issues with having the ability to require those as cut off. I should note though there is a State law that requires shielding that was passed with regards to streetlights. Which also would trump this ordinance. I think it is more than just replacing the bulb. The actual fixture itself, sometimes, my understanding is that in order to create something or replace it would require the entire fixture and so that is why it was put in there that way. I would hope that those streetlights, since they are fairly new, would last many years. Just as the ones on the square have lasted many years. Probably 20 or 30 now. I just think that if something does happen we do need that flexibility to be able to replace the bulb without the entire fixture. Anthes: I completely agree. That is exactly what I said. I don't think that replacing a lamp inside a fixture kicks in a requirement to change it. It is just whether you are adding new or entirely replacing a fixture. In which case you wouldn't replace it with an entirely non-compliant fixture. Williams: I think you probably ought to leave that up to the City rather than trying to put it in this code section, because it might be that one might be defective. You would have an entire street that has the same kind of fixtures and then you have one different fixture because one failed. That would be a decision really that City Council Administration would have to make rather than have it made here in Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 56 of 86 ordinance ahead of time before we know all the facts involved in it. So I think it makes a little more since to keep that exempt at this point and time just so that if something happens and a fixture fails they can look at it then. Does it make sense to change one? Change them all? Or actually just go ahead and replace that one with another, quote, non-compliant fixture. Anthes: Well I am aware of the State legislation that talks about this and I believe that Swepco has looked at several different options that do comply now for subdivisions, so.... Anyway. Item K2 the Building Mounted Accent Lighting. Is this a tandem item to 17605-A? Are you talking about the same kind of...? The building appurtenance being the shielding? Olson: Not necessarily, because in this section under accent lighting it talks about sconces mounted on the side of the building. You may have up -light and down - light coming from the sconce. It more talks to the actual fixture being affixed to the structure, the face of the structure. The other section is talking more about lighting underneath in an enclosed, a pertinence that is attached to the building - be it an awning, a canopy, or some time of a pertinence like that. If you look at the packet... I gave each of you a packet with some color photos of some lights. On page 4 you see the sconces on the side of this Taco Bell that allow for the up - lighting and the down -lighting. Under the way this ordinance is drafted now those would be allowed except for the cut-out. Do you see how they cut-out to allow light out of the horizontal face? That wouldn't be allowed, but the up - lighting and down -lighting of the sconce would be permitted under the way the ordinance is drafted now. Anthes: But why would we allow the up -light? I mean, that directly flies in the face of what we were trying to accomplish by requiring shielded and directly downward lighting in the first place. Olson: I think what has happened is that while working with current Staff we see over and over again architects, lighting designers, come to us and they have issues. They have worked in other areas with dark sky ordinances. Sconces, pedestrian lighting, those issues have come up over and over again. Staff felt that in order to attempt to address their issues we would draft this. This is a policy decision. Ultimately if the Planning Commission, Ordinance Review or the Council decide that they don't want to have up -lighting, then I think the development community gets a clear signal. Unfortunately, right now, we have projects that come through and it is very difficult for them to find lighting design that may work for some of these architectural embellishments. Staff felt that the vast majority of the light pollution was addressed with our parking lots and our flood lighting. To have minor up -lighting of architectural elements, in the big picture, is not that great of an issue. Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 57 of 86 Anthes: You know what, I would agree if you combined it with the paragraph in 176.05A in that you provide something that, you know it is not in the light fixture itself, but something that provides the cutoff for the fixture. But without that, I think we are just running, counter -purpose to what the intent of the ordinance was originally. Even if it is a minor contributor as opposed to a parking lot or an athletic light. Olson: Sure. Pate: I believe that Staff would be fine with that amendment. It actually really would... You could use a roof overhang. You could use anything that extends horizontally from the vertical surface of the structure. They would need to show us a drawing obviously to show that it meets that intent. You know, the one that Leif mentioned, the Taco Bell. They would have to extend the roof overhang or some other appurtenance to do kind of, what page....? Page 3 is doing. Maybe a little bit better than that. Page 3, that awning is shielding the light from going upward into the sky because it is bouncing off the top of that. Anthes: Right. Pate: I think we could certainly utilize the language there for not allowing any vertical light pollution above a surface. Essentially this... I am not sure how we would change it. You could almost utilize it in conjunction as it is worded. Clark: So you are just saying that we want to allow up -lighting as long as the light is terminated at some point by a structure on the building. Pate: An opaque surface, yes. Anthes: Ok. Clark: So you guys are still talking in this (architect vocabulary) stuff. Anthes: Well, I think that would work for me. We just need to be consistent in our approach. When I look back to why we did this in the first place, I feel that there are inconsistencies in these allowances that we need to discuss. And that would work for me, using the architectural elements. Pate: We'll change some language there to refer specifically that this 176.05A does apply to this. So even though it is still under exemptions, it will still apply to this section. That is easy to do. Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 58 of 86 Anthes: Now, I think the ground mounted accent lighting, 3, is the one that we will just have a split decision on within this body, from what it sounds like. I just think that it denies, when you again look back at the intent and then how if you allow ground mounted accent lighting there are so many ways.... There are ways to design it well that would probably save further use, just like Commissioner Myers said. But, opening the ordinance up in that way also allows for all the other kinds. I just think it is unwise. Clark: How would you fix it? Anthes: I would eliminate that paragraph altogether. Clark: Oh! Myres: So now ground mounted... Anthes: I also have a question about bollards. Full cutoff bollards are readily available. Why would we need something that wasn't? Olson: I think there is a feeling that in certain lighting applications full cutoff fixtures there is not as much product in the market. There are some out there. I could bring you three or four examples. But I could bring you fifty examples of bollard lighting that isn't. There is just not a lot. It is very difficult to put a full cutoff fixture in a bollard. Most of the bollard lighting that you see that has a full cutoff fixture has some kind of attachment on the top where the fixture is being directed down. If you are actually going to place it within the pedestrian bollard it is very difficult to do in a full cutoff way. Anthes: I don't know. I just went through and picked out a bunch of those too. It didn't seem difficult to find. Obviously, with anything the marketplace drives the availability of products. If more and more cities are going to dark sky type ordinances, the marketplace is going to respond. Olson: I think the other thing with it is that at 42in in height they are below most people's line of vision. Again, staff felt that this was not a major exemption to the ordinance. For the applications that are used it was appropriate to propose this amendment, and therefore we did. Anthes: I can understand your reasoning. I just feel like, if we are looking at the purpose and intent of prohibiting light leakage into the sky, that even if it is a minor thing it is simply inconsistent with the intent. The Neon and Light Emitting Diode, I completely understand why you put this in here. I agree with all of the language. I am just questioning whether we want to discuss a percentage? Or whether we Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 59 of 86 want to allow every commercial building that comes into the city to have a big triple ring of neon around the top of it, or not? Did staff discuss any kind of limitation in the amount of that type of lighting? Olson: We discussed it. In other ordinances it is very common to see that, where they will limit the number of linear feet of neon or LED to the square footage of the wall space. We felt, in this instance, that the cost prohibitiveness of it.... We haven't seen applications proposed with a lot of neon on them. Usually the applications that we have seen have been to accent and architectural element, such as the roof line or the eve line or the windows or whatnot. We haven't seen proposals for buildings wrapped in neon. Anthes: Well, I am thinking of "Fire Mountain Hot Off the Grill". When that came through and we allowed that additional lighting, then we got applications from other restaurants out and CMN Business Park that wanted to add an additional rings to their existing and approved projects. Olson: Again, I think it is a policy thing. If Council feels that neon is inappropriate, or that neon is only appropriate in small doses then the ordinance can be changed and we can add that in. For these proposals staff didn't feel like that it was a big issue and so we didn't propose to limit it in such a way. Clark: Ma'am? Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Clark. Clark: Ok. If it is policy choice, why is it before us? If you don't want to be open to amending, why are we here? Olson: I am totally open to amending. Clark: Didn't sound like it. Olson: The question was why didn't we put that in there, and the answer is that we haven't seen situations where we have felt that it is warranted... Clark: I think Commissioners... Olson: To have that language in there. Clark: I think she brings up some very valid examples of where we were specifically asked to add neon. I can remember some subdivisions, if you all can remember them as well, where we specifically requested that developers remove excessive Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 60 of 86 neon. I agree that it should not be a predominant feature on any structure. It ought to be for accent. It seems like the wording for this just leaves it wide open. You can use as much as you want. If it is not up to us to really make any policy recommendations should we just skip over this and let it go onto the Council? Conklin: You are the Planning Commission. You make recommendations to the City Council with regard to plans. Clark: That is kind of what I thought. So, tonight is the night for recommendations, right? Conklin: That is correct and that is why we are sitting here discussing the policy issues. Clark: And we are sitting here right with you discussing it too. We have talked about neon quite a bit in this body and I would really like to see us continue to discuss it. If the Council is going to make or hear a recommendation I would like them to hear one from us. Personally I think we ought to put a limit on the amount of neon accents that ought to go on some of these buildings. Unless we are going let people go absolutely nuts with neon. Anybody want to figure out how we could do that? Ostner: Yes. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner? Ostner: Ijust said yes. I'm not sure how. I agree. Lack: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Lack. Lack: I think Mr. Olson made reference to potentially tying the linear footage of the neon to the square footage of the wall facade. Is that something that you have seen in other ordinances? Olson: I have seen that. That is typically the way that neon is restricted, if it is so restricted. It is tied to the surface area. The larger the surface area the more linear feed of the neon you are allowed. Lack: And that seems to be, if we are going to regulate it, that seems to be a logical method. Is there are percentage of the square footage that you would normally have seen? Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 61 of 86 Olson: I would have to go back and find some examples and bring them forward to you of what other cities do. I couldn't even recall what the ration typically is. Conklin: I would like to suggest, since the Commission has experience working at development, are there particular developments that you have approved neon that you think is an appropriate amount? Are there other developments that you think have too much neon? We could go back and take a look at those plans and do a calculation of what we feel is appropriate for Fayetteville, Arkansas. That might be easier, at least for City Staff, to grasp as an example. I can think of one that I was involved with. It was restaurant out on 45 and 265 that put neon, not as a band, but as an element. It went to Subdivision Committee. I had the Subdivision Committee say yes or no to that one. If you have some suggestions of whether or not Logan's or Fire Mountain Grill or others you think are appropriate? Or have less? I think it would be a good discussion. At least I would like to hear from you what you think is appropriate in Fayetteville. Clark: Well, Jeremy would have to help my memory a bit. But when we talked about the latest modifications for the Malco Theater, we specifically directed them on neon and the application of neon. We made them do something with in. Myres: It was shielded. Clark: Yeah. It had to be shielded. It also couldn't be the predominant way of lighting the structure. Myres: Well, it was an accent, which is what this says. "Using LED or neon to accent architectural elements." Which to me is not spotlighting something. It is not creating general illumination. It is not even providing task lighting. It is simply outlining a shape or ringing a building, like O'Charley's. If you remember when we considered that, they came back for either a conditional use or and addition to their permit to allow them to put another band of neon. They had two, they wanted three. If you had been up the road anytime recently and have been to Rogers O'Charley's has three bands of neon. Ours only has two. We felt that two was sufficient to do what they wanted to do, which was to embellish the top of the building in the absence of (inaudible). It took the place of an architectural element. We have made judgments about whether or not so much neon was too much neon or not enough neon, or whatever. But that is one example I can remember. I don't remember a whole lot. But I can remember that one. Anthes: I just always remember the Fire Mountain thing because they came with a specific request to do it. And there is quite a lot. You can see that restaurant forever. Myres: I think it closed. Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 62 of 86 Anthes: It did a very specific thing in that case. When that restaurant was developed that road was supposed to go through. People were having a hard time finding it and getting to it. They had an argument when they presented it. I think it was at Subdivision Committee that that was approved. They felt that that amount of accent... Well the green. I am talking about all the green. Ostner: Oh, the back lot. Anthes: Its goes on all the little points and around the roof. Clark: It was not an architectural accent. Anthes: No. If we are talking about percentages, I think that approach is too much. I think this ordinance does a good job of doing what maybe Logan's people have been worried about. That Logan's is illuminating the reflective surface behind it. Myres: Yeah. Anthes: But I think that O'Charley's with two bands is just fine. So if there was some way to construct a limit so that we don't end up with an excessive amount but still permit it, that would be fine. Harris: Madam Chair? Anthes: Yes. Ms. Harris. Harris: I wasn't on Commission during the time period that you all are discussing right now. I would like to return to Commissioner Myers conversation about accent. I am not an architect. I certainly can't discuss it at the level you are discussing it. The percentages approach is interesting. I understand that Mr. Conklin is putting it on us, but I would like to put it back on them by asking what cities would we be looking at? So that I have a visual image in my head? Because I tend to favor a slightly more open ended approach to the language. One that does some of the prescriptive work you are asking for, I think. Simply that if the word accent means that then maybe the failure with Fire Mountain wasn't so much in the building design but it was with the Commission's understanding at that time of what this building would be doing. If today we are not sure that that is what we would want. You know that I mean failure in a very gentle way there. So I guess I am just asking if the word "accent" do enough work to an architect to signal to the development community that that is in fact what we are asking. We want a sort of moderate use of these elements. Am I correct in assuming that the very structures we are talking about will in fact come before this commission? Is that Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 63 of 86 correct? So that we would have the opportunity to say yes or no to them. Anthes: Maybe, maybe not. Harris: Ok. And which ones would not. And how the ordinance...? Anthes: Commercial buildings on properties under an acre. Harris: Under an acre, right. But they would still come before Planning Staff. Is that correct? Pate: Yes. Harris: Mr. Pate, does the Planning Staff have the ability to make determination as to whether something is functioning as an accent? Pate: We do have a definition of accent lighting in our ordinance. It states "accent lighting means any directional lighting which emphasizes a particular object or draws attention to an individual area." That is how it is defined currently. Myres: So if you choose to accent 72 elements of your building, you could. Harris: Is it more useful? This is a very naive question, because this just simply isn't my field. Is it more useful to try to put more restrictions on that definition? Or is it more useful to try to come up with some percentage? Anthes: Good question. Lack: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Lack. Lack: I'm sorry. Harris: Nope. Go ahead. Lack: I think that I would probably lean more towards the percentage. I think, as a designer, the idea of accent is very subjective. I tend to like the busy features of neon of the restaurant that I think Mr. Conklin... I think that that is an appropriate accent to the side of an existing building. I think that the Fire Mountain roof I could say accents the roof line of the building. While it wouldn't be something that I am fond of, it is not something that greatly contributes to light pollution, in my opinion. I think that the intensity of the neon is what brings that down to a Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 64 of 86 regulate -able state. With that I am suggesting that... I think the regulation of the neon; to me it gets it more into appearance than into light pollution because of the lack of intensity of the source. I would be fine with the regulations as amended here. If we do choose to amend it I think the square footage percentage ratio would be more appropriate. Anthes: I think the LED is so much brighter than neon ever was. Certain colors are more bright than others as well. So, it is when you think of a whole development with every single roof with one. It starts to get a little bit oppressive. Clark: Christmas! Anthes: Yeah. It's great at Christmas. But maybe not all year. So I don't know. I am glad that we are going to allow it. I think it was too restrictive not to allow it. Perhaps with just some moderate way to make sure it is not excessive. Lack: Would everybody feel comfortable to leave the ratio to staff at this point? I don't think that we have an ability to establish an appropriate number. Anthes: The question is, do we want to have staff go back and make some revisions and come back to us? Or do we feel like we have it in a good enough form that we would feel comfortable letting it loose? Myres: Despite some of my comments from time to time I have perfect faith that staff can come up with a percentage or a ratio that would be rational, reasonable, and fit the intent of this discussion. I don't need to see it again, but it is certainly up to the rest of you if you want to. Without rushing this through I would like to see it expeditiously sent to Council. Anthes: Mr.Ostner. Ostner: Madam Chair. I believe that I disagree only because I believe that we are sort of doing Committee work for the Council. They look to us for assistance. This is their rule. They are going to write it and quite possibly change it. But I think that they have benefited from our comments and staff. I believe staff is capable, but I would like to table it and just get some of these issues cleared up if possible. Add some language. Give Council more information. Anthes: The deal for me is the Ground Mounted Up -Lighting into landscape or onto the buildings. If that language doesn't get revised I am going to vote no on it no matter what. But I would be happy to table it if Commissioners were willing to look at alternative language. Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 65 of 86 Ostner: Considering the fact that I think the Council is going to change this ordinance whether we vote against it or not, I would be more interested in looking at it again to answer a lot of our questions. Then you can vote no. Anthes: Is that a motion? Motion: Ostner: I'll make a motion that we table Administrative Item 06-2379. Myres: For how long and to what end? Ostner: For the next meeting. If staff can do it. As soon as possible. I don't want to slow anything down. Conklin: Madam Chair. Just for some direction. There is some consensus that Fire Mountain may have too much neon. Logan's is OK without the reflective material behind it. Two lines versus three lines on O'Charley's is appropriate as we try to calculate a percentage. Is that what I heard? Lack: Pretty close. Yes. Conklin: Ok. So try to develop a percentage based on what you have approved. Myres: I'll second Commissioner's motion to table. Anthes: We might be at a complete impass at the ground mounted lighting, but if it is possible to look at some language that does what Commissioner Myers says a good designer can do, which is to safe -guard the use. Tighten it up a little. I am willing to listen. Ostner: And if, since Tim is interested, we haven't really covered this, but I believe the exemption for car lots. I am not reading it. I am just recalling how bright and white car lots are. Olson: They are not exempt under this ordinance. Ostner: I believe it's the... Olson: Oh, the location. The proximity and number of fixtures. Conklin: You are talking about the amount of foot candles or illumination intensity of light. Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 66 of 86 Ostner: I believe that there is an allowance. Conklin: We do not have an ordinance that is based on measuring foot candles or intensity of light. Olson: They would have to use shielded fixtures and direct the light down. Ostner: I understand that. I am basically recalling the big, big car lot off 540 and the lengthy discussions of those lights. They are shielded, they do go down. But I am almost certain that there is an allowance for a different bulb that is a lot brighter. Pate: There used to be a requirement for low-pressure sodium as opposed to metal halide, but that was removed a couple of years ago. Ostner: For all lights. Not just car lots? Pate: Right. Conklin: To have a white light so you can see what color car you are checking out at night. Ostner: Since this is the only time that anyone is interested, it is too bright. It is too white. After the shopping ends at 7:OOpm it is just advertising. I don't think it is right. Anthes: Well, sports lighting could use some shielding too. And I think that that is exempted by this ordinance. We have a motion to table by Commissioner Ostner and a second by Commissioner Myers. Are there further comments? Would you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to table ADM 06-2379 carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Commissioner Graves was absent. Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 67 of 86 ADM 06-2380: (Urban Residential Design Standards): Submitted by Planning Staff amending the Unified Development to add design standards as criteria for approval, applicable to town homes, single-family attached, two-family, three- family and multi -family dwelling units. The request is to forward the urban residential design standards to the City Council. Anthes: The final item this evening is Administrative Item 06-2380 for Urban Residential Design Standards. Ms. Minkel. Minkel: Good evening, Commissioners. I am here to introduce the Urban Residential Design Standard Ordinance. This is being brought forward at the request of Mayor Dan Coody and the City Council, and stem from the Urban Residential guidelines that the Commission reviewed on October 23 of this year. I want to begin, actually, by thanking Mr. Jim Lindsay and his associates. When we began drafting this ordinance, we recognized that none of the Planners have had experience in developing or engineering multi -family housing in Fayetteville and we wanted to talk with those who have some expertise in this area. Mr. Lindsay and his staff and associates were generous with their time and gave us a number of critiques on this ordinance, which I will share later in the presentation. As you recall, the City Plan 2025 was adopted on July 17, 2006. Urban Residential Design Standards are one of the objectives and one of the goals in the City Plan 2025, which was to create quality, attainable housing. It also addresses another Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 68 of 86 goal in the plan, which is to make appropriate in -fill and revitalization our highest priorities. This really helps to define what is appropriate in -fill. In terms of its applicability, when I say Urban Residential I am referring to two family, three family, and multi -family housing. So when I say Urban Residential, I am going to be referring to all of the above. I am going to walk through the ordinance, so if you want to follow along, I am going to highlight a couple of things. I am not going to touch on every single item that is in the ordinance. The intent of the site development standards is to promote a traditional form of urban development whereby buildings front onto public streets and form a pedestrian friendly street- scape. So I will talk a little bit about building sitting. The primary building facades and entrances shall front onto a public street. The build -to zone shall be between 15 and 25 ft. in order to create a streetscape that defines the public realm and allows for our current landscaping ordinance. In terms of vehicular circulation, continuous circulation shall be provided to the greatest extent possible, creating a complete, compact, connected network within and to adjoining properties. Parking structures, lots, and garages shall be internalized in building groupings or located outside the front build -to zone street frontages. In addition, on -street parallel parking shall be provided on at least one side of the street where feasible and shall count towards the total required spaces. I have also indicated on the Staff report which of these items would require amending other parts of our unified development code. That would be one of them. In terms of pedestrian circulation it shall incorporate connections to adjacent properties. This screening for services is identical to our commercial design standards. The fencing is similar to Commercial Design Standards such as no chain link or barbed wire fence shall be allowed, but there are two additions that are different. One is that solid fences or walls located in front of the primary structure shall not exceed 30 in. Any part of the fence that exceeds 30 in. must not obstruct the view of the primary structure from the right-of-way. The maximum length of continuous, un -broken wall shall be 50 ft. In terms of the Architectural Design Standards, the intent was to add character and quality to the community. To offer a sense of security... Anthes: Karen, can I interrupt you for a second? Tim, we are having a hard time seeing over that. If you could just put it over here. Thanks. Minkel: Is to add to the character and quality of the community. To offer a sense of security, and make a positive contribution to the life of the street. For example, projects containing six or more structures shall have a variety of colors and building materials that will be used to differentiate the buildings from one another. For example, in that picture on the bottom left it shows a variation in color. Number two, the primary entrances and facades shall not be oriented towards parking lots, garages, or carports. Facades of all Urban Residential buildings adjacent to the public right of way shall be articulated through the Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 69 of 86 incorporation of two or more of the following: balconies, bay or box windows, insets or other relief in the wall space, porches, dormers, variations in materials, variation in form. The following are encouraged, but not required: One is that roof form and height that are varied to complement the building's mass and articulation, vertical elements that accent horizontal massing and provide visual interest, architectural embellishments, minor grade separations between the first floor and sidewalks where residential uses occupy the ground floor to promote privacy. In order to look at how this ordinance would affect development that we see all over Fayetteville, we went though an exercise to see how that might work. We used Southern View I, which some of you may remember, as a case study. This is it over to the left here. This is the plat that we had in our files. Over on the right is the reconfiguration of those buildings. We attempted to keep the same footprint of the building, and then we reconfigured it according to our ordinance. I am going to walk through the changes that you would see in the site plan. This would be the existing trees and property line. This is the addition of the public streets. This shows the alleys in addition to the streets. This shows the additional parking, and so, on the left are the initial parking spaces on Southern View I and what is built on the ground. 682 spaces. The proposed parking with the reconfiguration is 562 spaces. That is a decrease of 17%. It is still within the guidelines of our ordinance in that it can be plus or minus 30%. The next one shows the addition of structures. The original number of residential structures was 25. Reconfigured we have 27 residential structures. There is an increased yield per acre. We also have two proposed mixed use structures. This shows the addition of sidewalks. And this shows the before and after. Below you can see what was proposed and built and approved, and then how it might be reconfigured. In addition, on -street parking is included in that tally. These are just projects from across the country that model some of the things I have mentioned in the ordinance. One thing that I think is important to note is that the architectural design standards are not specific to one type of architecture. It ranges from traditional architecture to more modem architecture. These are in many different parts of the country, and model variation in color and building form. You can see the fencing in front of multi -family housing. There are also some models in Fayetteville, and there may be some developments that don't have all the parts of the ordinance, but they do model certain things. In the left- hand corner, you can see grade separation where there are residential uses on the ground floor. What we have to the left is a duplex. It could also be a single- family residence. You wouldn't be able to tell necessarily from the facade. The middle picture shows variation in color. The upper right and bottom right show that 15 ft. of landscaping that we would require. It is also important to note some of the things that this ordinance would prohibit. In the upper left-hand corner, the garage entries that are in front of the build -to line would be prohibited. Below you can see services that under this ordinance would have to be screened. On the right is an example of duplexes or triplexes and sort of dense development, but in Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 70 of 86 a sprawl pattern. That would not be allowed under this ordinance in terms of the connectivity. I do want to mention the concerns that came up when we met with those who have practical experience in developing and building multifamily development in Fayetteville. These are just four of the concerns. They may suggest more, and elaborate more than what I bring up. One is the Fair Housing Act. I am not going to go into too much detail because it is new terminology to me. The standards that are set for the owner of one large property where you have multiple residential structures, in terms of the slopes of the sidewalks it is stricter than the regulations that we apply to our public streets. It is a concern that if the public streets are not built to stricter standards, then the developer has to find another route for a person living in structure A to get to structure B in order to access all the services within that development. If there were a club house, the person living the farthest away, there is an assumption that if that person had a disability that meant that.... They still needed to have access to that club house. They would have to follow a stricter standard than we would follow when building public streets. So there has to be an additional route. The concern is that this would cause—under this ordinance there is a lot of grading that would have to take place to accomplish that. In addition, there is a concern about parking. We had a decreased number of parking spaces. There is a concern that if we do not meet the ratio of one car per bedroom that there would not be enough parking for the residents in that development. Anthes: Could I interrupt you real quick? Minkel: Sure. Anthes: Didn't you say that you added two additional residential buildings and two commercial buildings in that scheme? So if you eliminated those buildings wouldn't you meet the parking requirement? Minkel: Yes. I am assuming that it probably would. It is a possibility. There is also the issue of cost overruns due to uncertainty for the developer. This would force a certain type of pattern that not all developers use. In changing the typical pattern there is the possibility, likelihood, of cost overruns because it doesn't follow an economic model that has been working well over time. Just in terms of this site work there is a lot more grading that would be involved in this type of development that we are proposing. I also want to mention that I added another copy of the Urban Residential Guidelines. There was a change to the ordinance at the last minute. It didn't make it into the Guidelines. It is one change on the front page that talks about the build -to zone between 15 and 2511. Originally it just said that the building could not be setback farther than 2511. So it is a minor change, but I wanted to make sure you had the correct copy. Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 71 of 86 Anthes: They do still say build -to lines instead of zones, though? Do you intend for them to say zones? Minkel: Let me double-check. Anthes: It says it in the little box that is highlighted to the feature at the bottom. Plus at one point... Minkel: Yes. Build -to zones. You are correct. And those are essentially the same. They are consistent with the ordinance. Anthes: In the Downtown Master Plan area, though, that is actually tighter. Right? It is actually 0 to 25ft, right? Minkel: Yes. Anthes: And that would over -ride this, I'm assuming. Minkel: Right. Anthes: Ok. Minkel: And just so the Commission is clear, there was a request at the October 23 meeting to add an affordable housing element to these design standards. We did not. We did not think it was appropriate. But I didn't want you to think that Staff ignored that request. The presentation on affordable housing goes over some of the options that the Commission could consider if they thought it was appropriate. I would be happy to take, if it's ok with the Commission, I would like to save that discussion for after the discussion of what I have presented with the ordinance so far. Staff would be happy to take any questions at this time. Anthes: Thank you. I think we will hear from the public. Would any member of the public like to address this Administrative Item for Urban Residential Design Standards? Good evening Mr. Lindsey. Lindsey: Thank you. My name is Jim Lindsey, and it has been a while since I have been here. I've not seen any of you on the Board since I am infrequently in your presence. I would first like to thank the City for all the nice things they have done for me in my lifetime, and the benefits they have brought to our company. Just like that. This ordinance is designed from Pasadena, CA. It is a take off of an ordinance that is so far under our economy that I think it should be really studied to the extent that you could understand some of the difficulties. There is language in the ordinance in direct conflict with Fair Housing. I will read it to you if you Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 72 of 86 want me to. Lot of things to think about. Cities push green space forever. I am sure that you don't want to take away green space. When you get into saying that we are going to do more density, we're not worried about density. You are going to take, in effect, green space. There is no way that you can have both. The Tree Ordinance will come under pressure. And the biggest thing of all is affordable housing. Do we really want affordable housing? Liked some of those stakes that are up there. But those are $200,000 a unit or more, from what I see. We are talking about affordable where somebody can come to school or live here in town and be able to deal with $450 to $600 rent. That is not in these photos. You are fixing to stop your drive towards affordable housing. Does it affect us? I can tell you real quickly that I shouldn't even be here. This ordinance is a huge benefit to us. I've got enough units right now that within 2, 3, 4, years, if this stuff comes into play the rents will be $150 $200 higher and you won't have to spend a dime to do it. Just raise the rent. It is going to hurt the people who are coming to town to find a place that they can live in an affordable fashion. We're very slow to raise rents in Northwest Arkansas and in Fayetteville, but if you can't grow into the market place, then probably most people existing will raise their rent to meet what the market will let you do. I am going to tell y'all that in my opinion. I told Tim, and Jeremy, and Karen today that we could have, doing some different designs, we could mix it up and have maybe a $20,000 a unit increase. Probably. In the ones we mixed up, not the original stuff. If you go full-fledged this way. Full -fledge out, those units that y'all are saying are the model will be triple the cost, and I haven't seen them. They will be triple the cost of what we build. What does that mean? What we looked at today could go up to $160 more rent per month. What we are looking at here could go up to $250, $300 more in rent over what my stuff is now. Maybe more. I am not here to try to whip on this ordinance. We have one project in process right now that we have been working to try to make as many of these features work as possible. We will be submitting it tomorrow to go through the process. It probably will come in under the ordinance, but there are things in the ordinance that I think need to be thought about. I don't understand in the second paragraph it says "infill". Four times in there it says that this is designed for infill. Well does that mean that we are going to do it on this side of the bypass? Does it mean we are going to do it in central town, or on Dickson SO Or does it mean that this ordinance is going to go all across the whole City of Fayetteville? Anthes: As it is proposed it is for the entire City of Fayetteville. Lindsey: It would be all of Fayetteville? Ok. There are a couple of things in the ordinance that I know are illegal for Fair Housing, and certainly y'all need to deal with that. If you get above three units in a building, Fair Housing kicks in. Up to three units it really doesn't kick in. And if it individually owned it doesn't kick in. So condos, individually owned buildings. Kim is it three units even if it is a condo? Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 73 of 86 Conklin: Even if it is a condo. Lindsey: But do condos kick in after three units. Conklin: That is correct. Lindsey: So after three units, Fair Housing kicks in, which means your sidewalks have to have 2% side -slope, 5% rolling slope. Almost impossible to do without having water in your buildings. It is a very difficult ordinance to comply to, and now single-family, they don't even deal with it. It is not even a part of single-family. When you start getting mixed use, and you start trying to figure out single-family houses, duplexes, triplexes, four-plexes. Maybe a 16 -unit building. You are going to run into Fair Housing nightmares. It supercedes everything the City of Fayetteville does and the State of Arkansas does. I think Mr. Williams would tell you all that. It is in fact, a major deal to deal with. From our point of view, one of the other things it says here "building siting. Buildings shall be oriented to the street with primary building facades and entrances fronting onto public streets. Build -to lines shall not exceed 25 ft from the front property line." Now, what you are saying with that is if you got a big tract of land you have to have a network of streets around your operation that will blow your mind. The plot right in the middle, the U-shaped, that is a take off of our project over there. It has basically got seven of our buildings tied to it. The number of parking spaces you would need to cover that is over 2 times what is available to use. I don't know about all the others, but if you waive the 1 'h parking units, the 1 per bedroom parking arrangement which you have done. You have a parking nightmare where ever you do it. Southern View, our biggest complaint is parking. There was a statement made, and I don't want to contradict Karen `cause I can't hear real good and I may not have understood it, but the multi -use we did, I wish you would get to see it finished before we get to strong against some of this. But, the multi -use we are doing has five buildings down there. You may have been showing on this project, two... Minkel: It was the reconfiguration of Southern View I. We added them. It wasn't based on anything that had already... Lindsey: You didn't do anything over on Southern View II? Minkel: No. Lindsey: Ok. Well, she was showing that she could have put some more in there. If you are going to deal with this ordinance, you are going to end up going up with more buildings. It may be fine. But you are going to get into steel, and you are going Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 74 of 86 to get into cost overruns that are far above what we are talking about now. I mean, it is hard to build a high-rise building and sell 1,000 ft. and then go down here where Barb and them are selling them on Dickson for under 300 per sq. ft. It is not affordable. This ordinance, as written, copying Pasadena CA, is about as right for Fayetteville as it would be for me to try to take our ordinances here and take them back home where I was raised in Caldwell, AR. It is a serious deal we are dealing with. You are going to take away affordable housing from those people who need to be able to rent something under $650 a month. I am not an expert on many things. I am sure not a good prognosticator of football, but I can tell y'all this. I understand this business. I have studied it, and I have watched. Let me make a final point. People like me, other people, we are building right now Lincoln, Nebraska, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, Starkville, Mississippi, Columbia, Missouri, Maumelle, Arkansas, Conway, Arkansas. Where else Kim,? Gulf Shores, Alabama, Stillwater, Oklahoma. And I have never seen anything, in my opinion, that is as egregious as this ordinance is. Now, I love the city. The city has been so good to me that if this is the direction y'all take I would like it to be on record that if you submitted something in advance to the ordinance passing that it ought to be able to through without having to meet every rule of this ordinance. We did buy one piece of land. Tim did tell us about the ordinance. He took our plan and worked on what that was. Would I be down here tonight if I didn't have that plan out there? I'm saying no, because Tim wouldn't have come out and saw me this afternoon. And after I sat and watched what he did. They were very curious, I appreciate them coming. I recognized the complication that this is going to bring. What is going to bring is all those beautiful streets on the front, they ain't going to be here because it won't be affordable. It will not be realistic. I just asked y'all if you can take out of the consideration that you think that I have some kind of major conflict of interest. Believe that if all of the units I've got went up $250 in rent my conflict would be removed, wouldn't it? So I think it is going to be a major, major setback to afford ability in Fayetteville Arkansas. That is where I will stop. Thank you. But it does need to be legally reviewed because there are more than just one mistake in it as it applies. Just quick if you wanted to look on page 9. It says "minor grade separations should be provided between the first floor and the sidewalk where residential uses occupy the ground floor. This will promote privacy and also accommodate patio entry porch and stoops." Anyone who knows the Fair Housing law, knows that you got to have a 2% grade into your unit and no more than a 2% cross slope or a 5% grade. You can't have steps. You can't have anything. And there is more than that in there. We'll sit down with our lawyers and y'all if you are going to do it, it would run us off. We got other places to go. But I see it as terribly negative to your city and the future of the affordable housing market inside this town. If you want to look at it and say "this is one area of urbanization we want, but let's sure not destroy affordability over here". Maybe that is something you want to look at. But I will tell you, whatever my 40 years here means, I see this as being a Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 75 of 86 very negative thing for affordability. For the person who needs to find a $600 place to live. That is all I had to say. Thank you ma'am. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Lindsey. Would any other member of the public like to address this administrative item? Seeing none I will close the public comment section. Commissioners? Want to start with the Guidelines and then work through the ordinance? Commissioner Clark? Clark: I've got a question to Kit about the violations of Fair Housing Standards. Is... Do you have your best opinion forward on this one yet? Williams: Well, you remember at the Agenda Session, I pointed out the same provision that Mr. Lindsey just did. I was very concerned that the ADA would not allow us to have these kind of barriers, and especially to recommend or require that we have barriers to first floor apartments. Regardless of whether they might be architecturally nice for the majority of people, the ADA and Fair Housing is not going to allow us to do that. As Mr. Lindsey said, the Fair Housing Act will take precedence over local or state regulation where it is applicable. It is not applicable to everything. It's not applicable to single-family homes, but when you start talking about multi -family, then it is applicable and we will have to comply with that. So we shouldn't be having stuff in here that would not be applicable. You know, it wouldn't work anyway because it wouldn't be allowed. Clark: Well, I guess that that is what I am coming back to. I am going to ask the rest of the Commission how they feel about it, but hashing out something that is going to prove to be illegal to me sounds like a terrible use of our time. Whereas sending this back and letting it continue to develop, taking tonight's comments in hand might seem more worth while in terms of us getting a project that we can move forward with some confidence to Ordinance Review. Before we get into discussing the intricate ins and outs of this, I want it to be legal. I don't want to waste my time. Anthes: Well, I agree, and yet I think that we can talk about the guidelines and the principles that are being discussed in the plan and give staff some direction... So they can come back through, even if we did table it, with... Clark: Other than be illegal? Anthes: Yeah, other than that, because there is the whole issue of "shoulds" and "shalls." They talked about it at agenda. I don't know. Let's have staff say what would be most useful to them. Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 76 of 86 Conklin: I think one thing that we found as we talked to Mr. Lindsey, and I would like to thank him again for all his time and his staff also. It wasn't just Mr. Lindsey, but his architect and financial information on multi -family development. What we found though is that if you have a single ownership, multi -family apartment complex in one ownership, it is very challenging under this ordinance to apply these regulations based on what we are aware of with the Fair Housing act. However, this also applies to two-family and three-family and other ownership patterns. I would just like to make that point because I think that some of the issues that have come up haven't been necessarily large complexes. This has also been the smaller units also. To answer your question, though, with regard to direction. Yes, I agree with Commissioner Clark. I do not want to move forward if there are things that we cannot do in this ordinance legally. However, I would like some direction from the Commission with regard to, are their things within these guidelines or this ordinance where you think we are heading in the right direction? Or do we need more suggestions and more research? We did model this after an ordinance or guidelines in Pasadena. Once you heard it explained that process a little. If you wouldn't mind having Karen talk about that. At least address how we are trying to develop these guidelines, because I think with any guidelines they are always challenging. Trying to ... one, we need to identify the issue or the concern and then look at how to address that concern. The biggest thing for Staff is that single, large complexes.... This may be challenging with regard to grading and finding ways to get from Building A to the Club House. Minkel: Certainly, and there are a lot of cities that have multi -family design standards. Springdale is one of them. Urban Residential Design Standards. We looked at a number of cities across the country and looking at their design standards. What lead us to the Pasadena ordinance is that it is sited in the Handbook for New Urbanism. I can't remember the exact title. It basically has the best practices across the country. So that is what led us to Pasadena's guidelines. The guidelines that you see here were modeled on what Pasadena had, although altered to fit Fayetteville's circumstances. As you can see all the model's pictures in here are from Fayetteville. The ordinance was then developed after the Commission had looked at those guidelines and said that the Commission generally agreed with the guidelines and we should proceed with drafting an ordinance. Of course the ordinance has more specific language. Anthes: A question of Staff, maybe Tim or Karen or Jeremy knows: Did you find a lot of cities that have Residential Design Standards that were defensible in court? Minkel: I imagine they are. I would look to our City Attorney, I think, in terms of the legality of this ordinance. Just from the discussion tonight and earlier today, I think that there are several key areas, one is the building siting part of the ordinance,which is in C2. The second part that specifically, and I may be missing Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 77 of 86 one and other staff can correct me if I am missing something else, the other part that I see that I guess opposes the Fair Housing Act comes into question is the end of the Architectural Design Standards that encourages minor grade separations. Anthes: That is not really the question I am asking. The question I am asking is about communities having adopted Residential Design Standards as a whole, and how those are holding up. Conklin: We will have to research that. There are ordinances out there, and Karen cited one with regard to our neighbors to the north Springdale. As far as I am aware, they still have standard up there. Anthes: I am asking that question because, I am reading more and more about these kinds of regulations being enacted all over the country, not just in coastal areas or areas that are very affluent. In Mississippi, for their re -building effort after the hurricane for example where affordability is a huge issue. I don't want us to get completely off track here by thinking that this entire thing is indefensible. Williams: Well, let me comment on that. I don't think that anyone is saying that this whole thing is indefensible. I am saying that grade separation language that I talked to you about on Thursday, I was uncomfortable with that. I think that that doesn't necessarily make the proposed ordinance illegal, but you can't follow that part. That part would not be enforceable itself because it would violate building codes and ADA. Most of this, actually, is not a legal issue. Most of this is a practical, policy-making issue. There will be a cost if this ordinance would be adopted. It will require things that are not required now, and those things have costs. Those costs will then have to be paid by someone, and that's probably going to be the ultimate consumer eventually. So those are some of the issues. That is the big issue, really, that you area looking at. What is fair to the developer or property owner? What is fair to the proposed tenant? And what is the trade-off there? What are you willing to do in the way of increasing cost of the developer and the tenant in order to achieve a look that you want, a type of development that you want? I don't think there is any question that we could not make an ordinance that's going to be legally defensible after we remove some of these other problems, especially that grade problem. That is a pretty simple thing. I would certainly be willing to talk to Mr. Lindsey and his lawyers about any other problems that be sees legally in this particular ordinance. I think that is not going to be the big issue. We can take care of that. The big issue is going to kind of be the cost -benefit analysis. Does this make sense for Fayetteville in our sort of topography? Does it make sense for the entire city or certain areas? If you look at the guide that they gave out, this is referenced to the City of Pasadena. Section 9 of the central district specific plan. So, this was not city-wide evidently in Pasadena. Maybe the central city was a flat area. Who knows? I am not familiar Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 78 of 86 with Pasadena. Maybe Tim knows. You are a California guy, Tim. Anyway, there are many issues to look at. I wouldn't get hung up on the legal issue. I do think that we need to address that and remove some of the language, but after that it becomes a policy issue. Anthes: Ok. Well, in just speaking to the cost -benefit analysis part of it, I think we ought to be looking at multiple models with multiple developers. I understand that there are some people bringing through projects right now with this kind of development pattern in those units. They are going to sell for $100,000 or $150,000 per unit, which must mean that there is a way to do this affordably. I think that we just need to look more broadly, and perhaps run a couple of those scenarios. Run them with Mr. Lindsey and his group as well as some other developers around town that are developing in different ways and get more feedback. Harris: Madam Chair? Anthes: Commissioner Harris. Harris: I agree. I have a couple of questions. The cost -benefit analysis, is this something that we are allowed to do? Is to develop multiple models... Williams: Certainly. When you are looking at an ordinance and what effect the ordinance will have then you look at all the effects. Will it make a better environment for our citizens? Will it cost our citizens a lot more money if we require these developments? I think it is something that you all can look at when you are looking at an ordinance to see if it makes since whether or not to adopt the ordinance. That is one of the factors that you should consider in adopting ordinances. Not in judging... Ostner: You just told us not too. Williams: No, I told you that when developments come forward, as long as our code remains as it is right now, when it says "what are the factors to improve a development" it never talks about economics. The City Council can possibly change that. When you are approving a development you don't look at economics. You look at what the code tells you to look at. But when you are looking at a new ordinance, then certainly all of these factors, any factor that could possibly be relevant to the adoption or not adoption of the ordinance would be something to consider. Harris: Madam Chair. In light of that I feel very strongly that I would like to table this. I would like to table it with specific directions to staff. I think you already know Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 79 of 86 what those are because you have already had some of the same feelings in your conversations today. I would like more direction on Fair Housing Act because I think several of us have seen spots in this and we are not sure about that. I absolutely would like more direction. I would like examples of where this ordinance, or this sort of ordinance, has passed before. How long has it been in effect? What has happened to market value? What has happened to rent? Has it happened in similar places, college towns? University towns? Towns that according to our school board there is some concern that we are not going to have the right kind of tax base giving the kind of building units that are coming up. I would like to compare like to like if at all possible. I would like to be able to look at this ordinance in any sort of realistic light in the City of Fayetteville. I think that we have already, if I may speak in a general we here, I think the Commission has already given a big nod to this. We have already gone through in terms of City Plan 2025. I think we are all very much behind the general principles here, so in terms of broad vision I feel as though I have already said yes to this on several occasions. But, I think now we are to the really difficult part of it which is how do we actually implement this in practical ways that makes for a built environment that we believe in for this town. From one perspective, that would be my direction. Anthes: I think that leads into the second part of this that Karen wanted to talk about, which is the tandem housing policy alternatives. One way to do that is to allow for, or foster, certain incentives when that is an issue. I don't know when we want to get into that. Clark: Madam Chair? Anthes: Yes. Clark: I think a lot of what Commissioner Harris says I agree with, but I go back to what my mother taught me a long time ago. `Be careful when you say yes". And this is one of those occasions. I am for Urban Housing Standards. I truly am, because we have seen, without being specific, some multi -family dwelling units that come past us that were just ugly. They were not what I would want to live next to, see every day, or pass. We all kind of chuckled. But we have nothing to go by in terms of saying there are no standards. We have commercial design standards, which I have gotten increasingly comfortable with using over the last few years, which seem to be rather clear-cut and spelled out but not overly prescriptive. This document that we are going through tonight, to me, seems incredibly prescriptive. There are a few its, ands, or buts, but there are not many. Shoulds and shalls and we can debate that forever. I was a debate coach, so I give you fair warning going into that one! (Laughing) But the intent of this to me, while it is genuine, it is not the intent that I was talking about when I said " I want these type Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 80 of 86 of standards". They're way past what I wanted. My fear being that it is going to increase price to the point that we can talk about attainable housing, but we're not going to see any. And I am afraid that we are going to raise the price on every dwelling unit that comes in following this. I am open to talking about it. I would like to see more information. I would like to see more models maybe and examination of how all of this dovetails with true attainable housing. I think Karen has given us some great information tonight about some ideas of attainable housing, which I am loving looking at because it is possible. But they are not two separate entities, but they kind of are. Tonight we are focused on the standards, and this isn't the direction... And I am going to say it now before we do anymore; this isn't the direction that I wanted it to go in. It seems that it has gone way to far from what I was looking for to almost being draconian. It is incredibly prescriptive. You've got to do it this way. It has to look this way. I just don't think that is right. I think people have the right to put some self into their projects, and put some of their own image into their projects. I think we can write.... We did with Commercial Design Standards, dad-gummit! They still get a lot of autonomy over what the developers what to present to us, but there are certain things that we can still look at and say "yes, this is going to look good. This is what we want." That is what I was talking about with these type of standards. I think it is possible, but I think to me this trips the wire and goes a little further than I am comfortable with until I see some real definitive proof that it is possible, feasible, and is not going to break the bank. That is the closest I've been to be pro - development in a long time, so let's write this down. Harris: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Harris. Motion: Harris: I would like to say to the Planning Staff, the work that they have done on this is extraordinary. I know that Commissioner Clark and everybody joins mein that. This is extraordinary. I think.... You know, Mr. Lindsey, I understand what you are saying about you're building projects in all these towns, and this ordinance doesn't appear. And on the other hand I would say that that is precisely why these folks are working so hard. That is an enormous amount of work going into constructing this ordinance to try to make it correlate some how to City Plan 2025. I do so appreciate that. I think what has happened in the conversation you all had with Mr. Lindsey today and will undoubtedly have with other developers, and just concerned citizens who are not quite sure how this is going to play out, is that we are going to wind up with something that does work. I think it is just not going to happen tonight. This is going to take a little bit longer. We have Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 81 of 86 managed to have some pretty incredible housing, including the historic district and other places in this city without this particular ordinance in place. I imagine we can go another couple of weeks. Clark: Was that a motion? Harris: That is a motion. Myres: I'll second. Harris: That is a motion to table until... Karen? Until...? Minkel: Next year. Harris: Until next year. Myres: Our first meeting in January is the 8"'. Is that correct? Pate: Yes. Anthes: So is it to the next regularly scheduled meeting or is `till...? Or is it indefinitely until we can see what Staff can do. Clark: I would think indefinitely until staff feels comfortable bringing it back. Pate: Madam Chair. Anthes: Yes. Mr. Pate. Pate: If we were requested to do cost -benefit analysis, look at rent rates in other cities, look at other models, then that is going to take some time. Trumbo: Madam Chair. Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Trumbo. Trumbo: I agree with Commissioner Harris. I think it would be good to look at other college towns our size that our out there. There are plenty of them that seem successful, and see if there are models that work. Especially since we are a college town, how this will effect student housing. I can see this working great for the downtown, and for professionals or people who want to live in this type of structure, but there are a lot of good points out there. At what point does it become too expensive for students who drive this economy around here. Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 82 of 86 Anthes: Yeah. City Plan 2025 and what we are looking in downtown is a form -based situation. So the fact that the Staff is coming back to us with recommendations that talk about form is appropriate and encouraged, I would think. We need to double back and look at that, because there are all sorts of things about the layout that they are talking about that promote certain principles that can go hand and hand with affordability, not in opposition to it. So to give us more time to get everybody more comfortable with that, and to have some test cases, makes a lot of since. I will support the motion to table. Trumbo: Madam Chair. I don't have a problem with possibly looking at these large residential condos that we approved that went out by the mall. We couldn't look at any of the design standards for that thing, and that is 12 stories, 9 stories, and we couldn't look up. I would be in favor of possibly fast -tracking something that can help us regulate some of that as far as design. If you want to pull it out and separate it from some of these other issues. I hope I am not crossing any legal grounds here, but that is one of the things that spurred me to say, "We've got to have something here." So we can look not just at the layout, but we can look up at the project itself. Ostner: So vote against the table, and we get to pass it. (Laughing) Anthes: Any further comments? Let's vote. Roll Call: The motion to table ADM 06-2380 carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Commissioner Graves was absent. Anthes: Thank you Staff. Karen, do you have a comment? Minkel: Well, if the Commission is interested, I have a few slides on attainable housing that meets these design standards. So I don't know.... Anthes: Mr. Lindsey, and group. Would they be interested in hearing this? You might be interested in hearing just a few minutes, of this discussion if you could sit down. Karen is going to give us a couple of ideas. Minkel: Because it was brought up at the last meeting, I did do some research on attainable housing projects across the country. First let me define attainable housing because there is that confusion between affordable and attainable and what they mean. Affordable housing is a strict definition by the Housing and Urban Development Agency, a part of the federal government. I believe that it is 80% of the median household income and what kind of housing they can afford. When we talked about attainable workforce housing, which is what is talked Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 83 of 86 about in City Plan 2025, we looked at a definition that was roughly between 80 and 120% of median household income and what that family could afford. We think that workforce housing if for a starting teacher, firefighter, police officer, if they were supporting a family of four. That is the workforce housing we talked about and tried to address in City Plan 2025. You notice this slide here, which is attainable housing in Boulder CO. It is the exact same picture that I used at the beginning of the Urban Residential Design Standards. It is because it is also an Affordable Housing Design Project, and from this picture, would seem to comply with that ordinance. There are a few other slides that I am going to go through, and you will notice that the density on these projects is different—higher probably than what we may have seen in multi -family development projects. I am going to point out some of the college towns as well. This is Aspen, CO, and these were all model Affordable/Attainable housing projects. That is at 40 units per acre. This is Santa Cruz. CA. It's a college town. This is 13 units an acre. Albany, NY, 38 units an acre. Richmond, VA, 20 units an acre. And this is Rohnert Park, CA. This is also a college town. It is 25 units per acre. That is just to give a sampling, and I was looking for projects that seemed to comply with the ordinance that was presented, just for your information. Although I agree that more specific numbers would be helpful with the overall analysis, I just wanted to review this because affordable housing or attainable housing has come up a lot. Over the past 5 years, there have been a number of incentives that the city has worked on in relation to that topic. Obviously there are Community Development Block Grants that are federal grants that we get every year in pursuit of that goal. We had an affordable housing task force. There has been a white paper in 2004, one in 2006, both of which listed different options for achieving obtainable housing. City Plan 2025 has one goal dedicated to that with objectives and action steps below it. City Council's strategic plan specifically talks about it. More recently the City has entered a partnership with Habitat for Humanity in Washington County and the Community Design Center at the university to create an affordable housing neighborhood. The Federal Housing Act of 1949 adopted the goal of a decent home and suitable living environment for every American family. This isn't just an issue for Fayetteville or Northwest Arkansas. Itis all across the country where cities are struggling to somehow create that market for attainable housing. There isn't one silver bullet. The matrix that I gave you just lists different options that have been used in other cities across the country and have been tested. I have also identified some very simple criteria that these policies would be trying to address: Do they increase the supply of quality affordable housing? Do they minimize cost to the City? Are they legal? I have just tried to give a sort of quick and dirty analysis of how these affect each of those criteria. I am sure that our City Attorney would jump in if I have misclassified something in the legal column., but just really quickly, these are the different options that have been used in other cities. One is to establish exclusionary zoning, which would mandate or encourage developer to reserve a Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 84 of 86 certain percentage of residential development for affordable housing to be sold below the market rate. They have voluntary programs and then there are mandatory programs. In the criteria matrix that I gave you, I also list examples of where that policy has been implemented to varying degrees of success. Another one would be to establish a housing trust fund where a non-profit agency or a City division would collect linkage fees in order to purchase property and build affordable homes. Density bonuses are another option that cities use where it is an incentive for developers to provide attainable housing where a certain percentage of housing is sold below market value, but then you get increased density than what the zoning would otherwise allow. It is often used in conjunction with inclusionary programs our transfer of development rights programs. Allow urban residential development administratively. That would mean that the ordinance that we just reviewed, if it were to pass, that any project that met the requirements of that ordinance would be approved administratively. Approving mixed-use project that provide for a jobs/housing balance. It is pretty self-explanatory. Allow accessory dwelling units as of right. Approve projects that receive a Staff recommendation and will provide housing for less than the median cost for a home in Fayetteville. According to the Arkansas Realtor Report for the P quarter was $184,000. That was the median selling price for a home in Fayetteville. There is always the alternative of doing nothing and let market forces work. If there is an abundance of homes that are priced very high, but they are not being bought, then slowly over time you would see those prices decrease. Clark: Karen, what did you say the median price was for a home in Fayetteville? Minkel: The Arkansas Realtor's Board issued their 3`d Quarter report. $187,000 was the median selling price. Clark: We are certainly not seeing that as affordable or attainable are we? Minkel: No. Clark: Good. Anthes: And Karen, when you are looking at these items, you are looking at it in terms of home ownership, I'm assuming, because of the attainable housing. But I am assuming that there is a way to correlate this to rental property as well? Clark: Well, the accessory dwelling would be rental, wouldn't it? Anthes: Well, I am thinking of rental apartment units. Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 85 of 86 Minkel: Well, this is a mix. There are accessory dwelling units. There are two specific policy items in here that could really relate to this ordinance. One is allowing an Urban Residential Development by -right, which definitely speaks to the rental market. I think there was another one... Density bonuses could be used. Just really quickly with density bonuses... it has worked in targeted areas. I am sure the Commission is aware that we rarely have projects that approach maximum densities in a lot of our zoning areas. I am not sure that density bonuses would work as an incentive to provide attainable housing in all areas of the city. It could very well apply to certain areas. Inclusionary zoning mandatory programs have some success increasing attainable housing. We are working on getting enabling legislation at the next legislative secession to allow inclusionary zoning to be utilized as a tool. Voluntary programs... there have been mixed results. With the housing trust fund they have increased the supply of housing, but it does require establishing a new division within the City or enabling a non-profit organization to take that over. They would have operational and capital costs, and staff costs. In terms of allowing Administrative approval for urban residential development, I think that is a question mark as to whether it will increase attainable housing. Because a lot of the projects that we have seen that would comply with the proposed ordinance sell at rates that are higher, probably, or are rented for rates that are higher than the market. I think until you had a saturation point you wouldn't see those rental prices go down. Approving mixed-use projects is sort of the same thing where you have that jobs/housing balance that you are maintaining. But at the same time there tend to be upper -end projects that we have seen recently. And then allowing accessory dwelling units by right. Yes, absolutely. In other cities this has increased the supply of attainable housing. You have increased rental property and you also may enable someone who couldn't afford to pay mortgage as a sole owner, it is another way of income of paying off that mortgage. It wouldn't cost the City anything, and it is legal. Then, the bottom one I just wanted to mention. I know that the City doesn't have any way to hold a developer to whatever they say the homes are going to cost. It definitely fluctuates. I think that Planning Staff and Commission and anyone who has really worked in this area has a sense of what is going to be more affordable. Smaller lot size. Smaller square footage. All those things are sort of indicators. So that last option speaks more to that than tying a developer to a certain cost of a home. This is just an overall analysis. Obviously you can go more in-depth with any of these. But I did want to make sure that the Commission and the public were aware of the incentives that the City has been working on and the options that are out there. The recognition is that none of them are easy to implement, by any means. There is a cost, whether it is to the taxpayers, the developers, or builders, or a combination of all three. Anthes: Thank you Karen. And thank you Mr. Lindsey and Mr. Fugitt and everyone for staying. The reason I asked you to come back in this room is that I know you Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 86 of 86 have been working with staff today on the development part of this ordinance. But I would also appreciate it if you could work with staff and look at these ideas for attainability incentives and see if any of them would be applicable to you, and if any of them would add value to your projects. We would like to get that feedback as we move forward as well. Lindsey: Thank you very much. Anthes: Thank you. Are there any other comments? I just have one announcement. I will be asking for Committee Reports at the end of our next meeting. That's it, we are adjourned.