Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-07-09 MinutesPlanning Commission July 09, 2007 Page I of 29 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on July 09, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. in the District Court Room in Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN MINUTES: June 25, 2007 Approved Page 4 ADM 07-2659 (PINES AT SPRINGWOODS, 286) Approved Page 4 ADM 07-2658 (CRYSTAL SPRINGS IV EXTENSION) Approved Page 4 VAC 07-2638: (ESTES, 332) Forwarded Page 4 VAC 07-2639: (FOUR SEASONS SUNROOMS/BOSS, 397) Forwarded Page 4 CUP 07-2622: (FRANKLIN, 401) Withdrawn Page 5 LSD 07-2574: (LIBERTY BANK OF ARKANSAS, 175) Tabled Page 6 CUP 07-2641: (WILKINS, 406) Denied Page 7 VAC 07-2640: (BARTHOLOMEW-OZARK TRAIL R -O -W, 495) Tabled Page 9 R-PZD 07-2613: (HOLCOMB HEIGHTS PHASE II, 245) Forwarded Page 12 R-PZD 07-2578: (BAILEY MEADOWS, 755) Forwarded Page 13 RZN 07-2637: (STARKS, 563) Denied Page 15 Planning Commission July 09, 2007 Page 2 of 29 RZN 07-2636: (OZARKS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, 440) Tabled Page 18 ADM 07-2625: (Master Street Plan Update) Tabled Page 20 A DVD copy of each Planning Commission meeting is available for viewing in the Fayetteville Planning Division. Planning Commission July 09, 2007 Page 3 of 29 MEMBERS PRESENT James Graves Jill Anthes Audy Lack Christine Myres Sean Trumbo Lois Bryant Alan Ostner Porter Winston STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Andrew Garner Jesse Fulcher Leif Olson Tim Conklin Glenn Newman/Engineering CITY ATTORNEY: Kit Williams MEMBERS ABSENT Matthew Cabe STAFF ABSENT Matt Casey/Engineering Planning Commission Chair Jill Anthes called the meeting to order. Commissioner Anthes requested for all cell phones to be turned off and stated the meeting had been relocated for elevator repair in City Hall. The next Planning Commission meeting should be in its regular chambers. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, called the Planning Commission roll. Commissioner Cabe was not present. Planning Commission July 09, 2007 Page 4 of 29 Consent: Approval of the minutes from the June 25, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. ADM 07-2659 (PINES AT SPRINGWOODS, 286): Submitted by H2 Engineering for property located north of Moore Lane and east of Deane Solomon Road. The property has been approved for LSD 06-1974 Arbors at Springwoods. The applicant requests project phasing for the Arbors at Springwoods development. The proposal would allow for final certificates of occupancy to be approved for a portion of the development prior to the entire development being completed. ADM 07-2658 (CRYSTAL SPRINGS IV EXTENSION). Submitted by Milholland Engineering for the Crystal Springs IV Subdivision located at the north end of Raven Lane. The applicant requests a one year extension to the approved preliminary plat (PPL 06-1977). VAC 07-2638: (ESTES, 332): Submitted by PETER (TRIPP) AND BRANDY ESTES for property located at 2350 BIG OAKS DRIVE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.32 acres. The request is to vacate a portion of a drainage easement on the subject property. VAC 07-2639: (FOUR SEASONS SUNROOMS/BOSS, 397): Submitted by BILL BOSS/ FOUR SEASONS SUNROOMS for property located at 5608 RELIANCE. The property is zoned RT -12, RESIDENTIAL TWO & THREE FAMILY and contains approximately 0. 87 acres. The request is to vacate a portion of a utility easement on the subject property. Commissioner Anthes read descriptions of the items on the Consent Agenda. She asked if any member of the Commission or the public would like to remove any of the items on the consent agenda. Seeing no response, Anthes called for a motion. Motion: Commissioner Graves moved to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner Ostner seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 8-0-0. Planning Commission July 09, 2007 Page 5 of 29 Old Business: CUP 07-2622: (FRANKLIN, 401): Submitted by ANGELA FRANKLIN for property located at 1656N. TIMBERCREST AVENUE. The property is zoned RT -12, RESIDENTIAL TWO & THREE FAMILY and contains approximately 0. 14 acres. The request is for a Home Occupation/Child Care in the RT -12 Zoning District. Commissioner Anthes stated that staff has informed the Commission that the applicant has withdrawn this request. No action is needed. Planning Commission July 09, 2007 Page 6 of 29 LSD 07-2574: (LIBERTY BANK OF ARKANSAS, 175): Submitted by CRAFTON, TULL, SPARKS & ASSOCIATES for property located at THE NW CORNER OF JOYCE BLVD AND VANTAGE DR. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE AND C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 2.68 acres. The request is for a 21,613 s.f. bank with associated parking. THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THIS ITEM BE TABLED TO JULY 23, 2007. Commissioner Anthes stated that the applicant has requested this item be tabled to the July 23, 2007 meeting, and asked staff for the reason cited for tabling. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, stated more time was needed for the applicant to complete updated traffic study information and discuss the findings with staff, which was not accomplished prior to this meeting. No public comment was received. Motion: Commissioner Myres made a motion to table the request. Commissioner Trumbo seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed 8-0-0. Planning Commission July 09, 2007 Page 7 of 29 New Business: CUP 07-2641: (WILKINS, 406): Submitted by ROGER E WILKINS for property located at 427 PATRICIA. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.24 acres. The request is to allow a duplex in the RSF-4 Zoning District. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report. Fulcher described the surrounding neighborhoods, including zoning and land use, which is predominantly single family in this area. He stated that based on the findings of the Conditional Use Permit request, the introduction of a two- family dwelling unit was not compatible within an exclusively single family area. Multi -family areas exist west of Gregg, but not in this vicinity. The requested duplex was not placed in an appropriate transition area. Further, the size of the lot on which the duplex is requested does not meet the minimum lot area for a duplex in a single family zoning district, which is 12,000 square feet. Staff recommended denial of the conditional use request. No public comment was received. Roger Wilkins (applicant) stated that the request for a duplex was because there are so many rentals in the area. Two-thirds of the adjoining properties that adjoin or are across the street from this property are rentals. Also, Lot 13, to the west, is owned by Sarah Lewis, who is not opposed to the duplex. The reason for the request is because of so many rentals in the area, they are just not duplexes. Commissioner Trumbo asked the minimum lot area of a duplex. Fulcher responded RSF-4 requires 80 feet of frontage and 12,000 square feet of lot area for a duplex. Commissioner Trumbo stated this was below the lot area already. Commissioner Graves stated he agreed with staff in this case, in particular because of the small lot size. If this were a larger lot, he could be less concerned. The lot being smaller and the building potentially larger than a single family house on the property, along with the removal of more trees, are concerns. Motion: Commissioner Graves made a motion deny the requested conditional use permit, based on the findings made by staff. Commissioner Myres seconded the motion. Commissioner Anthes asked staff about the appearance of the duplex, and other requests seen recently that appear like a single family home. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, stated that the applicant could submit drawings that Planning Commission July 09, 2007 Page 8 of 29 indicate a duplex with a single family home appearance, which might help with compatibility within the neighborhood. This would still require a variance of the lot area, however. Additionally, based on the comments made by the Commission, the appearance of the structure is not the big concern. Rather, it is the use of a duplex on this property. Commissioner Winston asked staff what is the slope from east to west on this site. How many feet of elevation change is there? Fulcher described the slope on the property, which does exceed 15% in grade on the east side, based on City maps. Commissioner Winston asked if this property is located within the Hillside Hilltop Overlay District (HHOD). Fulcher responded no, it is not located in the HHOD. Upon roll call, the motion to table passed 8-0-0. Planning Commission July 09, 2007 Page 9 of 29 VAC 07-2640: (BARTHOLOMEW-OZARK TRAIL R -O -W, 495): Submitted by R.F. BARTHOLOMEW for property located at THE EAST DEAD-END OF OZARK TRAIL. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.259 acres. The request is to vacate the portion of Ozark Trail that dead ends on the applicant's property. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report, describing the request to vacate a portion of Ozark Trail on the applicant's property. Multiple utility lines are located within the right-of-way, and utility companies have required easements to be recorded if the vacation is approved. If vacated, frontage would not be met for the two multi -family structures on the south parcel. This could be remedied by a Property Line Adjustment, combining all the parcels into one, or by a variance request. The applicant is looking to improve the property for redevelopment, but there are not concrete plans at this time. Staff is not necessarily opposed to the vacation request, however would like to see the development concurrently, to best review access to the property. Staff does not feel like we could give an informed recommendation for vacating the right-of-way at this time, and recommend the item be tabled indefinitely, in hopes the applicant will bring forward a development plan for review. Laverne Cooper stated she has lived on Ozark Trail for 25 years. The street is used by the public. City trash and recycling, the mailman and paper routes all use the street. There would need to be a turn -around if the street is vacated, because there is not one present, except on the subject property. Perhaps the City should construct a turn -around. She stated she was opposed to the road being closed. Beth Presley stated she lives adjoining this property, for 13 years. The property has been allowed to deteriorate, and become an eyesore. If vacated, the street could dead-end at her property. She stated she is opposed to the vacation request. Alan Reid (applicant) represented Ms. Bartholomew. He stated this is not a standard City street. They are not trying to close off the street from other property owners, only the part that dead -ends into the Bartholomew property. Ultimately, the applicant would like to put the property up for sale for development, and would like to improve it to a good condition to sell. To address the frontage issue, there are three parcel numbers assigned to this one property, but it is all on one deed. There is only one deed for the property. He stated he thinks the applicants wants to clean up the property. However, no development plan exists right now. Vacating the street would be the first step, taking into consideration the easements requested. This would make the property more marketable. Commissioner Anthes asked if the utilities are in the same corridor. Fulcher responded that all three existing utilities are in the right-of-way. Commissioner Anthes asked what would be the access to this property if it were developed. Fulcher responded that it would be difficult to answer that question without seeing a development plan. Planning Commission July 09, 2007 Page 10 of 29 Commissioner Anthes asked Fulcher if he thought that if the right-of-way remained in place, would it be detrimental to the sale of the property. Fulcher responded no, in his opinion it would not be detrimental. Commissioner Anthes noted that it was often important to have other streets and access points within the development. Commissioner Myres asked if the 0.25 acres was the entire parcel or just the right-of-way. Rosie Bartholomew (applicant) stated there are three acres in the full parcel from 6`h Street south. The only part desired to be vacated is that on this property. No solid waste or mail has come down that road for 20 years. The existing duplexes are boarded up, and she plans to have them removed. The property could always be accessed from Ozark Trail, whether the right-of-way is there or not. The deed has always been one deed. The reason it is split is because there are three different values on the property that created the three different parcels. All of the property could be accessed from Hwy 62. The third parcel, to the far south, is all woods. The street is just asphalt right now. It is difficult to come up with a plan without knowing exactly what can be done there. Commissioner Anthes stated that everyone understands the only right-of-way being vacated is within the applicant's property. She stated that with redevelopment, the right-of-way could still be vacated. However, having all traffic enter and leave the site from Hwy 62 is not necessarily a good thing. Bartholomew stated she was confused because she is not sure how to prepare development plans without knowing exactly what to expect from the street. Commissioner Anthes stated that the development plans could actually lend justification to the request to vacate. Bartholomew asked if access to Ozark Trail was the issue. Commissioner Anthes stated that in her opinion, a second access point was important for redevelopment of this site. If this is too confusing, perhaps the Commission should table the request and give the applicant time to work with staff. Commissioner Myres stated that utility easements were requested, and had to be platted before anything could happen anyway. Pate stated that dedicating utility easements for the existing utilities prior to a development plan could encumber redevelopment and potentially require another vacation request to be reviewed. Motion: Planning Commission July 09, 2007 Page 11 of 29 Commissioner Graves made a motion to table the request indefinitely, to allow the applicant time to meet with staff regarding development alternatives on the property. Commissioner Myres seconded the motion. Commissioner Ostner stated he tended to agree with the statements about access. There is going to be a bigger problem than it is now. The speed on Hwy 62 is 55 mph. It is important to have more streets like this, rather than less. He stated he was in favor of the vote to table, but would be very hesitant to vote to vacate this right-of-way. Commissioner Anthes asked staff if the applicant wanted to clean up the property, remove the duplexes, etc., could they remove the asphalt in the right-of-way? Pate stated no, the property was owned by the City as right-of-way, and could not be removed. However, he could speak with other divisions about improving the street if there are problems with a turn -around. Upon roll call, the motion to table the item indefinitely passed 8-0-0. Planning Commission July 09, 2007 Page 12 of 29 R-PZD 07-2613: (HOLCOMB HEIGHTS PHASE II, 245): Submitted by TODD JACOBS APPIAN CENTER FOR DESIGN for property located at E OF RUPPLE ROAD, W OF PHASE I. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 5.77 acres. The request is for Phase II of a Residential Planned Zoning District with 36 single family lots proposed. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report. Staff described the project, which is an extension of the Phase I PZD recently approved by the City Council. The development plans are similar to phase I in lot sizes, density, street cross-sections and overall development pattern, meeting many goals of the CityPlan 2025. Finding the project meets the guiding policies of the City and the PZD ordinance, staff recommended forwarding the item to the City Council with a recommendation for approval with nineteen conditions. Street improvements were primarily assessments for future construction of Rupple Road to the west. The amount listed in the staff report has been updated with a cost estimate handed out to the Commission tonight. For Rupple Road, the assessment will be approximately $35,093 and for the extension of Street 2 to connect to Rupple, approximately $7,150.75. The differences in the original cost estimate submitted by the applicant , which was lower, and the amounts listed in the staff report recommended by staff have been resolved, and staff is recommending the new numbers presented. Fulcher presented the other conditions of approval, along with waiver requests. No public comment was received. Todd Jacobs (applicant) described the project, which continues the concept in Phase I of Holcomb Heights. To answer a phasing question posed at Subdivision Committee, Phase I is under construction review by the City and Phase II has construction plans at 80% complete. Thirty-six lots are proposed on 5.7 acres, with four different lot sizes for pricing, unlike a typical subdivision with all the same lot and house sizes. Commissioner Myres asked the applicant if they were in agreement with all of staff conditions. Jacobs replied yes. Motion: Commissioner Ostner made a motion to forward the request to the City Council with a recommendation of approval, with all conditions as listed. Commissioner Trumbo seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed 8-0-0. Planning Commission July 09, 2007 Page 13 of 29 R-PZD 07-2578: (BAILEY MEADOWS, 755): Submitted by RODNEY R. & NANCY K. PAYNE for property located WEST OF SCHOOL AVENUE AND NORTH OF BAILEY DRIVE. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 3.86 acres. The request is for a Residential Planned Zoning District for re -zoning, land use, and lot split approval to create a total of 4 single family lots of 2.94, 0.24, 0.39, and 0.28 acres and associated rural residential uses. Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, gave the staff report. Garner described the history of the site, which was requested for a rezoning previously and denied due to concerns with incompatible density. The project is a low -impact residential use, retaining some of the agricultural uses in the large lot in the back, to better transition to surrounding agricultural property. The density proposed is one unit per acre. Finding the project in compliance with the PZD ordinance and compatible to surrounding properties, staff recommended forwarding the item to the City Council with a recommendation for approval. Ray Hatcher (citizen) stated he lives on Bailed Drive, to the east, in Greenland. He questioned the gravel road that had been discussed, for this road has been paved for many years. He stated two cars can't meet on the road now. More than anything, he stated he was worried about drainage, being downhill from this development. What measures would be taken with this project to protect him? Also, he stated concerns that this could just be turned into more houses in the future if this project is approved. Commissioner Anthes asked the staff engineer if he had visited the site and could comment on these issues. Glenn Newman, staff engineer, stated he has not visited this site and would have to do so, to make any detailed comments. Rodney Payne (applicant) presented his intentions of developing his property. He stated he would like to build two energy efficient single family homes on the property, to accompany the one existing home already there. When the property was purchased, it has two homes on it, one of which was a mobile home. This has since been removed. The purpose of the back lot, 2.94 acres, is to sell to a gentleman in Greenland to put two horses on it. Commissioner Ostner questioned staff about the improvements to Bailey Drive. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, stated he had been to the site recently. To confirm Mr. Hatcher's remarks, the road has been paved quite some time, and he was not sure why reference was made to a gravel road. The improvements that have been discussed at Subdivision Committee were made by the City of Greenland to the railroad crossing and to some of the drainage issues in the area. Additionally, Mr. Payne has indicated the electric company would be relocating a support pole away from the road in the next 30 days, to help with the narrow road width. There has not been a great deal of improvement in the area, but some has occurred. Staff felt that with only two additional homes proposed, this density of one unit per acre was appropriate for the infrastructure in the area. Planning Commission July 09, 2007 Page 14 of 29 Commissioner Ostner noted it was a rural neighborhood. The development proposed was certainly low impact, and is controlled by the PZD zoning. Commissioner Anthes asked how drainage is controlled for a single family home. Newman stated that staff doesn't typically see drainage requirements for single family homes unless they are located in the Hillside Hilltop Overlay District (HHOD). This project has very minor impact, and should not alter the present drainage patterns. Commissioner Anthes asked if the Commission could require a drainage review. Newman stated yes, if the Commission wants staff to review drainage, we would do so. Staff typically doesn't review drainage with a lot split request, but could if there are concerns. Commissioner Ostner asked how do neighbors deal with drainage if there is no grading permit. Newmann stated that if the site is not within the HHOD, no requirements for drainage are required to be evaluated. Commissioner Graves asked if there was a way for Engineering to review drainage for this project. Kit Williams, City Attorney, stated that with a normal lot split, they could not. However, because this is a PZD, the Commission could require that because the rezoning decision is being made at the same time. He also stated that the condition regarding parks fees should be amended, if the mobile home that was removed had not been credited. The City can not charge an additional impact fee for that pre-existing home. Motion: Commissioner Graves made a motion to forward the request to the City Council with a recommendation of approval, with all conditions as listed, amending condition #1 to state that parks fees were due for each additional single family unit and to add condition #6 to state the applicant shall submit and obtain drainage permits at the time of development. Commissioner Winston seconded the motion. Pate clarified the condition to be that each single family home would be required to submit and obtain a grading permit at the time of development of that lot. Upon roll call, the motion to forward passed 8-0-0. Planning Commission July 09, 2007 Page 15 of 29 RZN 07-2637: (STARKS, 563): Submitted by WILLARD AND KAREN STARKS for property located at 504 E. 15TH STREET. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 0.63 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, gave the staff report. Garner described the history of the project, along with previous requests to rezone the property in a similar manner to commercial districts, all of which were denied. The structure on the property has historically been utilized for a cafe since the 1960s. While the requested rezoning would bring it into compliance as it pertains to its use, a conditional use permit in the existing R -O zoning would accomplish the same. Additionally, as the structure has been used constantly for a cafe, it is an existing nonconforming use that may continue as it is as long as the use does not cease. Staff finds that in this particular location, the commercial zoning could introduce potential objectionable uses that are not compatible to properties on the north side of 15`h Street. Commercial uses are more appropriate, in general, at corner locations, and this is mid -block. Based on the findings within the staff report, staff recommends denial of the rezoning request, and recommends the applicant apply for a conditional use permit if he wants to bring the use into compliance. Commissioner Trumbo stated he must recuse from this item, and left the chambers. No public comment was received. Willard Starks (applicant), owner of the property, stated this has been a restaurant for 39 years. It just about constitutes a landmark. He stated he does not agree with staff's recommendation, and the staff report was drawn from old information. Mr. Starks passed out an old zoning map copy from 1984. He stated the uses along 15`h Street have changed a lot since then. This is not a residential area, thus staff's argument is non-existent. He doesn't intend on changing anything, and thinks he deserves to be brought into compliance. Commissioner Anthes asked if Wood Avenue, which shows up on the maps, exists. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, explained that Wood Avenue right-of-way does not exist, and discussed the Nantucket project the Planning Commission reviewed and approved to the north that dealt with Wood Avenue being extended south to 15`h Street. This did not occur because the right-of-way to extend the street does not exist. As it stands today, the right-of-way for Wood Avenue does not exist to the west of this property. Commissioner Ostner discussed the project to the north and the extension of Wood Avenue. Starks discussed his concerns with Wood Avenue coming south, and his objections because of the traffic danger. Commissioner Winston and Pate discussed the differences in the zoning and future land use map. Planning Commission July 09, 2007 Page 16 of 29 Commissioner Graves asked where the C-1 zoning district would fit within the Future Land Use Map designations. Pate stated that C-1 could work in this Future Land Use Map designation, if appropriate for area, given the timing of the request. However, with the potential incompatibilities of the commercial zoning in the area, staff recommends the Conditional Use Permit as a better option of achieving the same goal of the applicant, to bring the restaurant into compliance. Pate discussed the options of bringing the property into compliance. Commissioner Graves stated that right now this seems to be a spot zone. He tends to support staff and would like to see this property come into compliance by a Conditional Use Request instead of a C-1 zoning surrounded by RMF -24. Motion: Commissioner Graves made a motion to deny the request, based on the findings of staff. Commissioner Ostner seconded the motion. Commissioner Winston asked if it would be more or less difficult to improve the property if zoned C-1. Pate stated no, the requested zoning would actually increase setbacks from that of R -O. The development standards for the two zoning districts are virtually the same, in terms of parking lots and greenspace. However, as the use has existed for many years, if the applicant requested a conditional use permit, he would not see much reason for improvements with the conditional use or the rezoning, unless the property was being expanded or redeveloped for something else. Commissioner Ostner stated the rezoning was a matter of timing, it may not be out of line in a few years. Commissioner Anthes asked the applicant if the stated intent was to leave the restaurant in place, and leave the property as it has been used historically. Starks stated the biggest difference is that with the R -O zoning, he could not put up a sign. He stated he had been over several options with staff members, but could not find a way to advertise his business. The two choices given to him were to leave it as it is or rezone the property to allow a sign. Staff and the Planning Commission discussed signage in the different zoning districts, including size limitations and setbacks. Commissioner Graves stated he understands that signage is the issue, but that doesn't change the justification for the motion to deny the rezoning. Upon roll call, the motion to deny passed 5-2-1, with Commissioners Winston and Anthes Planning Commission July 09, 2007 Page 17 of 29 voting no, Commissioner Trumbo recusing. Planning Commission July 09, 2007 Page 18 of 29 RZN 07-2636: (OZARKS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, 440): Submitted by CRAFTON, TULL, SPARKS & ASSOC. for property located at 3641 WEDINGTON DRIVE. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL AND R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 44.36 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial. Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, gave the staff report. He clarified the request was to rezone approximately 36 acres, not the 44 indicated in the agenda description, and passed out maps reflecting the correct boundary. Staff indicated the rezoning from R -A to I-1 could result in potential objectionable uses within the middle of an area that was principally residential. Rezoning to I-1 could result in potential nuisances and public safety issues. Staff could potentially support other means to expand the Ozarks Electric business on this site, but not through an industrial zoning request, even with the Bill of Assurance submitted that limited use of the property to Ozarks Electric. One of the first guiding principles is to protect adjoining property owners from potential incompatible uses, and the request as presented did not accomplish that goal. Items of concern include materials storage, access issues, large razorwire fencing, etc. that are allowed in industrial zones but not in others. Staff recommended denial of the rezoning request. No public comment was received. Daniel Ellis (applicant) of Crafton Tull Sparks and Associates represented Ozarks Electric in the application. He stated Ozarks Electric moved to this site in 1965-1967, and was there before the City got there. There is currently a $10 million building on the site, and it would cost $20 million to relocate. There is no warehouse space, and a definite need for more, for transformers, poles and other equipment. Ozarks Electric also currently operates a storage yard and fuel station there now. Commissioner Anthes asked for clarification on the size of the site, is it 44 or 36 acres? Garner responded it has been corrected to the 36 acres. Commissioner Trumbo stated that he had a concern with the noise ordinance being implemented for this as an industrial property next to residential. He asked if the applicants had any discussion with staff, because he could not see any way to support an industrial rezoning in this area. Ellis stated they had met with staff, and thought the Bill of Assurance would take care of any issues. Commissioner Trumbo stated he was in favor of their expansion, provided the surrounding residents were protected. He could not approve of the rezoning at this time. Commissioner Graves stated this would be a spot zoning to I-1, as there is no industrial use in any of the surrounding area. The Bill of Assurance does not do anything to alleviate that. Planning Commission July 09, 2007 Page 19 of 29 Motion: Commissioner Graves made a motion to deny the request, based on the findings of staff. Commissioner Trumbo seconded the motion. Commissioner Ostner stated he values Ozarks Electric, because they are not the other "big guy." They offer a service to area residents. However, he would expect, as had been offered in other cases, to see hours of operation, sound and visual buffers, how to deal with trucks, etc. The Bill of Assurance offered doesn't address many of these things to appease those concerns. Ellis stated that with those comments, he would rather be tabled, and work with staff to come up with something amenable. Commissioner Ostner asked if this is a storage issue. Is the use manufacturing? Ellis stated yes, it is primarily a storage issue. Commissioner Ostner stated he would be amenable to the tabling. Commissioner Graves stated that was fine, the motion to table would trump his motion to deny. Motion: Commissioner Ostner made a motion to table the request indefinitely. Commissioner Myres seconded the motion. Commissioner Lack stated he would vote against the motion to table. He does not look favorably on any I-1 zoning in this area, regardless of what could be worked out. He would like to see other means to accomplish their goals than the industrial zoning. 1-1, even with a Bill of Assurance, would be inappropriate for this area. Commissioner Ostner clarified his position, stating the motion to table was not a partial support of the industrial zoning, because he had the same concerns. He hoped another solution can be found, and is still opposed to the industrial zoning in the area. Upon roll call, the motion to table the request indefinitely passed 5-3, with Commissioners Graves, Lack and Anthes voting no. Planning Commission July 09, 2007 Page 20 of 29 ADM 07-2625: (Master Street Plan Update): Submitted by Planning Staff, recommending amendments to and adoption of the Master Street Plan for the City of Fayetteville. Karen Minkel, Senior Planner, gave the staff report. She reviewed the process used by staff to create the proposed Master Street Plan (MSP) and highlighted the major changes. Significant changes included: 1) the addition of more small, connecting streets; 2) greater sensitivity to the Future Land Use Map; 3) classification of streets in newly annexed areas; 4) alignment with the Fayetteville Alternative Transportation and Trails Plan; 5) alignment changes to streets based on hillside and floodplain data; 6) Better accommodation of pedestrians and cyclists; 7) reduction of curb and gutter from two feet to one -and -a -half feet; 8) overall reduction of right-of-way requirements; 8) lane width measured from face of curb instead of back of curb to better describe the visual width of the road; and 9) a revision of the Downtown street cross-sections to make sidewalk and landscaping requirements consistent with City ordinances. Staff also reviewed the public input process, mentioning meetings and presentations with the Street Committee, utility companies, local engineers and developers and an Open House held on a Saturday, June 23 at the Farmer's Market. Overall, public input has been positive, commending the bike lanes, boulevards, and consistency with other City plans and ordinances. Staff recommended forwarding the proposed MSP with a recommendation for approval to the City Council. Roy Slaughter (citizen) stated that he was a resident of the Estates at Salem Hills on Howard Nickell Road. He had heard about a thoroughfare or 4 -lane road through the neighborhood. A boulevard would force a different sort of access. Safety would be an issue. The Homeowners Association is unanimously opposed to widening and connecting to Rupple Road. Salem Road could be utilized instead since it does not cut through any exiting neighborhoods. Robert Costrell (citizen) stated that he was a resident of the Estates at Salem Hills on Howard Nickell Road and passed out a letter signed by the property owners opposed to widening the road to a principal arterial parkway and an aerial of the neighborhood. He moved into the neighborhood last August and sent a letter to the City Council initially opposing the designation change from a minor to principal arterial. There are compelling objections regarding speed, safety, and the integrity of the neighborhood. The boulevard would physically divide the neighborhood; the only other example is Crossover, which is a thoroughfare. He expressed concern that neighborhood requests from a year ago have not been honored by the City. Residents would lose yards and trees. It would require annexation of their properties, which could become a valuable addition, but this will not help. The neighborhood is shown as a Rural area, and this change does not show sensitivity to context. Brian Teague (citizen) stated that overall the MSP is a good plan but is not perfect. He expressed concern that staff wanted to minimize the number of cross-sections in the MSP and he would like to see tighter lane widths. If the desired speed was less than 20 mph, then the City should have 8' lanes, 20-25 mph -9' lanes, 25-30 mph-] 0' lanes, and 30-35 mph-] 1' lanes. He also had concerns about parking on the residential street cross-sections. What happened to the older 2 -way yield section? Where will visitors park when there is no driveway in an alley -loaded neighborhood? He also questioned the concrete strip required in the alleys, which would increase the cost of development and was not necessary. How were the lane widths created? This is Planning Commission July 09, 2007 Page 21 of 29 important in determining how fast we want traffic. Dirk Van Veen (citizen) stated that he had concerns about the Residential Streets and the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District (HHOD) streets. He offered to donate up to $1000 to get Rick Hall to create street cross-sections. It doesn't make sense to have no residential parking, which seemed to disregard or show lack understanding of design standards. This was a great opportunity to change and make the HHOD streets narrower than what was originally adopted. Ed Stevens (citizen) stated that he was a resident of the Estates at Salem Hills on Howard Nickell Road. He said that the street would split the neighborhood in half. Taking 54' off his front yard and adding 17,000 vpd would not add value to the property. Commissioner Myres expressed a personal concern about a principal arterial (Garland Avenue) that would affect her neighborhood and asked staff if the intent was to build that road as a boulevard. Minkel responded that that was the intent, which was consistent with the current MSP. Commissioner Myres stated that there are approximately 17 streets that join Garland and wondered where breaks would be in the boulevard and would neighborhood residents have to drive in the opposite direction that they want to go in if there is a median with no break. She also expressed difficulty in envisioning a road that wide as it cuts through the UA Agricultural Farm. She had written numerous letters to the State regarding these plans and knew these concerns were probably not concerns that staff could address. There is traffic on that road but the principal designation would be overbuilding. She suggested that perhaps we were looking too far into the future. Commissioner Graves suggested giving staff the opportunity to address some of the public's concerns. Minkel stated that in regard to Salem Estate Hills the development was constructed after the designation of Howard Nickell as a principal arterial. Staff's rationale was to be consistent with plans that had resulted in the accrual of right-of-way as well as the 2030 Regional Transportation Plan, which designated this road as crucial to a north south regional thoroughfare. Salem Road did not have similar right-of-way dedication since it was a Collector. Staff also commented that narrower streets, such as those used in a traditional neighborhood development, needed to be used in conjunction with other traditional neighborhood development elements. Tim Conklin, Planning and Development Management Director, added that staff had received multiple PZD submittals that had narrow streets that were not used in conjunction with a gridded street network, which would alleviate the concerns of engineering and fire department staffs. Minkel added that though she realized her statements would not directly address the concerns of the residents on Howard Nickell or Commissioner Myres, staff attempted to remain consistent with the current MSP where appropriate rights-of-way had been dedicated. As the Commission Planning Commission July 09, 2007 Page 22 of 29 is aware, it is much more difficult to go and buy needed right-of-way once development has occurred. Commissioner Anthes suggested finding where the points of consensus were, and where they weren't, so they could move forward. She asked how many staff hours had gone into the process. Minkel said that two engineers and two planners had met regularly once a month. Full staffs from both divisions had met once a month. Previous divisions and departments mentioned spent staff time reviewing and commenting on the proposal and at least two planning staff members had been present at each feedback session. Commissioner Anthes said that she wanted to provide some perspective on the amount of time staff had put into the project and asked staff to realize that any criticisms were respectful of that work. She asked if staff had been able to use GIS data to take into account streams, floodplains and hillsides. Minkel responded that staff did take into account hillsides and floodplains and changed some street alignments as a result. Commissioner Anthes also asked whether the discussions with the utility companies had resulted in putting utility lines under streets or under alleys. Minkel responded that this subject had been discussed but not resolved. Commissioner Anthes asked whether the low -impact street cross-section required bio- swales with appropriate structural soils. Minkel responded that that was staff's intent. Commissioner Anthes asked staff to comment on changes to sidewalks. Minkel replied that the current MSP had sidewalks that were 4' and 6'. Staff split the difference and made all the sidewalks a consistent 5' in width. Commissioner Anthes then asked if the commission was in general agreement with the overall principles and intent of the proposed MSP as presented by staff. Commissioner Ostner asked whether design speeds had been taken into account into the proposed MSP and how they were determined. Planning Commission July 09, 2007 Page 23 of 29 Minkel responded that staff used a combination of AASHTO, Context Sensitive Solutions and the engineering staff s expertise. Commissioner Ostner then asked why design speeds were not in the plan. Conklin responded that vertical and horizontal alignments affected design speeds, so speeds would vary depending on topography. Further, where staff could narrow lanes they did; however, this project was a collaboration with other divisions, and streets needed to accommodate service vehicles. Staff can associate a number with each street, but the speed will depend on the topography and the individual design. Commissioner Ostner stated that staff seemed to be saying that speed would take care of itself and "we'll take care of it," but developers, engineers, and the public would have a better idea of what we're talking about if there was a design speed associated with it. It would make a big difference in terms of education and he would strongly urge staff to integrate design speeds. Commissioner Winston asked if individual streets were designed taking into account unique circumstances or if staff used the MSP to say exactly what type of street would be built. Conklin responded that the process usually followed the former description. There are two ways streets are built. One is through individual developments and the other is through the Capital Improvements Program. Pate added that right-of-way requirements are determined by the MSP and the volume of traffic refers staff to the type of street that would need to be designed. One of the problems that the proposed MSP attempts to address is altering a street cross-section depending on whether it goes through a commercial or residential area. Commissioner Myres asked if there were any other options for a principal arterial for developers that were not available in the MSP. Pate responded that he was not aware of a principal arterial that had been designed by a private developer. Commissioner Anthes proposed working through the street sections and text before looking at that map. Conklin observed that some of the recently constructed alleys had asphalt that was not being held in place, which was why staff recommended concrete ribbons in the alleys for Planning Commission July 09, 2007 Page 24 of 29 long-term maintenance. Twenty feet of unencumbered space was a request from solid waste and fire. The goal is to create consistency and reduce individual requests for different street cross-sections in one development. Commissioner Anthes commented that the commercial alley was 24', which was essentially a street with two 10' lanes. Conklin responded that the concern was service and emergency vehicle access. Pate added that many projects in the downtown were built right up to the street, which could prohibit vehicle turning movements if there was only a 12' right-of-way in the alley. It was a functional question. Commissioner Anthes said that she'd like to hear about residential streets based on comments made by the public earlier in the evening, especially in regard to the lack of on - street parking where alleys were also provided. Pate responded that previously the fire departments would not allow parallel parking on residential streets because they needed the 20' feet of right-of-way. Commissioner Anthes stated that staff would then advise a developer to use the local street cross-section. Staff confirmed this statement. Commissioner Winston asked for clarification. Does that mean that if you build a two- way street you cannot park on it? Commissioners said that this was the case if the street was designated as a residential street. Commissioner Anthes said that staff arrived at the 10' lane because of city services rather than design speed. Conklin responded that state fire codes repeatedly mentions the 20' free and clear. Commissioner Lack asked if the lane width could be reduced in the low -impact development street cross-section, since reducing the width would still leave the 20' free and clear. There is also a statement of restriction in terms of when the LID street cross- section would be allowed and it would be helpful if those components were listed in the ordinance for clarity. Commissioner Anthes stated that local streets were allowed for residential development only to have a POA prohibit on -street parking. This created a problem later when other developments could connect to their neighborhood and residents became concerned about Planning Commission July 09, 2007 Page 25 of 29 traffic speeding through the neighborhood, which was a result of having a wider street cross-section. Conklin said this question should be referred to the City Attorney. Commissioner Myres asked about the difference in vehicle trips per day between residential and local streets. Conklin stated that residential streets were intended for minimal traffic. Brian Teague (citizen) stated that if block lengths were even shorter than 300' so that fire trucks would not have to drive down every street, then it would open discussion to having streets with paved widths less than 20'. He reiterated concern about the loss of the yield street. Robert Costrell (citizen) clarified that right-of-way dedications at the time of development were 90' rather than the 110', which would be an increase rather than a reduction. Commissioner Myres asked whether it would also be appropriate to stipulate a block length for local and collector streets. Pate responded that residential streets carry such a low volume that it would be appropriate to stipulate block length, and traditionally other roads have not had a limit on block length. Commissioner Anthes stated that she appreciated the addition of collectors to the map and the reduction of minor arterials. She asked staff to comment on how collectors would work with the Fayetteville Alternative Transportation and Trails Plan. Minkel said that the developer would be responsible for providing the chevron symbols and that these symbols would only be required where there were on -street linkages. The right-of-way would remain the same if there was not an on -street linkage, but the paved width would match the local street cross-section. Commissioner Lack asked whether there was direction as to the length of 70' of right- of-way required at intersections for collectors. Minkel referred the commissioners to the text, which states that the turn lane must extend a minimum of 200' from the intersection. Planning Commission July 09, 2007 Page 26 of 29 Commissioner Winston asked about the pedestrian crossing situation in minor arterials. Minkel responded that she did not recall a specific discussion, but that staff did try to limit the use of that cross-section on the map. Commissioner Anthes commented that perhaps this made the boulevards a more pedestrian -friendly street cross-section. Conklin added that boulevards such as the ones on Garland and Arkansas Avenues can make the streets great addresses. He added that Old Wire was one of the streets that had been downgraded from a Minor Arterial to a Collector. Commissioner Lack asked about the design speed for minor arterials. Minkel said she hesitated to answer because she was not an engineer, but that the anticipated speeds were between 35-40 mph, which was the speed that determined the road needed a separate bike lane rather than a shared vehicle/bike lane. Commissioner Anthes said that she would like the engineering division to evaluate whether the minor arterial lanes could be narrower. Commissioner Myres concurred and said that it was a very wide street to cross. Reducing the paved width by four feet would make a difference, particularly for people who don't move quickly and people with small children. Pate added that these sections are sections that private developers typically do not get involved with; minor arterial and principal arterial design is usually determined by the City and there would be multiple hearings about the design of these sections. Commissioner Myres said that she favored the national standards, which are moving back to a more traditional design of narrower streets and supported Commissioner Ostner's statement about including design speeds for each of the street cross-sections. Commissioner Winston said that if the commission directed staff to include design speeds, it should give them some parameters such as the speed on a flat plane for a particular length. Commissioner Anthes added that this meant a worst case scenario—a flat plane on a long stretch. Knowing the design speed for this type of case would give the commission an overall indication of expected traffic speed. Planning Commission July 09, 2007 Page 27 of 29 Commissioner Lack said that there were hardly any streets in Fayetteville that matched that description. Commissioner Winston said that this was his point. It might actually be more confusing to include speeds because on a flat stretch the speed might be 65 mph, but this did not reflect the reality of most streets within the city. Commissioner Anthes said that even though the speeds may not make in into the final document, the exercise in identifying design speeds would be helpful. Commissioner Trumbo commented that the text for principal arterials read that access should be primarily through side streets rather than curb cuts, which seemed to be slamming the door on curb cuts. He expressed concern about this language and its effect on businesses. Pate responded that where there were no local streets, access had to be granted through a curb cut. However, the text reflected most safety manuals. The situation could be likened to interstate access where access is only granted at controlled access points. Commissioner Lack asked about parkways and how a developer would develop half of the parkway and whether it would make sense for the developer to build 27' feet rather than 28', which would be the local street cross-section. Pate responded that those widths were based on the ability of the street to carry a specific volume. Commissioner Anthes asked whether staff had reexamined the hillside/hilltop overlay district cross-sections. Conklin responded that given the length of time it took to reach consensus on these streets, staff felt it would be better to actually see some on the ground before changing the street cross-section. With these cross-sections, the rights-of-way were being minimized by reducing the utility easements. Commissioner Anthes asked staff to see if the local street cross-section for hillsides could be revisited to see if narrower lanes were possible. Commissioner Anthes remarked that the Downtown cross-sections seemed to be simpler and then asked what the commission's charge would be when they reviewed the map. Was it the rationale behind the map that the Planning Commission should consider, and the disposition and connections between streets? Are the designs of individual streets a Planning Commission July 09, 2007 Page 28 of 29 policy or City Council issue? Conklin responded that the map should be viewed as a long range planning tool. The City of Fayetteville generally used a hub -and -spoke pattern. If the Planning Commission saw areas where there needed to be more connections or Collector streets, they should make that recommendation to the Street Committee and City Council. There are some streets that do not show up on the map; for example, the City Council has made a policy decision that roads will not run over Mount Sequoyah, so no streets will show in that area. It is important to look at the larger picture in terms of our circulation and how we move people through the community. Commissioner Anthes asked if the horizon was 20-50 years or so. Conklin replied that he thought so. The cost of the facilities made the long-term planning essential. Minkel added that staff reviewed the map by first blowing up the map and dividing it into six sections and then having each section reviewed by two staff members who shared their changes with the larger group. The map was then divided into four sections and two and so on. Commissioner Lack said that one of the most ambiguous areas that the commission had to determine was connectivity and perhaps more streets should be on the map, particularly roads that went over hillsides. He had a specific question about the area north of Fox Hunter Road and whether there were no roads because of topographic issues or for other reasons. Minkel responded that the commissioners did not have a the Future Land Use Map overlay on their proposed MSP maps, but that rural and natural areas on the map would have fewer roads than more dense areas of town. Conklin mentioned that the issue in the particular area mentioned by Commissioner Lack was the White River, floodplains and hillsides. Commissioner Anthes said that east/west connections came up frequently south of Huntsville Road and wondered whether staff had examined that area. Pate said that staff tried to look at those areas and many would require small bridges, although staff did add one road at the base of Dead Horse Mountain. Drainage issues and lack of bridges made much of that area more difficult. If there were additional suggestions, staff was definitely open to them. Planning Commission July 09, 2007 Page 29 of 29 Commissioner Lack mentioned another area that could use further connections was in the area just west of Howard Nickell Road. Pate said that at the next meeting, staff would bring the Future Land Use Map. The area Commissioner Lack just mentioned was one of the most highly ranked natural areas. Motion: Commissioner Myres made a motion to table the proposal indefinitely so that the commission would have a chance to review requested changes and the Future Land Use Map. Commissioner Bryant seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion to table the request indefinitely passed 6-0-0, with Commissioners Graves and Ostner having left during discussion. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. All business being concluded, the meeting adjourned at 9.45 PM.