The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2007-01-22 MinutesPlanning Commission January 22, 2007 Page I of 130 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on January 22, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN RECONSIDER (ROCKCLIFF APPEAL) Reconsider Page: 3 LSP 06-2404 (SCHWARTZ, 454) Approved Page: 5 ADM 06-2380 (URBAN RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS) Tabled Page: 6 ADM 07-2442 (BELLAFONT 1 LSD MODIFICATION) Approved Page: 26 VAR 07-2441 (FIVE WEST MOUNTAIN) Approved Page: 29 CUP 07-2420 (LOVING CHOICES, 522) Approved Page: 36 RZN 07-2419 (KELLY, 681/720) Forward Page: 42 LSD 06-2300 (CENTRAL UNITED METHODIST, 484) Approved Page: 48 LSD 07-2414 (PEBBLE CREEK FLATS, 598) Approved Page: 56 R-PZD 06-2299 (RUSKIN HEIGHTS, 370) Forward Page: 71 Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 2 of 130 Jill Anthes Candy Clark James Graves Hilary Harris Andy Lack Christine Myres Sean Trumbo STAFF PRESENT Matt Casey Jeremy Pate Suzanne Morgan Jesse Fulcher CITY ATTORNEY: Kit Williams MEMBERS ABSENT Lois Bryant Alan Ostner STAFF ABSENT Andrew Garner Glenn Newman Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 3 of 130 Anthes: Good evening and welcome to the Monday, January 22, 2007 meeting of the City of Fayetteville Planning Commission. I would like to remind audience members and Commissioners to turn off all cell -phones and pagers. Listening devices are available if you have trouble hearing in this room. You can contact a Staff member and they will provide you with a headset. We do have a lot items tonight and a lot of public comment, as you can see from the attendance in the room. If you would, please read the section on the agenda regarding the terms for addressing the Planning Commission. That will help us get through the meeting. Also, I want to remind applicants that we will have seven Commissioners tonight. Five affirmative votes are required for rezoning requests and conditional uses. So just be advised of that. You will have the option to table if you would rather be heard by the full Commission. Will you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call, Lack, Myres, Graves, Harris, Clark, Trumbo, and Anthes are present. Commissioners Ostner and Bryant were absent. Anthes: Before we move to the Consent Agenda, Mr. Williams will you address the reconsideration of the denial of the Administrative Item on Rockcliff. Williams: Yes, thank you. As you know, I sent you a little memo on January 11 about this. We have never done such an appeal before. We are all kind of walking in the dark, and there was nothing in the Unified Development Code that said that notice should be given to the property owner. And so, no notice was given. Reviewing this after our meeting I became concerned about that. The property owner is really a party of interest here. They are the ones that will be out thousands of dollars if the decision is left the way it was. Therefore, my request for constitutional reasons to give them proper due process would be that you would reconsider this and schedule it for the next meeting so the property owner be notified and have their opportunity to give their side of this issue. Anthes: So I would need one Commissioner who had voted in favor of the denial of the appeal to move to reconsider, if that is what you choose to do. Motion: Graves: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Graves: I'll move that we reconsider that item. I don't remember what the number was off the top of my head. ADM 06-2410 the Rockcliff appeal. I would move that we reconsider that at our next regularly scheduled meeting. Anthes: Do I hear a second? Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 4 of 130 Myres: Second. Anthes: We have a motion to reconsider by Commissioner Graves with a second by Commissioner Myres. Mr. Williams, do we all vote on that? Williams: Yeah. Everyone can vote on that. Anthes: Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to reconsider Rockcliff Appeal carries 7-0-0. LSP 06-2404: Lot Split (SCHWARTZ, 454): Submitted by BATES & ASSOCIATES for property located at 700 FOX HUNTER RD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 5 of 130 approximately 5.21 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into 3 tracts of 1.17, 3.04 and 1.00 acres. Anthes: First item tonight is approval of the Consent Agenda. The Consent Agenda has two items: The approval of the October 9, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. I have forwarded comments to Mr. Pate. And Lot Split 06-2404 for Schwartz. Would any member of the public or any Commissioner like to remove either of these items for discussion? Seeing none I will entertain motions to approve the Consent Agenda. Graves: Madam Chair. Anthes: Yes, Mr. Graves. Motion: Graves: I will move for approval of the Consent Agenda. Clark: Second. Anthes: Motion to approve by Commissioner Graves with a second by Commissioner Clark. Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve the Consent Agenda carries with a vote 7-0-0. 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 Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 6 of 130 dwelling units. The request is to forward the urban residential design standards to the City Council. Anthes: First item of Old Business is Administrative Item 06-2380 Urban Residential Design Standards. Ms Minkel. Minkel: Good evening, Madam Chair and Commission. On December 11, Staff presented the proposed Urban Residential Design standards. At that meeting several requests and concerns were voiced by Commissioners and the public which Staff has addressed in its report, and I will cover in this presentation. Just as a review for members of the public and the Commission, this would apply to two-family, three-family, and multifamily dwellings. In terms of the Site Development Standard this ordinance would require that buildings front onto a public street. The build -to line shall not exceed 2511 from the front property line. In terms of vehicular access and circulation, parking, garage entries, and parking lots shall be located outside the front build -to zone. On -street parking shall be provided on at least one side of the street and count towards the total required spaces for the development. Public streets shall be extended and connected to adjoining properties. Projects shall incorporate pedestrian connections to adjacent properties. Similar to our Commercial Design Standards all utility equipment and trash areas shall be screened appropriately. Razor, barbed wire, and chain length fences are prohibited. Also the maximum height of a solid fence within the build - to zone shall be 30in. In terms of Architectural Design Standards in developments containing six or more residential structures a variety of color and building materials shall be used to differentiate one building from another. Ancillary structures shall be similar architecturally to primary buildings. Primary entrances and facades shall not be oriented towards parking lots, garages, or carports. All facades visible from the public right-of-way shall be articulated using two or more options. There are six other items that follow. Those things that are required that are items that are encouraged. For example, massing should place strong visual emphasis on the street. Vertical elements may be used to accent horizontal massing. Architectural embellishments such awnings, (unclear), and molding are encouraged. Minor grade separations should be provided between the first floor and the sidewalk where residential uses occupy the ground floor. I just wanted to refer back to the report and some of the concerns that the Commission had, and that staff has attempted to address. One was the legality of the proposed ordinance. We sought out two experts on the American Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act and had some of their staff review the ordinance to see whether it was in violation of the federal legislation. Diego Demaya, a Legal Specialist for the Disability Law Resource Project, and Kathy Gips, Director of Training for Adaptive Environments reviewed the legislation, and both found that the proposed ordinance was in compliance with the relevant Federal legislation. I just want to go though some of these pictures, because I think that these images may give everyone a better understanding of what this ordinance is intended to prohibit, and intended to allow. Some of these shots you will recognize. They are from developments in Fayetteville. It would Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 7 of 130 prohibit this type of development where the building is fronting onto parking. For example, it would allow something like this where you have on -street parking and the primary facade fronts onto the public street. This is another example. You can see where the public street is and the sidewalk, and the buildings are facing away from it. It would allow something like this, and it would allow something like that. This is another example of development where the same structure is repeated over and over, and you also have the garage entry that protrudes from the principle facade. That would be prohibited. This type of development would be allowed with the garage entries flush with the principle facade, as well as something like this. This is another example. This is the public right-of-way, or the public street. What is fronting onto the street is not principle facade, and it is also all the utilities and there is no screening. That is our public realm. For a project like this, or a project like that. And this is an example from Fayetteville, but just note that you can't see the utilities at all. This is what is fronting where the public is walking. Just to recap, these are some of the projects that the code would prohibit. These are model projects from around the country. We also have some development in Fayetteville that models either all, or some of, the elements within this ordinance. Commission also was interested in cost analysis. How would this ordinance effect the cost of construction and development, and from that we can infer would probably translate into higher rents. We did a very rough analysis. I just wanted to first thank Mr. Jim Lindsay and his staff, because he did allow us to use Southern View 1, which is a project that has already been developed. It is a more conventional multi -family development. Allowed us to use it as kind of a case study and look at what would happen if we redesigned that development using the site, and essentially the same building footprints and redesigned it according to this proposed ordinance. Just a few caveats of these numbers just to give us a general idea. But, it is specific to one site and one development, first of all. A lot of these costs are site specific, as you know. The analysis assumes that a developer is being forced to change his or her pattern of development. I showed some Fayetteville models and obviously there are some developers in Fayetteville that are developing projects that would comply with this proposed ordinance completely. There is that assumption when we do this cost analysis, that it is forcing a change. Third, the analysis only uses numbers that Planning Staff could use with a high degree of certainty. In your report on page 2 there is a chart there that shows the City of Fayetteville's redesign of Southern View 1, case study. It shows the different percentages of numbers and gives percentage changes as well as hard figures. But you will notice at the very bottom, for example, that we added over 10,000sq ft of commercial space. We don't know what that would pay off in profit. We are not necessarily capturing all of the benefits, even though capture a lot of these costs. And, of course, we are not including costs of grading and whatnot that would also accompany a project. So we are submitting this number to give sort of a ballpark figure, but I did not want to give those caveats to that number as well. So we basically calculated the percentage changes with this redesign looking at sidewalks, public streets, parking lot tree planting, street lights (including materials and installation), as well as the change in green space, Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 8 of 130 the change in parking lot numbers, and dwelling units. We also increased the number of dwelling units that were there. We reduced parking. And you will probably notice that reduction in green space. In the redesign the green space has all been put together so that it can be used as a community gathering space. We were sort of guessing when looking at the original design and trying to calculate what would count as green space. It tended to be small pieces of green space throughout the development. This again shows the cost difference, and the total difference would be over $700,000 because of an increase in cost for these items. The Commission also requested that we compare this ordinance to ordinances that are in peer cities. We used the same cities that the library uses for benchmark comparisons. They are cities that are in the mid -west, college towns roughly the same size. We looked Aimes Iowa, Champagne Illinois, Columbia Missouri, Denton, Texas, Iowa City, Lawrence Kansas, and Urbana, Illinois. You can see that Aimes, Iowa, Denton, Texas, and Iowa City, and Urbana, Illinois all have some form of design standards for multifamily dwellings. Urbana, Illinois only applies it to their historic districts. And I should mention also that Lawrence, Kansas and Columbia, Missouri do not have an ordinance in place, I spoke with people from their Planning division. They are considering them. It has been a topic of discussion. I think that Iowa City's is relatively new. It is something that these cities are also talking about. We went on to compare how our ordinance with the ordinances they have in their cities. Aimes, Iowa has, and I have included their ordinance as well so you can compare. Aimes, Iowa has overlay districts, so when looking at the comparison they suggested that I use the overlay districts that are adjacent to their university because that is where their multifamily dwellings tend to be. Iowa City and Denton, Texas it is applied to the entire city. Iowa City has a central planning district which I think is probably comparable to our downtown. There are stricter regulations within that district. We just looked at some of the main items in the ordinances to see how they compared. So buildings fronting onto a street. I should note that they required they front onto a street. We are the only ones requiring that they front onto a public street. They have allowed for fronting onto a public or private street in their ordinances, but all of them do require fronting onto a street. Parking located behind the build -to zone or internalized in building groupings. All of them had that in place. Utility screening all except for Aimes Iowa required some kind of screening for utilities. Aimes Iowa and Iowa City did have some height limit restrictions. Our ordinance does not currently. Material requirements. All of them had material requirements and we do not. For example, Denton Texas' states that an amount equal to 40% of the total net exterior wall area of each building elevation, excluding gables, windows, doors, and related shall be brick or stone or masonry. There are some pretty strict standards in the other ordinances that we found. Most of the cities are requiring a variation in building design. All cities have something that requires an articulation of building facades. We are the only ones that have fencing requirements. I attribute this to the fact that we are also including two family dwelling units. The other ordinances do Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 9 of 130 not. Only multifamily dwelling units fall under their ordinance. You are unlikely to find a fence in front of a multifamily dwelling unit, where as with a two-family dwelling unit you might. I think that is why there is that difference. In addition to this comparison of similar cities we also requested feedback from architects, developers, and engineers who are involved with the development process to get their input and see if they recommended any changes to the ordinance. We had two meetings. The first meeting, probably between 25 and 30 attendees were there. The second meeting only about 5 were there. So we took the suggestions from the first meeting, and we also used a voting method so that you could see the prioritization of their suggestions which is included in the packet. Based on their feedback and the additional research that we have done, Staff proposes four changes: The first one is a change that was recommended in meeting, which is to change the build -to zone from 15ft to 25ft to loft to 25ft. I have noted these changes in the ordinance that you have in front of you. On page 8, and this is section C2G, you will see that we struck out 15 and changed it to 10. Which is in bold. It ranked highly as a proposed change. Reducing the setback for balconies also ranked highly. This change would offer an additional 5ft. The original draft assumed that the development would need 15ft of landscaping adjacent to the right-of-way, but you will probably remember that landscaping regulations adopted September 5, 2006 allow for the option of a pedestrian sidewalk with street trees which makes a l Oft setback feasible. You will notice at the second meeting it was suggested that we change the build -to zone from 0 to 25ft, but we had concerns about the potential in compatibility between a multifamily developments that was adjacent to a single-family dwelling that would have the 25ft setback. That is why we are suggesting the loft to 25ft build -to zone. The second change that Staff is recommending stipulates... This is section C6E which is on page 9 of the ordinance. It stipulated the maximum length of a continuous, unbroken, uninterrupted fence should be 5011. You will notice in the feed back that we had from that meeting, three of the proposed changes, three out of the fifteen, attempted to address this section somehow. We recognize that these are fences that would not be in front of the building. They would be side and rear fences because we have that stipulation about the 30in height limit for a solid fence in front of the building. So, Staff felt that deleting this section will make the ordinance easier to administer and leave side and rear fencing to the discretion of the property owner. The third change that we recommended is on page 8. It is C21) 1. It now reads "garage entries, carports, parking lots, and parking structures shall be internalized in building groupings or located outside the build -to zone street frontages and shall not protrude forward from the principle facade. During the meetings there was some confusion about what we actually meant about the garage entries and what we were looking for. I think that one of these slides that shows the garage entries.... The middle picture there shows that the garage entry is protruding forward. We realized that the way it was written originally you could essentially do this same type of development and just push it back so that your garage entry began at the 25ft mark. We wanted to correct that because we were intending to prohibit that type of design. Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 10 of 130 Anthes: Karen, is that actually C -3 -D -I? Minkel: Yes. Sorry. Thank you for that correction. The last suggest was to allow Administrative approval for Urban Residential Development within zones that allow by right multifamily, two-family, and three-family dwelling units. City Plan 2025's first goal states that appropriate in -fill and revitalization will be our highest priorities. Infill and revitalization contribute to a sustainable urban form and traditional neighborhood development and also imply higher density development which typically meets public opposition. The proposed ordinance is designed to help the community define appropriate higher density development. Administrative approval would reduce time spent in the review process and also helps offset the additional cost of construction associated with stricter design standards. If you have any questions I would be happy to answer them. Anthes: Thank you Ms. Minkel. Would any member of the public like address this Administrative Item? If you would introduce yourself? There should be a sign in sheet up there. Jarrett: My name is Hugh Jarrett. I work for Lindsey Management here in town. After we got, Ms. Minkel was nice enough to send us an advanced copy of this presentation, and I looked into the peer cities. Aimes Iowa, Iowa City, Denton, Longmont, Hercules, Boulder, Alexandria, Minneapolis, and Pasadena. Those are really the nine cities that the City of Fayetteville used to model this ordinance around. I will just start with Aimes. Can we go back to that little sheet that showed the checkmarks? Thank you. On Aimes, their residential design standards, I talked to their planner today, only apply to a historic overlay district downtown. Also, they may have changed this since they posted it on the internet, but their zoning ordinances say nothing about the orientation of the buildings being to a public or private street. They go through parking requirements and a myriad of other zoning issues, but they do not deal with the orientation of the buildings to a public street. In Iowa City, again, they do not force you to put your building fronting a public street. I pulled their zoning ordinances, and what they say is "when a lot contains two or more principle buildings the buildings must be orientated towards a public street, private street, or interior courtyard. Any building with a street facing facade must have at least one main entrance orientated toward the street. Buildings located on the interior to a lot must have main entrances that are clearly visible from interior private streets, drives, or surface parking areas." So, they allow flexibility for a large development to have buildings on the interior. They are not going to force you to criss-cross a large piece of property with public roads. Denton is the only, out of the nine examples, is the only city requires design standards over the entire city where there is still vacant developable land. It just so happens that in Denton we built our exact product. The apartments with the golf course, we built that in Denton under their design standards. The Staff did not recommend the approval, but the Planning Commission and City Council felt that we, Lindsey Management, met the goal of the ordinances and passed it anyhow. Now, you can go to Denton and you can Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 11 of 130 see our project is built there under the design standards that the city had in place. In Longmont, Colorado, I spoke with their planning department today. They are 75% built out. They usually deal with redevelopment. In the redevelopment areas there are these design standards. However, they said they are very flexible in different districts where new development is being built. In Hercules, California. Hercules is a city that is 7sq miles. Basically there is an interstate that runs north and south. The western portion is on the ocean. There are restrictive design standards in the western portion by the ocean. Probably you can guess that that is the more desirable location. To the east where there is a tittle bit of developable land there are not these restrictive design criteria. They have more flexible zones where you can do different things. In Boulder, Boulder is completely built out. There is very little, if any, vacant land in Boulder. So this really doesn't apply there. Alexandria, Virginia, that is a suburb of Washington DC. Again, they are completely built out. They are really dealing with redevelopment, not development of vacant land. Minneapolis, as you can guess, the city of Minneapolis is completely built out. They do not deal with raw land being developed. In Pasadena where this ordinance originated, Pasadena has no vacant land. And even in Pasadena they have different zones that have different standards that apply there. So even in the large areas, much larger than Fayetteville, they are breaking these design standards down into different districts and really applying them to the central core areas. It really makes more sense, and all the cities have found that they have their developed areas that have these design standards. In the vacant land, there are less restrictive measures that are in place that allow more flexibility in the design. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Jarrett. Mr. Fuggitt? Fuggitt: My name is Kim Fuggitt, and I was at the meeting last week going over some of the issues and other design. Some of the examples that we had proposed then was that basically the toughest issue to deal with, I think, is requiring that all buildings front to public streets. One of our suggestions was to restate that where public streets were required by the Master Street Plan or where public streets were required to provide adequate circulation that buildings face the street. But from that point on it could be internal buildings would not have to face on those public streets. This is what basically what happened in the Denton example that Hugh used earlier. They had a similar ordinance that required that all buildings to face public streets. But what the Planning Commission there found, and City Council, was that there was a unique design that had never before really been considered prior to their ordinance being developed. They actually had their hands tied, Staff had their hands tied on this original design. In this case, one that uses a golf course. It just didn't fit their ordinance. That is why the Planning Commission over -rode staff on that example. I would suggest that to you as well. That Planning Commission not put themselves in a position.... To have that kind of flexibility so that you aren't painted into a corner when proposals are brought to you. I think creativity is lost if the design ordinance is written too tightly. Like I said, I think that when we went to Denton our proposal was something that had Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 12 of 130 never been considered. I am sure that there will be others who will bring proposals to you that have never been considered in these ordinances in the past. Another issue that we brought up in the meeting earlier this week was the size of parcels that might be brought into Planning. For instance, a 5 acre site, 335 by 66011 deep, when you are required to have frontage on public streets, if you take a 50ft right-of-way on all four sides of that 5 acre tract of land you are left with very little developable land to build buildings on. Especially if you take out the parking that is required from that point. Of course then, the extreme of that if you took a large parcel, a 200 acre tract, you could imagine the gridiron or the criss- cross of the streets that would be required to meet the ordinance in that regard. So I think that those are some issues that should be considered with this. Also, I was wondering if Parks, if the Parks Department had any feed back at all with the ordinance. Are they in approval of it? Anthes: We will ask Staff when you are finished here. Fuggitt: Ok. I believe those were all the issues that we discussed then. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Fuggitt. Mr. Lindsey. Good evening. Lindsey: Thank you, Madam Chairman. My point would be this. Please don't put yourself in a position that you go with an ordinance that has been put in eight different towns that we are making reference to here, and none of them are going to do it other than the way Denton Texas did it, other than Fayetteville. In Denton they left themselves open so that the Planning Commission had discretion. That is what a Planning Commission is for as I see it. You need to be able to have discretion of what you see, what you believe is the best situation. I have said before, and I will say again to use Pasadena CA and imprint it on Fayetteville is just not real. These other towns almost are equally not real. We don't have a town in Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri, Oklahoma..... We do have the one in Denton, Texas and yet they let us build our exact project that we have been building around here. So however that variance, how they had the authority or the variance right to do that... I think certainly y'all should be able to put into play. I don't know the amount. I have asked around this room, and I don't know. But I think that probably we still have at least 40% of our land is undeveloped. Especially after this last annexation. That may not be right. I don't know that number. Some number substantially more than these places who are already 100% built out. There really needs to be two standards, one placed in the downtown district and one placed on Dickson St, and one placed on the outlying areas. Our fully developed subdivisions could move into this district at that time. An automatic change of zone at that time, too, that urban district as they are developed out. But not before they are. Somewhere there we are going to run into a lot of conflicts and a lot of problems. The best, at least, leave yourself someway to overrule what you see obviously with your eyes would be a mistake. Thank you. Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 13 of 130 Anthes: Thank you Mr. Lindsey. Would any other member of the public like to address this Administrative Item 06-2380 for Urban Residential Design Standards? Seeing none I will close the public comment section. Commissioners? Clark: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: I have a question for staff, please. On page 5 of 72 the fourth change proposal from staff is to allow Administrative approval for Urban Residential Developments within zones that allow by right, etc. Can you define for me what administrative approval would entail? Minkel: It would be similar to development that occurs on less than an acre, where it is approved by staff. Clark: So there would be no public comment section? No time for the public to have a voice? Minkel: As I understand it, public can submit their comments in writing, but there is not a public hearing. Clark: Ok. Of the changes that I have seen, that is the only one that really jumped out and concerned me. I think that when you are talking about multi -family, three- family, even two-family dwellings, that impacts neighborhoods on a very significant level. That one concerns me. Of all the ones that are in here, that one concerns me. I don't favor taking public comment out of the process. I know you can submit your comments electronically or in writing, but I still think that forums like this allow for a full discovery, disclosure, exploration of things that impact neighborhoods. I think these developments are exactly of that caliber. That is my only comment to begin with. Harris: Madam Chair. Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Harris. Harris: Ms Minkel, may I ask you a question? The difference in our proposed design standards, as you mentioned concerning streets, is that ours our public. On page 2 of our packet, you may have referenced this in your comments, it says that the greatest increases in cost are related directly or indirectly to the construction of public streets. Can you address why we are asking for public streets as opposed to the other peer communities that you looked at? Minkel: There are several reasons. If we go back to some of these photos, one of concerns with.... As Jarrett mentioned, the other cities allowed for fronting onto private streets. It is true that we are the exception, but when we looked at some of the Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 14 of 130 things that we were concerned about, or saw as issues with some of the development we have currently, is that a drive isle is considered a private street. So you would have buildings fronting onto parking lots, or parking essentially. That was one of the concerns. Another concern was the long term maintenance and also the standards we have for our public streets. They are pedestrian friendly, and we require the street trees and a certain width of sidewalk. Those standards aren't in place for a private street. The intent at the very beginning of the ordinance states that the intent of the site development standards is that we are" promoting a traditional form of urban development whereby buildings front onto public streets and form a pedestrian friendly street scape". That was our reasoning on why we were saying public streets. I believe that Denton, Texas' says that fronting onto private, public, or a courtyard and right after that says they cannot front onto a parking lot. So I don't know if that addresses that concern completely, but that was one of our concerns. Harris: May I ask a follow up question? I am really asking about what the other communities might be saying. Do you have a sense about why they might be more relaxed concerning public street frontage than we are? I understand what you just said about us, so maybe I am asking you a question you can't really answer. But, is there a way of getting at that goal without that public street cost? Minkel: Well, I did speak with a Planner in Iowa City and she said that they were having a lot of problems with the private streets because the public doesn't distinguish between public and private streets. In fact, she was saying that their Public Works department prefers that there is a public street not a private street because of that issue. I would imagine that it is probably, it could be related to the cost. That is one thing that we identified in our report. That was one Planner that I spoke with today about the private street/public street issue. Harris: And a final question if I may, Commissioner Anthes. This again is perhaps an unfair question to ask you to pull it out of your memory bank. In our city right now, what percentage of subdivisions or what percentage of streets do utilize private streets? Do you know? Or subdivisions? Minkel: I wouldn't have that answer. I don't know if Jeremy would. Harris: Is it significant? Is it negligible? I mean, is this something that we have tended to do or not do? Minkel: I don't know if also we could look at multifamily developments how may of those use drive aisles. Drive aisles are considered private streets. That might be a higher percentage. Conklin: I think we have seen larger and larger multifamily complexes that have used private drive aisles. But I would think it is a smaller percentage overall of the city. As we try to move forward to look at a traditional form of development, I Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 15 of 130 think one of the issues with the private versus public in the future as development occurs adjacent to a green fill site, how are you going to access that or connect this development be it 5 acres, 30 acres, or 400 acres with private streets. We are trying to move away from large complexes to complete neighborhoods. I think right now it is fairly small and all I can think of are three or four that have private streets, significant private streets, within their development. Anthes: Thank you. I am thinking about a couple of projects that went through recently where this Commission requested that the private streets on the plats be changed to public streets for those very reasons. I've been remiss. I need to ask a question that Mr. Fuggitt asked: has Parks reviewed the ordinance? Conklin: Not formally. We haven't received any comments from them. Anthes: Okay. Mr. Pate, do you have any comments about how Parks might review this? What portions of the ordinance would be relevant to them? Pate: I am not really sure what would be relevant other than the fact, Mr. Fuggitt you may could speak to this, but he may be speaking to the fact that sometimes building front onto parks and there would not be a street potentially in front of that so that might be.... That is really the only way I could see it would be applicable, but the Parks department doesn't usually make recommendations in terms of over all design of a project and site layout. I am really not sure how that would be applicable. Clark: Madam Chair? Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: Another question for Staff. I am trying to see how this would fit into the big picture of development in the city. Let's assume that this ordinance is passed as is along with provisions. It's a magic world and there is no problem and it passes. We have a development issue before us tonight, Ruskin Heights. It is mixed use. It has single, multi, everything how would this ordinance impact that development? Minkel: First it would not be Administrative approval because it isn't zoned... Clark: That is a good answer. Minkel: For multifamily development. So it would affect it only in looking at the design of their multifamily, two-family, and three-family dwelling units and whether they complied with this ordinance. Clark: So you would apply this only to the applicable areas within that PZD? Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 16 of 130 Myres: Right. Because this doesn't apply to a specific... It wouldn't apply to PZD zoning. It would apply to the units. Clark: Ok. Anthes: I have a couple of quick questions. In the packet itself at the last meeting, I believe we discussed altering the drawings to remove the commercial signage that may be confusing in some of the diagrams, but I think they still appear. I would hope that we would make those changes if this goes forward. In some of the other ordinances they discussed trash. We keep talking about the difference between carts and dumpsters and what Solid Waste recommends in different areas. How would this ordinance change, or would it change, anything with trash collection? Minkel: It wouldn't change Solid Waste policy on their trash collection. That would be their division's essentially, so we weren't going to address that in this ordinance. Anthes: Okay. I have a question about the setbacks. We've got them set at this point to be from 10 to 25ft from the right-of-way line. I am thinking that that is probably a good distance in most of the city, but what about principle arterial streets? Nashville is a good example of a city that has lots of residences that face on some principal roads. I am also thinking of El Dorado AR... There are lots of places. That front setback has resulted in a greater setback on those more principle streets that have more noise generated and that sort of thing. Did Staff evaluate a variation like that? Minkel: No, we did not. Obviously they could go back to 2511 or ask for a variance. Anthes: Okay. Clark: I have one more question. Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Clark. Clark: I just want to clarify this before we actually take this to a vote. On the chart you gave us comparing cost to do the same thing... If I am reading this right. I am not sure. To do this same development, and I realize all (unclear) that you provided in terms of numbers, etc., the cost for this development would go up almost a million dollars. $755,032. That is a net increase? Minkel: Yes. Clark: So the argument that these standards would drive building cost up seems to be valid. Minkel: Yes. That is partly why we recommended the Administrative approval to help offset those costs. In our second feedback secession... Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 17 of 130 Clark: See I have problem with that part because it means there would be no public comment. Minkel: Right. Clark: So if we were able to not mandate that these projects face a public street would that lower that increase, do you think? I know you are making this up, but you are the professional. Conklin: If it was a question if whether you were to change it to a private street would it lower the cost? Clark: To leave the option, public/private. Conklin: Private streets are designed at a lower standard and do cost less than a public street. Clark: Ok. So that is a yes? Conklin: It is a cost saving, yes. It definitely is a cost saving. Clark: Ok. Jeremy, did you want to say something? Pate: I was just going to touch on that too. I think it depends on the standard to which the private street is developed, and we don't really have a standard other than a parking drive aisles, parking lot standard right now. I think if this went forward and added "private street" we would need to both define that and create a standard for that in order to actually quantify what those saving would be. Obviously if there is a lot of traffic on that private street we want to make sure that it can withhold, the standard of construction, can withhold that traffic. But you also look at a Wal -mart parking lot which handles thousands of cars per day. It is also maintained at a reasonable level of service. I think that is something we could look at if you did go that route. Clark: I think that is getting to the heart of my concern. If you raise prices of course that makes affordability even more difficult to obtain. And now you are talking about specifically the types of residences that we talk about being affordable. If we could do anything within... I like most of the provisions of this. I think you all did an admirable job. But something that increases the cost of building, especially when we are looking at the potential of even more impact fees concerns me in terms of obtain ability and affordability. The idea that public comment is going to possibly be out of the picture also concerns me. So those are my two concerns. I would like to see if we could broker something that still makes it not more expensive but still accomplishes some of the goals that we have in this ordinance. Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 18 of 130 Anthes: Well, to follow up on that. I like the idea of as -of -right development as a concept I think we have looked at that as a possibility in other sections of our ordinance. But I think what usually goes hand in hand with as -of -right development are very strict standards so there is a strong degree of predictability in the system for adjoining property owners, neighbors, and other community members and the developer. I am questioning whether this ordinance has the level of predictability built in that would allow us to go forward with that. I would like the other Commissioners' comments of that... or Staff s... Graves: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Graves: Well, I agree with Commissioner Clark. My concern in seeing in the example that we are provided a nearly doubling of the cost of the multifamily residential area for multifamily which is probably the type of development that is often most attainable for the segment of the community that we are trying to put that in our 2025 Plan to assist. Then that is obviously extremely concerning that you would actually see a doubling of the cost to build it. Most of it is driven by the street portion of it. It concerns me that... it is almost like we are throwing a bone to the development community. We invited them in, asked them what their two biggest concerns were. At the two meetings the number one concern at one of the meetings, which was the most attended, is that they can only front on public streets. We haven't made any kind of adjustment or change or attempt to address that concern. We have left it like it was. And at the second meeting, which granted was not attended by very many people, it is the number two concern. It is obviously a big issue for the folks that are actually out there actually trying to use these guidelines, and it is not addressed. I don't have the answer for that as we sit here right now. I am not sure that we have actually found another community that attempts to apply it the way we are saying that we want to apply it either. Even trying to pull other communities that was say are our peer communities, I don't see another peer community that has been presented that applies it the way that it is proposed tonight. It does take away flexibility for fronting onto a golf course or a park, or if there is a way to define a private street that is better maintained. I just have concerns about all of that. And then you want Administrative approval. I hear Staff saying "well you can do some of these things in the variance process" which then means that variances can be processed administratively which takes away from the very predictability that Commissioner Anthes has talked about. Nobody really knows what they really can and can't do on the front end which drives costs up and not down. I cannot vote for this the way it reads right now for those reasons. Lack: Madam Chair. Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Lack. Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 19 of 130 Lack: I have a few nuts and bolts comments, and maybe some ideas about other items. I think cost is generally the big concern. When I looked at the cost breakdown and I see the 3/4 of a million dollars, wow! That is a lot of money to me. Maybe not to some people here, but that is a lot of money to me. But when I look at that and what that is to the project, and that is the site portion of the project, which depending on the site varies widely. But lets say that it is 7, 10, 15% of the overall project, overall construction project of the buildings. So, when you think about the fact that you are doubling that portion it is not that you are doubling the cost of the unit the rent is based on. If you look at the 330 units in the model you are looking at a difference of about $2,053 per unit in construction cost of the units over all. Not to suggest a (unclear) or anything, but if you look at a return of 15% or so, just to say, what is the basis for the rent difference. You are looking at about $310 or so on a yearly basis at that rate. That would, of course, be $25 per month. So when we talk about that 3/4 of a million dollars we have to think about that in scale. We have to think about that in a 300 or 330 unit development and what that actually means. I think that makes that idea a little more palatable. Now, if our numbers are affected by other things that make it astronomically more than that then I think we have other things to talk about there. But I can get over $25 per month. Or, if my calculations are flawed then we can talk about that too. But I do have some issue with not being able to do park or golf courses. The one specific idea that was thrown out, when I read that in the paper a few days ago, that made me think that that is a model that has amenity that I wouldn't want to do away with. Thinking about ways that that can be facilitated. One is you just say "Ok, we give. We address the streets on the perimeter of a development so that the outside public realm is protected but then everybody inside is subject to having to face their units on the parking lot." Which is the model that we don't find so palatable. The other is that development of a center green space would have a single loaded drive around it so that there would be a street that would circumnavigate that the units would then front on to. So it wouldn't keep you from being able to do that. It might again cost a little bit more because as we know single loaded streets are more expensive just for the linear footage. But I would like to have some more discussion maybe on those options and what impact those options might have to be able to allow that as an amenity inside a multifamily development. My one issue, I guess with the use of private streets within the development would be that currently within the ordinance we don't allow a private street to connect to a public street. We would have to address that in the existing ordinance or see it in an appeal process each time the private street was to be used. I would like to hear a little more feedback on that. Maybe from staff. The duplexes I would like to maybe hear some recommendation from Staff on why duplexes would be in the same design model. My perception of duplexes would be that they are modeled much like a single family model in development pattern, would generally be faced onto a public street. That is just the duplex model that I am familiar with or thinking of right now. I would like to maybe have a comment or two about that from Staff. Just one or two other things. I will just go ahead and get my list out, or I will forget. Just a picky item of number 3F, Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 20 of 130 rooftops and heights should be altered to complement the building's mass and articulation. I am afraid that that is too subjective for me to feel comfortable with if we are going to look each meeting at whether a roof form is complementary to the building mass. That is a very subjective idea. Clark: Where is that item? Lack: That is page 6. I think that was the extent of my list. Anthes: Thank you, Commissioner Lack. To follow up on your questions about the cost. Ms Minkel, from what I understand the model that you looked at, you chose the model that was sort of the worst case scenario in terms of differential and cost. One that is being developed in a way that is not the midpoint, but rather a greenfield development that is developed as its own thing as opposed to being integrated into the city grid. You indicated that a lot of other projects are somewhere in between. So do you expect that this cost differential.... is this, indeed, the worst case scenario, or not? Minkel: I would agree with that statement. I think that in general it is better to look at the highest range of your cost which is partly why we chose that sort of scenario. These are Fayetteville models and some of these have been built fairly recently and they would comply with this ordinance. Obviously those cost differences wouldn't effect a lot of these, or at least not to as great a degree. Anthes: And as far as the duplexes? I have one comment in response to that. It seems that in a lot of the areas where we have duplexes, they are developed on lots as sort of a single family model. They are often platted and developed by a developer that does a whole row of them. We end up with a relentlessly long line of garages. That is what I think staff was getting at with the duplexes being included. Perhaps Ms. Minkel can elaborate. Minkel: No, that is correct. That was our concern. Lack: If they are on individual lots, though, how will they be regulated as an overall development? Anthes: Well, the duplexes are included in this ordinance. It is only single family that is not. Minkel: So even if they were on a single lot they would be regulated by this ordinance. Lack: In that they are part of the same development? Minkel: Right. Anthes: Well, if we have our general comments out, we could now go through the Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 21 of 130 ordinance and see what we agree with or what we would like to change. Unless Commissioner Myres has something to say. Myres: Well, I just had one comment, or question, or something. On the issue of.. what were we just talking about? Anthes: Private Streets? Myres: It seems to me, and correct me if I am wrong, that the reason that we are eager to see buildings fronting on fronting on public streets is so that we don't see the back. In fact, I know that we don't like to couch things in negative terms, but possible what we might want to think about is what we don't want to see facing that street, which is the back of the building. Maybe turning the language inside out would solve the problem of "you must". There are no other conditions that you can meet within the development itself but that you can't back a building onto a public street. Period. And don't go into a whole lot of detail about what other conditions there are within that development in terms of frontage. That is just an idea that I had. It made me think about it a little bit more clearly. Which is what we don't want to see, which is the back of a building on a public street. Anthes: I agree with that. I also am concerned, though, about the whole idea that there is a private street that is a parking lot and the way that gets built. So I am wondering if we could actually restructure this in such a way that we say primary building facades and building entrances shall front on a public street, as this says, but add some sort of language that allows variation. Such as, on a private street, that would fit a certain definition that would have to be developed by staff, which Mr. Pate suggested that they may be able to do. Or also have an exception for a publicly shared green space and list some things that would make that an appropriate response. Commissioner Clark? Clark: As I am sitting here, I am thinking... and since we have heard from Lindsey Management and Mr. Lindsey, I am thinking of their developments in particular. The ones I am thinking of have a lot of green space between the public street and the actual buildings. They are beautiful. They are landscaped beautifully. They add to the streetscape and you don't see the apartments immediately, and then they can front on the golf course. I think it is very important that latitude to have those types of amenities. I think it helps us too. It helps the city. I like the idea of leaving green space between the street, public or private, and where those apartments front. I think that is a very good idea. It would also preserve the ability to have park settings. As Commissioner Lack talked about, we have approved some multifamily units that all face a common green area. I think those are very nice developments. They were heavily landscaped in the beginning of the setback and the road or the street. I think that would be a real good compromise. Anthes: There is a fine point of distinction, though, from what Commissioner Lack was Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 22 of 130 talking about. He was saying you would have a central green space that would be shared, and it would be ringed by a public street so that everyone had access to that green space. We have talked about that in other developments where the park dedication land ended up being in people's backyards or front yards and it became sort of their yard. Whether actively discouraged or just in terms of form, it felt private. It didn't feel like the public realm. I think that is really what staff has been working on trying to make sure that the public realm is maintained and is maintained throughout the city, not just in downtown. Clark: But shouldn't the developer have the right if they want their development to front a particular amenity such as a golf course? Anthes: We are just looking at under what terms that is allowed. Lack: Madam Chair. Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Lack. Lack: I think one concern that I would have that is a little bit different than when we have talked about public park space that has been in the middle is that some of the particular issues that we are talking about are not public space. The particular issue with Mr. Lindsey's developments, those are not public space. That is private space to that development. So then you would have to get into issues of access control from that public street. That would be one differentiation. I really, I throw out the two potential methods. Whether we do the loop street around the public space inside to take care of that amenity, or whether we just say that the public streets that are in affect have to be addressed. Then, within the development it is a free for all. And then you can use your private streets. You can use your parking lots for streets. But that is absorbed inside the development. Anthes: Is there any size of development where that would give you pause? I think that what staff is saying is that if you get a large enough parcel of land and those streets are private streets within that large development, how do you provide your connections with your public streets on the periphery and meet the connectivity imperative of the City of Fayetteville if you're connecting to public streets with private streets? Lack: In that case, if there were a large enough piece of land, and a large enough development as that would suggest, there may be both. There may be a network of streets but not necessarily a full grid of streets where every door addresses a street. Anthes: Ms Minkel. I think we have said a lot. Do you have any sort of first blush response from staff? Minkel: I was just going to, if I may, bring this up. It is an example, I think, of green Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 23 of 130 space in the middle of a public street lining it. I don't know if everyone had a vision in their head of what would look like. Clark: As she is passing that around. I think there is, at least in my mind, of how large a project. If you are going to allow private streets, do you allow to be all private and not connect into the overall neighborhood fabric. What is being passed around talks about creating districts and neighborhoods and more complete and compact that allows new growth to occur in a more traditional form. So that as growth occurs adjacent to it there is logical extensions of that development. Right now we have a lot of development where it is difficult or impossible to provide those type of connections. Trumbo: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Trumbo. Motion: Trumbo: I don't think this ordinance is ready, and we have a large agenda. It sounds like there are many issues that could be worked out in a task force, such as the one with the hillside overlay district, or the downtown master plan. I am going to go ahead and make a motion to table this indefinitely until we can go back and work this out other than here. To come forward with something a little bit clearer that we can all agree on. That is a motion to table. Anthes: We have a motion to table. Do I hear a second. Graves: Madam Chair, for the reasons that I stated earlier, and I think all of the Commissioners have stated some things that they would like to at least attempt to be addressed without us trying to write language here as a full Planning Commission. I am going to second the motion. Anthes: We have a motion to table by Commissioner Trumbo and with a second by Commissioner Graves. I would just like to state that I think staff would need specific direction. It is my feeling, and we could talk about this as a Commission, that there is a lot more in this ordinance that we can all agree with than the points that we disagree with. If that is the case, we need to be more clear with them and say "we have issue with these three things that need to be worked on" rather than just putting the whole ordinance back in their laps. Graves: Well, Madam Chair, I think that... I tried to be pretty specific in my comments, but obviously what causes me concern is the lack of flexibility in requiring every building in a development to face onto a public street. I can picture, I think we can all picture, scenarios and nice developments around town that wouldn't be able to occur with an ordinance that reads that way. I like the changes that were made on the setbacks addressing those types of concerns for balconies and for the Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 24 of 130 buildings. My other concern is the Administrative approval process. I am not completely opposed to it. I would just like to know how it would work with respect to things like, for example variances. If you were trying to process a variance is that also something that is going to be administratively done? And if so, there ought to be some guidelines for what can be varied and how much it can be varied. Or something of that nature? To kind of let the public and let the development community know up -front that here is what you can and cannot do before you get into situations where things are going up and the public right around it had no opportunity to speak. We do live in Fayetteville and people like to talk. That would be my specifics. I didn't address those to specific subsections on letters in the ordinance, but I think that the staff has sufficient of what my concerns are and which sections would touch on those. Anthes: Is there further discussion? The motion is to table indefinitely. Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to table ADM 06-2380 carries with a vote 6-1-0. Chairman Anthes voted No. Conklin: Madam Chair, just for clarification the City Council did adopt our City Plan 2025 which established this as a benchmark to work on to bring these forward. Just so we are clear as staff, are you intending to appoint this task force? Or I can ask our City Council for guidance and direction of how to bring this forward? With hillside, I'm not sure I would really want to follow that process. Something to think about maybe. We don't have to do it tonight. But by the next meeting some direction on that. Anthes: Mr. Conklin, I could meet with you and Ms Minkel sometime between now and the next meeting and put together a strategy. If staff feels like they can handle our responses without additional help that would be fine as well. We can talk about it. Conklin: We'll talk about it. Anthes: In the interest of moving the meeting forward. Unless, Ms Minkel, if you have another concern? Minkel: I was just... It is a point of clarification. I hope it is appropriate. I have heard this rumor circulated a few times, but this ordinance didn't come from Pasadena, California. I just want to clarify that. I know the Commission knows this, but I just want the public to be clear that when staff works on an ordinance we look at multiple cities. And if you were going to try to match the text to any one city you couldn't do it very well. Probably the closest would be Overland Park, Kansas. Just to clarify that for everyone. Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 25 of 130 ADM 07-2442: (BELLAFONT 1 LSD MODIFICATION): Submitted by H2 Engineering for property located north of Joyce Blvd, west of Vantage Drive. The applicant requests a modification to the approved condition of approval No. 4 for LSD 06-1885, removing the median extension. Anthes: Thank you for the clarification. We will move on to new business. Our first item is item 4. ADM 07-2442, Bellafont 1 LSD modification. This is Andrew's. Pate: I'll present this. Anthes: Okay. Mr. Pate. Pate: This is a proposal of a large scale development that was approved in January of 2006. It is Bellafont phase 1 large scale development 06-1885. On September 1 I of this year the Planning Commission advised conditional approval for the project with regard to access that most of us visited with the tour last Thursday. There was a... The project as it came forward in phase one was a divided entrance with a Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 26 of 130 median and a crossing. In the interest of pedestrian safety a pedestrian refuge area was created so that essentially the curb extended beyond the right-of-way, beyond the area where pedestrians would cross to create that area. That was a condition of approval of that project. It is something that is a little bit abnormal. We don't see many of those. But I think the concern stated at the time was that it was such a large crossing that with the median and the two lanes of traffic it would take considerable time to get across that. Subsequently with phase two of the Large Scale Development, which was much larger, there was a requirement for signalization of this intersection. So now there will be a protected signal and a protected crossing, so someone wanting to cross, much like you would cross College Ave. Hopefully you wouldn't just go. You would wait for the protected signal to cross. So that would allow someone time enough to across the entire four lanes plus the median. So the applicant, as you know, has constructed this pedestrian refuge and has indicated that they feel it would be in the best interest to actually remove that simply because it might encourage a pedestrian to try to cross to get to that middle ground when there is not a protected signal marked. It might actually incur endangerment to that pedestrian. So we did ask engineering staff to look at that. They visited the site and visited with the engineers. Their reply back was that they felt that the street would function property in either scenario. They did not feel that it would be a danger to pedestrians or vehicular traffic if it were removed or if it remain. I will let the applicant actually go through any additional comments. But we did want to bring this forward to the Planning Commission because it was a specific condition of approval. In order to alter that it would need to come back to you. Anthes: Tom, I am going to ask for your presentation after public comment. Hennelly: Ok. Anthes: Mr. Pate, just for clarification, do they want to remove the island and the cross walk back to the... I mean, would that all become asphalt back to the northern most boundary of the cross walk? Pate: Correct. It would be much like a standard intersection where the crossing is actually... In this case it would be south of the median. That is our standard detail that you see in a public street. With this signalization this is really acting more like a public street as opposed to a private drive entry. That is why I think Engineering had no concerns with safety. Anthes: Would any member of the public like to address this administrative item 07-2442 for Bellafont 1 Large Scale modification? Seeing none, I will close the public comment section. Mr. Hennelly. Hennelly: Yes, Ma'am. Tom Hennelly with H2 Engineering. I would like to clarify that this is not a case of we just want to tear this thing out just because we don't want it there. We really didn't want to put it in, in the first place but the circumstances Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 27 of 130 are a little bit unusual in that this was a condition of approval for the phase 1 of this Large Scale. So, we had to construct it. The widening of Joyce St was part of phase 2 of this development and so we had to construct the boulevard as shown. The way it is right now. But had we constructed it to match the grades once Joyce St was widened it would have created a pounding situation, so we have to tear it out now to adjust it for the grades to widen Joyce St. The question is, should we have to rebuild it? The situation is a little unusual in that we were able to see how this thing functions somewhat with traffic pulling in and out. There is a lot of large truck traffic that is going in and out of Bellafont. And just as we suspected there is the possibility of large trucks to track their rear tires across the nose of this because it is so close to the through traffic lanes. We did feel like it gave pedestrians somewhat a false sense of security being out in the middle of this intersection with a large truck possibly turning. If for whatever reason they weren't able to make it all the way across, and they may stop out there with now real protection. It is called a refuge, but it really provides no protection for them from vehicles. We would like to.... It will be a signalized intersection with protected crossings, pedestrian crossing. As you can see on the Joyce St side that is much wider crossing to be made with no refuge. And it will be signalized and certainly safe for pedestrians to cross. Anthes: Mr. Hennelly, do you know when the light will be installed? Hennelly: I don't know the exact time. No, ma'am. Jeremy do you remember whether the timing of that was put in as a condition of approval? Is it before certificate of occupancy? Pate: No, it was not. The city is doing that work. I believe we have ordered all the equipment for that from our Transportation Division. Basically what happens there is that we will have to coordinate with the construction of both this intersection and Vantage, because they will likely be going in simultaneously. Anthes: I just noticed that Mr. Casey is here. Might you enlighten us? Casey: I know they are working on the plans at this time, so it should be sometime this year that it is constructed. Anthes: Thank you. Commissioners? Motion: Graves: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Graves: I will move for approval of ADM 07-2442 for the reasons stated by staff in their report as welt as the applicant. Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 28 of 130 Myres: Madam Chair, do we actually have to make a recommendation about whether or not they have to put it back or not? Anthes: I believe that the administrative item is that they want to modify a condition of approval so that it no longer states that they have to have the refuge. Graves: That was the intent of the motion. Myres: Got you. Sorry. Clark: Second. Anthes: We have a motion to approve by Commissioner Graves with a second by Commissioner Clark. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve ADM 07-2442 carries with a vote 7-0-0. VAR 07-2441: VARIANCE (FIVE WEST MOUNTAIN): Submitted by James Foster for property located at 5 West Mountain, east of the Town Center Plaza. The property is zoned MSC, MAIN STREET CENTER. The request is for a variance from the building height requirements and for a variance from the step -back requirement above four stories in the Main Street Center Zoning District. Anthes: Item 5, Variance request VAR 07-2441 5 West Mountain. Mr. Fulcher. Fulcher: Yes Ma'am. This is property located at 5 West Mountain. This property is truly bounded on four sides. On the west is the plaza for the Fayetteville Town Center, to the North is Executive Square which is also 1 West Mountain, on the East is the East St right-of-way, and to the South is the right-of-way for a public alley. The actual lot dimensions for this property is 30ft wide from east to west between East St and the Town Center. And then north to south it is approximately 65ft. The applicants are requesting two variances associated with the height regulations which were amended and re -adopted as some of the Downtown code that was passed. In the main street center zoning district the requirements are for no higher than 84ft or 6 stories, whichever is less. In this case the building itself is less than 84ft. It is approximately 81ft at it's highest point. However, there are Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 29 of 130 seven stories. So that is the first part of the variance request. The second is a requirement for a 1511 setback above the 4h floor, which is a 15ft step -back of the principle facade. It would be off of East St. They are requesting that that not be required above the 4ch floor. Based on the size of the lot staff finds that there are significant hardships with redevelopment on this site. If you consider the 1511 step -back above the 4`h floor that would leave them approximately 1511 to construct the 5 t and 6th floor, and in this case the 7 t floor. And that does not take into account the 511 rear step -back, which is required without a variance, which would actually leave 1Oft of buildable area above the 4"' floor. The other part of the variance dealing with the height is somewhat a design issue. A mezzanine level was included on the upper floors, which looking at the different codes is sometimes considered a floor level and sometimes not. City of Fayetteville building regulations do consider this a separate floor, so it does put this building at seven stories. However, it was designed to be under 8411 in height and meet the intent of the height regulations and not allow the structure to be over 84ft in height. Also, looking at the design of the structure, if you are looking at the photos of the east elevation you can see beginning on the 5`h floor the width of the building actually begins to shrink away from the highest point. Respecting the surrounding properties, moving away from the south and to the north end where the elevation is carrying up keeping pace with the height of the building. Also, with respect of the step -back, while that is being requested to waive that requirement, looking at some of the north/south views you can see how the building materials along the first 3 floors are to mimic the ones on the adjacent building. Also the balconies and overhangs protruded a greater distance at those levels. As the building begins to move up those materials change. Also those protrusions begin to set back further to create somewhat of an illusion of a step - back. So given the size of the property, the details of the design to create the illusion of a step -back even though there isn't room to actually provide for that, and that the building design is respecting the height regulations of 84ft, not exceeding 82ft at it's highest point although above 6 stories, Staff is in support of both variance requests. We are recommending approval as requested by the applicants. If you have any questions... Anthes: Mr. Fulcher, before you sit down. Could you be ready to read us that part of the ordinance? Because I believe that when we passed the Downtown Master Code height restrictions we said 6 floors or 84ft whichever is less. And I would like to hear that language when we get to that part of the discussion. Fulcher: Yes Ma'am. Anthes: Okay Would any member of the public like to address this variance request, 07- 2441 for 5 West Mountain? Seeing none I will close the floor to public comment. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Good evening Mr. Estes. Estes: Good evening Madam Chair, members of the Commission, Mr. Williams, Mr. Pate. My name is Bob Estes, I reside at 668 N Mulligan here in Fayetteville and Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 30 of 130 it is my privilege to stand here this evening and represent your applicant. Your applicant in this matter is E.G. Bradberry at E.G. Bradberry trustee of the Carley Bradberry trust. Mr. Bradberry is not with us this evening. He is ill. He is at his home in Brentwood and has asked me to personally convey to you his regrets on this inability to be with us this evening because of illness. You have two variance requests before you. One is for height and one is for a step -back. My comments will be very brief. I will address my comments first to the height variance, and second to the step -back variance. Before I do that, let me give you a brief explanation of what brings us together this evening on this variance request. It was approximately a year ago that Mr. Bradberry came to me and expressed to me a desire to locate his principal residence in the downtown Fayetteville area. This is particularly flattering because Mr. Bradberry has maintained residences in Colorado, Fire Island, New York, and the Upper East Side of Manhattan. He now chooses to site his primary residence here in our City of Fayetteville. His daughter and her husband have their residence on Rock St immediately to the south of us, and one of his sons has his residence on East Mountain St. When we adopted our Downtown Master Plan it was not only likely and conceivable, but was more probable than not that we would see variance requests such as this. When we mandated with our Downtown Master Plan in -fill in our urban area, it was inevitable that we would have variance requests such as we are seeing this evening. You have seen some of these requests in the past and you will see many more in the future. With that as a pret cute and an introduction let me first talk to you about the request for a height variance. Madam Chair, our ordinance, simply stated, reads that maximum building height in main street center is six stories or, and it uses the disjunctive work or, 84ft which ever is less. This project conforms to the 84ft in height or less. The project from street average grade to roof level is 81 y2 ft, however there is a mezzanine that is provided in the interior of the building. If the mezzanine is counted as a floor then the six story height is exceeded and it becomes seven stories. Often a mezzanine is not counted as a floor among the overall floor levels of the building. It is often defined as an intermediate floor or a parking story between two main stories of a building. In consultation with Staff and particularly Mr. Pate we have chose to bring this to you as a request for a variance. In other words, we are being most conservative in our analysis. Accepting the mezzanine floor as a seventh floor, then we direct our attention to the overall height of the building which is less than 84ft. It is your Staffs opinion that literal enforcement of the building height restriction would result in the depravation of rights in an unnecessary hardship to your applicant. Granting the variance request will not adversely affect any adjoiners or any neighboring property owner and is entirely consistent with the goals and objectives of our Downtown Master Plan. Let me now address the request for the variances of the 1511 step -back of the buildings principle facade above four stories. The site that Mr. Bradberry has chosen as the venue for his principle residence is a loft that is 30ft wide. A 15ft step -back would result in only 15ft of build able, useable space above the fourth floor. The requirement for a setback for a lot that is only 3011 wide makes the other floors unbuildable, useless, and without value. The ability to create a usable development and to satisfy our Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 31 of 130 policies and objectives and goals for in -fill in the Main Street Center district would then be eliminated. As articulated by staff, the proposal is to use a different type of materials similar to the adjoining three-story building on the first three floors. Balconies and overhangs are used. Above the third floor the materials begin to change and width of the balconies and the overhangs are reduced. What this does is create an overall concept of an illusion of a step -back when in fact no step -back exists. This illusion is created from the build -to line while allowing a functional use of the upper floors. Additionally, the building is designed to step down as East St slopes to the south. This provides a transition to adjacent properties and once again gives an illusion of a step -back when in fact no step -back exists. Granting the variance will not adversely affect adjoiners or adjacent property owners and will be entirely consistent with the objectives and goals stated in our Downtown Master Plan. I stand here before you ready to answer any questions you may have. The architect on the project, Mr. Jim Foster, is with us, and if I cannot answer the question then I sure that he can. Do you have any questions? Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Estes. Estes: Thank you, Madam Chair. Anthes: Jesse would you go ahead and read that section for us? Fulcher: For the height regulations in the Main Street Center zoning district it states that "the maximum height is six stories or 84ft whichever is less. Above four stories there shall be a step -back of the buildings principle facade of no less than 15ft." Anthes: And did you confirm that the City of Fayetteville does consider a mezzanine to be a story, or is that a nebulous sort of definition? Pate: I believe I would agree, if I may answer, with Mr. Estes and his comments that we are taking the most conservative approach. In our preliminary conversations with our Building Safety Director he indicated that we would consider this a story based on Fayetteville's building codes. We wanted to proceed with that conservative view point not knowing the full construction plans at this time this is what we are presented with. So we did bring this forward to you as a seven story structure, however meeting the overall maximum height requirements. Anthes: So according to Fayetteville building codes, the mezzanine is, indeed, a story. Pate: That is what I understand. Lack: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Lack. Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 32 of 130 Lack: If I could ask of the architect, Mr. Foster, have you looked at the definition of mezzanine in IBC to verify whether you feel that the size of this... Foster: The size of a floor or a level in a building to the a mezzanine it has to be more than 1/3 of the floor below it. This mezzanine, in quotes, is slightly more than 1/3 at this point. The City Building Inspector said to him it is not an issue because the building type we have would allow seven stories. So it wasn't an issue in his mind. If it is a concern, yes, we could cut back a little bit of square footage and make it truly a mezzanine. Lack: Ok. Very well. Thank you. I think that portion of it would make it real easy if it were a legal mezzanine and it doesn't meet the requirements of a story. I am not sure that just because it is a little bit over the square footage to be a legal mezzanine by IBC standards that I see a difference in what would be presented to the exterior, how it would affect the street. Which is why our ordinance is written the way that it is. I think I am very comfortable with that portion. I have a little more pause with the step -back, with the 15ft step -back. And being favorable with variance on that, just due to the reason... I think you could say on a very hard line that if you don't have the room beyond the 15ft, then you have a four story building. But I still come back to what I see in the drawing and what I see with the different steps and the different articulation and the stepping back in the building. I think I can agree with staff and the findings here that that too would be an acceptable condition and one that would warrant variance from the ordinance. Anthes: Question for Attorney Williams. The staff recommendation states that they are finding a unique hardship as applicable to this property. Will you talk about that type of hardship and whether or not that is precedent setting? Williams: Well I think it doesn't bind you in the future but it is certainly something that you could think about in the future. In that way it could be precedent setting. The hardship they are talking about is the narrowness of this lot, and actually just the smallness of this lot. If you look near the end of your packet you will see where it says subject property. That is actually a little misleading, because this property that they are asking for the variance for doesn't go all the way to Mountain St even though this is termed 5 Mountain. It fronts only on East St. It is a very small lot, not only 30ft wide but it is a very small lot running north and south where they are planning on building this residence. Because of that I think there are two things going for it. Not only the narrowness in one direction, but the narrowness going in the other direction that also mitigate against having a step - back because it retards the possibility of having the additional two floors that they would be entitled to in this particular downtown zone. I think that is something that staff can point to, and has pointed to, as an undo hardship because of this very small lot. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Williams. Mr. Foster, one question. In examining your site and Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 33 of 130 your floor plan you made the decision that the 15ft step -back was not feasible for your project. Did you examine any other sort of reduced step -back from that 15ft that would have been feasible rather than going straight to no step -back? Foster: We did, and we found nothing that really worked. We have a reduced step -back, at the southeast corner with a patio serving the library mezzanine. So we do in effect to have a corner notch at the highest point above the street to reduce the apparent height. Other than that we are packing a lot of residence into the tiny space available. We couldn't really cut back on. Anthes: Thank you. Is there further discussion? Pate: Madam Chair? I also want to point out, and your maps don't really reflect this. We'll try to get that updated. I'm not sure if it is explicitly stated in the staff report, but this is also adjacent to our Downtown Core designation in the zoning district of Downtown zoning districts, which is not reflected for some reason. It is still showing C-4 for some reason in our GIS. All of this was zoned C-4 prior. You may remember the Council recently approved the Downtown Zoning Codes which does have the more intense zoning district directly to the east. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Pate. I just have one comment on this whole mezzanine versus floor thing. I would hope that our City comes to a consensus about what that means, because I am not interested in having this debate on every project that comes through the Downtown Master Plan about whether we have a floor or a mezzanine. I can see us sitting here for many hours on that question. I would much rather have is, if it is just slightly and it is that close, just go ahead and make it a mezzanine and be clear about it. Not open ourselves up for this on every project. Maybe the Zoning and Development Administrator could make some sort of a ruling that would help us in the future. Pate: We will try to do that. Motion: Graves: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Graves: Based on what we heard tonight, I am convinced that this is in keeping with the zoning for this particular piece of property as far as the height is concerned. I think it is in keeping with it, as well, historically. I think that the primary concern we had as we looked at that ordinance and passed the Downtown Codes were the overall height as opposed to the storied. I think we tried to set a number of stories that we felt like fit within that height. But primarily we were looking at height, and this does not exceed the 84ft. It wouldn't concern me personally if a person could figure out a way to fit ten stories within 8411. More power to them. But I Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 34 of 130 think the overall height and it's scale with respect to the street is really what the concern was. This fits within the overall height, so the mezzanine issue is not really something that concerns me too much. Though I would certainly not be opposed to having an interpretation that prevented us having a discussion over and over as well. With respect to the step -back on the top stories, I am also convinced that there are special conditions and circumstances with this piece of property. It may not be as special as we think it is right now because I think as these projects come through in the Downtown area we are going to see lots of narrow strips of land and odd shaped pieces of property where there may be a hardship. But that doesn't mean I don't think there is a hardship here. When you look at both the width and the length of this particular parcel, the parcel that this is being build on and not the entire strip of property that is called 5 W Mountain, I am convinced that there is a special condition there to allow for that variance. For that reason I am going to move for approval of variance VAR 07-2441 for the reasons stated. Anthes: Motion to approve by Commissioner Graves. Do I hear a second? Myres: Second. Anthes: Second by Commissioner Myers. Is there further discussion? I just have one comment and that is with our Downtown Master Plan Code. I believe it was written originally as stories only. But we went in, I believe with Mr. Lack's help, and decided what a reasonable height for that number of stories was. I personally will be looking at both height and stories and not saying that one over -rides the other. We were also looking for a particular sort of datum to exist, I think, which is why the number of stories existed. But I am glad that Mr. Williams has stated that this is not a precedent -setting action, and I guess I will call for the vote. Roll Call: The motion to approve VAR 07-2441 carries with a vote 7-0-0. Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 35 of 130 CUP 07-2420: (LOVING CHOICES, 522): Submitted by KATIE ALLEN for property located at 275 S. DUNCAN AVENUE, NE CORNER OF DUNCAN AND STONE STREET. The property is zoned RMF -40, MULTI FAMILY - 40 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.20 acres. The request is for the establishment of a professional office (Use Unit 25), specifically for a welfare agency. Anthes: Item 6. Conditional Use Permit. CUP 07-2420 Loving Choices. Ms Morgan. Morgan: This property is located at the northwest corner of Duncan Ave and Stone St. It is currently developed for a single family dwelling unit, a 1,000sq ft structure with associated parking. Anthes: Suzanne, if I could have you wait just one second until the door closes so we can hear you. Morgan: The property is zoned residential multi -family, 40 units per acre. Surrounding property varies in use. To the south there is a church. To the west is Fayetteville High School, particularly their parking area is immediately to the west. The surrounding neighborhood consists of both single family and multifamily dwellings. The applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit for professional office, use unit 25 in the RMF zoning district. Specifically the use is for Loving Choices classified as a welfare type agency. It is a non-profit pregnancy resource center. It particularly aides mothers experiencing pregnancies, giving them counseling options, limited medical services, as well as assisting clients in adoption planning and connects them with the appropriate agency or attorney to help them with that. Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 36 of 130 Anthes: Suzanne can you lean into the microphone a little bit more? Morgan: Sure, sorry. The applicant proposes to redevelop the site with a 3500sq ft structure, being three stories. We do have the proposed elevations. They are in your packet. The proposal is to construct this building such that it would be compatible with the surrounding residential units. Those elevations are on page 14 of your Staff report. There is an existing Loving Choices center in Rogers, and the applicant anticipates that the Fayetteville center will operate under the same schedule as the existing center. The Rogers office is open Monday, Tuesday, Thursday from 9:00 to 4:00. Loving Choices will hire four paid employees and have twelve volunteers. During any shift there will only be four employees and two volunteers on the site. We have not received any public comment regarding this, though the applicant has stated that she has contacted the town branch neighborhood association representative. This particular piece of property is located with in the City Neighborhood area identified on the Future Land Use Plan for the 2025. Specifically I would like to just quote some of the guidelines from that area. It states that City neighborhoods areas are mixed and low intensity nonresidential uses are usually confined to corner locations. One of the policies is to provide nonresidential uses that are accessible for the convenience of individuals living in residential districts where compatibility and existing desirable development patterns occur. There is emphasis on locating those type of nonresidential uses at the corners at which this location will occur. Staff finds that the proposed use will not adversely affect the public interest. As described in the attached correspondence, Loving Choices is a professional office which will address the welfare of women and new mothers in the community. We feel that its location in close proximity to high density residential areas, a church, college, and high school will be highly accessible to large diversity and dense population. We are recommending approval of this Conditional Use Permit. We have listed eight conditions of approval. Of those we have requested a Planning Commission determination of approval for a shared parking agreement with the redevelopment of this site and redevelopment, particularly, of the parking area. They will be losing parking on their particular site below the minimum allowed. In order to help provide the parking that is required, they have obtained an agreement with the church to the south for four shared parking spaces. We feel that the intermittent uses of this use as well as the church, that the agreement will function. We do have specific conditions regarding just the use and redevelopment, screening, and things that will typically be reviewed and required at the time of redevelopment. This applicant will need to... has in process a variance request that will be heard by the Board of Adjustment. If you have any other questions, please let me know. Anthes: Thank you, Ms. Morgan. Would any member of the public like to address this conditional use permit CUP 07-2420 for Loving Choices? Seeing none I will close the public comment section and ask for the applicant's presentation. Good evening. Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 37 of 130 Allen: Hi. My name is Katie Allen. I am with Loving Choices. The proposal for the Fayetteville center will do the following: We feel that the center will be providing a needed service to women in the community. It will make the community more beautiful by a new building, reducing the number of parking spaces that are currently there, and adding curb appeal by putting in the appropriate green space. We are currently also working with the University of Arkansas interior design school and getting them involved. They will be able to learn through this new build as well. So, if you have any questions I would be happy to answer those for you. Anthes: Thank you, Ms. Allen. Commissioners? Clark: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: I have a question for Staff. Suzanne, you pointed a couple of things out. The designation of City Neighborhood area mandates low intensity nonresidential, right? Morgan: Yes, that is correct. Clark: Maybe the applicant can answer. I am concerned about hours of operation. Are you going to follow the Rogers model? Allen: Yes we are. Clark: Ok. Allen: And just to clarify, too, it is by appointment only. Traffic will not be an issue. It is not a walk-in type of clinic. Every applicant. We will have six people on site, and one of those will be a nurse. So we will definitely not over -book ourselves, so traffic will not be an issue. Clark: Thank you. Ok, this is a conditional use center. We have a lot of detail with this particular conditional use. I guess what I am a little concerned about is a three story building in the midst of a residential, primarily residential, community with very small houses to the south. So let's say, and this is my question for staff. Jeremy, you might want to weigh in here. Let's say that conditional use comes with the property. Let's say this business goes out of business and we have the three story 3500sq ft building. Can it convert to office space or residential space? I guess what I am asking is should we put there hours of operation in the conditional use specifically so if something happens that will also mandate that whoever might come after them be low intensity as well? Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 38 of 130 Pate: In terms of conversion of a use for conditional use it can convert to something that is allowed by right, which really is only residential in this particular zoning district. To convert to another use that would be allowed in the zoning district by conditional use it would have to return to you as another conditional use application. So if there is potentially something that would have more regular hours of operation that would generate more traffic, then you would have the opportunity to say "this is a use that will likely generate more traffic" and you could then define those hours of operation that you feel would be appropriate in that case. So it would return back to you as another conditional use permit. Clark: Unless it when residential, did you say? Could it go residential? Pate: Yes. It is residential use by right. Clark: So definitely the parking numbers would be way off. Anthes: Single family house. Clark: That is a big single family. Pate: Unless it was multifamily or something of that nature. Clark: So, could it go multifamily by right? Pate: Sure, I think it is all zoned RMF -40. Clark: I guess that just concerns me in terms of maintaining low intensity. I would like to amend the conditions of approval to insert the specific hours and days that Ms Allen just indicated they would function on. Maybe that will help me feel a little bit better. Allen: Also, too, just to clarify. It is really from Seventh St a two story building. We are just finishing out the basement. That is what makes it three stories. So it is going to have the same footprint as the neighboring house. Clark: Well it is going to have the same footprint to the neighboring houses to the north. To the south that is not true because they are all much smaller until you get to the very end of the street. I could have been seen as a stalker the other night because I was driving around looking and trying to make some comparisons. And you do have the school that offsets some to the west, but to the east and the south they are much smaller homes. That is part of what I am concerned about. Pate: Directly to the south is the church. Clark: Yeah, but it is a squatty little church. Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 39 of 130 Anthes: Mr. Pate, can you talk about.... Since we are looking at conditional use, rather than the development plan, is there anything that is pertinent here with regards to height or footprint? Pate: Only if you find, in your findings for conditional use, the only thing specific to that is finding general compatibility with adjacent properties and other properties in the district. By ordinance this is under an acre, so we are not looking at a Large Scale Development. Staff is charged with making the findings for compliance with the zoning regulations. In terms of the building setback variance, that is something the Board of Adjustment is charged with looking at. If they deny the variance they would have to comply with the setbacks on their own. You are not giving any approvals in that regard. Anthes: Okay. Clark: I can still look at compatibility? Anthes: Was that a motion about the hours of operation? Motion: Clark: Yes. I will make the motion. Pate: 9am to 4pm, is that...? That is what is listed at the Rogers office. Clark: Are they restricted on days too? Myres: Condition number 2 may need to be elaborated to include that specific information. Anthes: We generally do include hours of operation with conditional uses. Clark: Let's insert there the hours of operation Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday from 9am to 4pm, with a maximum of four paid employees and twelve volunteers during any of those shifts. How is that? Anthes: We have a motion to amend. Do I hear a second? Myres: I'll second. Anthes: Motion to amend by Commissioner Clark with a second by Commissioner Myers. Hurnsburger: I'm sorry, may I ask a question please? I am Katherine Hurnsburger, the Executive Director of Loving Choices. Katie and I are a team. Just clarify for me, would we be able to change our hours of operation? Let's say we wanted to switch to a Tuesday/Thursday model, or a Wednesday, Thursday, Friday model? Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 40 of 130 As long as the intensity hasn't changed would that be something we would be able to be flexible with? Or are we locked in with this motion to this certain hours? If you would just explain to me how that would work. Anthes: This would be a condition of the approval of the conditional use permit. So you would be locked into these hours if we pass this amendment as it stands. Hurnsburger: If I wanted to change it to, for example.... Anthes: You come back. Hurnsburger: I come back to ask for... Williams: Could you not say three days a week rather than naming the days, that way they wouldn't have to come back if they wanted to change their days? Would that be acceptable to the motioner? Clark: Okay. Humsburger: Thank you for that. I appreciate it very much. Clark: I think that is more like it. That hours of operation be restricted to three days a week 9am to 4pm. During any shift there will be four employees and two volunteers. Hurnsburger: And that would be the maximum number of people there. Myres: The seconder is fine with that. Anthes: Alright, we have a motion to amend by Commissioner Clark with a second by Commissioner Myers. Is there discussion on the amendment? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to amend CUP 07-2420 as stated as above, carries with a vote 7- 0-0. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Lack: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Lack. Motion: Lack: I would like to make a motion that we approve Conditional Use 07-2420 with the stated recommendations by Staff and the added recommendations. Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 41 of 130 Anthes: We have a motion to approve by Commissioner Lack. Do I hear a second? Myres: Second. Anthes: Second by Commissioner Myers. I will remind the Commission that this is a conditional use and requires five affirmative votes to pass. Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve CUP 07-2420 with amended conditions carries with a vote 7-0-0. Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 42 of 130 RZN 07-2419: (KELLY, 681/720): Submitted by DAVE JORGENSEN for property located at 3184 S. CITY LAKE ROAD. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 44.74 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE. Anthes: Item 7 is Rezoning Request 07-2419 for Kelly. This one is Jesse's. Fulcher: Yes ma'am this is a rezoning request for approximately 44 acres. This is land south of 15`h St, actually even further south. North of Wilson Hollow Rd. It is currently zoned RA, Residential Agriculture, and the request is to rezone it to RSF-4, Residential Single Family with four units per acre. Public water is adjacent to this site, however sanitary/sewer will need be extended with future development of the property regardless of the zoning district. The findings in Staff s recommendation, the requested rezoning to RSF-4 is compatible with the City Plan 2025 which designates this area as residential. It is also consistent with the residential, or RSF-4 zoning district to the west of this property. I think the best map is page 11 of 14. Actually, the subject property is hatched out and it shows the RA zoning districts to the south, the planning areas to the east of this. It is I-1 and I-2, part of the Industrial Park. Outlying areas to the north. And then RSF-4 to the west of this property. Also as far as an increase in traffic generated from a development with a rezoning to this density, obviously there would be an increase in traffic generation. However, this is a collector street, City Lake Rd is. It connects directly to S School which is a principle arterial, and also to 15`h St which is a principle arterial. Additionally there is an approved traffic signal which is ready to be installed at that intersection at 15`h and City Lake Rd. From what I understand from our Engineering Division they are currently working to acquire additional right-of-way at that intersection to construct that traffic signal which would help with traffic movement out of developed areas along this road. Ultimately, this rezoning request is consistent with our City Plan 2025 and compatible with the adjacent zoning districts as they are currently zoned. Staff is recommending that this be forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation of approval. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Fulcher. Would any member of the public like to address this Rezoning Request, 07-2419 for Kelly. Please come forward. Arambel: Hi. My name is Betty Arambel, and I live directly across from this property. In April I will have lived there 20 years. I own my home. I really hate to see my cow pasture go, but my main concerns with this property....? I don't know what the plans look like, but figuring on the traffic, my concerns would be traffic. We already have a lot of truck traffic for industrial. Currently, as was said, we don't have a light at either end of.. and the intersection of Morningside or 15`h. That is in the works, I understand. But that section of Morningside that is not State Highway is very narrow and can be dangerous. And then at the other end, on Willowby and School there is no light. You can take Pump Station through Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 43 of 130 Industrial Park over to Armstrong and there is a light. At certain times all of those areas are very congested because of the companies letting in and out. I would say that because it is right on the south side of Industrial Park I would have a concern about a buffer zone for our natural wildlife. There is a creek that runs down between industrial park and this property that would be some concern. Other than that, like I said, I just hate to see my cow pasture go. But I do understand that this kind of progresses are going all along the city. Anthes: Betty, would you spell your last name for us? Arambel: Yes, it's A -R -A -M -B -E -L. Anthes: Thank you. Would any other member of the public like to speak? Good evening. McGee: Hi. My name is Bob McKee. I'm also a neighbor of this property. This is a concern that I and a few people in the neighborhood that I have discussed this with have. It is a matter of incompatibility with the neighborhood. It is not that we necessarily object to it being developed. It is more what exactly they are looking at doing. This is actually quite a rural area. Even though the zoning, if you look at the map the zoning is there for the four units per acre. You don't find that anywhere down there. In fact, the typical home in that area is more like one home per ten acres. It is really historically like small farms. That is starting to change slightly, but the actual zoning itself does not reflect what has actually happened there. What we are kind of concerned about is what sort of development are they looking at doing? Is there anyway that we as neighbors could have something to look at? For instance, we would not want to see, what some of us look at as sort of a cookie cutter residential subdivision, where it is just a lot o£..? Not a real special, kind of nice, place. We have an interest that what goes in there be something that is compatible with the flavor of this part of town. It is actually a very nice part of town. The fact that it has been slow to develop is really one of the things that has kept it nice and very livable. The density is a bit of a concern. Just what the residential development would be like, how it would be structured. My understanding after talking to some Planning Department people is that once the rezoning is done, really they can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't violate any of the City Codes. Is there not anyway that the people who live in that neighborhood could have some idea what is being proposed? Can I ask that? Anthes: Yeah. We will answer that as soon as we take all of the public comments. McKee: So it is sort of a matter of just questions of incompatibility and wondering what is proposed. It is not that we are necessarily objecting to something. We realize that certainly they can do something there. Of course! But what is it that they have in mind where we would have something more to go on to determine whether we would have an objection. Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 44 of 130 Anthes: I understand. We are in the same boat as you are. McKee: I am sorry, what? Anthes: We are in the same boat as you are. Would any other member of the public like to speak? We've got a lot of people to talk to a lot of projects tonight, so if you are lining up just keep coming up right after each other. Hi. Johnson: Madam Chair. My name is Bruce Johnson, and I am also a neighbor there in the community, directly across from the Kelly farm. Beautiful place, very pristine valley. Change has been slow to the area due to many reasons. I also have invested considerable moneys in some property across the street in the R-4 area, about 100 acres. It is sitting on that hillside from City Lake Rd to the top, and then bordering the Masters Development. So I look down right on to Kelly Farms, so there is definitely some concern as to the nature of the development that would be allowed to go in there. I agree with Mr. McGee. It would be wonderful to know what exactly is planned for that area. We have also kind of made, naively perhaps, hoped to create that hillside into a very nice environment. Have a park, and a home we are building currently there, we hope to be a Fayetteville native landmark in years to come. So, the out come of that particular part of the valley south of Danahur is important to the community at large. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, would anybody else like to speak to this item? Seeing none, I will close the floor to public comment. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Good evening, Mr. Jorgensen. Jorgensen: Thank you for your patience. My name is Dave Jorgensen, and I represent Leonard Kelly in this rezoning request. If you will notice in your packet, everything west of City Lake Rd is RSF-4. Everything north of this property is I- 1. We really didn't think that our request was too far fetched to go RSF-4 at this particular point. We haven't done a detailed layout of anything on this because we wanted to get it rezoned first. See if the Planning Commission is receptive to this. But it would be zoned for Single Family Residential. RSF-4 was the natural thought that came to the owners mind. He would like to get it zoned for single family. And we do have to do a sewer line extension up along the creek through the Arkansas Western Gas property. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Jorgensen. Commissioners. Lack: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Lack. Lack: I would like to ask staff if there is any knowledge as far as the trail connections that would possible cross this property. Looking at the trail map and trying to assess the similarity in location. I see the potential of maybe (unclear) Rd trail Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 45 of 130 and South Mountain trail. It could be possibly crossing this property. Is that correct? Pate: I believe so. That is something that we typically will look at through our development process and our trails coordinator is always part of that process. I know that there are some.... There is already an existing rail line that has been converted to a trail in that area. It was already being constructed with the plan to construct all the way over to the White River as part of that trail. I am not sure what all the components of that trail are and where they are in relation. With any development, of course, we are always looking at easements or park land dedication to meet those needs. Lack: And as you say, that is certainly a... the implementation of a trail through there is certainly a development issue and not a zoning issue. But, I think what I see in this property and in this area. I like the idea of some development to this density. I have seen development closer to 15`h St that I have thought that I would like to see a lot more density. I would like to see a great deal more housing around the Industrial Park to facilitate worker housing. I think that is something that the City needs and I think that is something that this starts to fulfill. I am excited at the idea that the trail system can be tied into such a piece of property as well and makes it that much more likely, and that much more palatable to see that as a develop able piece of property for that use. For housing that would be tied into the Industrial Park in close proximity to a trail system to reduce our dependence on automobiles. That is something that I see as definitely favorable with this rezone, and would definitely lead me that way. Anthes: Thank you, Commissioner Lack. Mr. Pate, for the neighbors who spoke and the audience members, could you describe what happens for the rezoning process versus the Large Scale, and talk about what opportunity those neighbors will have to see what is proposed in the future on the site? Pate: Sure. With a rezoning proposal it is simply gaining entitlement to the use of the property. If that entitlement is granted the uses that are assigned to that, in this case, single family is really the only use that is permitted, would be assigned to that property. Subsequently if the zoning is approved by the City Council some sort of development plan would have to come forward. A preliminary plat is usually the case whereby the applicants present a plan showing the development, showing the trail corridors if there are any, showing tree preservation, any of those requirements: grading, drainage or detention, all of those things. There is public comment received at that point as well. The public is correct that as long as the applicant is meeting appropriate ordinances related to our development regulations and not having one of the five criteria that we have for denial, then it will likely be approved by the Planning Commission. The only other process that we have is a Planned Zoning District and it seemed pretty evident to Staff through the City Council that if a project is going to come through a standard zoning type - standard development- we should not recommend to that applicant to follow a Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 46 of 130 planned district procedure, but rather follow the more typical zoning followed by development procedure, if there is nothing atypically about that. Anthes: Ok. And Mr. Pate can you also talk about the fire response time and how that might be changing, and also the timing of the installation of traffic signalization? Pate: Sure. On the former, the fire response time is, obviously, pretty great at this point. Not good. It is pretty long response time at this point. In one respect that will be improved dramatically, almost cut in half, by the installation and construction of Fire Station number 3 which is located at the intersection of Huntsville, where the old Tyson complex is, Huntsville and Happy Hollow Rd. That will decrease fire response time dramatically. In relationship to the Morningside Dr and 15`h St signal, that is an approved project. I believe that it is a funded project as well. That will occur with improvements along 15`h St and this area. That is one of the reasons, in terms of looking at infrastructure for zoning, staff was supportive of this zoning. We have City Lake Rd which, granted, does need improvements at some point and time when development occurs. But this has direct access to two principle arterial roughly a mile away in either direction. So I think that was certainly a benefit for this application. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Pate. Is there further discussion? Motion: Clark: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: I understand the neighbors concerns, and I am not sure if there is a neighborhood association in this area. I hope there is. I would remind, and Mr. Jorgensen knows this very clearly, that we do ask if the neighbors have been consulted when any plan is finally put together. Normally the developers want and will seek out neighbor input to make sure you are happy with what they are doing. Now, sometimes that doesn't happen and boy it causes all kinds of concerns when it gets to our level. So I will just put that out there right now. When it comes back to us I sincerely hope that the developers have conferred with the neighbors. You know what is going on, it is very clear. And hopefully everyone is going to be supportive of the process. But regardless, neighbor input is allowed all the way through the process. You are going to get, and the surrounding neighbors are going to get, notices. There will be signs. There will be all kinds of stuff that will make sure you know when it is coming to the next Committee. It starts with Subdivision and then it comes to us. You have input all the way up the line. We could get to know you in an up -close and personal manner by the time this really gets done. I hope so. I hope the neighbors will talk to the developers. This is your first journey into a subdivision out in this area, so I understand why you are so apprehensive. But it could lead to street improvements. It could lead to all Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 47 of 130 kinds of amenities going into this area that had long been lacking, so let's all be optimistic. So with that I will make the motion that we forward rezoning 07-2149 to the Council with an affirmation of approval. Anthes: Motion to forward by Commissioner Clark. Do I hear a second? Trumbo: Second. Anthes: Second by Commissioner Trumbo. Is there further discussion? Again this is a rezoning request, it requires five affirmative votes. Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to forward RZN 07-2149 carries with a vote 7-0-0. Anthes: We will take a ten minute break. Anthes: We will now reconvene the meeting. If I could get a member of staff to go out the doors and talk to the people that are in the lobby. Apparently the cameras are having a difficult time picking up our voices on the microphones because there is so much conversation right immediately behind the doors. Thanks. Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 48 of 130 LSD 06-2300: Large Scale Development (CENTRAL UNITED METHODIST, 484): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES for property located BETWEEN DICKSON & LAFAYETTE ALONG HIGHLAND AND ST. CHARLES. The property is zoned MSC, Main Street Center and contains approximately 6.02 acres. The request is for a 32,254 s.f, 2 -story Ministry building and a 5 -story parking deck with 275 spaces. Anthes: Our next item is Large Scale Development LSD 06-2300, Central United Methodist. Commissioner Clark is recuseing from this item. Can we have the Staff report. Morgan: Certainly. This property contains approximately six acres overall. It is located on LaFayette between Highland Ave and St Charles Ave. The property is zoned Main Street Center. It currently is the location of Central United Methodist Church. There are several structures on this property for the church. The applicant is requesting a five story parking garage holding 275 vehicles, and a two story youth ministry building along LaFayette. This has been heard at several Subdivision Committee meetings and Staff has worked with the applicant through several issues including Tree Preservation as well as discussions regarding access to the property and parking adjacent to the street. Some of the outstanding issues which will either be heard at other Boards or at this body at a later date are a variance regarding the minimum building frontage. The applicant has proposed structures along the street. The requirement is for 75% street frontage, and they are almost meeting that. They are a couple of feet off. Other items are the vacation of easements and alleys. As you will see on your site plan there are some alleyways that run north/south through this site over which the parking garage is proposed. They do have an application in which will be before this body shortly regarding vacation of these issues. Regarding development issues, a couple of the topics that we discussed at the Subdivision Committee were regarding parallel parking on streets as well as reducing the number of curb -cuts onto St Charles Ave. The applicant has shown parallel parking, 8 spaces, along LaFayette. We have included a condition of approval that Transportation Division shall approve any parallel parking stripped on the rights of ways at the time of development. The second issue with regard to the curb -cuts has been addressed by the applicant in letters that are included in your Staff report. They are proposing three curb -cuts onto St Charles Ave which all distance wise meet the ordinance requirements. Staff did have some concern, however, with regard to their proximity within 80ft of one another. I believe that the applicant has some additional information to present, perhaps with regard to that condition. We are overall supportive of this project, recommending approval with 26 conditions. Of those, three require Planning Commission determination. First is a variance to allow for 8ft wide sidewalks for tree wells. Staff recommends approval of that finding that 8ft is sufficient for planning trees along the sidewalk. Second is Planning Commission determination of parking deck dimension standards. Staff recommends in favor of the deck design as proposed. Our code doesn't address specific parking design standards for parking deck. We have reviewed the information from the Engineers and find that their proposal is adequate. And Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 49 of 130 third is Planning Commission determination of street improvements. Overall Staff is just recommending improvements on sidewalks, either new sidewalks or reconstruction of sidewalks. A portion of that determination does include the curb -cuts onto St Charles. If you don't have any questions I will allow the applicant and public to address this. Anthes: Thank you, Ms Morgan. Would any member of the public like to speak to this Large Scale Development for Central United Methodist? Seeing none I will close the floor to public comment and ask for the applicant's presentation. Jorgensen: Good Evening. My name is Blake Jorgensen. I am here representing Central United Methodist Church. I appreciate the presentation, Suzanne. I provided another layout during that recess. It kind of gives us a talking point, or a few places to look at in terms of the main concern tonight. I know it is really vague. It was a last minute thing that I though may help us alleviate some of the problems with the internal traffic flow. It may not be included in your packet. What you see is the first floor parking layout with particular points of interest for us to talk about. Let me recap on some things that Suzanne has pointed out. First off we have the structural engineer who did do the parking deck design, and the architect available for questions if I am not able to answer those. And also, for the Board of Adjustment, we don't feel that that is anything they will need to approve because it is a few feet. In addition to our proposed buildings or to the existing house, it is not necessarily out of the question, but we don't feel that it is necessary to meet that. And also for the vacation of the alleyway. The utilities have been relocated and all the utility companies have no problem with this vacation. We don't foresee any problems with that as well. The parallel parking, that was something that we had not.... That was brought to our attention at the previous Subdivision Committee with Commissioner Lack and Ostner, as well as the traffic concerns. We do appreciate the noting that the parallel parking would be a favorable thing and we do look forward to trying to coordinate that with the Transportation Department. In particular to the ingress and egress conditions and problems, what we had initially proposed was just that one exit off the first floor at point two. After being tabled at Subdivision Committee to look at other options, we still feel that this is our ultimate layout for several reasons. Point three was something we did look at. An internal exit. It did create a few traffic flow problems and the internal layout was reconfigured several times to try to make this work. But option three does not work due to the columns inside the parking deck would restrict the throat width and also the retaining wall would restrict view as you were pulling out onto a steep grade. It is around 21 % slope, and most cars would definitely drag their bumpers. You couldn't see coming out of that alley way because the first floor as it sits at elevation 1410 and the alleyway is 1405. If you go out there there is an existing retaining wall that we are going to be tearing down and replacing. We are also going to widen that alley way so it actually is a true two-way, not a necessary two way with cars parked in it. Anyhow, exit two, what we have proposed is making that right turn only. That would hopefully alleviate the congestion right there of Boyles and St Charles and Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 50 of 130 the alleyway. The main concern that the previous two Commissioners pointed out was if you have a car stopped in the alleyway turning right, and you had a car in the (unclear) right there turning left, and more traffic coming likewise north and south, it could be a possible head on collision or wreck or whatnot. So we hope that by providing a right turn only we will hopefully avoid potential conflicts with traffic flow. The curb -cut, that is symbol four, that basically, if you have been out there to see it, is a real steep driveway that harbors only a few parking spots. That is reserved pretty much for staff, so on the high points on Sunday morning when traffic flow is the highest, the staff typically stays later. So they are not part of this traffic flow condition. If people are pulling out from that driveway, point 2, they are not trying to compete with cars exiting from that existing parking lot at location four. Hopefully this new layout with right turn only and stripped parking and what not is favorable to you guys. Any questions you may have I will be willing to answer. Hopefully someone else with my (unclear) will be able to as well. Thank you very much. Anthes: Thank you,. Mr. Jorgensen. Would any member of the public like to speak to this Large Scale Development? Oh wait, I already did that, didn't I? Sorry! Commissioners. A few quick questions for Staff. On the street frontage coverage, our code requires 75%, I believe. Do you know...? I believe the Staff report... did that say 73% is what they are meeting? Morgan: Yes, it is approximately 73. Anthes: Okay. And could the additional length be met with a wing wall or something? Morgan: It would need to be habitable space. Anthes: Habitable space to meet our code. Alright. And about the sidewalk, I believe Mr. Pate, did you say that you are going to be looking at the possibility of writing an ordinance amendment that will allow this 8ft sidewalk in the future at any rate? Pate: Yes, that is correct. Anthes: And can somebody clarify for me condition of approval number two. I don't recall every seeing a condition like this in the past. And I have never seen the Planning Commission being asked to determine whether the dimensions of a parking deck work. Pate: Actually I think you have. It may not have been worded like this. There have been a couple different projects that we have seen. The one that come to mind are the Divinity Project and the Washington Regional Project, both of which had parking decks. I believe they also had to get dimensional standard waivers, variances, whatever you want to call them. We do have standard specifications for a parking stall; 9 by 19 is what it typically is. If you have green space you can reduce that, or if you have compact spaces. As you are aware, and I think we Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 51 of 130 have discussed very briefly, parking decks are a little bit different beast. They are so tight that a dimensional standard of a standard 9 by 19ft space with a 2411 drive isles doesn't typically work. In most of those cases, and especially this one I think has provided the most information to date, they have actually provided us with industry standards for that type of application. I think that's certainly information that is going to be valuable in other applications that come before us as well. We may even consider revising our own standard to create a standard for parking decks because I think we will see more and more as the Downtown and other places develop as Washington Regional originally submitted to you. That is really the reasoning behind that. It doesn't really meet any standard that we have, yet it is providing off-street parking for this particular development. Anthes: I guess I would like to echo that. If we can develop a standard that can be reviewed by staff and not see this as a waiver that would be helpful. Obviously it is hard to sit in this chair and.... I mean, some parking decks work a lot better than others and there is a lot of variation in their design. For us to sit here on the podium and decide whether a parking layout works doesn't really seem like a great thing to be doing. Has engineering, though, reviewed that deck Mr. Casey? And are you comfortable with the dimensions of it? Casey: No, we have not reviewed that. That is not something that we typically get into. However, at your request we certainly could look at that. Motion: Anthes: Well, I would like to amend Condition of Approval number two to state that the Planning Commission finds a positive determination of parking deck dimensional standards subject to further review and acceptance by City of Fayetteville engineering staff. Myres: I'll second that. Anthes: Motion by Commissioner Anthes, and a second by Commissioner Myers. Is there discussion? Will you call the roll. Oh! I'm sorry. Graves: Madam Chair I was just going to make sure that that was okay with staff. Casey: Certainly. Graves: Ok. Anthes: Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to amend Condition of Approval number 2 as stated above, carries 6-0-1. Commissioner Clark recused. Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 52 of 130 Anthes: Commissioners, if you want to work through conditions of approval we can look at condition of approval number one. This is the determination of a variance street tree planting plan requirements for urban street scapes. This is reducing the I Oft width sidewalk to 811. Does anybody have a problem with that? Okay. We amended condition two. Are there further comments on that item? Condition three. The Planning Commission determination of street improvements. Is everybody comfortable with those? Looks like item six is a Board of Adjustments item. Staff, can you clarify something on condition fourteen? Is this a large percentage of the existing trees? Pate: I am not sure if it is a large percentage. I believe that is referring primarily some of the trees that are along Lafayette St where there are existing trees. They are attempting to be preserved. Some of the mitigation trees also. Our ordinance does not allow for mitigation trees to be planted within utility easements because we cannot insure their longevity because utility companies may come and remove them. I think that is referring to that situation. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Pate. And there is no finding on Commercial Design Standards on this? Pate: There is not. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Graves: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Graves: Just going back to Condition three, or the finding on Condition Three. The Chair asked if anybody had any discussion on that. I just want to clarify that the applicant has submitted a plan that still has three curb -cuts on it but has changed turning movements since Subdivision saw it. But the staff's recommendation here is still to reduce the number of curb -cuts. That is what we still see here. I am not sure that we have addressed that. Anthes: Correct. Thank you for clarifying that. Anthes: Well, perhaps what we can do... Can we start with staff to clarify their recommendation in light of this drawing that we received tonight? Pate: Sure. This was originally submitted as essentially three full access curb -cuts. One of which is an egress only from the parking deck. That is the middle curb - cut. The existing alley will be reconstructed to mover the retaining wall back further to increase line of site. I think that will be a significant improvement there. If you use that alley currently you really cannot see to the north. That will improve that. The initial submit that had the drive and parking deck exit was also Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 53 of 130 left to right. Our concern was, Dave Jorgensen was just talking about that, if someone coming out of that took a left and someone coming out of the alley took a right that could certainly be an issue. This, I think, has reduced that somewhat in that it limits to a right turn movement only on the egress. The other portion of that, this is all within about 80ft, the other portion of that is the very northern curb -cut. It is also a full access curb -cut that accesses the small parking lot which is staff guide, administrative, and offices. Theoretically the administrative offices would not be in operation at the same time as the church. I am not sure that that's... I would have to confirm that with the applicant. I think there are a lot of things that could contribute to the safety, but we are not quite certain. So what we are looking for, and we have discussed this at length at Subdivision Committee. I think it is probably what we spent most of the time on. I was trying to combine one of these curb -cuts, either combining that egress and access and the alley, or creating egress and accessing the existing curb -cut thereby reducing one of those. The challenge in either of those situations you come up with a 17 to 20% slope trying to get to one of those points. We felt it was important that the Planning Commission understand that. If you feel that it is safe with the right out only there is an option also to limit... It is not showing in your plans. To limit the egress in the alley to a left only. That would help in that situation, I believe, for egress coming out of the alley. That is another option for the Planning Commission to consider, too. It doesn't remove a curb -cut, but it does help with turning movements in that area. Anthes: Mr. Casey, have you reviewed this, and do you have a preference? Casey: I am sorry. I wasn't following you. Can you repeat that? Anthes: I just wondered if you had reviewed this site plan that Mr. Jorgensen presented this evening and whether you had a preference about the turning movements out of the alley. Casey: Actually I have not. Our other staff engineer, Glenn Newman, has reviewed this project. I am not familiar with the details of it so I don't believe I could answer it accurately. I'm sorry. Anthes: Thank you. Commissioners? Lack: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Lack. Lack: Mr. Jorgensen, I know at Subdivision Committee we talked about the potential to turn direction of parking and exit the east end of the parking deck into the parking lot. Jorgensen: Yes, sir. Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 54 of 130 Lack: Can you? I don't see that option. Can you tell me...? Jorgensen: Hopefully I can, from my mind, illustrate it. Basically if you did reverse that traffic flow, and you are looking at that first floor, what you would have is.... It is real easy to imagine just reversing the angle of the parking. That would allow you to pull into those isles and those stalls. The problem is if you move that and you access going up the ramp on the far east side the traffic coming down would also come into that traffic. So as the traffic is heading south out of that internal ramp you are turning into it. It is sort of the same situation. You are going to create cars trying to access to go down while cars are going up. That is a blind corner. It is a wall. It is a straight 90% turn. This is something that Carl Walker and John Walkins, who is with Garver, had looked at several times. They did look at that. I am not sure if it is really lucid inside that report that it is not a good option, but from when we looked at it, and this is something we looked at a long time ago back in March, is trying to get that traffic to flow around. The reason we didn't show it is because they had provided us with the suggestion that it wouldn't work. You would have traffic conflicts inside. Traffic heading south would turn into traffic trying to get up the ramp inside the ramp area. I know it is real hard to display and describe without coming up there and drawing on your sheet for you and what not, but hopefully that gets the point. Lack: That is quite alright. I had anticipated that in looking at it, but that was something that we had talked about in Subdivision. Jorgensen: We liked that idea a lot. We came to that and thought, this is great, this is the conclusion. We can get it wrapped up, but the further we got into it, it presented a lot of problems in terms of,.... It's kind of the same problem. It's just where are you going to displace that problem at? Motion: Lack: Sure. And having been in that discussion at Subdivision Committee and having searched out several options and agreeing that the west exit from the parking deck is very important. From that lower level of the parking deck and not putting all of the traffic out the two lanes, but one exit onto LaFayette St, is of paramount importance. So we get down to how can we make that the best we can? I think with the right out only there, I can agree that you have done that. I will support modification of staff s recommendation on the reduction of the curb -cuts. I think I would like to just go ahead and make a motion that we approve Large Scale Development 06-2300 with the stated Conditions of Approval, finding favorable on Item number one, Determination of Street Tree Planting. Item number two, Determination of Parking Deck Standards, which I understand our standards recognized by utilized documentation, and with the modification that staff will review that as well. And on Item number three, in whole with the exception of the reduction of the three curb -cuts. Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 55 of 130 Anthes: And Commissioner Lack, for clarification, are you making any finding on the left turn only from the alley as Mr. Pate suggested? Lack: I did not. I would be open to an amendment if somebody thought that that was required to gain approval, but I would be comfortable with it the way it's stated. Anthes: Okay. The motion is to approve Large Scale Development with the curb -cuts and the right turn only as shown on the drawing given us tonight. Is that clear? I have a motion to approve by Commissioner Lack. Do I have a second? Trumbo: Second. Anthes: Commissioner Trumbo has seconded that motion. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve LSD 06-2300 with stated conditions carries with a vote 6-0-1. Commissioner Clark recused. LSD 07-2414: Large Scale Development (PEBBLE CREEK FLATS, 598): Submitted by N. ARTHUR SCOTT for property located at INTERSECTION OF 18TH ST.AND CUSTER LANE. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and RMF -24, Residential Multi- family — 24 units per acre, and contains approximately 4.21 acres. The request is for a 2 -story mixed use building with 18 dwelling units and 11,126 s.f. of commercial/office space within the C-1 zoning and 2 apartment buildings with 46 dwelling units within the RMF -24 zoning. Anthes: Item number 9 is Large Scale Development 07-2414 for Pebble Creek Flats. Ms Morgan, if you could wait just a moment. Okay. Go ahead, Suzanne. Morgan: This property is located on the southeast corner of Custer Lane and 18`h St. The property is zoned both Residential Multifamily, 24 units per acre and Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 56 of 130 Neighborhood/Commercial. In May of last year the applicant requested a rezoning of the C-1 property to RMF -24. This was denied and the applicant later brought forth a rezoning request for Residential Planned zoning district in November of last year. At Subdivision Committee there was much discussion regarding the proposal. The applicant withdrew that RPZD based on the comments received at the meeting. At this time the applicant has brought forth a development proposal which meets and complies with the zoning requirements for the C-1 and RMF -24 zoning district. This proposal includes 20 units in the C- 1 zoning district. Two of those units are in an existing duplex. The building to be constructed will contain more that 51 % commercial space with commercial on the bottom, or first floor, as well as a small portion on the second, and 18 dwelling units. In the Residential Multifamily zoning district there will be two structures constructed with a total of 46 units and a density of 21.3 units per acre. The applicant is proposing connectivity to the east, stubbing out a private drive to the residential property to the east. Much of the discussion regarding this development has been in regards to compatibility as well as traffic and drainage. With regards to drainage we would just like to point out that the flow, the water flows north through the developed subdivision through this site. The applicant will follow the requirements of the City's requirements regarding drainage in order to not increase flow from this property. There was a question regarding traffic. Staff has utilized (Trip Generation) software and the proposed development will average approximately 559 24hr, two-way vehicle trips on an average week day. On page one of your staff report you can see that there is a table with traffic counts which were taken from January 12 through January 15 on Custer Lane, as well as 181h St. Custer Lane is designed and designated as a local street which has a capacity volume of less than 4,000 vehicle trips per day or less. The average vehicle numbers which were taken on those four days were approximately around 400 vehicles. Custer Lane, you can see, is well below the maximum design capacity for that collector street. Therefore, staff does not find that this development would in any way endanger or increase traffic to a dangerous situation. With regard to Design Overlay District Requirements, which this project is subject to, the applicant has not complied with curb -cut requirements for a minimum of 250ft from an intersection on 18`h St. This is due to the lack of the required frontage in order to provide that minimum distance. Subdivision Committee reviewed this. Staff has reviewed this. We recommend granting this waiver request finding that there is a need to have a curb -cut onto 181h St and the applicant has located that curb -cut as far away from the intersection as possible. We are recommending approval of this Large Scale Development finding that the proposed development does meet the zoning and development requirements of the Unified Development Code with conditions. We have listed 21 conditions of approval. The first being Planning Commission determination of street improvements. Staff has worked with the Engineering Division as well as the Trails Coordinator to propose a condition that will allow for a bike lane on 18`h St. I would like to amend that there are actually 22 Conditions of Approval. I apologize. Condition number, number 1, was copied twice. We also have Planning Commission determination of connectivity, and Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 57 of 130 staff is recommending for approval connection to the east. So we are looking at Planning Commission determination of compliance with commercial design standards. This review is only specifically for the commercial that is on the first floor of the building at the northwest corner, the intersection of 18`h and Custer Lane. I believe that the applicant has elevations to present to you this evening. Finally there is a termination requested of the 250ft separation between curb -cuts and the intersection. That is all I have. Anthes: Thank you, Ms. Morgan. Would any member of the public like to speak to this Large Scale Development 07-2414 for Pebble Creek Flats? Please come forward, state your name, and give us your comments. Pieper: Good evening. My name is David Pieper. I am here on behalf of my family, my in-laws Barney and Sue Madison, my wife Eva Madison, and her brother Blair Madison. Between us we own seven houses in the Red Arrow Addition. Three of our houses are directly adjacent to the proposed development: 1940 W Custer, 1952 W Custer, and 1924 Arrowhead. There are other neighbors here as well, and in the interest of brevity and the Commissions time I would ask the residents to please stand so they can make their presence known. Anthes: I believe there are nine people in addition to you? Ten maybe? Thanks. Pieper: We very much oppose the proposed development. It is here before the Commission for the third time, and we would ask the Commission to again reject the developer's proposal. The Red Arrow Addition is comprised of single family homes with a handful of duplexes. Since we were here for the first time in May of last year it has been properly down -zoned now to RSF-4. In all there are about 75 units in the neighborhood. The developer is proposing to build 63 apartments for a total of 87 bedrooms almost doubling the number of residents in Red Arrow. The developer also wants to tear down two triplexes to construct an 11,OOOsq ft commercial building in what is currently part of our neighborhood. Our biggest concern is that to do this, the developer wants access to W Custer, a quiet residential street by using a platted lot at 1838 W Custer for a driveway and a commercial parking lot. This platted lot is zoned RMF -24. The permitted use, according to code, for that lot is citywide uses by right, single family dwellings, two family dwellings, three family dwellings, and multifamily dwellings. An apartment complex driveway and a commercial parking lot are obviously not permitted uses in this zoning district. I also know from past issues before the Commission that you are very concerned about constructing streets into neighborhoods where the neighbors have had no notice that a street would go through. This is just such a case. In the roughly 50 years since this neighborhood came to be there has been absolutely zero warning that this platted lot would be anything else but another house in the neighborhood. There is no sign warning of a future street. There is no stub -out. There are no curb -cuts. The subdivision plat shows only a vacant lot. There was certainly no notice that 63 apartment dwellers would be using this lot for access to and from their units, nor was there Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 58 of 130 notice that a commercial parking lot would be slapped into the middle of a residential neighborhood. Traffic on W Custer, as you have heard, will likely double. There are young children in the neighborhood as well as elderly residents that all use the street for neighborhood activities. There are no sidewalks in this neighborhood. Allowing this platted residential lot to be used as a driveway and a parking lot sets a very dangerous precedent for this planning in our city. I ask you personally, how would any of you like it if your neighbor's house was torn down so that a developer could use the lot for a parking lot and a commercial driveway. In any such case it appears very (flipping tape over) to the neighbors. I have also been asked that if for some reason you actually approve this development that you again reiterate that there be a fence placed between the neighborhood and the development with a note that the nice side of the fence at least go towards the neighborhood. The neighbors are also very concerned about drainage, as was mentioned. You can see when you look at the plat that there is a creek that flows through the developers property. As noted by previous discussions before this Commission, the flooding of that creek reaches the back doors of the houses that are in question in the neighborhood. This development has a lot of roof and a lot of parking. It will generate considerable runoff going into that creek as well as providing a bridge with limited water flow where the development crosses the street. We realize that the creek flows north, away from Red Arrow. However, given the history of water problems we not that if a bottleneck occurs either because of the new bridge or other actions this will create even further problems with flooding in this neighborhood. Finally, the City talks about its goal of promoting and protecting affordable housing. Red Arrow is just that, affordable housing. This development will do nothing to protect the affordable housing in Red Arrow. The multifamily and commercial uses proposed by the developer are highly inconsistent with the way this neighborhood has been built and it's use over the last 50 years. We realize that the zoning of the property technically allows for the proposed buildings. But please don't magnify the impact of this development by dumping all of the traffic into a quiet residential neighborhood. Please protect our rights and vote no. Thank you for your time. Anthes: I'm sorry. Please, no applause. Dave, could you spell your last name for us please? Pieper: My last name is Pieper. P -I -E -P -E -R. Anthes: P -E -R? Pieper: Yes, Ma'am. Anthes: Okay. Thank you. Pieper: Thank you. Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 59 of 130 Anthes: Would any other member of the public like to address this item? Good evening. Robbins: Anita Robbins. I live at 1875 W Custer. I live right across from where the street has been proposed to come out for the driveway and the parking lot. We have lived over there, most of us have all lived over there. I have lived there for 20 years. All the neighbors have lived over there for 20 years. I am like him. I think y'all wouldn't want to see a parking lot and a street right across the road from your house that you have lived at for 20 years. People, we have no sidewalks. We have elderly people, children. They use the streets. We are going to have more traffic and the crime is going to really.... I work for Washington County Sheriff's Department and the crime rate is going to really skyrocket if we get a parking lot, a commercial parking lot, over there in the middle of our residential area. We haven't hardly had very much crime over in our neighborhood, but I can guarantee that if we get a parking lot in the middle of it that it is going to start in. I don't think we should have to put up with that. Anthes: Thank you Ms. Robbins. Does any other member of the public have comments to add to those given this evening? Seeing none I will close the public comment section. Would the applicant like to give a presentation? Good evening, Ms. Rudzinski. You can usually lean it up against the column. Rudzinski: Good evening. My name is Yumi Rudzinski. I am the architect on this project. We had several proposals for this, and we worked with the developers to try to provide a product that would also work with the neighborhood. I invited one of the property owners to my office to look at the original proposal. Because of the density and number of units we were proposing, going through the PZD they were very much against that, so the developers and I go together and decided to go with a different scheme. Reduce the number of units so it will be less impact in terms of density and also traffic to Custer. After we decided to do the proposal by right we invited the neighbors to the Hampton Inn for a meeting. We showed then the project. I just asked them, please tell me your concerns. Between the engineers, the developers, and myself and the City we will try to work out some resolutions. They brought up some great issues. Of the three one was the traffic, another one was the drainage, and another one was just the pure density of the project. We did the traffic study, and it was found that we were way under the capacity of what Custer can hold. What we are proposing right now is actually less than what the density allows. We are doing two apartment buildings to the south of the site. One is a two-story closest to the existing homes there. We pulled it away from the back property line so it can leave some of the existing trees there. They have agreed to put up a privacy fence. It was one of the things that came up during our meeting at the Hampton Inn. The owner was there and he said that's not a problem. We'll put up a fence there. And also the other apartment building that is running north/south, we moved it about 35ft away from the property line to preserve the existing trees that are there. It would not affect the existing neighbors on that side. To the north we have a mixed use building and we are proposing a building that I think will really be a benefit to that neighborhood. It Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 60 of 130 has professional offices, small retails in the bottom, and then above we are proposing modern lofts up there. We worked with the neighbors, and I wanted to convince them that... I wouldn't work on this project or put something in their neighborhood that I would think would bring down the value of the neighborhood. The developers have agreed to use materials that would be easy to maintain. We are proposing to use brick on the base and nice architectural metal panels above on the residential. For the commercial we are using mostly brick. All brick on the bottom floor and also the volume that is up on 18`h St, and above using a cedar with a natural stain. We are manipulating the surfaces so that it's not a huge addition. Also the mere fact that the building steps down about 611 breaks down the volume a little bit. We think that using the materials that we are proposing and the style that it is going to be something that is going to be very attractive in the neighborhood. A modern piece of architecture that I think Fayetteville embraces. We have an interesting group of people that are moving into town and people that are coming from bigger cities would like to live in more urban, loft type of environment. Scott is standing behind me, and he could... We are both here to answer any questions or issues that either you or the neighbors have for us. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you very much. Commissioners? Well, let me start it off by asking a question of the City Attorney, and that is with regards to the egress onto Custer. I believe there was some comment made at Agenda Session about whether or not the City can deny access to a public street as a criteria of the Large Scale process. Have you had a chance to review that? Williams: No, not that specific question. I think that when I did hear that that lot could not be used as a private drive for an apartment building or something like that, I don't think that is correct. I talked a little bit with Jeremy, who of course interprets the ordinance, not me. But I would ask him to comment on that. About whether or not this driveway would be something that would be prohibited under our use codes. Anthes: Okay. I'm sorry, I misunderstood I think. Go ahead Mr. Pate. Pate: Based on the ordinance requirements, obviously the City Council adopts certain ordinances and put them in place in order for development, the property owner to follow. The property owner is then required to follow those ordinances and expects approval - a level of consistency in approval - if they meet that ordinance. So, in this case there is no waiver being sought for the access onto W Custer. The access point and Parking, chapter 172.06 requires a parking lot, not only permits, but requires parking lots to be located in the zoning district in which the use that they serve is also located. So that question, I think, is answered by that chapter. That includes all drive and access points in parking that is utilized for those uses. In terms of the access on 18`h St I think there would be, if the Planning Commission or City Council so chose there is a waiver request being requested for the access onto 18`h St, so it does not meet our requirements. So if you chose Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 61 of 130 to deny that access, I think you have the right to do that. I would not recommend it because it does provide another access to.... two means of ingress for roughly 63 units and 11,000 sq ft of commercial space. In my opinion, the access onto W Custer St meets all of our ordinance criteria. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Pate. Commissioners? Harris: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Harris. Harris: The current cut-out on Custer St. It does give me pause. Is it similar or not to the conversation that we had several weeks ago about the proposed development near the junk yard? I can't recall the... Clark: Westfork Place. Harris: Westfork Place. It is similar, is it not, in terms of placing some sort of through fair through a platted subdivision lot? Pate: I don't believe so on two respects. One, that was a waiver request to actually access that. There was a street and there was a minimum jog requirement, and I believe there was a waiver request to actually have that street located in that area. Secondly, that was a planned zoning district so there is a determination of compatibility and use and "is the density appropriate?" There is no such determination in this case. There is very little discretion the Planning Commission has with a Large Scale Development when the developer is proposing uses that are already permitted by right. So there are residential multifamily dwelling permitted by right in the RMF -24 zoning district, and there are commercial uses permitted by right in the C-1 zoning district. If this commercial use were not even part of this property, and that was the only property that accessed onto this multifamily development, that would be the only access that they would have. Fortunately they have another point of ingress and egress and we are certainly supportive of the waiver to allow for a secondary means of access to the public streets. I don't feel that it is within my ability to even request that the developer change that point of ingress and egress because he is meeting all the ordinances. The applicant might offer something, but it is not something that I am willing or I think that I have the ability to require them to change that point of ingress and egress if it is, again, meeting all of the ordinance criteria and not creating a dangerous traffic situation. If you feel it is creating a dangerous traffic situation that is a point for denial. But based on the traffic numbers that are being generated it is well under the number of traffic that could easily be accommodated on W Custer St. Harris: When we were having the conversation about Westfork Place it seemed to me, and my memory may be faulty or I may have simply misunderstood, but it seemed Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 62 of 130 to me at the time that there was a sort of sense in the air that it had been customary for the Planning Commission not to approve roads or driveways through a platted subdivision lot. Am I miss -remembering that? Or..? Pate: I have not been involved in another project where that's been an issue, personally. Graves: Madam Chair, we had something out there at Crossover and Mission where something was proposed through a platted residential lot. They wanted a street to go through a lot and there was an issue of whether or not neighbors had been notified. They played in an empty lot or something, kids. I don't remember which project. Pate: There was a right of way stubbed out to a commercial tract. It wasn't a residential lot. It was a right-of-way that was recommended for approval for vacation by the Planning Commission, but the Council denied that vacation and instead chose to keep that stub -out open for now. If that is the one you are talking about. Graves: I think it is. I just couldn't remember the specific details and just wanted to clarify the difference here. Harris: Madam Chair, if I may. The reason I am sort of staying on this spot for a moment is, we obviously still have a huge project in front of us this evening and I think a sort of affective similarity will be there if not actual factual similarity, and that is.... I think Commissioner Anthes, you said earlier today looking for some degree of predictability. I suppose that I would like a little bit more conversation. Maybe it is just me need to be educated about platted lots. Certainly the folks that live in a subdivision for 20 years or 30 years, there is, one can only assume the most profound expectation that a platted lot will either be build on as a house or it will remain a vacant lot. Certainly we are growing, and certainly we need means of ingress and egress to places just like this. The kind of develop able land that is still available within our core city. Mr. Pate, would you mind just sort of educating me and anyone else listening about what the actual law is, or Mr. Williams, about a platted lot. Anthes: Might I address that? Harris: Yeah. Anthes: I think that the difference here is that in the other project we had a platted lot that was zoned RSF-4. In this case we have a piece of property that is zoned RMF -24. Harris: Correct. Anthes: So if you have a platted lot that is zoned for a single family house, then you assume that a single family house is going to go one it. If you have a platted lot Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 63 of 130 that's zoned for residential multifamily, 24 units per acre, that carries a different expectation of what may happen on that lot. This neighborhood had not built out to its zoning. This entire area was zoned RMF -24 until recently when many of the neighbors got together and came to us and asked for a blanket downzoning, which was granted. However, there are portions of the property that were not part of that class of people that came to us for that downzoning, and the existing zoning still stands on those lots. Is that a good way to describe it? Pate: Yes, and Madam Chair, I will add that there are still parcels directly across the street that are zoned C-2 that have every right to develop. C-2 units have the uses and the access to their property. Many developments, probably most developments, are an assimilation of properties and old subdivisions. Most of Mt Sequoyah and the downtown is platted in old subdivisions, however access is granted everyday for approval as long as they meet our ordinance criteria. I think it would certainly be a different situation if it was not meeting our ordinance criteria. If as Commissioner Anthes mentioned it was serving a commercial use in a residential single family, RSF-4 neighborhood. I think that would certainly be a different matter. Actually our code spells it out that if you have a parking lot and an associated drive aisles that I would interpret would be part of that parking lot serving a use that is not allowed in that zoning district it is actually a conditional use for the Planning Commission to decide. I think the difference in this situation, whether I like it or not or whether you like it or not, is that it is a use by right. It is simply required to access the property. I personally think that no access onto W Custer and funneling all traffic to one point of ingress and egress could actually be more dangerous in this situation. Anthes: Thank you. Is there further discussion? Trumbo: Madam Chair. Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Trumbo. Trumbo: To ask an engineer question, again the flooding issue that the neighbors have talked about where this property will drain to the north and not back into this neighborhood. Is that correct? Scott: That is correct. There is probably 100 acres or more to our south that drains through this property and that acreage controls the ultimate high level of that ditch and stream in that area. This property, the rainfall, this property drains within 10 to 12 minutes. The offsite area peaks in about an hour. So this property, the water from it will be gone when that peak actually occurs. That peak does not occur in that location from any of the properties there, even from the ones that are built on now. They are just caused from the offsite. Anthes: Thank you. Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 64 of 130 Lack: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Lack. Lack: I tend to agree with staff in the access portion. I would like to get on to some items that I think we do have some say in and I would like to open some discussion on. That would be the Commercial Design Standards. Ms Rudzinski, if you wouldn't mind, could you show us in the elevations which portions of the building we would see and give us a description of that? Rudzinski: This portion is all brick, which will be this brick here. And then volume above would be a clear stained cedar, particularly the residential portions. All this is the commercial part. Lack: So I am to understand that the west elevation that you are pointing to, that is the Custer facade? Rudzinski: Yes. And then this is on the opposite side. So this is Custer, so that elevation is this. And this is... Lack: Ok. And then, of course, the corresponding coordinate points, but... Rudzinski: And then this elevation we are proposing a fitness center there. That volume will be facing 18`h St. That is all brick. Lack: And the opening is brick and glass? Rudzinski: Yes. (Unclear, away from microphone) Lack: Ok, so basically the back of the building would be toward Custer? If I am reading the articulation. Rudzinski: This right here, yes. It is more of apartment use, small portion of residential area. And then on the opposite side where the road is, this is where actually leads to the professional businesses as well. (Not sure if that was correct) Lack: Can you tell me where the services will be for this building? Trash service? Rudzinski: (Speaking away from the microphone) We are proposing to have... there is one on the south side of the building. Lack: Ok. I will be anxious to hear comments from other Commissioners about the Commercial Design Standards. I would, again, agree with staff on the separation of the drive entrance and Custer along 181h St. I would echo that I think that is an important access point and one that I do not feel compromises the design overlay district in any way to reduce to something that would be acceptable in all other Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 65 of 130 areas of the city except the design over district. With that I will... Anthes: Mr. Lack, would you like to clarify your feelings about commercial design standards? Lack: I have some concern with commercial design standards and specifically with the guiding principles of the design standards. The materials, certainly, I feel meet the commercial design standards. The articulation I have some pause with would certainly not with the east elevation, likely with the north elevation, but with the west elevation which I think is the one that commercial design standards actually is relevant to. The articulation is basically of the back of a building and with the appropriate plainness that the back of a building would have. I think I understand the presentation of the desire to use the small windows, but then above it are expanses of glass. I am somewhat concerned with the imagery of the building being of a rear building, and with that tend to think of that side as having the service doors or other services. That is the reason I ask about the service functions of the building. You have to get deliveries some place. You have to take the trash out someplace. And maybe you will do that in the front door through the east side, but with vocabulary reading as much as a backside as I believe that does, that gives me some pause. Anthes: Thank you, Commissioner Lack. Mr. Pate, could you clarify for us, when we look at commercial design standards on a building such as this in this zoning district, are we looking at the whole building or are we only looking at the first floor? Pate: We have had this discussion a lot of times lately. Even tonight with the multifamily design standards. I think, inextricably, the building is a building and you have to look at the whole building. But, applicability of commercial design standards is for the commercial portion of that structure. What, I think, persuades city staff in this instance is that there is obviously a primary entrance that fronts onto W Custer St in this case. We have argued with applicants before to try to get some windows or awnings or something on there to make it look like a front. And in this case they have actually provided an entrance that is just as articulated as what they feel is their front entrance. I agree, probably the east elevation looks better than the west elevation, and for obvious reasons, it's a store front facade that accesses the parking area. However, in my opinion, the difference in materials, the breaking up of that long linear facade of commercial space does articulate that structure adequately to meet our commercial design standards. Anthes: Do any other Commissioners have comments on Condition of Approval number 3, which is commercial design standards? Commissioner Myers? Myres: I think I share a little bit of Commissioner Lack's reservations about fronting a building on a residential street with basically the back of the building. We just had a discussion about that not too long ago this evening. I think I wish it was a Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 66 of 130 little bit more... a little bit friendlier. When I look at it, it's a beautiful building. I appreciate the fact that there is wood on it which is a very traditionally residential material which evokes that residential feeling. But it also looks to me like a lot of industrial buildings that I have seen over the years. Small factories. In fact, it looks a little like the (name) factory, Walter Gropious's landmark building. But be that as it may, I just have some reservations. I am not sure I can put my finger on them. Anthes: Commissioner Myers, or Commissioner Lack, it seems to me like you are talking about basically the west elevation. That you are finding it okay on the other three? Lack: Correct. Anthes: Is there anything that you could articulate that could be done to that west elevation that would cause you to approve that condition? Lack: I am looking for the break in the horizontal that I heard Mr. Pate speak of. Maybe the center portion of it. It might be that I can't see it well enough from this distance. I wonder if.. Did this not go through Subdivision Committee? Anthes: Yeah, Subdivision found in favor of commercial design standards. Lack: They did? I think that a more friendly address to the west would be appropriate. With that I would say that that means more glass on that side. Now, I know, functionally that makes it difficult because you have to have a back someplace. You have to have a stock room. You have to have functions in a commercial building. But, when we look at building a building to a street and addressing a street with a building it is difficult in this market to put the parking lot in the back because it is not a proven method here and the density hasn't carried that through. We don't have the pedestrian access. We don't have the street parking that are all relevant to that admirable method. I wouldn't want to see it flipped and put the parking lot along Custer either. I sympathize with the direction. But I do think that a greater address to the street side with more openness at the first level commercial would be appropriate. I wouldn't want to try to dictate how much that is. I think that you would probably know what is appropriate for addressing a public street facade. That would be something that would make me more comfortable with the commercial design standards to the west elevation. Clark: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: I have a question. On the west elevation, I can't see if from here, are you calling out any exits from the interior on that west elevation? Is there going to be a back door? Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 67 of 130 Rudzinski: We are collecting. We have two exits. One here, and one on the side. And then on the other end would be that door. Clark: Ok. So if some of the commercial tenants wanted a door through, if you are going to subdivide that up, would the property owner put in a back door? Could you have a plethora of back doors depending on schematics? Rudzinski: That is what I was trying to avoid. One, putting the main entrances on east elevation so that... Anthes: Excuse me, could you get the microphone and take it with you? Rudzinski: The reason we decided to put the front elevation onto the east side of the building was because we were concerned with the cars being on Custer. So we moved it over to the other side. On the other side we are not trying to do a back of a building. The difference is the base, because the front portion of and the top portion is pretty much the same. The bottom, we did go in and we put 511 by 511 windows. They might look small in scale, but they are good size apertures. We though were someone to have it as an office that would bring enough light in. It's positioned in a way so that we can minimize the amount of doors that are on this side there. The scheme is to have a collective corridor and then they could all share a common entry area, and then for a secondary entry. And then their main entries would be from the east side. Clark: Ok. I am going to go from you to staff. This is proposed with two exits to the back. If when the tenants get in there and they are subdividing it and they want a back door. Is that something that you would approve or would it have to come back here? Can they modify it? Pate: I think to a certain degree we could approve it with a modern modification. But if a lot of back doors started popping up on the building we would simply bring it back here as a Modification and the Planning Commission would decide if that was a violation of commercial design standards in your opinion. Clark: I respect what you tried to do, and I think it is very admirable. The back of commercial buildings inevitably become something that you certainly didn't envision when you were drawing it up. Trash will accumulate. People store stuff. There is the potential to really trash that out exists. That's a good phrase isn't it? So would it be appropriate to put in the conditions of approval that it is limited to two exits on the western side without coming back? Pate: I think in terms of commercial design standards we usually will do something like that administratively. But with direction from the Planning Commission, if that is something changes for ingress and egress on that back door, I will certainly bring it back before the Planning Commission. Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 68 of 130 Clark: I guess I am underwritten by the fact that I am very concerned about this development in this particular neighborhood. I don't think it goes. I don't think it fits. And I don't think it should be there. Can't do a darn thing about it because of the way it is zoned. I think it is beautiful, I just don't think it fits that particular neighborhood and the composition of that neighborhood. You even mentioned that the lofts are going to have a more urban feel. That is not an urban neighborhood. That is a nice suburban neighborhood that has been there for 20 years and they want to keep it just like it is. So you are in fact going to change the characteristics of this neighborhood. Right or wrong it is going to happen. We can't effect it because it is zoned exactly the way you are using it. So I would like, if we are going to have to swallow this - and it is a beautiful building, it truly is!- I would like to put some restrictions on it in terms of making sure your vision is realized. Because once the architect hands it over and the profit motive comes in here they are going to subdivide that as they need. I don't want to see a lot of back doors popping up. I don't want to see a pathway cropping up, a lot of trash, debris, and stuff like that. Because it does front a neighborhood street. So if we could do anything that would tighten that up that would certainly help me a little bit. In terms of commercial design standards Commissioners Lack and Commissioner Myers know a heck of a lot more about this than I do. I share their concerns. It's a lot of glass, and no back doors. I like the landscaping. I wish there was more landscaping. I wish it was pushed back a little bit further so you had more landscaping that separated it from the street. You didn't put the parking lot there, which is admirable. Those are my concerns. I would like to see if we are going to be able to build it with your vision and make sure that your vision stays intact. Motion: Anthes: Alright. I am going to try this one. I am going to move for approval of Large Scale Development 07-2414 for Pebble Creek Flats subject to the following conditions: Condition of approval number one. Finding in favor of the street improvements as stated by staff. Item number two. Planning Commission determination of connectivity finding in favor with staff and with the Subdivision Committee in favor of connectivity through the adjacent streets and the stub -out to the east property line. Condition of approval number three. Finding in favor of commercial design standards except for, or with the following caveat: Requesting that staff administratively review the lower level of the west elevation and ask for more articulation of that facade, and limiting the exit doors to those shown on the elevation presented tonight. Any further modifications need to come back to Planning Commission for review. Condition of approval number four. Finding in favor of the determination of a waiver which requires the 25011 separation in the design overlay district. And finding in favor of all other conditions as listed. Williams: Madam Chair. Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 69 of 130 Anthes: Yes. Williams: I think there was a talk about a wall at one point? That they were going to construct. Anthes: A wall? Rudzinski: On the south side of the property. Anthes: A fence? Williams: A fence, I'm sorry. A fence, not a wall, but a pretty fence is what I heard was being offered at one point. Anthes: Since we have residential to residential we can't require it, right? But since it was offered by the applicant...? Williams: I think it was offered by the applicants. Anthes: Okay. And adding condition of approval number 23. To install a perimeter, minimum 6ft fence, nice side out as a buffer. At Subdivision we talked about where that would really need to be. Is the offer for the entire property, or..? Scott: It is probably not appropriate for the entire property because there are so many trees on this site. We had placed it along the southern boundary and along this boundary here where this parking is adjacent to the homes. This is a very treed area here, and that is actually the ditch that runs through there, the creek area, that is full of trees. So we felt like this, you wouldn't even be able to see it from the street. Anthes: Well we were, I think, concerned about cars heading in facing south along that south parking lot. That the lights of those cars not be able to shine into lot five. Scott: Yes, we felt like why that was appropriate for that location. And also, the developers are going to add room in here and around Custer. We didn't put it on this elevation because we wanted to be able to see the building, but there will be some burning in this area too to address your concerns. Anthes: Thank you. Okay. Was that clear enough for staff to administer? Alright. There is a motion to approve by Commissioner Anthes. Do I hear a second? Harris: Second. Anthes: Second by Commissioner Harris. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 70 of 130 Roll Call: A motion to approve LSD 07-2414 with stated conditions carries with vote 7- 0-0. Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 71 of 130 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. The request is for rezoning, Preliminary Plat, and partial development approval for a Master Development Plan of a Residential Planned Zoning District with 295 attached and detached planned dwellings as well as 58,500 s.f of non- residential space. The Preliminary Plat approval is for 67 lots. The development approval proposed at this time is for 57 residential units and 16,636 s.f. of non-residential space. Anthes: Alright. I need everybody to move inside or outside. We've got to get the doors closed. Anthes: Our final item this evening is RPZD 06-2299. A planned zoning district for Ruskin Heights. I would like to remind everyone that members of the public are permitted a maximum of ten minutes to speak. Representatives of the neighborhood will be allowed twenty minutes if they are speaking for a group. And the applicant and representative of an application before the Planning Commission will be permitted a maximum of twenty minutes per application. If you are going to speak tonight please keep your comments organized and concise. If somebody has already said something that you agree with please don't repeat if you don't need to. We will try to hear everybody and get out of here in a reasonable amount of time. Alright. Staff report, Mr. Garner. Garner: Yes, Ma'am. This property contains just under 29 acres. It's located on the south side of Mission Boulevard, State Highway 45. It is about a half a mile west of Crossover Rd. The site is zoned RSF-4 and has not been previously developed except for some large lot single family homes. Approximately 62% of this site is located within the Hillside/Hilltop overlay district. Other natural features on this site include a tree canopy on the perimeter property lines and along some of the old fence rows, and along the south and west portions of the property. The property is surrounded by a variety of uses including a church, a plant nursery, single family residences, multifamily residences, a commercial strip center, and as mentioned it is also located about a half mile from one of the larger commercial nodes in the City at the intersection of Crossover State Highway 265 and State Highway 45, Mission Boulevard. The applicant proposes rezoning and preliminary plat and partial development approval for Master Development Plan for a residential planned zoning district. This proposal would change the zoning to allow for 295 attached and detached residential dwelling units as well as 58,500 space of nonresidential commercial space. The preliminary plat would result in a total of 67 lots at this time. The general style of the development is proposed to be a traditional neighborhood development including a variety of housing types and land uses in a defined area. Rather than a typical sprawling subdivision this development attempts to create eclectic urban neighborhood with a various of uses connected by a network of paths, sidewalks, streets, alleys, and Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 72 of 130 lanes suitable for pedestrian as well as vehicles. The proposed zoning criteria over this site allows for a more dense layout of single family residences mixed with multifamily dwellings on Mission Boulevard. The mixed use flats would also be interspaced with live/work town houses. Overall density of the site, as shown on Table One of your staff report is approximately 10 units per acre. As mentioned in the preliminary plat approval it is for 67 lots and the development is directly off of Mission Boulevard with three public streets and a fourth point of ingress and egress off of Greenview Drive to the west. Access to the east and the south is not feasible due to existing homes and the conventional subdivision pattern without street stub -outs or other means of connection to this property. A variety of street cross sections is proposed and is designed to calm traffic and encourage pedestrian comfort and activity throughout the development. These street sections are narrow with small curb return radii consistent with the concepts of the Institute of Transportation Engineers and smart code. These do not meet many of the city's typical street design standards, and they are requesting waivers for all of their street cross sections, as well as other street waivers. We are recommending in favor of the waivers for all the street cross sections. Parking for this proposal is provided mostly through on -street parking. They are proposing, as well, one parking structure for the mixed use area and planning area one. As mentioned, the amount of off-street parking provided does not meet the Unified Development Code requirements. Planning Commission approval is required in order to allow on -street parking to count for some of their required off-street parking. We have those parking numbers listed in Table Three of your report there on page 4. The applicant is also requesting a waiver to vary the amount of right-of-way that would be dedicated along Mission Boulevard. Master Street Plan shows Mission Boulevard as a principle arterial which requires 5511 from center line right-of-way to be dedicated. The applicant has submitted a formal waiver request along with an exhibit showing that the full Master Street Plan improvements to Mission Boulevard are possible without the full 55ft from centerline right -or -way. And the justification that the applicant has provided for that waiver is because there is a very large trunk line, utility line, for SBC that is located in the vicinity there. So we can get into that detail if you need us to explain that further. Staff does recommend several street improvements with this development. One of the main ones is that a three lane section should be constructed along Mission Boulevard complete with sidewalk connection on Mission, where it does not currently exist, to Greenview Drive and all the way where it connects to the existing sidewalk to the east. The three -lane sections are shown on your plats, showing where they would be proposed. In addition we are recommending a traffic signal at the intersection of Lisa Lane and Mission Boulevard. That is at the central intersection as well as to this development. We have also added the condition that the applicant shall pursue State Highway Department permits to construct these improvements to Mission including the traffic signal. They have met with the Highway Department and they can tell you more details about their meetings, but they feel like they are fairly far along in being able to construct those improvements with the build -out of this first phase Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 73 of 130 of development. We are also recommending street improvements to Greenview Drive to build that street out to Master Street Plan standards. 14ft from centerline with curb, gutter, sidewalks, and storm drainage on the east side of Greenview. That would be extended from Mission Boulevard south to View Point Drive. The Parks requirement for this project is a little bit different than some of the other ones that you have seen. The Park and Recreation Advisory Board recommended to accept Ruskin Tower and surrounding land. .I 1 acres, as depicted and described in the project submittal. Ruskin Tower is a 3011 by 30ft Tower to be built at a cost of no less than just under $260,000. The design and the development of the tower shall meet the approval of park staff. We have also had a condition that this tower, when it is built, has to come through the Planning Commission again as well. Staff has received a large number of emails, phone calls, letters, and in-person visits from the public throughout this whole process. Many of the public are opposed to the project. Many of the public are supportive of this project. Some of the main issues of concern or objecting to the project concern the density, that it's too high. Many people have said that the intensity of the development is not compatible with the surrounding existing single family development. Many other concerns were expressed with traffic and pedestrian safety, adverse visual impact, hillside and erosion impacts, among many others. We have included all written copies of the comments we have received and included those in your packets that you received on Thursday. In addition, at the Subdivision Committee we did have several members of the public who spoke. Their main issues of concern were summarized and were also provided to the Planning Commission in a chart. Staff has gone though the city ordinance PZD findings for this project, and we have found in favor of this project. I will highlight some of the main findings based on our city ordinance. One of the first ones is that staff finds that this project is compliant entirely with the City Plan 2025's six major goals. Those findings are included on page 19 of your staff report. That is finding number one. We have included a table there that lists each of the 2025 goals and an analysis of how this project complies with those goals. One of our other main findings was that staff does find that this project is compatible with the surrounding land uses that are existing and the surrounding and existing zoning. That finding is on page 20 of your staff report. Finding number 4. We do acknowledge that this is a different type of development pattern and as you will see in the finding we also find that it is compatible and it is agreeable and harmonious with the surrounding land uses. One of the other main findings we made was that this project is suitable for the natural environment. As mentioned, the main two natural features on the property include the existing natural landform, the hillside, as well as some of the trees. The development does comply with all of the requirements of the hillside/hilltop ordinance. It does meet our Urban Forrester's approval for a tree preservation plan. One of the other main findings I wanted to bring your attention to was the projects impacts to public services and traffic. Planning staff, engineering staff, Police Department, and Fire Department have all reviewed these and found that this project would not create any substantial adverse impacts to infrastructure or public services. We Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 74 of 130 have discussed the impacts to traffic, as well, on page 21, finding number 6. Finding that with the incorporation of the conditions of approval that we are recommending for street improvements that this project would not create an adverse traffic safety condition. Those are the main highlights that I wanted to bring to your attention about the project design and also the PZD findings. We have a number of conditions of approval. I won't go over those in detail. The main ones that I mentioned were the street design waivers, and as mentioned staff is recommending in favor of all of these. One of the other ones I'd like to mention as well is Planning Commission determination to allow on -street parking to count for some of the off-street parking. We are recommending in favor of those as well. There are a number of other determinations in here and I would be happy to go over those in detail if you wish. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Garner. Is there a sign-up sheet at the podium? Garner: Yes, there is a sign-up sheet. Anthes: Obviously, we have a lot of members from the public here to speak tonight. If everyone could kind of keep the flow going and come up to the microphone and sign in and state your comments. So, I will open the floor to public comment. Will you please come forward? Shelton: Hi. My name is Rick Shelton. I live at 1963 Lisa Lane, two homes from the intersection at the entry of this project. I am within 200ft of the property line. First of all, I can tell you that from the point of view of.. Well, I'm a project designer and trained in landscape architecture. I currently am occupied as a subdivision and commercial development designer. I have looked at this very carefully and found that it is very interesting in that it does have a great diversity of housing types. Great diversity of uses. I really like the idea of the mixed opportunities of the commercial space infiltrating the residential spaces and the walk ability of it. That is something we really lack in subdivision design today. Walk ability not only in the subdivision, but outside the subdivision. One of the key features that planning staff has recommended is an intersection with a light at the entry. In my experience, having lived at that location for 5 years and seeing the number of accidents that happen at that location, and accidents that happen within a quarter mile of that location because of the stream of the traffic and the speed of the traffic the stilling measures that this presents are very, very important, I think in that location on Mission. I've had many incidences and near misses myself, and have reported many incidents at the intersection over the 5 years I've lived there. So I think that is a very important aspect of the project, is providing that opportunity on Mission for a very important stilling measure. As far as the subdivision in general, I like the addressing that they did to the hillside. I like the fact that access is not just strictly up and down hill, but it crosses across the hill preventing erosion in the future of the hillside. I think they've done a great job in addressing the shape and the form of the land in the subdivision. Sol Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 75 of 130 am totally in favor of the project, and I just thought I would let you know that. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Shelton. You don't need to write anything but your name. Story: Ok. Thank you. Anthes: Thanks. Good evening. Story: Hi. I'm Jonathan Story. If this is too loud, just let me know. Anthes: We usually have the other problem, so... Story: Ok. I'm here to speak on behalf of a project that I believe will benefit Fayetteville. I've lived in Fayetteville my whole life and in East Fayetteville for the last 20 years. I remember a time when there was only a stop sign on the corner of Mission Boulevard and Crossover Road. When wild flowers grew in fields where ugly blue storage buildings now stand. Needless to say, things have changed since then. While many of us may long for the past, especially when we see old post cards of College Ave covered with trees or pictures of the half of the square that was bulldozed for urban renewal. I have come to realize that if we take what we have now, and build well for the future our city can be even more beautiful and livable than it has ever been. I first heard of Ruskin Heights when a friend of mine who works at Common Grounds solicited my signature on a petition supporting the development. I thought it was strange because petitions are usually against something. I was not inclined to sign it because I am generally not crazy about sprawl. But after looking at some of the drawings of the facades and the general layout of the development, I quickly signed the petition. Several days later I met with some of the people involved with the project and I was even more impressed with what I saw. There are several reasons to support this development. First and foremost in my mind is that it puts into practice the principles which we have endorsed in terms of future development and growth. Ruskin Heights is not just another cookie cutter, cul-de-sac type of development. It is a blend of unique architecture, optimum and mixed use of land and incorporation rather than destruction of natural resources. I have always been amused of how it seems that developments are named after what was destroyed in order to build them, such as Tall Oaks, or Spreading Pines. (Laughter) Ruskin Heights, in my mind, represents a positive departure from that method of doing things. There are people who are taken aback by the proposal because, frankly, it's pretty unique and it hasn't been done much in Fayetteville in the past. But I would like to remind you that several of the same things, which are now being said about Ruskin Heights, were being said about another development a few years back. People complained about the traffic it would create, questioned the density of the homes, and just generally... Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 76 of 130 Anthes: Mr. Story. I need you to address this development and not any others please. Story: Oh, ok. I hope that as you consider this excellent proposal that you will put trivial matters aside and think about the future. Ask yourselves, do we want a city with well built attractive architecture, a community which conserves and makes use of natural resources rather than obliterating them. And most of all a community that through it's very design brings people together rather than separating them. If your answer is yes, I would encourage you to approve Ruskin Heights. Anthes: Thank you. Good evening. Wade: Hi. My name is Kathy Wade. I live in Park Place, one of the neighborhoods immediately adjacent to the proposed development. I am not for or against this development. I think there is a lot of really good things about it. I like the walk ability. I think a lot of it is really wonderful. I am concerned about the density. I think that 10 units an acre is more than I would like to see, and more than I think would be beneficial for the area. I think in the neighborhood of 7 units per acre might be more acceptable to a lot of the people in the area. My other concern is how that density affects not just the traffic but the schools in the area. I am planning on sending my child to Root and it is already pretty full. If there are a lot of children in this neighborhood then that potentially changes the drawing of the school lines. Not that I don't think the other schools in town are good schools. That is one of the reasons that I have a home in Park Place. My last concern is the proposed tower. I think that that tower sounds really cool, but when you think about the public access to it and the possibility that people who have less than good things on their mind could be getting into that tower and looking into my backyard and seeing what my son does in the backyard and when I come and go during the day. That makes me very nervous, and I am not typically a nervous person. The public access to that tower, that people can see on Hillside, is of much concern to me. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you Ms. Wade. I know that we have seen a lot of emails about the impact on schools, but that is not something that we can review with the planned zoning district. So, while we understand that there may be an impact to Root school and others, if you would refrain from discussing that as it is not something we can consider here. Mr. Kellogg. Kellogg: My name is Dick Kellogg. I taught architecture for 40 years, 26 of them here at the University. Almost 45 years ago I was a graduate student at Columbia University studying urban design, and this kind of development was current then. The hope to build more dense housing and so on, and leave other land there, other than one huge house per 2 acres, or something like that as we see in most subdivisions. I am really excited to see, finally, something that I have almost never seen happen since that time. It was a proposal way back. Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 77 of 130 Anthes: Thank you Mr. Kellogg. Hi. Kvamme: Hi. My name's Joanne Kvamme, and I am one of the adjoining neighbors. I had some very specific questions. Well, first I would like to make a statement. This evening we keep hearing that new people moving here want to live in more urban settings. Actually, most of the people I know moved here because they want to live in a small town setting as opposed to a large urban setting. First of all I am very concerned that the developers asked for narrower streets but they want on - street parking. You can't have both. I live on Greenview which is the street right next to it. Our street is not that narrow, though it is narrow, and I believe they are even asking for narrower streets. If we parked on our streets and emergency vehicle could not access the area. Especially on that hill. It is not possible. I think you can't have both. You can't have really narrow streets and street parking, especially on those hills. This development is not compatible with the neighbors. I think, as Dr Kellogg, or Mr. Kellogg, said I agree that the mixed use, there are some very good points to this. But what they could have done, I believe they are allowed to have 112 or so units with the R-4 designation it is now. If they would cluster those and save the area... Anthes: Ma'am, I need you to talk about this project as proposed. Not... Kvamme: Yeah. The forested area here is actually on the Fayetteville Natural Resource Heritage Commissions area of places to be saved. Out of the 8 acres of forests that are on that hillside right now, less than one acre or about one acre will be preserved. This is very important. This is the forested area. First of all they would have to have a dam. That is a very steep slope. To make that hold water you would have to have a pretty substantial dam to make that work. Secondly, all the trees in that pond area will die. So those trees will not be protected. I have a question for you, and this is partially my lack of understanding. I thought the idea of a PZD was to make it more compatible with the neighbors. Yet we have had all the neighbors come out multiple times saying that we don't feel it's compatible. So I don't understand exactly how that works. It is just too dense. One thing I think is important, we have a huge number of people here to speak and I won't speak long. But it would be interesting to have people raise their hand, the people who actually live around it. Because we have a lot of people who have a lot of great ideas, but the ones what it is affecting are us, the ones who live next to it. I think if that is ok, could we ask people who live right around the property to please raise your hands or stand up. Anthes: It looks like a whole lot of them. Kvamme: Yeah. And how many of those have very serious concerns with the project? Anthes: Joanne? Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 78 of 130 Kvamme: Ok. Sorry. That's fine. The other point is we do have very serious concerns about is the slope erosion. Because if you take off all by 18, last I say it was 18% of the trees would be saved. If you take all by 18% of the trees off that slope we are going to have slope problems because it is on the shale. If you look on the hill slope ordinance, they have the King, King and Boss report that talks about the areas that are most susceptible to that. We are there. Ok? We also have water issues at the charrette, we went to the charrette that the developer had, and we had the same concerns. The density was too deep. We wanted to keep the trees. We were afraid of runoff and slope issues. I was told personally by the head person from Florida, "don't worry about it, we have technology". That concerns me a lot. The other issue I have is at the charrette, one of the people developing this property actually said at a public meeting, "why should.... Anthes: You can't say... Kvamme: Well. They are not taking this seriously. It affects us everyday. And if they make a mistake they go on to something else. I have one thing and I will quit. If everyone is so sure that this is not going to negatively impact us with slope problems and with water runoff. I would ask that if this is going to go forward, that the City please ask that they provide some sort of a performance bond, like an insurance policy, that if they do create runoff problems or slope problems to our properties that their insurance policy will cover it and it will not become a problem for the city like (name). Anthes: Thank you. The next person, just come right up. Would any other member of the public like to speak? Good evening. Heinzelmann: My name is Pete Heinzelmann. I am speaking on behalf of Fayetteville Natural Heritage Association. The previous speaker referred to. I just want to correct any misunderstanding. As an organization, we do not intend to have an opinion about an approval or disapproval of any planned development coming before the Planning Commission. So if there is any misunderstanding about that, that is just not our venue. We are not into what the construction of these areas or the architecture. We are about, generally, green spaces and natural areas in another context. So, thank you. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Heinzelmann. The next person just queue -up right behind him. Good evening. Harder, A.: Good evening. My name is Alison Harder. I had to bring the gang because I am single parenting. Sorry about that. My concerns have briefly been mentioned it density. I spoke with Andrew Gardner and he sent me to many different locations that would be similar to this. I went to Rupple Rd, Charleston Place, the historic district, and a location next to the Fayetteville Athletic Club to look at something Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 79 of 130 like it. None of these locations were on a steep slope of 15% or more grade. None of those locations, abutted next to a neighborhood like our neighborhoods. None of those locations that he said were similar had extremely small lots like this is proposing. In Ruskin Heights, in phase one and two that they are talking about, they will be developing 32 lots. My son here is going to help me. 14 of these lots are going to be 24ft wide. That wide. Imagine a home on this with 5ft lines on either side. I had someone tonight say to me, well, it might depend on who I live next door to, if I were to live on a lot that small. Well, you can't control who you live next door to. And there are 14 lots in the first development that are that small. Park Place. None of these lots are compatible with the community that we currently live in. All of the locations I went to had off-street parking. Ruskin Heights has very little off-street parking. A lot of the lots that I am talking about have only a 3ft apron. Whatever that is. I think it is a little parking bay. I went to my friend's house in Charleston Bay and she told me that her neighbors find their homes too small so they are using their garages as living space. Now they are parking their cars in their driveways. So if that happens in this development they will then be parking on the street and using their garages as living space. All of the locations that I went to visit had greater setbacks than Ruskin Heights is proposing. None of the locations I went to had alley ways next to existing neighborhoods. A member of the law enforcement describes alley ways to me as an access point for criminal behavior. If you look at the map up there, the first street coming in off Mission Boulevard is very close to the alley way that abuts east side development all along Park Place and then on the south side. I have a vision that one day the mountains of Fayetteville will not be overcrowded. As stated in the 2025 Plan, the steep slops are not suitable for urban forms of development. The slopes of 15% require special treatment. An ordinance was passed that provides additional protections of these slopes, Mt Sequoyah, and most of this project. It was stated earlier that some of this project. But really most of this project is in the protected ordinance area. I have a vision that the Planning Commission will follow the ordinance that is in place and protect the tree covered mountains that everyone admires from afar, and not stick tall buildings on this hill and a tower. I ask you, what will happen if these developers go out of business or get their money and leave this land. Anthes: Ms. Harder. Harder, A.: Will the rezoning be done something different? Will we be protected with covenants? Anthes: This is a planned zoning district, and this plan goes with the zoning. This is the only plan that can be built on.... Harder, A.: But it is currently planned and zoned as an R-4, and I heard tonight... Anthes: Right. But I am just saying that the plan will go with it. I just don't want you to Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 80 of 130 speculate. Harder, A.: Ok. The density of this project is great. 10 units per acre means a lot more cars, a lot more traffic on Mission Boulevard. We already have a rating, as they have told us, of a level E. This level of density will push things over the edge. I have a vision of driving and walking safely along Mission Boulevard and not having to deal with all of this. Nothing has changed since the last Subdivision Planning meeting in November. There is still extremely high density. An unbelievable number of waivers are being asked for, for small streets, a high number of parking on the street, excessive amounts of street parking, multi -use retail and live/work space. Those red boxes in the front there are three -stories high, and you know they will have fronts on them to cover up their air conditioning units and heating units which push those buildings to four -stories high. Privacy and security problems exist with the tower, which we have fondly named the "peeping tom tower". The hillside ordinance states that trees are to be recognized for the foundation of storm water filtration, absorption, etc. and they are cutting down every tree that is less than 12in around. Why? It never states anywhere that trees should be bigger than 12in. I don't understand that. And then trails. In our 2025 plan it says trails should be connective and within half a mile of everybody's home. If you look at the map they provide us there is one trait on the western edge that is about a block long. Could that trail possibly be extended along the south side and the east and remove that alleyway? Maybe make it a little dense and thus connect the trail up to Mission Ave and the sidewalk area? This is a possibility making it more compatible to the neighborhoods around it. In closing, I ask you to have a vision that was planned for this land not to be so dense and so highly developed. This would help the traffic, privacy, the care of the mountain folk, and the view of the tree covered mountains that Fayetteville and so many others admire. Thank you very much. Anthes: Thank you. Harder, I.: Hello. My name is Ian Harder, and I will be speaking about how would I get to school off of my street? If it is so busy, how can I get out? Would I be late all the time? How many of you own a dog? Could they own a dog? Will they even be able to own a dog? Will I be able to play soccer with my brother in a field? Or will I be able to go able to go out and play fetch with my dog without being spied on? There is just... It will bring in criminal activity and a lot of other bad stuff. Anthes: Thank you. It takes a lot of guts to get up and talk in front of that mic. Harder, I.: Hello. I'm Isaiah Harder. I may be young, and I may be small, but my words are just as big as big as the rest of yours. I will use a quote from the Bible. "If salt loses it's saltiness men will throw it out. People will throw it out to trip on". Ruskin Heights has lost it's saltiness. It is like salt that has lost it's flavor. The houses are like the grains of salt because they are so small. The yards on the lots Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 81 of 130 are 5ft. How will kids be able to play on that? Today the news people were up there filming and their car got stuck in the mud. Imagine what a house would do to the ground. I would like to ask Ruskin Heights a question. How big is your house? Is it bigger than the lots that you are building? I would not like to look at an alleyway behind my house. And with the tower you can see into private residences. Crime will go up. What if Ruskin Heights goes bankrupt? What will happen to the land out there? Why are you trading a green space for bricks to build a tower? That is all. Anthes: Thank you. Hard act to follow. Parker: I'm Cynthia Parker. I'm an adjoining property owner on the south side. I live at 1680 E Shadowridge Drive. I am opposed to this project mainly because of the density that could go into it with the PZD-24 zoning district. The traffic on Mission is horrid, and also having access onto Greenview, which is a very narrow street with big ditches, no curb, gutter or sidewalk. They say they are going to improve it to View Point, but really with all the cut through that is going to occur it ought to be improved all the way over to Locklord and down. I don't see how this compliments the natural nature of Mt Sequoyah when the hillside is obviously going to have to be shaved to put all these houses in. My main concern with this is the density and the traffic on Mission. The traffic on Greenview, the cut through. I think it should stay four families per acre. That is what it is zoned now. You don't have to change it. You could leave it four families per acre. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you Ms Parker. Enrique: I am Enrique, and I am speaking on behalf of our place behind the fence of the mountain. I am also a new American and an old European. I remember in America the colonial towns were in flood land, and the sterling towns of Europe are in flood land, never in mountains. In the mountains in Europe we have 45 towns on granite. Now, I am talking about the geology of this mountain. When Ruskin Heights removes the small trees, bushes, over 90% of our trees, it will accelerate the erosion by removing the filtration powers of the canopy. Our bedrock, according to the Arkansas Geological Commission, has multiple sedimentary ledges which include limestone, Fayetteville shale, which is a very strong sandstone, the Batesville sandstone, and the Hensfield limestone. Sandstone is an acceptable rock to build in a watering landscape, but not in a steep sloped terrain like ours. Sandstones have large porous spaces and thus allow for the water to move easily long distance underground and accumulate through pores, wholes, cracks in the bedrock. Because many of these openings are closed by welding and increase by welding. The bedrock gets deeper. There are so few openings that the movement of water becomes impossible increasing the water table above the ground. Rocks and soils that contain and transmit water like (unclear) are called aquifers. Beneath these aquifers there is a solid rock that Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 82 of 130 has become water tight with the pressure of overlying materials. The water slipping down from the rain soaked surface collects above the impermeable layer filling all the pores and cracks of the aquifer. Our place lies on top of a quarry blocking the natural drainage of Mt Sequoyah. In the winter the upper layers of the water table freeze and expand. The frozen water, soft clay expands against the foundations and retaining walls, the basements, the swimming pools, the sewer pipes, contributing to the cracks and displacement of these structures. In the spring time the water table is very high in Mt Sequoyah. Due to the combination of heavy rains and soft clay and sandstone leaking through the cracks and damage the structures. We experience both problems in winter and in spring in our properties. The problem will accelerate rapidly and destroy private and public structures in the path of the runoff. According to the (quadrangle) 7.5 (unclear) of Fayetteville, my house is about 200ft below the proposed development and only 1,OOOft away. There are neighbors that are only 1 ft away from this subdivision. This alone is not an acceptable distance on this slope to allow the development and to build 295 housing units, or even 4 units per acre while removing the natural landscape of Mt Sequoia forever. The proposed Ruskin Heights development will be an excellent idea in a different urban landscape with no drain problems in our community. Particularly if integrated with city, regional, and state urban designs incorporated with public process, retail, office, and public buildings with 21s` century urban technology, contributing to a more sustainable and livable community, integrating more pedestrian facilities, eventually facilitating a north/south clean public transportation system. Thank you very much. Anthes: Thank you. Would any other member of the public like to speak? Please come up. Bishop: Hello, my name is Tamarin Bishop. I live at 1825 Cambridge which is in Park Place. My property almost directly abuts the Ruskin Heights development. I really think this is a neat development. I am excited by the possibility of mixed use. I like the proposed walk ability that it seems like this project may have. I think there are a lot of neat things to it. When they have discussed with us, and I appreciate the effort they have gone through to include our neighborhood and I am sure the surrounding neighborhoods they have done the same, in their planning process when they have talked about the proposed commercial. I think there are a lot of neat ideas and some things that I think that I would personally benefit from. I think that, quite possibly, this would be more beneficial to my property interest than having a really large, huge home right behind me than a more suburban type neighborhood. I understand that getting the benefit of the uniqueness of this type of neighborhood and some of the blessings that that would effort requires an increased density. I think they go hand and hand. I am concerned that the density level here is too high. As I said, I accept that if we are going to get some of these benefits there is going to have to be more people to create this type of development. It is my understanding, and I think of Park Place, Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 83 of 130 we have about a 3.2 ratio on the homes. To have a greater than 3x that ratio right next door gives me some concern for the existing infrastructure for the right -of ways.... I know that they have gone to a lot of effort to try to do what they can for traffic. If that density could be lessened, even double, I think I could be more comfortable with. Another area that I can see that this could be a lot more compatible with the neighboring families is, that tower is a problem to me. You can see from that tower, directly to my house. And from the pictures that I have seen, you can actually see in the nursery window that we have for my child. I am concerned. As has been mentioned before, I am not the kind of person that is normally a real worrier. I don't worry about people watching my goings and comings. But the school bus intersection lets off right in front of my house and I believe would be visible from this tower. I think that you would have a really good view of when a lot of the people, particularly some of the moms who stay home, are home along. And that gives me pretty great concern, just because we aren't really going to have any limitation over or restriction or accountability of who is up there or what they are doing. So that does give me concern as a neighbor. I would like that to be considered. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you Ms Bishop. Ostrowski: Hi. I am Sharon Ostrowski. Three months ago my husband and I moved from our home in Glib Brooks subdivision which is just east of Ruskin Heights property. We loved our home. We loved living in Fayetteville, and we loved our neighbors. However, my husband has stage four bone cancer and is currently being treated. We decided to sell our home and move into a more maintenance - free environment. We still consider this neighborhood our neighborhood. We know the people who live there. We shop at the stores and eat at the restaurants. Our bank is down the street. Our church is just a few blocks away. We only want positive things to happen. When I first learned of Ruskin Heights I found it really intriguing. The thought of a work/live situation would be ideal for my particular situation. I could open my boutique on the first level, but easily run up whenever need to our home on the second level and be with my husband if he needed me. It sounded like a really wonderful solution. However, I also wondered how it would affect the community. I was nervous that such a development could possible impose on property values, our beautiful views, and our sense of belonging to this area. My husband and I studied the plans. We met with the gentlemen of Ruskin Heights. We asked a million questions, drilled them on the phone and in person, and after extensive research I believe (tape flip) change for Fayetteville and this neighborhood. There is no question that this community is different than anything in Fayetteville currently. However, it promises to be charming and unique much like Fayetteville and the citizens that live here. I realize that my situation is uncommon. The hope of opening my own boutique in Fayetteville is greatly eclipsed by my desire to be able to provide care for my husband at a moments notice. Finding an environment that would offer me that is my greatest concern. If you will allow Ruskin Heights to move forward you will see a Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 84 of 130 positive growth and increase in community pride, and the atmosphere for distinct local businesses. Thank you for your consideration. Anthes: Thank you, Sharon. Good evening. Wilkins: Hello. My name is Charles Wilkins, I live at 318 W. Isles St near Wilson Park. I also own the commercial building there to the west with the pizza store in it. I put about a half a million dollars into that building a few years ago to fix it up. Unfortunately I will probably have to spend a lot more to get it up to snuff with what it looks like they are going to do. I am really impressed with what it is going to look like. I am struck, too, how it seems to fit perfectly with City Plan. I was struck when I looked at the artist's concepts of City Plan. It looked like they stole it from the artist's conception of what Ruskin Heights is going to look like. It looks exactly to the T, even with the common green and possibly even the tower in there. I am also impressed with the hillside ordinance. When that first came about in the past couple of years I really thought it was a red herring that people, anti -development people, had advocated that in order to stop development. And really when I first saw it, it seemed like it would be impossible to develop anything with all the restrictions. And the fact that Ruskin Heights fits perfectly with the hillside ordinance, I think, it really quite amazing. So I am absolutely in favor of Ruskin Heights. Thanks. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Wilkins. Heck: My name is Paul Heck. I am an architect. I am also a Park Place neighbor. I am actually in favor of this project because, quite frankly, we need a change like this. I lived in Tulsa for ten years in a house that was under 11 00s ft. I had two kids in that house and it was perfectly fine living in that amount of square footage. I think there are some lots in this neighborhood that are going to fit that model quite well. I also think that there originally were some houses up on Mt Sequoia, some little cottages, that fit that model and that size pretty well. They weren't quite so close to each other, but definitely the size was about the same. The main point that I want to make tonight is that this project is different. It is not going to address every person's need. It is not something that most people have experienced, probably. We know that it is not going to solve the traffic problems, but it may actually help it down the road if we can get the traffic count number up to get some improvements on 45. Maybe a light in front of this will help as well to help with the pacing of the traffic. I think the thing that this project does is it addresses the important issues. It addresses the health, the safety, and the welfare of the public. I think that they have taken a lot of input from the people and put it to work on this plan. I want to just urge that the City of Fayetteville, if you are ready to move forward on the vision of the City Plan 2025, this is the first step. I think that we need to approve this tonight and that will also demonstrate some additional things to developers in the future. That there is a process that we have to go through here. We have an initial project, a first start of a model to use. Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 85 of 130 Something to help guide them through developing a traditional neighborhood in the future. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Heck. Next person, please come up right behind him. Good evening. Cameron: My name is Caroline Cameron and I live on Viewpoint Dr. We are just right up from where this development will come out on Greenview. My concern is the traffic. Viewpoint has always... We've lived there for 18 years and it has always been a cut -through street. Especially in the morning. People drive up there and then they go down Rockwood and go on Sequoia to avoid all the school traffic. My concern is all the traffic from there that will cut through on our street, and no improvements have ever been made to any of the roads up there. They can't handle the increased traffic. They are narrow and it is hard for even two cars to pass each other on them. So that is my main concern. Anthes: Thank you, Ms Cameron. Again, please, the next person come on up. Sherman: My name is Latrice Menasco-Sherman. I boarder on two sides of the property that Ruskin Heights will be developing. I hate to sound redundant, but I want you to know that I am speaking from my heart and I am not trying to sway you in any way. I just want you to know that we have lived there, and again I know this is redundant, I am mostly concerned about the traffic problems, the density, not having enough parking. I know that I have spent $10,000 already on the foundation of my house. I know the intelligence of Dr. Kabello talking about the soil and the content, and I have mentioned that there is a spring between my house and the next house and during this last ice storm the ice completely covered the top of the cul-de-sac where I live. I know that any time you do something to a hilltop you are going to have dramatic problems and I know that since I am right up next to that hill that a lot of those problems are going to come down on my house. I just want you to bear in mind that the property they want to build is beautiful. I think it would be great on a flat area, but not behind my house. I don't want restaurants behind my house where there is music and garbage cans. I am just trying to let you know that I am very concerned. Riley: Good evening. My name is Marie Riley, and I am representing my husband Art Hobson and I. We are kind of jointly represented by me tonight. We feel very strongly about this development, in case you didn't already know that. I just want to point out a few things. I live in the Washington Willow neighborhood. We have small lots, very small houses. We have alleys. We have narrow streets. We have on -street parking. I would suspect that we are considered to be a very desirable place to live in Fayetteville. If you have looked at the land prices recently? So Ruskin Heights incorporates a lot of these ideas in their development, and that is what makes it very exciting to me. It makes it scalable at the human level. And what we don't have in our neighborhood that Ruskin Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 86 of 130 Heights does have is mixed use. I would like to be able to get home, run down to the cleaners on foot instead of by car. I think this development really falls in line with the vision that we have with the Master Plan. Density. We feel pretty strongly that we can't have density and control sprawl. You can't have it both ways. I mean, you have to make a decision. I think we do as a City, on how we are going to control sprawl, and this kind of development helps us. So that's it. Anthes: Thank you, Ms Riley. Welcome. Backus: Hello. I'm Anita Backus and I live at 1984 Greenview. It is right behind where going up the hill off of Mission. And right now in our backyard there are some really tall hickory trees. It's beautiful, and when we go outside it is like going out in the country. We've lived there for close to 23 years now. We knew that it probably would change and there would be houses up there, but we had no idea that so many homes would be put up there now. We only ask that you really think about it. Think about what is right. Is 295 homes put up in 28 acres? How would you like it if that many homes was popped up in your backyard? I live on Greenview and we have spent a lot of money on the foundation at our house. We have also spent a lot of money on the drainage. You have to have this all done. You can't just pop the house up because they have to come back and work on that. The front of our street the other day was ice half the day. So we are always contending with that. We have to pick up our mailbox and put it in our yard because people always hit it. So we like our house. We like our neighborhood. It is really a nice neighborhood. And we are not totally against this. It is just way, way too many people. I understand that some revisions have been made on this and we were wondering if you could table this decision right now, because we don't know what is going on about the different revisions. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you. Would any other member of the public like to address this Planned Zoning District for Ruskin Heights? Hello. Wilson: Hello, my name is Charles Wilson. I am a resident of Park Place. I have lived for the last 12 years or so on the adjacent property to the east side of the Ruskin Heights development. Now, one of the first things we had to do once our house was built there was we had to spend a lot of money putting a curtain drain in because it absolutely floods down the hill every time it rains. It is not on our property, but other properties adjacent. This is a serious concern. I haven't seen in the plans any convincing argument with how that will be dealt with in the development. It is something that really ought to be considered because with the density of development that is proposed what will happen is you will make the run-off worse not better. So remediation of some kind has to be built into it if this goes forward. Another concern that I have is once you make the favorable zoning change, what happens if the developers take an interest in something else for various reasons like not selling their properties fast enough and someone else takes over? Would they have the ability to put in something totally different? Is Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 87 of 130 this particular case would be restricted only to this plan? I am just arguing the plan ought to consider geological features that a couple of people have mentioned before. I know many people in Park Place have spent a lot of money on foundations, piers, and other ways to keep their houses from sliding down the hill because it is clay under there. All of it is. Thank you for your attention. Anthes: Thank you. Stephens: Good evening. My name is Marvin Stephens. I moved here from south Florida in 1995. I first lived in Park Place, and then I moved to Lovers Lane, and now I live on Meandering way. I have been retired and we are looking to downsize. Ruskin Heights is the only first class project that we have in the eastern part of Fayetteville. It is imperative that I stay in the eastern part around 265 and Mission. Ruskin Heights meets all the requirements of the 2025 Plan. Although there will be a traffic problem, because I drive 28 times a week on Mission Boulevard to Root School. But I think Ruskin Heights has addressed that portion of the traffic problem in that area. I hope that you will approve the plan. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Stephens. Would the next person please come up? Hanson: Hi, I'm Jennifer Hanson. I live in Park Place. I have been asked to make it clear that I will not benefit in any way from this project. I think there are a lot of people here who are simply here because we live next door to it and it is our property values that are at stake. When I first attended the charrett I was absolutely trilled, and I stood up and commended everyone involved for taking so much time to listen and be open. I don't see that openness. I haven't seen that openness since November 30. I am disappointed that close minds seem to be reigning here in terms of what the developers are expecting. Anthes: Could you please address the development plan itself? Hanson: Yes. It was our understanding that this was an open process and that there would be changes. And so the changes that we are supporting and I want to be clear again that we are not all opposed to Ruskin Heights. There are some wonderful features of Ruskin Heights. It is a few specific changes that we are hoping people will be open to. One of which is the fact that for the past year I have been making calls to the city trying to figure out how improvements could be made along 45. I was told over a year ago that the city staff had recommended the city go ahead and make improvements because of the, and I quote, hazardous traffic situation along a heavily traveled artery. Since then I have talked to everyone about this from the mayor down. The mayor himself used the word hazardous. I have been told, and no one, not one person I have talked to in the city has ever disagreed with that assessment of our traffic situation along Mission. Not just in front of Park Place, but along that whole section. With five schools we have real Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 88 of 130 problems. We have been graded an E, the next to worst. If we put another 250 some odd units there, 2.5 cars per unit you are going to dump a thousand cars there. When I have asked what can be done, I have been told that what can be done to ameliorate, not address completely, but just the minimum requirements needed to address the traffic problems that we have now were a turn lane and a traffic signal. That is what is being proposed here. The minimum requirements to address the traffic problems that we have now. In a conversation with Andrew Garner I was explaining what it's like to try to get your kids along this corridor, and he said to me "Well, I don't think there is any point continuing this conversation because your mind is made up." and I said "Well, is yours not?" Anthes: Ms. Hanson? Hanson: Yes. Anthes: I will not hear comments that are derogatory about any member of this staff, this Planning Commission, or the public. Hanson: I am not trying to be derogatory. I am trying to address the issue of openness to specific concerns. I have also been told that our concerns about the tower are a mom issue. I can't tell you how true that is. The concern that putting a tower there directly affects the security and the privacy of all our kids. We have latch- key kids. We have stay-at-home moms. We have single families. The density is way beyond... As the Commissioners who heard this last time one said, and I quote, "ten units per acre is way too dense". The extreme density, the concerns about density, we share those concerns. We are not asking, necessarily, for the entire project to be turned down. Simply that there be a willingness to continue the process of hearing it. When I first moved to Park Place I was told it was built as a traditional neighborhood. Now I am told that this is a traditional neighborhood and we are a non-traditional neighborhood. But our non-traditional neighborhood doesn't address the needs of American's emerging majority of non- traditional families because it was built for a mom, a dad, and two kids. Anthes: Can we please talk about this project and not about Park Place? Hanson: This project is being billed as the answer to that. I am a single parent. I am a representative of that non-traditional majority, and I can tell you that the traditional neighborhood that we are in is going to be severely and adversely effected by these issues of density, security, privacy, and traffic problems are real and justifiable. We actually are hoping that those issues can be addressed. Those of us who are asking for changes are not opposed to the entire project. It is very frustrating to be billed as completely anti. These are real concerns for people who have lived there, voted there, paid taxes there for years and years. The effect to us, I'm afraid, is really being overlooked if some of these changes can't be made. Thank you. Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 89 of 130 Anthes: Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak? Good evening, Ms. Reese. Reese: Good evening. I'm Karon Reese. I am here to voice my support for the Planned Zoning Development called Ruskin Heights. Several years ago I spent a weekend and a good portion of a week attending some charrette addressing the Downtown Master Plan in the Fayetteville Town Center. Over and over and over hundreds of Fayetteville citizens said was "What we want is in -fill. What we don't want is sprawl. We want to stop the sprawl, we want in -fill." I live in the middle of in- fill. I am in a downtown neighborhood, and some of the things that people are bringing up and the things that they are scared about are really things that I deal with every day. You can successfully live in 1,OOOsq ft. and you can successfully live on a small lot. You can raise families and have dogs and play catch and all that. I think this is the perfect in -fill project. I think that 29 acres meeting in the middle of town, meeting developers who are sensitive, and progressive, and innovative is a very good mix. In the plan the developers have thought about the bordering neighborhoods in that they have put the single family homes that they have plans for and preserving green space next to those existing single family neighborhoods. They have been innovative in the ways they have addressed the storm water run-off in storm water retention ponds or gardens. I shouldn't say ponds but gardens. This plan provides for a variety of housing types which I can assure you is much needed in Fayetteville. It provides some interesting community spaces. You know, I would just like to say that we can then be ourselves, "not in my backyard" all the way to Hindsville or Huntsville or Harrison or Pocahontas, but this is our opportunity to actually put into motion what we say we want. If we say we want in -fill and we don't approve this project, then what does in -fill look like to you? Downtown is a very finite area. There is not a lot more space to put in -fill downtown. This is an area in town that calls for this sort of project, this sort of really cool project. I am asking that you not make this a long arduous project for the developers. I am not connected with the project, but I think that what they are doing... When we put the plans in place for Downtown Master Plan, developers were then clear about what they could do and what they couldn't do. And it the same way, when we say we want in -fill we need to quit making it such an up -hill struggle. So I am hoping that you will pass this tonight, and I am hoping that you will pass it overwhelmingly. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Ms Reese. Would anybody else like to speak? Please come forward. Conner: My name is Pamela Conner. I live at 1686 Shadowridge, and my property directly abuts the Ruskin Heights. When my husband and I bought our home in 2000 we carefully checked all of the surrounding area and we didn't anticipate that suddenly Disneyland was going to be built in our back yard with towers and restaurants. It was RSF-4 and anyone can live with that. When you are buying a home, you can live with that. But all of these houses and restaurants, that is really too much to ask of people who bought in good faith in a neighborhood where it Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 90 of 130 was RSF-4. Another problem. I keep hearing about this walk ability. Unless the US Olympic track team is moving into these houses they are not going to be walking anywhere. Do you realize how steep 21% slope is? I mean, carrying your dry cleaning and your groceries? That is not going to be happening. Another thing that I have a problem with is the traffic. Trying to get out from Greenview is a problem. Trying to get out from any of the other outlets near my home is a problem. And if you put a stoplight there, all that is going to happen is the traffic is going to back up and then we are surly not going to be going anywhere. In case you haven't noticed in Fayetteville anymore some people would die before they would stop their car and let you into traffic. So I don't see the traffic light solving any problems that we are going to have here. People come out of Greenview. They turn to the left. They head right down Winwood. People come out of Winwood, they turn to their left, and they head right up Greenview. There is just a little path through there. A stoplight is just going to simply back traffic up back in front of Park Place, and those people won't be going right or left. So the traffic light is not the answer. The answer is don't add so many more cars by letting this housing development go in at this density. The average home, anymore, has at least two cars. So when you start doing the math you are looking at a heck of a lot of automobiles. People are not going to be walking all over this neighborhood, they are going to be driving down to the corner to eat. They are going to drive to the movies, just like we all do. Driving their kids to school. So I don't see the traffic signal as being an answer to anything. The only thing that is an answer here is to lessen the density. Our house is up on the hill. The other subdivision we got to hear about the fence that was going solve their issues of having to look at the new development. That won't solve ours unless you intent to put a 12 or 15 or 1611 fence, our back windows, we are going to see it all. There is no other way. We are going to look right down on all of that and see it all. And anyone who is up in the tower is going to be looking in our house. I don't like that and you wouldn't like it either. So I would just please ask you to really consider the ramifications for the people that were there first, who bought in good faith and will have to live with a PZD. I would like to say one other thing. I believe when I was reading the rules and regulations for asking for PZD one of the first rules was that the surrounding neighbors had to buy into this. And I think it has been proven tonight that those people who have spoken that live close area probably not buying into this. Thank you very much for your attention and consideration. Anthes: Thank you Ms Conner. Murray: My name is David Murray. I live on Assembly Drive, sort of on the other side of the hill from this. I guess I really wish someone would build this in my backyard. There is no space for it. But I think there are so many benefits to having something like this adjoining your property. Now, I understand all the concerns and I understand they are all coming from surrounding property owners. I think that the comment about this not being walk able. I don't know, when you look at Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 91 of 130 Eureka Springs it is fairly hilly and a lot of the residents there choose to walk everywhere. I could definitely see that happening here as well. When you talk about traffic issues, are you going to have traffic starting here and going downtown? Or are you going to have it starting in Elkins? Are we going to build another thousand units out highway 45 and then bring them in. They are still coming to the same place. The cars are going to be on the road one way or the other. It looks like they are providing a way to pulse the traffic so people can get in and out a little more easily. I understand that there are a lot of concerns, but in my opinion this is great for Fayetteville and it the right direction. It's in -fill and there is not a whole lot of it left. We need to make use of what we got or Fayetteville is going to be spread over 12 times the area it could be. If we are smart about how we use our existing land we can keep Fayetteville a nice dense, compact, beautiful, unique town. If we just let is spread out, yeah lets be the next Dallas or Atlanta or whatever it is. Obviously we are not growing that fast, but we have a great opportunity to use this land to its highest and best use. It is one of those deals, like everyone has been saying, the 2025 Plan, this is what it says to do. If we are going to do it we need to commit for the sake of Fayetteville and future generations. I think it is the right thing to do. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Murray. Would any other member like to speak? Good evening. Conner: I'm Don Conner. I live on Shadowridge. First off, this area is RSF-4. It is designated as residential neighborhood area in the 2025 Plan on the maps. They knew it was RSF-4 when they bought it. So much for that. It is not compatible with the neighborhood. We are currently about one house per acre in the surrounding neighborhoods as opposed to RSF-4. We are more R-1. RSF-4 is going to be plenty dense. The walk ability of the neighborhood that they are proposing is just not very good at all. And this type of traditional neighborhood design, or new urbanism, or whatever you want to call it. It requires that a mass transit be in place before they build this. A walk able neighborhood that is flat and easy to walk around and commute in without having to use a car. They also propose that you should have large park and green areas and we have traded off the green areas with our Parks Department for money so we can build them a tower with money we are supposed to get. Anthes: Mr. Conner. Conner: We did protest that, by the way, as part of this development. We protested after we found out that they had the meeting and the neighbors weren't told about the meeting. We weren't notified so, you know. As far as the 2025 Plans, you know, they tried to plan for affordable housing and this sort of thing. There is not going to be any affordable housing here. Their smallest lots are looking at $90,000 for a lot. They bypassed the neighborhoods. They did not approach the neighborhood organizations until they just recently, last Saturday, approached Park Place neighborhood organization. So they haven't been very communicative. They did Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 92 of 130 invite us to a charrett. We gave our views at these charrett and they told us that we will just agree to disagree about density, traffic, all those things. They told us that we are basically wasting our time coming here to see you guys. Anthes: Mr. Conner, please. Please direct your comments towards the development itself. Conner: That is toward the development. Anthes: No, you are talking about hearsay. Please. Conner: Oh, it is not hearsay. When they say it to you it is not hearsay. Anthes: Please. Conner: Ok. By rezoning the whole area we have walked into this dense development here, and if it fails we are stuck with a partially built out development. These guys are just selling lots. They are not going to build it out. So we don't really know exactly what it is going to look like. The plans that we've seen so far they have been just a few pretty drawings. We shouldn't have to pay for a tower as a city. That is part of this development. Well basically, the moral of the story is never trust a developer. New urbanism is nothing but a buzz word that has pretty pictures and people strolling through leafy marketplaces. Developers don't create the village. Only a person can create the village. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Conner. Would any other member of the public like to address this RPZD for Ruskin Heights? Going once... Going twice..... Good evening. Bassett: Hello. I'm Mary Bassett. I would just like to say that I was in some of the meetings with the City of Fayetteville with our goals for the 2025 plan. The in- fill that we have in this project is fabulous. I think it is a perfect in -fill program that Ruskin Heights has for Fayetteville. It meets all the criteria of our 2025 plan. I have talked to other developers who are very interested in putting this plan in action to Fayetteville as well. I believe they have met all of our criteria that we have for Fayetteville in our 2025 Plan. I know that has been said many times tonight, so I don't want to go into more detail on that. I do own a house on Mt Sequoia, and I am thrilled that Greenview would be improved to get to that property as well. Thank you. I am for this subdivision. Anthes: Thank you Ms Bassett. Would any other member of the public like to address this RPZD. It is item 06-2299 for Ruskin Heights? Mr. Terrell. Terrell: Hey, how are y'all doing? First of all I would like to say that in full disclosure I have worked... Anthes: Please introduce yourself. Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 93 of 130 Terrell: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm Luke Terrell. In full disclosure I have worked with these guys on this project in some capacity. I no longer work for them, but I am closely associated with the different aspects of this project and I am well educated on this subject. I am also a property owner in this area on the east side of Fayetteville. I have a property on Kant Street which is a very dense neighborhood. I feel like this project will definitely add to the City of Fayetteville and corresponds with the City Plan 2025. I personally would like to live in this neighborhood. And as a young person living in Fayetteville I feel like many more people who have similar background and interests as me would want to live in a neighborhood such as this. I feel like this neighborhood is just what the City needs as far as it's development. It corresponds with the plan, and I am strongly in support of this project. I would like to say that I would like to recommend this project and for it to be approved. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you. Would any other member of the public like to speak? Hi. Madison: I'm Phil Madison. I live there for 17 years in one of the houses there, and I just want to say that the sunrises and the sunsets and the beauty of that place is unbelievable. I think there is a big demand for small homes. We had about 6,000 sq ft and we've moved into 1500. A 1000 sounds better the older I get with too much stuff. We had no drainage problems when we lived there in the second house. There are two there, one on the top and one in the middle. We never had any drainage problems. It is a beautiful place and I think everyone would enjoy the sunrises and sunsets there. Thanks. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Madison. If anyone else wants to speak, please come up now. Anyone else? Going once.... twice.... I will now close the public comment section and ask for the applicant's presentation. Chesser: Madam Chair, members of the Planning Commission, good evening. My name is William Chesser and I am the senior planner for Community By Design. We are the engineers and we did some of the planning for Ruskin Heights. If you would indulge me I would like to briefly go over the format plan for our presentation which I have just handed to Mr. Pate and I think he may be handing around. We have three speakers tonight. Mike Watkins is the Senior Town Planner for DPZ. DPZ is an international leader in the field of traditional neighborhood design. Mike will be speaking about TND's and the City Plan 2025 in general and about Ruskin Heights in particular. You may remember DPZ and Mike from the public charrett process about the neighborhood this past summer. It was during this process that the concept for the neighborhood was developed. Following Mr. Watkins will be Dirk Vanveen. Mr. Vanveen represents the group who is developing Ruskin Heights. He will talk to you about their vision for Ruskin Heights and why they wanted to do a TND neighborhood in Fayetteville. Finally, I will speak to the significant progress we have made since the Subdivision Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 94 of 130 meeting and will address some of the public comments made tonight. I also want to talk a bit about the feel and the function that Community By Design was trying to achieve by this neighborhood. TND's are designed for both form and function. They not only feel great, but they work well too. And Ruskin Heights is not exception. With that I would like to turn the podium over to Mike Watkins. Watkins: Madam Chair, members of the Commission, I am Mike Watkins with DPZ a Miami based architecture and town planning firm. My firm is committed to building traditional neighborhoods as an alternative to sprawl. One of the reasons that we were most interested in the opportunity to work here in Fayetteville was the fact that you had passed the 2025 Plan. The goals for that Plan align exactly with those that inform the planning principles that stand behind our work. In fact, the firm that you hired, Dover Kohl. I think is an excellent firm and are colleagues of ours. So we completely understand, I think, the intentions behind that plan. In the meetings when we review which projects to take on it was one of the major considerations of why we chose to accept this particular commission. That, and also your Hillside and Hilltop Ordinance and Best Management Practices manual because that looks at addressing not only the built environment that the 2025 Plan addresses but also protecting the natural environment as well. Something that is important to our work. It is interesting to me, and I think impressive, the crowd that has turned out tonight. I realize that at times it can feel as if it makes the job more difficult. It certainly adds a sense of importance and urgency to the decision that you all face. But it is a direct result, I think, from the fact that people love Fayetteville. That you all are fortunate enough to live in place that people care passionately about. And they care passionately about it's future. We are hopeful that this project, and if we are given the opportunity to develop it, it will be a manifestation of the goals that you have set out for the future. It is clearly an in -fill site. I don't think anyone this evening has suggested otherwise. It is also of the traditional town plan variety, a network of streets, a mix of types, a mix of uses. Narrow streets, tree lined with parking and so forth. There has been considerable talk about density and concern over the degree of density on the particular property. If one were to accept four units to the acre on this property it does raise the question of where the other units go? And the only place for them to go would be to other in -fill sites to the extent that you have them or further out. It seems to me that it would require... This site is 29 acres so to go to four units to the acre would require almost 45 more acres of developable land. Presumably undeveloped or forested land, or certainly if not land further out compounding the traffic problems that we have heard about also this evening. So there is a certain importance to developing the in -fill sites with some degree of density. It is also important to support the mixed-use nature of the property. So the shops and so forth have the opportunity to thrive in that environment by having more people within walking distance. The site itself won't solve the traffic problems in the area. It in fact didn't create them. It was the sprawl that preceded it that created those traffic problems that you have. But mixing uses in a Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 95 of 130 tight area will begin to address the traffic issues by giving people the opportunity to walk and meet some of their daily needs within walking distance. The enduring green network that is part of your goals, we did our best there to set aside the most beautiful parts of the property to be preserved and extend a green system working with some of your residents in the public charrett that were held. In fact, the land that was identified as being the most important came not from us, anything we imposed, but actually by inquiring of the residents of the city which would be the most important green connection to preserve. The issue of affordable housing and the size of the lots here is one that got some attention, including some from the young gentlemen who spoke about just how small are the lots? And could one really live there? In my neighborhood, I happen to live in one of the neighborhoods that we built, and I live on a lot that is under 1000 sq ft and have a small commercial property on that lot that allows me to pay down my mortgage and live above the shop in the neighborhood that we designed. It is not the smallest lot. Mine happens to be under 1000sq ft, but there is one actually less than half the size of my lot. The smaller lots are important because not everyone can afford the larger lots. And further more, not everyone wants the large lot. There is a huge trend, a growing trend for smaller houses and smaller lots with less maintenance and lower mortgages. In fact, I have neighbors who have downsized twice. Once when they moved in the neighborhood to enjoy the smaller lot and then realizing that they in fact preferred a smaller house still and they moved again. Lots in our neighborhood, the question came up about the width of the lots. We have single family, detached houses that our 1911 wide. It is essentially a townhouse that is detached. But the floor plan is very livable in the townhouse fashion. There were a number of issues detailed technical issues about street width and so forth. Fortunately now, unlike 20 or 25 years ago when we began designing and building these traditional neighborhoods, there are many places to go and actually see these things implemented. Narrow streets with parking on the street where emergency vehicles have no difficulty maneuvering through the streets. Moving vans, trash trucks, the same. So there are places to go to see those answers, those things addressed. The tower was a concern that many people raised. In fact, the tower doesn't exceed the Hilltop or Hillside Ordinance height requirements. The reason for the unfortunate term referring to it as a tower has more to do with its small foot print, but its relative to its height, but not relative to the buildings around it, and to your own, your Hillside/Hilltop ordinance. Several people raised the issue of what happens if the developer leaves, for whatever reason. One person mentioned going bankrupt, but for whatever reason what would happen if they left? And certainly it is the plan that you are approving, or may be approving and not the developers. In fact, the neighborhood that I live in was built out by a second developer. The first developer did leave and a second developer came in. And they didn't have a choice. They came in knowing that they would in fact build out the plan that had been approved. The issue of closed minds and not being open to what the public has had to say is one that disappoints me, frankly. We disagree, obviously in some instances, but I think the development team has gone to great length to hear Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 96 of 130 from the public. And when those thoughts and ideas are consistent with the principles that are informing this design we have incorporated them. When we didn't believe them to be consistent which is the reason for some of the disagreement that you hear tonight. Another important thing about the density is how it is arranged. It oversimplifies to simply say this is 10 units to the acre. Because on average it is and it is easy to consider it in that way. But the fact of the matter is that it varies. The center of the neighborhood is actually more dense than 10 acres. And not only more dense, but it is mixed use and is going to have even more traffic than the edges of the neighborhood that are actually less dense than 10 units to the acre. The organization of the plan is intended to feather from the single family homes on larger lots to single family homes on smaller lots to attached homes to the mixed use in the center. So I think it over simplifies things to a little bit to say simply that it is 10 to the acre without understanding or appreciating what we think is the sophistication behind the design. I don't know the exact protocol for your meetings as this is my first formal Planning Commission. But I would be happy to answer, if there is an appropriate opportunity later, to answer any questions that you may have. But I certainly hope that you will give us the opportunity to demonstrate to be a built manifestation of the principles and goals that you have set out for the city. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Watkins. Just want to caution the group that you are about 11 minutes into your 20. VanVeen: Thank you. My name is Dirk Vanveen. I am part of the development team for Ruskin Heights. We will try to make this as quick as possible. We practiced. Anyway, we are going to start with a slide show. A picture is worth a thousand words. We will go though a few things. You can see an overview of the site as well as surrounding areas over to the northwest to Wal-Mart. Anthes: Dirk, you might want to move that top poster because none of us can see anything. VanVeen: Ah, thank you. Ok, so we have the Wal -mart Super Center to the west colored in red. We have multi -family, we have single family detached, we have town homes in green on our site which is different because there were no town homes to compare to. We chose maroon since we had no mixed use to compare to either. We feel that the project is compatible not only with the immediate area of say Park Place which has 40 multi -family units, but also the surrounding area that is mixed with commercial and multi -family. We have some additional views here looking at Lisa Lane. Looking at a cross section toward Mission south/west line of Mission Boulevard. Of course this is a sugar cube model so we are looking at ridge height and it is plus or minus 5ft in accuracy dealing with pictometry. Next. Looking from Park Place west you can see the multifamily in the foreground. The single family of Park Place in between and then our project.. Actually, it may be a good time to call out the tower. If you look in the upper corner you see Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 97 of 130 the top of the tower. It is the yellow hat roofed building up there. It has a 31 '/2 ft viewing height. Next slide. Another cul-de-sac on Park Place. Looking up to our site you see again the roof of the tower. Next. Yeah, looking up Cambridge. Next. Looking down from Shadowridge and Lensefield. Ok, Shadowridge. You may recognize this area. Also I should point out that the larger trees are existing trees and the smaller trees are to be added. So you are distinguishing between the two. Next. East of Greenview back through our site. Of course you are looking through the tree preservation area so your view if very impeded. Parking, both on street and in house shows all of our standard parking. Even the small amount of compact parking immediately around the square, well within the limits. And also showing that we will have structured parking in all of the large scale buildings which have to come back through Large Scale Development. We have adequate parking. We designed for on -street parking both for it's traffic calming. And it allows you to have fewer deep cuts, larger cuts that are required in a hillside or most of Fayetteville for parking lots. Next. Some views from the proposed tower of 31 '/� feet looking north, and what it would look like with buildings in front of it of two stories. Basically you maintain your high level view. Next. Looking east toward Park Place you can see the valley. Also, you know what is interesting here is that from this distance, with the leaves down you are not really looking even currently in anyone's windows let alone post development. Next. I have some other interesting ones of what looks south behind us. Next. This is another showing of compatibility for the project. Basically it is showing the types of units we have here in the foreground and the other units that you will see. It doesn't show all the commercial that is out at Crossover, but it does give you an idea of how we relate in terms of unit types. Ok. Whenever we started this process we started with a tree survey and a grading analysis. We sent out 1200 invitations and a public process in July. Since then we have held over 40 private meetings with neighbors as well as public meetings with their groups. We are thrilled with the turnout both for and against the project. I am happy to see people in Fayetteville taking an interest in how their built town is developed. I guess to describe some of the living areas that we have: Of course we have the bungalow, of course we have town homes which have proven to be very popular among the empty nesters. We have kind of an oddity right now in that only 23% of the families in America are nuclear families with children and parents living at home. Most of what we build is traditional subdivisions to address only that group, yet the largest house buying segment currently is the baby boom generation, the empty nesters. The second largest is the millennium generation who have been out of school for 3 to 5 years now and are also vying for those more urban units. So there seems to be a lot of competition for the smaller more urban walk able vibrant things going on. It is also important to note that the Urban Land Institute has found that you can reduce vehicle trips in a mixed use environment by up to 25 to 50% per day. We would expect to be on the lower end of that being that much of our retail is (unclear) retail with the exception. It is all 800 to 1200sq ft. The exception of the one Large Scale Building that would come through in a few years which would accommodate a 6000 to 8000sq ft Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 98 of 130 whole foods market is what we would hope for. Anthes: You have about 2 or 3 minutes. VanVeen: Three minutes? Ok, as materials board which are not currently here, you saw that they are brick and with wood details made of stone. We had a few things come up in terms of people that said the tree preservation area was part of the natural resource. We actually had the gentleman come out and talk to us and came to find out it was not. Never the less we did set most of that area aside and we are not cutting down trees less than 12 in. One of the net effects, actually, is that we have more trees on the site. As for the slopes, most of our grades are 78%. As you'll notice, our design does not go up the hill so much as it goes around the hill and steadily increases as it goes up. That is also part of the HHOD practices manual to not make those perpendicular cuts. You will find that most of our cuts are very short. You will find many 3 and 4ft stone retaining walls which are so attractive on Locust and many of the other city streets in Fayetteville without impacting with large lot homes that require larger cuts. I am going to leave this to William Chesser, and he will take it from there. Anthes: I believe we are about out of time. I'm going to ask the Commission what their wish is about extensions because we are allowed to do that by consent if we like. Clark: Madam Chair, since we are to the part that I really wanted to hear about the changes from Subdivision, I will move that we extend the time 5 minutes. Tr umbo: Second. Anthes: Everybody agreed? Alright. Chesser: Thank you for indulgence Madam Chair and members of the Commission. First on a personal note let me say that I have lived 2/3 of my life in this town. I was born here. All of my time spent in this town has been spent in close proximity to the University of Arkansas where my father was a campus director. Anthes: You might want to tell us about your project. Chesser: I will. The only think I want to tell you is that I have a personal involvement in this because for the first time I decided I would move away from that area, my wife who is an architect and I are planning to build a house in this area. If you will indulge me I would like to approach the illustrations here. Anthes: Take the microphone with you if you would. You can use this one. You can take it out if you don't want to... Chesser: I heard a very interesting thing mentioned which was that 7 units per acre would Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 99 of 130 be acceptable, not 10. It has been kind of mentioned, but I got the graphic out here and I wanted to mention because a lot of people had a problem with the density, that it is a little disingenuous to just see it as 10 units per acre over the entire project. We have tried very hard to make this fit in with the surrounding area. If you look at the yellow portion at the bottom, that is 7 units per acre. We have interfaced like to like properties. So we have even made a change recently to move some town homes to make sure that single family always matches up to single family with the surrounding neighbors. We then moved slowly to the equivalent of RMF -12 with some commercial. That is the mixture of the town homes and the live/works. And then we moved farther up to what would be the equivalent of RMF -19 with some commercial. As Mr. Vanveen mentioned that is where we had hoped for, at some point, maybe a whole foods market and other commercial of that type. If you look just to the east you will see that... Anthes: Mr. Chesser? Can I ask you to talk about the progress and changes you've made since Subdivision? I think that the audience is really waiting to hear that. Chesser: Absolutely, and for that I will move back. Briefly I will say that I believe I can safely say that we have addressed all of the issues that were had. Is that correct Mr. Pate? We worked very hard to.... I think there were 33 issues after Subdivision Committee, and we have addressed every single one of them. I believe Mr. Garner mentioned that there were a couple of somewhat standard conditions of approval and that is all that is left. Anthes: Are you going to elaborate on those changes? Chesser: Yes Ma'am. One of the big questions was about traffic. We have spoken to AHTD And they have told us that two conditions must be met for a signal. I think a signal is what will help the traffic situation along Mission. Number one is the city must request such a signal, and I believe that request has already been made. Number two is an existing traffic study must show that such a signal is warranted. And what that means is that a traffic study that has the counts that meets the warrant must happen. Our traffic study that we currently have shows that after the build -out of the first three stages, which is you look at this graphic here is the stuff that is in color, we'll be just a smidge under. I won't tell you we'll be there, but we will be really close to going ahead to meet the warrant to put in the light. So that means that with the next phase we would meet that warrant. And we will put in the light as soon as AHTD allows us to. And they have expressed that they will allow us to do this. Anthes: So that is 2010? Chesser: No Ma'am. Clark: Your phasing says phase four is 2010. Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 100 of 130 Chesser: Full build -out of phase four wouldn't be required. Again, that is not taking into account any increase of traffic that occurs not because of our development. Phases one, two, and three of ours come just within a hair of meeting the warrant by themselves which would allow that intersection to be signalized. Graves: I know we will get a chance to ask questions later, but how many residential units is that? In the first three phases? Chesser: In the first three phases? 71. Part of the parts that meet the warrant have to do with the commercial space which is also available. That is taken into account. Can you give me an idea of how much time I have left? Anthes: You have about a minute. Chesser: Ok. The other major issue that was brought up by the neighbors, one I heard a lot of was drainage. I think engineering can confirm that we have exceeded all of the requirements of the Fayetteville Drainage Manual. We will not be putting more water on our neighbors. We will be putting less water on the neighbors. I have a graphic that can show that can show that if you would like more explanation of that. Anthes: We may get back to you with that. Chesser: And I am available for questions. Anthes: Is that the end of your presentation? Thank you. Commissioners. Graves: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Graves: I was on the Subdivision Committee that saw this along with, I believe, Commissioner Harris and Commissioner Clark. We forwarded it at the time with a recommendation for denial. Primarily based on the issues that we have heard the public echo tonight which include traffic and density. The Subdivision Committee, in fact I think the quote that was made earlier about somebody, quote/unquote said that 10.2 units was too dense. I think I'm the one who said that. The idea of 7 to 8 units, I think that is something that came out of that Subdivision Committee Meeting. I believe that what we said was that we weren't married to RSF-4, which is what that is currently zoned. We are mindful of course of the city's vision and goal of in -fill. But at the same time how much infill is obviously something that needs to be addressed on each one of these projects that we see come forward. The Subdivision Committee, as you see going through the report, went through all of the different findings that we would be Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 101 of 130 looking at tonight. I think there are 15 findings that we would have to make on this. And generally was in favor of the ones we had information at the time about. We were in favor of those should the project go forward. We forwarded it with a denial recommendation primarily on the fact of the density which was really tied to the traffic. It wasn't necessarily that the density of 10.2 or 18. Whatever was too dense in all cases or was too dense in this location. Although it might be. The main concern was the traffic in the end. It was just that when you build out this number of units and they are all trying to get out on Mission Boulevard that it causes concern. My comments right now about this are along the same lines. We've heard over and over the supporters of the project and the applicant that the goals and visions of the 2025 Plan are for in -fill. Well, that is one of the goals. But other goals are to protect hillsides, and protect our trees and things like that. So when you see a large development going in on a hillside like this then there are things besides just the goal of in -fill that you have to look at. The city spent a lot of time and effort developing a hillside ordinance which included, generally speaking, when you develop on hillsides larger lots and more canopy preservation. So when you see this project and you look at it, you have to think about that. That is another one of the city's goals. Another one of these goals is protecting hillsides with those types of measures. The applicant has in general done a very good job. And we were supportive of that at Subdivision and I am still supportive of the narrower streets to keep there from being big, large carvings going up the side of the hill. But it all boils back down to protecting our hillsides, protecting our tree canopy, and the traffic. In the interest of full disclosure as well I told the applicant at Subdivision that I live on Kings Drive which is just a stone throw from this development as well. I am very familiar with the area. There are two schools there. Root School and Fayetteville Christian School which are both right there on Mission, essentially. The difference when I bear folks from other parts of town and specifically downtown or the historic district talk about how they live in an in -filled area and now this promotes walk ability and this promotes the goal of in -fill. Well, the historic district is a lot flatter than this particular piece of property is. The historic district has lot more things distributed through it that attract people to park their car and walk to them. Aside from the fact that if you see a parking spot you've got to grab it when you can anyway with your car. And there are a lot more main arteries to drive on to get in and out of those neighborhoods than there are for the folks who live in the area where this proposal is. If you are getting in and out of this area like we talked about in Subdivision, a lot of folks have to make a left turn onto Mission Boulevard. And this is that many more folks who are going to be trying to get out and make a left turn onto Mission Boulevard. I know there is connectivity proposed, very good connectivity proposed, but you are going to have to do a lot of twisting and turning and jogging up though the existing neighborhoods to get to another place where you have to turn left onto Mission, Rockwood Trail. So it is essentially, eventually and essentially you have to get on Mission to get out of these neighborhoods. Where as in other neighborhoods there is not just one major road that you have to use to get in and out. Partof that Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 102 of 130 is driven, it's our own bed and we've made it ourselves with the city's concerns with having a connection over the mountain. The city has a policy and has had a policy of not connecting over that mountain. Be that as it may, and whatever the reasons are, everybody has to get out on Mission. And so Mission is very crowded. And, you know, one principle arterial is not the equivalent of another. Mission is narrow. It's got a lot of curves to it and blind alleys as you are making those curves. There is no shoulder on it. There are ditches falling right off the edge of it. So Mission itself is not the safest road in the world compared to maybe some other principle arterials in town which are wider with better site - lines and shoulders and that kind of thing. And so my concerns are still the same as they were at subdivision. I appreciate the applicant going and visiting with the Highway Department, which is one of the things the Subdivision Committee wanted done. But I think, I know I personally said at Subdivision, unless I knew that that signal was going to go in and was going to be there that I had a difficult time supporting it just based on that density getting out on that road at that location. If the density was a little bit lower I start maybe getting a little more comfortable with it without knowing whether we are going to get the signal or not. So as it stands now, my issues are the same. Overall, I think the project is very attractive. I know a great deal of work has gone into it over a long period of time. More than I have probably ever seen on a project like this. But at the same time, it seems to me like this is kind of packing a lot of residences into an area where the current zoning wouldn't support it and then dressing it up with very nice attributes and hoping that the bells and whistles help us forget that we are packing a lot of homes into a piece of property on a hillside with only one way into or our of the area on Mission Boulevard. For those reasons my vote will be the same here that it was in Subdivision which is to deny or to oppose a motion in favor of it. Anthes: Thank you, Commissioner Graves. Commissioner Clark? Clark: I actually have some questions. Chesser: If it is acceptable I am going to yield to the developers to answer. Anthes: The commission is discussing the item. If we direct a question your way you can... Chesser: Yes Ma'am. Clark: I appreciate the fact... One of my concerns are the rear lanes which are called out on page 4 of your development packet. The rear lanes 1 through 14 have bound turn one-way, right? Chesser: Yes, Ma'am. Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 103 of 130 Clark: Because they are narrow. They are like 12ft wide? But there is no parking on those lanes. As I look at the rendition of the lanes they are very long and some of them are dead ends. Not that I don't oppose a dead end being one way, but how is that going to work? Chesser: I am not aware of any that are dead end. If you don't mind... Anthes: Lane 6, 7 Clark: There are a bunch of them. Chesser: I would yield to our engineer to answer that question if that is acceptable. Clark: Sure. Page 4. For those following along, page 4. Teague: Yes, I am Brian Teague A civil engineer with Community By Design. I believe the question was how is it going to work? The dead ends? Clark: Well, and so long a stretch being one-way. How is that practically going to be effective? Teague: Let me familiarize... Clark: Page 4. Nice picture. Page 4. Teague: I guess originally our plan was to have those rear lanes be two-way traffic. I think... Clark: But we decided 12ft was really too narrow. I remember this. Teague: Yeah. The Planning staff and Engineering Department recommended that we make those rear lanes 16ft wide so they could be two-way. We think that 12ft wide is wide enough for two-way traffic. We conceded that fact and said ok we will make the rear lanes in phases we are asking for development of right now we will make those one-way. It is my opinion that that will work. There is an exception right there. At the end of rear lane 1, right past rear lane 4 where there is about an 80ft stretch of it that would have to, until future development it would have to function as a two-way rear lane. Clark: Ok. How are the dead ends going to function as a one-way? I think from Subdivision here, you have gotten narrower. You stayed narrow, but you turned them one-way. But I still don't see how that is going to work. Watkins: May I speak to that? Sure, I don't care who speaks. Just anybody. Sure. Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 104 of 130 Chesser: The dead ends will have to be two-way. Clark: So they are still going to be 12ft and two-way? Watkins: Yes, Ma'am. But the neighborhood that I live in is about 350 acres, 2200 units and we have 12ft wide two-way alleys. Clark: This is on a hill that is going to get icy and snowy and gross, and you are going to put 12ft two-way. How exciting! Watkins: Well, we do have snow in Maryland and the alleys are plowed. They are private so they are plowed by the community association, not by the city. Clark: Do we have covenants yet that says that? Chairman? Pate: No we don't usually get covenants at this point. Watkins: But you don't plow other private streets, presumably, so... Clark: Ok. And my next question. How much of this development proportionally falls into our Hillside Overlay District, Chairman? Pate: 62% of the overall subdivision. Clark: And my next question is, and I have heard rumors and it is nothing but a rumor, that you have a letter from the Highway Department that says you are going to be able to widen Mission. From what I understand from what was just told us... And first of all let me underscore this by saying that the Highway Department is wacked if they don't think that Mission already meets the warrants to get more lanes. But that is unofficial. It is going to be until 2009 in your projected build out that will come close to the warrants to get the widening. Watkins: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the assumption is that there is no change in traffic outside the neighborhood. Anthes: Mr. Teague, if you would come to the microphone if you are going to speak? Clark: Because my big issue at Subdivision was traffic and the fact that everything is going to dump out on Mission. Which in my opinion is one of the most over traveled streets, especially in that area that we have. And I don't see a change. don't see that. We also had concerns about the narrow 12ft streets. We wanted them to either be wider and two-way according to what our engineers rightfully told us, or narrow and one-way. And I don't see how you really affected that. Watkins: I think Brian is going to address the traffic and the light. But one more comment Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 105 of 130 on the 12ft and the one-way. The reason for the dead ends is the topography. The more places you have to connect the more change to the topography is necessary. So in some cases we did propose dead end alleys that would be two-way. But it essentially works like a shared right-of-way. It is only the people living in there who use them. Clark: I understand that. But in the booklet, which is what we are bound by, it has rear lanes 1 through 14 one-way. Now all of a sudden I have "Oh, buts" coming up and we are going to have some two way. That concerns me. 12ft is narrow. The final question that I can think of off the top of my head right now is parking numbers. That was something else that we were concerned about. Thank you for not trying to use the compact spaces. You have gotten away from that. Jeremy, did you not say something in Agenda about on -street parking the city is going to move to amend ordinances to let that count? Pate: We have been looking at that, actually, as part of your Urban Residential Design Standards I think that you saw tonight. Clark: I don't even remember when we did that. Pate: Yes. Clark: So it is legitimate? Because I still think this is a little bit of voodoo numbers for the parking requirements. Pate: Most of our streets are ready to allow on -street parking when they are utilized and neighborhoods don't establish protective covenants that disallow you to park on those public streets. So I think we are looking towards letting on -street parking account for those numbers. That is what we are moving towards, yes. Clark: Because the only way they make their parking numbers is by allowing... Was it 82 spaces or something? Pate: That is correct. I am not sure if that number is correct, but... Clark: And that is just coming up to the 160 which is still 30% below. Pate: It is actually above that. Clark: Is it going to hit the 228? Pate: It is going to hit... there is a chart in here. Clark: I did the math yesterday, but it eludes me now. Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 106 of 130 Pate: Page 4 of 58. It will come up to 112 off-street provided and 82 on -street provided. So 34 spaces above the 30%. Clark: 228 is max. 160 is 30% below that, which is allowable. So they are going to come up to 184, or 194. Pate: Correct. Clark: Ok. And that is by allowing 82 on -street. I am still troubled by that as well. Anthes: If I might. I would like to go through some of the concerns expressed by the neighbors and have staff address those so we can kind of clear that up while people are in the room. Before we lose people. First thing I would like to talk about is the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District and the Ordinance requirements. Can someone from staff elaborate how this development is complying or not complying with that ordinance? I believe there have been comments to both tonight. Pate: As we started this project we handed the applicant and the developer team the draft Hillside Overlay District manuals as well as the City Plan 2025 drafts, and that is what they utilized in developing this plan. We, of course, have not reviewed a lot of this area. The concept there that is faded out has not been reviewed in detail. That is what we do, much like in other planned zoning districts that are concept level, we review the street cross-sections, whether they connect through as two-way or one-way, all of the drainage concerns, the tree preservation numbers, those come with the development of that site. We did review in detail the north east corner of this site which is where much of the tree canopy is not located. So, in terms of the overall plans we believe the zoning criteria and street design standards are following our best management practice manuals and meeting those criteria as well as the zoning criteria. Anthes: Jeremy, lets just talk about the Hillside/Hilltop. Pate: Correct. Sure. The zoning criteria that was established also with staff meets those requirements of maximum height of 45ft, decrease of setbacks, all of those things that we are looking for in a Hillside Overlay District. Anthes: Okay. And about slopes, erosion, grading, and drainage. Mr. Casey, can you talk about how that is reviewed? Casey: Those are things that will be considered in the construction plan in development and review. At that time, we will review that and make sure they propose methods that will stabilize those slopes and prevent that from happening. Anthes: And have you reviewed the first phase? The phase they are asking for Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 107 of 130 development review on tonight? Casey: Not for erosion control, no. That comes with the full construction review. We have reviewed it for the drainage and the street layouts. Anthes: Okay. And do you believe the drainage meets current city ordinance? Casey: Yes, Ma'am. Our current policy is no increase in the peak runoff from the side. They have provided a detailed study showing that the ponds that they propose and the drainage system that they propose meets that requirement. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Casey. Mr. Williams, there was a mention tonight about a request for a performance bond that deals with slope and erosion. Is there any precedent for such a procedure in the city? Williams: No, I don't think there is. Instead we rely upon our Engineering Department and our Building Inspection Department when they go out and inspect the infrastructure that is being put in by the developers to make sure that it meets City standards. And that is what the city relies on instead of trying to require insurance from the developer. Anthes: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Williams. About traffic, I am a little confused about... There were a couple of comments made, and I am not sure which one is right. I believe that the signalization has to meet a warrant. Assuming that no other traffic feeds into this area, and that is a big assumption, that warrant would come at the end of phase three of this project. What about the tum lanes that have been recommended by staff? Pate: We are recommending, again, full construction of those. They also have to meet Highway Department criteria and I am not sure what those warrants are to provide those turn lanes or in what direction the Highway Department has instructed the applicants for that. But that is, again, part of our conditions of approval. Anthes: Can someone from the applicant team discuss that? Thank you Mr. Teague. Teague: If I could just go back real quick. At Subdivision Committee there were concerns about the traffic. There was one turning lane proposed then and a traffic light. We went to the state after that. They recommended that we actually put three turning lanes in, in front of our site. Three 100ft turning lanes. We have those on the plans. We are proposing those to be paid in full, and those would be built for sure. The state has told us that we would build those with construction of phases one through three. Also, to the traffic light. The state is really hard to approach about a traffic signal for a residential subdivision. Basically they looked at our site plan and said yes if we have traffic that meets warrants, existing traffic... And let me say existing again. It has to be based off of existing traffic. That existing Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 108 of 130 traffic has to be from our site. Existing traffic generated by our site. Our traffic study projects traffic that will meet those warrants. That is required by the state. So I guess my answer to that is that this traffic signal will help the situation on Highway 45, but we aren't going to get anything from the state telling us that we will for sure be able to do it. If you read the traffic study it also goes into some options. Maybe building the traffic light with phases one through three. Putting bags on the light until we have the existing traffic coming from our site onto Highway 45 that warrants the light. Now, our traffic study, again, does project that we will have those traffic counts very shortly after phase three. He did go ahead and recommend that due to the nature of the development and nature of the situation on 45 that we go ahead and put that light in. We will have to have the state approve that, but they are not going to tell us anything further. Anthes: Can you provide any documentation about what they have recommended or approved about the turn lanes, the three turn lanes? Teague: They recommended three turning lanes, the ones that we have shown on our plans. Anthes: So that is the recommendation is from AHTD? Teague: Uh-huh. Anthes: So we can assume that, if they are recommending it, then they are going to allow it to be built? Williams: It is not nearly as difficulty to add a turn lane to a state highway as it is to put a traffic light on. Everybody at this area is familiar with the turn lane there at Root School, which the city did once the Highway Department said we could do that. Those sorts of improvements are not very difficult. You still have to get approval of the State Highway Department, but they are very much more amiable to allowing you to put turn lanes in. It is the traffic signals where they are very much more sticky and definitely require a specific warrant of amount of traffic intersection at that in order to stop the state highway. Because they don't like to have the state highway stopped unless you can prove that you have a real need to do that. Anthes: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Williams. Question of Mr. Pate. The tree preservation areas and the Parks recommendation? Can you fill us in about how those areas were set up? Pate: They are somewhat separate and distinct. However, in this situation Parks and Recreation Board is recommending a trail corridor to be allowed within that tree preservation area. The majority of the tree preservation area on this property is actually again in the shaded area, because most of the tree canopy is located up on Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 109 of 130 the hill in the south west corner of the site, which is where the larger tree preservation area is. So that is why you see so much mitigation on this particular phase, is because most of the tree preservation is not being counted and is not being counted for the developer in this case. With regards to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recommendation the developer and the Parks and Recreation Board has agreed to construct a viewing tower, a viewing platform on this property which is allowed by our current Parkland Dedication Ordinance. It is basically a facility or a service in lieu of a park land dedication. Actually there is some park land dedication occurring with this as well. And then there are conditions listed that require easements for trails, the trail corridor, public access easements for the village greens and numerous other smaller green space areas that are shown in planning area number six. The green space/civic space area. Anthes: So there will be a trail connection through the property with easements. That is, a City easement will be obtained for the trail, and there will be public access easements to green spaces on site in addition to this feature? Pate: That is correct. Anthes: And as far as I understand from the Planning Areas, the maximum height proposed on any of these planning areas... Well I think one on Mission is at 60, but everything else is at 45? Pate: Yes. Anthes: And this tower feature was also 45? Pate: That is correct. Anthes: So the tower would not exceed the height of any other structure on the property? Pate: That is correct. Anthes: Has staff evaluated views from that tower to any of the surrounding neighborhoods? Pate: We have not, and that is something that is part of Planning Commission number 20. "Ruskin tower design shall return to Parks and Recreation Department for review." I think it was mentioned in Planning Commission for your review earlier. "Parks and Recreation Department for review based on the concepts and criteria presented here and the Ruskin Tower shall be a maximum of 4511 in height as depicted in the project booklet." We added that last sentence, I believe, since the last meeting just to clarify that because there were a lot of questions. Anthes: And is that to the roof? Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 110 of 130 Pate: Yes, it would be as we would measure any other building height. Anthes: Okay. And then I am also looking at staff s Findings of Fact. You found this project to be in compliance with the six goals of City Plan 2025, and you have also found that this project, unlike what some of the neighbors have thought tonight, to be compatible. Pate: Yes. Anthes: Can you elaborate on that from staffs perspective? Pate: Very shortly. From a staff perspective we did feel that it met the six goals of the City Plan 2025, and identified why we felt they were in compliance on page 19 and 58. For making in -fill appropriate, discouraging suburban sprawl, encouraging traditional town form as a standard or a norm, growing a livable transportation network, assembling an enduring green network through the site, and hopefully creating some attainable housing by the variety of housing choices within this neighborhood. In terms of compatibility, that is again one of the many findings that we make beginning on page 18 and continuing in your 58 page staff report that we are required to make with any Planned Zoning District. Compatibility, as we have heard from Subdivision Committee and at the Planning Commission meeting, it is subject to the person who is discussing it or thinking about it. We felt that it was crucial to have a project that used like uses adjacent to like uses because of the single family residential neighborhoods surrounding the property to the south and to the east. Accordingly, across the street are non- residential uses which are very much single use; A nursery, a church, commercial uses, multifamily uses to the east, commercial uses to the west. So a mixture of uses in this area we felt was compatible amidst an overall area of zoning that includes RMF -24, RMF -12, and other zoning districts. So, in terms of compatibility we felt the transition of density within the site, as other PZD's have transition within the property itself was crucial in approval of this project. Anthes: Okay. Lets see if I have anything else. Would you just set the record straight about how many units are being proposed in total, and how many units are in phase one that you are asking for development approval tonight. I think it has been said, but it's just... Pate: The overall Master Development Plan which is both a combined development project and a concept level project would be an maximum of 295 dwelling units. Change that by rezoning the property. And a maximum of 58,500 sq ft of non- residential or commercial space. Those are again maximums. In this phase one, the area that is delineated there in color on your map. It is exactly 57 residential units, a maximum 16,636sq ft of non-residential space within the first phase. Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 111 of 130 Anthes: With that, I have some questions for the applicant. On page 12 of your booklet, and in other places, there is some signage referred to, and that signage is mentioned even in the residential areas. Do you intend to place signs in the residential areas? Teague: No. We don't. I think our intent there was just to follow all City of Fayetteville codes with respect to signage. Anthes: Okay. There is considerable neighborhood concern about the alleyways. And I know that we are only looking at approval on this first phase, but I was looking at illustrations on page 14 to 17 in the booklet, and there are some alleys shown with very little articulation and with blank double garage doors facing those alleys. Which doesn't look like too friendly of a pedestrian environment to me. Are you proposing that for alleys throughout this proposal? Teague: I will say that the developers do want to make these alleys look very nice. I may, I guess, want to let the architect speak to the garage doors in the alleys. Anthes: Please do. Watkins: It is the convention these days that the garages not face the front. In that we don't find that the garages necessarily the most attractive of the residential structures we have placed the garages to the rear. And the idea with the alley is that the things like telephone pedestals and electric transformers and those types of things that we typically later have to shrub up in the front yard and pretend they disappear all go in the alley. So it is in fact the case that the alleys will be less attractive than the streets and to some degree less pedestrian friendly in that the streets have sidewalks dedicated to the pedestrian and travel lanes dedicated to the automobile. But the alleys in the neighborhoods that we have built have sufficiently slow moving traffic and sufficiently slow volumes of traffic that in fact are widely used by pedestrians. In some of our neighborhoods we actually have people living in the alleys above garages and so forth. People find them equally as charming as the streets. Anthes: But, just to be clear, on page 14, 15,16,17... particularly on page 15. I thought there was another sheet too. This is not part of the development proposal at this time, correct? These elevations? Watkins: No. Anthes: Okay. It's not. One additional question about city services? And that is, can somebody from engineering or staff talk about whether you have confirmed these impacts in terms of our water, gas, and electrical services in the surrounding areas that are called out on page 28 and 29 in the booklet? I guess it is water, storm sewer, sanitary sewer, etc. Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 112 of 130 Casey: Yes. The applicant has performed the proper studies on both the sewer and the water to make sure that the impact of this development would not have a negative effect on the system. The studies have identified areas and specific things they can do to improve the system and make sure that there is not negative impact on the system. Anthes: So there were some comments about the fire flow on Mt Sequoyah being inadequate. Will that be changed at all by this development? Casey: That was one of the specific studies they did. They hired McGoodwin, Williams and Yates. Who has the master water model for the city. They worked with them to identify improvements that would be needed to facilitate the fire flow in this area. So those are proposed with the development of this property. Anthes: So engineering is satisfied. Casey: Yes, Ma'am. Anthes: Okay. Shall we work through conditions? Clark: No, I would like to... Anthes: Okay. Clark: Engineering, what about these rear... I am obsessed. What about the rear lanes. They are still 1211. Now they are one-way. Is that going to work? Casey: I share your concerns with the dead ends, of course. From day one I have asked for these to be widened to meet our standards. I feel that for two-way traffic they need to be wider and the dead end ones definitely need to be for two -lanes. So I would share your feelings and can agree with you on your previous comments. Clark: It is a way in and out for these people to get to some of their homes, and it is also an in and out for the trash trucks and possibly for emergency vehicles. So 12ft is just narrow. And now it is going to be one-way, and I don't see how in the world, unless you have little traffic cops it is going to work? I just don't. Anthes: Would you like to propose a change to those two alleys? Clark: No. I am going to vote against it. Teague: May I just say? Anthes: Mr. Teague? Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 113 of 130 Teague: Commissioner Clark, you are absolutely right. We proposed two -alleys. 12ft two-way alleys. Staff recommended the change that we make those one-way. failed to overlook that we do have some dead end alleys, and those dead end alleys do need to be 1611 two-way alleys. We propose that as a change to be made. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Teague. Clark: Thank you Mr. Teague. Pate: Madam Chair. I am going to add to that also. The area that we have reviewed for development proposal for which these standards are proposed is only that area in color there that you see. You, hopefully, don't have any dead end alleys, so all this other shaded will come back before you as individual projects. Just like Park West, or just like Wellsprings. If you remember, the concept was passed and then the development proposal looked at all of those things in very great detail when it came back before the Planning Commission as a preliminary plat and a final plat. I just wanted to confirm that. Anthes: Mr. Pate, normally we see a Master Development Plan with no development approval, with just zoning approval and a Master Development Plan. Or we see the whole package where we are approving development. We have a little hybrid here. Pate: Yes. Anthes: Will you tell us the criteria that we are to look at for the Master Development Plan area only versus the development review site? Because I think we are getting kind of stuck. Pate: Sure. There is a hybrid proposal here. There is a development proposal that is shown there in color, and then the muted area or screened area shown for concept approval only. That does not give any entitlement for development approval, so development approval is not granted. If the Planning Commission and the City Council approves this project the only development approved would be the 57 lots and 16,OOOsq ft of non-residential use. The rest would come back before you to meet the criteria established by the zoning. So you are indeed correct that the zoning criteria, everything about the booklet and the plats that are presented establish the zoning criteria and then the Planning Commission measures that development proposal against the zoning criteria to insure they still meet that. He used that drawing there as a concept to look at those plans. But if you remember it Wellsprings, things had to shift to accommodate that. There are drainage calculations that aren't made on the concept area there. There are grading and retaining walls and tree preservation areas. Lots may have to shift. Lots may be Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 114 of 130 lost to preserve a significant tree. So those are the types of things that we would look at at that time of development. We have not gone into that level of development in the concept area, but we have in the eastern quadrant of the site. Graves: Madam Chair? Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Graves: But are we not, even if we are approving the concept only with regard to the layout and the way it develops and the way the lots lay out. There is still, correct me if I am wrong, we are approving their ability to build 295 residential units tonight if we approve this? Pate: Sure. Yes. Anthes: Commissioner Harris. Harris: Madam Chair, are you going to start going through the conditions? Or are we still having further conversation? Anthes: I think that would be great unless you would like to do something else. Harris: I can hold my conversation for later. Anthes: Alright. Lets look at Condition of Approval number one. Planning Commission determination of street improvements. Are there comments? Graves: Madam Chair? Anthes: Yes Commissioner Graves. Graves: Just to the extent of my opening comments which are, I am not comfortable approving tonight 295 units. Even if we feel like we are probably going to get the permits from the Highway Department, I am not comfortable approving 295 units tonight when we don't know that for sure. We would be granting them, or confirming them the right tonight to build 295 units with everything contingent on the traffic signal. I am just not comfortable doing that in that location on that particular road, Mission Blvd. I think whenever we look at number one, you know it has got lots of references and subparts B and C with regards to if this happens then that happens, and I am not comfortable with that. Anthes: I understand. Let me ask Mr. Pate. If the Condition of Approval reads that the three turn lanes must be approved by the Highway Department prior to construction is that something we can do in a Condition of Approval to meet Commissioner Graves' concern? Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 115 of 130 Pate: I believe so. If you establish the timing of the construction with the actual development then it cannot begin construction until such time as they got approval permits from the Highway Department. Which I guess in essence would stop the project until it could meet the warrants to satisfy the Highway Department. Anthes: For the turning lanes? Pate: Right. Anthes: I understand from what Mr. Williams said that the light might be more problematic. Williams: No, the light is certainly going to be one that would take actual traffic coming out of this subdivision before they could ever meet their warrants. Unless the other cross -street that intersects there increases very rapidly in traffic. Graves: And that is just a concern even without the traffic signal if it developed out. I forget how many units you all told me. Ok. So we are probably talking about 140 more cars getting our in the morning right around the time it is already bad with Root School. That time in the morning with all the cars backed up clear passed where you are going to be putting this development in on Mission Boulevard. People just have to kind of let you in when you are getting out on Mission Boulevard, and you are throwing 100 odd more cars on there before we even might get a traffic signal out there. I just have a concern about, regardless of what the manual says down in Little Rock, if the Highway Department on the average state highway and the average number of vehicles we need before we can put a signal on there, that state highway along that stretch is very curvy, very narrow, and no shoulders with a couple of schools and a lot of folks who have to get out using that road. I think we are not creating a dangerous traffic situation, but we are definitely compounding one. With that particular finding, I am not comfortable with the way it reads right now. Teague: Can I respond to that? I do understand the concern there. We would have to put a small amount of traffic onto highway 45 without a light. But the State, they are not going to... No matter what develops there they are not going approve a light there without the existing traffic to warrant it. Anthes: We understand that. Teague: They are just not going to give a permit. Trumbo: Madam Chair. Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 116 of 130 Anthes: Commissioner Trumbo. Trumbo: We have 29 acres and it is currently RSF-4. If this was built out to three units per acre it would be 87 units which is more than the 71 we are talking about that are going to be built in phases. Essentially are we saying that this property is left RSF-4, will we allow it to be developed to even a less density of RSF-3 considering the traffic situation? Or is this property stuck with the current zoning and not going to be allowed to be developed? Graves: Madam Chair. I would not be in favor of a Large Scale Development based on the same traffic reasons. Traffic is definitely one of the criteria that we can consider at that point. And with the topography on that piece of property they couldn't build it to that density anyway. They can't build it to the current zoning because of the topography. I think the applicant would tell you that. They couldn't build 4 units per acre on that piece of property. Trumbo: I said three. Graves; Or even three. I doubt they could even do three. (General talking and disagreement) Anthes: Lets think about this. Because, obviously, if this was a city street, we could require the improvements. It would be in our standard conditions of approval with our Street Improvement Findings, and we would know what was coming. But we have other developments that are on State Highways, and it is kind of a leap of faith when we get to those situations. How does staff weigh that in making your recommendations for improvements? When you have a state highway that we cannot completely control? Pate: I think we would look it as any other principle arterial and collector street. Look at the traffic that is being generated and make a recommendation for those improvements. In this case we simply have another permitting body our ordinance actually has a section under required off-site improvements, state highways. Any improvement required of the developer by the Planning Commission shall be coordinated with the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department as part of our ordinance requirements for any development. We sometimes, as we noted on another project recently just down the street with a bank to look at a condition of approval, we told you we would likely start putting in the language subject to AHTD permits if those can't be granted an assessment would be required in lieu there of. Simply because what happens when we don't put that then the project comes back to the Planning Commission and requests an assessment simply because they couldn't develop without the permits. That the AHTD is not granting the permits. So I think it is a... It is not something that we have the ability, you as the Planning Commission or the City Council has the Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 117 of 130 ability to control to be honest with you. Anthes: So I guess I am trying to figure out the order of magnitude of impact. I apologize because I read through the traffic study, but my eyes were kind of crossing at that point. Can somebody decipher for me, from the total traffic load that is on Mission currently, as opposed to phase one through three of this development. What percentage increase to the currant traffic is this development creating? Teague: I could speak to that. Existing traffic counts on Highway 45 are roughly 14,000, 15,000 vehicle trips per day. Phases one through three would generate at 57 units, 400, 500 trips onto that. Anthes: So that is what percent? Williams: That really is not that relevant to the traffic light. You are looking at cross traffic. That is what must be generated before the State Highway Department will issue a traffic lot warrant. They look at the major highway itself, but then they look at the cross -traffic and there has to be so much cross -traffic before they will allow a light to go in. Anthes: I understand that with the light. I am trying to get the turn lane thing and sort of get an idea of what we are requesting for off-site improvements and the impact this development will have on the existing traffic situation. From what it sounds like, until the warrant will be met for a traffic signal, we will be increasing the total percentage of traffic on Mission by... by how much? Pate: 3% Anthes: Three percent. I don't know. It is just a tough situation. But we have looked at this before at developments that add traffic onto Mt Comfort Rd, Huntsville Rd, Highway 16, other situations and we say, yes, we acknowledge there are traffic problems that exist. Can this development bear the responsibility for an already bad situation? And are they exacerbating it to such a degree that they must bear responsibility for it? I don't know that 3% meets that order of magnitude. Harris: It doesn't seem so to me. Lack: Madam Chair. Anthes: Yes, Mr. Lack. Lack: I would agree with that, and I would also add that we are seeing even from staff s comments an assessment for the light. So the City has money for the light if something happens and the developer drags their feet, or the developer offered, if I read it correctly in their information since Subdivions, to install the light with Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 118 of 130 phases one through three and bag it. At which time Arkansas Highway Transportation Department who has all authority on the situation says "Ok you can take the bags off' then it is a done deal. So that helps me to be comfortable with the fact that the light will be provided as soon as the road can be warrant. And the 3% of the traffic that you have to put on the road to get that light is something that you just have to have to trigger the light. So I think as far as an assurance, if you are asking for an assurance as to whether or not we can get the lot, I think there are two methods proposed. One from city staff which is an assessment, and the other would be just full installation and bagging. Williams: I would recommend that we accept the applicant's request that at the end of phase three if not before, if there are no warrants issued before but concurrent with the build out of phase three that they go ahead and the traffic signal with the bagging over it so it will be ready. Because obviously it takes a while to engineer something like that. If it is already ready to go it would be in operation much quicker if it has already been constructed. If that is what the developer is offering. Lack: And has the state agreed to that? Teague: Yes. We are definitely offering that. We would love to build the light with phase one through three and have it fully operational. Again I can't guarantee that the state will let us do that. But we have full intent to try to do that. Graves: Madam Chair. I guess the difficulty that I am having is with subsection C. The way that reads right now is that the applicant shall pursue the permit and if after application it is not allowed then assessments will be determined to be paid at that time. We are approving 295 units tonight if we vote in favor of this. And this is saying that those can still be built even if AHTD will not allow the traffic signal. I am saying that 295 units shouldn't go out there without that traffic signal. So I would prefer it read some other way that allows them to build the first three phases and then everything stops. You get the traffic signal you go on. If you don't get the traffic signal then you don't. Anthes: Okay. Would you like to amend the Condition of Approval? Motion: Graves: I don't know if that is sufficient language. I don't know if I can restate it. But I think staff surely understands what my point is. When we are approving it by way of Master Development Plan tonight I understand that it is just conceptual to where lots are located. But we are approving the number of units tonight if we vote in favor of this. And the way the language reads right now you could still build 295 units and not have that signal. So I would move to amend the language in subsection C to coincide with what I just said. Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 119 of 130 Anthes: Mr. Williams. Williams: I have one question of the developer before you go through with that. You said earlier that you were going to be that much short before you finished phase three. How many units are included in phase four of yours? That would be enough to put you over the top? Have you computed it that closely? Teague: Phase four would put us over the top. Williams: How many units are in phase four? Teague: I can't tell you exactly, but there are probably 30 units in phase four. Williams: My only though on that is you might let them have enough before... Graves: I would like to clarify anyway because you said 57 units a moment ago in phase one through three, and I heard 71 earlier. So I don't even know how many we've got through phase three right now. Teague: I apologize for that. In phase one through three it was 57 residential units. Williams: 57? Graves: So we are talking about through phase four will be 87 units? Is that right? Teague: Approximately. I would have to count them. I don't have the.. Graves: Well, I think you need to count them before trying to put them up together. Williams: I would let them count and go somewhere into phase four to make sure they would be able to get their warrant. Graves: Have you all done a calculation of how many units you would need to meet the warrant? Teague: It basically comes down to one warrant that is based upon street A intersecting Highway 45. Its based upon a peak hour volume on Street A. That peak hour volume has to be 57 vehicle trips. After phases one through three, after 57 units we would have 51 vehicle trips. So we would need 6 more to absolutely meet that warrant. Graves: So after six more units then. Anthes: Well, we have so many platted subdivisions that are building out in that area. I Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 120 of 130 am pretty confident that the traffic on Mission will increase as a result of those developments. (General talking) Lack: Is that taking into consideration traffic on Lisa and the existing traffic? Teague: Yes it is. Williams: So it is possible that Lisa could supply the extra, but... I would make your motion where they would have some of phase four at least. Graves: Ok. Well, now I am trying to find out how many units we've got through phase three. And how many was the total through the first three phases for sure? Chesser: It is 57. Teague: Ok. Graves: So 57 units phases one through three, 30 units phase four. 87 total. Lack: Round it up to 90? Anthes: It's 57 plus 6 right? Graves: They need 63 units, it sounds like to hit the warrant. Williams: Maybe you could structure it in a way where they would have to build it at the end of phase three, assuming they could. But they could not build beyond phase four unless it was in operation. Anthes: Very good. Graves: What he said. That is my motion. Trumbo: Second. Anthes: We have a motion to amend Condition of Approval 1. That motion is by Commissioner Graves, with a second by Commissioner Trumbo. Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to amend condition of approval number one was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Anthes: Condition of Approval number 2. Planning Commission determination of a lesser Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 121 of 130 dedication of right-of-way for Mission Blvd. Clark: Madam Chair. Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Clark. Clark: I hate to be lagging behind. But I have to go back to 1 for just a second. Anthes: Oh, I'm sorry. Clark: I am just, it's late. It is Tuesday for that matter. Anthes: It is Tuesday. Clark: You can build the turn lanes now? Or do you have to meet a warrant? Watkins: The explanation that you heard earlier Clark: It is just a yes/no. Can you do it? Watkins: Yes. Clark: If we approve this tonight, when you start selling lots you can put those turn lanes it? Watkins: Yes. Williams: Even before they are selling lots. While they are doing the construction. Clark: Then I am good with 1. Let's move on. Anthes: Dedication of the lesser cross-section. That is to accommodate the existing utilities off along Mission Blvd. Staff finds in favor saying that the information presented by the applicant indicates Mission Blvd can be approved to the principle arterial designation within the existing right of way. Do we agree? Clark: Yes. (Several voices) Anthes: Is everybody okay? Trumbo: Yes. (Several voices) Anthes: And that also includes a right-of-way dedication along Greenfield. Everyone is okay? Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 122 of 130 Harris: Yes. Anthes: Condition of Approval number 3. Planning Commission determination of a waiver of minimum street design standards. These are varied return radii, different street cross-sections than are required by the Master Street Plan. From what I understand, staff had originally recommended denial of some of these waivers, particularly for Street J. Mr. Casey, have you reviewed the latest submission by the applicant, and are you in agreement and support of these waivers? Casey: Yes, Ma'am. The changes that I requested have been addressed by the applicant's design engineer and they have redesigned Street J to be acceptable. So the waivers as requested I can support. Anthes: We have heard about the alley cross section, that is for the development area and those are one-way only alleys. Casey: Yes. Motion: Clark: I'm going to... It may fail, I don't care. I am going to make the motion because engineering is for it I am for it. 1211 one-way is not going to work. I will make the motion that we amend that 1211 to 16ft two-way traffic in the alleys. Anthes: In all alleys? Clark: Yup. Teague: Can I speak to that? Anthes: No. Not yet. Is there a second? Graves: Second. Anthes: We have a motion and a second to amend. To change the alley cross sections on all alleys within the... Clark: Well, now wait. Time out. I am talking about the rear lanes. I think it is confused in this as the alleys. I am talking about the rear lanes specifically. Anthes: That is an alley. Clark: No, I mean in the book alleys are 1 though 3 and these are lanes I through 14. I am talking 1 though 14 in the booklet. In the design. That is what you are talking Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 123 of 130 about isn't it Mr. Casey? That is what I thought. My motion is specific to the rear lanes which in Subdivision we wanted 16ft so they could be two-way. Now they are at 12ft, they are one-way. It's not going to work so lets just make them 16ft. Anthes: I have a question for staff about the Hilltop/Hillside Overlay District and the impact of the street section? Does staff view that additional 411 of paving as detrimental to the tree canopy or will it actually fit? Pate: It will because all of their... In order to have solid waste access they all had to be 2611 wide access easements cleared free and clear. So that 1611 can be accommodated. It will reduce the green space obviously, adjacent to those properties. Especially along the south east side, but it can be accommodated. Anthes: I guess my concern there is about putting an extra 4ft of pavement along that edge. First of all, we are adding impervious surface. We are reducing green space. And we are reducing that green buffer between the adjoining developments and this development. And I am not sure that we are really gaining too much functionality, living on one of those little historic streets as I do where you have to pull over to let someone go past. Lack: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Lack. Lack: May I ask the motioner and the seconder if they would compromise to say that if two-way traffic is required due to dead ends, then the cross-section must be 1611. If one-way traffic is acceptable then a 1211 wide section would be acceptable. Clark: You are such a diplomat. My concern is on the eastern side along the rear lane 1. I just feasibly don't see how it is going to work. So... (unclear discussion) Anthes: The motion is for 16ft. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to amend condition of approval number two was denied by a vote of 2-5-0, with Myres, Lack, Trumbo, Anthes, and Harris voting no. Motion: Clark: Ok. Now I will make the motion that the rear lanes, if they dead end, be 16ft, or whatever Andy said, which would allow for two -ways. Anthes: Is there a second? Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 124 of 130 Graves: Second. Anthes: A motion by Commissioner Clark, a second by Commissioner Graves. Is there discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to amend condition of approval number three as re -stated by Mr. Lack was approved by a vote of 6-1-0 with Anthes voting no. Anthes: Item C on that condition. The waiver for the retaining walls. Can staff explain this a little better? Pate: Sure. The retaining wall waiver Condition number C. This is for following our best management practice manual for a Hillside Overlay District to attempt to narrow the cross-section that is disturbed much like we have done by right-of-way and easements. In every case this would not impede pedestrian or vehicular traffic. In most cases it is going to be adjacent to 9ft sidewalks that are going to be accommodated in this development. In some cases it will vary from that, but we will review each on of those in detail at the time of development. Anthes: So Mr. Pate, you don't anticipate a safety concern or any kind of visibility or traffic issue there? Pate: No, Ma'am. Anthes: Is there any discussion on that? Harris: Just one question, Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Harris. Harris: Mr. Pate, who will review that at time of development? Staff or...? Pate: We will see it, but we will forward those plans to you at time of development. Phase one through three is already being reviewed. The rest of those phases will come back before you guys at a Large Scale Development or Final Plat. Harris: Ok. Thank you. Graves: Madam Chair. Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Graves. Graves: I think that discussion that was had at Subdivision on this was just, we were talking about narrower street cross-sections with a lot of on -street parking and Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 125 of 130 retaining walls right next to the street. We just wanted them to look at it. We just wanted staff to look at it and make sure it was safe. Anthes: Alright. Item D. Alternate Vertical K Values. Is everybody okay? Alright. Curb radii, street grades, and stand up curbs. Is that okay? Alright. The next item that we have is Planning Commission determination of a request to allow fewer -than -allowed off-street parking spaces and allowances for phases one through three. Instead, providing an abundance of on -street parking to meet parking ratios. My question of staff is that we did not used to accept on -street parking, and we have started to do so. Is that correct? Pate: It still requires a waiver, and as mentioned earlier tonight or last night this will be coming forward most likely as a recommendation to amend our current parking code. Anthes: Okay. Is there any discussion on that item? Okay. Item 10. Planning Commission determination of design standards. Is everybody good? Myres: I am perfectly Ok with that one. Pate: Again I will mention that this is only for the areas that are being developed. So most of these conditions apply to that. Anthes: And these are the renderings that are down below here? Pate: Actually some of that is not even being... Those are the concept level drawings that are simply attached to the other... Anthes: So these are the phase one elevations that are in our packets. Okay. And Planning Commission determination of the proposed phasing plan, phases one through six in the years 2000 to 2012. Myres: I think it is very ambitious, but I certainly would encourage them to try to do it. Anthes: Okay. Now, Mr. Pate, the phasing plans. In other large developments that have come through that have multi-year phasing plans. If those need to be adjusted, how is that accomplished? Pate: If they do not expire first, they can come back before you to request an extension to that phase. Usually to one year, I think is what our code states currently. So phase one, for instance, would have to get their permits by 2007 in order to meet their phasing. If they didn't after the ordinance is approved if they did not meet that it would simply be voided. The entire planned zoning district would be voided. Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 126 of 130 Anthes: Let's see. Conditions 13 though 20 have to do with parks. Are there any comments on the Park Board recommendations? Harris: What about the... Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Harris. Harris: Just to go back to that tower, I guess that is included in this and also in 15, and 14. Somebody said about 6 hours ago, I was on the Subdivision Committee as well, and we have heard so much about the tower tonight. I want to make sure that that has really been spoken to. That first of all we have taken it seriously. I know that Commissioner Graves and Clark and I, I think when we walked into Subdivision, you know, the tower. It sounded like a nice accessory. And then obviously it became this large issue for people. A couple of things. In terms of.. Mr. Pate, would you just mind walking me though again how the tower is being paid for? Pate: The applicants are required to construct a tower. To physically construct a tower and dedicate the land underneath it to the City of Fayetteville and the facility that is on top of that land which is the tower to the City of Fayetteville. There is a maintenance contract that they will have to, which is part of the recommendations by the Park and Recreation Board to work through the details on the contract for that particular component for our Parks system. As each phase develops, this one for instance, says phase one though three has 57 dwelling units. That does not warrant a $260,000 tower. So that money, in lieu, will be submitted to the city so that when this project is approved the Parks and Recreation Director can sign off on the final plat saying that all park land dedication requirements have been met because we have a check for that amount of money. It is phased in here, and I can't spout off the details, it is phased in here so that at a certain phase the tower has to be constructed or all money submitted for the project to the City of Fayetteville, we hold that money until the tower is constructed and then we will return the money. The development team has actually agreed, from my understanding from the Park and Recreation Board to actually submitting that. If they don't construct it until a later phase they will actually be out twice the cost of the tower. If they don't construct it until a later phase they will actually be out twice the cost of the tower because we will hold the money until the tower is completed and then return those funds. That is they way I understand the Parks and Recreation Boards's memos that came from park staff. Harris: Madam Chair, I am going to ask another question if I may? Mr. Teague? Obviously the concern about the tower was that it would provide a platform for people to look down on children in bedrooms and so forth. I believe that you all have said that it won't be any taller than the buildings surrounding it. Is that correct? Teague: Yes. We have said that. Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 127 of 130 Harris: And the tower is a part of which phase? Teague: It is inside of phase four. Harris: So phase one through three will have already been built by that time? Teague: That is correct. Harris: I am trying to look where the tower is exactly. So they do, in a sense also provide a screen? Is that correct? To the neighborhood, between the neighborhood and the... That is to say there won't be this tower sitting on that hilltop before anything else is around it? Teague: Yes. That is correct. You know, we showed at the presentation at the start of the meeting that somewhat showed that you wouldn't be able to see very clearly into anybody's backyard and definitely not into anybody's window. Harris: Ok. Thank you. Trumbo: Madam Chair Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Trumbo. Trumbo: What about parking for the tower? If people are going to come from other parts of the city and want to go into the tower, do we have parking provided? Is it just the on -street spaces? Teague: The area up there is still conceptual. We would definitely have on -street parking up there. We have talked about the idea of putting parking, putting structured grass inside the hilltop green to allow parking for the hilltop green and the tower. So on -street and then the structured grass inside the hilltop green. Anthes: Are you talking about a grass -pave system? Where you can drive on the grass? Teague: Yes. Just for the parking area directly off of the street. Graves: Madam Chair. Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Graves. Graves: That was one of the discussions of Subdivision as well. The fact that when we were looking at the traffic issue, just the idea that it is not going to be just people who live in this neighborhood who are going to be driving in and out of it because if this tower is there and it becomes an attraction, then people outside that Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 128 of 130 neighborhood are going to be driving in and out as well. So that was another discussion with regard to traffic at the time, and just something that I would mention to the other Commissioners as something to consider with regard to traffic. It is not just the density involved with this specific project because it will be an attraction that people will presumably drive to. And the parking issue, because they are already relying to a great degree on on -street parking to help them try to get close to their numbers. They you have other folks driving in who have to park somewhere too. But my question, specifically to staff, is just with regards to the maintenance issues. Who is going to be carrying insurance, for example, on this tower and making sure it's safe? If the POA disappears and you can't find the POA and they are responsible on this maintenance agreement? Those are tow separate questions in my mind. Who is standing behind the tower if someone were to get hurt on it? And also, if the POA is gone who is maintaining it? Pate: I will answer to my extent and Kit may want to jump in. To the extent of my knowledge the condition states that maintenance of the tower and the .11 acres of the land are the responsibility of the city and the POA is required by contract to pay a fee for that maintenance as part of this agreement. It is a non -amendable maintenance contract with an inflation clause as stated in the contract. That is verbatim from the... Graves: But we have had situations, for example we have discussed where private streets are concerned that sometimes POA's go away or you can't find a contact person for a POA. At that point, I mean, this is similar in that respect. Williams: What we have with the PZD ordinances now is that there are provisions that when there are private streets or other maintenance issues that the POA is going to be required to fulfill, we are allowed, and we actually require the developer to show us the restrictive covenants which must have a non -amendable restrictive clause that allows the POA and in absence of the POA the city, to assess the property owners if in fact there is maintenance that is required by the city because it has not been done by the POA and the POA does not reimburse the city. We will require that in this case too. Not only for private streets, but for the tower itself. Graves: And then with regard to insuring or guaranteeing or protecting against liability. Is the city responsible for that, it being city property? Williams: The city, as you are probably aware, has sovereign immunity. So we typically do not have liability insurance. If we have liability it waves our sovereign immunity. Graves: Right, and so my question is that since it is on city property does that mean that it is not going to be insured? Pate: It would be much like the castle at Wilson Park or the play grounds that we also Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 129 of 130 install on city property. Graves: There is not going to be a situation where the POA is required to carry, whatever, to insure the properties dedicated. Williams: Right, it will be City property. Graves: Ok Anthes: Okay, tree preservation and landscape. In landscape, we have a determination of a waiver request to use the urban streetscape 9 -foot sidewalk width option as opposed to the required 10 ft. Similar to the one tonight that we approved for a 8 ft sidewalk. Does anyone have any comments? Alright, and now we have condition number 30. Planning Commission determination of zoning criteria. There is a staff recommendation for a setback of 1Oft adjacent to any property line exterior to the overall 28.92 acre PZD boundary to provide a reasonable level of transition. No alley or other form of development shall occur within 5ft of the property line without the adjacent property owner's consent. Applicant has indicated compliance with this recommendation. Have the changes been made to the booklet and plat? Pate: That's what this condition is referencing. I think it is the only change to the booklet or plat that we have noted. The letter that was submitted states that all indications are in compliance with that. I think it was just overlooked in revision. That condition will cover that. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Pate. I believe that is all of the determinations. Are there any questions about any other Conditions of Approval? Pate: Madam Chair, I would like to note that the sign question that your reference is Condition number 34. Anthes: Excellent, thank you. Alright. Is there further discussions or motions? Trumbo: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Trumbo. Motion: Trumbo: I would like to make a motion that we approve RPZD 06-2299 finding in favor with the Conditions of Approval that we just went through. I believe we changed one? Graves: We changed two of them. Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 130 of 130 Tr umbo: Two. Graves: We changed the alleys too. Anthes: So the Conditions as amended in the meeting? Tr umbo: Yes. Anthes: We have a motion to forward by Commissioner Trumbo. Myres: Second. Anthes: Second by Commissioner Myers. Is there further discussion? Mr. Pate, will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve R-PZD 06-2299 with amended conditions carries with a vote of 5-2-0, with Graves and Clark voting no. Anthes: Are there any announcements? It's late! We are adjourned.