Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-09-22 MinutesPlanning Commission September 22, 2008 Page I of 26 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on September 22, 2008 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219, City Administration Building in Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN MINUTES: September 8, 2008 Approved Page 3 PPL 08-3086: (CREEKSIDE, 360) Approved Page 3, 18 RPZD 06-2170: (VILLAS AT STONEBRIDGE, 645/646) Denied Page 4 CPZD 08-3062: (WESTSIDE STORAGE, 400) Tabled Page 11 CUP 08-3097: (VICTORY COMMONS, 560) Approved Page 12 LSD 08-3037: (VICTORY COMMONS, 560) Approved Page 12 CUP 08-3095: (RENAISSANCE TEMP. PARKING LOT, 523) Approved Page 19 RZN 08-3084: (CANDLELIGHT PLACE, 367) Forwarded Page 22 RZN 08-3085: (WASHINGTON CO. FARM BUREAU, 400) Forwarded Page 23 RPZD 08-3071: (BRIDGEDALE PLAZA, 569) Forwarded Page 24 ADM 08-3100: (UDC AMENDMENT CH. 112, CLEAN TECH. USE UNIT) Forwarded Page 26 A DVD copy ofeach Planning Commission meeting is available for viewing in the Fayetteville Planning Division. Planning Commission September 22, 2008 Page 2 of 26 MEMBERS PRESENT Jill Anthes Lois Bryant Matthew Cabe Jeremy Kennedy Andy Lack Christine Myres Porter Winston STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Andrew Garner Jesse Fulcher Dara Sanders Glenn Newman/Engineering CITY ATTORNEY: Kit Williams MEMBERS ABSENT James Graves Sean Trumbo 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, Trumbo and Myres. (Commissioner Myres arrived late). Planning Commission September 22, 2008 Page 3 of 26 Consent: Approval of the minutes from the September 8, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. PPL 08-3086: Preliminary Plat (CREEKSIDE, 360): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at the SE CORNER OF MT. COMFORT ROAD AND BRIDGEPORT DRIVE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 10.94 acres. The request is for a residential subdivision with 16 single family dwelling units. Motion: Commissioner Anthes 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. This item was reconsidered later in the meeting to allow members of the public to speak. Commissioner Myres arrived. Planning Commission September 22, 2008 Page 4 of 26 Unfinished Business: 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 350 dwelling units and 45,000 s.f. of non-residential space. Phase I development approval consists of 91 single family lots. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report, describing the project, including changes from the last review: 354 to 350 dwelling units, removal of commercial uses up front, etc. He discussed the findings in the taff report, concerns with density and incompatible land use patterns, tack of adequate infrastructure to serve this development, etc. Staff recommends denial, based on findings within the staff report. Should the Planning Commission recommend approval, conditions have been included. Commissioner Lack reminded the applicant that there are a few members missing tonight and it takes five votes to forward a PZD request. Todd Jacobs, applicant, described changes, including moving townhouses to interior of project, so single-family is adjacent to exterior, removing the mixed use area for the time being, making the park public. We looked at the Villas as a TND development vs. a conventional subdivision. This is an opportunity to provide a neighborhood that is designed, sustainable, and has a sense of place. We tried to create a neighborhood that is different, making great public places. Jacobs discussed bus service in the area, in the long tern future. After the last discussion, we looked at comments and tried to look at the best use on this property. He discussed sprawl and the lack of usable/developable area in this area. Is it appropriate to gobble up this land with conventional subdivisions? We don't think so. Services will follow rooftops. We are trying to set up a standard for other developers to follow, in using/developing another flat area out here. This is an 8 -year phased project, giving this area of town the opportunity to grow. With planning, this allows the services and infrastructure to grow with the development of the project. There are five phases over seven years. Jacobs discussed St. Paul Park and trailhead. A park wouldn't exist in a conventional neighborhood. We do have to do a higher density to make the TND work. We hope to have support and look forward to Planning Commission comments. No public comment was received. Commissioner Lack stated he would like to hear some dialogue from the applicant about why the commercial was removed. Jacobs stated that he looked at the phasing over 8 years, and didn't believe it was the most key element to support the project. We did try to include live -work component within the residential, to provide that opportunity. We will leave that area zoned R -A for now, and flush it out better at a later date. Planning Commission September 22, 2008 Page 5 of 26 Commissioner Lack stated that he thinks the services are part of what is shaky about the location of the project. To remove the commitment of providing the services may hurt the idea of the project. Commissioner Anthes asked if PA -7 (R -A zoning) was the area originally planned for commercial. If so, is that sufficient acreage for a commercial node? Jacobs stated he has looked at some conceptual design, and there is room for light office/retail. Commissioner Anthes asked if he is aware of staff's recommendation on condition #5, wherein staff recommends that the limited commercial uses be incorporated as previously reviewed if this goes forward. Jacobs stated that he believes that's a catch-22, where staff doesn't support it, but then does. He discussed the concern with number of rooftops and use being proposed. Commissioner Anthes disagreed, stating she doesn't feel staff is double -speaking, or saying two different things. Staff has made their determination and recommendation that is not in favor of this project at this time, but with the knowledge that Planning Commission and City Council may disagree. If these bodies do disagree, staff has provided recommended conditions of approval. Jacobs stated that if the Planning Commission feels it appropriate to put it back, that we will be more than happy to put it in, where we thought it was best to take it out at the time from our last meetings and meetings with the staff. Commissioner Winston read from the project booklet about services and amenities being provided along Dead Horse Mountain Rd. This must be a mis-print? He stated he did like commercial services in the first plan, reducing vehicle trips by providing small services, etc. Winston referred to the buildable area in this area of the city. Jacobs stated he had looked at buildable area south of Hwy 16, and discussed surrounding development and properties. Commissioner Winston stated that the first four goals of City Plan 2025 were not realty being addressed. This area's services seem rather limited, and this is kind of far out there. Jacobs stated that 6-8 dwelling units/acre would support bus service — they are not looking at providing this project with that service. Commissioner Anthes asked if the bridge improvements were funded. Pate stated that the project is currently under design, to the best of his knowledge. We don't know the construction schedule; initially was planned to begin at the end of this year/beginning of next year. Commissioner Anthes asked if staff would support RSF-4 at this location. Planning Commission September 22, 2008 Page 6 of 26 Pate stated that staff may or may not support RSF-4; development patterns and previous future land use plans certainly supported those types of policy decisions. That's not been tested too much under CityPlan 2025. The RSF-4 development pattern isn't necessarily consistent with those goals and identified policies within the current plan. Whether officials agree if it's a rational means of developing the city... the challenge here in looking at a standard RSF-4 zoning and a PZD, you still have the same rezoning findings, the same CityPlan 2025 goals and objectives. Without giving a recommendation, it could be difficult to support. South of this, the Falling Waters subdivision is probably more of a conventional subdivision approved through a PZD process. However, it did establish much tighter, stricter development standards, Tree Preservation requirements, hilltop/hillside requirements when there weren't any in existence. So, for instance, in this land with a traditional neighborhood development form, it's not really preserving any land on the property. Instead, it's anticipating everyone else outside the boundaries is going to do that for this project without trying to address it within the boundaries. That's a concern in these developments on the outskirts of the city. There are still a lot of property that could potentially be developed between here and the center of the city. Commissioner Anthes asked what infrastructure would need to be in place for staff to recommend approval. Pate stated that one of the primary goals of the Residential Neighborhood Area is to site new residential neighborhoods adjacent to infrastructure, roadways, alternative transportation and other business services that would support the density that is whatever is being proposed. Based on the density, we have a rational nexus approach — this many units, this much infrastructure — on a development -by -right project. I don't believe staff could recommend the improvements necessary at this point in time and still be within that rational nexus. It would be above and beyond what this project could legally be imposed upon to do. I think the bridge improvements are necessary. I think Goff Farm Rd. and Dead Horse Mountain Road are both substandard streets that need to be improved. There are questions about the intersection at Stonebridge and Hwy 16. Slowly, improvements do occur. One of the other goals with City Plan 2025 is to have concurrent infrastructure with development. That's the challenge here, because development is getting ahead of the infrastructure, which is unfortunately a typical scenario in fast-growing communities. The idea of impact fees would potentially help that, but obviously we don't have that in place now. So, it's a difficult question to answer specifically without looking at everything to get to this site. It's not adjacent to a major roadway network. It's three miles away from major infrastructure. Potentially, if improvements were made to Hwy 16 to get to Goff Farm Rd, or Stonebridge, that would certainly help. Commissioner Anthes stated that in one of staff's findings it reads that, "staff does not find that the developer should bear the burden of all these expenses," yet those expenses are necessary to make the project viable in staff's recommendation. That's why staff has ultimately recommended denial. I think that's a huge statement in the findings that says we want our findings and assessments to meet the rational nexus calculations, but to make them work for this plan, it's going to blow the project budget completely beyond what would be required if this development was happening in a progression development towards that area. What are the possibilities for east -west connections other than Hwy 16? Planning Commission September 22, 2008 Page 7 of 26 Pate stated that fortunately, our Master Street Plan really looked at that with a lot more detail than we ever have before when we passed that last year. It's not evident necessarily on the maps that we have in front of us, but just south of this project at Falling Waters we actually proposed a residential collector street sort of along the base of the hill far enough up in the floodplain so we wouldn't require major bridges to get east and west, but down far enough on the hill so it's not going over all the hills. That's an east -west connection. There are several more south stub -outs we could potentially tie into. That's one that appears now in our Master Street Plan that will certainly help if those properties are ever developed. The golf course being at its southern boundary here, it skirts around that. I think that will help in this area if Falling Waters is ever constructed and can make those connections. Commissioner Anthes asked how many houses were planned for the Falling Waters PZD at the time it was approved. Pate stated he believes it was 255. Commissioner Anthes asked how many rooftops were in the area. Pate stated he did not know. Commissioner Anthes was curious if this development would be doubling the amount of development in the area. Pate stated that at one point staff did an analysis on how many approved subdivisions that were either under construction or had development rights vested, and it was roughly 600 lots that had approval. This was in 2006 or 2007. We didn't count existing rooftops. Commissioner Anthes asked if when staff made the recommendation about how much this project would add on to the already insufficient infrastructure in the area, were they also taking into account the development rights vested in the area? If the market turned around and those came online right away, would that make this problem worse? Pate stated that we don't know which projects are going to happen for certain. We don't know what improvements may be accomplished. We don't know if any of the assessments required will be paid because we don't know if those projects are going to happen. So, bridge assessments really haven't come into consideration because in 2005, 2006 those projects stopped construction. The majority of improvements we've seen with subdivisions in this area have been along Goff Farm Road. Goff Farm Road is almost entirely improved along all of those areas, except for a few places. Commissioner Anthes discussed her concerns with the burden of the project on infrastructure, along with the concern that it could be blanket RSF-4 zoning. Commissioner Winston stated that if a developer were to put a commercial node nearer to here, at Dead Horse Mountain and Hwy 16, where the project would benefit from that, we probably wouldn't be discussing how the project is so isolated. We can't look at this project in terms of what's not there that nobody has proposed, but I think it would make a real difference, since we're Planning Commission September 22, 2008 Page 8 of 26 talking about how this project is so far away from services, and how there is a lack of services between Elkins and downtown Fayetteville. This would be my recommendation to the applicant that there are other opportunities out there. Commissioner Lack asked staff to confirm that there existed just such a commercial node already approved at this location, at the corner of Stonebridge and Hwy 16. Pate confirmed that this was correct. Commissioner Lack stated that there was a fairly substantial commercial development with rights approved at that corner currently. I will assume that the reason it's not there is because the numbers haven't gotten there to drive the investment of the commercial yet. Should commercial wait on the houses? One aspect of this project that is characteristically different than other places I would see this far from the center of the city is the golf course. There is a tremendous amount of development around the golf course already and also proposed. There's no way that I can see that the areas around the golf course won't develop fully and be a node of the City of Fayetteville. The street infrastructure is definitely something we have to respond to. The golf course definitely plays a role in that decision for me. I would support the commercial, even if it were just a zoning or the potential for lot sell-off at the entrance to the development at Dead Horse Mountain Rd., as opposed to just leaving it R -A. I am leaning toward the idea of appreciating the better environment of the mixed-use and mixed -density environment enough to be in favor of it. Commissioner Kennedy stated he tends to agree with Commissioner Lack regarding the golf course. This makes it more accessible to those who can't afford an estate lot. I don't think placing the commercial out there and waiting for houses to pop up will happen. I am in support. Commissioner Lack asked to go through the conditions. Are commissioners in favor of staff's recommendation? If we do send this forward, we need to ensure it is planned appropriately. Commissioner Anthes stated that she believes the necessary improvements are going to be costly. Commissioner Winston stated that it is a lot of money, but he believes the improvements will help this area and be beneficial to current residents in the area. Commissioner Anthes stated that she understands that staff makes their recommendation based on the rational nexus calculation of what the improvements of this project should bear. What is the percentage of the total required improvements this represents? If staff thinks there are improvements that would provide the correct amount infrastructure to be able to approve this project, what percentage represents what you're able to assess for the project? Commissioner Pate stated that it would be difficult to answer. One thing staff does is look at the access points for the project. These access points are separated by a great distance. The street in between is not improved, it is a chip -and -seal road. The increase in density and traffic will begin to deteriorate the road. We also ooked at the improvements there. Specifically, the off-site improvements like traffic signals mentioned would help. Planning Commission September 22, 2008 Page 9 of 26 Commissioner Lack asked about condition #2, PC determination of a waiver of minimum street design standards, including staff's recommendation, most of which supports the waiver. Anthes asked staff to clarify that recommendation, regarding the landscape spacing waiver. Pate stated it was simply to provide a standard we had established. It's not a make -or -break issue, but continuing the established standard is something we recommend; there does not seem to be any justification provided to vary from that standard. Lack asked about condition #3, zoning criteria. Myres stated she agreed with staff's recommendation on condition #3. Commissioner Lack asked Pate to comment on condition #3, regarding building area for lots. Pate stated that when staff looks at a PZD, one of the findings is to compare existing zoning with what's being proposed. What we will do is look at comparative zoning districts and try to establish a development pattern that is consistent and can be expected within the city and in these planning areas as well. Some of those range from 40-60%. We felt a lot of them were too high; the building area would encompass most of the lot, leaving that much less greenspace within the interior of the project. Granted, there is a golf course nearby but it is not owned by these property owners and may not even be accessed by these property owners. We're attempting to ensure that interior to the development plan there will be greenspace areas that will be active for the users. Commissioner Anthes stated she agreed with staffs recommendation on condition #4. Commissioner Lack discussed condition #5, regarding PA -6, commercial development. Commissioner Anthes stated she agreed with staffs recommendation. Motion: Commissioner Lack made a motion to forward the request to City Council with a recommendation of approval, in favor of conditions #1, 2 with the exception of B(i) in which I would support staff's recommendation in favor of denial of the waiver, modify condition #3 to modify the development density, finding against the waiver for the ADU's in condition #4, and finding in favor of staffs recommendation for the determination on condition #5, and all other conditions. Commissioner Kennedy seconded the motion. Commissioner Myres stated that she does not support the project. I agree with many of the things discussed about the proposed density being preferable to RSF-2 or RSF-1, but I still don't think the infrastructure can support this amount of development and have to agree with staff that it is not the right time. Upon roll call the motion to forward the item to the City Council with a recommendation of approval was denied by a vote of 3-4-0, with Commissioners Bryant, Anthes, Myres and Cabe Planning Commission September 22, 2008 Page 10 of 26 voting "no." Planning Commission September 22, 2008 Page 11 of 26 C-PZD 08-3062: (WESTSIDE STORAGE, 400): Submitted by STEVE CLARK for property located at 1192 N RUPPLE ROAD. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 5.05 acres. The request is to review a zoning and land use only application for an additional climate controlled storage building, a new entrance from Wedington Drive with new management buildings at that entrance. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, stated that the applicant has requested the item be tabled to the October 13, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. Motion: Commissioner Anthes made a motion to table the item to the October 13, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Myres seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission September 22, 2008 Page 12 of 26 CUP 08-3097: (VICTORY COMMONS, 560): Submitted by TRACY HOSKINS for property located SOUTH OF RAZORBACK ROAD, N OF THE ARKANSAS -MISSOURI SPUR. The request is for additional square footage of residential over the percentage allowed by the UDC. LSD 08-3037: (VICTORY COMMONS, 560): Submitted by BATES & ASSOCIATES for property located at RAZORBACK ROAD, 500 -FEET SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION WITH 6TH STREET. The property is zoned I-1, HEAVY COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUST and contains approximately 1.29 acres. The request is for a commercial development with 18 attached dwelling units and 9,319 s.f. of commercial space with associated parking. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report, discussing both proposals at the same time. The conditions are virtually the same as was discussed at Subdivision Committee. Staff is supportive of a Conditional Use Permit to add additional residential use to the project. Fulcher discussed conditions of approval as recommended by staff, including the requested landscape variance, the requested reduction of street trees, Commercial Design Standards, and curb-cut/access locations. The only condition added since Subdivision Committee was regarding the off-site detention pond, which is causing the removal of additional trees on the site. The Urban Forester is present to speak to this issue. Tracy Hoskins, Paradigm Development (applicant), stated that the project was located on the old Mitchell Oil Gas Company property. We do have a few items we would like to discuss further. 1) 2 ft. of right-of-way at north on the landscape variance; 2) the curb cut location and removal of north driveway with this development; and 3) relocation and redesign of detention pond. We would like to discuss the off-site detention pond, which is off-site on a piece of property we own. The pond is in an optimum place, between an old block building and railroad tracks in a remote part of the development. We feel it is appropriately located, and that the advantages of planning outweigh the trees we would lose. Regarding the two feet of adjustment on the greenspace at the north of the lot, we are 13 ft. away at north end of the lot, at the south end we are 18 feet. We don't mind redesigning the parking lot to accommodate that shift, if that's what the Planning Commission wants. We would want to leave the plan as is — we are providing more square feet of greenspace. As for planting and irrigation, we don't know that to be an accurate statement. Assuming we are using the right type of plants we need, the State has sent an email stating they are OK with it. Hoskins discussed the curb-cut/access original proposal, the planned proposal, and the AHTD response of denial. We have asked to remove a portion of the median (concrete nose) to create a full access to this project — we can't make any commitments on removing the driveway to the north, and we ask that to be struck from the conditions. We can look at it at a later phase. No public comment was received. Commissioner Myres stated that on the curb cut issue, if under condition #1, can we require removal of curb cut to the north? Pate stated yes, it is owned by this property owner. The same property owner is asking the City to consider approval of an off-site detention pond, removing trees off-site of the property, and a portion of the proposed driveway off-site of where the building is located. Staff would certainly reconsider our recommendation for option #1 (removing a portion of the median to create a full -access turning Planning Commission September 22, 2008 Page 13 of 26 movement) if the north curb cut remains full -access. The highway department, when they constructed this median, left one full -access curb cut open. They constructed a second curb cut to the south, however it's right-in/right-out only because of the existing median. We don't believe that was by chance. In discussing this issue with our city engineer, Mr. Petrie, this afternoon, it is clear from earlier meetings with the applicant that our recommendation is that we cannot support a full - access curb cut that close to another full -access curb cut, removing the median in concert with that proposal. You see in the conditions two different options presented by staff, but we've tried to accommodate several different options. Option 1 includes a south right-in/right-out, full -access curb cut, removing a portion of the concrete median, and closure of the very north curb cut almost across from Indian Trail. The reason the applicant is requesting a second option to be approved is that we have received a letter that the highway department may not be supportive of this plan as proposed. The letter states that they are not supportive of removing any trees or any median whatsoever at this point in time. Granted, the design drawings have not been presented, it is simply a concept, and staff is willing to work with the applicant to talk to the highway department about this option, as we support it. However, if that option does not occur, we have presented a second option that will allow three curb cut access points to the overall property, maintaining a full access point adjacent to the building to the north, and two right-in/right-out curb cut accesses to this property. We don't typically have a response from AHTD this soon in the process, so if we recommend something and AHTD says no, we will have to bring something back before the Subdivision Committee to reconsider it. We're trying not to have that delay for this project, so we have multiple options for you to consider. Commissioner Myres stated she was in agreement with staff that a change needs to be made to access. She supports staff's recommendation of option 2 in order for this to work. Pate clarified that staff's recommendation is either one, not recommending choosing between one or the other. Hoskins stated he agrees with staff on the curb cut access, just not the proposal to remove the curb cut to the north. He discussed the history of Razorback Rd. improvements. Trying to plan a driveway access two properties away seems like a reach. Our opposition is that we don't have full plans developed for the entire site. Commissioner Myres stated she supports staff's decision. Commissioner Winston asked about Indian Trail. Pate discussed curb cuts to the north at the gas station being very close. Commissioner Lack stated that on the 2 ft. strip of land associated with the landscape waiver he would support staff. It is appropriate that plantings be on land you own. The fact that AHTD purchased more land than they need does not preclude them from using it in the future. I also agree with staff on the curb cuts. A lot of what goes in to this decision is far beyond the distance between curb cuts, but also proximity to a very busy intersection, Indian Trail, and the railroad tracks. I hope that option # 1 works, it seems to be a winning option for the developer. On # 12, the detention pond, I would like staff to clarify the specific trees we are talking about from a preservation standpoint. Planning Commission September 22, 2008 Page 14 of 26 Pate gave a brief history of the site's issues. In general, a detention pond was not located where it is now, it was to the south. The applicants have designed a site with a runoff coefficient that they have stated would accommodate full build -out on this property, located in the far west corner where the railroad used to be and where it is, between the block building and the corner. The only problem with that from a development standpoint is that is the only location where there are also trees. It would cause removal of several trees. This proposal came before staff at Subdivision Committee for the first time, and there has not been the typical time to review it. Greg Howe, Urban Forester, stated that the Commission should be aware that there is the actual project where the structure will be built, and then there is an off-site detention pond. For the on-site building location, we've had a plan in and a site analysis, a site report, and a tree preservation plan turned in. For the off-site detention pond, we've not received any of those things, which are required by Code. I've not had anything to review for this project on the off-site part of it. Regarding the photos submitted by the applicant showing the condition of the trees, there are 34 trees that I've counted that will be taken out by this detention pond. The trees you have in front of you are 3 or 4 trees within that group and they are the worst looking ones. There are several other trees within that group of 34 that are in much better condition than the ones you see. So, we're not just talking about some poor -looking trees that will come out. So, my concern is that staff has not had a chance to fully review the off-site detention pond plan since a plan has never been formally presented. Howe directed the Planning Commissions' attention to the tree preservation plan, sheet L101, showing two large groupings of trees in the top left hand corner that are X'd out where the pond is going. None of those groups are listed in the table on the tree preservation plan. Some of the significant trees are, but not all of the canopy within it. We just received this prior to this meeting, earlier this week, with all the other large scale development information. So there hasn't been due diligence done on this. The site analysis from the original tech plat has not been updated and sent to myself in regards to this change, nor has the site analysis report. Commissioner Lack stated he's seeing a number of 2"/5-8" elms enumerated in the plans here — has that changed? Howe stated that they are new since Subdivision Committee. One of the other things that has happened on-site where the building structures are proposed, is that a tree came down during a recent storm, and we asked for a new calculation for the canopy number, and we have not received that. Commissioner Lack asked if there was a Subdivision Committee report. Commissioner Cabe gave a Subdivision Committee report on the detention pond and tree removal. In general, we agreed with staff's recommendation, and asked staff and developer to sort through these issues. A lot of this is new information tonight. We were not aware that drawings have not been submitted. I agree with staff's recommendation to relocate the pond in order to preserve the trees. Pate stated that the information about the trees had not been provided at the Subdivision Committee meeting; we were not aware there were trees in that area, we simply asked for that information. The Planning Commission September 22, 2008 Page 15 of 26 Subdivision Committee directed staff and the applicant, asked if we had enough time to work that out before we got here, so now we are discussing details that would normally be worked out by Subdivision Committee. Commissioner Lack stated that at this point, I would have to support staff on that. I'm looking at trees listed in the table, and have some pause with placing a high priority on some of these trees such as the hackberry and cherry, but certainly respect staff's recommendation on that. Hoskins stated that on September 17th, a report was given back to the City of Fayetteville, new calculations were including the tree that had been damaged by the storm. It did not change our mitigation on the Victory Commons site whatsoever because it was a tree that had already been planned to be removed, so it did not change the calculations. Subdivision Committee was on Thursday of last week. There were a few things that needed to be worked out, including detention, by Monday morning of the following week. Engineering was still working on detention pond issues. As far as the recalculation of trees, etc, this is an off-site situation. We will mitigate for whatever is required. On page L101, which was the re -submittal on Monday, the submittal was drawn from Mr. Howe's meeting with our landscape architect, Alan Ostner. This plan is the result of their meeting. There are not 30 trees out there, and the pictures that were sent to you are a cross section of everything that is out there, including the one with 13 trunks. On this new submittal, originally the tree numbers went up to 1161. 1162 and beyond reflect the trees up in the north corner, where the off-site detention pond is to be located. There are 12 trees; we are saving 2 of the 12. Of the 10 that are to be removed, 5 are in poor health, they are hackberry/elm, etc, low -priority, and the other five are hackberry trees in fair health, mid-level priority. If the Urban Forester feels that we need to mitigate for what we're taking out, we are happy to do so. But as far as a revised plan, it has been submitted. Commissioner Lack stated a concern with the priority level of the trees and the importance of maintaining trees vs. mitigating for them. There is a provision in the ordinance that allows for mitigation, regarding the nature, species and priority of the trees; is it appropriate to require the canopy be maintained or is mitigation more appropriate? Howe stated that it seems like a slippery slope. If we start looking at every tree on every site, to this conditions — I've not necessarily agreed with all of the health conditions. The Code is set up to preserve trees, it is not a tree mitigation code. It would be difficult to support them to be completely removed. He discussed the health of trees. I think we're walking a tight rope in what we're calling preservation and mitigation. Howe discussed mitigation survival rate for other projects —it does not appear to be working, with a 31% survival rate. There are 12 significant trees on this site, but 34 that make up this canopy. They would be taking these trees out and only leave about 6 on the entire proposal. Part of the reason to recommend they stay now is because there appears to be no reason to take them out. A future development might ease that, but haven't had the time or information to support that at this point. Commissioner Lack stated that he has some difficulty with the idea of going against that recommendation from an ideological standpoint, but I would personally find some favor in the idea of being able to mitigate at least some of these trees. There is a grouping in the lower right-hand corner, it might be that there could be some reforming of the pond that could do better and save Planning Commission September 22, 2008 Page 16 of 26 some of these trees. There might be some middle ground on that, but I wouldn't feel comfortable sending this forward to the City Council with the potential for them to be doing Subdivision Committee work. I would either want to concur with staff and say move the pond, or maybe table the issue to work out that issue. Commissioner Winston asked how the Urban Forester would proceed were he given more time. Howe stated he would look closer at the condition and health of the individual trees. I believe the mitigation shown doesn't reflect all of the trees to be removed here. He discussed mid/low level priorities and classification. Realistically, we don't have a canopy calculation to review for this parcel. I would like to see those calculations, and take a closer look at the health of these trees. Commissioner Winston asked if it is possible to send the project back to Subdivision Committee after we have worked out these issues. Pate stated that it could, but it would have to ultimately come back to the Planning Commission for approval. Hoskins stated he could save trees in the southeast corner by reconfiguring the detention pond. With off-site tree removal like this, the UDC provides that the Urban Forester can make any call he feels is appropriate. We've offered to mitigate. We've not done the calculation because we have to wait for the Urban Forester's decision before we can figure out how many trees we have to mitigate for. We believe we can save the trees at the southeast corner, the trees in the middle are gone no matter what. Please don't table or refer the project back to Subdivision Committee. We would prefer to be denied. Commissioner Lack stated that he wanted to clarify that he would not want to deny, but would lean toward going with staff with the information presented now. Commissioner Kennedy asked if the recommendation is to move pond altogether, or modify it? Howe stated that his recommendation would be to move the pond and make it temporary, because we know there's other development to come to this site. My concern is with saving the trees on the edge of the pond now, or on the more interior part of the development. I see this as being unlikely in the future development to be the trees that would be saved. It's more likely that the trees up in the corner would have a higher percentage chance of being saved with future development of the site. If we save those trees now in the corner, redesign the pond, go through that process, and then a year or two years from now we come in with a hotel that might be going in to that site, and take them out anyway for parking spaces or something else. That's what I was trying to say before about the fact that you're trying to do some future forecasting, and trying to look at something you don't have everything to be able to look at what's going to happen to that site. Motion: Commissioner Myres made a motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit with conditions as Planning Commission September 22, 2008 Page 17 of 26 listed in the staff report. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 6-0-1, with Commissioner Anthes recusing. Motion: Commissioner Myres made a motion to approve the Large Scale Development in favor of conditions #1, 2, 3, 4, 12, and all other conditions as recommended by staff. Commissioner Winston seconded the motion. Kit Williams, City Attorney, stated that regarding condition #12, there needs to be something that staff can do — maybe you should leave the approval of the new location on approval of the engineering and planning staff. Pate stated that he can add that to the conditions. Commissioner Lack asked for clarification on condition #1 — whether it is a reduction to zero feet as the applicant has proposed, or two feet as staff has proposed. Commissioner Myres clarified it was as staff proposed. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 6-0-1, with Commissioner Anthes recusing. Planning Commission September 22, 2008 Page 18 of 26 PPL 08-3086: Preliminary Plat (CREEKSIDE, 360): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at the SE CORNER OF MT. COMFORT ROAD AND BRIDGEPORT DRIVE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 10.94 acres. The request is for a residential subdivision with 16 single family dwelling units. Commissioner Lack discussed a request to reconsider Creekside PPL, as members of the public missed this item earlier when it was on the consent agenda. The Commissioners discussed the procedures of reconsideration, particularly without the applicant being present. Motion: Commissioner Anthes made a motion to reconsider PPL 08-3038, Preliminary Plat for Creekside. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report. He discussed the previously proposed PZD history, and the current proposal for 16 lots. Staff recommends approval because the proposal meets all UDC requirements, with one variance for greenspace to match the street improvements along Bridgeport, which was constructed in 1994. Paul Johnson, citizen, president of Bridgeport POA. Johnson thanked H2 Engineers and the developers for working with us. We do have concerns with Lot 1 being part of the floodplain — and we could be concerned with Lot 2. Our other concern is whether the buildings are going to be energy efficient. Homes that back out into Mt. Comfort is a concern, as it gets quite fast at 30 MPH. It looks like some of the curb cuts are across from other streets. The potential for accidents is quite great with people backing out. Another concern is about a desire to make this fit in with surrounding community in home size, look of area, property values. Also the location of construction road is of interest, as Bridgeport was improved last year. Commissioner Anthes asked staff questions regarding the floodway on Lot 1, vehicular access to Mt. Comfort Road, and if by right, the proposal meets the UDC. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, answered the questions: 6000 square feet is required outside the flood hazard area, and is provided; access is via a private, shared drive, instead of backing out onto Mt. Comfort; the project is by right, and meets code. Motion: Commissioner Anthes 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 September 22, 2008 Page 19 of 26 CUP 08-3095: (RENAISSANCE TEMPORARY PARKING LOT, 523): Submitted by APPIAN CENTER FOR DESIGN for property located on the NW CORNER OF COLLEGE AVENUE AND MOUNTAIN STREET. The request is for a temporary parking lot with 46 spaces on the subject property. Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, gave the staff report, describing the project proposal, conditions and findings. Finding the proposed parking lot compatible with surrounding commercial uses, staff recommends approval with the conditions of approval as listed in the staff report. Austin Rowser, applicant, stated he would like to have something to take the place of the pit in the ground, with a parking lot. We have submitted a concept plan with 60 spaces to you tonight, and would like to request a maximum of 67 spaces, if we can fit these in. I would like clarification on the bond for the street trees. We are trying to make the place look a little better on a temporary basis until the hotel project gets started again. Dede Peters, citizen, stated she is the SW neighbor to the project with her business. A parking lot is better than the existing hole in the ground. She discussed a number of problems on the site including items such as a fence leaning into the street, damage to the street from the crane, etc. A surface parking lot does not create character, but it is better than a deteriorating construction site. I would like the lot to be free; would like to see a maintenance plan, more improvements to Mountain, one- way sign replaced, clearly marked entry/exit, and am concerned with setbacks along Mountain Street and College Avenue for safety. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, stated he wanted to clarify that on condition #1, it is a Planning Commission variance, not a waiver, and as part of the Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission is asked to consider the variance requests by the applicant. Kit Williams, City Attorney, stated he does not see a way to vary the bicycle racks. Neither City Council nor Planning Commission can waive the UDC. Commissioner Myres stated she would like to see some recognizable barrier between the parking lot and Center Street to the north. Commissioner Lack asked if the lot is to be free. Steve Aust, applicant, stated that the lot is unlikely to be free; we will need to improve the lot and recoup costs. Commissioner Lack asked about improving the off-site street/crater? Williams stated it was a minor impact as proposed for a parking lot. I don't think we could require substantial improvement. If someone's piece of equipment damaged the street, we could potentially repair the damage then require them to reimburse the City if we can determine who did the damage. It is also incumbent upon the City to ensure street signs are in good repair. Commissioner Anthes asked about the alley and if it can be re -opened. Planning Commission September 22, 2008 Page 20 of 26 Rowser stated he would like to use that as our access, as opposed to Mountain Street. The alley is 10 feet wide and would be a challenge. Aust stated that the intent is to open the alley back up. We will have to look at safety and access, to bring it back to a usable form. Commissioner Anthes asked if there was any idea of the percentage of lot allocated to paid/reserved parking. Aust stated there was not yet. There will be some combination; more pay by the day than reserved. Commissioner Anthes asked if there is any fencing, or is landscaping the buffer? Aust stated that the landscaping will be the buffer. We will be removing the fence as required. Commissioner Anthes asked about a survey. Aust and Anthes discussed the survey. Commissioner Anthes asked if Engineering would be okay with the number of spaces and access to be determined? Glenn Newman, City Engineer, stated that Engineering would be okay. We do have some concern with the 10 foot width of the alley, but we can work out those details during construction review. Commissioner Anthes asked about condition #2; and asked about establishing a time frame for installing the permanent improvements if the hotel project does happen. Pate stated he would be okay with adding a specific timeframe to the condition. Aust and Anthes discussed time frame and 4 months was agreed upon by the applicant. Motion: Commissioner Anthes made a motion to amend condition #2 to have improvements completed within 4 months of expiration. Commissioner Myres seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. Commissioner Anthes asked if the parallel parking on the north side of Mountain is coming back. Pate stated that that is the intent, to follow the old curb line. Garner stated he would like to amend condition #3 to add that the interior trees be guaranteed, as well. Planning Commission September 22, 2008 Page 21 of 26 Motion: Commissioner Cabe made a motion to amend condition #3 as suggested. Commissioner Myres seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. Commissioner Cabe stated that it doesn't seem prudent to approve the request with outstanding issues. Pate discussed the conditional use permit process and that the decision is for the use and we don't always see detailed site plans with conditional use permits. We will have to work out these details presented as conceptual right now, when the project comes through for construction plan review. Motion: Commissioner Cabe made a motion to approve the request with conditions as amended and in approval of the variances as recommended by staff. Commissioner Winston seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion was approved with a vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission September 22, 2008 Page 22 of 26 RZN 08-3084: (CANDLELIGHT PLACE, 367): Submitted by PAT MCGOWAN for property located at the SE CORNER OF GREGG AVENUE AND ASH STREET. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.94 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RMF -24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY, 24 UNITS PER ACRE. Dara Sanders, Current Planner, gave the staff report, based on the findings and City Plan 2025, and with the findings presented in the staff report, staff recommends forwarding the request to City Council with a recommendation of approval. Pat McGowan, applicant, stated he owns Candlelight Apartments, a 56 -unit project, and would like to add a 24 -unit project. This will be a one -bedroom project. We won't access Gregg or have any more curb cuts, and understand we will have to meet tree preservation, grading, all that. No public comment was received. Motion: Commissioner Anthes made a motion to forward the request to City Council with a recommendation of approval. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion was passed with a vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission September 22, 2008 Page 23 of 26 RZN 08-3085: (WASHINGTON COUNTY FARM BUREAU, 400): Submitted by VINCE MASSENELLI, MGR. WASHINGTON COUNTY FARM BUREAU for property located at 1165 N. MEADOWLANDS DRIVE. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 2.53 acres. The request is to rezone a portion of the subject property to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Dara Sanders, Current Planner, gave the staff report. Applicant would like a larger style sign for the development, but limited to a monument sign. Applicant has submitted a Bill of Assurance limiting uses on the property if it were to be rezoned to C-1; uses restricted include gasoline service stations, drive-through restaurants, liquor stores, and outdoor music establishments in the C-1 district. Based on findings in the staff report, recommending forwarding to City Council with a recommendation of approval. Vince Massanelli, applicant, stated he has nothing more to add. No public comment was received. Motion: Commissioner Winston made a motion to forward the request to City Council with a recommendation for approval. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Commissioner Anthes discussed spot zoning, surrounding land uses. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission September 22, 2008 Page 24 of 26 R-PZD 08-3071: (BRIDGEDALE PLAZA, 569): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOC for property located at THE SE CORNER OF HUNTSVILLE ROAD AND RIVERMEADOWS DRIVE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE AND R -A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 15.95 acres. The request is to review a zoning and land use only application for 129 residential units and 40,500 sq. ft. of non- residential space. Dara Sanders, Current Planner, gave the staff report, describing the history of the previous PZD denied in March of this year, with the industrial uses of mini -storage. This proposal is for approximately 8 dwelling units/acre, with a mixture of uses; single-family, office, commercial, multi -family. She discussed the 4 planning areas in detail of their use and land use development pattern. Based on findings within the staff report, and in compliance with the City Plan 2025 and PZD ordinance, staff recommends forwarding the item to City Council with a recommendation of approval, with conditions as listed in the staff report. Dave Jorgensen, applicant, stated that he added single-family units and some multi -family in place of the storage units. Michele Bailey, citizen, asked how tall the apartments will be: 2-3 stories? She asked about drainage, the street cut onto River Meadows, and the increase of traffic. Glenda Patterson, citizen, stated she is also opposed to this. It is a commercial venture being disguised as residential. It will have an impact on traffic, the bridge over West Fork of White River. This concept is not for this area. Dick Hubbey, citizen, stated he is dismayed by the addition of apartments in an area that is entirely single-family dwellings. Apartments are usually indicative of a transient population. There are no multi -family dwellings along the Hwy 16 corridor east of Hwy 265, so to establish this kind of enclave in an area that is entirely single-family is very detrimental to the property owners in the area. No additional public comment was received. Commissioner Winston stated that when this project came before us a year ago, this project addressed drainage. I wondered what happened to all the low -impact areas. Jorgensen stated he proposes to solve the drainage issues as we did before; that's still in this project. Commissioner Lack asked about building height. Pate stated it was 45 feet, as in the single-family districts. Commissioner Lack asked about the distance from Hwy 16 to the curb cut. Pate stated that it was 400 feet. Commissioner Cabe asked about drainage details. Planning Commission September 22, 2008 Page 25 of 26 Jorgensen stated that he found they can drain that site. We'll have to get 12 feet deep in some points to do so. Improving the drainage is a high priority for us on this project. This will be a standard two-story building. The height would be to peak of the roof on the building. We have set buildings close to the street, to have more of a townhouse feel/look. Commissioner Lack asked about the density of the project. Pate stated that multi -family is concentrated in the middle, in a smaller area. Jorgensen stated that there are a lot more single-family, a small amount of multi -family, and office/commercial, trying to provide a mixture of uses, enhanced connectivity. Commissioner Winston asked about drainage to the west. Jorgensen discussed drainage to the west. Pate stated he would like to add the drainage condition back in that City Council agreed to last time. He discussed low -impact design measures, which staff can't depend on that for everything without detailed design. Motion• Commissioner Myres made a motion to forward the request to City Council with a recommendation of approval. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 5-2-0, with Commissioners Bryant and Anthes voting no. Planning Commission September 22, 2008 Page 26 of 26 ADM 08-3100: (UDC AMENDMENT CH. 112, CLEAN TECH. USE UNIT): Submitted by Planning Staff. An ordinance to amend Chapter 162: Use Units and Chapter 163: Use Conditions of the Unified Development Code in order to create a Clean Technology Use Unit. The Clean Technology Use Unit will be allowed as a use by right or as a conditional use in industrial and commercial zoning districts. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, gave the staff report, describing the purpose of the clean tech use unit, which would be allowed in industrial districts by right, and various commercial and mixed-use districts by conditional use permit. No public comment was received. Commissioner Lack stated it was a very well-received addition to the UDC. A lot of companies will have the willingness and opportunity to move here because of this ordinance. I do have some concerns: 1) ability to quantify huge volumes of truck traffic, 2) odors, dust, smoke, noise. I am concerned about the things that are not quantifiable. I am also concerned about public interaction nature of our buildings in downtown, especially. These uses are typically more closed in, with labs, etc than retail. I don't want to create possibility of a faceless storefront. Pate discussed that the Commission is often called upon to do just what Commissioner Lack mentioned, to make decisions on items that are quantifiable. As we have discussed previously, the Conditional Use Permit process looks at compatibility and appropriateness of use, which can not be easily quantified. Staff would require information to be submitted by the applicant to understand the amount and impact of truck traffic, noise, etc. and make an educated and informed recommendation to the Commission to decide. It would not be one person, but 9 persons that decide this issue. Commissioner Cabe stated he had some of the same concerns, but took comfort in the fact that there area lot of us up here, not just one person making the decision. I feel confident we as a group can make those decisions. Motion: Commissioner Cabe made a motion to forward the request to the City Council with a recommendation of approval. Commissioner Anthes seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. All business being concluded, the meeting was adjourned at 9:59 PM.