Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-04-27 MinutesPlanning Commission April 27, 2009 Page I of 19 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on April 27, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219, City Administration Building in Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN MINUTES: April 13, 2009 Approved Page 3 ADM 09- 3285: (WATER -BROOK S/D) Approved Page 3 VAC 09-3255: (HARVEY / 3570 JASPER LN., 100) Approved Page 3 ADM 09-3250: (RUSKIN HEIGHTS SIDEWALK AND CURB FINISH VARIANCE) Page 4 Tabled R-PZD 09-3253: (PARK HILL @ MOUNTAIN RANCH, 478) Forwarded Page 5 ADM 09-3263: (ABSHIER HEIGHTS MODIFICATION) Forwarded Page 9 ADM 09-3286: (PARADISE APPEAL/510 ASSEMBLY DR.) Approved Page 17 Planning Commission April 27, 2009 Page 2 of 19 MEMBERS PRESENT Matthew Cabe Craig Honchell Jeremy Kennedy Audy Lack Sean Trumbo Porter Winston Jim Zant STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Jesse Fulcher Chris Brown CITY ATTORNEY: Kit Williams MEMBERS ABSENT James Graves Christine Myres STAFF ABSENT Andrew Garner Dara Sanders Glenn Newman Matt Casey 5:30 PM - Planning Commission Chair Sean Trumbo called the meeting to order. Commissioner Trumbo requested for all cell phones to be turned off, and informed the audience that listening devices were available. Upon roll call, all members were present with the exception of Commissioners Graves and Myres. Consent. Planning Commission April 27, 2009 Page 3 of 19 Approval of the minutes from the April 13, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. ADM 09-3285: (WATER -BROOK S/D): Submitted by Nock Land Investment for property located on the north side of State Highway 16E (Huntsville Road), west of Deerfield Way. The request is for a two year extension of the construction approval for the Waterbrook Subdivision Phases I and II (PPL 05-1608 and 05-1699). VAC 09-3255: Vacation (HARVEY / 3570 JASPER LANE, 100): Submitted by ALAN REID for property located at 3570 JASPER LANE, LOT 9 OF THE COPPER CREEK S/D. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.28 acres. The request is to vacate a portion of the drainage easement in the rear of the subject property. No public comment was received. Motion: Commissioner Winston made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 6-0-1, with Commissioner Zant abstaining. Planning Commission April 27, 2009 Page 4 of 19 Old Business: ADM 09-3250: (RUSKIN HEIGHTS SIDEWALK AND CURB FINISH VARIANCE): Submitted by Ruskin Heights, LLC for the Ruskin Heights R-PZD located on the south side of Mission Boulevard, west of Crossover Road. The request is for a variance of the minimum street design standards to permit a smooth, exposed aggregate finish for the curb, gutter, and sidewalk, when the standards require a broom finish. THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THIS ITEM BE TABLED INDEFINITELY. No public comment was received. Motion: Commissioner Winston made a motion to table the request indefinitely. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission April 27, 2009 Page 5 of 19 R-PZD 09-3253: Planned Zoning District (PARK HILL @ MOUNTAIN RANCH, 478): Submitted by DAVE JORGENSEN for property located at SW CORNER OF PERSIMMON STREET AND MOUNTAIN RANCH BOULEVARD. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 2.23 acres. The request is for Zoning and Land Use approval for a Residential Planned Zoning District with 13 single family dwellings. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report, describing the request, recommending approval with 15 conditions of approval. Dave Jorgensen, applicant, stated that a rezoning to RT -12 was requested in January was but denied. This is a renewed attempt to build something that we think would make a nice neighborhood, something marketable. If you look in your packet, you'll notice we have one-way access off of Mountain Ranch Blvd., with no access this way off of Persimmon. This one-way coming off of Mountain Ranch Blvd. will allow the residents to go into this rear -loaded access alley that runs in back of all these units and will come out the south onto Cattle Dr., which is actually Providence. We have met with staff and have worked out all the various problems, and it is true that this is just a rezoning, but if this is passed then we have to go to City Council for approval and bring this back in more detail in the form of a Preliminary Plat, construction plans, and then Final Plat. It is all single-family detached, the houses that will be built will be built by the same builder, Cobblestone Homes, that's building homes within the subdivision to the west. The exterior will be very similar, and we have Aaron Wirth with Cobblestone Homes to assist in answering questions. Aaron Wirth, Cobblestone Homes, stated that one of the big reasons the rezoning request was turned down last time was that there was no duress on the subdivision or the project as it stands. It was asked what has changed in the last year, why should we rezone something if it hasn't been given a chance to work? The project was filed in early 2007 by Tom Terminella, talked to him about buying it but it was too big for the market. It came in later at a lower price, and we were able to make the houses smaller and more affordable. Just because we did that didn't make it any less desirable. I'm hoping to put a product out there that will meet all those guidelines that the City has laid out and staff has helped us work through, and then we can sell. We're real excited that we can sell the product and make it fit what's in that subdivision. We worked extensively with the POA to make sure it's something they feel like would meet the big picture for Mountain Ranch. The other thing brought up in the last meeting was whether or not it was a buffer between the apartments. I don't know whether it is or isn't, but I'll say this — I can't solve the way the lots sit with the apartments there. With the apartment zoning and the density there and the property to the north, I think it's going to fit very nicely as our front entrance to Mountain Ranch. James Dixon, neighbor, stated he was one of two existing residents most directly affected by this proposed development. We came with most of the POA on the first rezoning proposal and we weren't crazy about having duplexes across the street, since then Aaron has had several meetings with the POA, he was willing to work with us and hear our concerns and ideas, and we feel like this current proposal is something we're in favor of and can accept. One thing we'd like to be considered to be changed is the way the entrance and exit is set up. Right now, there's just a one- way entrance into this development off of Mountain Ranch Drive which means that all of the traffic out of it will exit right in front of our house. We'd like to see some consideration of having a two- Planning Commission April 27, 2009 Page 6 of 19 way entrance and exit off of Mountain Ranch rather than all the traffic exiting out in front of our house on Providence. Other than that, we think it's an acceptable use of that property. We understand the difficulty to develop those lots and sell them as a single-family dwelling unit, and we're OK with it. No further public comment was received. Commissioner Lack asked staff if there were any comments regarding access that they'd explored because there would need to be a cut through the median in the divided roadway to feasibly do right hand turns, exits, two directions on that driveway. Pate stated that they had looked at a couple of different options including accessing onto Persimmon as well. This is a concept PZD so all of the details haven't been worked through, but I'm sure we can speak with Mr. Jorgensen and discuss what possibilities there are for that access. I doubt that the median could be cut so close to that intersection to allow left turn movements out, but perhaps we can look at other solutions to that as this comes through. Commissioner Lack stated he would refrain from asking additional questions because it is conceptual, and it would be more appropriate if we address those as a development item. But I would be interested at that time about dialogue about some entrance to Persimmon. It seems like it might be possible to get an adequately separated point of entrance even if it were a right -in right -out or a limited access would certainly offer an exit point to balance out the single point of entry off of Mountain Ranch Blvd. Jorgensen stated that he did come up with an idea. Somebody alluded to the idea of cutting the median. We did have a drawing with an opening in the median and Engineering informed us that the City has just recently adopted an access management ordinance, and they are encouraging that we solve our access in the way we've shown in now. With this new ordinance, staff would not support the cutting of the median, and also access onto Persimmon. So this was our way of solving the problem given that situation. We are willing to cut the median, but it would require a variance that would have to be voted on, since this violated the access management ordinance. But naturally we are open to suggestions because it's not a problem for us. As you all probably realize, the way it is right now, there's a proposal for single family houses on these lots, where in access to these lots will be off multiple accesses off Mountain Ranch Blvd. whereas now we just have one. So, in terms of that, it improves that situation quite a bit. But that's how it got to this point. Commissioner Lack stated he will look forward to some dialogue about different points of ingress and egress if this passes. Commissioner Honchell asked about the additional street lighting, with the additional parking at the rear of the development. Jorgensen stated he hadn't thought about that, but that there is a disadvantage in that it would be up against the residents to the west, so it might not be the best idea to have lights in that area; possibly some down lights at the corner where one lane comes into two lanes. I don't know that we need to have any more lights than we have out there. Naturally, the reason for the greenspace to the west of Planning Commission April 27, 2009 Page 7 of 19 these units is to provide a buffer and also provide an area for everybody to gather. Commissioner Honchell stated that that was the concern he had with these smaller parks is that they get vandalized, and so he was concerned with the lighting. Another thing is the privacy fence. Were you going to install the tubular style of fence? Jorgensen stated he thinks it was a privacy fence. Commissioner Honchell stated that with a development like this with smaller homes, you get into a lot of problems with parking, a lot of overload in the rear parking developments. As far as the rear road widths, there's no potential for additional parking areas. Jorgensen stated that we've provided enough room behind the garages to park two cars, so that adds something. But we can add some additional space off to the side for additional parking. Commissioner Honchell stated that that was the concern he had, was that if you had three vehicles to a home, and somebody had to park in the alleyway or road, then you'd have some sort of constant conflict with neighbors. Jorgensen stated he didn't know what the requirement for parking on Mountain Ranch Blvd. or Persimmon is, but he would imagine it was prohibited. But we can add more space in the back part for sure. Commissioner Trumbo asked Mr. Pate where the trash and recycle bins would be located. Are they going to be in the rear for the trucks? Pate stated those are details we would usually look at at development. It could happen either way, depends on the width of the alley, what it ends up being, if it's accessible for Solid Waste, and I believe they provide a turnaround at the end for that to happen. I think it also depends on whether there's access to Persimmon, because if there's a through street then it helps Solid Waste to be able to go through the entire development instead of having to turn around. Commissioner Trumbo stated that he noticed in the booklet that the POA is going to be managing that park. Is this going to have its own POA or will this be part of the existing POA? Pate stated that that is not a City concern. Wirth stated that it would have its own POA. Commissioner Winston asked about Fire trucks being able to turn around in here. It doesn't look like it would be possible at this point. Is that a question that will be answered later on? Commissioner Pate stated that he doesn't believe the Fire Department would need to access the alley. They can access all the homes from the actual street. Motion: Planning Commission April 27, 2009 Page 8 of 19 Commissioner Cabe made a motion to forward RPZD 09-3253 to City Council with a recommendation of approval. Commissioner Lack seconded the motion. Commissioner Trumbo stated he would agree that it seems to be a much better plan than the one that came before it, and I think it does provide a nice transition. It also gives another option of housing types in this neighborhood which is something we're looking for other than just one standard housing type, so I'm very much in favor of this and I hope the City Council sees it that way as well. Commissioner Zant stated he believes in transitional zoning and this represents an excellent example of transition from the multi -family to the east to the larger single-family homes. I think it's a good avenue. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission April 27, 2009 Page 9 of 19 ADM 09-3263: (ABSHIER HEIGHTS MODIFICATION): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING for property located N & W OF THE ABSHIER DR. AND HILLCREST AVE. INTERSECTION. The property is zoned R-PZD, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT. The request is to modify the conditions of approval concerning the time frame to obtain building permits and the recommended street improvements. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report, recommending approval with conditions as listed in the staff report. Kipp Hearne, H2 Engineering, stated it was another chance for him to come through and work through a rather tough infill project in the City. As we move through the development process, a lot of things crop up. We're trying now to make the best use of our development dollars. Obviously, with the condition of Hillcrest vs. what we're trying to accomplish on Abshier, we feel like that's basically a better use of our development dollars to move those up and make those improvements. With regard to the speed tables, the developers have spoken to some of the property owners and their concerns are slowing traffic through the neighborhoods. He would be happy to pay for some additional stop signs or signage throughout that area, and we can coordinate that with staff in the most appropriate manner. With regard to the timing of the building permits, obviously that's just prudent management with your inventory, not trying to put too much inventory on the ground at one time, which hurts other property values and is basically a management decision. I think he's been very diligent in trying to accomplish the goals set forth early on in the project. I know we've been back before you a couple times trying to revise these, it's the nature of an infill project, and we're trying to make the most of it and utilize those dollars in the most appropriate manner. Shay Hopper, neighbor, stated that when this project initially went through in 2006, our neighborhood spent hundreds of hours and energy and time working with the developer and architect, and we felt like when we left that everybody was happy and satisfied. When the public notice sign was posted that this would be revisited, hundreds of entails among the neighborhood started flying. The street improvements, sidewalk, and curb and guttering, we understand that the grade is incredibly steep there and we don't want any of the tree canopy removed. On the timeline issue, five years is what we're asking for and agreeing to as well, indefinite is not really acceptable to the neighborhood. Our concern with that is it will continue to erode the initial agreement we made the longer this project drags on. Also, as the neighborhood discussed what a difficult infill project this would be because of the nature of the land, the condo saturation in 2006 was a great deal here in Fayetteville. I feel like we addressed that. Our biggest issue that we've communicated with Jeremy and Don and Kyle, are the speed tables. This is a very dangerous neighborhood, that's one of the reasons we all fought hard to address this initially. Stop signs certainly would be more than welcome. We'll take anything we can get. But we feel like we made a good faith agreement at the time with the developer to put in these speed tables. Because only one structure has been built on the project, it has not greatly increased the traffic, but we know that over the next five years, as the project continues to develop, the traffic will continue to increase so we would like to address the problem now. Jan Wicks, neighbor, stated that there was a great deal of concern among neighbors that we had all Planning Commission April 27, 2009 Page 10 of 19 bargained in good faith, and one thing that was important to us was these speed tables. It still appears that there are places that speed tables could be installed. That along with four-way stops could help to preserve the character and safety of the neighborhood. Again, it's not just us, it's the people who are going to be buying these condos. It's going to increase property values if it's a nice, beautiful neighborhood safe for the elderly or children. This is something that's very important, is that we are again compromising, we are asking for the five years as the City recommended, we're also going to go along with the other change. But this is something that was key to all of us. We see it as preserving the safety and integrity of the neighborhood, and if it's taken away, it gives the impression that we should have no reason to try and negotiate in the first place. We're trying to protect what we feel is truly important in the neighborhood. David Beech, neighbor, stated that he wishes to echo what the other two speakers have said. Initially we opposed the project because we felt there were a number of issues that would be coming to bear and affect our neighborhood. One of them was the traffic, there were water issues, and a number of things we compromised on in order to make sure the City's 2025 Plan, which wanted to generate density more than sprawl. But we wanted to make sure that all this extra traffic wasn't going to affect our neighborhood as far as safety. We all agreed that the speed bumps would be the best way to do that. I also think the five-year deadline is important. Even though it may be written somewhere, there's still going be a lack of intensity on wanting to make sure that the guidelines we agreed upon are adhered to down the road. Daniel Griffin, neighbor, stated that we were told there would be sidewalks when the project was in the planning stage. I understand the developer not wanting to put sidewalks in, because on Abshier the embankment goes down at about a 45 degree angle, and there's nothing to support the sidewalk without an expensive retaining wall. Another concern I had is that there are people living in these condos already, and I thought a project had to be finished as far as improvements before people could occupy the dwellings there. Another concern is that there's supposed to be a little park in honor of Fay Jones, and if the developer goes bankrupt, who puts this stuff in? I would suggest a bond be posted to guarantee completion of everything we were promised when the City okayed this project. We get a lot of traffic in the neighborhood, people cutting through to avoid the intersection at North and College. It's another thing in favor of the speed bumps. Commissioner Trumbo asked if it was possible for people to occupy the units that have already been built. Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director, stated that it was possible since we issue Certificates of Occupancy for individual buildings as they are complete. Commissioner Trumbo asked about the park. Pate stated it was something that the Planning Commission was not involved in, it was one of the agreements made by the developer with the neighborhood at the Council meeting to remove a building from the original development plans and build a small park at the corner of Abshier and Hillcrest, if I remember correctly. It's still a condition of approval for the project, so we will still enforce that before we issue the final C of O for the structures on the property. So, the project can't be finaled out until all conditions have been met. Planning Commission April 27, 2009 Page 11 of 19 Griffin asked if it's alright for people to move in now, and the builder get their money, why should he bother completing all the obligations? Pate stated that ultimately it is enforced through our court system. When it comes down to it, if a developer or property owner has not met all the conditions of approval, the PZD can be revoked, it can be brought back before the Council. We have the authority in certain instances to turn water off to residents, and so we certainly don't want to get to that point, but it's something we could enforce through the court system. Commissioner Lack stated that there were comments in the public session about how there were still places on the streets that would meet the requirements of the speed tables from an Engineering standpoint. Are there places that would meet the technical requirements from the speed tables, or that would be so close that we might be inclined to vary that judgment? Chris Brown, City Engineer, stated that there are some areas that do meet the criteria that are laid out in the memo, the west end of Abshier, the very north end of Hillcrest, the south end of Hillcrest, and the first block of Oakwood between Hillcrest and Waneetah. There was some question about the effectiveness of speed tables in those areas, whether those are the areas that really need speed tables. But those areas would meet the requirements. Some of those are marginal because of sight distance and other problems, but as far as grade -wise, they do meet the requirements. Commissioner Lack asked how far from the intersection the south end of Hillcrest would be. Halfway between Oakwood and North? Brown stated that is where you would want to put it. The top of the hill is very near Oakwood, and that is an area where the sight distance is a problem. You don't want to put a speed table, have someone top a hill, put a speed table in and all of the sudden it's on top of them. That is a marginal location as far as safety goes. Commissioner Lack stated that the top of the hill is about at Oakwood and— Brown stated it's just south of Oakwood. Commissioner Lack so somewhere between Oakwood and North, midway or so might be an acceptable— Brown stated it's possible. Commissioner Lack stated he thinks that would be one that would impact the cut -through guys the most from the locations we're still talking about. When you say "west end of Abshier," how far west? Brown stated probably up to the entrance to the development. That's what I marked, I didn't check it in detail, but basically the west half. Planning Commission April 27, 2009 Page 12 of 19 Commissioner Winston asked if you could easily get to a third point between College and Hillcrest? Brown stated yes, that's possible. The effectiveness of that, it could be effective. As far as helping the neighborhood, not sure the effectiveness of that. It's really sort of out of the neighborhood. Commissioner Lack asked if staff can talk to us a little bit about where the speed tables are shown now. Is there a shown location? Pate stated it simply was brought up at the Council meeting, up to four speed tables to be installed, and that was really the extent of that conversation with the City. Which is one of the reasons I think it's important to bring this back to you all and the Council at any rate, simply because we need some guidance from both our Engineering department and the neighborhood as to where these are most appropriate if they are installed. Without Engineering studies up front, it's simply impossible to safely install them where everybody thought we could. So, that's what we're looking for from the Planning Commission is a recommendation to go forward to the Council. Commissioner Lack stated he was very sympathetic and very much in agreement with Engineering's stance on it, and the danger that could be posed by the speed tables in inclement weather conditions, I just want to explore and see if there's some compromise in someway. I think the stop signs would be a better traffic calming device. There's some contention even within the City now about speed tables that have been put in or might be requested, and they're not really all they're cracked up to be. But, they still can be a useful tool. I'll be interested to hear comments from other commissioners. That would be the one item I would anticipate hearing more dialogue about. I'm OK with the extension to five years with the change in street improvements. Commissioner Zant stated that considering the discussions from the public and their concerns over item 2, is it possible that we could perhaps break that item out and have the City staff revisit it a little further in terms of communication from the neighborhood, in terms of exactly where Engineering and where the neighborhood would feel speed tables and/or the use of stop signs would be most effective? Is it possible to break it out and pass the rest of this? Kit Williams, City Attorney, stated that of course this has to go to City Council for the final decision, and I think in between here and the Council is when staff can look at this more carefully again and scout out other locations. I think this has to go forward as a unit, I don't think we can break it up, but certainly your comments will be listened to by the City Council, but I don't think we can break it into two parts. I don't know if Jeremy feels otherwise. Pate stated that the recommendation from staff is based upon looking at general topography in the area and overall effectiveness, looking at where neighborhood traffic is located within the neighborhood, not just cut -through traffic, visibility for those utilizing the streets. You obviously don't want to come around a hill and not know a speed table is there and hit the speed table at too fast of a speed. Those are the types of issues we're looking at when making a recommendation. I certainly think that with respect to this issue, really it's just the speed tables and the time frame that are going to Council. The street improvements are really a decision by the Planning Commission. This is all one administrative item, however. Number 2 and 3 are recommendations that go forward Planning Commission April 27, 2009 Page 13 of 19 to the full City Council for their consideration. In context to what Mr. Williams stated, the minutes will be prepared for them for your comments and your recommendation on those specific items as well. If you feel you would like for staff to explore utilizing all four or drop that to two or one or none, that's what we would do after this meeting and before City Council discusses this at length. Commissioner Zant stated I can't tell you without Engineering really looking at this specifically and saying that we have to have speed tables here, and yet stop signs will look perfectly at other locations. So, I think if our concerns are then reflected on the second item, it may require a little further investigation, I think we could probably forward this on because I'm not hearing that staff has recommended this and I'm not hearing any objection on the time frame or specific street improvements that have been recommended. Commissioner Winston asked Brown about the locations where speed tables could be. I caught the one on Abshier about a third of the way up, the one on Oakwood between Waneetah and Hillcrest, and the one on Hillcrest between Oakwood and North. Was there another one? Brown stated the very north end of Hillcrest. Commissioner Winston asked if that was north of Woodcrest? Brown stated yes, from the north entrance to the development, probably three lots back to the south, the grades are adequate there. I should clarify, Oakwood meets the criteria for grades, but with the two intersections there, it doesn't meet the intersection distance. So, it doesn't meet all of the criteria, but the grades are really the critical safety issue. Commissioner Winston stated that my inclination is towards stop signs at four-way or three-way intersections because they're less confusing than when you've got a situation where one street has the right-of-way through it and the other needs to stop. Are there issues with having three-way and four-way stop signs on Hillcrest and Oakwood and Abshier as far as grade goes? You don't want to have a stop sign where it might cause a car to slide back down the hill if it loses momentum in weather conditions where surface traction is poor. Brown stated that stop signs are used to control the flow of traffic and are not to be used as speed control. Second, they can be used at three-way and four-way stops when you have similar amounts of traffic coming from all directions. The other time you can use them is if you have a sight distance problem, where there's an intersection where cars that approach the intersection can't see cars coming from the other way. Those are the reasons you install stop signs. We really have not looked at the configuration of the intersections or the traffic or any of that, so to say stop signs would be appropriate here or not, I would not be prepared to answer that. Commissioner Winston asked what else we have in our bag of goodies for traffic calming, if stop signs are not included in that bag? Brown stated that there are a lot of traffic calming tools, horizontal deflections, islands in the middle of the street for instance. You start getting into right-of-way issues. Every traffic calming measure has negative effects. But there certainly are other traffic calming measures that could be considered. Planning Commission April 27, 2009 Page 14 of 19 Commissioner Winston asked if staff has looked at islands in the middle of intersections, or any others that would be appropriate to look at between here and City Council. Brown stated that most of the other options include additional right-of-way and are much more obtrusive to the adjacent properties. There are islands in the middle of the road, islands in the side of the road, narrowing of the road, those sorts of things, none of which have been tried here in the City, so there's no track record in the City of how those would work. Commissioner Winston stated it gets in to this uncomfortable situation where the neighborhood has asked for traffic calming devices, and to say we can't use stop signs as traffic calming devices, and speed tables are too dangerous, so sorry you don't get anything —I think there's some responsibility to try to find something that will make this a safer situation, and we might have to look at what other cities are doing even if we haven't done it here before. Commissioner Lack stated that he noticed on the plan that came with the packet that Lakeridge is also listed as a speed table street. I'm assuming that's the list of streets that was discussed and approved at City Council. That's pretty far reaching where I can see where it would have some impact. We didn't talk about Lakeridge. Is Lakeridge a candidate? Brown stated that between the horizontal curvature of the roads and the vertical grade, there are no locations on that street where I would recommend a speed table. Commissioner Lack stated that it really stretches quite a ways from the development, so to require the developer of this project to do that seems like it could be argued. Commissioner Trumbo stated that we have installed, since this agreement was made, and it sounds like it was made without the advice of any engineers at this time. We've installed several speed tables throughout the City and it's my understanding that we have quit doing that, possibly because of budgetary reasons or because they weren't as successful as we thought. What kind of feedback are we getting about these? Pate stated that we get as many calls from people wanting them removed as we do from people who want them installed. It's a mixed bag. You are correct, we line -item pulled the amount for speed tables out of the budget. Commissioner Trumbo stated he sees the problem with putting the speed tables in on this hill, and that's where you would look at them and think they would need to go, would be right on this slope coming down this hill. I'm not qualified to tell if the speedbump on Abshier that close to College would help. Staff has recommended the stop signs and I assume they think that would help, based on their experience. At least, it would stop the traffic and make people more aware of their surroundings. So, I'm perplexed on the speed table issue. We can't install them if they're not safe, that's my opinion on that. I'm okay with the street improvements. That road does need to be overlayed, and I think that's a good compromise. I wasn't crazy about the left turn lane out of Abshier, we probably don't need to be encouraging people to take a left turn out of there. It's not the safest of lefts. I'm also okay with the time frame, I understand their reasoning and it might take Planning Commission April 27, 2009 Page 15 of 19 a full five years to build this out, so I'd be in support of that as well. Commissioner Cabe stated that regarding item #2, I am hesitant to remove the requirement or set a number of speed tables since it sounds like we need both speed tables and stop signs. It needs to be a combo effort. Do we need to set a number? It seems like between now and then that gives the developer and engineering enough time to assess the area. I want to make sure we're going to do what works and what is right. Do we actually need to say we don't need four because we got told at this meeting there were two spots that were really great so we only put in two, or can we leave it — I guess in the hands of people that we pay to do this kind of work, figure out what's required and what really works. Pate stated that he thinks that's an option for you as a recommendation if you want to forward this to the Council with a recommendation that staff looks at a combination of those stop signs and speed tables, understanding the safety concerns that we've expressed, we can look at those options. There are a couple of options at least that we can look at to see if it meets those criteria. Commissioner Cabe stated that after a study we find that we are better off without speed tables, I don't want to force anyone's hand but I also don't want to remove the possibility of doing what needs to be done. I agree with staff on the street improvements and the time frame, as well. Commissioner Honchell stated that speed tables have been the only avenue that the City has explored pretty much predominantly throughout. Where I grew up you had drainage runoff dips at intersection and that really helped with traffic. That's the first thing that came to my mind that if you have a steep grade like that, and if you had a drainage dip in a road like that, if we could explore other avenues. The City has pretty much obligated themselves to the neighborhood, and I think that puts the city in a precarious situation with what the neighbors said how they feel disenfranchised when these things keep coming back through and more things drop off. It's like what was said how stop signs are technically not a traffic calming device, they are used to regulate traffic flow. Then you get into these neighborhoods where these neighbors are really feeling like it doesn't matter what they say because once this thing keeps getting recycled, things drop off. Are there other things we can do before this gets pushed further? Are there other options that the City can pursue to try and appease everybody involved before this thing gets to a situation where — it's just like what everybody is saying, I don't see much point in throwing four speed tables out there for the sake of saying we did what we said we were going to do. It looks to me like on the east -westbound roads, you could probably put a speed table on those. Surely there's someplace in the country that's had speed problems on a steep graded road, and if we could explore those options before we take this much further. But I do support the time frame and the road improvements also. Commissioner Lack stated that one distinction that I see in what we're being asked for in this item is item #I we're asking for a determination, in items #2 and 3 we're asking for a recommendation. Motion: Commissioner Lack made a motion to forward ADM 09-3263 to City Council with a recommendation for approval, with a determination for item #1 in favor of street improvements as modified. The recommendation for item #2 regarding speed tables would be that between now and Planning Commission April 27, 2009 Page 16 of 19 City Council time, Engineering work out a recommendation for a combination of speed tables and stop signs. It seems to be logical that a speed table on Abshier at a point or so or just west of the entry would be effective. Without knowing the topography with my understanding and assumption of the south end of Hillcrest there is potential one could be effective there, but certainly I would not want engineering to propose or recommend something that was too close to the top of the hill. If it did get too close, I would certainly support their opinion on that. I think the north end of Hillcrest is not really feasible. I don't see the need that far north on Hillcrest for the traffic diversion. But it would be a recommendation for a combination of speed tables and stop signs from engineering. On the recommendation for extended time frame that we would be in favor of the five-year time frame, and all other stated conditions of approval. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Commissioner Winston stated that item 5 is affected by item 3. If we change to five years then item 5, which reads "all permits necessary to complete construction should be applied for and approved prior to project expiration on April 4, 2009." That should be 2014, not 2009. Commissioner Trumbo stated it was a typo. It should read 2014. Commissioner Lack stated he amends his motion. Commissioner Cabe amended his second. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission April 27, 2009 Page 17 of 19 ADM 09-3286: (PARADISE APPEAL/510 ASSEMBLY DR.): Submitted by TOM PARADISE for property located at 510 ASSEMBLY. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE. The request is for a waiver from the `money in lieu' of sidewalk construction requirement of the Sidewalk Administrator. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report, describing the request for a variance from the sidewalk construction requirements based on a recommendation from the City Sidewalk Administrator. Staff recommends denial of the request. Tom Paradise, applicant, stated that the problem was with the in -lieu fee as well — there's a very important point that has been overlooked in this whole discussion, that is the use change of the structure. There is no change. The structure was there when we bought the house in 2001, and it was occupied when we bought the structure and has been used as an in-law cottage off and on since we've lived there for the last eight years, so we're not seeing a use change at all with the structure. Part of the roof was ripped off from Hurricane Ike damage. We requested from the City a partial demolition permit to look at the quality of the studs to see if it was worth retrofitting or rebuilding. It was our decision at the time to go with the partial permit, but instead it was suggested to go with the master permit and I'm glad that we did, because when we decided to look at the condition of the house post -Hurricane Ike the black mold had grown into the studs and it was something that wasn't worth us rebuilding. So, we applied for the permit in January and one week into the partial demolition the ice storm hit and destroyed the rest of the building. So the biggest concern has been the point that the use of the structure hasn't changed. We have family living in it off and on when we have overflow at the house. So it was odd to me when I saw this, the point is we're doing nothing different. One of the options for rebuilding this was to possibly use it as a rental some day, but the structure is basically the same. The square footage is nearly the same for the structure. The footprint is nearly identical to the original footprint. Our request is simply that we don't see legitimacy in us paying $630. The other thing that's interesting about this house is the house was built in the 50's by a local contractor and was used specifically to house employees. So the driveway can hold 6-8 cars and has two spurs off the driveway specifically used for that structure in the back. So, it's a new ADU in the site of the original ADU, following the same footprint. No public comment was received. Commissioner Trumbo asked what our ordinance says if this is an existing use. Kit Williams, City Attorney, stated that some of the confusion happened here because when he filled out his original building permit, it did list the previous usage as storage. He probably didn't realize the importance of putting that down there. Obviously there has been a demolition permit, so we know there has been a structure there. If you look on page 414, which is the permits issued or required, you can see there is no water and wastewater impact fee, which seems to mean that there was some usage there. With Mr. Paradise's statements about the previous usage, and his photographs of the facility that looks to me like a structure that people could live in, I think there are a couple things we should think about. If you look at the application of the provisions for the owner to construct sidewalk, if you look on that it talks about a new structure, not a replacement structure. Obviously the part in our Code that allows an appeal to the Planning Commission on the rough proportionality of the impact for any exaction we're requiring in this case $630, it talks about what is Planning Commission April 27, 2009 Page 18 of 19 the impact that this structure would have on our infrastructure needs, specifically sidewalk infrastructure needs, and if it is one residential structure replacing another, then the impact would be zero. I think the problem was that when he filled out his building permit application that was reviewed by the Planning Division, they saw stories, they did not see that it was a habitable structure until very recently, when it deteriorated after Ike, and if it was a habitable structure, then we should not be charging anything for the sidewalk. If you look at that page 4 or 14, I need to call this to Mr. Paradise's attention, is that he has been charged a Fire impact fee and a Police impact fee, which the appeal for that determination does not go to the Planning Commission, but to the City Council. So you cannot make a decision on the impact fees, and that appeal would have to be lodged at the City Council level with the City Clerk, within 10 days of the decision. Looking at the date on this fee, it is April 20 2009, so you're still within the 10 days, it has to be in writing to the City Clerk. On the other hand, the Impact Fee Administrator, Mr. Pate, might want to review your statements and make a different determination himself. If he does not, then your appeal would not to be the Planning Commission but to the City Council. Like I say, there is a 10 day limit for the appeal which is fast approaching if you wish to have that considered. But the Planning Commission does look at the sidewalk fee, and so that is for the Planning Commission to decide on the sidewalk fee based on the evidence before you. Pate stated that he would agree entirely with Williams. I had just re -read the letter, and had it explained exactly what Mr. Paradise stated, I think we probably would have had a different recommendation. If you read our staff report, it states very explicitly that the recommendation is based upon another dwelling unit, same thing as the Sidewalk Administrator's recommendation. An additional dwelling unit would increase the population and pedestrian traffic in the neighborhood— that's the basis of our recommendation entirely. Mr. Paradise can attest to that fact and he certainly has on public record tonight. I think that's certainly a salient point and I would recommend that the fee be waived. I would just like to clarify that I'm not the Fire and Police Impact Fee Administrator, the Building Safety director administers that, but I will point Mr. Paradise to the right place. Commissioner Zant stated that he felt the waiver should be granted because our Sidewalk Administrator had stated that he could see there would be no connectivity a year later. The ordinance is well written for newer construction, but the likelihood of there being a sidewalk ever added to what this gentlemen would have $630 withheld for in the future is the likelihood of a snowman surviving in the netherworld. It just isn't going to happen. As a retired businessman, I would very much support our waiving his investment in $630 for the sidewalk. I just don't think it's necessary. Williams stated that to clarify, there would not have to be any connection with this sidewalk to be built for the waiver to be granted and have paid money in lieu thereof. That money would be then invested somewhere in the close vicinity as close as they could get in another sidewalk that would actually be connected some other place. So they have legally and constitutionally assessed a sidewalk requirement to a neighbor of mine built on a dead-end street with no sidewalks anywhere in the distance, but that $630 which that new home builder paid was then used in the close area somewhere around that area. And that was probably constitutional, even though there was not going to be any direct connection to this particular homeowner's neighborhood. The real question here is simply that there was not new construction, so there is no way that he is impacting our city and its infrastructure needs, and therefore we cannot charge them anything whereas if this was a new house being built or a new unit being built there increasing the pedestrian traffic, then it would have been Planning Commission April 27, 2009 Page 19 of 19 proper for the City to actually assess this sidewalk fee even though one could not be built on his property feasibly. Commissioner Zant stated that our packet said contributions must be expended within one year to build a sidewalk close enough to serve the project being constructed and that's how I interpreted that, that there had to be some sort of close connectivity. Pate stated that it doesn't have to be a direct connection. A lot of the time we use the park quadrant, which is a quadrant of the City, so it can be anywhere within that area. Commissioner Zant stated that Harry Truman once said that some people weren't smart enough to accept yes as an answer, but I am. Motion: Commissioner Cabe made a motion to approve the waiver request. Commissioner Zant seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. All business being concluded, the meeting was adjourned at 7.12 PM.