Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-04-28 MinutesPlanning Commission April 28, 2008 Page I of 17 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on April 28, 2008 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219, City Administration Building in Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN MINUTES: April 14, 2008 Approved Page 4 LSP 08-2949: (WOODARD, 242) Approved Page 3 VAC 08-2969: (QUALITY LANE APARTMENTS, 289) Forwarded Page 3 CUP 08-2953: (BRISIEL/DEANE ST., 365) Approved Page 4 LSP 08-2952: (BRISIEL/DEANE ST., 365) Approved Page 4 CUP 08-2970: (EAST SIDE BAPTIST CHURCH, 527) Approved Page 6 CUP 08-2972: (BUD'S AUTO SERVICE & PARTS, 433) Approved Page 7 RZN 08-2968: (LAZENBY, 557) Forwarded Page 8 RZN 08-2971: (WALKER PARK NEIGHBORHOOD) Tabled Page 9 R-PZD 06-2170: (VILLAS AT STONEBRIDGE, 645/646) Tabled Page 14 A DVD copy of each Planning Commission meeting is available for viewing in the Fayetteville Planning Division. Planning Commission April 28, 2008 Page 2 of 17 MEMBERS PRESENT Jill Anthes Lois Bryant Matthew Cabe Jeremy Kennedy Christine Myres Sean Trumbo Porter Winston STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Andrew Garner Jesse Fulcher Data Sanders Glenn Newman/Engineering CITY ATTORNEY: Kit Williams MEMBERS ABSENT James Graves Audy Lack STAFF ABSENT Planning Commission 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. Upon roll call, all members were present with the exception of Commissioners Graves, Lack and Myres. Commissioner Myres arrived after the consent agenda. Planning Commission April 28, 2008 Page 3 of 17 Consent.- Approval onsent. Approval of the minutes from the April 14, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. LSP 08-2949: Lot Split (WOODARD, 242): Submitted by BLEW & ASSOCIATES for property located at 5253 WEIR ROAD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 8.58 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into two tracts of 1.55 and 7.03 acres. Planner: Andrew Garner VAC 08-2969: (QUALITY LANE APARTMENTS, 289): Submitted by CRAFTON, TULL, SPARKS & ASSOC. for property located NW OF QUALITY LANE AND GREGG AVENUE. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 6.43 acres. The request is to vacate a portion of a utility easement. Planner: Andrew Garner Motion: Commissioner Cabe made a motion to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner Winston seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 6-0-0. Commissioner Myres arrived. Karen Minkel, Senior Long Range Planner, gave a presentation on long range planning accomplishments in 2007, and other projects the planning division will be working on in the coming year. Planning Commission April 28, 2008 Page 4 of 17 New Business: CUP 08-2953: (BRISIEL/DEANE STREET, 365): Submitted by TIM BRISIEL for property located at 1631 DEANE STREET. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.69 acres. The request is for a tandem lot. LSP 08-2952: (BRISIEL/DEANE STREET, 365): Submitted by TIM BRISIEL for property located at 1631 DEANE STREET. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.69 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into four tracts of 0.29, 0.29, 0.84 and 0.29 acres respectively. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report for both the Conditional Use Permit and the Lot Split, and gave the history of the site, which has had several land use applications considered. Finding in favor of the proposal, staff recommended approval of both items, with conditions as listed in the staff report. Tim Brisiel, applicant, stated that Arcadian Court PZD was denied by the City Council. He had taken feedback from the public and City Council, and determined that the earlier project was too dense. He stated he was in agreement with the conditions of approval, but did have a question about extending water/sewer mains prior to recordation of the lot split (Condition #2). He asked if there is any way to do that simultaneously with the construction of homes. No public comment was received. Motion: Commissioner Anthes made a motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit request with conditions as listed in the staff report. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. Commissioner Trumbo asked if staff could speak to the question of the water main related to the lot split request. Glenn Newman, Staff Engineer, stated that tract 4 does not have the frontage available to have public water and sewer. They are showing what is necessary on the plat right now, but in the past we have not accepted a residential lot that does not have public water and sewer service. It is my understanding that is the policy, and we have been following that. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, described that the minimum requirements of access, water and sewer are needed for each lot for it to be created legally. Ordinances require any new lot created to have water and sewer access. Motion: Planning Commission April 28, 2008 Page 5 of 17 Commissioner Anthes made a motion to approve the lot split request with the conditions as listed in the staff report. Commissioner Winston seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion was passed with a vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission April 28, 2008 Page 6 of 17 CUP 08-2970: (EAST SIDE BAPTIST CHURCH, 527): Submitted by BLEW & ASSOCIATES for property located at 325 S. CROSSOVER, W OF WYMAN. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 5.04 acres. The request is for additional parking. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report, finding in favor of and recommending approval of the request with conditions as listed in the staff report. Improvements to the existing parking lot are recommended, based on the addition of parking in excess of that permitted by ordinance. Michelle Carter, applicant, stated she does agree with all conditions of approval, including removal of the center driveway. No public comment was received. Motion: Commissioner Winston made a motion to approve the request, in favor of all conditions of approval. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission April 28, 2008 Page 7 of 17 CUP 08-2972: (BUD'S AUTO SERVICE & PARTS, 433): Submitted by PAUL LOWERY for property located at 7613 W. WEDINGTON DRIVE. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL - AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 2.38 acres. The request is for a change of non- conforming use, auto service, repair and body shop (Use Unit 17). Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, gave the staff report, describing the history of the project, including annexation and history of uses on the property. Staff discussed that they had received complaints regarding the use of property for auto repair. The applicant requested a rezoning to C-2 to resolve the violation, but the request was denied by the City Council in February 2008. A Conditional Use Permit is proposed and would allow the previously existing nonconforming commercial use to change to another nonconforming use, with Planning Commission approval. Finding that commercial uses have existed historically, and would not change the character of the area with the screening recommended, staff recommends approval with conditions as listed in the staff report. Paul Lowry, applicant, stated he was in agreement with all conditions of approval. No public comment was received. Commissioner Winston asked if the maximum of five employees would include the owners. Garner stated it would indeed include the owner; any five employees working at any one time. Commissioner Anthes asked if there is a definition for auto salvage in the City Code. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, stated that it was in the police chapters of the Code, and staff can add the definition of salvage to the file for future reference. Commissioner Anthes asked about traffic on Wedington and cars backing out from the continuous curb cut in front of the building. Pate stated that staff did discuss this difficulty initially, but since the use is not being expanded, improvements were not recommended besides screening. The existing condition requiring cars to back out into the street is not changing with this application. Staff has no recommendation for improvements in this particular case because of the narrow size of the lot. Lowry stated he has permission to clean out the vegetation on the adjacent property to increase visibility, and that he will work with staff and neighbors to improve safety of ingress and egress to the property. Motion: Commissioner Myres made a motion to approve the request with conditions as listed in the staff report. Commissioner Kennedy seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission April 28, 2008 Page 8 of 17 RZN 08-2968: (LAZENBY, 557): Submitted by DAVE JORGENSEN for property located at 3390 W. 6TH ST., NE CORNER OF HWY 62W & OLD FARMINGTON RD. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 0.49 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Dara Sanders, Current Planner, gave the staff report, stating that in support of findings, staff recommended forwarding to City Council with a recommendation of approval. Justin Jorgensen, applicant, stated that he was representing Lazenby, has read the staff report, and will answer any questions anyone might have. Barbara Stevenson, citizen, stated concerns she had with retail uses and hours of operation. She has meet with Sgt. Gabbard and police department regarding problems with the property in the past. Laverne Cooper, citizen, stated the property is currently zoned R -O, which is suitable for the area, whereas the rezoning will open up the area for a lot of issues not suitable for the area, such as traffic. Commissioner Trumbo stated that a rezoning is being considered now, not development. If a new development comes through, it will be reviewed individually. Commissioner Anthes stated that whether the property was zoned R -O or C-1, the hours of operation are not something the Planning Commission can address. Asked why C-1 was recommended by staff over R -O. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, described the property's designation as an Urban Center Area in the Future Land Use Plan, which encourages intense, dense, mixed-use development patterns for the improvement and expansion of regional commercial centers. The property's corner location also promotes these types of uses. Access limitations will be critical at the time of development, and will likely need to access Old Farmington instead of Hwy 62. Commissioner Myres asked about the permitted and conditional uses in C-1 and how they differ from the R -O zoning classification. Pate compared the uses in R -O and C-1 from the Use Unit chapter of the City Code. Commissioner Myres asked if this will be a new development or a reuse of the existing building. Jorgensen stated he was not sure at this time. Motion: Commissioner Cabe made a motion to forward the request to City Council, recommending approval. Commissioner Myres seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission April 28, 2008 Page 9 of 17 RZN 08-2971: (WALKER PARK NEIGHBORHOOD): Submitted by THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES ARE ROUGHLY BOUNDED BY ARCHIBALD YELL BLVD., HUNTSVILLE ROAD, MORNINGSIDE DRIVE, 15TH STREET AND S. SCHOOL AVENUE. The properties are zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE, C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL AND P-1, INSTITUTIONAL and contain approximately 303.45 acres. The request is to rezone the various properties within the boundaries of the Walker Park Neighborhood to NC, Neighborhood Commercial (128.19 acres), DG, Downtown General (107.41 acres), and MSC, Main Street Center (19.94 acres.) Karen Minkel, Senior Long Range Planner, gave the staff report, recommending forwarding the rezoning to City Council. Minkel reviewed the comments received by staff from property owners in the area, some of which would like to see changes to the map. Public comment: Dorothy Ashworth, citizen, owns property at 636 S. Wood Ave. and stated that she had never received information about this. She opposes the rezoning for her property, which is a house on one acre currently zoned RMF -24. Her family purchased the house as an investment, and the proposed zoning would not allow her to develop. Alan Ostner, citizen, and president of Jennings Plus Neighborhood Association, stated that he represents a great number of neighbors and that this proposal is progressive and more accurately represents the way the area has developed. The neighborhood is primarily single-family residential on small lots, 2'/2 times the density of conventional subdivisions. As neighborhood president, this map was reviewed by the Jennings Plus association, with 35-40 members present. Certain parts got unanimous approval, while others did not. Residents were in favor of almost all green (Neighborhood Conservation) areas. Blue (Downtown General) was supported around Jefferson almost unanimously. The response to blue along Hwy 71 was mixed. Some thought it was appropriate, while some thought it should be more dense. The intersection at 15`h and 71 B received nearly unanimous approval. People who lived in Bayat were not happy at all. They felt that the blue between Wood & Willow was too dense. The blue at Huntsville & Morningside was perceived as too large. The Blue area behind Walgreens received nearly unanimous disapproval. Nearby neighbors thought that Walgreens being commercial and the Sycamore Lofts were sufficient and zoned appropriately, but to domino across Locust on this east side was inappropriate. This area is mostly low -slung apartments or single-family homes that have been there a long time. The group thought it would be more fair to make the area dark green down to 6`h. It seemed more appropriate to keep the area south of 6`h green. Other things the neighborhood talked about included: 1)When asked if they only had a yes or no vote, most people said it was not perfect, but yes, the proposed rezoning was better than the current situation. If they had a chance to alter it, they said they would, in different ways. 2) Residents also commented on being perplexed by the recent addition and subsequent removal of crosswalk on Archibald Yell and South St. 3) They asked if the street designations were changing with this rezoning or if that was later? They thought several streets really had a problem with dangerous cut -through traffic. Aubrey Sheperd, citizen, stated he owns a tiny house on a tiny lot on E. South St. He agreed that Planning Commission April 28, 2008 Page 10 of 17 the small single-family lots downtown are a wonderful thing. He discussed neighborhood involvement, flooding, drainage, disturbance, and what this involves with future connections between human uses and vegetation. He liked the Master Plan effort and is glad it was done locally. There is a reason where in every case you should try to minimize the amount of ground disturbed, in order for it to control stormwater naturally. He was not sure people around Jefferson were aware of the rezoning and counseled the City to proceed with caution. Trey Morrison, citizen, owns lots 107 or 109 on 6`h Street, and stated that he had been working on a project for 8 months with staff. He added that changing the zoning would make him start over. He requested that the property be rezoned to Downtown General instead of Neighborhood Conservation to salvage some of the work he has done. Mark Sugg, citizen, owns property in planned area. He first had questions for staff regarding new roads and lots in the Walker Park area. He stated that he participated in the City Plan 2025 charette, with which city staff did an outstanding job. He owns some property east of Jefferson Square, between 6`h & 7`h. He stated that the east side of Willow should be Downtown General to complete the square block. He questioned the Neighborhood Conservation zoning on the east side of Morningside. With a high school potentially locating east, he thought that Downtown General might be more appropriate. He saw no reason for the block at Huntsville and Morningside to be zoned Downtown General. The southeast comer, a large Downtown General area, is already developed with senior housing. He stated that along 15`h and Morningside, Downtown General is appropriate, but not as deep into the neighborhood as it will be at Huntsville and Morningside. He did not see a need to have Downtown General that deep into the neighborhood. He did hope that the rezoning would go forward. Pat Antell, citizen, lives in the area, on College Ave. She stated that the area is single-family homes and asked how close her property would be to development zones. She stated that the area is a neighborhood, which is why she had lived there so long. She could stand on her porch and talk to neighbors on both sides and wanted to know more about how neighborhood could develop, what's appropriate, and what is not. Her home is paid for, and she would like to see value added. Her main concern is proliferation of inexpensive rental units, which will increase the traffic. She stated that these streets are not made for that type of traffic. She also valued the trees in the neighborhood. She would like to be involved and kept aware of events in the future. Lib Horn, citizen, stated that she was one of 200 that participated in the charette. She commended staff for the job they did. She lives on 6 t Street in the Walker Park neighborhood and takes pride in the neighborhood. She stated that they have front porches and they visit. She stated that they need affordable and mixed housing due to a problem of providing housing to people who need help. No additional public comment was received. Commissioner Trumbo asked about nonconforming uses. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, described the ordinance. The Plan tries to make most uses conforming, but some will be nonconforming. A provision exists where if a non -conforming Planning Commission April 28, 2008 Page 11 of 17 use is destroyed, it cannot come back forward. The goal is to make more uses and structures that are conforming. Commissioner Trumbo asked about Mr. Morrison's concerns. Pate stated it was something for the Planning Commission to consider in their decision. Commissioner Trumbo asked about the area on Morningside, and the areas that are RMF -24 that will become Neighborhood Conservation. Minkel stated that 10 units per acre was the maximum density allowed in Neighborhood Conservation for only single and two-family units by right. Commissioner Trumbo asked about Downtown General zoning on Huntsville Road, in regards to why it is so deep at Huntsville and Morningside, and why it is necessary. Minkel stated that the Downtown General at Huntsville and Morningside, and the Downtown General that extends north from 15`h, were to reflect existing uses within those areas. Commissioner Trumbo asked about street designations. Minkel said they would be changing after the rezoning has gone through. At that point, staff would go back and look at the streets. Commissioner Anthes brought up confusion about the zoning designations and what they mean. Several comments about Downtown Commercial indicated a perception of Downtown General as a commercial zone, which it is not. Its purpose is a flexible zone and has a mix of uses that are not allowed in straight residential zoning. It is meant to be more intense than Neighborhood Conservation but still primarily residential. She wondered if staff could comment on the zoning districts and clarify them for the audience. There were also comments made about this being a development plan and not wanting apartment buildings next to a single-family property. This is actually a downzoning in most areas, which also broadens uses allowed, so it is not a single -use zoning district anymore. Also, staff has done an incredible job of getting the word out about the planning process and the rezoning. Minkel described the existing zoning, and the proposed zoning districts. Commissioner Anthes stated she would like to hear comments about nonconforming uses and existing structures. Pate discussed how property owners could always request a conditional use permit, variance, or rezone on a case by case basis. Commissioner Anthes stated she thinks staff has done an excellent job and has formalized the intentions of the Illustrative plan. She hoped residents would read the zoning descriptions and asked Planning Commission April 28, 2008 Page 12 of 17 to discuss some of the discrepancies between the map and the zoning proposed. Minkel stated the illustrative plan was conceptual only, and there were a few instances where, if Neighborhood Conservation allowed rowhouses it would certainly be appropriate. The concern was that there were some areas that are shown as having rowhouses — there were some key areas in the Illustrative Plan that had rowhouses — but staff didn't feel it would necessarily be appropriate to have a restaurant in the middle of that neighborhood. That is why blue does not extend father up into those key areas that did show greater density or different uses than you see in Neighborhood Conservation. There was a decision that had to be made as to whether you extend Downtown General zoning into those neighborhoods and then see whether a professional office or restaurant came in place of the rowhouses, which served as a border between the single-family homes and more dense uses conceptually in the Illustrative master plan. Commissioner Anthes stated that on 6`h St, coming from Huntsville heading west, as you cross Wood and head towards Jefferson Square, is an area with a higher density pattern shown on the Illustrative plan. In her mind, that area is one of those areas that could handle perhaps a higher density than Neighborhood Conservation. It is what's happening there and that will be a major intersection. She would like to see staff look at something more intense. She also discussed the Morningside Drive property, which will likely be more dense. It is the site recommended for a high school, but it is only a matter of time before that property develops and will likely have a higher density level. Blue along its length is a valid consideration. At the intersection of 111h and Washington Avenue, there are areas that link blue with the park and she wondered if there was any way to look at that as an intersection. She stated that she understood the comments about Walgreens, but in looking at Downtown General, she didn't see that the zoning would be too high. Staff could also focus in on the area east of Jefferson Square and perhaps make nodes that would make sense with the illustrative plan. Commissioner Trumbo agreed with Commissioner Anthes regarding Morningside, saying we need to look at the future use there, especially if it's a high school coming in, and concurs that 6th & Wood seemed like a place for a commercial node, or a more intense use than Downtown General. He stated that he appreciates staff looking at this. If the area continued to be built around the existing RMF -24 density it would not be the type of neighborhood desired by the community. Commissioner Anthes stated that she liked the fact that 15`h & S. School is called out as having higher traffic, as the Main Street Center zoning reflected a commercial node there. The Downtown General was good as a transition zone along S. School. She asked a question regarding specific areas that the Planning Commission would like looked at further and whether staff would prefer for the Planning Commission to look at these are more closely or allow the City Council to do that. Minkel stated that ideally the more concerns addressed now meant less later on. Motion: Commissioner Anthes made a motion to table the rezoning until the May 12`h, 2008 Planning Planning Commission April 28, 2008 Page 13 of 17 Commission meeting. Commissioner Trumbo seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission April 28, 2008 Page 14 of 17 R-PZD 06-2170: (VILLAS AT STONEBRIDGE, 645/646): Submitted by APPIAN CENTRE FOR DESIGN for property located S OF HWY. 16E AND E OF GOFF FARM ROAD. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 53.03 acres. The request is for zoning, land use and preliminary plat approval for a Residential Planned Zoning District with a maximum of 354 dwelling units and 65,000 s.f. of non-residential space. Phase I development approval consists of 91 single family lots. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report. The property was annexed in 2005, zoned R- A, and is currently undeveloped. Surrounding properties were described, all of which are rural residential or golf course. The request is for zoning and partial development approval. The proposed density is 7 dwelling units per acre, and will be developed over 6 phases. Initial development approval would be for 91 single-family lots with remaining lots requiring large scale development or preliminary plat approval. The only access to the property is from Dead Horse Mountain Road (DHMR), currently an unimproved chip and seal road. The development is more of a traditional urban town form, small blocks, open spaces, with limited neighborhood commercial, much of which meets the City's adopted town form policies. The larger issues regarding staff's recommendation are outside the 53 acres being developed. Some issues are related to infrastructure in this area. Huntsville Road is the closest arterial, with all roads leading to it sub -standard. Everything around the property is undeveloped; this development is "leapfrogging" past undeveloped land to this area and proposing an urban form with no schools community support services one would expect for this density. The location of the development could create an auto - dependent community to get to jobs, schools, and services. In addition, compatibility is an important element of a rezoning — surrounding properties are rural residential, county, etc. The development proposes rowhouses and multi -story condominiums adjacent to rural lots. In time, infrastructure will be improved and development will come to this area, providing a more compatible development location. However, that does not currently exist. For those reasons, staff recommends denial of the request. Staff has included conditions of approval should the Planning Commission vote in favor, and went over street improvements and requested waivers. Todd Jacobs, applicant, described the vicinity — 3.5 miles from the downtown square. He described key features of the project: a traditional neighborhood development (TND), pedestrian friendly, 1.8 acre neighborhood park, which is not a city requirement, $290,000 in parks fees, connects to St. Paul trail, interconnected streets, tree -lined sidewalks, clubhouse/civic area for meeting/amenities, mix/variety of housing types and alleys. His office believes alleys are critical to success of a TND. Condos are being provided because of the location of the golf course and to provide a variety of housing types. Jacobs gave a power point presentation -walked through the site plan. He discussed off-site improvements: water/sewer (2008 available), bridge construction to begin summer/fall 2008, Hwy 16 to be released for bid Spring 2009; widening DHMR by end of Ph. 3 (4300 LF). They have tried to schedule infrastructure with 6 phases of project: Phase 1, 91 single family lots, completion by 2011; phase 2 by 2012; phase 3 by 2013; phase 4 by 2014; phase 5 by 2015; phase 6, 20,000 s.f. of residential/office by 2016. He believes this project is better than the conventional sprawling subdivision and thinks it provides meaningful open space, compact and connected, a mixture and variety of housing types. He believes it is a policy issue that needs to be debated. Hank Broyles, applicant, stated the development guides growth from the edge of town back in and Planning Commission April 28, 2008 Page 15 of 17 that the development will not be isolated, since there are several hundred homes on the east side of the golf course. Unfortunately, the golf course can't be moved closer to the town. John Nock, applicant, stated he has been working on the project for a couple of years. He believes it will be a good spot for seniors — not solely seniors, but will be good. Golf courses are not typically located in the center of town and so development around a golf course may be located further out. The development will be less than 7 units per acre, which is less than the Mt. Sequoyah area of approximately 8 units per acre. It can take 20 years to build a neighborhood, but there is only one chance to design it. Public Comment: Jeff Erff, citizen, stated he urged a vote to deny. The project is clearly urban sprawl and is not in keeping with City Plan 2025. The staff report describes why this should not be approved. No additional public comment was received. Commissioner Trumbo asked if the Hwy 16 improvements discussed are accurate. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, stated that he thought the Transportation Bond Program had improvements slated closer to 2012, not 2009, but perhaps the applicants have more updated info. Commissioner Trumbo stated that the Commission should discuss the sprawl concept. While this is on the outskirts of town, it is interesting that it is only 7 minutes from the downtown area. Staff mentions there are no amenities, but the only reason there are no amenities is because there are not enough rooftops and development in the area. By adding rooftops and traffic, you will get the commercial development to support more development. He stated he understands why people would want to live near a golf course, and over time development will occur around the golf course. He likes the idea of a planned development and more density rather than less density and bigger lots as is common under the RSF zoning district. Commissioner Anthes stated that the PZD ordinance tells us what to recommend based on findings. One of the main things the Planning Commission must consider is whether the application is in compliance with the UDC and City Plan 2025. Staff has made it abundantly clear in the findings that they find this plan to be inconsistent with those policies and their guidelines. The Planning Commissioners must listen to those findings, since there is overwhelming evidence that this plan is inconsistent with adopted policies. Compatibility, environmental issues, floodplain, etc. Can proper connections be made to satisfy ingress and egress for that density with DHMR being the only connection? Water and sewer services were extended to this location, but only because developers decided to fund it, not because there was development pressure. She stated that she is supportive of higher density in the right place at the right time. Commissioner Kennedy stated that sprawl in another direction might be a good point, but sprawl towards a golf course is a big draw as far as housing. More attainable housing in the area is Planning Commission April 28, 2008 Page 16 of 17 something that should be encouraged. He feels like the developer is headed in the right direction, and does not like the excuse that it is the wrong place at the wrong time. Commissioner Myres addressed staffs point about being in the wrong place at the wrong time. However, when looking at the timeline and considering that it will be 8 years before project will be fully built out, and considering that the current economic climate may delay that further, it gives her some of the things that are missing a chance to appear. She thinks that is a valid point. She is still unsure how she will vote, however is probably more inclined, regretfully, to go against staffs recommendation and recommend approval. Commissioner Cabe stated it was a very well-designed and planned development. He appreciates Appian's projects, they do good work. However, he can not state strongly enough that this is the very definition of sprawl and will not be able to support the project. Commissioner Winston stated he agrees with Commissioner Cabe, and believes it is a very excellent project, very well thought out and may be in the right place at a different time. The issues are with infrastructure and roads, but there may be some answers to that. Commissioner Trumbo stated that if the project is not approved, we will continue to have a single- family (RSF-4) development pattern. They will trickle in, but there will not be enough houses to demand commercial development and will only contribute to more traffic congestion. He likes the idea of a traffic light at Stonebridge and Huntsville. Trumbo asked if when talking about road improvements, that the southern entrance is all the way back around to the northernmost entrance, is it staffs recommendation that that whole thing be built out during Phase 3? Pate stated that prior to the final plat of Ph. 3, the road between the south entrance and north boundary of this project should be widened to at least 24 feet, which is a standard pavement section, and overlay with asphalt. Curb and gutter, sidewalks, storm drain, would be with development of projects adjacent to that section of the road. Commissioner Trumbo stated that he would like to have all of Dead Horse Mountain Road at one time improved, it is like any other development, it is going to improve its part, its section, and as this next 10 years or 12 years goes on, and other developments further north come in, the road will be improved as well with those developments. He understands Anthes' point about the road infrastructure. He still likes this development pattern more than other developments out there. Commissioner Anthes stated that it was a development pattern she is usually supportive of, but she keeps going back to zoning findings, and what a Planning Commissioner is charged to do. Jumping from R -A zoning next to the county, to a density we see in downtown neighborhoods, near the downtown square or the University is an issue. As staff presented, compatibility is key, and it is a question of whether the subject land is suitable for the land uses, compatible with the natural environment, and compatible with surrounding developments. As stated, staff cannot justify the requested development pattern based on an assumption of future land use. There are so many platted lots we do not see built. To make an assumption that density will be suitable in this area in the future is not something she is willing to predict. Planning Commission April 28, 2008 Page 17 of 17 Commissioner Trumbo asked if Commissioner Anthes was supportive of RSF-4 instead. Commissioner Anthes stated she was not; that RSF-4 is not the only residential zoning district for single family in this community. Unfortunately, for some reason, it seems to be our default zoning. It is the wrong assumption and development pattern in many cases. It does not take context into account. Zoning has to be contextual. We have made mistakes in the past of blanketing large areas with RSF-4. Not saying this has to be purely residential single-family, either. Commissioner Trumbo asked about the context of the golf course, and seniors, and having a denser community such as a senior center. Commissioner Anthes asked if it was not seniors that need access to broader amenities more than any others. There will be a time when those services exist. The golf course is a huge draw, but it is also there because the existing floodplain/floodway makes property in the vicinity difficult to develop. It is also why there are not enough east -west street connections in the area that can support higher density development in southeast Fayetteville. Our Master Street Plan is very clear that of all the places in town, southeast Fayetteville will be the most difficult to move people through because the number of bridges that will need to be built. We should be looking for a development pattern that respects slope, waterways, and the potential for connectivity. Commissioner Cabe asked about the new bridge and whether it will continue to flood. Commissioner Pate stated the new bridge will improve structural integrity, but won't stop the flooding. Commissioner Trumbo stated that there is a back way that will provide another means of access. Commissioner Cabe remarked that taking the back way out will significantly increase the 7 minutes the plan claims is required to reach the downtown area. Nock stated that there are strong opinions, that he would like to discuss with staff; some things we won't be able to overcome, but we can consider some of the suggestions. Please table the request. Motion: Commissioner Anthes made a motion to table the item indefinitely. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. Commissioner Winston stated that he would recommend looking at improvements to DHMR as a group, as was done with water and sewer improvements, and a community bus service for the seniors. All business being concluded, the meeting was adjourned at 8:25 PM.