Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-02-09 MinutesPlanning Commission February 9, 2009 Page I of 18 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on February 9, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219, City Administration Building in Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN MINUTES: January 12, 2009 Approved Page 4 ADM 09-3207: (SKATE PLACE R-PZD EXTENSION) Approved Page 4 VAC 09-3197: (BUTTERFIELD TRAIL VILLAGE, 175) Forwarded Page 4 ADM 08-3212: (ALLIED STORAGE, 601) Approved Page 4 ADM 09-3214: (MOUNTAIN RANCH II PPL AMENDMENT) Approved Page 4 LSP 08-3193: (FRALEY/REYNOLDS/KESSLER MTN., 752) Approved Page 4 ADM 09-3213: (CORE PET WELLNESS C-PZD STREET ASSESSMENT PAYMENT, 292) Approved Page 4 CUP 08-3145: (FAYETTEVILLE DEPOT, LLC, 484) Page 5 Tabled VAC 08-3181: (KIRK ELSASS / ROCKCLIFF RD.) Tabled Page 6 ADM 08-3185: (BUNGALOWS AT CATO SPRINGS FINAL PLAT MODIFICATION, 600) Tabled Page 7 CUP 08-3188: (ST. JOSEPH'S CATHOLIC CHURCH, 373) Approved Page 8 LSD 08-3187: (ST. JOSEPH'S CATHOLIC CHURCH, 373) Approved Page 8 CUP 08-3192: (BUTTERFIELD TRAIL VILLAGE, 175) Approved Planning Commission February 9, 2009 Page 2 of 18 Page 9 RZN 08-3189: (FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH/DICKSON, 484) Forwarded Page 10 RZN 08-3190: (LOLLEY / HILL AVE., 522) Forwarded Page 11 RZN 08-3180: (MOUNTAIN RANCH PH. 1/5 LOTS, 478) Denied Page 12 ADM 09-3198: (AMENDMENT TO CH. 161: ZONING REGULATIONS) Forwarded Page 19 A DVD copy of each Planning Commission meeting is available for viewing in the Fayetteville Planning Division. Planning Commission February 9, 2009 Page 3 of 18 MEMBERS PRESENT Jill Anthes Lois Bryant Matthew Cabe James Graves Jeremy Kennedy Andy Lack Sean Trumbo Porter Winston STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Andrew Garner Jesse Fulcher Dara Sanders CITY ATTORNEY: David Whitaker MEMBERS ABSENT Christine Myres STAFF ABSENT Planning Commission Chair Sean Trumbo called the meeting to order. Commissioner Trumbo requested for all cell phones to be turned off, and informed the audience that listening devices were available. Upon roll call, all members were present with the exception of Commissioner Myres. Planning Commission February 9, 2009 Page 4 of 18 Consent: Approval of the minutes from the January 12, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. ADM 09-3207: (SKATE PLACE R-PZD EXTENSION): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at 646 W. SYCAMORE ST. The property is zoned R-PZD, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT and contains approximately 1.08 acres. The request is for a one year extension for the approval of the R-PZD 07-2763. VAC 09-3197: (BUTTERFIELD TRAIL VILLAGE, 175): Submitted by MCCLELLAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS for property located at 1923 JOYCE BOULEVARD. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY — 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 25.99 acres. The request is to vacate a portion of a utility easement. ADM 08-3212: (ALLIED STORAGE, 601): The request is for a one year extension for the approval of the Large Scale Development LSD 07-2480. ADM 09-3214: (MOUNTAIN RANCH II PPL AMENDMENT): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES for property located E. OF PHASE I, S & W OF PERSIMMON & 1-540. The request is to amend the approved Preliminary Play to include a phasing line. LSP 08-3193: (FRALEY/REYNOLDS/KESSLER MTN., 752): Submitted by EARVEL FRALEY for property located at 3641 W. KESSLER MTN RD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 121.54 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into 4 tracts of 4.27, 1.0 1, 1. 10, and 115.16 acres. ADM 09-3213: (CORE PET WELLNESS C-PZD STREET ASSESSMENT PAYMENT, 292): Submitted by DR. ROMY CORE FOR GULLEY PARK PETS CLINIC at the NORTHEAST CORNER OF OLD FIRE AND TOWNSHIP ROADS. The property is zoned C- PZD 08-3121 (CORE PET WELLNESS) and contains approximately 0.58 acres. The request is to modify condition of approval No. I from the C-PZD to permit the street assessment to be paid in installments over a one year period. Motion: Commissioner Graves made a motion to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-1, with Commissioner Lack recusing. Planning Commission February 9, 2009 Page 5 of 18 Unfinished Business: 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 to renew the 3 year Conditional Use Permit for a temporary parking lot on the subject property. Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, stated that the applicant has requested this item be tabled to the February 23, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. Motion: Commissioner Winston made a motion to table the request to the February 23, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission February 9, 2009 Page 6 of 18 VAC 08-3181: (KIRK ELSASS / ROCKCLIFF RD.): Submitted by KIRK ELSASS for property located at 619 N. ROCKCLIFF RD. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY — 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.27 acres. The request is to vacate a portion of a drainage easement on the subject property. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, stated that the applicant has requested this item be tabled indefinitely. Motion: Commissioner Lack made a motion to table the request indefinitely. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission February 9, 2009 Page 7 of 18 ADM 08-3185: (BUNGALOWS AT CATO SPRINGS FINAL PLAT MODIFICATION, 600): Submitted by BURKE LARKIN FOR THE BUNGALOWS AT CATO SPRINGS Subdivision on the NORTH SIDE OF CATO SPRINGS ROAD, WEST OF CLINE AVENUE. The property is zoned R-PZD 05-1979, 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, stated that the applicant has requested this item be tabled to the February 23, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. Motion: Commissioner Winston made a motion to table the request to the February 23, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission February 9, 2009 Page 8 of 18 CUP 08-3188: (ST. JOSEPH'S CATHOLIC CHURCH, 373): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at 1722 STARR DRIVE. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 17.73 acres. The request is for an addition to an existing Conditional Use Permit for a church and school, Use Unit 4 (Cultural & Recreational facility) in the R -A (Residential Agricultural) Zoning District. LSD 08-3187: (ST. JOSEPH'S CATHOLIC CHURCH, 373): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at 1722 STARR DRIVE. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 17.73 acres. The request is for 31,615 s.f. building expansion. Dara Sanders, Current Planner, gave the staff report, presenting the CUP & LSD requests at the same time. She described the history of development and the proposed 31,000 s.f. addition of classrooms, office, and facilities and an increase to 475 students. She discussed the new traffic signal to be installed in the spring. Staff recommends approval of the CUP & LSD request, with conditions as listed in the staff report.. Jeremy Thompson, applicant, stated they were adding classroom space, an activity center, and parking. They are in agreement with all conditions of approval. No public comment was received. Commissioner Graves stated that he assumed the hours of operation would coincide with the hours from the Conditional Use Permit from 2000. Since it doesn't address the end of the school day and the associated traffic concerns with school ending at the same time, he was wondering what staff's thoughts on that are. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, stated that staff left it consistent with the original CUP. The issue of hours of opening was brought up at a public meeting and was not originally recommended by staff in the original discussion of this item. It was decided at the meeting that there should either be an earlier or a later opening date. The signalization will help more than anything because it will help stagger the traffic more adequately than it is now. We've not proposed any additional conditions because of that. Motion: Commissioner Lack made a motion to approve CUP 08-3188 with conditions as listed in the staff report. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. Motion: Commissioner Lack made a motion to approve LSD 08-3187 with conditions as listed in the staff report. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission February 9, 2009 Page 9 of 18 CUP 08-3192: (BUTTERFIELD TRAIL VILLAGE, 175): Submitted by MCCLELLAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS for property located at 1923 E. JOYCE BLVD. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY -24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 24.20 acres. The request is for Use Unit 4 (Cultural & Recreational Facilities) in the RMF -24 zoning district, to permit the addition of a lodge facility with associated parking for the existing development. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report, describing the proposal as reported in the staff report. Based on findings in the staff report, staff recommends approval of the request, with conditions of approval listed. Leslie Tabor, McClelland Consulting Engineers, stated she was in agreement with the conditions of approval. No public comment was received. Motion: Commissioner Anthes made a motion to approve the request with conditions as listed in the staff report. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-1, with Commissioner Lack recusing. Planning Commission February 9, 2009 Page 10 of 18 RZN 08-3189: (FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH/DICKSON, 484): Submitted by MILLER, BOSKUS, LACK for property located at 20 E. DICKSON STREET. The property is zoned C-PZD, COMM. PLANNED ZONING DIST. and contains approximately 4.08 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to MSC, MAIN STREET CENTER. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report, describing approval of the PZD on this property in 2006, and the reason for requesting the change in zoning. He described the request, recommended forwarding to City Council with a recommendation of approval. Vince Pollack, Miller Boskus & Lack, stated he was here to represent the applicant. No public comment was received. Motion: Commissioner Winston made a motion to forward the request to City Council with a recommendation of approval. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-1, with Commissioner Lack recusing. Planning Commission February 9, 2009 Page 11 of 18 RZN 08-3190: (LOLLEY / HILL AVE., 522): Submitted by MIKEL LOLLEY for property located at 5, 8, 12 AND 20 S. HILL AVENUE. The property is zoned RMF -40, MULTI -FAMILY - 40 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.67 acres. The request is to rezone the subject properties to DG, DOWNTOWN GENERAL. Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, gave the staff report, finding that the location is appropriate for a mix of uses, recommending forwarding the request to City Council with a recommendation of approval. Mikel Lolley, applicant, stated that he owns the property and the request has been described satisfactorily. No public comment was received. Motion: Commissioner Graves made a motion to approve the recommendation of staff. Commissioner Anthes seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission February 9, 2009 Page 12 of 18 RZN 08-3180: (MOUNTAIN RANCH PH. 1/5 LOTS, 478): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES for property located at LOTS 118, 94, 95, 96, 97 IN THE MOUNTAIN RANCH S/D PHASE 1. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY — 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.50 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RT -12, RESIDENTIAL TWO- AND THREE-FAMILY, 12 UNITS/ACRE. Dara Sanders, Current Planner, gave the staff report, describing the request, site considerations and transition of land use. Staff is recommending in favor of the RT -12 district in this area. Dave Jorgensen, applicant, stated he represented the property owner. The property is presently zoned RSF-4, and his client is requesting RT -12 to allow for duplexes. You have noticed during your tour the gigantic apartment building across the street. The whole subdivision is zoned RSF-4 and the request is RT -12 for these five lots to provide the transition from the four-story apartments to the single-family. The prospective buyer is Cobblestone Homes, and we have Aaron Wirth here, who has met with a lot of the property owners and has some comments to make and will be able to answer questions. We do have a Bill of Assurance for this proposed rezoning request. Item number one on the Bill of Assurance is for the exterior of these buildings to be similar in appearance and be of the same material as the single-family houses built in the subdivision, including roof pitch, shingles, and exterior brick/rock, so that when you go by it you won't notice any difference between this and the houses built in the subdivision. In addition to that, item #10 on the Bill of Assurance is to promise access to the rear of these buildings to minimize the problem of driveways that come out onto Mountain Ranch Blvd. I don't know if you've noticed, but there's a median that goes down the middle of that that makes it somewhat difficult for cars to maneuver off each one of these lots, so we can put this rear access alley extending from Persimmon to the street to the south. Some of the neighbors had objections to this, so Planning Commission will have to discuss regarding potential connectivity, but we are open either way. I have three other potential layouts that will eliminate the alley connecting the south. Aaron Wirth, applicant, stated that Cobblestone Homes represents a potential buyer for the lots. We have worked with the developer and met with the Property Owners' Association. We do not want to see the value of surrounding homes decreased. Instead, we are looking for a transition between the apartments and the single-family homes. In meeting with the POA, some of the concerns brought up were that rental property would begin to encroach into the subdivision itself. I told them that as the buyer/builder I would not support that, but I would leave it to the Planning Commission. A second concern is the style of buildings, that it would be an eyesore. I assured them that's not what I wanted since this will be the main entrance, and it is the last thing I want to see. We're willing to go with a commitment to try and make them look like single-family homes. The third biggest concern was that renters would not do maintenance and upkeep. We propose to add language to the covenants to cover the properties so the POA has control over maintenance. The fourth concern was with traffic through the subdivision. One of the original plans was an alley off Persimmon; we've looked at different options for this. The fifth concern is that there would be more parking because of duplexes, so we propose the alleys to help with that issue. Commissioner Trumbo stated for the public that we can't decide what is rental or not; also, we do not enforce covenants. Planning Commission February 9, 2009 Page 13 of 18 Public Comment: Victor Parkerson, neighbor, passed out a map showing his lot. I live directly behind the lots proposed for rezoning. He discussed a restriction in the covenants to single-family housing only. Now the developer wishes to change the zoning of these five lots to allow duplexes. The lots are directly behind our house. We are opposed to rezoning because we feel this will decrease the value of our home and the undeveloped lots next to us. We do not feel duplexes will be compatible. I delivered letters to all my neighbors, letting them know about the proposed rezoning, and half of the neighbors I spoke to who were against the request. He discussed rental rates being low and undesirable persons moving in: higher level of trash, noise, crime, additional expense to POA when trying to enforce rules. He discussed apartments, intrusion of less desirable housing into neighborhood. I don't believe rezoning is in the best interest of Fayetteville or our neighborhood. James Dixon, neighbor, owns Lot 99 south of proposed rezoning. I am adamantly opposed. He discussed apartments, property values, traffic. Laverne Cooper, resident, opposed to rezoning, lives out in this area. This is intended for a single- family area, thinks traffic will increase. Nininsey Ah, resident, bought a house in May, but wasn't aware there were apartments to be built near the subdivision. I oppose rezoning because it will decrease house value. They said they will build duplexes as a transition from apartments to houses. The apartments are on the other side of the street. These duplexes will connect to our house directly, and will be for renting. Everybody knows renting is not good for the subdivision. I think this rezoning is not good for the home owner and is not good for the developer to sell further houses in the subdivision, because nobody wants to buy houses next to duplexes and apartments. Kristin Freeman and Jason Wood, neighbors, own Lot 105 at Mountain Ranch, brought forth a petition signed by Mountain Ranch residents in opposition to the rezoning. This rezoning will allow the construction of duplexes in our single-family home neighborhood. We are opposed because it violates covenants which state that no duplex or multi -family building is to be built in this subdivision. Further, we were all promised by Cobblestone Homes that the Mountain Ranch subdivision would consist of only single-family homes. This fact was of great importance for each of us in the decision to purchase or build our homes here. The construction of duplexes will likely cause a substantial decrease in property values, a value that was not taken into consideration when we purchased our house from Cobblestone Homes less than one year ago. Additionally, this will bring increased traffic into our neighborhood that threatens the safety of our children. Although Cobblestone states that they plan to build only five duplexes at this time, if this rezoning is allowed it is possible they will attempt to rezone more lots at a later time, further destroying the essence of our neighborhood. I would like to point out that the petition was signed by 16 different homes out of the 22 homes currently built in our neighborhood, 3 of which are owned by people related to the builder. So, that leaves only 19 homes owned by people not related to the builder, 16 of which have signed this petition. The remaining 3 were not home when I took it around. It is an important thing to remember that over 80% of the lots are still vacant, so the transition is moot. At this point, the developer does not know whether the lots will sell or if they won't. The proposed change will change our entire community. The houses are currently priced between $180-200,000 homes, and Planning Commission February 9, 2009 Page 14 of 18 they are wanting to build rental property at the entrance to our homes, and there are other options. This will increase traffic even if it comes out onto Persimmon. There is a school and Boys and Girls Club right next to our neighborhood, which is why we wanted to build there so that our children would live within close proximity to their elementary school and a place to exercise, and now they want to increase traffic which will increase the danger for our children. They have also only sold a small fraction of the lots in the neighborhood and have not been given a chance for these particular lots to sell. These will be an eyesore because of trash. Although they propose to build an alley to hide the traffic, there's no way a City garbage truck can go down this alley, so there's the potential for 15 trash containers sitting along the road of the main entrance to our community. There's also other options that they haven't explored. We can build a fence around our subdivision just like many other subdivisions do that would clearly segregate and delineate our community from the apartment complexes. We were all told when we built there that there were not going to be four- story apartments across the street, yet there are. I know the builder says he will not rezone any more lots, but you can see on your map there is a house built backing up to where these duplexes will be built, and there's at least 3 or 4 lots next to those. Nobody is going to buy those lots and build backing up to the duplexes, so they're going to come back and try and rezone those lots to be duplexes, surrounding Mr. Parkerson's home. I am asking you to please vote no and ask the developer to consider other options such as building a fence. Hugh Earnest, citizen, asked the Planning Commission to carefully evaluate the staff recommendation. The use of this as a transition buffer between some apartments and this yet - developing subdivision certainly makes a lot of sense. One of the things I remember clearly in Little Rock is that the hottest neighborhood in Little Rock was Hillcrest, a wide mix of apartments, condos, duplexes, and single-family homes. It remains that way today, some 15 years after I was on the Commission. I ask you to remember what staff said. I understand and appreciate the concern of the neighbors. Some of the points they raise may be valid, but I do think it is important that we make appropriate infill and revitalization our highest priority. Stephanie Self, Mountain Ranch subdivision resident, stated she wished to echo all the previous concerns from neighbors. My husband and I do oppose the rezoning. I'm not entirely familiar with the process, but I'm assuming that the original subdivision plat had to have been approved at some time by this Commission. Not sure what has changed since then. They're saying they want to put a barrier between the apartments and the single-family homes, and then want to deal with some traffic issues, but I think all those issues were probably there when the plat was originally approved, so they haven't given us a good justification for rezoning this. I just moved herein November, and we looked at a lot of subdivisions and I didn't see any other subdivisions of the quality and character of this one that included duplexes. If there had been duplexes in the neighborhood I would not have purchased a home there. Richard Rice, resident, stated he was the first resident to buy a lot in this neighborhood. When I moved there, the signs used to advertise much larger homes than the one being built. So, right away I took the first hit. Are you going to be business friendly or people friendly? You need to be both. The big huge apartment complex is there, you can't hide it, but it's within its boundary. But the idea of a buffer is no good, since duplexes aren't a buffer, they're an intrusion. There's a glut of rental properties here. Let's stick with the idea that was sold to us that it's a single-family community. Putting duplexes here in this little chunk would be terrible. It's a foot in the door. Please make them Planning Commission February 9, 2009 Page 15 of 18 stick with the plan. Triney Wright, neighbor, stated he bought his house in August, and when he bought it he never thought they would be rezoning. I don't think it's a good idea to mix together apartments and duplex and single-family houses, so I oppose the rezoning in the subdivision. Terry and Shelly Pitman, neighbors, stated that the only additional argument they would add would be to consider the reputation for Fayetteville who move from out-of-state as we did. We love Fayetteville and our neighborhood and our neighbors, but I think the feeling people are telling you is that there has been kind of a bait -and -switch pulled here. We researched for more than a year to find the community we wanted to live in, and Fayetteville won hands down. We also did a lot of research to find our subdivision, and we love the subdivision where we live. We invested the bulk of our life savings in our home, and just like everyone here we would like to see that investment protected. We would like to feel that we live in a city that considers that an important thing. Ashley Kennedy, neighbor, stated she wishes to echo the neighborhood's opposition, and will be very disappointed if it goes through. The duplexes and triplexes would take away from it. Brendan Cramer, neighbor, stated that he feels they are wanting to rezone to get some houses built, but I feel like even though they are less desirable lots in the neighborhood, they will eventually sell even if they're the last ones. No more public comment was received. Commissioner Graves stated he will vote against the rezoning. With all due respect to the applicant and Mr. Earnest, I want to make clear why I'm against it. This body doesn't consider rental property or characteristics that rental property might have. This body doesn't enforce the covenants that the POA would be able to enforce legally. This body also doesn't really consider an alleyway or trash pick-up. We do consider things like traffic and compatibility, but not necessarily an alleyway connection or where trash carts would be. What we consider is whether it's appropriate. After reviewing this and listening to the discussion it seems to me it is not a transition. No need to engage in the slippery slope concerns, because certainly this body and the City Council would have to consider additional rezoning applications separately. To say that a little 1'/z acre sliver of a subdivision will create a transition to one large apartment complex is arguable. That basis, to me, does not make sense. I would potentially see this as more of a commercial site, with a coffee shop or something with this future high impact intersection. To use Mr. Earnest's example of Hillcrest, where I used to live, there are lots of neat little nooks that people can duck into and grab coffee or a sandwich, and obviously there's not enough population out there right now to support that. But if someone wanted to bring that to this intersection, that would be more of a mixed-use idea that I could see, as opposed to one residential use versus another residential use, it's all residential and not really mixed use. I don't see that little sliver as being a compatible way to deal with the rezoning. Commissioner Anthes stated that she understands that Mountain Ranch Boulevard is designated as a Collector street. How many vehicle trips -per -day is a Collector slated to have? What is the capacity of a Collector street? Planning Commission February 9, 2009 Page 16 of 18 Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, stated that at an intersection, the design service volume at an intersection such as this would generate about 6000 vehicle trips per day. Commissioner Anthes asked if, in staffs opinion, the addition of five homes, or 5-10 homes if they were duplexes, would result in a negligible increase in traffic congestion at that corner. Pate stated that in staff s opinion, that is correct. Commissioner Anthes asked the City Attorney to address the slippery slope argument regarding the rezoning setting a precedent. David Whitaker, Assistant City Attorney, stated that each request for a zoning or rezoning is taken on its own merits, and the body should not consider its previous decisions. Obviously, we don't live in a world where your minds go completely blank after you work on one, so there's memory, but your findings of fact should never be based on a previous property. Under the concept that each property is unique and each rezoning should be weighed on its own merits. In following up on Commissioner Graves' comment, I'm not authorized and it wouldn't be ethical for me to give specific guidance as to what if any private rights the neighbors might have in the form of their POA vs. the covenants, but I certainly can urge them, if they have questions, to contact private council of their own choosing. Commissioner Anthes stated that she knows there's a lot of talk about traffic, but I believe this street will be even more highly trafficked than it is today. There's a connection planned through to the north. Is that correct Mr. Pate? Pate stated it was correct, the Walmart Neighborhood Market is permitted now, and they will be building Salem Road to connect at this intersection north from this intersection all the way to where Salem currently ends at Wedington, so this will be a major north -south Collector street corridor in this area. In addition, the future extension of Mountain Ranch Blvd. will also connect to Old Farmington Road. Commissioner Anthes stated that in considering 5, 10, or even 15 units, when you see the Master Plan for this street and what it's designed to carry, and what connections will be made, it's probably not as strong an argument as some of the other arguments you have heard tonight. As far as rentals go, many people live in one side of a duplex and rent the other, and they are often well maintained and can be just as attractive as a single-family home. Besides, rental vs. owner -occupied is not something this body looks at. We look at the placement of the lot and the access to the lot, and whether those conditions are compatible. I think that there are some good things that came through with this application, including the reduction in curb cuts on Mountain Ranch Blvd. I think as that street develops further and is connected, a fewer number of curb cuts would be good. I'm personally a strong proponent of an alley system. I like rear alleys, but I didn't like the way this one didn't actually run along the rear property line so it would not be available to the single-family lots behind. But what keeps coming back to me, on this particular application, is that this is a new subdivision. Promises were made less than a year ago. People have made new investments; the property has not been allowed to mature over time and see how those uses work. When the roads go through, there may be other options. Part of what we look at with a rezoning request is whether there is Planning Commission February 9, 2009 Page 17 of 18 development pressure causing the need for that particular zoning to a higher zoning classification. In this case, if there are actually 80 lots vacant on that site, I don't see the development pressure being there. We went out there on tour and looked at it and I think I would agree with the previous comments that there is a very separate thing built on the hill, there is a very wide road with a median in between it, and then there is a single-family subdivision. Five lots don't provide a good transition between these densities. It's pretty hard for me to say because when we first looked at Mountain Ranch I was trying to throw density at the developers in this area. It was a good place to develop -- right around the Boys and Girls Club, and a good place to look at a variety of housing types, to be a little more integrated in what you were providing there. But that's not what the builders came through with, it's not what this body approved, it's not what City Council approved. I don't see the development pressure there now, so I will not support the request. Commissioner Trumbo stated he agrees with Commissioners Anthes and Graves, that the request is not justified at this time. If there was abetter plan put in place when the whole PZD was approved, I would be in favor of some transition, but to go back and retrofit this doesn't make sense to me, so I will also vote against it. Motion: Commissioner Graves made a motion to deny the request. Commissioner Anthes seconded the motion. Commissioner Lack stated that he sees the points on both sides of this issue. When we talk about the demand, it's part of an overall slow -down in the City. Whether the development pressure is there for single-family or light multi -family is evidenced by the fact that we have an applicant here before us with a proposal he thinks he can sell. I don't feel it's precedent -setting to approve this request, and I don't feel the impact of five additional units would be detrimental to this area. The character concerns, while not a consideration of this body, can be the same in a single-family or a multi -family condition and can be driven by many other factors. Some of the components that help this to be more favorable, such as the rear alley loading, are things we wouldn't expect a single- family development to maintain. That would be unfortunate because it would be a dramatically improved condition for access to these lots given the nature of Mountain Ranch Blvd. I do feel like there is a great potential to be a positive to the area, and I will vote no on the denial. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-1-0. Planning Commission February 9, 2009 Page 18 of 18 ADM 09-3198: (AMENDMENT TO CH. 161: ZONING REGULATIONS): Submitted by Planning Staff to amend and unify building setbacks and building height regulations in residential single- and multi -family zoning districts. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, gave the staff report, recommending forwarding to City Council with a recommendation of approval. No public comment was received. Motion: Commissioner Anthes made a motion to forward the request to City Council with a recommendation of approval. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. All business being concluded, the meeting was adjourned at 7.00 PM.