Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-08-27 MinutesPlanning Commission August 27, 2007 Page I of 19 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on August 27, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219, City Administration Building in Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN MINUTES: August 13, 2007 Approved Page 3 VAC 07-2688 (WALGREENS @ 6TH & ONE MILE ROAD, 558) Forwarded Page 3 ADM 07-2724 (UNDERWOOD LOFTS DRIVEWAY WAIVER, 483) Approved Page 3 CUP 07-2666 (VERIZON — SANG AVENUE, 481) Tabled Page 4 CUP 07-2692 (VERIZON — MEMORIAL DRIVE, 46) Tabled Page 5 CUP 07-2690 (VERIZON — CROSSOVER/MISSION, 372) Tabled Page 6 RZN 07-2691 (JB HAYS, 433) Tabled Page 7 ADM 07-2714 (GREEN BUILDING POLICY) Forwarded Page 8 PPL 07-2679 (TOWNSHIP HEIGHTS, 291) Denied Page 9 CUP 07-2689 (SMITH 2 -WAY — ARMSTRONG ROAD, 682) Approved Page 14 R-PZD 07-2649 (COLLEGE AVENUE TOWNHOMES, 291) Forwarded Page 16 R-PZD 07-2680 (ARCADIAN COURT, 365) Forwarded Page 18 A DVD copy of each Planning Commission meeting is available for viewing in the Fayetteville Planning Division. Planning Commission August 27, 2007 Page 2 of 19 MEMBERS PRESENT James Graves Matthew Cabe Christine Myres Sean Trumbo Lois Bryant Porter Winston STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Andrew Garner Jesse Fulcher Dara Sanders Glenn Newman/Engineering CITY ATTORNEY: Kit Williams MEMBERS ABSENT Jill Anthes Audy Lack Alan Ostner STAFF ABSENT Planning Commission Vice -Chair Sean Trumbo called the meeting to order. Commissioner Trumbo requested for all cell phones to be turned off, and informed the audience that listening devices were available. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, called the Planning Commission roll. Commissioners Anthes, Lack, Ostner, and Bryant were not present. Commissioner Bryant arrived after the consent agenda. Planning Commission August 27, 2007 Page 3 of 19 Consent: Approval of the minutes from the August 13, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. VAC 07-2688: (WALGREENS @ 6TH & ONE MILE RD., 558): Submitted by SPRINGFIELD HOLDING GROUP, LLC for property located at NE CORNER OF HWY 62W AND ONE MILE ROAD. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 1.97 acres. The request is to vacate a utility easement on the subject property. ADM 07-2724: (LOFTS AT UNDERWOOD DRIVEWAY WAIVER, 483): Submitted by ROBERT SHARP ARCHITECT, INC. for property located AT 607 WEST DICKSON STREET. The property is zoned MSC, MAIN STREET CENTER and contains approximately 1.40 acres. The request is for a waiver of the minimum curb radius for a commercial driveway for the entrance into the Lofts at Underwood Plaza parking garage on Powerhouse Avenue, from 25 ft to 20 ft and 14 ft. Motion: Commissioner Graves moved to approve the consent agenda as read. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 5-0-0. Planning Commission August 27, 2007 Page 4 of 19 Old Business: CUP 07-2666: (VERIZON WIRELESS SANG AVENUE, 481): Submitted by WOODEN, FULTON & SCARBOROUGH, P.C. for property located at THE SANG AVENUE WATER TOWER SITE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0. 13 acres. The request is for a 150' wireless communication facility on the subject property. STAFF RECOMMENDS THIS ITEM BE TABLED TO THE SEPTEMBER 10, 2007 MEETING SUBJECT TO THE APPLICANT PROVIDING INFORMATION REQUESTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION BY THE REVISION DEADLINE. Commissioner Trumbo stated the item was recommended to be tabled, and asked staff for an explanation why. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, stated the applicant did not submit the materials requested by the Planning Commission for reconsideration of this item by the submittal deadline, thus it was recommended to be tabled until September 10, or such time as the applicant submits the requested materials by the deadline. Commissioner Trumbo asked for public comment. Seeing none, he asked for a motion. Motion: Commissioner Graves made a motion to table the item until September 10, or until such time as the applicant submits the requested materials by the deadline. Commissioner Myres seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion to table passed 6-0-0. Planning Commission August 27, 2007 Page 5 of 19 New Business: CUP 07-2692: Conditional Use Permit (VERIZON TOWER MEMORIAL DRIVE, 406): Submitted by WOODEN, FULTON & SCARBOROUGH, P.C. for property located at 110 E MEMORIAL DRIVE. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 2.74 acres. The request is for a 150' cellular tower on the subject property. PURSUANT TO THE REQUEST FROM THE APPLICANT, STAFF RECOMMENDS THIS ITEM BE TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 10, SUBJECT TO THE APPLICANT PROVIDING THE REQUESTED INFORMATION BY THE REVISION DEADLINE. THE ITEM WILL BE PLACED ON NEW BUSINESS ON THE NEXT AGENDA. Commissioner Trumbo stated the item was recommended to be tabled, and asked staff for an explanation why. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, stated the applicant also needed to submit additional information for this item, which had not been submitted by the deadline. Additionally, the applicant was to notify adjoining property owners with the proper zoning. Commissioner Trumbo asked for public comment. Seeing none, he asked for a motion. Motion: Commissioner Myres made a motion to table the item until September 10, or until such time as the applicant submits the requested materials by the deadline. Commissioner Graves seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion to table Passed 6-0-0. Planning Commission August 27, 2007 Page 6 of 19 CUP 07-2690: Conditional Use Permit (VERIZON TOWER CROSSOVER, 372): Submitted by WOODEN, FULTON & SCARBOROUGH, P.0 for property located at 1826 N. CROSSOVER ROAD. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 4.70 acres. The request is to build a 70'cellular tower on the subject property. PURSUANT TO THE REQUEST FROM THE APPLICANT, STAFF RECOMMENDS THIS ITEM BE TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 10, SUBJECT TO THE APPLICANT PROVIDING THE REQUESTED INFORMATION BY THE REVISION DEADLINE. THE ITEM WILL BE PLACED ON NEW BUSINESS ON THE NEXT AGENDA. Commissioner Trumbo stated the item was recommended to be tabled, and asked staff for an explanation why. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, stated the applicant also needed to submit additional information for this item, which had not been submitted by the deadline. The applicant was specifically working on providing the required screening for this tower, and had not yet been able to do so. Commissioner Trumbo asked for public comment. Seeing none, he asked for a motion. Motion: Commissioner Graves made a motion to table the item until September 10, or until such time as the applicant submits the requested materials by the deadline. Commissioner Myres seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion to table passed 6-0-0. Planning Commission August 27, 2007 Page 7 of 19 RZN 07-2691: Rezoning (JB HAYS, 610): Submitted by LEE & LINDA L. WARD for property located at 5393 E. HUNTSVILLE ROAD. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.80 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to R -O, Residential Office. THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THIS ITEM BE TABLED TO SEPT. 10, IN ORDER TO AMEND THE REZONING REQUEST TO C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL. Commissioner Trumbo stated the item was recommended to be tabled, and asked staff for an explanation. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, stated the applicant had originally requested a rezoning to R -O, Residential Office. Staff, along with the Zoning Review Team, reviewed this request as R -O. The day before the agenda session, the applicant discussed the possibility of a C-1, Neighborhood Commercial zoning on the property. Staff indicated we could not make that recommendation at the meeting. The applicant has requested the item be tabled, then, for two weeks to allow sufficient time for staff to review the new request and make that recommendation. Commissioner Trumbo asked for public comment. Seeing none, he asked for a motion. Motion: Commissioner Myres made a motion to table the item until September 10, 2007. Commissioner Winston seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion to table passed 6-0-0. Planning Commission August 27, 2007 Page 8 of 19 ADM 07-2714: Administrative Item (GREEN BUILDING POLICY): The request is to forward the proposed Green Building Policy with a recommendation for approval to the City Council. John Coleman, Sustainability Coordinator, gave a presentation on a proposed policy for all new City buildings being constructed over 5,000 square feet to be LEED Certified Silver, at a minimum. He explained the policy, and how cities, counties, states and other organizations across the country have adopted similar policies and requirements. Coleman described the role of the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) and its relationship to LEED standards. He also compared utility costs and savings made apparent by the LEED Silver certification, which is the industry standard for the most economical standard to be constructed. Coleman also compared the LEED Silver City of Fayetteville Library cost savings to that of Fort Smith, and to the utility costs and waste of other municipal buildings. Coleman requested the policy be forwarded to the City Council recommending approval. Commissioner Myres stated this was a good step in the right direction for the City of Fayetteville, and that the information speaks for itself. Motion: Commissioner Myres made a motion to forward the policy to the full City Council, recommending approval. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 6-0-0. Planning Commission August 27, 2007 Page 9 of 19 PPL 07-2679: Preliminary Plat (TOWNSHIP HEIGHTS, 291): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at 1140 TOWNSHIP STREET. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 5.57 acres. The request is for 21 single family lots. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report, describing the existing property and the project in detail, which consists of 21 lots on 5.57 acres north of Township Street. The site is within the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District (HHOD). Staff has heard numerous public comments regarding issues including traffic, tree removal, drainage, more houses in the area, lot size, the Summit Place development to the west, etc. Summit Place Subdivision (to the west) was developed before the HHOD was adopted and the requirements were implemented for protection of the hillside. With the development proposed, each lot would be required to have a tree preservation plan and a grading permit as they individually develop. Street stub -outs that are proposed will not connect now, but provides opportunity for connecting in the future. The development meets the minimum requirements for development and zoning in the RSF-4 zoning district, including requirements of the HHOD. Staff recommends approval with conditions as noted. These include a Planning Commission determination of street improvements, which were described as 14 feet from centerline with curb, gutter, storm drains and sidewalks. Improvements were recommended to include those off-site along the lot surrounded on three sides by the proposed development. With regard to the Planning Commission determination of connectivity, staff recommended in favor of stub -outs to the west and north, with a slight modification to move the north stub -out to the east. Tom Hennelly (applicant) representing Randy and Kelly Davidson stated the density is 3.77 units per acre, and zoned RSF-4. His clients have no problems with the conditions of approval. Hennelly stated he agreed at the Subdivision Committee to meet with neighbors to address concerns. They did meet and discussed density, runoff, and traffic. The project initially had a layout with a cul-de-sac and no street stub -out. It was requested by planning to have a street stub -out, and they have done so. They are currently requesting to stop construction of the street 10' before the property line, to provide some trees/buffer for the property owner to the north. The stub -out to the west allows for a turn -around for fire and emergency vehicles. By doing so, it reduced the amount of canopy necessary for removal. As for drainage, currently there are 11 acres of run-off to the east onto Common Drive. With construction of the proposed street, roughly 8 acres will be collected in the street, go to a detention pond with a controlled release, and routed around homes into storm drains. This will reduce that runoff from going to the east on Common Drive. He stated he doesn't think density is an issue, as the project meets those minimums. Traffic would yield 42 more vehicle trips at peak hours and should not affect Township greatly. As requested by Engineering, they also checked sight distance along Township, and it is more than sufficient. Ann Henry (citizen) stated she represents most of the residents on Common Drive. She stated she was surprised that Common Dr. is zoned RSF-4. Their development on Common Drive is a good example of how a development can be done on a hillside. She is concerned about RSF-4 in this area, that it is not appropriate for this area on the hillside. Street stub -outs that are requested don't seem to make sense. One goes to a private street, or to an area platted many years ago, that will not be connected. She is affected most by drainage from the property. Summit Place, to the west, is a good example of a bad way to do it. Development here will denude the site. There is a lot of wildlife in the Planning Commission August 27, 2007 Page 10 of 19 area. Where will it go? Does the city have the manpower to monitor hillside development, or is it up to the neighbors? Generally it is up to the neighbors to get it enforced. Another issue is compatibility of homes in their area. There is no variety in the homes. Narrow setbacks, affordable housing is proposed. Henry discussed the availability of housing in the market in the City. As a Planning Commission, you have the responsibility of attracting people here. If development only meets the minimums, why is there a Planning Commission? At King's Drive, where Mr. Graves lives, how much is the City going to spend on that fix? And on Mission with Lake Lucille. Park Place has had a lake recently filled in as well. Doug Graue (citizen) stated that he lives on Township, and is surrounded on three sides by the development. Graue discussed the history of his parents living at the house for many decades, when Township had very little traffic. He discussed the 50 homes at Summit Place, with 500 vehicles per day; 21 homes would add 210 more trips per day on Township. He requested a moratorium on future development that accesses Township. Do we need houses? Graue began discussing the housing market, economy, trends in housing... Commissioner Trumbo reminded the public that the Planning Commission can't consider economic issues for a development. Graue acknowledged Trumbo's statement. He read from chapter 6.6 under Land Use in City Plan 2025 regarding removal of vegetation, runoff, and soil types. Since the land was rezoned to RSF-4, which happened in the 1970s, the City must have notified through the paper, because his family didn't know. The Commission should carefully evaluate these projects. Graue described the Summit Place development, which should be a wake-up call. The City should not rezone anything to RSF-4 in the HHOD. The density is actually not 4 units/acre at 0.19 acres per lot, with a detention pond. He referred to graphic, and stated the developers were trying to shoe -horn 21 houses into 5 acres on the site. He referred to the tree preservation plan, trees going away and those preserved. The detention pond will remove trees, but engineering requires it. Engineering requires it. Engineering doesn't live under the detention pond. All the trees will be gone there. Graue discussed tree preservation requirements, and fencing. Five of the lots have trees in the center of the lot, and you can't build a house and meet tree preservation requirements. Drainage east of the street will be intercepted. The detention pond may fail. He discussed soil suitability. What will a big pond facing Township look like? There is a surplus of houses in the area, drainage issues, detention pond, Hillside -Hilltop Overlay District and RSF-4 are mutually exclusive, and loss of trees, etc. are the issues. He requests the item be tabled to address these issues. He requested that 21 lots not be allowed, 5-8 be approved. Graue also asked that the storm drain along Township collect all drainage. John Weiss (citizen) referred to the drawing, lots west of the development have not given permission for anyone to have street through their yard. Commissioner Trumbo explained that street is not currently proposed to be constructed, only stubbed out in case they sell their property or choose to extend the street at some point in the future. Weiss stated that he just didn't want the property condemned, that he wanted to clarify that. Planning Commission August 27, 2007 Page 11 of 19 Robert Ginnavin (citizen) stated that if Fayetteville seeks to have connectivity, is it practical this will occur? Is there a likelihood the streets will go through? If you want them to go through, it will require condemnation and draw political fire. He referred to the map, where will stub -outs even go? If the street is a dead-end street, like on Sherwood, as it is drawn, is it safe for emergency vehicles? Can fire trucks turn around? Jack Claiborn (citizen) asked about the houses—will there be garages, driveways off the street? He indicated he was disappointed with the development. It is the same density from Jimmie east to Crossover. It is likely trees and undergrowth will get removed, and they will have runoff. Anna Mullis (citizen) lives on Common Drive. She stated that water drains downhill and doesn't know how the drainage they propose is going to work. With an additional 50 cars along with Summit Place, why are we adding more traffic to our east -west connection? Bob O'Connell (citizen) lives on Sherwood Lane, and questioned the stub -out on the west. If ever developed, will it ever come over to Sherwood Lane? Their covenants and developments say that if Sherwood ever connects two public streets, it must be brought up to current public street standards at the expense of the property owners. He discussed the tree preservation plan; existing tree canopy is 93%. 55% is preserved with infrastructure. Putting in a house, driveway, sewer lines, etc. on an 8,100 square foot lot doesn't seem to be feasible for homes. Is it in the purview for the Planning Commission to look at people's property values? Bill Bishop (citizen) lives at 1016 E Township. The developer would have to take part of his driveway for the street to come through. Township has become a main artery, though it wasn't intended to. Traffic is backed up to Sherwood, 10 cars past. They need to visit Township, see the real world. Rick Osburn (citizen) represents Caywood, LLC, own east, north, and west side. It is their intention not to allow a street in any case on this property. Dr. Morris Henry (citizen) stated there is a steep slope on this property. They don't have drainage problems right now, but will have if this development cuts all the trees on the property. There are families here, and children won't have a place to play except in the street. Drainage will do damage to their property. The Planning Commission is responsible to make a better place to live. Consider putting this off until more careful consideration is given. Brandon Kairn (citizen) stated he sent a letter in, and did not want to repeat all of the comments already stated. He stated his opposition. Seeing no more public comment the floor was closed to public comment and brought back to the Planning Commission for discussion. Commissioner Trumbo asked the City Attorney to remind them what the Planning Commission is to consider and not to consider. Planning Commission August 27, 2007 Page 12 of 19 Kit Williams, City attorney, read from Chapter 166 Development, the reasons for denial of a preliminary plat. The most applicable in this case, since the development meets all the code requirements and they agree with the improvements and conditions, is will the project "create or compound a dangerous traffic condition?" The Planning Commission cannot consider the affect on value of adjacent property with a development proposal. They can do so with a rezone, but not a development. Williams cited a previous court case that states a development meeting minimum standards must be approved. Commissioner Myres stated that the applicant did a good job of meeting requirements of development in the Hillside -Hilltop Overlay District, but that she is not voting, however, to approve a development until infrastructure is in place to support it. Commissioner Graves stated he could read verbatim from Ruskin Heights; this is a good project, except that it emptied onto a 2 -lane street that is not improved. No one is even talking about improvements to Township. Traffic problem is the concern. He is discounting the housing market comments, property values, those are not things a Planning Commission should consider. He stated he doesn't know enough about drainage, and trusts staff to take care of that. King's Drive and other places were in place before a lot of the ordinances that are in place today and that is probably the reasons for those issues. He is discounting the soils issue. He is discounting the stub -outs; there is no plan to extend these streets onto someone else's property with this development. The Planning Commission always plans stub -outs. A lot of the reason for Township being the way it is now is because of dead-end streets. These stub -outs , if ever connected, will help complete the grid, and help the connections. The issue is traffic. Every little project contributes to that. Traffic concerns trump the others right now. Commissioner Cabe stated that he commends the developers for giving it a shot. It is an infill project, which we encourage. He doesn't like the project because it disregards the contours of the hillside, and destroys the site. They will keep 55% of the trees, but will remove trees that were on this property before people were here. He stated it is hard to support the project. Commissioner Winston stated that he thanks the community for their questions, which were insightful. We need answers before pursuing. He doesn't know the impact in this area from other developments' traffic, and cannot support it until we know. Commissioner Cabe stated he would be willing to table, if the applicant is amenable to tabling. Hennelly stated he doesn't know how tabling would help, after hearing the comments. The perception is that no matter what they can come back with, they would still vote against it. He described the traffic condition and how a traffic study would work. But if a traffic study proved that it would not change the level of service, would it still be voted against? Commissioner Graves stated they are not going to say "no" at this point, they would have to consider what was brought to them. Hennelly stated that any development addition will have some impact to the traffic. It is a subjective Planning Commission August 27, 2007 Page 13 of 19 decision, whether it will create a dangerous traffic condition. He is willing to table to do a traffic count, and show how this development would really impact Township. If it is a fraction of the traffic, we can show that impact. Commissioner Myres stated she is bothered the most by 44 more cars. The development is being penalized by development down the street. It is the aggregate of development, and things planned and under construction. The road is not designed for traffic it is carrying now. She stated she doesn't think tabling to provide a traffic study would change her mind. Commissioner Winston stated a traffic study would need to include other developments approved, and coming onto Township. A traffic study would mean something then. Improvements to the street won't necessarily make it function better by widening 2 feet. He stated he has a list of questions for the developer if this is tabled. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, discussed traffic issues and that staff recommends a traffic study be conducted for 100 lots or more; this development has 21 lots, with approximately 210 vehicles per day, which is very low, 1/7 th of the Walgreens the Planning Commission approved an additional access onto 6`h street for two weeks ago. There are no sight distance issues in this area, either. Street improvements that are recommended are typical of this size development, and represent what staff feels is roughly proportional to the traffic impact being projected. This particular developer can't be penalized for other developments that come through and add traffic to Township. Motion: Commissioner Cabe made a motion to deny the preliminary plat. Commissioner Myres seconded the motion. Commissioner Trumbo stated that the addition of 200 vehicle trips per day doesn't seem to be a substantial increase in traffic, to the detriment of traffic safety. There are no sight distance issues. The project meets all city ordinances. He agrees with staff's recommendation, and will vote against the motion. Upon roll call, the motion to deny passed 5-1-0, with Commissioner Trumbo dissenting. Planning Commission August 27, 2007 Page 14 of 19 CUP 07-2689: Conditional Use Permit (SMITH 2 -WAY ARMSTRONG ROAD, 682): Submitted by SMITH 2 -WAY RADIO for property located at SW CORNER OF ARMSTRONG AVENUE AND BORICK DRIVE. The property is zoned I-2, GENERAL INDUSTRIAL and contains approximately 10.44 acres. The request is for a 150' cellular tower on the subject property. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report and described the project. The proposed tower is within an industrial area, and is not adjacent to a residential area. He described the property and went over pertinent conditions of approval. Staff recommended in favor of the request, with conditions as listed in the staff report. Dave Reynolds, applicant, stated that he looked at several locations, especially city properties. This site is a superior location for aesthetics. Verizon is the anchor tenant, and the tower can accommodate others. He feels it will be used quickly, because coverage maps show the need for the tower in this area. Photo simulations were shown to the Planning Commission. Reynolds stated he agrees with all 18 conditions, with the caveat of the last sentence in #3. He doesn't want to be required to move the tower to accommodate trees. He stated he can't see what difference it would make moving it 10, 20, 100 feet. No public comment was received. Commissioner Myres stated she has no questions, despite reluctance to agree to last sentence in condition #3. Motion: Commission Myres made a motion to approve the request as recommended by staff, with all conditions of approval. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Kit Williams, City Attorney, stated that the City and City Council has already leased a portion of their land to the applicant, after visiting with Ray Boudreaux and applicant. The entire site is heavily wooded, significant tree removal could occur with future factory development. The applicant will not have much freedom in moving the site, based on the lease that is already approved by the City Council. He also stated he was concerned about the applicability on this site for tree preservation for a cell tower, and read a section of Chapter 167, Tree Preservation, that stated tree preservation plans are required for large scale developments and subdivisions. This is not a large scale development or subdivision. Commissioner Graves stated he would have asked staff to remove that last sentence. He would like tree preservation clarified, too. Pate stated that yes, tree preservation was applicable in this case, and described that Mr. Williams only read a portion of the applicability section from Ch. 167. The chapter continues on from there to Chapter 167.04 (3), building permits, to state that developments requiring building permits, grading permits, and even parking lot permits require abbreviated tree preservation plans, so it is not at all the case that the ordinance only applies to large scale developments and preliminary plats. A cell Planning Commission August 27, 2007 Page 15 of 19 tower is required to obtain a building permit, by ordinance, and thus that section is applicable. Commissioner Graves stated he would rather the ordinance be more specific than general. Commissioner Myres asked how a high priority tree is determined. Pate described how high priority trees are determined by species and by caliper size of the tree. He also stated he doesn't know if significant trees are even there; staff simply wanted the opportunity to ensure that if there were a significant or landmark tree that could be saved by moving the facility a few feet, this condition would help that. The application could be tabled to allow for them to prepare a tree preservation plan, then they could resolve the issue at the Planning Commission level. Williams referred to p. 28 of 28, a map of the site. He noted that the site is on the edge of the City, and the applicant could simply go to the County. There is an acceptable site directly adjacent to this, in the County. The City then would not have any revenue from the project at all. He stated that the Planning Commission shouldn't throw too many obstacles in the road for them to come here, in the city, for the financial gain. Commissioner Graves stated he doesn't want to get involved in financial considerations. He stated the Commission has guidance from City Council in this case, as stated by the City Attorney, by approving the lease in this location. He is in favor of the project, and for amending the condition of approval. Motion: Commissioner Graves made a motion to amend condition #3, removing the language "however, if necessary the facility shall be arranged as deemed necessary by the Urban Forester to prevent the removal of high priority canopy." Commissioner Winston seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion to amend passed 5-1-0, with Commissioner Myres dissenting. Commissioner Myres withdrew her previous motion to approve. She stated she doesn't believe removal of the last part of the sentence, as amended, is a hardship to applicant, and that it is an appropriate condition for this project. Motion: Commissioner Graves made a motion to approve the request as amended, with all other conditions recommended by staff. Commissioner Winston seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion to approve was passed 5-1-0, with Commissioner Myres dissenting. Planning Commission August 27, 2007 Page 16 of 19 R-PZD 07-2649: Residential Planned Zoning District (COLLEGE AVENUE TOWNHOMES, 291): Submitted by BATES & ASSOCIATES for property located SE OF COLLEGE AVENUE AND GOLDEN EAGLE DRIVE. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 2.34 acres. The request is for re- zoning, land use and development approval of an R-PZD, Residential Planned Zoning District with 5 buildings of 4 attached units for a total of 20 dwelling units and associated parking. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report, describing the property and the project. The property is located within the Hillside -Hilltop Overlay District, east of College Avenue, and is accessed from a private drive, Golden Eagle Drive. It is currently zoned C-2 and R -O. The proposal is to rezone the property subject to the development plans presented, for 20 dwelling units in five buildings. Fulcher listed pertinent findings and stated the conditions of approval. Staff recommended forwarding the item to the City Council, recommending approval with all conditions as listed. Chris Waller (applicant) stated that he has gone to the Subdivision Committee three times on this project to work out various issues. The site is now above 30% tree preservation, they have met with the Fire Department and meet all conditions they required. The retaining wall locations have been moved to meet with staff's comments. The developer is in agreement with all conditions. No public comment was received. Commissioner Trumbo stated that the Subdivision Committee reviewed this project, and he had seen it twice. The developer was able to protect up to 30% tree preservation. The Fire Department had expressed concern with drive times getting up to units. They will now all have sprinklers. Trumbo went through the conditions of approval and determinations, including Planning Commission determination of street improvements. No comments or concerns were presented. Determination of waiver of curb return radius? No comments were presented. Motion: Commissioner Myres made a motion to forward the request recommending approval of the project, with conditions as listed. Commissioner Graves asked if there was a typo on page 2 (5 -unit multi -family building). Commissioner Bryant stated there was a height restriction of 44' in booklet, but 50' in the staff report. Fulcher stated the conditions included a change to a maximum height of 50'. Commissioner Bryant stated that 5' sidewalks were planned, and the conditions on the last page state 6'. Fulcher stated the conditions state 6'. Planning Commission August 27, 2007 Page 17 of 19 Motion• Commissioner Myres made a motion to forward the request as amended. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion.Upon roll call, the motion to forward passed 6-0-0. Planning Commission August 27, 2007 Page 18 of 19 R-PZD 07-2680: Residential Planned Zoning District (ARCADIAN COURT, 365): Submitted by DAVE JORGENSEN for property located at 1631 W. DEANE STREET. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.91 acres. The request is for Zoning and Land Use approval only for a Residential Planned Zoning District with 11 single family units. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report. The site would include 11 single-family lots, with 1 lot for detention. Past discussions on this property are included in agenda packet. In 2003 a rezoning to a multi -family zoning failed. In 2006 the same RZN request was withdrawn before the Planning Commission voted. In 2006 a Planned Zoning District was denied for a multi -family, three family, two family and single-family project on the site, with 16 units. The property is indicated as a Residential Neighborhood Area on the Future Land Use Plan. A higher density than 4 units/acre could still be compatible and had been discussed by the Planning Commission, if it is developed appropriately. There is close proximity to schools, parks, retail areas in vicinity. The land use proposed is a compatible request, even if the density is slightly higher at 6.5 dwellings per acre. Staff recommended approval, and discussed the street improvements, street stub -outs and other conditions of approval. Tim Brisiel (applicant) stated that there was a unique infill opportunity on this property. He stated he took direction from staff that they would be supportive of single-family detached, in maybe a slightly higher density. He stated he wants to do something that creates a neighborhood feel. This design is zero -lot line development pattern, which allows more usable greenspace on the other side of the each home. The CityPlan 2025 encourages infill opportunity and discourages suburban sprawl. This property is in close proximity to schools. It would be a more affordable housing type of project, with a 1400-1550 square foot range. $145,000 to $155,000 is the price point. The hammerhead allows for connectivity to south. The concerns he has seen in the letter are about density. Brisiel stated he feels confident this could fit in to the neighborhood. As for the zero lot line, it doesn't have to be that way, it just allows for more usable greenspace. He would like to preserve that. This project is unique in that he is both the developer and builder, and can transform the vision into a reality. No public comment was received. Commissioner Cabe stated that he likes the infill and density, and his biggest question for staff is how the PZD fits in with density of surrounding properties. Pate described the density and its relation to other projects in the area. Lewis Street has long been a dividing line between high density multi -family to the west and more single-family oriented neighborhoods to the east. Single-family detached dwellings as the land use on this property is important for that reason. The overall density can be managed in a 6.5 units/acre range at an appropriate scale with the neighborhood, which contains both large and small lots and homes. The close proximity to schools, recreational opportunities, I-540 and other amenities encourage the infill opportunity, if approached sensitively. Staff feels this particular request, in contrast to those we have recommended against in the past, does so. Planning Commission August 27, 2007 Page 19 of 19 Commisioner Winston asked how trees along the edge of the property will be preserved. Brisiel stated they are trying to keep larger trees, and will preserve canopy of larger trees with homes. The only danger might be utilities. Commissioner Winston asked whether the utilities would be in the front or back. Brisiel stated he doesn't like to see the utility boxes in the front, so the preference is to have the utilities in the back. However, if they all go there, there is the danger of removing all of the trees. In the design process, it will be a compromise to hide utilities and keep trees. Motion• Commissioner Myres made a motion to forward the request to the City Council, recommending approval, in favor of all conditions. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion to forward passed 6-0-0. All business being concluded, the meeting adjourned at 7:55PM.