Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-11-28 Minutes (2)MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, November 28, 2005, 5:30 p.m. A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, November 28, 2005 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219, City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN Downtown Zoning Code Adoption — Planning Agenda Session Only Commission Workshop Approval of Minutes from October 10, 2005 Meeting Approved CONSENT AGENDA LSD 05-1765: Large Scale Development (UNIVERSITY Approved SQUARE RETAIL, 558): p.3 LSD 05-1800: Large Scale Development (DRAKE HILL, Approved 561): p.3 ADM 05-1840: Administrative Item (BEACON FLATS Approved PZD) p.3 OLD BUSINESS PPL 05-1733: Preliminary Plat (WEST HAVEN S/D, Approved 280): p.5 LSD 05-1462: Large Scale Development (RIDGEHILL Approved APARTMENTS, 405): p.13 MDP C-PZD 05-1704: (FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH, Forwarded 484): p.21 NEW BUSINESS ANX 05-1812: (MCDONALD/BRIDGEDALE II, 569): Tabled p.33 RZN 05-1813: (MCDONALD/BRIDGDALE II, 569): Tabled p.33 Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 2 R-PZD 05-1796: Planned Zoning District (PARK WEST, Tabled (at request of 208): p.35 applicant) PPL 05-1810: Preliminary Plat (HAMM PROPERTY NO MINUTES S/D-HORSEBEND ESTATES, 220-221): PPL 05-1740: Preliminary Plat (ROCKHAVEN, 245): NO MINUTES ANX 05-1811: (SUMMER RESOURCES, 571): p.36 Forwarded R-PZD 05-1798: Planned Zoning District (DEPALMA Forwarded ADDITION, 487): p.37 R-PZD 05-1797: Planned Zoning District (THE BUNGALOWS AT CATO SPRINGS, 600): p.43 C-PZD 05-1734: Planned Zoning District (PARADISE POINT, 177): p.55 ADM 05-1893: Administrative Item (BY-LAW AMENDMENT): p.59 MEMBERS PRESENT Jill Anthes Candy Clark Audy Lack Christine Myres Sean Trumbo Allan Ostner James Graves STAFF PRESENT Suzanne Morgan Jeremy Pate CITY ATTORNEY Kit Williams Forwarded Forwarded No Formal Action MEMBERS ABSENT Hillary Harris Lois Bryant STAFF ABSENT Andrew Garner Jesse Fulcher Matt Casey/Engineering Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 3 Ostner: Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the November 28th Meeting of your Fayetteville Planning Commission. If we could we have the roll call, please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call, Anthes, Allen, Myres, Graves, Lack, Clark, Vaught, Trumbo and Ostner are present. Ostner: Thank you. On our Consent Agenda, there are three items tonight. I will read those items: Item Number 1: LSD 05-1765, Large Scale Development for UNIVERSITY SQUARE RETAIL. Item Number 2: Large Scale Development: 05-1800 for DRAKE HILL. Item Number 3 Administrative Item 05-1840 for BEACON FLATS PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT. If anyone in the audience or any Planning Commissioner's would like an Item removed from the Consent Agenda, please speak now. Otherwise, I would entertain a Motion to ... Pate: Mr. Chair? Ostner: Yes, Mr. Pate? Pate: There are also the Minutes of the October 10, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting. Ostner: Yes. We could include those in the Consent Agenda. Yes, Commissioner Allen? MOTION: Allen: I move for Approval of the Consent Agenda and the Minutes of the last Meeting, October 10th Meeting. Ostner: Thank you. I have a Motion to Approve the Consent Agenda and the Minutes from the October 10th meeting. Is there a Second? Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 4 Clark: I'll Second. Ostner: Will you call the roll, please? Anthes: Mr. Chair? Ostner: Yes, Commissioner Anthes? Anthes: For the Record, I entered some comments to the Minutes with Mr. Pate earlier. Ostner: Okay. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call, Allen, Graves, Myres, Anthes, Clark, Vaught, and Ostner respond with yes. Lack and Trumbo respond with Recuse. Davis: Motion carries. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 5 Ostner: Okay, thank you. The first Item Preliminary Plat 05-1733 for WEST HAVEN SUBDIVISION. If we could have the Staff Report, please? Pate: Mr. Chair, if I may before I begin, for the public's knowledge, there are three Items that will be requested to be Tabled tonight and it is doubtful there will be discussion. Item Number 7, ANNEXATION 05-1812: for MCDONALD/BRIDGEDALE II, Item Number 8, REZONING 05- 1813: for MCDONALD/BRIDGDALE II and Item Number 9, R-PZD 05-1796 for Planned Zoning District for PARK WEST. All three of those Items are requested to be Tabled. I know that Staff did receive some phone calls about the Park West Planned Zoning District. I believe they're actually on the Agenda at seven o'clock for a Ward 4 Meeting up in Room 326. So, if you'd like to listen in there, that's when the most public comment will be taken. But, we will not be making a formal presentation of those items tonight. Ostner: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Pate. Pate: With regard to West Haven Preliminary Plats, as you may remember, back several weeks ago, the Planning Commission decided to Approve West Haven Preliminary Plat as a subdivision in the City of Fayetteville's Planning area. It contains approximately fifty acres, with forty-five single-family lots proposed. An Alderman from the City Council, at the request of the adjoining neighbors in Double Tree Estates did a fuel disapproval to the City Council. The City Council, on November 15 listened to a presenter from that neighborhood with a Power Point show and I believe they're making their presentation again tonight at the request of that neighborhood. It is a short presentation and I would hope that the Planning Commission would hear them. At issue, primarily, I don't believe there are any other issues except for access to Double Tree Estates. That's the lone criteria, I believe, that's left to discuss. There are three Exhibits in your packet. Exhibit A represents the originally Approved Plat. This contains two entrances or exits, ingress and egress points off of Double Tree Estates. Exhibit B represents an alternative that shifts in North Stacy Lane stub -out to the west in an effort to reduce cut -through traffic while retaining both south connections to Stacy Lane. And Exhibit C, which was by the far the favorite of the City Council Meeting, represented an alternative that breaks Stacy Lane, thereby decreasing cut - through traffic and adding a culdesac instead of the second connection to Stacy Lane. This option does reduce the need for any waivers or waffling within the culdesac. The City Council, on the advice of Mr. Williams, did return this Item back to the Planning Commission as a Development Item. Also, the Exhibit that was presented by the neighborhood was hand - drawn, so the engineer and applicant have not had the opportunity to insure that the criteria could be met with that Proposal. They have since Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 6 made those adjustments and have presented before you those three alternatives for your decision. As I mentioned, I believe the neighborhood does have a Proposal before you. And they've promised there would be one presentation tonight with a Power Point show. With that, Staff is recommending Approval of this Preliminary Plat. And there are three options, of course, to choose from with regard to connectivity to the south in the existing Double Tree Estates. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Pate. Is the Applicant present? If you would, please introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Jorgensen: Good evening. I'm Blake Jorgensen with Jorgensen Associates. As Jeremy has pointed out, we have three options, the original and two alternatives that we feel should address the safety issues that were drawn up for concern. Any questions that you have, we'd be happy to answer. Thank you. Ostner: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Jorgensen. At this point I will open it up for Public Comment if anyone would like to speak. I understand we have a presentation and ... Hafley: Ladies and gentlemen of the Planning Commission, thanks for giving the opportunity to speak. My name is Ray Hafley. My wife, Irene and I live at 2650 North Stacy Lane in Double Tree Estates. I come before you tonight as a representative for the majority of those homeowners in Double Tree Estates, and if I could have a show of hands of those that are present here? And, I will be the sole presenter of our Public Comments. Again, let me begin by extending my sincere appreciation for the opportunity to stand before you tonight. I'll be brief and concise in my comments. Since it's been awhile before we stood here, I'd like to recap our thoughts at this time. First of all, we're not opposed to West Haven Development but we're here to participate in making the connection of the two developments a win-win situation. Simply stated, our concern is based on the safety hazards that will incur with the increased traffic flow. Double Tree Estates has a high pedestrian volume where streets are used as walkways, since there are no pedestrian alternatives such as sidewalks. To add to the dangerous situation, there are no streetlights in Double Tree and much of our traffic includes walkers and joggers at night and in the early mornings. With these facts as a backdrop, let me identify other safety factors that need to be considered. Adding Timber View and opening Stacy Lane would greatly increase traffic flow into the neighborhood. Entry of the newly proposed Timber View onto Stacy Lane is a dangerous location near the point of the highest child and pedestrian traffic. Since this intersection was never designed as a stub -out in our Plat, this entry drops in the middle of existing homes right across Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 7 the street from a driveway. Under the approved Preliminary Plats, Stacy Lane is too straight and too long, which will encourage excess speed. The width of Double Tree Drive, which is the entrance into Double Tree, is twenty feet, four inches without curbs. This is not wide enough to accommodate two vehicles and a pedestrian. In this case, pedestrians will have to drop into the five-foot ditches to remain safe. These facts alone create a dangerous situation. If it's okay, and I do appreciate the opportunity, just to refer to the overheads? Ostner: Sure, go ahead. Hafley: May I hand these out, please? Ostner: Sure. Just bring them to me and I'll pass them out. Hafley: And, I can see the pictures aren't large. But, just to give you a verbal on it, the ... Wheeler runs on the east side on both of the additions. Stacy Lane is the main highway that runs up ... or the main road that runs up the middle of the second drawing. Timber View, which I will be referring to, is the street in the Preliminary Plat that was approved that ties into Stacy Lane. The entrance into West Haven is West Haven Drive, which is the horizontal in the middle picture. The second chart shows the Preliminary Plat that was approved on 10-24 by your Commission. I would point out that Stacy Lane was stubbed out as a future connection to the north, but the Timber View entrance, again, is new to the Double Tree Development. The intersection of Timber View and Stacy Lane, as I referred to earlier, is a dangerous intersection dropping traffic into heavily used pedestrian areas. You'll recall that this is one of our major concerns. Stacy Lane is curbed street, thirty-one feet wide with no sidewalks. The traffic entering Stacy from Timber View will go to Double Tree Drive where the insufficient with the twenty -feet, as I described earlier, forcing pedestrians into the ditch. Under this Preliminary Plat, the three street, as it was designed, is sixteen hundred and fifty long, which it's our understanding, exceeds current Fayetteville Unified Development Code for the length of a block. We believe, and again it's our understanding, the Code states a block -length ought to be from four hundred to fourteen hundred feet in residential areas. You can also see that Stacy is a long street right in the middle. It's a straight design that will encourage speed and create a dangerous situation for pedestrian traffic as they enter the Double Tree Estates. One thing that was approved with this Preliminary Plat was that West Haven Drive was designated the construction entrance, keeping construction vehicles out of Double Tree Estates. We certainly appreciated that decision. As mentioned earlier, we desire a win-win scenario for both additions, where we reduce dangerous traffic conditions and offer suggestions that meet Code Requirements. I think it was Exhibit Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 8 C that was referred to as the suggested Plat that we submitted. And, I'd like to talk a little bit about that right now. As part of the public record, when this was presented at the City Council, Hugh Earnest, the developer commented that in their opinion, this is a very workable solution and that they agreed with the recommendation. You'll see in this Proposal, that we're suggesting that Timber View is represented here as a culdesac, as it was in the original Plat, proposed in July and restored to the original Approved Plat of 1998. This option takes away the dangerous intersection where it connects at Stacy Lane. The original culdesac was considered too long and the through street that was substituted was well beyond the Fayetteville Development Code. If it were just a culdesac, Timber View would be twelve hundred feet in length, which would still require a Waiver. All right. Just to reorient you, this is Timber View in our Proposal, this is West Haven Drive and this is Stacy Lane coming in right here. In the Preliminary Plat that was Approved, this is where Timber View came down and hooked into Stacy Lane over in this area. Again, if Timber View were just a culdesac, it would be twelve hundred feet long and would still require a Waiver. We're Proposing that by extending Timber Wood across to east ... this is Timber Wood ... across to the east, the culdesac would no longer require a Waiver and provide better traffic access. Another possibility is to make a second connection from Timber View to Wheeler, if that would be possible. By making a T of Stacy Lane and Timber Wood, which is this intersection right here, remembering the last Plat Stacy went on north, the length of Stacy Lane is shortened and the speed issue will be reduced. This will also prevent the speed situation from getting worse as the road opens to the north where it's stub -out will connect to the next building phase. And, speaking of future growth and connectivity, Double Tree Estates has four design stub -out access points and West Haven will also have four stub -out points. This should allow optimal flow through both divisions without another point of Timber View and Stacy Lane. We realize they're are many options that can be achieved and desired results and we would be very open to consider those, too. Any options of traffic -calming control that we haven't represented here would be much appreciated. In summarization, let me emphasize, making Timber View a through street connecting to Stacy Lane is an unplanned street development that will put a large amount of increased safety -burden on the lower part of Double Tree Estates and the Double Tree Drive entrance creating a traffic hazard. As it stands now, it's out of Code at sixteen hundred and fifty feet. Our Proposed Plat requires no Waiver and allows the streets to be within Code. The traffic would be routed to the north and out the West Haven entrance. The Preliminary Plat design of Stacy makes it too long and too straight, encouraging speed access and creating a traffic hazard. Our Proposal, which was supported by the developer, greatly minimizes the safety hazards mentioned above. It also creates good access to all the lots in the development and requires no Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 9 Waiver to be Approved. The connectivity between the additions and for future development is accomplished with the Plan stub -outs that exist in both Plats. Our Proposal also takes into consideration traffic of future expansion, not just the traffic that would be generated by the West Haven Development. We're asking the Planning Commission to help us in any way possible to greatly minimize the dangerous traffic situation that the current Preliminary Plat proposes. We would hope that you would accept our Proposal as the answer to safety and code requirements. It's real important to us that we're clear and concise and with that in mind, are there any questions that I could possible try to answer at this time? Ostner: We're not going to have a discussion but I think you've presented a lot of good information and I think we're going to have a good discussion tonight. Hafley: I thank you for the time. Ostner: Okay, thank you very much. Buckner: Hi. Ostner: Hi. Buckner: My name is Amy Buckner. For the past ten years I lived at 2668 Stacy Lane, which is Lot Number 27 on the West Haven Plat. I'm asking you to support the Plat that was previously Approved with a second connection through to Stacy Lane. I think it would be ****. Moving the stub -out is a great idea on the North. With the two connections on Stacy, I feel that traffic will be shared, rather than funneled up the length of Stacy to the big circle at the top, that I kind of feel like resembles a racetrack. Moving the stub -out to the north end of Stacy Lane addresses concerns about Stacy connecting in a straight manner to Wheeler Road should it happen in the future. The argument that Stacy is a long, straight, dangerous street that encourages speed is not completely accurate. There are several bends in the road that slow traffic. Having the additional connection will place another intersection, which will slow cars as they turn onto the connected street of Timber View Place. On a personal note, the changes proposed direct the majority of the traffic past our house, places new roads on two sides of our property and eliminates the lot next to us. The developers contract with my mother, who was the seller of this land, states that she is to be deeded the lot adjacent to our property, which is Number 26. This was done to provide a future house site for her and to buffer our house on at least one side from the mess of all the construction. I'm hopeful you will allow the developer to keep his agreement regarding the lot next to us and, more importantly, I hope you can support the original Plat that better Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 10 connects the two neighborhoods and distributes the traffic between these two connections. Thank you for listening to me. Ostner: Okay. Thank you, Ms. Buckner. If there is no further Public Comment, we'll close the Public Comment section and bring the discussion back to the Commission. Anthes: Mr. Chair? Ostner: Commissioner Anthes? Anthes: I have a question. I actually thought we have discussed Plan B at the meeting, but a question I see, and thank you for that last presentation. I guess the question is for the Applicant. At the time when we were discussing this Item, Commissioner Ostner and I had drawn a horizontal connection in the manner shown on C and we had asked a question about it. And I believe you said that there was an issue with the existing house and we just heard what that might be. Has that not been corrected? And, is C even a viable scheme contractually? Jorgensen: Contractually it is a viable scheme. The fact that the adjacent land located to the east would be designated a lot that is adjacent to that lot, the one she owns. But, we didn't present that because when we met with the surrounding property owners, they were there as well, the Buckner's and we had decided not to present that as an option, as it would make us cross another ravine. And also, we felt that it would trespass on that buffer zone between that lot. The developer has, I guess not to say accepted this but would support it as a solution to have the project move forward. And, we'd hope that it wouldn't you know, I guess, have that contract voided between the seller and the property owner. McDonald: I'd like to say something if I can. I'm Mike McDonald and I represent the developer, too. We did meet with the mother of the lady who spoke at the end of the comment section there and reaffirmed to her what our agreement was. And, we believe our agreement was to provide her with an adjacent lot subsequent to your ... you know based on your Approval. We are willing to live with either Plan. And, if we have to give her a different lot, we've agreed to do that. We obviously didn't bring the second Plan to you and so we feel like we will have lived up to our agreement with the mother, even if we have to provide the adjacent lot. And so, we did have a meeting with her a week ago today. Anthes: If I might ask, what lot might that be? Are you talking about 31, because that's across a ravine, so it's not necessarily ... Planning Commission November 28, Page 11 McDonald: Anthes: Pate: Allen: Ostner: Anthes: Ostner: MOTION: Allen: Myers: Ostner: 2005 It'd be ... it's a lot of her choosing but it would be 31 in that case. And, it is across a ravine. There is a ravine. Obviously, her preference is to get Lot 26, per the original Plan. I guess a question of Staff. How much does a contractual agreement between a seller and the Applicant weigh into our decision-making here? Absolutely none. That's a private agreement. The Planning Commission does not participate in those types of decision-making. Just like any Buyer -Seller Contractual Agreement, that's a private matter so you have to vote based on the criteria set forth in our UDC. You've got three options presented. One, which is Exhibit C would not violate any Ordinance Provision, would not require a Waiver Request, whatsoever. Exhibit B, which is both options and that's what was Approved originally by the Planning Commission that does require a Waiver of our block - length, which requires a maximum of fourteen hundred feet and this is approximately sixteen hundred and fifty, and then Exhibit A, which ... actually, I'm sorry, Exhibit A is the one that was Approved. Exhibit B, the only difference is that it moves the one north connection further to the west. But, to go back to your original question, none. Mr. Chair? Hold on, Ms. Allen. Are you through, Commissioner Anthes? Yes. Okay. Yes? I fervently hope that the problem can be resolved between the buyer and the seller but based on the information that we've gotten, it seems that the best way to remedy the traffic concerns would be to go with Exhibit Number C, so I'm going to move for Approval of Preliminary Plat 05- 1733, using Exhibit C, subject to all the conditions listed. And, I'll Second. Thank you. Commissioner Allen made a Motion to Approve and Commissioner Myers Seconded. Is there any further discussion? Will you call the roll, please? Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 12 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call, Graves, Myres, Anthes, Allen, Clark, Lack, Vaught, Trumbo, and Ostner respond with yes. Davis: Motion carries. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 13 Ostner: Okay. Thank you. The next Item on our Agenda is Item Number 5, Large Scale Development 05-1462 with RIDGEHILL APARTMENTS. If we could start with the Staff Report, please. Morgan: This Item was considered by the Planning Commission on October 24. It is a Proposal to develop property just west of Gregg Street for a multi- family development. And, several of the issues that were raised in that discussion in October with concern regarding the location of retaining walls and site distance from the entrance to this property along Gregg. We've received some information from the Applicant regarding this situation. They have revised the Site Plan to show the retaining wall at the building setback. Based on height of retaining walls and restrictions regarding setbacks of structures to retaining walls, there may need to be some shifting in the building of the southern -most building, as well as perhaps a reduction of one unit in order to provide enough space between that retaining wall and the development. The Applicant has revised Plans accordingly and is fully anticipating to comply with all regulations, even if that requires a slight modification of the Site Plan. The Applicant has submitted several cross-sections showing the retaining wall and the sidewalk, as well as the street. The Applicant is proposing a lane on Gregg going south to where the reduction in speed when you turn right into that property. Also, the Applicant has presented to Staff just this evening, prior to meeting, analysis of turn movements onto this property and site distance and based on that information, it appears that there was a study done regarding left turn lanes from the minor arterial ... right turn lane from the minor arterial and a left turn from the major road. That's how it states. It appears that the traffic exiting the development and turning north onto Gregg Avenue requires an unobstructed line of sight of four hundred and ninety four feet and that line of sight for this movement is less than the required amount. So, it appears that there is enough line of sight for right turn movements from the property, as well as left turn movements from Gregg into the property. However, the left turn movements from the property onto Gregg are ... there's concern about the sight distance. Staff will present that information to you in just a moment and with regard to that information, Staff does not have a specific Condition already written for addressing this, but will entertain any ideas or thoughts from you this evening. We are recommending Approval of the project as a whole. Ostner: Thank you, Ms. Morgan. Are the Applicants present? Introduce yourself and please give us your presentation. Kusney: My name is Joyce Kusney. I'm here representing the developer. I am with Project Design Consultants. I am an engineer. And I concur with most of what Suzanne ... well, actually all of what Suzanne has to say, Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 14 with the exception of ... we didn't remove one unit. We just changed it from one building to the other. So, we reduced one set of buildings by one unit and we increased on the opposite side one unit. Building D. So, in other words, just to be specific, Building D reduced by one unit, Building A went from seven to eight units. A couple of things I wanted to go over, I have Tim Cooper with Cooper Architects here. If you have any questions for the architect based on the structures or buildings or any kind of architectural designs standards that you might want to ask. The max height of the retaining wall in question is actually ... we've been able to re - grade and reduce it to a seven -foot height, which would allow for a nine foot, six inches between building and retaining wall. But, what I'd like to also point out is that this seven foot is the max height. It also tapers down from that max height to ends of the wall shown on the Plan. The architect has also submitted guardrail detail that actually was given to us by the City. It's a City Approved guardrail detail. I believe there was a question about that last time, as well. And, that will be installed along Gregg Avenue, not at the bottom of the retaining wall near Gregg Avenue. Section One, I believe, I don't know if you have it or not, but it has been updated to indicate the seven -foot height versus the ten -foot, which was previously shown. So, the architect has that section, I believe. He passed it out to you. I don't know if you have it or not but you should. Ostner: Yes, we do. Kusney: You do? The traffic study ****, I agree with exactly what Suzanne said. Said no left turn out, right turn only. And, what we Propose is what we discussed last time is just putting a roll-over curb to make sure that the traffic does go to the right. I also went ahead and rechecked my Drain Study. I believe Ms. Anthes had a question, was worried about the erosion potential. And, actually it was about 2.7 feet per second, which is not an erosion problem. We have a corrugated metal pipe, eighteen inches, which is very small. It doesn't allow very high flows out of it. So, erosion should not be an issue in this case. And, I believe that's it. If there's any other questions, I'll be sitting right here. Ostner: Okay. Thank you. At this point, I will open it up for Public Comment if anyone would like to speak to this project, Large Scale Development 05- 1462, please step forward. Seeing none, I will close the Public Comment section and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. Allen: Mr. Chair? Ostner: Commissioner Allen? Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 15 Allen: I wondered if the placement of this project was in any way contingent upon where the Council decides to put the cut -through to Wilson Park? Ostner: If you could introduce yourself for the record. Cooper: Oh, Tim Cooper with Coop Rock Decks, representing the developer. It was already in process before that was even brought up as an option. And, the developer was willing to work with the City and actually thought it was a good idea. The **** has a lot of developments around town and would like to help solve that problem. We were asked to take it off the Agenda at one time and then we had to take it off the Agenda last time because there were some traffic issues. So, that's why we're going back through now and going ahead and continuing the project. Allen: And, just two more things, I was curious as to how close your building is to the railroad track, the closest point. Cooper: It's a good distance because it's not only horizontally away from it but it's also vertically away from it. So, it's well above the train. Pate: Looks to be approximately close to a hundred feet horizontally. Of course, the grade difference is quite dramatic there, too. Eighty feet. Vertically, right at thirty feet. There's tree buffer there, as well. Allen: And then, from an engineering point of view, I wondered if you could tell me what factors you have used in determining the safety of the placement of the building? Because, I still have concerns about Gregg Street and if you could just talk to me about your rationale and why you felt like this was the proper placement. Cooper: That's one, probably, the dark texture in the structure of the actual building. And, we had a soil consulting come in and talk to us about that. And, the Structural Engineer worked with them. And, they'll do a pier foundation system, and felt that there wouldn't be an issue on that slope. Are you talking about the slope? Allen: I'm talking about the egress and ingress off of Gregg. Cooper: Oh, traffic. Allen: Yes. Cooper: Okay. The developers have agreed to go along with the traffic study of no left turn out of the development, which was kind of the question. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 16 Kusney: Just to clarify, the Traffic Analysis Study was done based on ****, which is a highway design guidelines **** published. And, based on the green - book standards for geometric design of highways, that's how the analysis came about. And, it was Carter Burgess who did the Traffic Analysis, who is an in-house traffic consultant in town. Allen: Thank you very much. Ostner: Yes, Commissioner Clark? Clark: I have a question for Staff. Do we need to put that ingress and egress as a Condition, no left turn out of the development? Pate: Clark: If that's the recommendation that the Planning Commission feels will make this a safe and adequate ingress and egress, yes. I'm still torn about the safety because I just drove by site this afternoon on my way here and traffic was backed up all the way to the top of the hill. So, I still have problems with it and I would certainly like that as a Condition of Approval, that there is no left turn out. Because I think you're taking your life in your hands several times. And, this afternoon, you couldn't have made a right turn out because traffic was backed up. Kusney: We've talked to the developer and he's in agreement with adding that roll- over curb. The rollover curb is to force the traffic, in general, to leave the site. We decided to do a rollover curb in case of emergencies, if there needed to be a left turn out, just to not keep the ambulances from making the left turn if necessary. But, otherwise, rollover curb is typically used for right turnouts only and the developer is in total agreement with putting that in as part of this development. Clark: I would strongly like to see that added as a Condition. Ostner: Please, Commissioner Myers. Myers: Well, I'm not quite sure to whom I should address this question. In the Traffic Study, down at the bottom of the first page, it says that they recommend that existing brush, trees and vegetation might grow near the roadway be removed to improve, I assume, sight distance. What impact does that have on tree preservation and tree mitigation? Pate: Don't believe there's any near the road at this time. Obviously, there will be street trees planted and we, as always, during construction plan review, Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 17 insure that there are adequate sight distance and sight triangles met. There are also some requirements for sight triangles in here that have been recommended and we'll take a look at that too, as well as part of the construction plan review. Myers: I just didn't want to slash and burn if we didn't have to. Anthes: Mr. Chair? Ostner: Commissioner Anthes? Anthes: I'd like clarification on something the Applicant said. We're revising the number of units in Building B and A, is that correct? Is that different than the drawings that we have? Kusney: It was A and D. Anthes: Kusney: A went from seven to eight units and D went from ten to nine. Anthes: Does that appreciatively change this Plat? Kusney: That is how it was originally shown but we have since then seen some land area calculations that are part of the UDC requirements. So, we've reduced it by one unit in order to meet that requirement. So, instead of reducing the one unit out of the D building, we reduced it out of the A building just to meet that requirement. But, that is not a ... Anthes: It looks like you've added another one to A. You said ... cause this was seven. You're saying now it's eight. And D is ten and now it's nine, so we're at the same number. We haven't reduced, correct? Kusney: No, but originally before we actually turned this in, it was eight units on A and ten units on D. But, in the process of doing all this traffic study, we went ahead and recalculated and made sure that we were in compliance to every other standard and that is where we saw that we were over on the number of units so we reduced it by one. Now, whether the unit came out of A, that had originally eight units or D, that had originally ten units, the result was the same. Anthes: Staff, have you seen a drawing in the proposed configuration? Pate: Yes. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 18 Anthes: And? Pate: It does not appreciatively change this layout, whatsoever. Anthes: Okay. Allen: Mr. Chair? Ostner: Commissioner Allen. Allen: Does Staff feel comfortable with the safety of this project? It's kind of like I'd like to vote for Approval as long as they couldn't enter or exit the building. Pate: There are a number of inherent challenges for this property. It's been intended to be developed at one point in the past. The railroad, when it went in, made a significant cut and changed the western face of this development. Gregg Avenue, when it went in, changed the eastern face. There was a church to the south and I'm not sure if it's developed to the north or not. Unlike other situations where there is a potential for another access point, this simply doesn't have one. So, what we've looked at was a safe and adequate means of access. Staff recommended it be pulled back as far away as possible from that church entry, which is where the crest of the hill there to the south on Gregg. All along this eastern frontage you're going uphill. It starts gradually down at the bottom and starts heading up hill towards where the church is located currently. We recommended at the very outset of this project, before they even submitted, that they place that drive as far to the north as possible. We had the same concern initially, especially if they were proposing a drive further to the south because right at the peak of that hill, the sight distance would have been very questionable. So, that was our recommendation and that's why we recommended this be forwarded to you, the Planning Commission, for Approval. We feel it does meet our requirements. Allen: So, you feel comfortable with it as stated? Pate: With the additional conditions that there be a right turn only, yes, Ma'am, based on this study by Carter Burgess. Allen: Thank you. Trumbo: Mr. Chair? Ostner: Yes, Commissioner Trumbo. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 19 MOTION: Trumbo: I, too am a little concerned about the turning out of the property but the traffic engineers seem to think that a right turn only will work, so I'm going to take their professional advice and based on that recommendation from them, I'm going to make a Motion to Approve Large Scale Development 05-1462 in agreement with all Staffs recommendations and adding a Condition of Right Turn Only to the project. Ostner: Do you mean Right Turn When Existing the project? Trumbo: When existing, yes. Sony. Ostner: Okay, thank you. Trumbo: South. Ostner: Southbound. Lack: I Second that. Ostner Okay, Commissioner Trumbo made the Motion. Commissioner Lack Seconded. Is there any further discussion? Allen: Mr. Chair? Ostner: Commissioner Allen. Allen: I'll make another comment because I am reluctantly going to vote against the Motion. I'm sorry. I wish that I could feel comfortable about voting for it. I just feel that it is not safe. I have too many concerns about that and I imagine the Motion will carry and I hope I'll be wrong and everything will be safe, but that's my reason for voting against it. Ostner: Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Allen. A question for the Motioner. Right Turn Only, is that envisioning, as the Applicant has suggested, with the roll-over curb? Trumbo: Yes, with the roll-over curb. Osmer: Is there any signage in your Proposal, in your Condition? Trumbo: No, would you like me to add it? Ostner: Obviously. Mr. Pate? Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 20 Pate: Mr. Chair, Planning Commission typically does not look at traffic signalization. Our Transportation Department would be more adequately suited to do that. So, I would recommend that we can pass these comments on to them when they're looking at signage, specifically if it's a Right Turn Only, we'll ask them to do that. But again, it's typically their call. It's their profession. Ostner: Okay. Thank you. Pate: Thank you. Ostner: I think that answers it. Okay, if there's no further discussion, I'll call for the vote. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call, Myres, Graves, Lack, Vaught, Trumbo and Ostner respond with yes. Anthes, Allen and Clark responded with no. Davis: Motion carries. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 21 'PHIS ITEM TRANSCRIBED FROM DVD, AS A SYNOPSIS. Commissioner Ostner: The next item is C-PZD 05-1704 for First Baptist Church. Ms. Morgan read the staff report. This is a unique request for approval of a Master Development Plan Commercial Planned Zoning District for First Baptist Church located at the corner of Dickson and College Ave. This request is for approval of a rezoning and future development which will occur in 5 phases. At this time, what is before you is not detailed plans for this development with specific street improvements outlined, etc. However, this is a zoning issue and will establish the land use and building requirements, bulk and area, and signage usage for this property. This property is currently being utilized for First Baptist Church and buildings surrounding the property. The applicant desires to enlarge this structure as shown on the plan before you. With this proposal, additional parking would be provided in a coming phase with a parking deck on the property. The applicant proposes this in five phases, which includes the renovation of the existing building that is occurring at this time. The applicant proposes compliance with the majority of the requirements of the Unified Development Code. There are some slight modifications; the parking proposed is for a total of 167 parking spaces - with current ordinances a minimum 175 parking spaces are allowed, so the applicants are requesting eight fewer spaces without a conditional use approval. That is addressed in condition one of the conditions of approval. Briefly going through the zoning criteria proposed, the proposed use unit is Use Unit 4, Cultural and recreational facilities, which allows for church use. The property is currently zoned C-2 and R -O and requires a conditional use approval for this use. The density or intensity is listed as none which will allow for the proposed development. They are establishing a maximum buildable area of 60% of the property. Height regulations are listed for each phase of development with phase two being two stories, as well as phase four. Phase three is a one story proposal at 14 ft; the parking deck would be maximum of 3 levels in height, with a net 88 spaces. There are not any setback requirements which would allow the development of this building to the property line. The current existing structure is built within the Master Street Plan right-of-way for College Ave. The applicant is required to process a request for lesser dedication of right-of-way for College Ave. and potentially Dickson St, depending on where the building is located adjacent to the right -of- way. However, this would be done at the time of the development and the conditions we listed in the staff report reflect this. With regard to signage, the applicant is proposing something a little different than what is typically allowed for monument signs. The applicant is proposing two monument signs on the property, one at the corner of Dickson and College and a second at the corner of Dickson and Highland. The applicant proposes a 15 ft setback for the monument sign on Dickson and a zero -foot set back for the one on Highland and Dickson. Staff recommends the requested monument signs, as long as they meet the regulations set forth in the Commercial Zoning District requirements. We have included that as the second condition requesting Planning Commission review. There are proposals for phasing, shown in shading, based on the development plans. Construction of sidewalks will be in compliance with the Master Street Plan adjacent to College and Dickson. The applicant requests the phasing of street improvements to correspond with the phasing of construction to remove any landscaping or sidewalks during renovation. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 22 Since we are not reviewing development at this time, the applicant will be required to come through review for each of its phases as a large scale development. No residential dwelling units are proposed. Listed are 14 conditions of approval, and staff is recommending forwarding this Master Development Plan to the City Council for consideration. Mr. Thad Kelly with Cromwell Architects represented the applicant. He stated that the proposed right-of-way off of College is a huge issue with them, that it takes 20 feet of the building that is already existing. He showed where the line would be on the map. The point being made is that they would prefer condition number 10. This is important for the whole project. We can not build in a right-of-way. He stated that they tried to enhance the corner of College and Dickson with a structure that builds a streetscape and landscaping. Better flow and circulation of the church and internal processes would be achieved. It would be done in phases in the next 22 years, and the parking deck would be the last thing. This was planned in mind to engage the city's master plan for the street/wall elements along College. We agree with everything that staff recommends, including establishment of vegetation as a buffer to any adjacent residential property. Part of the reason we are doing this is due to the zoning, which is from a different era when this was R -O. We are trying to do this as a current PZD, to get away from the R -O. Everything that is touching us or near us is commercial. He cited buildings in the surrounding area as examples. Commissioner Ostner opened the floor to public comment. There was no public comment Commissioner Trumbo stated he had a question on the monument signs, what is shown on the plat given to us, is this set in stone? Mr. Pate stated it is not set in stone, but as with all Master Development Plans, this is a template, to see what the developer is going to do with the fully designed project. No, we do not anticipate that is exactly where the monument signs will be, but they will be in that general area. Condition 2 in the staff report states that the monument signs must meet the setback requirements within a commercial zoning district. Signage is a zoning issue and ties back to the zoning ordinances. Staff approval is based on the setback requirements that are required in that zoning district. Commissioner Vaught stated that they never had anything this long term in phases before, is that acceptable in a PZD. Mr. Pate stated that City Council and Planning Commission will determine if it is appropriate, with their review of the master plan. Commissioner Vaught stated that phase five is the parking deck. Mr. Pate stated that is correct. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 23 Commissioner Ostner stated he would like to know where the parking deck is slated to go. Mr. Kelly stated that the parking deck would be between them and the Thrifty Nickel, at grade with College Avenue, and extending out to three levels on Highland. There is a grade change on one deck level there. We could laminate a building on the street edge if needed. Mr. Vaught, on the phase question, the church has been there for 150 years, and this document is to let you know that they intend to build for next 22 years. Commissioner Vaught directed his question to Mr. Pate on the parking deck requirements. With the calculations, with a parking deck, will that allow 167 parking spaces? Mr. Pate stated that 167 spaces are shown on the plans, with the addition of the parking deck it would allow 88 net spaces to be provided. Commissioner Allen stated when the parking deck is completed, would they be willing to do some shared parking during the times you don't have church actives going on, with other business on Dickson Street? Mr. Kelly noted that the church has been very accommodating with the businesses in the surrounding area. He didn't see any problem with that. Also, the parking was based on the 1000 seats in the auditorium. However, with the renovation that is going on currently, the church has decreased the seating and moved people around. Commissioner Ostner stated he understands that this is a Master Development Plan, and they are not asking for development, but how does this work with our rezoning and Unified Development Code? Besides the discrepancy with the right-of-way on College, he thought a proposal needed a zoning change that did not fit in with current codes to propose a Master Development Plan. Why are we seeing this, and not a large scale development with right-of-way issues? Mr. Pate stated that the problem of the existing right-of-way is only one; issues with setbacks and zoning is another. He explained these issues to Commissioner Ostner. Commissioner Ostner stated due to the right-of-way issue, zoning, and conditional uses required for a church, we see it as a PZD. He stated he understands it now. Commissioner Vaught stated that nothing on the drawing states phase 5, do we need to make it say phase 5 for the parking deck on the paperwork as stated? Mr. Pate stated it can be, as it is stated in the conditions. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 24 Commissioner Lack stated his concern with the parking deck. Listed in the booklet in phase 4, the parking deck is mentioned. He stated his concern on the open door this will give someone in the future. With it mentioned in Phase 4, it will allow an open deck area and height limitations. This would limit the 2 story parking area to a 24 ft. height, but he can also see the desirability of the liner building and the streetscape. Mr. Kelly stated that the confusion of the height is that the 88 feet is the existing building and it would go no higher than that. Commissioner Lack stated that in the booklet for phase 4, there are diagrams with calculated height requirements for each phase. He sees a limitation to the two story parking deck. Ms. Morgan stated in the booklet at one point in time all of the phases were broken down and phase five was specifically identified as the parking deck. It appears in revisions if you look on page 2 of the general concept, discussion of phase 4, it states in the second paragraph, mid -way down, that at some unknown future date, the applicant envisions a 2-3 level parking deck. And the parking deck is shown in the plans schematically. Commissioner Lack stated with the limitation of heights to go by phase, we do not have a height requirement established for the parking garage. Mr. Kelly stated the garage should be in the required 24 feet height requirements. The cars would be taller than that, but the structure itself would be open on the top. Commissioner Lack stated that would be acceptable if added as a condition or part of the development plan. Mr. Murphy with Cromwell Architects stated the parking deck is a future consideration that the church bas in mind, not being very specific at this time. It is a thought towards two things: One, to provide the church with the availability to increase their parking. The parking deck is described as a 2-3 story building. Twenty years from now, the city's point -of -view about parking may change, or the city might ask them to build a 3 story parking deck, then add one story. But it is not very well flushed out now. What Thad said about the height is true, because of the change in grade there. It would be in the keeping with the building heights in the surrounding areas. Commissioner Lack stated we are being asked to approve a master plan and we are establishing those criteria for all the other phases. The one phase that would have the most potential for concern is the parking garage. We do not want to end up with an open parking deck on the streetscape and the loss of that facade. Mr. Murphy asked Commissioner Lack if it was his recommendation to amend our proposal to provide a more specific description of the deck? Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 25 Commission Lack stated looking into this as an over-all Master Plan that was his assessment of it, and would like to hear from the other commissioners. Mr. Murphy stated he would like to address the parking deck in general, at this point. He stated again, that there were two purposes to the parking deck. One being the church's use of it, due to the overall parking situation in Fayetteville and the ideal structure to meet the current PZD. He stated again that these are plans for the far future, and it was good to think in those terms. He also mentions that possibly pulling the parking deck from the proposal at this time to go forward would be a good idea. Commissioner Lack stated that he would like to applaud the idea of using a parking deck with an urban church in this urban campus. Commissioner Graves stated that he was going to propose, before the applicant had, to possibly remove the parking deck from this particular application, due to it being so far off in the future, and not even knowing if they are going to be doing it. If they do, they don't seem to know what it would possibly look like. The applicant seems pretty knowledgeable in the other areas of what they want, and he states he doesn't feel comfortable binding the Planning Commission 20 years from now. He states an example of this and advised that it would be a good idea to pull this from the application. Commissioner Vaught stated he also applauds the idea of the parking deck. He asks Mr. Pate if they should strike the whole parking deck out, or leave a part of it. Will it come in as a large scale development, or how will they go about that in the future. Mr. Pate stated it is really up to the Commission, if they feel it is more appropriate to strike it or do not feel comfortable with it at this time. Staff felt it was a major component for this downtown development to have structured parking, as opposed to surface parking. This has been an issue for many of the churches in this downtown area. If the applicant has no problem of striking it at this time, we see no problem in it. Parking decks can be added at a later date. Commissioner Vaught directed a question to Mr. Williams. If we approve this, under the Master Development Plan, will the applicant be subject to the Downtown Zoning Code once passed? Mr. Williams stated that it might be subject to both of them, though this will be granting them the approval to build it. It is not final approval, because they do have to come through as a large scale development and comply with the existing ordinances. This is more of a rezoning issue, and the location of various buildings, which they are showing. Commissioner Vaught stated that if the Master Development Plan passes, and one year or 10 years from now, for this parking deck they come forward with the liner buildings, they will be held accountable for the standards at that time, not what is being passed now. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 26 Mr. Williams stated that this is an difficult question, because you would be approving a parking deck here, whether or not it is required in the future to have a liner building with the parking deck or not. That part may not be enforceable down the road in the Master Plan, assuming it would be approved. Commissioner Vaught stated again about the time frame of the parking deck and the issues of not knowing what could happen in the next 20 years. His concern is whether to keep it in the Master Development Plan or take it out, or add some kind of condition stating that at the time of approval, those are the guidelines that need to be met. Mr. Pate stated its better to remove it altogether for the packet to the City Council for the zoning decision rather than add arbitrary conditions. They may still be the drawings, but we can state that it is a future use. Commissioner Vaught stated that they would then come back with an amendment to the Master Development Plan at the time they would be ready to do that. Mr. Pate agreed. Commissioner Graves stated his follow-up concerns, which were the same as his previous statements and coincided with Commissioner Vaught. Commissioner Ostner stated he was thinking along the same lines, if somewhere in the applicant's proposal, it could state that if they are willing to build the garage in the future, with this proposal giving no permissions of any sort, possibly in the statement of commitments. The parking deck does make things more confusing. Mr. Murphy stated the church would like to remove the parking deck from the application. Commissioner Ostner asked the staff if there would be significant changes in the drawings that would need to reflect this new situation. Mr. Pate stated not for the Planning Commission, the drawings will not be a problem and it is not directly stated in the booklet, as Commissioner Lack stated. We will remove it from our staff report, if that is the Commission's wish. We will refer to it as a potential action and not a phase. Commissioner Anthes stated she has a question on the timing. The infrastructure is being built for the parking deck in the first phases, for the future of the parking deck. The Master Development Plan states the maximum limit of development, and if we remove the parking deck from it, we would be exceeding the maximum development allowed in this zoning. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 27 Mr. Williams stated that would be true unless it was an amendment to the Master Development Plan that was presented by the applicant to ensure in the future any revisiting of the zoning issues, by the City Council and Planning Commission in this particular case. What you say is correct, but they can come back in the future and say they want a change to this Master Development Plan that was approved in 2005, and list the reasons. The Planning Commission can look at that and it would not be in violation of that policy. Commissioner Anthes stated if nothing is planned for that site, then we would get a large surface parking lot. Commissioner Ostner asked if anyone was opposed to taking out the parking deck in the proposal. Commissioner Anthes stated that she is not comfortable yet with that decision. Commissioner Ostner stated that he would take that as opposed. No one else opposed. He stated that the informal reflection in the conditions and record reflect that eight of us are in favor of the parking deck being removed from the proposal, and one is opposed to it. Commissioner Anthes stated she had no problem with the land use as a church, but does have questions on the bulk and area requirements, and on the lack of time requirements, compared to our other PZD processes. The applicant has stated that their intention is to reflect the Downtown Development and Downtown Master Plan in their development. The staff report indicates the addition of parking lots off of Lafayette Street in the area would be detrimental for street character. She states that the development shown is also highly detrimental for the street character of Highland Avenue. It is almost all surface parking lots along the entire length of Highland Avenue, which I don't believe is in keeping of the principle of the Downtown Master Plan or with the development as we are envisioning it for the future. That leads into the heights of the buildings that are being requested in the different phases. One shows one story on College Avenue, but in the surrounding area, the minimum is 2 or 3 stories on our major streets. She states that the one story addition is not in keeping for downtown. Also, the Planning Commission is talking of the height limitations (in the Downtown Zoning Code) that this height might end up 3 stories, and in the future it might be too low. She also notes the dimensions of the parking deck as being a 2 bay deck, with a sloped ramp and a liner building. Also, a question on the monument signs to staff. She states that normally we allow a sign on the building and one monument sign, and believe that they have signs on their building now, and can staff explain what the church has and what they are proposing. Mr. Pate stated that he did not know how many signs they had on the existing buildings, the church might be able to answer that. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 28 Commissioner Anthes stated that there is one on the drive-thru canopy where the proposed monument sign is shown. Mr. Pate agreed, but monument signs are in a separate category. Commissioner Anthes asked normally don't we issue one monument sign per commercial business? Mr. Pate cited the ordinance of the monument and wall signs. He noted that 1 wall sign per wall face for each business is allowed. Commissioner Anthes stated we need to keep everything uniform for the surrounding area, which would almost disallow the second monument for that reason. She stated that the building area shown is a maximum 60% coverage, assuming it is covered in current ordinances. How does that compare to what we are looking for on Downtown Development? She believes the Downtown Master Plan requires more coverage than this. Mr. Pate stated that was correct. Commissioner Anthes stated that in approving this proposal, it will be for less coverage than what is stated in the Downtown Master Plan and expected development for the future. She stated that she would like staff to look into this open ended phasing that seems very long. Normally there is some kind of expiration date on a PZD and we can come along and check on it. With this Master Development Plan, is there some where down the line, will we be able to re -look at this. Mr. Pate noted the normal PZD expiration date of one year. In zoning, there is no expiration date. That is where we look at bulk and area, etc. Due to the zoning request, we felt it was appropriate to allow that time. He also stated that when the development comes back thru it would be subject to development regulations in place at that time. This allows the zoning to be put in place. This is unique since it is a smaller parcel, but they have a long term plan on that parcel. With a Master Plan allowing some flexibility, an applicant doesn't have to come back to the Planning Commission or City Council every time they need to develop something else on their property. He stated that the ordinance allows the flexibility for the applicant to propose something, and if it is not something reasonable to the council, they have a say in the matter. He stated that the 20 year mark did initially concern staff but staff believes the development regulations at that time would be enforced. This is not an over-all development approval on this proposal, but a template with flexibility with the applicant and with the Planning Commission and City Council. The applicant may move things around a bit, but the applicant should be aware that regulations would be in place and enforced at that time. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 29 Commissioner Anthes stated that if this was a straight rezoning, not a template with a drawing, it would be easier to understand at this point. She stated the conflict is in the details in the booklet and the drawings, which is the template of the zoning. Mr. Pate stated that the zoning regulations in the booklet proposed by the applicant are crucial. The width of the parking deck is not what we are reviewing at this time, but at the time of development, we would. He stated a couple of other regulations they would look at as an example. Commissioner Anthes asked about height. Mr. Pate stated it was important to look at height at this time. They are establishing a maximum height; that is part of the regulations of zoning which is why it is needed to be called out. He stated again that this is not a development approval of what is proposed, but the Planning Commission as a body would now or in the future look at proposals with what ordinances and regulations are existing at that time. MOTION: Commissioner Anthers stated she wanted to keep her comments short, but is concerned about the heights - 2 story structures and a 3 story parking garage being proposed in the future. She stated with the specific conditions proposed, she would like to recommend a motion to amend the approvals as follows: Condition of approval 2 to allow one monument sign; condition of approval 9 to add "development on the property shall be in compliance with ordinances that are in effect at the time of submittal including, but not limited to, the downtown zoning code"; and an additional condition should be added stating "prior to City Council, the project booklet should be revised with the following provisions: the booklet shall be revised to include page numbers, remove all references to the parking structure and liner building in compliance with what the Commissioner said earlier." Commissioner Ostner motioned to amend the proposal. Commissioner Myers seconded the motion. Commissioner Vaught stated he would support that amendment, but not all of it. He stated he did not have a problem with the second monument sign, and had a question on the Downtown Master Plan on how it would effect future development of this project, due to the amendments requested. Mr. Pate stated he was not sure how the Downtown Zoning Code will be passed, that there will be some conflicts with some of the properties that are not developed yet. He stated an example that someone wanting to develop a 1 -story development will have to develop a 3 story building. If the conditions are included as stated, he believed they Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 30 would have to comply with the future Downtown Zoning Code, since it is included in that zoning boundary. Commissioner Vaught stated if they do not put that condition in, the applicant is subject to bulk and area requirements that we are passing tonight, correct? Mr. Pate stated only for the zoning. Commissioner Vaught expressed concern regarding the conflict between this Planned Zoning District proposal and future zoning actions on the property with the Downtown Zoning Code. Mr. Pate stated if property is zoned right now from C-3 to C-4 and then the Downtown Zoning Code, which is a zoning ordinance, is passed, it will affect the zoning of this property from what it was. This is not the only property to address Commissioner Vaught stated he does not support the amendment, and will vote against it. Striking the parking deck is a wise choice, but the other two he does not agree with. Mr. Williams stated he would recommend the Planning Commission to totally strike condition 2 with signage, it is really not up the Planning Commission to determine signage. The City Council has passed a resolution regarding signage. He stated the resolution and explains why the City Council and Planning Commission should not be involved with the signage. It is up to the Sign Administrator to handle that part. Commissioner Anthes stated doesn't the sign administrator deal with zoning districts and the rules for those zoning districts. Clarification on how signage is to be administered within a PZD ensued. It was determined that signage must follow established zoning districts within Ch. 174 Signs. Commissioner Anthes recommended to amend the condition of approval 2, based on these clarifications. Commissioner Ostner re -stated Commissioner Anthes' recommendation to amend condition of approval 2 and conditional approval 9, and also add conditions for the applicant which would include the page numbers in the booklet and remove phase 5 which was the parking deck. Commissioner Anthes re -stated the verbiage of condition of approval number 9. Commissioner Vaught stated the Downtown Zoning Code is a zoning change and is not an ordinance to be held to currently, since it has not been passed. We are setting zoning for this property, including the building heights, tonight. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 31 Commissioner Ostner stated since if this zoning change happens in 2005, and most of the downtown was zoned in the 1970s, the fact that it is recent makes no difference. If the Downtown Zoning Code is applied, it will be a blanket rezone regardless how long a zoning has been in place. Commissioner Ostner discussed with Commissioner Vaught and Mr. Williams on the differences of what is in compliance now versus what will happen when the Downtown Zoning Code gets approved. Commissioner Graves stated it seems wrong to ask applicants to bring a PZD forward with a level of certainty of what it is going to look like, and for this body to turn around and say that we are going to require you to comply with some unknown zoning ordinance in the future. Commissioner Ostner stated that there is motion to alter these conditions and vote on that. Commissioner Graves stated that he had a problem with the verbiage stated. Commissioner Vaught stated that he had a problem with the verbiage stated and would like to leave it out. Commissioner Allen stated we should look at what is put before us, we do not have a Downtown Zoning Code at this time, and some common sense just needs to be used. Commissioner Allen moved for an immediate vote. Commissioner Ostner asked if anyone was opposed to an immediate vote. Commissioner Clark stated yes, she would like to split the amendments. She stated that she would like to vote on Commissioner Anthes' proposals one at a time. Commissioner Ostner asked it there were any further comment on these changes, before they vote. No comments were made. Commissioner Ostner stated that the motioner has requested to remove condition 2 completely, amend condition 9 with a statement "development on the property shall be in compliance with ordinances that are in effect at the time of submittal including, but not limited to, the downtown zoning code," the applicant will add page numbers to the booklet, and the applicant would remove Phase 5 parking deck from this proposal. He stated that we are only voting to change these conditions. Commissioner Ostner requested roll call on the amendments requested. The amendments were approved by a vote of 5-4-0. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 32 Commissioner Myers motioned to approve the forwarding of C-PZD 05-1704 to City Council with the amendments. Commissioner Clark seconds the motion. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of C- PZD 05-1704 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-1-0, with Commissioner Anthes voting no. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 33 Ostner: Motion carries. Thank you. The next Item on our Agenda is Item Number....Thank you. We have a few Tabled Items that I believe we need to formally Motion to Table. Pate: Correct. Applicant is requesting the Annexation of the following Rezoning to be Tabled. Ostner: Yes. The next Item is ANX 05-1812: for MCDONALDBRIDGEDALE II. Allen: Mr. Chair Ostner: Thank you. Commissioner Allen. MOTION: Allen: I move to Table Annexation 05-1812. Myers: I Second. Ostner: Thank you. I have a Motion to Table by Commissioner Allen. A Second by Commissioner Myers. Is there any Public Comment before we vote? Will you call the roll, please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call, Myres, Allen, Anthes, Graves, Lack, Vaught, Clark, Trumbo and Ostner respond with yes. Davis: Motion carries. Ostner: Thank you. Allen: Mr. Chair? Ostner: Yes. MOTION: Allen: I move to Table RZN 05-1813. Ostner: Thank you. I have a Motion to Table the next Item by Commissioner Allen. Trumbo: Second. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 34 Ostner: A Second by Commissioner Trumbo. Is there any discussion? Is there any Public Comment before we vote to Table? Seeing none, I will close the Public Comment and call the vote, please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call, Trumbo, Clark, Vaught, Graves, Lack, Allen, Myers, Anthes, and Ostner respond with yes. Davis: Motion carries. Ostner: Thank you. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 35 Allen: Mr. Chair? Ostner: Commissioner Allen. MOTION: Allen: I vote to Table R-PZD 05-1796. Ostner: Thank you. Motion to Table this next Item on our Agenda. Is there a Second? Trumbo: Second. Ostner: Second by Commissioner Trumbo. Is there discussion? Is there any Public Comment before we vote on the Tabling? Seeing none, will you call the roll, please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call, Graves, Lack, Clark, Vaught, Trumbo, Allen, Myers, Anthes, and Ostner respond with yes. Davis: Motion carries. Ostner: Thank you. It's eighteen till eight. I'm going to call for a five-minute break and we will reconvene. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 36 THIS ITEM TRANSCRIBED FROM DVD, AS A SYNOPSIS. ANX 05-1811 Summer Resources Commissioner Ostner: The next item is ANX 05-1811 for Summer Resources. Mr. Pate read the staff report. This property is approximately 3.75 acres, located east of the Waterbrook Phase 1 and 2 Subdivision that is north of Huntsville Road. The Planning Commission recently approved two phases of Waterbrook Subdivision. Phase one, which fronts Huntsville Road and Phase 2, which is to the north of that, surrounds a large, previously excavated pit. Parks and Recreation board voted to take parkland for this development. However, land that was agreed upon was in the county and adjacent to the site. Part of the conditions for approval for the preliminary plat, prior to acceptance of that land the property had to be annexed into the city. The park requirements for the current phases of Waterbrook Subdivision require 2.75 acres. The remaining approximately 1 acre would be utilized for potential tree preservation mitigation, which was also brought to the Planning Commission's attention at that time. Staff is recommending approval of this item. In recommending this approval to the City Council, staff finds that the request does meet the intent and is in compliance with our guiding Policies of the General Plan 2020. Mr. Mel Milholland, with Milholland Engineering, representative for the applicant, spoke briefly, concurring with all the comments that staff made. This Waterbrook preliminary plat has been approved by you, as a tract split. This tract of land was in the county at the time the Preliminary Plat was approved by you and the county. He would like to make the request of annexation approval to be forwarded to the City Council. Commissioner Ostner opened the floor to public comment. There was no public comment MOTION: Commissioner Anthes made a motion to forward ANX 05-1811 to the City Council. Commissioner Trumbo seconded the motion. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of ANX 05-1811 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 37 THIS ITEM TRANSCRIBED FROM DVD, AS A SYNOPSIS. R-PZD 05-1798 DePalma Addition Commissioner Ostner: The next item is R-PZD 05-1798 for DePalma Addition. Mr. Pate read the staff report. This site you have seen before, as part of the Biella Subdivision that is located off of Hwy 265. At that time, 10 acres of this piece of the property was indicated to be brought back to you as a Planned Zoning District. The applicant is requesting a Master Development Planned Zoning District to contain 5 single family lots and a private drive. The current zoning allows 4 units per acre, resulting in a maximum of 40 units on this site. This proposal is a significant down -zoning on the property and a more appropriate use of this property that has significant terrain and tree canopy. The property has access with right-of-way from Ansen Street. As part of the conditions of approval for this Master Development Plan, the applicant shall show proof of access to the site off of the Ansen Street cul-de-sac, to ensure that all access easements are in place from all property owners in that area, prior to the Planning Commission's approval of a preliminary plat to actually subdivide this property. This action tonight would not subdivide the property, but would simply have the applicant gain entitlement and zoning rights. The project booklet is much different then the last Planned Zoning District. It is a much smaller development, with not as many issues to discuss. Staff finds that the proposal is compatible with the surrounding development, which is relatively low density, and that it is consistent with the land use plan. The low density, large -lot requirements combined with compliance with the tree preservation ordinance would help reduce grading and development on the steep hillside, more so than allowed with current zoning. The planning project booklet has been submitted recognizing zoning and development criteria requirements of the Master Development Plan approval process. With those findings and others included in your staff report, staff is recommending this to be forwarded to the City Council for consideration, with 9 conditions of approval, addressing the access into this property, Planning Commission determination of a waiver request to reduce the required 22 foot wide pavement section to 20 feet is also included. Staff is recommending approval of this waiver, finding low density of traffic generated by the 5 lots and lack of connectivity to the streets in the area. Street construction would have to meet Fayetteville city standards. Mr. Tom Hennelly with H2 Engineering represented Mr. Oates, the property owner. He stated that he had no problems with the conditions of approval stated. There are 50 foot setbacks all around the properties with these 5 lots, and works well on the mountain. Commissioner Ostner opened the floor to public comment. Sue Cauldren, a resident of Ansen Street, stated that she had a couple of questions to ask the board, but would like to say that she was very happy about how this 10 acres of land was going to be used. Two acre lots with 5 houses and a private drive saves the density of the beautiful area. Her fear is that in the future, if the DePalma family heirs decide to not build and sell it to a developer, with the current zoning, can they put 40 homes on this piece of property? Also, if this is passed, would there be any kind of restrictions put on Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 38 this property, so it would not happen? And we do not lose the density we are trying to preserve? I also represent my next-door neighbor, Carolyn Ferrel, who is ill, and could not come tonight. Her property is right next to this 10 acre strip of land. She has a structure directly behind her house, which is used for an art gallery and guest home. But it seems the private drive will be directly under her nose. I haven't seen any maps, but I don't know if that second structure is on them or where the property line is. So, my second question would be a sign of goodwill, if this private drive be screened or moved further down the property. If it is built up and straight, it would destroy her property, view, etc. I don't know what the setbacks are for a private drive, does it follow the property line or follow certain requirements? Commissioner Ostner stated that this street does touch her cul-de-sac, then it goes off at an angle, and makes a pretty big triangle away from her property line. Mrs. Cauldren was offered a copy of the maps, showing how the private drives are set up. Commissioner Ostner also stated that he would address her first question. Mrs. Cauldren stated she had a last question, that 9 conditions of approvals were mentioned and would like to hear them read, since she did not know what they were. Commissioner Ostner stated that he would get her a copy of them before she leaves. He also asked for any other public comments, before he addressed her first question. There were no more public comments, he closed the public comment portion and brought it back to the Commission. Commissioner Ostner stated that on Mrs. Cauldren's concerns, that since this is a Residential Planned Zoning District, the zoning will have to follow this drawing. And if the land was sold to another developer, they would have to come back to us for another rezoning to change this drawing. Mrs. Cauldren asked if the approval would be for this zoning only then? Commissioner Ostner stated yes, that there was no way they could squeeze 40 homes past you all. They would have to go through this whole process again. On the issue with Mrs. Ferrel, he believed this layout gives as much room as possible. If the road kept continuing straight, then it would go further away from her property, but it does create a buffer triangle. Commissioner Ostner questioned the applicant, "Is that triangle a build- able lot?" Mr. Hennelly stated he wanted to answer Mrs. Cauldren's first question. Mr. Hennelly stated he would like everyone to know that this PZD would be good in perpetuity, this is as good as forever, however long Mr. Oates takes to develop this. So he would like to assure the neighbors that they don't have anything to worry about. Regarding the triangle Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 39 created by the access drive splitting lot number 1 in half, he did angle it down. There is a very small portion of property, that could have a small storage shed built on it, next to the drive. This has 50 foot set backs on the front, side, and rear. He would not anticipate this happening, the majority of the property is west of that drive, and he would anticipate that triangle would be wooded. It is in the conditions that the trees could not be cut down without urban forester approval. This would give a 50 -foot screening from Mr. and Mrs. Ferrel's house to the drive. He does not imagine a great impact on their art gallery or home. Commissioner Vaught stated he had a question about the road. It is off on a pretty sharp angle off the cul-de-sac. Does that meet all our requirements, it looks like a very steep slope. Mr. Pate states that it is just a drawing on paper now, and staff would have to review that as part of the development guidelines with the preliminary plat. Commissioner Allen made a motion to forward R-PZD 05-1798 to the City Council with the 9 conditions stated to the City Council. Commissioner Lack seconded the motion. Commissioner Ostner asked if there were any further discussion? Commissioner Anthes stated she had a few questions, looking at the Master Development Plan submitted, and would like clarification on the staff report on page 5. The question is, on the large setbacks of 50 ft, can you explain the difference from the project you submitted earlier (Falling Waters,) trying to keep setbacks tight with the street to minimize the tree removal and what the strategy is with the large building setback and amount of tree removal? Mr. Hennelly stated in the cross-reference to the proposed Falling Water PZD, primarily there were houses on both sides of the street, and they were serviced by gravity sewer. It was good to get them up to the street, because of the amount of grading that would take place. With the way we have the drive, there is not as much grading needed. We tried to buffer with 100 feet of wooded area between each house, and 50 feet of wooded area between the existing homes. Also with the density of the wooded area, Falling Waters had / acre lots versus two acre lots here. It was also good to get those homes closer to the street. As it is, for these homes, they will have low pressure sewer, if we can get engineering to sign off on it. Plus it is not cost effective to bring a gravity sewer line up thru the Sequoyah Reserve to service 5 houses. We weren't faced with a lot of those same challenges. Commissioner Anthes asked on the development plan, that the houses are required a 3500 sq ft minimum floor plan with no height restriction? Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 40 Mr. Hennelly stated yes. Commissioner Anthes asked if staff can recommend a 3500 sq ft house with no height restriction on a hillside? Mr. Pate stated that there are currently no height restrictions at all with the zoning district that it is located in now. As a benchmark, when staff reviews the development with no height restriction now, we saw no reason to impose one arbitrarily. Commissioner Anthes asked when development occurs on this property, would they be subject to the ordinances and height restrictions at that time. Mr. Pate stated that is correct. Commissioner Anthes stated next question, the development plan stated 18 foot streets, the fire department is talking about 20. Do you agree with that? Mr. Hennelly stated yes, they did. Twenty feet is fine, we adjusted the plat accordingly. We initially had it at 18 feet, but after we talked with the Fire Marshal, we changed it. Commissioner Anthes stated that the Master Development Plan states that there will be no sidewalks or street lights in this development? Mr. Hennelly stated yes. Commissioner Anthes asked staff about their comments on that. Mr. Pate stated that with 5 lots and a private street, the street will probably function very well for pedestrian and vehicular movement, especially with no connectivity to the east, south, or any direction. There are also no other sidewalks in this area currently built, and it is unlikely the public would venture down a private street. Commission Anthes stated she would agree with Mr. Pate on the sidewalks, but would disagree on the usage of the street area. People would use it to get to the park dedication area and wonders about the street lights being beneficial. Mr. Hennelly stated that they would normally be opposed to the additional street lights, but due to the secluded area on a hillside, we could get with staff and come up with individual gas lanterns or something of that nature, with lower illumination. We can make that a private light and a requirement in the covenant, that each one of the lots have one of those. Commission Anthes stated that would be nice. A low light for the pedestrians and a safety factor. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 41 Mr. Hennelly stated that something like that could be worked into the project. Commission Anthes stated that her other question would be the nine minute response time, that the Fayetteville fire department has written us a letter, indicating a nine minute response time with no likelihood of changing, because of the steepness of the existing streets and narrow winding road into the development. The question is, with that response time, what is the wisdom of granting condition number 2, which involves a waiver request for a dead end private street longer than 500 ft in length? Would the Commissioners like to comment on that issue? Commissioner Clark states that she was concerned about the letter from the Fire Marshall, but remember that this was status quo for the streets in that area, so not to make the situation worse, the response time is normal up to this property. She believes insurance will be a bear, but that is down the road. A question was directed to Mr. Pate, when do you say "No", on the lack of response time or even with police response time? Not in this particular development, but any development, or situation. Mr. Pate stated you have to always keep in mind that response time is not the only factor to consider. In the annexation policy there are 20 guiding criteria, with rezoning there are 5 or 6. When the staff, the Planning Commission or City Council reviews the requests, and believes it is not in the interest of public safety, that is when it is not recommended. He describes the fundamentals of the zoning review process. Commissioner Clark stated that this is conceming, that we have areas existing in town that will burn down before we get there. She is not particularly troubled about this development, it is not making it worse, but I hope there is never a fire. Mr. Pate stated that the Planning Commission should get the minutes from the last City Council meeting, that the Fire Chief made some great responses regarding the same issue. He noted some of the issues that were discussed at the Council meeting. He also stated that this rezoning request actually decreases some of the issues on response time, due to the decrease in number of homes allowed. Commissioner Clark stated that we can look at emergency access when we look at the preliminary plat, at that time. Mr. Hennelly stated that was the point he wanted to make. With Biella, there was an emergency access established. At this time, we are working on an emergency access for this development and it will be in place, and reduce the response time, considerably. Commissioner Allen stated that she is part of the Neilson family that watches the government channel, and watched that particular City Council meeting, and found that very confusing. She requested Mr. Pate to contact Fire Chief Johnson and see about coming in before one of their meetings and discuss with them some of the issues they are having. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 42 Commissioner Graves states that the fire department can not take into consideration the stations that are not built yet, or the underdeveloped roads in these developments. He stated other assumed issues that the fire department has to take into consideration on making these response times. Commissioner Lack stated that the decreased density and change of zoning were appealing. Also, he would like to ask a question about one of the use units. Units 1 and 8 are permitted uses, 24 is a conditional use; use unit 24 is listed in the permitted uses category, instead of the conditional uses? Mr. Pate stated that the first is correct, and how the other conditions are stated as revisions. Commissioner Clark called for a vote. Commissioner Ostner asked if anyone is against the call of the vote. None opposed. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of R- PZD 05-1798 to the City Council was approve by a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 43 '[APE BLANK FOR SEVERAL MINUTES - THEN PICKS UP HERE. THIS IFEM IS NOT ON AGENDA - POSSIBLY TAPED DUBBED OVER WITH ANOTHER MEETING. NEXT TAPE STARTED IN MIDDLE OF R-PZD 05-1798, WIIICII IIAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN TRANSCRIBED. Ostner: Thank you. The next Item is another Residential Planned Zoning District, R-PZD 05-1797 for THE BUNGALOWS AT CATO SPRINGS. If we could have the Staff Report, please. Pate: This too is a Master Development Plan Planned Zoning District so Approval is not granted with Approval tonight or with City Council. It would come back through as a Preliminary Plat Review through the Development Review process. The Applicant has submitted this in response to the Planning Commission's No -Vote five to one to deny a Rezoning Request on this property to RMAP-6 from it's current zoning designation of RSF-4, Residential Single Family -4 units per acre. It is located on Cato Springs Road, west of Cline Avenue. The property contains approximately five point five -two acres. The Proposal is for three separate planning areas that could at maximum yield thirty single- family lots. It is currently utilized for a large lot, Rural Residential use with two single-family dwellings and a number of accessory structures. The Cato Springs Branch Creek in a wooded area traverses north/south near the western edge of the property and an old railroad spur is to the north of the property. To the east is a developed subdivision along Cline Avenue with single-family homes. The Applicant is requesting a Rezoning Approval for a future residential subdivision within a Residential Planned Zoning District process. The proposed use of the site is for all single-family detached dwelling units with a maximum again of thirty lots ranging from fifteen -hundred square feet to thirty-eight hundred square feet; that number might need to be revised, with three playing areas, one and a half acres of potential tree preservation and/or trail corridor for parkland dedication along Cato Springs Branch Creek. Each of the planning areas has identified single-family uses with separate **** and area regulations and that's why they are separated into two distinct planning areas. On the plats you will notice that there are separate lot sizes and unit sizes on each one of those. Some of Staff's concerns at the time of the rezoning and at least five of the Planning Commission's found in favor of those concerns was the lack of compatibility from the multifamily zoning district was requested in the single-family zoning district and neighborhoods surrounding. Utilizing a single-family detached product within this property in going through the overall Master Development Plan has allowed Staff to recommend Approval of this project, finding that it would be more compatible with those single-family residential units, especially those to the east that are already existing that would also allow for a transition of the property. It is designated a mixed- Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 44 use area on our General Plan 20-20 and therefore the mixtures of uses could potentially be appropriate if done with compatibility to adjacent properties in mind. With regard to finding, again Staff finds that the Application is in compliance with the Master Development Plan. You may notice from your earlier Planned Zoning Districts there are eight new findings that are made with these Planned Zoning Districts and those are the first eight in Section E. I won't go over all of those but again, those are the Approval or Denial factors for our Planned Zoning District. Additionally, we also make findings for the remainder of the Planned Zoning District Items. Staff is recommending several Conditions of Approval in response to these findings and those are listed on Pages 3, 4 and 5 of your Staff Report for a total of 16 Conditions. A couple of those I'll go over with you. Item Number 1, there are at least three revisions. I would also like to recommend changing Condition Letter C for signage. Based on our previous conversations about signage within Planning Zoning Districts, that would read, "Signage shall be permitted in accordance with the regulations set forth in Chapter 174, Signs for RSF, Residential Single -Family Zoning Districts", that would allow this Single - Family Zoning District essentially to be permitted signs that would be found typically in Single -Family Zoning Districts. Item Number 2, Staff felt it was important that the front building facades, as they faced the street, be varied in material and color. While we don't require materials or elevations, they have presented some of those for you in this Residential Detached Dwelling and there are a number of bungalow -type dwellings that are shown. We did feel that it was appropriate, though, to mix those up somewhat to provide a varied street facade. Condition Number 5, Street Connectivity, with regard to this Proposal, as with any Master Development Plan, we're looking at a template. Things may change. They may be altered. Actually, built into the Ordinance there are ways to modify within fifteen or twenty percent of what is Approved, the setbacks, the density, the building height, things of that nature. This would also deal with Condition Number 5, which is Street Connectivity. Staff is recommending further evaluation at the time of development for Street Connectivity to the north. Property to the west obviously cannot be connected. That would traverse Cato Springs to the east. There is a mistake in Staff Report. Property at the east will likely not be connected because of the existing single-family subdivision to the east. To the south is the proposed access to Cato Springs Road. However, property to the north is currently undeveloped and a street stubbed out to this property may be beneficial to disperse traffic should that property develop. We typically look at these properties in more depth at the time of development and so this is more, I think, for the developer to understand that there is a potential for stub -out should the Planning Commission recommend that with the Preliminary Plat and put them on notice that that could change. Item Number 6, the Plans aren't showing detention. Again, this is the Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 45 Master Development Plan, so we would not expect fully built -out projects. However, the project booklet does indicate that the Applicant is likely going to attempt to prove that they do not have to detain because they are so close to that water -body. It's likely that that will be Approved. But again, that will have to be either provided or proven or Approved by the City Engineer with City Ordinance and Policy. The same thing with Park Plan Dedication, water and sewer lines, relocating overhead electric lines. The western 1.5 acres Proposed to be dedicated to the City as parks and trails, Parks and Recreation may not desire that land. They have not walked and fully looked at this property. Again, this is a Zoning decision based on a concept that would have to be looked at by the Parks and Recreation Board at the time of development. They would make that recommendation at that time. The same thing with the True Preservation Plans. That's another thing sort of like the Street Connectivity. There's not a full-blown Tree Preservation Plan submitted. It's not required by this Ordinance. Again, it's providing a concept and Staff is calling attention to the fact that, while conceptually the Master Plan presented meets the goals and intent of the Master Development Plan, much of the interior canopy, if it were platted today and developed as it's shown, much of the interior canopy would be removed. Therefore, we're again putting the Planing Commission and the Applicant on notice that we will review this in accordance with all development regulations at the time of submittal. I believe that's everything that at least touches the primary issues. Again, this was proposed as RMS -6. Staff could not recommend that, citing compatibility and really that was the biggest issue, I believe, at the time of the vote and discussion of this Item because they were single- family detached and already present residential neighborhoods. The Planning Commission, I believe the five, at least, that voted against this, all cited that as their primary concern due to the fact that what RMS gives you without any type of Plan in front of you, is not appropriate in that area. And, with that, Staff is recommending that this be forwarded with the recommendation for Approval to the City Council for this Master Development Plan. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Pate. Is the Applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Morgan: Good afternoon. Mike Morgan with McClelland Engineering. I'm representing tonight this project, along with my client, Real Sources, three members who are present here tonight. This 5.5 acres located directly off of Cato Springs Road, is a wonderful piece of land. It's located in between a multitude of different zoning. We have existing university land to the east. We are surrounded by existing residential single-family land, as well as industrial land in this vicinity so we're really a transitional piece. And, being located off of Cato Springs Branch Creek, we do have Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 46 some sensitive areas on our site. My clients have met numerous times with the neighboring landowners to determine what are the concerns and grievances they may have. We have worked in several iterations of this project. We met as late as yesterday to insure that the neighbors thoughts and feelings had been correctly understood and had been reflected in the Proposed Zoning of this development. This development, 5.5 acres, allows us to preserve the western portion that is directly adjacent to Cato Springs Branch Creek because it is the most environmentally sensitive. It allows us to preserve that but still have enough room and the ability to develop the remaining portions and to get the yield that is needed to satisfy the proforma of this project. We do offer the necessary buffering and the sizes of buildings, as well as the setbacks to satisfy the neighbors wants and needs. We've met the City's concerns. We do agree and don't have any problems with the comments that are presented here before us tonight. The neighbors are with us and we feel we are meeting the Policies incurred by General Plan 20-20 for such a piece of land in this area. Thank you. Ostner: Okay. Thank you. At this point I'll call for Public Comment on this R- PZD 05-1797. Please come forward. If you could, give us your name and share your comments. Wilson: My name is Nick Wilson. I actually work for Bassett, Mix and Associates and I represented Mr. Knight and Michael Campbell in this project in purchasing the land. I've spent fifty-five ... Ostner: Sir, are you associated with the developer? Wilson: Huh? Ostner: Are you associated with the developer? Wilson: Yeah. Ostner: If you could just hold on, I'm going to call for Public Comment, which is not associated with the developer. Wilson: Okay. Ostner: So, just hold on. We might get back with you. Is there anyone who is not associated with the development who would like to speak? Okay, I'm going to close the Public Comment session and bring it back to the Commission then I will let this person speak. Wilson: Okay. I apologize. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 47 Ostner: That's okay. Wilson: I've spent fifty-five of my fifty-seven years living in Fayetteville and I grew up in the south end of Fayetteville. In fact, two of my houses I lived in are no longer there. And, if you're familiar with what's going on in south Fayetteville, it's kind of dwindling out as far as houses. Most of the projects that are there now are multifamily or things tied in with the University. This project, we originally were trying to do duplexes and we came back, as they said, and met with the people and they had some opposition to that. But, the last two meetings they were very encouraged with this project. And, it's going to be affordable single-family housing in south Fayetteville, which those in real estate know, we do not have very much of that. So, we would appreciate your support on this matter and I appreciate you allowing me this time. Thank you. Ostner: Okay. Thank you. Commissioners. Allen: Mr. Chair. Ostner: Commissioner Allen. Allen: I was going to ask Mr. Wilson, he made the comment that this is affordable housing; a big passion of mine hit right on immediately. What do you consider affordable housing? Wilson: Up to one hundred and fifty thousand. Allen: Okay, thank you. Wilson: Which is ... Allen: So, what might be the bottom end? Wilson: I think that the Plan on these are from one hundred and twenty-five to one hundred and fifty. Of course, you know depending on when these are built, things can change, you know the price of materials and stuff can certainly change that. But, the intent is to try and stay in that range. There is very little housing in Fayetteville in that price range. And, there's very few developments on the south end of town. I am not even aware of any right now that are single-family. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Wilson: Thank you. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 48 Ostner: So, are Planned Area 3 duplexes or are those units also single-family units? Pate: All units are separated. So, all are considered single-family. Ostner: Single-family units. Okay. Pate: There is a Condition that it has to obviously meet building code separations. So, that will have to be more flushed out with the iteration that comes before you as Preliminary Plat, then building permits. But, that's something that again, was put in the Conditions, more for the Applicant to know than anything. Ostner: Sure. Since this is a Zoning Request, we've got a Development attached. There seem to be some gray area because there is a Statement of Commitments. We have a lot of nice elevations in the booklet that are binding that are part of this Proposal. Pate: Correct. Ostner: Is the culdesac also part of this Proposal? Pate: It's indicated on this Plan. Again, that's why when we have specific concerns, we will list them in your Conditions of Approval and indicate when ... again, thirty units is a maximum. That's a maximum development. They've indicated minimums on lots size of twenty -foot width distance. That could be a forty -foot width lot. Say the market changes tomorrow and they decide not to do this product. They might come back with half the units and something larger. As long as it meets the criteria in the Zoning District in which they're creating, the Planning Commission will review a Preliminary Plat based on that criteria. Just like a Preliminary Plat that's in RSF-4 Zoning District, they don't all develop at RSF-4. They sometimes develop at 1.8, sometimes 2.3, sometimes 3.8, so it kind of varies. Ostner: I understand that. It just gets very interesting letting the Zoning be created, and then trying to imagine him coming through to meet his own Zoning requirements. The culdesac is a concern of mine. I'm not sure that's good City Planning. If it meets our threshold of thirty units, I suppose that might be okay. I would like to thank the developer for doing such a different layout. I would ask you to further consider, in our Ordinance, we allow for one-way alleys, especially ... I believe it has to be Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 49 a private alley. Am I right, Mr. Pate? On Page 11 or 28 of our packet ... I understand this is not a Development Request. This is just conversation since we're talking about this. These alleys that surround this Development could be even narrower if the were constructed at a one-way layout since there is a public right-of-way in front for the fire trucks and emergency vehicles. So, it's just an idea, just a comment. I don't have a lot of questions. I think this is a good Development. I do have one comment and this has come up before with other people talking down here at this Planning Commission. Talking about south Fayetteville dwindling out, I'm not so sure I agree with that. I think this is a good Development. It seems like it might be good for the community. There's a lot going on in south Fayetteville that's not dwindling out at all. It is exciting. It is hopeful. When people try to redevelop one at a time or not one at a time, every other house, it's slow but the signs I see aren't dwindling out at all. But there are good values to be had down there. There are some really rough houses. There are a lot of houses that look terrific. So, I'm not sure if south Fayetteville is dwindling out at all. That's the end of my comments. Anthes: Mr. Chair? Ostner: Commissioner Anthes? Anthes: I have a question about the comment about the sheet flow to the creek of all the development and can you talk about that and Staff, can you also talk about how you feel about this density development right adjacent to this environmentally sensitive area? Ostner: The Developer will have to prove that detention of strong -water runoff will be detrimental to the actual stream -flow. That will have to be done with a very detailed Drainage Report. Anthes: And, that takes into account, Soils Reports, I'm assuming? Ostner: Yes, Ma'am. Anthes: Okay. On the drawings that were submitted, the street that is just to the east and south of this development, on two pages is designated as Clover Drive and on a third sheet, it's designated as Michael Avenue. Which is the correct designation of that street? Pate: Which one are you referring to? Oh, south of Cato Springs? Anthes: Yes, south of Cato Springs on the eastern property line. There's Clover Drive on the first two sheets then it says Michael Avenue. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 50 Ostner: Yeah, l think Clover is proper. Pate: Our Plat Pages refer to it as Clover Drive. MOTION: Anthes: Clover Drive. Do you know ... I guess we would talk about the separation between Clover Drive and the Proposed Drive at the time of the Developments. I would like to Move to Amend the Conditions of Approval as follows: Condition of Approval Number 1, Item C, should be Amended per Jeremy's verbiage regarding signage. Condition of Approval Number 2, Front Building Facades as they face the street shall be varied in material color so that no two same facades are adjacent to one another or face one another across the street. Conditional Approval Number 5, to make the change to property to the east, that correction. Conditional of Approval Number 10, to strike the final four words of that sentence. And, adding a Condition of Approval that says, "Prior to City Council, the Project Booklet shall be revised to reflect the following revisions, 1. include pages numbers in the report. 2. remove references to San Destin, Florida and 3. label kitchens as kitchens, rather than great rooms on the Floor Plans". Ostner: What was Number 2? Anthes: Remove references to San Destin, Florida. Allen: What changes did you want to Number 10? Anthes: To strike the last four words of the sentence. Unknown: What was that additional Conditional that you gave at the end? Please run through that again. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 51 Anthes: Sure. "Prior to City Council, the Project Booklet shall be revised to reflect the following revisions: 1. include pages numbers in the report. 2. remove references to San Destin, Florida and 3. label kitchens as kitchens, rather than great rooms on the Floor Plans". Osmer: There is a Motion to Forward with changes to the Conditions of Approval. Anthes: That wasn't a Motion to Forward. Ostner: It wasn't a Motion to Forward, okay. Anthes: That was Motion to Amend the Conditions. Ostner: To simply Amend the Conditions. Is there a Second to Amend the Conditions? Myers: Second. Ostner: Okay. Second by Commissioner Myers. I'm going to try to repeat them for the record. Actually, on 1-C, you mentioned per Jeremy's comments. Would you be more specific? Pate: "Signage shall be permitted in accordance with Regulations set forth in Chapter 174, Signs for RSF Zoning Districts". Ostner: That clarifies 1-C. Number 2 add the statement, "or if they face one another". Condition Number 5 change the west to east, "the property to the east will not be connected." Strike the last four words on Condition 10, "unless Approved otherwise herein". And then the added Condition, changes to the Booklet before Council consideration: 1. page numbers should be added 2. remove San Destin references 3. label kitchens as kitchens Vaught: Mr. Chair? Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 52 Ostner: Yes, Mr. Vaught. Vaught: I do have one question for Staff. On Number 10, "unless Approved otherwise herein", was that in for a specific reason or was that just standard verbiage? Pate: I believe that was just standard verbiage. Vaught: So, there's no exceptions to that? Pate: Not that I'm aware of. The way that Ordinances are directed through our office and the City Attorney reviews those, anything that would be in conflict, any Development Ordinance that would be in conflict at the time of submittal or right now, those Items are addressed within that Ordinance language that the Planning Commission never sees, the City Council sees. It's part of the Section of that Ordinance. Vaught: That little part of the sentence is? But, it doesn't change published ... Pate: Correct. Ostner: Okay, is there further discussion? We should vote on these changes first. Will you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call, Anthes, Allen, Myres, Graves, Lack, Clark, Vaught, Trumbo and Ostner respond with yes. Davis: Motion to Amend Condition carries. Ostner: Thank you. I've got a question for Staff. If the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board does not accept that land, does this come back? Is the PZD offered? Pate: No, only if they decided not to accept this land, and the Planning Commission determined that was indeed the case, it would likely just be private open space, free space. Ostner: Open space. Okay. Clark: Mr. Chair? Ostner: Yes, Commissioner Clark? Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 53 Clark: I have a question of Staff just for clarification. On the Comparative Designing Chart, I'm looking at units per acre at 8, 10, 15 and back at 8 in their Booklet. If we pass this and City Council passes it, and this development falls through, and this specific R-PZD is not built, does that density still convey with the land to the next developer? Pate: No, it's based again on all the Statement of Commitments and Development Standards. Now, they could sell the property but they would have to comply with these two documents here and any Conditions that are placed upon the project. If they decide not to within the timeframe that they're allowed, it is revoked and that has to come back before the City Council for the City Council to determine what actual means of revocation is, meaning they may just Zone it back to what it was. If a project were half built out, they may allow those permits to still be valid but have to rethink the other return for another Planned Zoning District. So, there are a number of ways that the City Council could utilize to change those ... Clark: I'm just confused just whether this density would be reflected for this particular R-PZD. I mean, I don't understand. Pate: Ultimately, the density would be whatever is constructed. The maximum thirty units on this 5.... Clark: So, the maximum thirty units is binding? Pate: Correct. Clark: Okay. Allen: Mr. Chair? Ostner: Yes, Commissioner Allen? MOTION: Allen: I would like to commend the developer for listening to our comments and taking into account the affordable housing and visiting with the neighbors. It indicates to me that he's had a lot of success because no one is here to object, so he must have made a lot of headway. And, with that, I would like to recommend to the Council Approval of R-PZD 05-1797, subject to the Conditions that we have Amended moments ago. Clark: Second. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 54 Ostner: Okay. Motion to Forward by Commissioner Allen. Second by Commissioner Clark. Is there any further discussion? Anthes: Mr. Chair? Ostner: Commissioner Anthes? Anthes: I'd just like to comment that I am concerned, as Staff is, about the separations between these structures and I believe that is going to speak to the actual density that will be able to be realized on this site, as single- family units. Normally, I'm all about density, but on this site I'm a little concerned about the density in this particular development pattern, particularly because of it's relationship to the creek and then also that it has one outlet and that it's surrounded by things that are very, very different from this. And, in a certain way, it's a Spot -Zoning in the middle of a lot of different stuff. So, while there are certain things about it I'm really drawn to, I also have some reservations that I wanted to state for the record. Ostner: Thank you, Commissioner Anthes. Is there further comment? Will you call the roll, please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call, Trumbo, Vaught, Clark, Lack, Graves, Myres, Allen, Anthes and Ostner respond with yes. Davis: Motion carries. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 55 TIIIS ITEM TRANSCRIBED FROM DVD, ASA SYNOPSIS. Ostner: The next Item on our Agenda is C-PZD 05-1734: Planned Zoning District for PARADISE POINT. Ms. Morgan read the staff report. This is a detailed Planned Zoning District Master Development Plan, an application requesting approval for not only the zoning for this property, but also the development approval for a large scale development. The property contains approximately 1.55 acres and is located west of Crossover and south of Joyce Boulevard. The applicant requests a mixed-use development, which will incorporate 12 residential units and 12,065 sf. of retail/office space. The retail/office space is located on the first floor of the development as well as one residential unit. There will be 11 residential units on the second floor. Page 2 on the staff report indicates the permitted and conditional uses as proposed by the applicant. Density on the property currently would allow the development of 24 units per acre; the applicant requests 7.7 units per acre. Setback requirements are a little different than the RMF -24 and C-2 requirements. Fifty -foot front setbacks and three-foot setbacks on the side and rear are proposed. A maximum 35 ft in height and a total building area of 20% is proposed. Access is one of the issues we discussed with this development. Proposed is one access onto Crossover Road and a northern access through the property to the north, through an existing parking lot. At the time of the report, the applicant was coordinating with the property owners to the north for approval for an access easement, which will allow them access onto that property. If those agreements and easements are not obtained by the time building permits are being reviewed, this application would have to come back to the Planning Commission for review to determine whether a single access onto Crossover Road will constitute safe means of access to this development. With regard to tree preservation, there is an existing 23% canopy on the property and the applicant proposes to preserve 13% of that canopy. With the proposal, mitigation would be required by either planting on site or contributing money in lieu. Staff is recommending forwarding this Master Development Plan Planned Zoning District to the City Council for approval with a total of 26 conditions of which are included several determinations, including Planning Commission determination of street improvements. Staff recommends construction of a 6 foot sidewalk along Crossover Road. This portion of Crossover and Hwy 265 is not yet improved and is slated to be improved in the future. Therefore we are not recommending any other improvements than sidewalks at this time. Condition 2 of the Planning Commission determination addresses commercial design standards. The applicant has brought a board representing the proposed elevations as well as a material sample board. Staff finds the proposed elevations are in compliance with commercial design standards. Subdivision committee found in favor of the elevations and support of the modifications of the western facade. Condition 3 regards the determination of safety access discussed. Condition number 5 discusses the approval from any adjoining property owners if grading is proposed 5 feet from the adjoining property line. Typical developments of this nature do not have to address that situation, but as the applicant is proposing to build this structure 3 feet from the property line, it would certainly need to be addressed. In addition to that, there are some offsite easements that will be required. There is an existing easement on the property that will need to be vacated prior to the issuing of Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 56 building permits. With regard to signs, the applicant proposes all signs in accordance with ordinances, and staff would request a modification to condition 14, to allow Use Unit 17, Trade and Services, as a permitted use, proposed by the developer. With regard to phasing, they would typically have one year, and after that one year, a one -ear extension on the timing of their permits. The applicant is requesting five years from City Council approval for all issues of permits for this development. They anticipate breaking ground soon. Mr. Jeremy Thompson with H2 Engineering represented the applicant. He stated the location and advised that there are two lots with an irregular shape. The architects worked hard to put together this structure to work with the current dimensions. It's a two story structure proposing office retail space on the bottom floor with one residential unit. The second -story contains residential units only. We are in agreement with staff comments. On condition number two, we would like to give an update. Utility easements are in the process of being acquired to the south and west side of the property. We also have verbal agreement on the transfer of that easement but have not obtained signatures. Also, on the access easement to the north: the plans show access on the east side of the existing building and the property owners are asking us to move it to the west side of their structure. You will notice a parking area on the west side - we are proposing to extend that directly north. This will actually connect perfectly with an existing access off of Joyce Street. That is the direction that easement is going now. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask, and the architect is here and can answer any questions you have on the structure. Commissioner Ostner opened the floor to public comment. There was no public comment Commissioner Vaught asked staff if this is a Master Development Plan? Mr. Pate states it is also development -related. Building permits can be issued after City Council approval. He also explained the differences to Commissioner Vaught and advised that staff will always explain which type of application is before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Vaught noted the differences on the last PZD verses this one. Commissioner Anthes stated she has two questions. The first is directed to Mr. Kit Williams. Use Unit 17 is requested as a permitted use; is it more appropriate as a conditional use within this zone? Mr. Williams stated he didn't believe it was required to use all the use units that the applicant requests. You can use your own judgement on that, just like the City Council can. You can also make some permitted or conditional; just like our normal zoning districts do. I don't think you are bound to what they are requesting, even though staff is recommending it now and not intentionally leaving it out. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 57 Mr. Pate stated that is correct and the biggest reason for that is often times on Unit Use 17 there are higher intensity uses and one doesn't know the development pattern that will occur. But in this development, we do know where everything is going. There is no question on what is going to be built, we know the footprints, parking space, etc. Commissioner Anthes asked that if the building configuration would not lend itself to the other uses anyway, then you are not concerned? Mr. Pate stated that is correct. Commissioner Anthes stated another issue she would like to discuss is the condition of approval for phasing. That is the required permits of the 5 years being requested. She states she doesn't see any circumstances for this approval. This development is actually smaller than a lot of large scale developments. She would be more inclined to follow the same pattern on this issue, and revise that to a one year approval. Commissioner Vaught stated that he would like to ask the applicant why they requested the 5 year extension. Mr. Thompson stated that the owner's intent is to after approval start construction of this project. In the new PZD process, we are allowed to develop a time frame, and to provide the owner with a little extra time, we proposed 5 years. He states he would be willing to back down to 2 to 3 years, since it is allowed in the new PZD and there is some consideration on the Planning Commission's part. Commission Anthes asked Mr. Thompson how this development is any different than any of the other developments or plans coming through under a year? Mr. Thompson stated that he didn't think that the development was any different than the others but refers to Jeremy Pate on the new PZD that allows the time frame. Since it is allowed, we proposed that. Commissioner Clark stated that it is odd that it is one phase, one building and it will take 5 years to build it. MOTION: Commissioner Trumbo motioned to amend the time requested to 2 years. Commissioner Myers seconded the motion. Commissioner Ostner stated the motion is to amend condition number 17 to read 2 years to gain their required permits. He asked if there were further discussion on this. There were no more further comments. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 58 Roll was called, and the amendment to condition number 17 was approved by a vote of 8-1-0 with Commissioner Anthes opposing. MOTION: Commissioner Clark motioned to forward R-PZD 05-1734 to the City Council with stated conditions, as amended. Commissioner Myers seconded the motion. Mr. Pate mentioned that the stub out access shown on the east side on the plat and to be aware of the discussion to move it to the west side. Commissioner Ostner asked if there was any further discussion. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of R- PZD 05-1734 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 59 Ostner: Thank you. The last Item on our Agenda is and Administrative Item, ADM 05-1893: Administrative Item for an Amendment to the Planning Commission BYLAWS, Article 3. If we could have the Staff Report, please. Pate: This was requested by Planning Commission to bring forward, pursuant to the Planning Commissions Bylaws. It is presented at a meeting and then decided at a following meeting. So therefore, we would not vote on it tonight. But again, formerly has been presented to you. This is essentially a potential Amendment to limit the Public Speaking time, both by Applicant, which would be limited to ten minutes and three minutes for each citizen unless a unanimous consent of the whole Commission would allow for additional speaking time. At the Agenda Session, not all of you are present, there was considerable discussion about this, at least forty-five minutes worth and I think there was some dissention as to what is required. However, this is what is presented to you at this time. It is not to be voted on tonight but if you wish for it to be placed on the Agenda ... actually, we'll just place it on the Agenda and you can vote it up or down at the next meeting. Ostner: Thank you. I would call for a Public Comment, but no one is left. Actually, I am calling for Public Comment. Seeing none, I'll bring this back to the Commission. Allen: Mr. Chair. I will not talk at length. I'll make it three minutes. I feel this is a regressive thing to do. We are appointed, volunteer officials that are accountable to our City Council. And, it is our responsibility to listen to the Public. If we do not have time to do that, we do not have time to serve on the Planning Commission. I hope everybody will give a lot of thought to this. In my five and a half years on the Planning Commission, obviously there's been an awfully lot of growth but there has also been an awfully lot more verbiage and filibustering and going on and tedium. And, the meetings have gotten longer and longer and longer and longer. I feel like if we could organize our thought, I think we could have shorter meetings. Also, I have concerns about the Council hearing what we have to say and we don't have the Minutes because our Minutes are as long as Moby Dick. So, if we have something that is really possible for them to take a look at, then we might feel like they had a chance to really peruse and give some thought to what we have to say. Otherwise, we really don't have any value at all. So, I think the problem is that we have discovered the enemy and the enemy is us. We are the ones that go on and on and on, not the Public, not the Applicant. There are ways for us to be more succinct and I am adamantly Opposed to this Amendment. The End. Ostner: Thank you. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 60 Graves: Mr. Chair? Ostner: Yes, Mr. Graves? Graves: I'm not Opposed to the Amendment but I would agree with Commissioner Allen's sentiments that it's generally, in my experience on here, I haven't been on here as long as Commissioner Allen, but it tends to be the Commission that sometimes talks things out, free -thought, stream of consciousness sometimes without some organization. And, I think if we thought about it probably every Commissioner here has done it and sometimes it boils down to just a lack of looking at the packet in detail that we're provided and going, "oh, that was in there already?" So, from that standpoint, I think a lot more effort and preparation, probably by all of us, would assist in shortening the meetings. With that said, though, there is some truth to the fact that when we have some of these bigger Items on the Agenda, and I think the neighborhoods have done a much better job recently of organizing themselves and having one or two representatives come up, rather than one after another, after another like I used to see on TV with, for example, the Catholic Church project where you had fifty people who all felt like they needed to say something rather than having sort of an organized effort. They are doing a better job but there are some larger issues sometimes that come up like that where it's just one person after another, after another that's saying the same thing and it's repetitive. And, it may be that even the Amendment here needs to be Amended to allow the Chair some latitude on maybe speakers off that are being repetitious, as opposed to a time limit. Maybe the first guy has something to say that takes seven minutes to say the second guy wants to say it all over again, and he doesn't need more than fifteen seconds before we realize that's what they're doing. So, there may be some effort made in trying to draft something that addresses that. But, I think that when you look at the court system, people's lives are at stake, people's liberties are at stake, people's money is at stake, everything you can imagine. And yet, our Appellate Courts, our trial Judges all put a time limit on you and you may be in mid -sentence and they may have interrupted you several times to ask you questions so that you couldn't get through your presentation the way you had planned it out in your mind, but when your time limit's up and that little light goes off in front of you and you're in mid -sentence, you're done and you have to sit down. And, there are a lot of more important things at issue in some of those cases than there are here. So, I don't think that having a time limit on things so that we can get our business done and go home at a reasonable hour is an unreasonable thing to do. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 61 Allen: Mr. Chair. I think that if people are allowed to speak their minds, say their piece, then they're much more apt to go home accepting what the outcome is. I know that the Council doesn't do it, no arm of our government that I'm aware of, sets a time limit, that another body in the City that we're battling with them, allowing a Public Comment on, not name them. And, I just don't want us to be setting that kind of a precedent. I think it's wrong. Maybe that will be the end. Vaught: Mr. Chair? Ostner: Mr. Vaught? Vaught: I'm making a couple of comments. I'm not agreeing with three minutes as a time limit. I'm not Opposed to a time limit as kind of a maximum. I think that most people come up before us do not speak for three minutes. I think that's the exception, rather than the norm. But sometimes they can. Sometimes it's a filibuster. They want to talk us into tedium, it feels like sometimes. If this was the only avenue of public expression or speech, I would understand not wanting to place a time limit on, but they are free to submit emails, letters, come to other various meetings and express themselves. This isn't the only avenue that they have. So, in Public Presentation and Public Speech, I am not Opposed to a time limit. I think Commissioner Graves a number of points very clearly. And I think that, by setting a time limit, I know we have stated the desire to encourage people to shorten their time, but what that does is it puts us in a position where it can be perceived that we're limiting some speech and not others arbitrarily when the Chairman asks someone to hurry up or, we've heard that before. To me, that's a worse situation than setting a defined time limit and saying at five minutes if you ramble on about the same thing the other guy said, you're not going to get to get to your other points. I think that it would encourage people to get to the new Items and encourage flow, rather than hinder speech. I think that it could help and it could take and own us off of this body and off the chair for arbitrarily applying an under-the-table time limit. In that respect, I am not Opposed to a time limit at all. Whether or not three minutes is correct or five minutes would be better, I don't know. I think it needs to be discussed. Plus, I think that with the other forms of speech that are available to people, there are points to be made by other avenues and we receive all the letters and emails and review those. And, as Commissioner Graves said, that's why the courts have expensive documents on something so they don't necessarily need to hear all the Public Comment to have reached their judgements. But, that's my opinion. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 62 Ostner: Thank you. Anthes: Mr. Chair? Ostner: Commissioner Anthes? Anthes: I'd just like to make an observation that through preparation by the Planning Commission can actually lead to additional questions and discussion, more so than a lack of preparation. Ostner: Is that a Proposal? Clark: Mr. Chair? Ostner: Commissioner Clark? Clark: I have a very basic problem with putting a speaking time on and that is somebody's got to keep that time. I mean as the Commissioners have mentioned, if we're not consistent, we falling into another gulf and, personally, I don't want to be the one that sits up here with a watch that says, you're time has expired. And, I don't think you want to, either because we should be listening to what they have to say, not timing how long it's taking them to say it. I would encourage us, as a group, to maybe make it an informal request. Try to limit yourself to three to five minutes. Don't be repetitive. Don't be redundant. And, the Chair has my support in enforcing that; simply rule people out of order if they violate that procedure of this Chamber. I would hesitate to say that maybe one or two of our speakers here tonight went over three minutes. We had some very short, succinct presentations. And I'm probably guilty, as all of you of saying too much and getting into debates among ourselves. But, we're all learning, as well. I don't support this hard -fast rule, simply because I think I personnel may change, we may not have Commissioner's who actually want to talk things to death at times. But, we may have a Public that feels like this is a venue they need to make available to themselves. And, if they talk five minutes, great. Get to the Appellate Court, let them put a time limit on it. We're just the beginnings, really, not even Subdivision. All these things don't even go through Subdivision first sometimes. So, I think there's a better way to remedy this if we all put our heads together we can do it. Vaught: Mr. Chair? Ostner: Yes, Mr. Vaught? Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 63 Vaught: One is that if we don't have a Rule limiting time, I don't know if we should be suggesting one at all. I think that's where we get to the judgement calls and that's where we ... if you're worried about limiting speech, an arbitrary ruling by the Chair is limiting speech worse than a defined time limit to me. It's not a steadfast Rule, it doesn't apply to everybody and that can change with every Chair. So, I would rather have a hard -set fast time or nothing at all. In my opinion, that's better, as far as we go in the law. I was curious what the City Attorney's thoughts were on time limits or on us suggesting time limits. Williams: Well, I've been stopped in mid -sentence just like Commissioner Graves has before the Appellate Court. But, I want to point out, tonight you all did, I think, a very good job and so did the audience. There were ten non - Tabled, non-consensual Items that you covered in a little bit less than four and a half hours, about twenty-seven minutes an Item. Not bad. I thought we had good presentations from the Staff. They were concise. Got it out. I think the audience was organized with the ones where they had several people here and I think you all did a good job of not over -debating the particular Items, either. So, I think that actually you did a very good job tonight and so did the audience. This is a tough issue. The City Council has looked at it many times and wants to do it and then when they have a midnight meeting, they come back in after they've recovered and get enough sleep, then they decide not to do it the next time. So, I don't know. It's a tough issue. I'm going to leave it up to you all. Clark: I'd like to suggest that we continue this discussion at another time and another place. Ostner: Well, we could. This has been Proposed so, if we would like, we could put it on our Agenda to be formally considered next time or not. Unknown: Is it automatically going to come up next time? Ostner: It's automatic. If we're going to discuss it at length, I'm simply stating maybe we ought not to vote on it next time, if you're asking that we set it further in advance. It's just a point. Part of my comments, I requested this of Jeremy, as any of you can do with our Bylaws. My reasons have been stated, I suppose by a few Commissioners. I get tired of being the one to decide whether this guy is being repetitive or not. Now, on the Applicant, I don't think I've ever asked an Applicant to stop talking. We have had presentations go on way too long. They act as if we don't have a Packet in front of us. If anything else, the Applicant needs to be asked nicely ahead of time in our Bylaws or by Staff, don't talk to us longer than ten minutes. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 64 And, I don't know if I want a timer or not. I don't like that at all, either. I also don't like being the one to decide. I thought the three minutes might be fair; it might be set out ahead of time, that everyone would get to speak. I understand this is a limit but this is also an open door. People have left because we've gone on until midnight. And, on those nights, I think if people had kept it short, including us; that's a good point; those people wouldn't have left. We would have actually heard more Public Comment. I'm of the opinion that, if you prepare and you think about it ahead of time, you can get your vital concerns in quickly. I think this Board is a little bit different from a lot of boards. I think Mr. Graves mentioned that in court people's lives are at stake. Well, people like their lives are at stake when a development sign goes up next door. And, they come down here and they're afraid or concerned or furious and I think it would help, when emotions are so heated, if they knew in advance that there was a limit. Now, how that should be phrased, I don't know. A strong suggestion might be adequate. That might do it. I'm not sure. But, if there is a strong suggestion, instead of the way it's phrased here, I would like it to extend to the Applicant. And, thinking of the future, I think it might be good to extend to Commissioner's and all Staff, as well. Simply, let's all keep it in mind. So, I suppose that's all my comments. Clark: Mr. Chair? Ostner: Yes, Commissioner Clark? Clark: Limiting electronic presentations? Not that I don't love Power Point on a regular basis. They can drone on and on. Sometimes they're redundant. People use Power Points simply to get their words straight, while they're saying, well, hand it out to me. I can read. Ostner: Sometimes they do hand them out to you. Clark: I would like to think about how to incorporate a Request to Staff so they can let us know about Power Point presentations and we can limit the scope of electronic presentations. Ostner: Thank you, Commissioner Clark. Or, at the very least, we can sit here and come up with a set of requirements or requests that Staff can share with neighborhood groups. You're welcome to do a Power Point. Look, here's the deal. It needs to be such and such and such and such so they would know at the front. Anthes: Mr. Chair? Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 65 Ostner: Yes, Commissioner Anthes? Anthes: I spoke to this at our Agenda Session and I actually wasn't talking about limiting them. What I was saying is, is that I see that what's going to happen is, we'll get more and more requests for them. And, so we ought to possibly consider a Policy regarding them. And, I don't know what that means but I think we've got something we can consider because I know several people have some pretty strong feelings about what is useful to us and what isn't. I can think of one presentation that was very useful that we've seen in the past. And, I've seen others that we had read in our Packets and were extremely redundant and of no use. So, perhaps there would be something we could deal with there. And, the other request, of course, was that if we are going to entertain digital presentations that we ask that facilities be provided for us that we can actually see them, without looking through a column or craning our neck or standing and moving around. That if this is going to be part of our daily routine, as Commissioners in the City Council, and serve as well, that somehow the viewing of those presentations be facilitated. Ostner: Thank you, Commissioner Anthes. Any more discussion? Graves: I just have one more comment on the electronic presentation issue, is if you put an overall time limit on the Applicant's, that's the time limit for whatever they do, whether it be electronic or whether it be speaking, or whether it be handouts or whatever. So, it may be better just to have a catchall like that where they've got ten minutes or however long they've got and they present whatever it is they want to present, but they've got to have it done in that timeframe, rather than trying to parse out different means of communication that they might try to use. Ostner: I think something that came up at Subdivision was if a neighborhood group wanted to sort of combine their three minute limits, if that's how it were, into one ten minute Power Point, what would the trade-off be? Would they agree that only a few more would speak or I'm not sure how it would work, just something to consider. So, if there's no more discussion, we will move on. At the last meeting it was basically decided or voted at our Agenda, the Combination Master Plan Meeting that we would break into three Subdivision Committees and rotate to see Subdivision Packets to go to those meetings in exchange for all of us going to weekly meetings with the Downtown Master Plan. So, not everyone was at that meeting but the guys who weren't, I'm telling you how it happened. Biweekly or weekly? Allen: Biweekly. The Agenda Session. Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 66 Ostner: Okay, if you count Agenda and then the Planning Commission so I think it works out to twice as many meetings, not every week. Excuse me. Commissioner Clark, Commissioner Myers and Commissioner Trumbo will stay on their Subdivision Team. I will take Commissioner Allen and Commissioner Graves. Commissioner Anthes, Lack and Vaught will be the third Team. So, the current committee asked if we could get one of the two new committees to go to this week's Subdivision Committee in some form or fashion. Since they've been doubling up their meetings. I can go. Commissioner Allen, can you try to make it? Allen: **** thirty one before we move to the nine o'clock? Ostner: That's right. Allen: Wouldn't I be that lucky? Ostner: Okay. Allen: All right, 111 do her. Ostner: Thank you. It's basically for the Master Plan. Allen: Anything for the Master Plan. Ostner: I guess. Democratic process. Allen: Will you need three? Ostner: We will need a third. Graves: And I told him during the discussion during the break that I would check my calendar tomorrow, that I thought it was open, and I think he just said it was at eight -thirty. TAPE ENDED HERE- MEETING ALMOST COMPLETE