HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-02-02 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE
A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on February 2,
2006 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain,
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN
LSP 06-1888: Lot Split (DEAL, 490) Approved
Page 3
ADM 06-1926: Administrative Item
(SEVEN HILLS SHELTER, 564)
Page 5
ADM 06-1927: Administrative Item
(USA DRUG, 407)
Page 7
Approved
Approved
LSP 06-1912: Lot Split (LINDSEY, 259) To Consent
Page 10
LSD 06-1736: Large Scale Development
(ZAXBY'S, 521)
Page 13
R-PZD 06-1883: Planned Zoning District
(ABSHIER HEIGHTS, 407)
Page 19
Forwarded
Forwarded
Subdivision Committee
February 2, 2006
Page 2
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Candy Clark
James Graves
Alan Ostner
STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT
Jeremy Pate
Suzanne Morgan
Andrew Garner
Jesse Fulcher
Brent O'Neal/Engineering
Sarah Patterson/Urban Forester
Subdivision Committee
February 2, 2006
Page 3
LSP 06-1888: Lot Split (DEAL, 490): Submitted by BLEW, BATES & ASSOCIATES
for property located at 360 N. VAUGHN ROAD. The property is in the Planning Area
and contains approximately 6.21 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into
two tracts of 5.75 and 0.46 acres.
Fulcher: This site is located north of Wyman Road at 360 N. Vaughn Road. The
applicant is requesting to subdivide the 6.21 -acre tract into Tract A and
Tract B of 5.75 acres and 0.46 acres respectively. This property and all
surrounding properties are within the Planning Area. The right-of-way
dedication: per the Master Street Plan is 25' from centerline; however
Washington County requires a dedication 30' from centerline with this lot
split. The water lines are accessible to the proposed tracts and a septic
system permit has been reviewed and approved by the Washington County
Public Health Center for the proposed 0.46 -acre tract. With all those
requirements met, Staff recommends that LSP 06-1888 be approved by the
Subdivision Committee with five conditions of approval. 1) that 30' right-
of-way be dedicated and on condition 4.a. — all water meters shall be
shown on all tracts to ensure that service lines do not cross property lines.
If existing services are required to be relocated or water mains extended to
comply with City and State laws, they shall be done so prior to filing the
lot split.
O'Neal: That covers my comments.
Patterson: No comment.
Ostner: Is the applicant present? If you could step forward.
Thomas: My name is Derrick Thomas with Blew, Bates and Associates. We can
answer any questions you have.
Ostner: At this point I will call for any public comment for this LSP 06-1888 for
Deal. We will close the public comment section and bring it back to the
Subdivision Committee for discussion.
Clark:
I have a question about the driveway they are showing on one of the plats.
Is it going to be abandoned, or are you going to keep using it? It kind of
overlaps.
Deal: My name is Karen Deal. It will not be used; it will be closed off.
Clark:
This was tabled at the last Subdivision and we saw it then. I don't
remember anything else about it except the driveway and septic system
and that has been answered.
Subdivision Committee
February 2, 2006
Page 4
Graves: What was the reason for tabling it - for septic system approval?
Garner: Legal descriptions. There was a discrepancy in the legal description.
Clark: I will make a motion to approve LSP 06-1888 with the conditions as
stated.
Graves: Second.
Ostner: I will concur.
LSP 06-1888 is APPROVED.
Subdivision Committee
February 2, 2006
Page 5
New Business:
ADM 06-1926: Administrative Item (SEVEN HILLS SHELTER, 564): Submitted by
Tucker Sadler Architects for property located at Huntsville Road. The request is for a
major modification of the approved Large Scale Development.
Pate:
O'Neal:
This property is located on the south side of Huntsville Road, east of
Morningside Drive. It is owned by the City of Fayetteville and consists of
a total of approximately 19 acres. Approximately 3.51 acres, a large scale
development has been approved for Seven Hills Shelter Supportive
Housing Facility. Approval was granted by the Subdivision Committee on
April 1, 2005. Subsequently in June there was a modification of the plans
which was also approved. This is another modification to those plans in
preparation of final construction documents. As you may have seen, site
preparation and rough grading has occurred on that property in accordance
with our grading permits that were issued. Essentially, the drawings you
have in front of you are getting closer to the final construction documents
in what the applicants would like to construct. With that, Staff is
recommending approval of this major modification. There are no changes
in the number of units or square footage, it is more precise and defined
from what we had previously. I do have the last one if you want to
compare the two plans.
I did talk with your engineer yesterday and he mentioned that there is a
possible change in the location of your water service. Instead of coming
from Huntsville, it would come from the south. I did mention to him that
we did need to set a meeting so you might confirm with the engineer to set
up a meeting with myself and Water and Sewer Division.
Patterson: This modification won't affect the tree preservation numbers that were
originally approved.
Ostner: If you would introduce yourself and tell us about your project.
Kelly: I'm Bob Kelly with Tucker Sadler Architects. The reason for this shift is
the owners and the board wanted to change this to a Green Building and
really go to the minimum LEED certification. With that, we had some
orientations north/south that didn't allow us the passive solar so we
reoriented, mainly the dormitory room building. It is a benefit for the
board — there would be less operating and utility costs.
Ostner: At this point I will call for any public comment on ADM 06-1926 for
Seven Hills Shelter. Seeing none, I will close the public comment section
and bring it back to the Committee.
Subdivision Committee
February 2, 2006
Page 6
Clark: Jeremy, do you want this approved at our level?
Pate: Yes.
Ostner: This is for Staff, I suppose. On the far eastern boundary, that driveway
that basically abuts the property line. Is that something we often do?
Pate:
There is a minimum of 5' feet of separation between the driveway and the
property. This is an illustrative graphic. We would review that as part of
our building permit plans.
Ostner: Great.
Clark:
This is a very exciting project. It seems to get better and better with every
modification that comes through. I think passive solar is a great step. I
will make a motion to approve ADM 06-1926 with the stated conditions.
Graves: I will second.
Ostner: I will concur. This is very nice.
ADM 06-1926 is APPROVED.
Subdivision Committee
February 2, 2006
Page 7
ADM 06-1927• Administrative Item (USA DRUG, 407): The request is for a major
modification to the approved Large Scale Development Plan.
Morgan: This site is located in the Evelyn Hills Shopping Center. On October 1,
2004, the Subdivision Committee approved the Large Scale Development
for a USA Drug to be constructed in this location off of College Avenue.
With that approval was an approval of Commercial Design Standards with
specific building elevations which are included in your packet. Upon
construction of the building, the applicant modified the design of the
drive-thru canopy without approval from the City. As constructed, Staff
found that it needed to come before you as a major modification because
of the significant change. It was originally approved as a flat -roof E.F.I.S.
with brick columns. They have constructed it as a metal canopy with a
blue roof to match the awnings on the building as well as the roof structure
on the entrance feature to the structure. The applicant requests a major
modification approval to allow the drive-thru canopy as it exists. In order
to become compliant with the original approval, the applicant would have
to demolish the entire structure and rebuild it with the E.F.I.S. and brick
columns. Staff recommends a modification to the existing structure to
help bring it more into compliance and conformance with the overall look
and design of the building. These include the addition of blue metal on
the northern facade of the roof as well as encasing the columns with brick.
I have brought pictures to show what Staff's recommendation would be.
This would allow them to retain the existing structure but modify it
slightly to better comply with the overall look and design of the structure.
O'Neal: No comment.
Patterson: No comment.
Applicant: I'm Jack Hogue, Construction Manager for USA Drug. Cody Crawford
with Bell Corley Construction. David Kennedy, Bell Corley Construction.
Hogue: I guess we are here to beg forgiveness. There was an oversight on
my part. I assumed that Bell Corley would submit the proposed changes
to the City. We certainly did not arbitrarily go out and change the design.
One of the reasons we did change the design is that we had tremendous
soil problems at that site and our cost overrun went to about $100,000
more than what we had anticipated the project would cost. We made these
changes to save around $15,000 on that canopy to help with the cost
overruns. We certainly didn't do it, again, arbitrarily, to bypass the City
or anybody else. It was an oversight. One of the problems that I have at
this point is that we are $900,000 into this project and the money available
is certainly limited to make the modifications that the City is asking us to
make. We feel that the canopy is attractive. We will certainly do
whatever the City asks us to do, but we feel that the canopy is very
Subdivision Committee
February 2, 2006
Page 8
attractive and well constructed. We have put the bollards on it to keep any
kind of damage from happening to the columns or anything else I think it
would be distracting and disruptive to our customers at this point, since we
are open, to try to make these modifications. We would like to ask the
Committee to allow it to remain as is. I don't know if this would help the
overall look.
Ostner: I would call for any public comment, Seeing none, I will close the public
comment and bring it back to the Committee.
Graves: I have a question for Staff on the drawing, it is a representation — it is two-
dimensional, so is it on this blue roof portion, bring it out?
Morgan: No, it would be flat against what is already existing.
Graves: So you are talking about putting some type of blue covering on this flap.
Morgan: I drove around to three Walgreen's in the City and some of those have a
similar design.
Graves: My issue with leaving it as it is, is that there is a lot of discussion and
thought that goes into how these are going to look, and this doesn't look
like what was presented. And those columns in particular on the drive-
thru do not match the columns on the front which was part of the reason in
asking them to be bricked in the first place. And I understand it would be
some inconvenience for a little while for customers because you are open
for business, but I am not inclined to leave it as it is. I'm not inclined to
make you tear it out either. I think it ought to be made to look more like it
was supposed to look like.
Osmer: I would tend to agree. There are so many issues that go into our
consideration of design approval, that often when fifty issues are
successfully decided upon and two or three of those are requested to be
modified four months later, the other 47 should be in the question, but
everything else is built. I'm not inclined to let it stand as is. I would tend
to agree with Staff that this gable needs some sort of definition. The
original drawing has a significantly larger roof structure. It goes entirely
to the top of the main building whereas what is built does not. I'll have to
agree with Staff that at the very least I would almost want to ask for this
gable to break the plane and protrude out but at this point, I am willing to
go with Staff's suggestions (which are very generous) to allow this to go
forward.
Graves: My other concern with leaving it the same is that I don't want to do
anything to encourage people to have these types of mistakes or
Subdivision Committee
February 2, 2006
Page 9
intentionally do it or whatever. These plans are approved as they are for a
reason and when you build these things, you need to be careful that you
dot all your "I's" and cross all your "T's".
Hague: I think if you look at our track record, we have built some 25-30 of these
buildings around a four -state area and this is the first time I've ever had to
come before a Planning Commission because of an omission or something
along that line, and it is unfortunate that it happened here. Again, we
appreciate the recommendations and that. We would ask that it remain the
way it is, but we certainly don't want to tear it down, so we will do
whatever you guys would like us to do. I'm a little concerned about
having to come back and put the blue metal on the..... I've got brick that
we had actually left over that we can brick the columns and we can do that
on a weekend or after hours, but the blue metal that goes on what is not a
very visible side of the building anyway, with the service station and such
on that side. I would ask that we brick the columns and possibly leave that
end gable that way that it is. It is a tan and I don't know that it is very
unsightly. I think it looks very nice.
Clark:
I was going to slide along until you made that comment. This is actually
the drugstore I use and have driven by it several times and that drive-thru
is just as ugly as heck. Yesterday I had cause to comment that how could
we have let that slide through. It just didn't look very good. Low and
behold, we didn't let it slide through. It was supposed to look a bit
different, so I am proud of us. I am also proud of Staff for bring it back in
front of us, because there are other buildings in this town that still don't
have certain awnings on them that irritate me every time I drive by them.
I don't know how hard it is going to put the blue metal on, but I think the
brick is an absolute "must". This is very visible, I have to take issue with
that. Coming up College, it is very visible which was one of our
considerations when we passed this the first time. And I am very sorry
that somebody dropped the ball on your end but to continue that little
sports cliche, "you got to pick it up now and make the best of it". I am
going to move that we approve Staff recommendations as presented for
ADM 06-1927.
Graves: I will second.
Ostner: I will concur.
ADM 06-1927 is APPROVED.
Subdivision Committee
February 2, 2006
Page 10
LSP 06-1912: Lot Split (LINDSEY, 259): Submitted by DAVE JORGENSEN for
property located at 3141 DOYNE HAMM RD. The property is in the Planning Area and
contains approximately 8.59 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into two
tracts of 6.34 and 2.25 acres.
Morgan: This site is located north of Mission Blvd. and Shelton Road. It is south of
the preliminary plat called Hamm Subdivision which was recently seen
before the Planning Commission. This tract is approximately 8.6 acres
and the applicant requests to subdivide this property into two tracts of 6.34
acres and 2.25 acres each. This property is in the planning area and this
tract is unique in that it does not have frontage on a public right-of-way.
The access that it does have is on a private drive owned by two separate
property owners; therefore, the applicant requests a waiver of lot width
requirement to establish a lot to subdivide this property and create a lot
without any frontage. The applicant has provided right-of-way grants or
access easements from the Hamms and the Sheltons which would allow
access from this property to the right-of-way on Shelton Road. These
waiver requests will require Planning Commission consideration;
therefore, Staff is recommending that this be forwarded to the Planning
Commission. Condition number 2 addresses this condition and we would
also wish to state that approval of this lot split and waiver, if the Planning
Commission does approve it, would not constitute approval of similar
waiver requests, if the property owners wish to further subdivide this
property. This is a unique lot in that the Master Street Plan shows Sagely
Lane a minor arterial bisecting through this property and you can see that
on the plat. At this point, Sagely Lane, east of Gulley Road dead ends in
an existing cul-de-sac and per the Master Street Plan, Sagely Lane is
proposed to continue through this property and dead end in this property.
Staff does not find that dedication of right-of-way for Sagely Lane for this
lot split is warranted. A 1.71 acre dedication of property for one single
family home does not seem appropriate. Staff is proposing to follow this
up with a Master Street Plan amendment to perhaps realign Sagely or
remove this portion from the Master Street Plan amendment. We have
addressed in Condition number 1 — Planning Commission determination
of right-of-way dedication in compliance with the Master Street Plan.
Finally, I would like to touch on the water situation. Each lot is required
to have access to public water. There is a 2" water line within the private
drive which is owned by a separate owner, therefore, neither of these lots
has access to a public water line. Either extension of that water line to the
property or dedication of an easement to allow the extension of service
lines to that water line would be required. Again, Staff is recommending
that this be forwarded to the Planning Commission.
O'Neal: Mr. Jorgenson, do you know where the water meter is for the existing
house on Tract B?
Subdivision Committee
February 2, 2006
Page 11
Jorgenson:
O'Neal:
Jorgenson:
O'Neal:
Patterson:
Jorgensen:
Ostner:
Clark:
Ostner:
O'Neal:
Ostner:
O'Neal:
Ostner:
O'Neal:
Ostner:
The southeast corner of Tract A.
That does lead back to our recommendation — the meter for that existing
house does need to be relocated so it is on Tract B and I believe this will
require just a short main extension from that existing 2" to that common
property corner for A and B. The meters could be set at that corner. You
are required to obtain easement for that short extension.
And the extension?
Just for the extension — we have an easement for that 2" main. This is a
unique situation.
No comment.
I am Dave Jorgensen and we do agree with all of the Staff comments. We
will be bringing it to the Planning Commission because of the waiver
request.
At this point I will call for any public comment. Seeing none, I will close
the public comment section and bring it back to the Committee.
It looks basic and it is coming to us at Planning anyway so I will move to
forward LSP 06-1912.
I have question before we finish up. Am I understanding that there is an
existing easement for the 2" water line?
We have a prescriptive easement if there is not an existing easement for all
water mains.
Are you saying that is not quite adequate for the water main he needs to
extend?
Right, if you measured ten feet over to the west, there is a gap of about 25'
between the easement and the property line. Therefore it is not a legal
access to the water.
So it is that short crossing there, not the linear run, but the east/west.
Right.
And you are suggesting that the little crossing occur where Tract A and B
intersect?
Subdivision Committee
February 2, 2006
Page 12
O'Neal: Yes, where you see, before the beginning of Tract A.
Graves: I have a question for the motioner. You didn't mention the conditions of
approval or if you wanted to make any recommendations on one or two of
the findings.
Clark:
I move to forward with findings of Staff and incorporating the comments
of Engineering and the conditions by the time they get to the Planning
Commission.
Grave: I will second.
Ostner: I will concur.
Pate: This is a lot split — it does have a waiver request, therefore it is required to
go to the Planning Commission; however, if Subdivision Committee is
comfortable with it, we can place it on consent. It is, however, how you
feel about this particular item. It can be placed on Consent.
Ostner: I would be comfortable with that.
LSP 06-1912 has been FORWARDED TO THE CONSENT AGENDA
Subdivision Committee
February 2, 2006
Page 13
LSD 06-1736: Large Scale Development (ZAXBY'S, 521): Submitted by CEI
ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at 6TH STREET, BETWEEN
LEWIS AND EASTERN. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and
contains approximately 1.96 acres. The request is to approve a 3,378 s.f. restaurant with
38 parking spaces.
Garner: This property contains just under two acres. It is located on Sixth Street at
the northeast corner of State Highway 62 and Lewis Street and south of
Venus Street, west of Eastern Avenue. The zoning is split zoned C-2 and
R -O. The background — a conditional use permit to allow a restaurant use
on the R -O portion of the site was granted by the Fayetteville Planning
Commission May 9, 2005 and a property line adjustment to combine the
existing 12 lots on the property into two lots is being processed
administratively by City Planning Staff. I believe that has just been
recorded, so that property line adjustment has taken place. The applicant
proposes to construct an approximate 3,400 square foot Zaxby's
Restaurant with 38 parking spaces. The site would be accessed directly
off of Sixth Street and Venus Street with a shared driveway with the
adjacent lot to the east. The request of for a Large Scale Development
approval of the submitted site plans for the proposed commercial
development. Right-of-way dedicated with this project will include 60'
of right-of-way from the centerline along Sixth Street by warranty deed
and 25' from centerline right-of-way for Lewis Avenue, Venus Street and
Eastern Avenue. You will note that Sixth Street right-of-way of 60' is 5'
greater to comply with the State Highway requirement of right-of-way in
that section. We are recommending forwarding this to full Planning
Commission and the reason we are recommending forwarding it is,
Condition Number 1 is to modify the condition of approval for the original
CUP 05-1474 to allow for a drive-thru window on the R -O portion of the
site as proposed. Staff does recommend in favor of modifying this
original CUP to allow for a drive-thru window finding that it would be
compatible with the existing commercial and restaurant uses along the
Sixth Street corridor. Condition number 2 — Planning Commission
determination of Commercial Design Standards. The applicant submitted
a photo as well as the elevations — I will pass the photo around. Here is
the material board as well. We are recommending in favor - that they do
meet Commercial Design Standards. You will note that this site does
have four frontages and that the elevations do meeting Commercial Design
Standards. Condition Number 3 — some requirements needed for Planning
Commission, some additional photos to be provided, a large elevation
board. Condition Number 4 — Planning Commission determination of
street improvements. Staff recommends 6' sidewalks along the right-of-
way line along Sixth Street; pavement 14' from centerline, sidewalks, curb
and gutter along Lewis Avenue and Venus Street, with 6' sidewalk located
at the right-of-way. Condition Number 6 is the shared driveway would be
Subdivision Committee
February 2, 2006
Page 14
O'Neal:
dedicated as an access easement on the easement plat. Condition Number
11 — there is some landscaping provisions that need to take place, in
particular, they have proposed some red bud trees for their large street
trees and we are requesting that those be modified to be similar to other
street trees that are proposed. They do have a nice variety of street trees;
we are just recommending changing the red bud trees. The street trees
have to be within 15' landscape buffer along the right-of-ways. Other
than that, the conditions are pretty standard.
We do need a survey per the LSD application checklist. Sidewalks that
you show through the entrance drives need to be continuous through the
drive. As stated in Condition 4, the sidewalks along Lewis and Venus
need to be 6'. The water and sewer: You need to confirm the meter size
required for the restaurant. 2" seems a bit excessive, so you can contact
our meter division to confirm that meter size. The size and location is
approved by the Meter Division. The sewer is shown as a 6" that you are
tying into along Sixth Street, you need to confirm the size of that. I
thought it was a larger diameter line. Since it is just a 6", we have to have
you study the capacity of the sewer down to the nearest 10" line. On the
Condition about the monument sign and utility easement, number 7 — you
could probably add some crossings for the utilities, some conduits, either
four 4" or six 4" conduits. You will have to contact the utility companies
and see if they need to get into the utility easement. That would give them
access and you wouldn't have to have your sign removed and replaced.
To the grading, I appreciate the shared detention for the future lots. That
is great. Make sure the grading is compliant with our setbacks. The last
thing is on the discharge into the Highway Department drainage system,
you do need to get a permit for that.
Patterson: For Tree and Preservation I have three conditions of approval. I need you
to revise the mitigation requirements to equal thirteen 2" caliper trees
instead of 12; trees to fulfill mitigation requirements are separate to those
required for the landscape ordinance. You are going to have to get more
trees on your site. I think you are considering several of your right-of-way
trees as mitigation trees and those must be separate. If you can't get them
all on site, you can do a combination of on site planning and money in
lieu. I feel confident that we can get all 13 on site. You have quite a bit of
green space, so think we could fit them in there. The 13 mitigation trees
must be planted on-site and bonded to the amount of $3,250 before final
certificate of occupancy.
Harrelson: I am Jim Harrelson, Engineering Services, Inc. Whatever you want, we
will do.
Subdivision Committee
February 2, 2006
Page 15
Ostner: I will call for any public comment for LSD 06-1736 for Zaxby's. Please
step forward and introduce yourself.
Hancock: I'm Carroll Hancock and the property owner directly across Venus Street
to the north. I couldn't hear what was being said, so you may have
addressed this. But we are concerned about what is going to be on the
back of that lot. We are residential across the street and we want to know
what kind of buffers there will be to the back of the business. We have
four town homes.
Ostner: Here is an extra drawing for you to look at. This should come before the
Planning Commission in about a week and a half. Any other public
comment? I will close the public comment and bring it back to the
Subdivision Committee.
Clark: I have a question for Staff. What type of screening will be required on the
back of the lot that will face Venus?
Garner: Along the north side? A landscape buffer is required between residential
and non-residential uses, so the landscape plan does really need to be
modified to add that 12' buffer. I'm not sure we would need a full fence.
Patterson: Like we discussed, they are required to put in the 13 trees — we can make
the vegetative a little thicker using that. There will be right-of-way trees
required there as well. We are talking about a pretty thick vegetative
buffer if we want to go that route.
Ostner: Is there not also a grade change? This site is a little bit depressed and
lower than Lewis and Venus?
Pate:
I think it is a little higher on Venus and goes down to Sixth Street. It
heads down in topography, but there is a lot of grading occurring on this
property to help make it more usable, so a lot of that grade change will be
lost.
Ostner: I am just looking at the landscape plan and it does say a two -to -one slope,
but I don't have a microscope to read which way it goes, higher or lower.
The slope is along the northwest.
Clark:
Mr. Hancock, what we are talking about is putting some type of screening
between the back of the restaurant and your street and Mr. Harrelson, it
might be good if you chat with Mr. Hancock after this meeting so when
you come back to Planning you can all be in agreement.
Subdivision Committee
February 2, 2006
Page 16
Ostner: It is lower, I can find some spot points now. There is a down slope which
helps. If we are talking about the extra 13 trees, I would hope that all 13
aren't stuck in the back.
Patterson: I don't think they could fit back there. We are looking at the adjacent
property as well. They will plant trees there anyway that we can use as
mitigation. They also have a small strip of landscape to the north. That is
not required so we could plant some trees there as well.
Ostner: Ms. Patterson was referring to the are between the dumpsters and the back
of the building.
Clark: It does looks there is a lot of space for trees.
Ostner: On the trees, I appreciate Staff mentioning the front two red buds should
be switched with a different species. Something that has often occurred to
me is that at this point, we just see circles on a page, but for most of the
time, people want to park in the shade and if trees are clustered on the
southern and western borders of sites, they tend to provide better shade for
customers. I've often wondered if that would be a good addition to the
landscape manual to at least look at that as an option.
Clark:
I am missing bike racks. Did I overlook them? Oh, there they are. The
only other comments I had were - the pictures are absolutely beautiful but
it is the other two sides I have problems with in terms of articulated fronts.
Ostner: I would hope that some added articulation would happen on that — it is
called the drive-thru side elevation, which by the way, for the Planning
Commission, these need to have cardinal names: north, south, east, west.
And the bottom which says side elevation which I am guessing is east.
Those two sides.
Harrelson: We are collaborating with another company so some of these I don't have.
Where the circles are, are your concerns.
Graves: I can't see your circles, but I can see what you are talking about these two
walls.
Clark: Those other two just look big and blank and you have residential on either
side of you and a street, so we need to take that into consideration.
Ostner: I would agree. Since we are going forward to Planning Commission, I
would appreciate scale figures. This is not a large building, but it gets to
be difficult with these elevations without scale.
Subdivision Committee
February 2, 2006
Page 17
Ostner:
Pate:
Clark:
Pate:
Ostner:
Pate:
Ostner:
Pate:
Ostner:
Harrelson:
Ostner:
I have a few questions for Staff. I understand that we have a rule that all
existing utilities under 12 KB shall be relocated underground. There are
also a lot of poles listed as remaining. Could someone explain how that
works? There are utility poles at the northwest corner that are listed as
staying and the eastern side.
If there are lines under 12 KB on site, they have to be relocated
underground by ordinance. If they are new lines, they all have to be
located underground. Anything over that, or serving other properties
associated with this development, those are allowed to remain in service.
So I'm not sure without looking at specific electrical plans and where
those lines are running from and to, what would have to be removed and
what would not. But typically, they are removed if it is on the property.
Does the City require them to be moved if they are no longer used?
Yes, that is part of the development.
I guess the issue is when the trunk line or someone else's service line
comes to the edge of the property, that that pole light in the top northwest
corner, everything from that pole, it sounds like you are telling me, needs
to be buried. But the pole itself can remain.
If it is servicing someone else's property, correct.
So we could easily see lots of projects where everyone buried their utility
lines but they are allowing all these poles crossing the streets, because
those lines are not on their property.
Correct. If it is service to someone else's property. If it is going across
this property, they would bury it on the property to the property line, but if
there are no easements or otherwise have no ability to bury those then we
could not require them to bury them.
I have been noticing that lots of people working hard to bury these lines,
but leave the poles at the right-of-ways on brand new projects. It seems
counterproductive to me. It seems like it might be a weak point in our
ordinance. The existing curb cut that is just to the east for the adjoining
building....is that supposed to remain?
I will check to see. I am assuming you would not want it to remain?
The curb cut on Sixth Street, allowing people to drive into the existing
building on the east. If we are putting this nice access point on Sixth
Street, having a curb cut right next to it...
Subdivision Committee
February 2, 2006
Page 18
Pate:
Clark:
This will be the only access to Sixth Street from the entire property. So
with the building there, I believe is being demolished with this project and
that would all occur as part of the Highway Department permit to allow
for the new curb cut.
I will make a recommendation that we forward LSD 06-1736 with finding
of fact in favor of condition of approval number one, with concerns over
commercial design standards on the frontages that we pointed out for
number two; and in agreement with number four, finding a fact in number
four and all others as stated.
Graves: If the motioner is incorporating engineering comments and the comments
regarding screening and buffering.
Clark: Yes.
Graves: Second.
O'Neal: I can get the engineering comments to you.
Ostner: I concur.
LSD 06-1736 is FORWARDED.
Subdivision Committee
February 2, 2006
Page 19
R-PZD 06-1883: Planned Zoning District (ABSHIER HEIGHTS, 407): Submitted by
H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located S OF EVELYN HILLS SHOPPING
CENTER ON ABSHIER AND HILLCREST. The property is zoned C-2,
THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 4.11 acres. The
request is for a Residential Planned Zoning District with 30 multi -family dwelling units.
Fulcher: This property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains
approximately 4.1 acres. The request is for a Residential Planned Zoning
District with 30 multi -family dwelling units. Before I get into the
specifics of this request, there is quite a bit of background information.
These two pieces of property go back to the early sixties just after Evelyn
Hills Shopping Center was built. There were some requests in 1962 to
rezone these open, green areas to C-2 at the time to a commercial
designation. That was approved and later went to an election and was
rescinded. Then again in 1967 there was a request for rezoning which
through appeals and many actions, was finally approved to a C-2
designation. With all of this history, Staff is still researching files from
the sixties through the nineties. There were some attempted actions on
this property in 1991; a proposed development, and another rezoning,
which were later withdrawn. What we have ended up with is a little over
four acres currently zoned C-2. The applicants are requesting this
rezoning Master Development Plan for an eight -building proposal which
will include 30 residential units, consisting of 22 multi -family units and
eight two-family units. The eight two-family units will be located in the
northern four buildings shown on the site plan and the 22 multi -family
units will be located in the remaining five buildings to the south, with an
overall density of 7.3 units per acre. There is an attempt here to create a
transition between the commercial shopping center to the northwest and
the single-family RSF-4 neighborhood to the southeast. I know there have
been some concerns from the neighbors; I will let Engineering go into
issues with water, water pressure there. It is currently adjacent to the site
— Brent may go into improvements on the existing water system and
possibly the sewer system. Staff is evaluating the traffic situation there.
Currently this proposal has on the boards a private drive which will come
off of Abshier, weave through the site, giving access to the three buildings
to the south, then enter onto an existing drive which, if you are familiar
with the Evelyn Hills site, comes off of Hillcrest and comes in the back of
Evelyn Hills. It will connect there. A second private drive will also enter
off of that private drive and go north to give access to the five northern
buildings there, again connecting to a second access point into Evelyn
Hills Shopping Center off of Hillcrest. Currently there is just pavement on
Hillcrest and Abshier, no curb, gutter or sidewalks or anything. Staff is
recommending that those improvements be made to the entire frontage on
Hillcrest and Abshier which will be 14' of pavement from centerline, curb,
gutter, storm drains, and sidewalks. Of course we are still evaluating this.
Subdivision Committee
February 2, 2006
Page 20
O'Neal:
We can get into the topography of the site. The southern triangle portion
has a steep grade change — you can see on some of the site plans where the
elevation lines are shown from the street level down to where the
buildings will be located. This is an area where there is some existing tree
canopy that is trying to be protected with this development. As you move
north from the existing intersection of Abshier and Hillcrest the elevation
flattens out — it may be an easier process to locate sidewalks and all the
improvements to the street there without disturbing existing canopy which
the applicants and Staff is wanting to see preserved. There is a buffer
from the residential units to the west and south of this development. Sarah
may go into comments on the canopy coverage and tree preservation.
Right now there is an existing 17.9% canopy coverage. After
development, it is proposed to drop to 17% which would require some
mitigation. I believe most of those trees being removed are for locating
the detention pond on the southwest portion of the property. The Parks
and Recreation Advisory Board has voted to accept money -in -lieu in the
amount of $13,086. With that, Staff is recommending forwarding this
Residential Planned Zoning District to the Planning Commission with 24
Conditions of Approval. Some of those items discussed today —
obviously, determination of street improvements. We are continuing to
evaluate these improvements so we can hopefully provide adequate traffic
safety and retain existing tree canopy on the site. Condition number 7 —
there are some items for the applicants and Staff to look at on the project
booklet and the site plans — some minor changes and areas for trash pickup
and other small details to work out in those areas. Also, Condition
number 15 goes along with the improvements — the existing canopy and
topography of the site. That is actually items 15 and 16 and requires that
trees be planted every 30 linear feet along the right-of-way, working those
in with the slope and existing canopy. Item 16 addresses that if this item
is to be approved, post development will require that any open areas left
between the canopy be planted with trees to create a vegetative buffer
between the existing neighborhood and this development.
I'm not going to discuss the water just yet. I agree with recommendations
to curb and gutter Abshier and Hillcrest, property frontage and the off site
improvement all the way to College and Abshier. The entrance onto
Abshier that you have shown, I believe that should be a "right -out" only
due to the angle that is shown. This accesses to the buildings, are they
private drives?
Applicant: Yes.
O'Neal:
The other thing, are you going to have any issues with the adjacent
property owner to obtain easements for the water and sewer extensions
across the adjacent property and private streets. The detention pond in the
Subdivision Committee
February 2, 2006
Page 21
north corner of the triangular parcel is part on your property and part off
your property. Are there going to be any issues?
Applicant: Does that not connect in the existing right-of-way?
O'Neal: I don't believe that is a right-of-way.
Applicant: Are you talking about where it goes through the corner.
O'Neal: Yes, the northern corner of the triangular parcel, the detention pond you
show there — part of it is off of your property, due to the unique nature of
the two parcels.
Applicant: We don't anticipate any problems there. Those easements - we have been
working well with the others.
O'Neal: One thing I might also ask is that you might add interior sidewalks to the
right-of-way along the private drives. That would give pedestrian access
as well. The meter volts that you have shown for the units on the south —
that is only approved by the Meter Division, so you have to go through
them to make sure they are okay with locating meters in the vaults. Show
all the meter locations for the units to the north. You don't show the meter
locations and show the sewer taps. On the sewer, I believe they are
showing that as a 6" existing main that you are tying into. You will have
to have that studied down to the nearest 10" to confirm capacity. As to the
water, if you could label the size of the existing water mains around the
site. I know there is a 6" coming in from Evelyn Hills. I believe the water
line that runs down Abshier is a 2"; the one that runs down Hillcrest - I
think the one to the south dead ends. I think that is a smaller diameter.
The one that comes in from Evelyn Hills I believe is a 6". So what we
need is a pressure and flow study on that hydrant on the north end of your
property. That will help us determine what kind of improvements, if any,
needs to be made. I do know that there are some issues in this area with
fire flows. On your grading, I will need some elevations on the retaining
wall — do you know how high it is?
Applicant: I don't believe it is over four feet.
O'Neal: At the south end of the property, the retaining wall is less than four feet...
Applicant: Yes.
O'Neal: We will also need all the items on the grading plan checklist per grading
ordinance. So if you would add those items.
Subdivision Committee
February 2, 2006
Page 22
Patterson:
Applicants:
Montes:
Cooper:
O'Neal:
Hearn:
Pate:
Hearn:
Ostner:
Staff recommends on-site mitigation for the six required trees. These trees
need to be large species 2" caliper. Mitigation trees can not be located
within utility easements. I ask that you revise the Grading/Tree
Preservation Plan to depict these trees and specify in the Landscaping
section that these are mitigation. I would encourage you to look at the
detention area — that might be a good area to vegetate. The six trees need
to be planted and bonded in the amount of $1,500 before signature of Final
Plat. The bond is for a three-year maintenance and monitoring period.
I am Michelle Montes and this is Kip Hearn — we are with 112 Engineering
and this is Tim Cooper with Cooper Architects.
I think the only requirement that would be difficult to meet is the
requirement of the sidewalks along Abshier and Hillcrest. We have some
existing trees along both streets and we are hoping to leave those for
screening. Also, there is a steep grade that comes off the road and if we
were going to have to build a sidewalk, we would have to build that up.
And building dirt up around those trees may kill the root systems and we
may have to remove some trees to put the sidewalk in. We are hoping to
have a chance to meet with Sarah and meet with Planning to discuss
whether we should have no sidewalk in certain areas, maybe it could go on
Hillcrest. We are wanting a chance to meet with them and discuss that.
For maybe off-site improvements that could be in lieu of that.
What we generally have done in the past is have an assessment for the
sidewalk not constructed. I have visited the site. I believe it is possible to
get the sidewalk along Hillcrest. The challenge is along Abshier, so that
may be an assessment.
There may be opportunities on Hillcrest where, at the discretion of Staff,
we not construct the sidewalk right on the right-of-way, which is normally
done.
That is possible.
We just want an opportunity to meet with you guys on site to get creative
with this. The important thing is to preserve as much canopy as we can. It
is going to be a balancing act even within the development itself. On the
private drives there, with the conditions that we are facing, the more
disturbance with do with sidewalks and grading, the more canopy we will
jeopardize there.
I am going to call for public comment. If anyone would like to speak to
this issue, please step forward, introduce yourself and present your
Subdivision Committee
February 2, 2006
Page 23
comments. I ask that you be brief and to the point, and not repeat each
other.
Wick: Rob Wick, 1314 Hillcrest. First I would like to ask, we have produced
two documents — have you read these? One is an engineering report
Ostner: This is in our packet.
Wick: One of the reports is produced by virtually every member of the
community, signed by every member of the community. It goes into a
great deal of detail about the area, the reasons why it should not be
developed. They range from preservation to the fact that, as we have
heard before, there are water problems in that area. It is basically is a
spring area, perpetually wet. There are going to be problems building
anything in that area. You have in your packet a history of it and you
know that in 1991 the Planning Commission denied any permission to
build duplexes there. Mrs. Gus Jones, the Fay Jones house, is directly
across the street from there and could be compromised by this. I spoke
with her yesterday and she is very upset about this and wondered if she
would have to move. We have water issues, buffer issues, density issues,
issues with the tree ordinance — I have looked that over. An awful lot of
trees would have to go. You have asked me to be brief. The other report
is from Robert and Mary Alguire, who couldn't be here today, but they
will be here next week. He is an engineer and he has detailed all the
problems with the site. I will let other people comment.
Miller: I am William Miller and live at 309 Abshier. I handed in a piece to the
Staff people yesterday, but very late — 4:45. Do you have a copy of that?
Pate: It is in your staff report.
Miller: I have not been a party to the other statements to those pieces, but I have
since being at this meeting signed my name to that piece. Also, the
concerns that I have are, that we originally had (my wife and I) are three:
Traffic in the area, density of the proposed development, and
neighborhood continuity or aesthetics. Those are described in our letter to
you. If you have questions, I would be happy to answer them.
Hopper: My name is Shay Hopper and my husband Dave and I live at 1224 N.
Hillcrest and I certainly echo and support and signed on with the rest of
the neighbors. My husband and I have only lived there a year, but we
certainly have been aware of and value the historical impact of our
neighborhood. We are very concerned about this particular development.
My appeal is going to be a little bit more sentimental. I teach eighth grade
Arkansas history; we teach about Fay Jones in my class. We teach about
Subdivision Committee
February 2, 2006
Page 24
our City and what we believe in and I am sitting back there reading those
guiding principles and goals for our City and it is upsetting to see green
space and green space on our goals and on our guiding principles and we
are trying to do away with that. I feel that lately in our community we
have had this glut of development in the condo market and we are trying
to development every green space into something. I feel at this particular
price point of condos, that our market is saturated in Fayetteville and we
have empty condos sitting all over our City of a similar nature. My other
concerns are trash, traffic, and water pressure, all horrible right now and I
feel it will be worse. The design of the condos — my neighbor just
mentioned this — the aesthetic design does not flow with the historical
aspect of our neighborhood. This is a very urban design; we all live in
historical homes. It concerns me a great deal. Ultimately, I feel like the
neighbors are being given an ultimatum — either you agree to this
development or it is going to be C-2 and you are going to have a fast food
restaurant in your front yard. Honestly, no one is going to build a fast
food restaurant at the corner of Abshier and Hillcrest — there is no
visibility and not a good business location. I feel like we are being
threatened either you do this or do this.
Wiggs: My name is Jan Wiggs and I simply wanted to say that another thing to
consider that we pointed out in our memo is that the sculpture in front of
the Jones home and the design of the landscaping of the yard is also a part
of the historic aspect of that home and many of the things that you are
talking about doing in terms of sidewalks, grading, putting in things, may
also affect that. I would sincerely hope that the City will seriously
consider the fact that this is a one of a kind, international historic residence
of very much importance that will be possibly a very important aspect of
people coming to this community in the future, either for tourism or
something else, and that we preserve the natural look of the area so
historically, people will be able to see what is was like or get a sense of
what it was like above and beyond the personal considerations. We have
an extremely important and unique property located right across the street
from here and this development could seriously compromise possible
benefits for the City of Fayetteville in the future. Thank you.
Coon:
My name is Linda Coon, 1336 N. Hillcrest. I basically will be very brief.
I will reiterate and affirm everything that my neighbors have said. We are
very concerned about the water pressure, which is notorious in this area.
There have been many complaints to the City, the City engineers have
come out. I also think Fayetteville needs to consider the future of the Fay
Jones property. Obviously, that should be a privileged space in our
community. I'm not so sure I agree that this is an appropriate transition
from a single-family residential area to basically College. I think it is
overly dense. Thank you.
Subdivision Committee
February 2, 2006
Page 25
Hoss:
My name is Rebecca Hoss, I live at 1440 N. Hillcrest. I'll try to be brief,
but I am a lawyer and usually we are not very brief. The notice signs that
were put up — there was improper notice, any effective notice because
there were only two signs that were put up. I brought this to the attention
of the City within a week after the signs went up. There is no sign on
College and because of the dense ground cover on this property, the sign
that was put on Abshier is only visible from the east side of Abshier. So if
you stand at College and look up, you don't see the red sign. The red sign
put on Hillcrest and please, I know you have been by and looked at this
area, and everyone knows that this area — Abshier is a one block dead end
street, one block, not a dead end. Hillcrest is a dead end street. There is
no access to Evelyn Hills. There are these roads but there is no City
access so this land is going to have to be accessed from Abshier and
Hillcrest. But back to the notice issue, the Hillcrest is a long dead end
street. The red sign was put down in front of my house, 1440, that is on
the bottom half, so nobody but the four people who live down there see
that sign. So if someone drives down and cuts through Evelyn Hills to go
through the arched area, they are not going to see any red signs. I think
that violates due process and I just wanted to note that at the outset and
observe that objection for the record.
Ostner: There is an access point being called out for...the current drive through
out of Evelyn Hills at the southeast corner.
Hoss: It is not a public drive.
Ostner: It is going to be built and connect through.
Hoss: So the City is going to take on the expense of making that a street?
Ostner: Is this going to be a private drive?
Cooper: It is contemplated as a private drive, but it will be available for public
access across there too.
Hoss: Will that easement be written into the record?
Pate: There will be an access easement, yes.
Hoss: That's the notice issue. Number two, what we are asking for here is a
rezoning and there is a whole lot of time and money and effort spent on
the quality of what's being built, but please do not ignore the basic fact
that they are asking for a rezoning. If you look at the map I saw, it says
that the pasture behind EZ Mart — it says on one of the surveys that that is
commercial, but according to the City's records, that is single-family
Subdivision Committee
February 2, 2006
Page 26
residential. So what you have here is a horseshoe of single-family
residential with a dead end street going through it and that horseshoe is
embraced by Evelyn Hills. The unsightly backside of which is what butts
up now to the single-family residential. They are wanting to take this
crescent sliver of land and put 30 family units on it. Right now on
Hillcrest there are seven family units, so that is a four -fold increase of who
is going to be using that street. Furthermore, if you rezone it to multi-
family residential, the pasture behind EZ Mart may have a hundred units
on it in the next four years. And all those people are going to have to
drive through Hillcrest to get there, because there is no public access to the
pasture. I know you have seen it. They are asking for a rezoning. Now
when this land was purchased by the current owner, he knew that they had
tried and tried to get it multi -family residential, and he was able to buy this
property as a lower price because many people were not interested in it,
believing that it was going to be buffer, especially as Fayetteville is going
toward this understanding that green spaces are absolutely vital to keeping
a City aesthetically and environmentally strong and we have to have to
these places for drainage and have to have places where the trees are up.
This sliver of land, they call it 4.1 acres, and I'm not arguing that if you
survey it, that it is 4.1 acres, but I'm sure that being members of this
council that you are sophisticated enough in surveys to realize that when
the thing has a serious slope, if you excavated it out to a flat place, I don't
think it would be two acres. This is a really small strip of land and they
are asking to put 30 houses on it. That same strip of land, if it was
developed as it is on the opposite sides of the street, would only have
about 12 houses — 12 to 30 is again, a three -fold increase in the density.
The criteria that the Planning Commission is supposed to look at, and I
know you do look at this, is neighborhood opposition and I don't think I
have to dwell very long on that. We have spoken on the street; everyone
but — the house in front of the pasture, is empty, the next house up, I have
not been able to talk to those people. I have personally spoken to every
other homeowner and they are all against it. Not against development,
mind you, but against rezoning. This is a horseshoe of single-family
residential and it is embraced by the backside of a commercial area. Take
this sliver and put multi -family residential in there will change the
continuity of the neighborhood, it will require City services, because that
little street and the old water lines are currently at capacity. We are
concerned about people parking their boats, their RVs, parking their
friends on Hillcrest. That is a change to the neighborhood. Also, we look
at how it affects City services — we talked about that, so I'm not going to
dwell on that. Continuity is the biggest issue. You've been given a lot of
reasons why continuity is improper and I find it very interesting that the
people asking for this, the people who have the burden on this, have not
spoken to continuity very much. All they talk about is how fine these
condos are going to be and they may be the best condos in Fayetteville,
Subdivision Committee
February 2, 2006
Page 27
but please go back to the issue at the table — should we rezone this to
multi -family? Rezoning multi -family opens Pandora's Box. It must be
done very carefully. We are not against single-family residential on this
strip — we would welcome it. The area is not very attractive now. It is a
green space and we appreciate the trees, but if it is single-family
residential, let them come and live in our neighborhood. We would love
to have them. Don't let these people turn around and build 30 units that
have their backside to our faces — that is what this is. Evelyn Hills faces
West; its ugly backside is buffered. Now they want to build a bunch of
condos with their ugly backside facing the front lawns of people in
Fayetteville who have a reason to believe that land is green space. Green
space because of the history, green space because of what Fayetteville
now stands for, and green space because of the topography. I would also
point out that on Sycamore, west of College, behind the old Long John
Silvers, there is a condo that was built there, it is empty, it has been on the
market almost a year. It isn't an ugly condo, it doesn't go with the area,
and nobody wants to buy it. These will not be sold for the price they are
talking about. And they will be razed and they will be 10 -unit housing put
on that place. Please do not change it to multi -family residential; leave it
commercial or leave it single-family residential. The fact that you have
refused to grant this in the past; what has changed since the sixties and
'91. The topography hasn't changed; if anything has changed,
Fayetteville's commitment to green space has been increased. This is an
unsuitable piece of property for this sort of density. We are not against
development; let it be developed, but let it be single-family residential.
Then you have a very thick horseshoe embracing the backside of Evelyn
Hills. We don't want the backside of these apartments on our residential
street facing our front lawn. They are not asking for permission to build
multi -family residential in an area that has been approved for multi -family
residential; they are asking to change this space, and I can't see where that
would be proper. Thank you very much.
Ostner: I have a question for you, ma'am. You mentioned a townhouse that has
been for sale for a long time. Where is that?
Hoss:
It is a condominium. Do you know where Long John Silvers used to be at
Sycamore — Royal Cleaners. It is in view of this area. If you drive up
Sycamore and look on the right, there is a condominium -type duplex
there. It is still for sale — I drove by there this morning.
Ostner: There are four, five, six units there.
Hoss:
They are still for sale. Those would have to fill up before these would fill
up. Don't open up the Pandora's Box of multi -family residential — make it
single, please.
Subdivision Committee
February 2, 2006
Page 28
Coon:
I'm Eric Coon; I live at 1336 N. Hillcrest. I just wanted to say that the
Fay Jones home is in the United States Park Service Place of Historic
Register.
Ostner: I wanted to remind you that this will go to another Planning Commission
meeting. We are only going to make a recommendation today. So that is
where the larger discussion will be and the full Commission will be there,
so I would encourage you to attend. I'm going to close the public
comment section and bring it back to the Committee for discussion.
Graves: I have some questions for Staff to follow up on some of issues raised in
the public comment. One of the comments was the requirement regarding
the rezoning. I would like Staff to go through the actual requirements on
the ordinances we consider on a rezoning.
Pate:
For a street rezoning, there are about five findings of fact that are required.
Staff typically makes those findings, presents them to the Planning
Commission, and City Council looks over those to see if they agree with
those findings. By State Law, that is how you consider a rezoning request.
This is more than just a rezoning request, however. This is also a Planned
Zoning District request. It is a development tied to that rezoning, so there
are actually about twenty more of those findings that we go through.
Some of those and the purposes and intent under our code, currently,
encourage a variety and flexibility of land development and land use to
provide a framework within which effective relationships with different
land uses and activities can be planned on a total basis. Does this request
provide a harmonious relationship with surrounding development
minimizing such influences as land use incompatibilities, heavy traffic,
and congestion? Does this provide a mean of developing areas with
special physical features, to enhance natural beauty and other attributes.
Again, there is a pretty long list of those findings and at the Planning
Commission meeting, that is what is included as part of your packet —
there are all of those findings. We look at traffic generation, population,
density, and potential incompatibilities, and what could mitigate adverse
effects of that. We look at a report from the Fayetteville Police
Department, the Fayetteville Fire Department about what they feel is
appropriate, if this is appropriate. They look at response times, if there is
adequate infrastructure in the area, and those are the items we look at with
pretty much each zoning request.
Graves: And just as a follow up, if this property were not rezoned, what type of
uses by right or densities by right would be allowed in C-2?
Subdivision Committee
February 2, 2006
Page 29
Pate:
C-2 is our most intense zoning district that we have on the books
currently. It allows for cultural and recreational facilities, office studios,
eating places, hotels, motels, neighborhood shopping goods, trade and
services, gasoline service stations, drive-in restaurants, professional
offices, live entertainment, liquor stores, and those are all permitted uses
within a C-2 zoning district. Of course there are other conditional uses
that are allowed. With the planned zoning district, it is essentially a
custom zoning district. You get to go through those uses and take out the
ones that are particularly objectionable. In this case they have indicated
only primarily two uses on this site, which are the residential uses that
they are proposing at this point. Conditional uses are limited to home
occupation. It is not a straight rezone in that manner. It is taking out all
the potential adversely impacting components of a rezoning.
Graves: Are there other residential uses by right in C-2?
Pate: There are. You can go up to 24 units per acre in a C-2 zoning district.
Graves: So if it was left C-2 right now, there could be a RMF -24 go in there?
Pate: Correct. It is under a different section of our code that allows for attached
and detached by conditional use. That is the process one would go
through.
Graves: There have been some questions raised by the neighborhood about traffic
and dangerous conditions for pedestrians. I understand there would be
some improvements to some of those aspects, that have already gone
through. I would like you to highlight those for me again — what would be
required for this project to try to improve the traffic and pedestrian
situation out there.
Pate:
As with any large scale development, we are required by ordinance to look
at what impact this project has on existing infrastructure and then do an
assessment, an evaluation of what then could mitigate that impact. Our
recommendation in this case is that the streets be improved 14' from
centerline adjacent to the property, and then down College Avenue off site
along with the standard 6' sidewalks and street lights; however, this is a
unique situation in site characteristics. If you improved 14' from
centerline, put the 6' sidewalk at the right-of-way line, there would be
some significant grading and tree removal. We are trying to balance those
two ordinances because we are also trying to retain the tree canopy to
provide and leave that natural buffer. So that is something we are trying
to work out. All of us, I believe, have been on site trying to find a way to
have the best of both worlds and allow for pedestrian access, maybe at a
different grade or adjacent to the street in this case, as opposed to at the
Subdivision Committee
February 2, 2006
Page 30
right-of-way at the entire width. Some of Hillcrest, for instance, would be
perfectly fine with the typical cross section, but it might have to be
modified as we go and get closer to that drop off. I would highly
recommend that Planning Commission see this site individually or as a
group to look at that. It is unique.
Graves: The other concern that was raised was the notice issue. It was mentioned
by at least of one of the neighbors, so I wanted to inquire about that. They
mentioned a couple of signs were out and they may have not been very
visible. I wanted to go through what the requirements on notice.
Pate:
The City staff puts out signs. We are only required to put out one sign and
it is at our discretion where on the site that sign goes. We always try to
put it at the most visible side as possible. In this case, we put two signs
out, one on Hillcrest and one on Abshier, to allow for the most neighbors
that could potentially see that property to view that. "Posting a sign in a
conspicuous place in the area involved" — we actually put two signs.
Graves: We did our regular advertising?
Pate: It is advertised in the paper twice and also notification is required by the
owner.
Clark: I have a question for Staff. I've lived on Hillcrest and that's another
whole set of comments I'm going to make later. I am a life long resident
of Fayetteville and I've always been told that this space that is in question,
was in fact guaranteed to be a buffer between Evelyn Hills and the
residential neighborhood behind it. I'm intrigued that our research has not
come up to anything conclusive. I am real reluctant to even go forward
until that answer has been determined. I do remember the duplexes in '91
and a whole lot of other history with this area that has been declined
because this was supposed to be a buffer. So where are we in our
research?
Pate:
What we have currently, that I have found, is that the buffer that was
established in 1962, the rezoning that was placed on the property with
Evelyn Hills Shopping Center, there was a covenant essentially restricting
development behind this property, which I am assuming is the subject
property; however, that rezoning was rescinded after an election was
called by referendum and those covenants were invalidated with that
election. We are still doing research on this property, but at this time we
can find not covenant restriction. The property is zoned Commercial
Thoroughfare C-2 and that is how we are processing this project by
ordinance
Subdivision Committee
February 2, 2006
Page 31
Clark: But the intent originally you can verify was for it to be a buffer and then it
was overturned.
Pate: Correct.
Ostner: This referendum you referred to, was that a City-wide vote?
Pate: I believe so.
Cooper: It was a vote. There were only maybe 1000 votes, 600, 400, give or take.
Ostner: I have a few questions for the applicant. What are some of the slopes on
this sites.
Clark: Especially the one off Abshier with the three units.
Montes: He has some sections that show that.
Cooper: There are section marks — you've got one on Hillcrest and one of Abshier.
Clark: The one on Abshier is pretty significant.
Montes: I believe from the intersection of Abshier and Hillcrest, all the way down
to Evelyn Hills is almost a 60' drop.
Ostner: Are these verticals your property line? Something doesn't quite add up to
me.
Cooper: No, they are just part of the drawing. This would be the street.....
Ostner: If this moves forward, the property lines have to be on these sections.
That is something I would want to see. The areas to northwest of that
triangular section, that sort of greenbelt and the area directly west of the
rectangular section, do those still belong to the Evelyn Hills property
owner? Who owns those?
Montes: On the rectangular piece, that is part of our property. On the triangular
piece, where the driveway is, we have an access easement to put our
drives there, but the owner of Evelyn Hills still owns that property. In the
triangular piece.
Ostner: The upshot that I'm getting at is that all those trees that are northwest of
that triangle are off site. They are not controlled by you, they have
nothing to do with your project. They could be gone by another applicant
or proposal tomorrow.
Subdivision Committee
February 2, 2006
Page 32
Cooper: They can't sell this property — Evelyn Hills can't because its tied to their
property with all the lease wars and so forth and so our understanding is
that it would never be developed.
Ostner: I think the destiny of that property or the likelihood of it is important to
this project. I know its not your call to determine what is going on off site,
but if all that could be guaranteed or if you all could find those documents,
it would lend a lot to the relevance of this project.
Cooper: A letter?
Ostner: That would be terrific. This is a rezoning request.
Cooper: Are you trying to establish or guaranty some sort of buffer between the
commercial aspect and the residential?
Ostner: Just interested. I know you can't go out and do it, but if it were already in
effect, the buffer, I think it would lend a lot to it. I'm not going to require
it.
Cooper: We will do our best.
Ostner: Some of my comments.... On traffic — we have touched on this before, but
I understand that Abshier can be sort of a cut through and people do use
that at high speeds. We've had a lot of discussion at Planning
Commission about that. If this moves forward, I would almost not be
willing to vote for it unless we installed or required some sort of traffic
calming on Abshier. The City just installed it on Maple between College
and Mission — three speed humps. They slow you down. There are lots of
swear words that come out at that point, but the traffic is slowing. I really
think that needs to be part of the discussions.
Pate:
To that point, the Planning Commission or the applicant can say — it's kind
of like a Highway Department permit — you can require a lot of things by
conditions but unless it is approved by the Street Committee or through
our process, it is not really something we can guaranty will occur or not.
Just keep that in mind when you are thinking about traffic calming. It is
something that we do have a process to go through. The Street Committee
has reviewed those on a street by street basis.
Ostner: That confuses me just a little. We widen streets and widen and widen
which we are requiring them to do. The Street Committee does not tell us
no. You all required a widening, we are going to stop it, we are going to
keep it as is. However, when it comes to other items dealing with streets,
apparently the bureaucracy takes a turn and our oversight or whatever can
Subdivision Committee
February 2, 2006
Page 33
get stymied. I think that is a problem. If this body can look at streets on
site and off site, we need to look at widening, more than adding curb and
widening asphalt. We need to look at the entire street structure. I really
believe that is a problem with this process. We are allowed to increase
speeds and that's about it. I would wonder if it would be appropriate to
put a notification sign down at College. Do you think that?
Pate: We could do that.
Ostner: I would like to see that. The slopes are important. This is a comment for
the neighborhood. As my drawings have it, the backs of these buildings
do not face the neighborhoods, in fact it is quite the opposite. The
driveways, garage doors, the backside of the houses are all facing the
commercial district. The fronts (I'll give this to you guys when I am
done) that face the neighbors are quite nice. They are very nice compared
to the garage sides. I just wanted to add that. There are a lot more points
that are going to be talked about, not only at Planning Commission, but
City Council. Don't panic. Today is not the day. The last item is, has the
applicant met with the neighborhood.
Montes: Yes, we did have a meeting.
Ostner: Were people in attendance and what were some of the items that were
discussed?
Montes: I believe there were about 12-15 people there. Some of the issues were
mainly the trees. There was one person who commented about water
pressure.
Ostner: I would encourage you to meet again as this process goes forward.
Audience: We would request that the meeting not be during business hours. A lot of
people couldn't go.
Montes: Actually it was on a Thursday. We had one at noon and had one at 6:30.
Ostner: Someone mentioned a privileged space on the Jones property. I believe
the piece of art is in front of that property. I would wish that this project
could incorporate something there. I don't know how or what or if it
would play out.
Cooper: We mentioned to Parks about three years ago when this project started
with one owner and they were not interested at all in doing some kind of
element either at the top corner or somewhere. The other thing, some of
the neighbors also, Mr. Alguire, he was concerned that in the future, when
Subdivision Committee
February 2, 2006
Page 34
it is in the National Registry, that there might be some issues with traffic
associated with it. Becoming some place to come see. Something small,
something where there would be an overview and plus a small history. It
wouldn't be on their property, it'd have to be on that corner piece.
Ostner: I think that Jeremy mentioned that special physical features are a finding
of fact in all rezoning requests and that is pretty special, that home. As
this goes forward, I'm not sure how that can be addressed better I think it
is going to be important. Those are my comments. I would share your
comments, Candy, about the questions as to the zoning and the definition
of the current property before it even goes forward.
Cooper: One way was to basically not have any development in that green buffer
collar, it is going to remain untouched. If there is something done on our
side of the property that we could break that barrier between the two, what
barrier is there.
Clark:
I cannot support this project as it currently is — can't do it for several
reasons. First of all, I'm very confused about the issue of the buffer. I've
grown up hearing about it. If 1,000 people changed their mind, the
neighborhood has been left out and I'm not sure why we honor other
promises to neighbors that I can't find in stone anywhere, just a verbal
promise, but not these neighbors. Secondly, I think the density is by far
too much — 7.3 units in this area are totally out of character with the
neighborhood. It is a very nice neighborhood, spread out, larger homes. It
dovetails into my third concern which is traffic. Abshier and Hillcrest are
horribly maintained streets, local streets — no curb, no gutter and they
don't go anywhere. Abshier goes to College, that is one of the most
deadly intersections trying to pull out from the Rick's Bakery. Hillcrest
goes to North Street to a stop sign that I never could figure out when I
lived there. Who has the right-of-way? You pray and go. It doesn't go
anywhere to the north. I think if you add this much density to those
streets, it is going to compound a horrific problem. A lot of people walk
in that area because they go down to the pond in the other development. It
is a very, very communal area. It doesn't have sidewalks now and the
only place you can walk is in the street. And to add this much density
there is just a terrible mistake. Also, I don't think it is architecturally
compatible with the rest of the area. This is a very modernistic design.
Find a house that is compatible with it. Of course I lived in a rent house, I
didn't live in one of the big residential houses, but I still don't see this type
of compatibility on that hill. Finally, I think the slope off of Abshier is
very steep and I'm going to go review that. I don't know that there is a lot
of greenery on that slope either. It's pretty darn severe and that concerns
me. I do think this could develop but I think it could develop into single-
family homes on larger lots. I would support that. But I cannot support it
Subdivision Committee
February 2, 2006
Page 35
with the current 7.3 units that are proposed. I think you are going to be
making it a horrific traffic situation. I don't think Hillcrest is ever going
to go to the north. If you look at the pictures, it kind of stops. As long as
you are funneling traffic out into North Street or to College, it is just going
to compound a bad situation. And that access that we are talking about,
come on. That is ill maintained concrete that is riddled with potholes most
of the time. I don't know who is in charge of it, but don't call it an access
to me unless you are going to go in and gut it, pave it and do what you
need to do to it and at that point it is still a significant slope. That was my
favorite cut through to get home and I lost a muffler there one time. You
kind of compounded this, too, Tim, by saying they can't sell that property
behind Evelyn Hills. I wonder if that is tied up in the covenants buffer
thing. Right now there are too many unknowns to me and the density is
way too high and the bad traffic situation will be compounded.
Cooper: That property that comes up there is actually part of that whole.... It is
kind of odd because the property line actually comes up even though the
drive turns and goes around. And it is part of whenever these people sign
onto these leases, they have to sign on that it is part of the buffer. It is
kind of confusing. They would have sold the property if they could have.
Clark: That is a big unknown to me. I don't think it is compatible with the
neighborhood at all with that density. I think it could develop beautifully
but not like that.
Cooper: Obviously there is no changing your mind today. In thinking about the
transition from the commercial to the residential, and I'm not a planner,
but this kind of philosophy that we are taking certainly seems to be a
reasonable transition from a commercial area into a residential usage. The
property isn't very conducive for it, a RSF-4 type development, there is no
way to go in there and be in compliance with all the City regulations.
Clark:
Transitional is a little bit more than 50' You can stand on the front
porches and spit on Evelyn Hills. That's not a big transition at all. To me,
if it was bigger, if you were talking about on the other side of the street
maybe, that could be transitional. To me that is a transitional zone. I
don't know if there is a definition for it — it has to be "X" number of
square feet, but as long as you can stand in a house and see the
commercial, I'm not sure that is real transitional.
Ostner: If I could interrupt here. Planned Zoning Districts are unique because they
are rezonings that come to this committee. This committee doesn't see
rezonings. Is this Committee a little bit more suited to looking at the
development side of this and leaving these zoning discussions to the
Planning Commission forum?
Subdivision Committee
February 2, 2006
Page 36
Pate: Not necessarily. It is all tied into one component, so all the findings are
part of this package, the zoning and the development, it is all together.
Ostner: I understand they are all together, I just hear us talking about a lot of
things that usually all of us hear, and there are a lot more people. I didn't
want to repeat things unnecessarily or place them unnecessarily.
Cooper: In regard to the streets, we were talking about the density, talking about 30
units. There are quite a few opportunities for them to get out on to
Abshier, go out on Hillcrest or even though this access through Evelyn
Hills isn't the best, people still use it. I don't see that there could be a
substantial increase in the traffic, because there are so many different
opportunities for them to get out. Through Abshier, through Hillcrest.
Clark:
That's it... Abshier and Hillcrest but where those come out is my concern.
Abshier comes out on College, right down from Rick's Bakery. Hillcrest
comes out on North Street. Unless you funnel traffic down through the
other neighborhood and they will squawk.
Ostner: I think Evelyn Hills does count as an ingress/egress so that is a signalized
intersection. I know you are crossing private property, but it is going to be
in perpetuity.
Clark: I hear you, but I lived there and it does not answer my concerns.
Hearn: The other thing that is important to note here is that we are not talking
about apartments or duplexes that were brought through in 1991 in a
conditional use. I don't believe that duplexes are a permitted use for C-2
so they had to go through the process to ask for a conditional use permit
and were declined. Duplexes typically mean they will be rental units. We
are not talking about rental units. These would all be individually sold,
high quality units, trying to establish a neighborhood environment with
these units.
Ostner: What are some of the square footages of some of your units?
Cooper: We are looking at 1500-1800 square feet per unit.
Ostner: That does not count the garage.
Cooper: The owner has said that it could be $200 a square foot — they are high-end
units. That is what the owner told us.
Ostner: From a marketing stand point, that is not a rental
Subdivision Committee
February 2, 2006
Page 37
Graves: I take a little bit different approach on it than Commissioner Clark and I
understand the challenges up here. We addressed as a full Planning
Commission recently some of the similar challenges related to the Temple
on Rockwood Trail, the challenges with traffic and hillside, no sidewalks
and that type of thing. Although that was on a conditional use request.
There is a difference between a conditional use request like the one
requested in 1991 and the rezoning request, albeit a PZD here. This piece
of property being zoned C-2 as Staff has pointed out, it could be
developed to 24 units per acre. There is not any height restrictions that
keep them from going up or any hillside ordinance in place right now. So
this could be a lot different than what is being proposed. And a lot denser
than what is being proposed. The design they have brought forward is an
attractive design. There are conditions attached to it that will improve the
situation. It may not improve it to the complete satisfaction of everyone,
but it is at least taking steps forward with requiring sidewalks, curb and
gutter improvements to the street and continuing the private access. So
from that stand point, even if we don't have a consensus here today, I am
not willing to hold this up at the Subdivision level based on some antidotal
stories that this might have been intended as a buffer strip a long time ago.
What I have in front of me right now is that this is zoned C-2. If the Staff
turns up something different in the next week and a half before it comes
before the full Planning Commission for a vote, then we might table it at
that level. I would see no reason based on what we have talked about
today to hold it at this level. Whether we can make a recommendation, it
doesn't sound like we are going to be able to make a consensus
recommendation at the Subdivision Committee today, but I would suggest
that we ought to forward it unless we have some changes to design or
layout itself, then we ought to forward it to the full Planning Commission
for consideration where some of these other concerns like Commissioner
Clark has raised can be taken up by the full Commission and the City
Council will look at this as well, since it is a rezoning and a PZD. There
are two more steps to this process after the Subdivision and I wouldn't see
a reason to hold it at Subdivision level based on what the discussion has
included so far.
Ostner: I would tend to agree. Another bonus is the City Attorney is present at
Planning Commission meetings. It sounds like there could be a lot of
issues that he could help share light on. On the packet H2 offered us, on
page four, there is a little chart comparing the current C-2 zoning and the
proposed RPZD zoning. Under maximum height, and this is a question
for Staff, it says that 75' is the maximum height is the maximum height in
a C-2 zoning.
Pate: It is 75' or six stories.
Subdivision Committee
February 2, 2006
Page 38
Ostner: Okay, I was not aware of that. The applicant is proposing 35'. There is
no density maximum in the C-2 zoning....
Pate: Actually it is, it is RMF -24 — it is 24 units per acre.
Ostner: If you are going to do a residential it comes out to 24 units per acre. This
is a 7.3 units per acre proposal. The site coverage maximum under the
current zoning is 60% of the site and this proposal is covering 17% of the
site. Those are pretty major differences. The rest of my comments of this
packet have already been addressed. On page seven in the packet, they
talk about tree preservation and they basically give a cursory look, "we
will comply with the section 167". I'm going to need more than that. If I
am going to approve this at Planning Commission, I'm going to need
some promises, some areas that you call out as protected or easements or
something, because the buffers for the residential is crucial. Those are
really not questions on the packet. I would tend to agree that the Planning
Commission is the proper place to review the zoning of this. I respect
your concerns. I might very well vote against it at Planning Commission —
regardless if I vote for it today. I sort of see this body as a development
nuts and bolts review step. I've never felt comfortable having a full blown
zoning discussion here. There are six other members with great comments
that I am not hearing. I would be in support of forwarding this.
Graves: I will move to forward R-PZD 06-1883 to the full Planning Commission
with the stated Conditions of Approval and without the census findings at
this point on the subjects that we made findings on.
Ostner: I will second this.
Clark: I will vote no, unless you change the density, I couldn't even forward it to
full Planning.
Ostner: I do have concerns about the density.
That completes our agenda. Are there any announcements? I would like
to share that the Planning Commission is looking for three additional
members, at least two for sure. Thank you.