Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-02-23 MinutesPlanning Commission February 23, 2009 Page I of 22 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on February 23, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219, City Administration Building in Fayetteville, Arkansas. MINUTES: February 9, 2009 Page 3 ACTION TAKEN Approved ADM 09-3228: (COURTS AT WHITHAM LSD EXTENSION, 444) Approved Page 3 CUP 08-3145: (FAYETTEVILLE DEPOT, LLC, 484) Page 4 Approved ADM 08-3185: (BUNGALOWS AT CATO SPRINGS FPL MODIFICATION, 600) Page 7 Approved CUP 09-3210: (MAYNARD / W. MORROW DR., 717) Approved Page 10 ADM 09-3211: (FAYETTE JUNCTION MASTER PLAN) Forwarded Page 11 PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAW AMENDMENT Approved Page 22 Planning Commission February 23, 2009 Page 2 of 22 MEMBERS PRESENT Jill Anthes Lois Bryant Matthew Cabe James Graves Jeremy Kennedy Andy Lack Christine Myres Sean Trumbo Porter Winston STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Andrew Garner Jesse Fulcher Karen Minkel CITY ATTORNEY: Kit Williams MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF ABSENT Dara Sanders Planning Commission Chair Sean Trumbo called the meeting to order. Commissioner Trumbo requested for all cell phones to be turned off, and informed the audience that listening devices were available. Upon roll call, all members were present. Planning Commission February 23, 2009 Page 3 of 22 Consent: Approval of the minutes from the January 12, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. ADM 09-3228: ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM (COURTS AT WHITHAM LSD EXTENSION, 444): Submitted by ROBERT SHARP ARCHITECTURE, INC. for property located at THE SW CORNER OF DOUGLAS ST. AND WHITHAM AVE. The request is for an additional one year extension of the Large Scale Development Courts at Whitham, LSD 07-2454. No public comment was received. Motion: Commissioner Graves made a motion to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner Lack seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission February 23, 2009 Page 4 of 22 CUP 08-3145: (FAYETTEVILLE DEPOT, LLC, 484): Submitted by KRISTIN KNIGHT for property located at 550 W. DICKSON STREET. The property is zoned MSC, MAIN STREET CENTER. The request is for a Conditional Use Permit for an excess number of parking spaces and for landscape variances. Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, gave the staff report, giving an update on the request and change in staff s recommendation based on the new landscape plan proposed. A greater number of trees are proposed to be planted than would normally be required, just in different locations. Staff recommends approval with conditions listed in the staff report. Staff recommends a change to condition #1D, to require the guarantee of all plants for three years. Kristen Knight, applicant, stated she was at the meeting with staff and walked the site and looked for the best places to plant the trees, and was available for any questions. No public comment was received. Commissioner Cabe asked if we are renewing the Conditional Use Permit, or starting over. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, stated that it is technically a new application subject to new ordinances. Commissioner Anthes asked if there was any expiration set for the new Conditional Use Permit. Pate stated that staff was not recommending an expiration date. Hopefully this is a more permanent solution for tree planting on-site, given the limited information we know about development on-site. What we are attempting to do is to not have these trees located in another 3-5 years when it's redeveloped. Most of them will be able to grow to their full maturity. Commissioner Anthes asked for clarification regarding the landscape variances: the no parking in the 25 -foot build -to zone, and the Board of Adjustment variance, 15 feet vs. 25 feet and your recommendation. Pate stated that the 15 feet is part of our parking and landscape code, Chapter 177. When we established downtown zoning criteria, in Downtown General & MSC, there is also a no parking within a build -to zone, that's the zoning criteria and all the zoning variances go to the Board of Adjustment, so it's not for your consideration. If the Board of Adjustment says no, then the 25' will have to be honored in that location and it will be 25 feet of greenspace. It's something we may move into our parking chapter because it's really more relative to development as opposed to zoning. We think it's more appropriate for this board to hear that, but it hasn't happened yet. Commissioner Anthes asked for further clarification on staff s recommendation that the 15 feet vs. the 25 feet is okay. Pate stated that in this case it may be that the trees along Dickson Street, some of that 25 feet will be encompassed by building, hopefully. Hopefully the building will be as close to the street as possible Planning Commission February 23, 2009 Page 5 of 22 within that build -to zone, which is 0-25 ft. So, unless that's the case, and the entire 25 feet were encompassed, I think that would obviously require removal of those trees. Hopefully this would be located close enough to the sidewalk that we would still be able to retain the canopy. Commissioner Anthes asked for clarification on condition 1 D, "all required landscaping shall be guaranteed for three years." I'm assuming that the second sentence in that needs to be also changed to "trees and shrubs"? Garner clarified that yes, it should be "trees and shrubs". Commissioner Graves stated that according to the report, part of the reason we had to grant a Conditional Use Permit three years ago wasn't just because we were allowing a variance on the landscaping, but because we were allowing additional parking, and I didn't see any conditions in this new Conditional Use Permit related to the previous approval. I don't see the conditions we had three years ago in this Conditional Use Permit. If it's a brand new Conditional Use Permit, I don't see any conditions allowing for extra parking. It all seems to be addressed to the greenspace or landscaping issues. Pate stated that the findings within the staff report discuss the amount of parking overage, which is the intent of the Conditional Use Permit. Our findings support granting the CUP with the conditions of approval, more relative to the variance request. As with most projects we've granted additional parking for, there typically aren't any time restrictions or any other specific conditions of approval relative to those parking spaces. So, if for example a Red Robin comes in and requests additional parking, we don't limit the time frame in which they can utilize that parking. Usually we don't have any extra conditions except for the fact that the construction of the parking lot simply has to meet our City Codes. I don't have the previous conditions of approval in front of me but I have a feeling that there weren't a whole lot of conditions relative to that specific item, it's probably more relative to the planting or landscaping issues. Graves stated that was his only concern, that we don't have the minutes and conditions from what was done three years ago. Although it's been assigned a new number, it's essentially an extension or renewal of what went before, but with landscaping requirements on it. I didn't know if there were conditions attached three years ago that needed to be reiterated in a new Conditional Use Permit. Pate stated that he didn't think so, because we have received plans for construction, inspected that construction, and so any construction that is completed and inspected now to our standards. So, I don't believe there would need to be any new conditions of approval relative to the actual parking lot. Commissioner Cabe asked that since we didn't put a time limit on it, at what point do we commit to this being a permanent parking lot, and make it do everything we would make a permanent parking lot do, and not just create a loophole for everyone in town to lay down a slab of asphalt and call it temporary and not meet any of standards, or very few of them. Pate stated that we would review that on a case-by-case basis with each application. With this particular application, if you don't feel the request is valid, and that they should plant their parking Planning Commission February 23, 2009 Page 6 of 22 lot as required by Code, then this is your opportunity to state that and vote against the request. What staff is recommending, however, is that we feel this site will be redeveloped at some point in the future. We feel the tree plantings in their location at this time will hopefully grow to be the healthiest urban canopy that we have to shade the parking lot. That's our recommendation, it doesn't necessarily change the code, so another applicant may come forward with a different request and we may or may not recommend approval, we would have to look at the circumstances surrounding that. Commissioner Cabe stated he would be more comfortable if this had a time limit on it. We've already had to come back after three years. I'm hesitant to support this with all these variances, but without a time limit I certainly won't. Commissioner Anthes asked about impervious surfaces. Because this CUP allows extra parking than what would be allowed by right on the property, how does staff feel about the amount of impervious surface now versus with the redevelopment of the site? Pate stated he did not believe there was a limit to the impervious surface in the downtown zoning districts at all. Commissioner Anthes stated that because of the excess parking, we're not exceeding the impervious surface that would be allowed. Pate stated that was correct. Commissioner Lack stated that he finds the parking lot and landscaping thereof to be acceptable whether on a temporary or permanent nature. While the configuration of the trees is not as per Code by the letter of the Code, it is within the potential forbearance and does still shade the parking lot and do things that the letter of the Code is established to protect. In general, it's an acceptable variance, whether it is a temporary or permanent condition. Motion: Commissioner Lack made a motion to approve the request with conditions as listed in the staff report. Commissioner Myres seconded the motion. Commissioner Anthes stated she was going to vote to support the request, but has the same hesitations that Commissioner Cabe has. We hope the economy picks up and our applicants are able to redevelop this site, because as a long term solution on one of our most traveled and visible intersections, parking isn't the greatest. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-1-0, with Commissioner Cabe voting no. Planning Commission February 23, 2009 Page 7 of 22 ADM 08-3185: (BUNGALOWS AT CATO SPRINGS FINAL PLAT MODIFICATION, 600): Submitted by BURKE LARKIN for the Bungalows at Cato Springs Subdivision located on the NORTH SIDE OF CATO SPRINGS RD., WEST OF CLINE AVE. The property is zoned R-PZD 05-1797, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT and contains approximately 5.52 acres. The request is to modify condition of approval No. 19 from the final plat approval regarding a vegetated buffer on the east property line. Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, gave the staff report, giving background on development/PZD request. Staff recommends approval of the request with conditions as listed in the staff report. Stated for the record that an adjacent property owner objects to this request. Burke Larkin, applicant, stated that he originally thought the intent was to have either a vegetative buffer or a fence, not both. If we planted the buffer we would be screening ourselves from our own fence. No public comment was received. Motion: Commissioner Cabe made a motion to approve the request with conditions as listed in the staff report. Commissioner Myres seconded the motion. Commissioner Anthes stated that a comment was made about the space between the fence and alley being mostly 5 feet and in a few places less so, and the applicant stated it was 2 feet. Can staff clear this up? Garner stated that in some places there is 5 feet between the alley and the fence and in some places it gets as narrow as a couple feet. I'm not sure as far as on the construction drawings what was originally permitted exactly, but the typical requirement is that you're not able to build a road within 5 feet of the property line. You can see in the photos the agenda packet that in places it's closer than that. I can't really speak to that, that's more of an inspection issue from when it was built. Commissioner Anthes asked if the alley was built to the plans, because I thought we had to be five feet from the property line, and I assumed that fence was sitting on the property line. Garner stated that is correct; the typical requirement is that you can't have it within 5 feet of the property line unless you get permission from the adjacent property owners. There was much discussion during the construction, we did talk to the neighbors and the applicant can tell you if they received any calls from the neighbors. But this was inspected and approved by the City Transportation and Engineering Divisions as meeting the requirements of our Codes before the Final Plat was approved. Commissioner Anthes asked if the Final Plat has been processed. Garner stated that the Final Plat has been processed, recorded, and the lots have been accepted. Planning Commission February 23, 2009 Page 8 of 22 Commissioner Anthes stated that the applicant would need to be 5 feet off of the fence line and that 5 feet is adequate to maintain shrubbery. If I lived there, I would probably want to see that— I'm not thinking about the other side of the fence, I'm thinking of the people who would live in your homes who would probably like to see shrubbery other than what looks like a strip of un -maintained and difficult to mow area. Larkin stated that what we did was take the neighbor's suggestion in taking a fence that was already in the back of some of their yards and tying it back in to the fence we're building. That's why our alleyway is in fact 5 feet or more from the property line. But there was an existing fence back there and this big easement I was telling you about that's shrubbed up, and they asked us to tie on to that fence in some places. So we took that fence all the way down. But the back of our alleyway is 5 or 6 feet, whatever it's supposed to be from that property line. Commissioner Anthes asked of the neighbor's fence was actually encroaching on your property. Larkin stated that the fence may in fact encroach in the easement. Commissioner Anthes stated that it appeared in the staff report that there were two different conditions of approval covering the fence and the vegetative buffer. There was one covering the fence and the vegetative buffer, and there was a second condition of approval that identified just the buffer. I was trying to recall whether, as the applicant stated, was it an either/or condition, were we going for that, or was there this desire for that double condition for noise as well as vision? Garner stated he didn't believe there was any discussion of noise buffer in the minutes. We did carry that through as a condition of approval as best as we could from remembering when the original PZD was approved and trying to keep the intent of that onto the Final Plat. That's my recollection from when it through from Preliminary Plat to Final Plat, Commissioner Anthes asked when a fence line is retained and it's within an area where it's usually required to be landscaped per the PZD requirement or the large-scale, what normally would happen if it can't be realized because of an existing fence like that? If the edge of the pavement was where it's supposed to be and there's supposed to be a 5 -foot buffer, but the applicant has accepted a fence that's actually back of their property line which effectively gives the property to the adjacent property owners instead, and that makes him unable to plant the buffer required by the PZD, what would be the procedure? Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, stated that the applicant could certainly plant within the available space, given that responsibility they would be able to plant and if the plants died I'm not sure what recourse the City would have, because he would have met that condition. The other option would be to move the fence to the property line, which would take what the adjacent property owners feel is their property. But, it looks like the fence and the alley don't quite line up, so I would assume looking at the final plat that the fence is probably just over the property owners to the east, over on the other side of the property, which is maybe the reason for the difference in encroachment. I'm sure there's parts of construction with the shoulder that aren't precise and aren't exactly 60 inches from the property line. The other option is to try and plant that and see if they would live. Planning Commission February 23, 2009 Page 9 of 22 We've notified all adjacent property owners and only one has contacted us. Commissioner Winston asked if the development could have flexibility in what would be planted. Garner discussed UDC requirements for landscape screening. Commissioner Winston discussed possible phasing of planting/home building. Larkin discussed existing buffer on other side of fence. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission February 23, 2009 Page 10 of 22 CUP 09-3210: (MAYNARD / W. MORROW DR., 717): Submitted by JOE MAYNARD for property located 550 W. MORROW DRIVE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY -4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 9.69 acres. The request is for a conditional use to permit the construction of an accessory structure prior to the construction of the principal structure, and to allow the accessory structure to be greater than 50% the size of the principal structure. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report, describing Conditional Use Permit request, and staff findings. Staff recommends approval of the applicant's request with conditions as listed in the staff report. Joe Maynard, applicant, stated he had no comments. No public comment was received. Motion: Commissioner Anthes made a motion to approve the request. Commissioner Winston seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission February 23, 2009 Page 11 of 22 ADM 09-3211: ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM (FAYETTE JUNCTION MASTER PLAN): The request is to forward the Fayette Junction vision document and Illustrative Plan to the City Council. Karen Minkel, Interim Director of Long Range Planning, gave the staff report and a presentation on the Fayette Junction Master Plan. No public comment was received. Commissioner Anthes stated that staff is right -on about many aspects of this Plan. My concerns relate to how development has happened in other parts of the City. When we look at development in southeast Fayetteville, for example, we have difficulty approving projects due to the lack of east - west connections because there's a lot of floodplain and it's difficult to get those connections without a bridge. As a long-term solution for connectivity, we have to be forward -thinking and realize we may have to cross a creek from time to time, otherwise we end up with a Huntsville Rd. problem in this part of town, where basically everything funnels into one road and that road has to take all the traffic because there aren't multiple points of connection. (Explained drawings passed out.) I took the Illustrative Plan and drew streets in as a single -line drawing. Below, I drew how it would look if the street connections I propose in the next drawing are shown. You will see there are multiple points of connections at equal spacings, so it starts creating that lot/block pattern on the larger scale. Staff has done a great job of getting that internal connection within the individual neighborhoods, but what I'm proposing is a secondary layer to that, where the urbanism happening on a small scale also happens at a regional/City scale. The connection points along 71B and S. School and Razorback Rd. become multiple blocks, so there is a reduction of superblocks. This diagram is just to show you how that lays out. The legal size sheet indicates each of those proposed areas, and they're numbered so that we can discuss them. The Commission can decide whether any of those ideas are good or bad. Number 4, an extension of W. 24`h St. is shown just outside the boundary for this project. I know that staff had a lot of concerns about what might drive that connection, whether it be redevelopment of the industrial property to the south, or what I know that there will be Master Street Plan amendments coming through as the next step in putting this plan forward, and perhaps that's a better time to discuss this. I thought it was worthy of proposing making that east -west connection that would go all the way from Razorback Rd. to S. School. On number 1, I know staff has a lot of concerns about providing the street connection through, because they're wondering, who would build it? It goes through what would end up being mostly greenspace or parkland because it's within the floodplain in that area. A lot of our streets within the City are built when there's development on either side of them and those streets get constructed with that development. In this case, this would be a road that would not probably be a result of private development. I thought it was worth showing anyway. We certainly wouldn't be committed as a City to build the road, but if this green network and park system ends up being what it could be, and our plans call for connections, it may be that would be deserving of having that connection through. Where staff has shown some development (where shown with an X through that curve), some of that development could possibly front and use that street connection in that area. I think that the Walker Park Neighborhood Plan already provides some connections at that corner, around that intersection of 15`h & S. School, and that's not shown. Number two shows the street system for the Master Plan of Arkansas Research and Technology Park within this draft for clarification. From the roundabout at the transit hub heading eastward, there's a significant Boulevard shown in the FS plan which stops Planning Commission February 23, 2009 Page 12 of 22 at the ARTP boundary. Having the roads for ARTP in the Plan describes why that boulevard exists, and it also shows that the road connects all the way over to S. School and possibly beyond. Number three, I think this is near where there's a park planned. Along with my concerns about connectivity are also concerns about frontages on open space, and when I saw opportunities in the plan to orient a street and the faces of buildings to open spaces like parks rather than the back side of buildings to the open spaces, I tried to capture that opportunity, and that is what number three is. Number four, we discussed. Number five is an additional connection through what's platted for the BioBased build out of their campus. It provides a similar block pattern that would already exist on Razorback Rd. It busts up that superblock, but it also doesn't really disturb their Master Plan in that it goes through what are shown as parking lots and drive aisles now. Six is an extension of the north -south frontage road along the railroad easement. Again, I think that's really important because it's difficult to move from north to south in this area because of the amount of floodplain. So that frontage road would allow us to do that. The northernmost part goes through what is now the UA Road Hog Park, and Justin Maland with the UA Athletics Department has looked at this and he indicated to staff that it was fine if they showed something through there. Not sure if it would be constructed or not but I think that's a good place to show it. Seven is a slight reconfiguration of the city center that's shown around the transit hub. The reason why is I saw an opportunity to reduce a creek crossing and put building frontages on the greenspace. The plan currently shows the rear of buildings and parking lots along that greenspace. Eight is a response to the higher land use that staff is proposing in the area, and also additional development over on the west side of I-540. If we are proposing an urban center designation, then the area must be well-connected. Minkel stated she would begin by explaining the rationale that staff used when looking at road connections within this area. Obviously the first one is connectivity and the north -south, east -west connections, and complete, compact, connected neighborhoods. In addition to that, we considered feasibility, so in this area, because you have the railroad tracks and floodplains, there's an additional cost to building roads over those. So we really tried to look at areas where you would get development on both sides of the road to help mitigate this cost to make it more likely that that road would be built. So you'll hear me referring back to that sometimes as I go through and explain these. We tried to honor property owners who've spent a lot of time developing Master Plans for their area. An example would be the Research and Technology Park; that whole area is not developed out but they have a long-range plan. That's one of the reasons we cut out that piece of property. So those were the other considerations we thought about when developing the road network. I want to talk about these in a slightly different order— I want to remind the Commission that we've suggested Master Street Plan amendments, but we don't shown anything, in terms of the hierarchy, that's less than a Collector Street. We can go back and forth on some of these roads, but it has been viewed by the public now for many months and so I would be concerned to start changing some of the local streets, particularly when it might not have a significant impact in the long run, because we wouldn't show them on the Master Street Plan. That being said, I'll start with some of the roads that would be significant connections and potentially Collectors. The first one being number four. That one has been discussed since the charette, so we did look at it pretty carefully. One of the concerns we had was that it would be crossing the floodplain twice, so there's an additional cost there. There were residents who are in that residential neighborhood to the north, who currently have a vegetative screen between their neighborhood and the Tyson plant there. They talked about that as being a strong positive for their neighborhood. The last point being that, when we looked at it more carefully—obviously it's an important connection, it could be worthwhile —we Planning Commission February 23, 2009 Page 13 of 22 talked to the County, and they are not planning to move the jail anytime soon, so we're not sure how much retail or residential development could actually occur there. I'm not sure if the Tyson plant would redevelop anytime soon, but, if you were going to do that road, we would probably propose something south of that border, as Commissioner Anthes mentioned. So, in that case, I would be hesitant to add it to this plan only because we contacted all the property owners in the boundary multiple times throughout this process to ensure they had a chance to participate. In terms of equity in our public participation process, I'm not sure that we should start showing things outside the boundary when those property owners haven't necessarily had a chance to provide input into this master plan. But, I do think it could be taken up when we amend our Master Street Plan, which is a citywide process. Number two, where it shows the Boulevard extending out, I think staff completely agrees with Commissioner Anthes' comments in terms of showing the streets of the University as already planning to build. I think it would help to give context to some citizens who wonder why there's a boulevard to nowhere in the Plan. We would be happy to add those connections there, the one exception being the street that is farthest west on the Plan at the back of the Bungalows at Cato Springs, the street that the University of Arkansas intends to build once they purchase that property. As I said, we are honoring property owners, particularly ones that have recently developed or have a Master Plan in place, so staff wouldn't feel comfortable showing a street running though there at this point. One is another worthy connection. Our concern is that it's completely in the floodplain and we it wouldn't support development on either side of that road because it would be in that 100 -year floodplain, which is why we don't show that connection. Eight is the overpass here at 18`h Street. We do show that 15`h Street overpass, so I don't think staff would have a strong objection to that as a connection as another underpass or overpass across I-540. Those would be the main streets that would actually show up on our Master Street Plan, if we were making amendments. Now, I'll talk about some of the other connections that are shown. The frontage road between Fayette Junction and 15`h Street — I should mention that in our first draft of the Illustrative Plan, we actually developed Hog Park completely out. It was a neighborhood and the most important connection we felt is a connection that is a straight shot north to 15" St. In conversations with the University Athletic department, we came to understand that Hog Park is sacrosanct among the University, so because we are honoring property owners who have a Master Plan in place, or don't envision their property developing or redeveloping for the next 30-50 years, we did leave it untouched but did show some stub -outs here. As Commissioner Anthes mentioned, Mr. Mailer was comfortable with showing a road coming up this way, but our response was that I don't think the University would ever develop a public road for that access. So, in that case, you're talking about selling the property and redeveloping, in which case we would support this road, rather than the road off to the side. If the Commission wanted staff to show an additional stub -out, that's always a possibility; it looks like a wider floodplain area there, but there's always the potential for that. The frontage roads shown on the eastern and western side of the tracks between Cato Springs and Treat Street here — I wanted to mention the thinking behind this because we did clarify in the Vision Document why there are not roads there. That was because the design team was thinking that if you had businesses there that wanted to utilize the railroad tracks for shipping freight, they could develop railroad spur, and actually there is a spur farther south. We thought there was potential for that, which is why we don't show frontage roads there, and that's just a designer vision. On the western side, we would be hesitant to add another road to the BioBased property. This goes back to honoring property owners who already have a Master Plan in place. They didn't show any road connections here, we did add one north -south connection here, and that was to facilitate the truck traffic exiting this clean tech area here. It does add to the cost, so that was the reason we added one road and would be hesitant to Planning Commission February 23, 2009 Page 14 of 22 add additional roads. This last one, number seven, I think is a purely subjective question as to which design you think is better. I think when we were creating this, we were aligning these roads here so you would have this square back, but that's a design question and it would be a local road at this point, so I'm not sure it would affect policy in the long -run in terms of being added to the Master Plan. Number three, we thought was an improvement and would be happy to add to the Plan. Commissioner Trumbo stated that he understands the reasoning on Number Two. I'm assuming that Commissioner Anthes is thinking that maybe someday there might be reason that this might develop into something where these roads could be put in, but it sounds as if there's already a Master Plan there. I'm ok with number three. Number four, possibly in the future, but not with this plan. Are there any other Commissioners with comments? Commissioner Lack stated that in our corporate responsibility, we sometimes have to be more harsh than we would like to, and for the good of everybody, we have to put lines on a map to make sense of our transportation network. While sometimes people have plans, we can't plan what will happen, but can plan what should happen. It's our responsibility to make sensible plans and to strike those lines on the map where they should be. With item #1, there is great potential to not be built with the nature of that area, but it would be a good connection. #2, we've identified as part of the University's master plan already and even the westernmost street there as a master planned street has a strong connection with a large neighborhood area. #3, switching so that we front the public space is certainly recommendable. #4, the only thing I would modify on that is I would certainly intersect at the east and west as shown but I would pull the line down a little bit so that we would recognize a lot to the north of the road so that we would get street frontage on both sides, and I think we could curve to the east and west — there's plenty of property there to curve to the east and west and get back to the intersections. While I see the logic in it, I'm a little nervous about the north - south connections into the neighborhood there, in that I think that's one area that we're definitely going to have a lot of discussion showing developed residential lots impacted by street connections. I don't see stub -outs so I don't anticipate that they're already planning for that connection. #5, I would probably be a little hesitant with showing streets through what is now traffic aisles of parking lots and accepting that as justifying that, as we don't allow the traffic aisles of a parking lot to be a street, so I think it would displace parking. Those parking lots are not built; that's a Master Plan which is fluid, as any of us who have dealt with Master Plans in the past certainly know. The frontage roads to the railroad, I thought when I first looked at Commissioner Anthes' plan, I first thought it sounded like a great deal. Given the nature of the development and the clean tech and the potential for using the rail for freight, I would certainly be up for listening to more discussion on that. The thing I might certainly look at would be the easternmost portion of that there is a road that travels south from the roundabout adjacent to the new train station, and it might be that the continuation of that road to the south could be more fluid to connect to the south at about the location where the frontage road is shown to connect with Treat Street. With item #6, I think that would be a compromise that I might even push farther to placing the street we assumed would be most appropriate onto the Master Street Plan. I don't think it costs us anything to draw a line on the plan, and while the University does not have any intentions of making a modification to that now, it certainly does not force them to and I think they would understand that, but it would only ensure that proper planning was in place in case something else happened in the future. Item #7, staying out of crossing the stream as much as we can. Item #8, I applaud the crossing of I-540. Likely just with an overpass, at either 15`h or 181h Street. Ms. Minkel, can you tell me—I think the Highway Planning Commission February 23, 2009 Page 15 of 22 Department regulation is one mile between overpasses with access is it possible that one of the two of those could have access to I-540? Minkel stated she was not sure and would have to check on that. Commissioner Lack stated those were all his comments regarding street connectivity. Commissioner Graves stated that on #1, he would agree with Commissioners Anthes and Lack that that could be shown and ought to be shown whether we think it's realistic right now or not. On #2, I agree with Ms. Minkel's concerns about the westernmost showing on there, if that's sort of in the works right now and not necessarily part of the plans, but the rest of the Master Plan for the University could be shown. #3, it sounds like everybody's in agreement that that change is a good one. #4, I would also share Ms. Minkel's concerns about showing that at this time, given the process that's occurred. #5, I also share Commissioner Lack's concerns with what Commissioner Anthes has drawn here, but like the idea of extending from the roundabout and having a stub -out where #4 and #5 are shown connecting. I agree with Commissioner Lack on #6 that we ought to show a stub - out there and we ought to show it where we want it, like with #1, even if we don't think it may happen any time soon we ought to show it where we want it. #7, I concur with Commissioner Anthes' drawing there without crossing the creek. I agree on #8 as well. Commissioner Myres asked what it is we are being asked to do with this. Is this discussion, or are we forwarding it with a recommendation? Kit Williams, City Attorney, stated that you can either forward the Plan with a recommendation of approval, or you don't have to actually pass it tonight, if you want to have more time to study. Whatever you want to do. Commissioner Anthes stated that staff's recommendation is that they forward the Fayette Junction Vision Document and illustrative plan to City Council. I would be comfortable, with following that recommendation. Whichever one of these street connections people agree with could just become part of our motion. I assume we're going to discuss the Vision Document as well. Commissioner Trumbo asked if there were any more comments before moving on to the Vision Document. Commissioner Lack stated he would like to ask Commissioner Anthes about the idea of the frontage streets, and if Ms. Minkel's concerns about the nature of the usage there would change her thoughts a little. Commissioner Anthes asked about the proposed zoning changes and long-range planning designations for those areas, how much industrial are we expecting to stay along that railway easement? Minkel stated that what we were anticipating was industrial along the lines of BioBased Companies, which is a clean tech company, so while it does have some manufacturing or fabrication, it probably wouldn't be the heavy industrial we typically imagine. We imagine clean tech companies, if they Planning Commission February 23, 2009 Page 16 of 22 were doing manufacturing/fabrication on site, might be able to utilize that railroad line. Commissioner Anthes stated that when we did our research for the planning of the Arkansas Research and Technology Park, and the assembly manufacturing piece that is anticipated to be east of S. School, we found that the kind of manufacturing being done at similar locations was of very small scale, and that a lack of access to a rail line in either of those locations was not detrimental to high tech companies that might locate in the park. The boulevard shown marking at the roundabout heading east along the northern part of the Arkansas Research and Technology Park and crossing School is the abandoned railroad easement that used to exist and went to the industrial park. It would be great if we had rail access to our industrial park, but what happened when that right-of- way given was abandoned was that the property was returned to the owners of the individual parcels. The University anticipates improving and using that railroad bed as the road connection to the park. As far as the north -south connection along there, I think it is lines on the map and it is aplan—if we saw this area developing with companies that needed rail access, and that access became important, then by all means don't build the frontage road. But, from what I can understand, the kind of companies that would come here would probably not require that access and I would hate to give up the possibility of having that frontage road if the area develops in a way that's more business and commercial and residential like the City Neighborhood designation shows. Commissioner Lack stated that one thing that would give him some comfort in that is the realization—keeping in mind that even our suggestions are not going to set this in place right now – that there will be a good deal more conversation about that and as this goes through City Council I think that would be flushed out even further. Commissioner Trumbo asked if there were any comments regarding the Vision Document. Commissioner Anthes stated that on page 2, she thanked the staff for including the information about preserving the viewshed to Old Main. This is similar to some of the discussions we had when talking about SouthPass. It is important to preserve significant viewsheds. On page 5, in the information about the riparian areas and stormwater runoff, it's good that staff is bringing this up, and it sounds like there is an ordinance being worked on that will start backing this up. On the Future Land Use Map on pg. 8, the urban center area in purple between 15`h & 18`h only strengthens the argument about crossing 540. If that truly is an urban center it needs to be connected across the interstate. On the guiding principles on pg. 14, again I think the integration of the built and natural environment, which is the #I guiding principle in the plan, also speaks to frontages and allowing the most people to have the opportunity to enjoy the open space created by the plan. I'm glad to hear the Commissioners that spoke tonight are in favor of the road realignments that allow more of the public to take advantage of those open spaces. Regarding the trails system shown on pg. 27, this shows the trail through ARTP's property on the northern boundary that the University walked with Matt Mihalevich and in working on the easements for. We are also looking for ways to connect that trail through to an on -street linkage at Cato Springs Rd. I would offer that we could share those lines with staff if you think that would be at all helpful. On pg. 31, regarding the building shown around the roundabout, I think it might be a good opportunity for curved building faces, and I'm not sure why the geometry ended up the way it did there. I also think the boundaries of University property have changed just slightly from when this was drawn, but it appears we're both looking at a trailhead on what's now on the north side of the old Mr. Burger building. Do you have any idea about the Planning Commission February 23, 2009 Page 17 of 22 riparian buffer ordinance, or the timing on that? Minkel stated that Alderman Lewis has been working on that with Sarah Wrede. Commissioner Anthes stated that she liked what has been said about it on pg. 35. I wonder if we can also incorporate ways in which the neighboring properties can best take advantage of that zone. Not only are we talking about maintaining the buffer, but also how properties use and front that buffer. I don't know if that's appropriate or not, but I think that would be worth having a discussion about. If the buffer in backyards with fences along it, it exists but it doesn't educate the public about what's happening. I really like that the City is building a lot of trails along streambeds so that the public is aware of our urban streams. You've identified the visitor's center on pg. 36 — an option for something like that has been discussed among the Chamber of Commerce and City officials, but it goes back to my comments about occupying the hilltop with a building. I don't think that needs to happen. I think leaving the hillside open but putting the visitor's center in along the topography is possible, so I just didn't want those ideas to be conflicting. Does the right-of-way for the Razorback Road extension already exist? Is it sufficient to allow the Boulevard to be constructed for the entire distance shown? Minkel stated that it does, but she can double check for the entire length. Commissioner Anthes stated she saw there were some questions about whether this area was too dense, and I heard the numbers about multi -modal transit. I had heard a number more like 40 units per acre being what was necessary as a minimum to support light rail. Is that contradictory to what you've heard? Minkel stated that staff got their information from the University's Community Design Center study, which says the minimum is 15 units per acre. In some suburban areas where they have a commuter stop it's 8 units per acre, and that's assuming it's a park and ride and people aren't walking there. I think if you want people walking, then 15 units per acre is the minimum; I think 40 units per acre is ideal. Commissioner Anthes asked if this Plan is approaching anything like that density around what might be the transit hub. Minkel stated that staff is showing 15-20 units per acre there. Commissioner Myres stated that she really didn't have a comment other than to say that thanks to Commissioners Anthes, Graves and Lack, I don't have to make a comment. They've already eloquently expressed my opinion. What I would like to know is, if we would like to see some of these recommendations for changes in the street layout, how do we easily and cleanly go about making a recommendation that incorporates Commissioner Anthes' suggestions and the ones that we've already agreed upon be considered as an alternate? Commissioner Trumbo stated he would look to Commissioner Anthes for a motion. Commissioner Anthes stated that she thought the Commission could move to forward the item, and Planning Commission February 23, 2009 Page 18 of 22 ask for the inclusion of whatever numbers you'd like to the Illustrative Plan before it's presented to the Council. Minkel asked for clarification that the only change you wanted made to the Vision Document was to add language on pg. 35 regarding the riparian buffer ordinance. Commissioner Anthes stated that was correct; the only other changes were for the Illustrative Plan. Minkel stated that if the Commission would like to make amendments, they could amend the Illustrative Plan before it's forwarded to the City Council, and then we would make those changes. Commissioner Lack stated that there are some we seem to have consensus on and there are some that the Commission may or may not, and some of them might be able to be grouped together, but if we go through and hear motions and look at individual ones, 1-3 might be easy to group together; 4 might need to be its own. Commissioner Anthes put a lot of work into this and I would certainly defer to her if she would like to make those motions. Motion: Commissioner Myres made a motion to amend the Illustrative Plan to include the street locations in #1, 2, and 3 of Commissioner Anthes's layout. Commissioner Lack seconded the motion. Commissioner Graves stated there was some concern about one of the streets shown in #2, and so I had a question for the motioners' about that. Commissioner Myres stated she would defer to Commissioner Anthes. Commissioner Anthes stated that north of the Bungalows at Cato Springs there is a north -south connection shown, that is University property at this point, so I am recommending that shifts eastward so that that north -south connection could be constructed by the University. Commissioner Graves stated that he would personally be more comfortable and could support the motion if the westernmost connection was not shown for the reasons Ms. Minkel stated, that that may be in the works for the University but it's not really there yet. Commissioner Graves stated that he sensed that 7 and 8 could be grouped into the motion as well. Commissioner Trumbo stated that the motion will include 7 and 8. Commissioner Myres stated she would accept that change with her motion. Commissioner Lack stated he would accept the change with his second. Minkel stated that on # 1 there is also an X there for the development that is shown. Is that included in the amendment, or are we only talking about streets? Planning Commission February 23, 2009 Page 19 of 22 Commissioner Anthes stated it was just for the streets. Commissioner Trumbo stated that we have 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, and a small change to #2. I'm OK with #6. Commissioner Graves stated he was too; he understood we were doing the motions on the ones that didn't need any adjustment on the map first. Commissioner Trumbo stated he had a motion and a second to change the Illustrative Plan including 1, 2, and 3 with a slight change to 2 removing the westernmost connection there, and also including 7 and 8. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. Commissioner Anthes suggested we remove #4 from discussion. The reason it was shown outside the Fayette Junction boundary is that I hope it get it on for discussion when the Master Street Plan amendment comes through, I think it's an important connection, it's just not shown in any thought- out place at this point. Commissioner Trumbo stated that that leaves #5 and 6. Motion: Commissioner Graves made a motion that #6 be shown as shifted to the east and making a connection north from that street that goes due north out of the roundabout and stub -out at 151h Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Commissioner Anthes stated she could almost read the frontage as one piece, so if you like the frontage roads at all we can probably include them all together and if you don't like them, just amend them. There's a topography issue there so it's difficult to put a road straight through. But I think the stub -out's great. Commissioner Graves stated that #6 was more because there were concerns expressed by Ms. Minkel that 6 where shown goes through the floodplain and that if they had their perfect world that it would be shifted to where we're talking about shifting it right now anyway, although there's no anticipation that the University is going to redevelop that property. Commissioner Myres asked if we should take that as a different number and consider 6 as the frontage road on the east side of the railroad and add a number 9? Commissioner Cabe asked if we can show the frontage and the stub -out. Commissioner Trumbo stated that the motion is to move it. Commissioner Graves stated he would like to leave the motion as it is. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission February 23, 2009 Page 20 of 22 Commissioner Graves stated that to address the frontage, if we're going to show the connection north out of the roundabout and stubbing out to the north, I liked Commissioner Lack's idea of then going due south out of the roundabout and finding a stub -out on the southern edge of the planned area. I'll leave it to others whether they would like to make a motion after this regarding frontage roads, both where #6 was shown and where #5 is shown, but I liked the idea of that connection because then you don't have to work your way all the way over from somewhere else through the roundabout to go down, it would actually then create a complete straight shot other than having to go through the roundabout north to south connection. My motion would be to amend the illustrative plan, along the lines of what Commissioner Lack was describing, something that goes due south as is already shown out of the roundabout but then curves over towards where Commissioner Anthes's red line is down the very last part of it. Commissioner Winston that's there's an opportunity there with the strong north -south access from the circle to have some element that is a visual focus and an entrance to what is really a park and traits area there, and if we swoop the street right through that, we're losing an opportunity. With the way it's drawn right now, there's a park node where the idea of driving down the street is visually changed to the idea of a park being there. There's a terminating vista there. So I would be against amending that. Commissioner Graves stated that that would be, other than Razorback Rd., the only straight north - south connection through what's shown. That appeals to me, and I understand I'm not being real specific about how that needs to happen on that southern part of it. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-1-0. Commissioner Kennedy asked if he was right to assume that the only access to the five -building development south and east of the connection we were just talking about is to the south and is not accessed by any other part of the neighborhood. Minkel stated that was correct. Commissioner Anthes stated that if the clean tech cluster develops, it will mean a lot of people coming in every day. That development sits in a low bowl off of the interstate, and you won't be able to get to the interstate until you come all the way up and go through that circle that leads you onto Razorback Rd. We really will only have one way in and out of that whole cluster of development to the center part of this Plan if we don't allow some other connections. And I think that, at minimum, that western frontage road provides that relief valve. I also think that suggesting breaking up that the superblock where BioBased is and what is projected for their build -out, at least making the suggestion that a road through there is a good idea, is good planning. They may not choose to build it; it won't be on the Master Street Plan amendment because it's not a collector street, but as far as an Illustrative drawing it's the right thing to do. Motion: Commissioner Anthes made a motion to accept #5, the east -west connection on the frontage roads Planning Commission February 23, 2009 Page 21 of 22 as shown. Commissioner Winston seconded the motion. Commissioner Lack stated that with the frontage roads and the southernmost east -west access, which actually is already on the plan, we're asking for that to translate to Master Street Plan amendment as those would be collectors, and the mid -block connection would be shown on the Illustrative Master Plan, but we're not asking for that to be a modification to the Master Street Plan. Commissioner Myres asked if we're including the western frontage in that but not the eastern. Commissioner Anthes stated she would rather see both. If industry develops out there that wants access to a railroad, it would simply not be constructed. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. Commissioner Anthes made a motion to forward ADM 09-3211 to City Council with the one change requesting some development plan language around the riparian zone, if that's feasible, and accepting the amendments made to the Illustrative Plan. Commissioner Myres seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission February 23, 2009 Page 22 of 22 PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAW AMENDMENT: The request is to clarify the action that is permitted/required at a Subdivision Committee meeting when one or more member must abstain or is absent from the meeting. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, described the proposed amendment. No public comment was received. Motion: Commissioner Graves made a motion to approve the request. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. All business being concluded, the meeting was adjourned at 7.45 PM.