Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-05-26 MinutesPlanning Commission May 26, 2009 Page I of 24 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on May 26, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219, City Administration Building in Fayetteville, Arkansas. MINUTES: May 11, 2009 Page 3 ACTION TAKEN Approved ADM 09-3298: (GARDENS ON PERSIMMON EXTENSION, 477/478) Approved Page 3 VAC 09-3281: (D. MEANS/1661 E. CYPRESS LN., 370) Forwarded Page 3 VAC 09-3282: (UA / 20TH STREET, 601) Forwarded Page 3 VAC 09-3269: (SCHMITT / 2614 TIMBERGLEN, 298) Forwarded Page 4 CUP 09-3283: (WRIGHT/ 3075 E. MISSION, 372) Approved Page 7 CUP 09-3284: (SMITH 2 -WAY/ 106 MASONIC DRIVE, 213) Approved Page 13 CUP 09-3299: (FAYETTEVILLE PUBLIC LIBRARY/ 401 WEST MOUNTAIN, 523) Page 14 Approved RZN 09-3280: (MATHIAS/ NW CRNR MISSION & BOX, 372) Denied Page 15 RZN 09-3271: (SALE BARN / CAMPUS CREST LLC, 562) Forwarded Page 22 Planning Commission May 26, 2009 Page 2 of 24 MEMBERS PRESENT Matthew Cabe James Graves Craig Honchell Jeremy Kennedy Audy Lack Christine Myres Porter Winston Jim Zant STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Andrew Garner Jesse Fulcher Dara Sanders CITY ATTORNEY: Kit Williams MEMBERS ABSENT Sean Trumbo STAFF ABSENT Glenn Newman Matt Casey Chris Brown 5:30 PM - Planning Commission Vice Chair Andy Lack called the meeting to order. Commissioner Lack 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 Trumbo. Planning Commission May 26, 2009 Page 3 of 24 Consent. Approval of the minutes from the May 11, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. ADM 09-3298: (GARDENS ON PERSIMMON EXTENSION, 477/478): Submitted by JORGENSEN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located on the SOUTH SIDE OF PERSIMMON STREET WEST OF OWL CREEK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY FOUR UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 11. 18 acres. The request is for a one year extension for the approval of CUP 08-2954. VAC 09-3281: (D. MEANS / 1661 E. CYPRESS LN., 370): Submitted by DAVID MEANS for property located at 1661 E. CYPRESS LANE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0. 12 acres. The request is to vacate aportion of a utility easement on the subject property. VAC 09-3282: (UA / 20TH STREET, 601): Submitted by ALLEN YOUNG for property located at THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY PARK, S. SCHOOL AVENUE. The property is zoned I-1, HEAVY COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUST and contains approximately 0.44 acres. The request is to vacate the unused R -O -W for 20th Street, located entirely within the subject property. No public comment was received. Motion: Commissioner Zant made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Myres seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission May 26, 2009 Page 4 of 24 New Business: VAC 09-3269: (SCHMITT / 2614 TIMBERGLEN, 298): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOC for property located at 2614 TIMBERGLEN LANE. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 1.76 acres. The request is to vacate the City's rights to a portion of a utility easement. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, stated that the vacation request is for property located outside the city limits. After looking at state law on this matter, it didn't appear that the City had the authority to vacate an easement located outside of the City, in which case staff has recommended that the City simply vacate its rights to this easement. This issue came about for the Schmitts, whose house is located within this 25 ft. general utility easement that was platted as part of a lot split in 2000. I would assume they are simply trying to clear up title on their home, maybe for a pending sale or future sale, and this is causing them problems so they are requesting that the easement be vacated. Again, staff is recommending that the City simply vacate its rights, this will not vacate the easement, again because we don't feel we have the authority to vacate this easement. I believe the neighbor's concern is how they will get utilities to the tract of land south of this property if this easement is vacated. We did note in our staff report that we did receive comments from all the utility providers and there were no objections, however, the property owners to the south did not provide any comments regarding the easement vacation request. Because we were not recommending that this easement be vacated, it would remain in place, we're simply vacating our rights, we felt it was appropriate for this to go forward to the City Council. Commissioner Lack stated that it did not appear the applicant was present, and asked if the Planning Commission had the authority to hear the item without the applicant present, and if the item should be tabled. Kit Williams, City Attorney, stated that we should take public comment first and then decide how to proceed. Andy Cozart, representative for adjoining landowner to the south Mark Powell, stated it was not his intent to disrupt the process, the issue is that the Powell's own the adjacent lot right next to the Schmitt property, and Mark's brother owns another lot on the other side, and the utilities are going to have to come from some direction, we just weren't sure what the issues were and if the City doesn't have the authority to vacate it then we'll take this up somewhere else anyway. We just wanted to bring it up to the Commission that these utilities, we just don't have enough information to know whether there's enough of an access easement that these utilities can come through to get there anyway. They're not needed at this point but they will at some point in the future. Commissioner Lack asked if the lots that the adjoining property owners may want utilities to are undeveloped. Cozart stated that they are. It's just a cost issue at this point about where those utilities are going to have to come from to get to those two lots. Commissioner Winston asked if the City vacates their interest in the vacation, would any utilities Planning Commission May 26, 2009 Page 5 of 24 that would be going through this land be installed by the County? Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, stated that if the applicant is going to extend water service to the property, that would be completed at the time of development by the applicant. Commissioner Winston stated that if the City will be the entity running the water through this, then it's not in the interest of the City or the adjacent landowners to vacate the interest in the property, is that right? Fulcher stated that there is an existing water line that serves this area and is actually in the right-of- way for Timberglen Lane, and extends to approximately this property, but it's on the other side of the street within the right-of-way. Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director, stated that the interest the City would be vacating here is really the only utility we provide, which is water. Water is already provided to this site to the west and to the east by the water line that Mr. Fulcher mentioned. It's on the other side of the street, so a service line could be installed to connect to that water main. All of the other utility companies operate independently, so Cox, AT&T all operate independent of County or City government, so it's within their right to abandon their rights to their utility easement as well, but that's not a process that — because it's in the County — we can authorize at this time. So that's a process that would either happen through Washington County or through agreements with those utility providers themselves. Commissioner Winston asked if we would be vacating our right to replace that water line in the future. Pate stated no, our water line is not within this utility easement. Commissioner Zant stated that he would be interested in hearing from the City Attorney regarding tabling the issue indefinitely or voting on it tonight. Williams stated that since you are basically recommending something to the City Council, that they're going to have to finally decide, you might just send it forward. In the interim, I'm going to try and look at the dedication language and see what it says. I do not think it could have been really within our power to own this easement outside the city limits, but until I see the dedication language I can't be sure on that, and I haven't seen a plat that's large enough for me to see the dedication language, so I requested that from Planning. One way or another we need to look at it though, I think the applicant will probably have to go to the County, I would imagine the dedication language should have been to the County, but I don't know that for a fact until I've had a chance to review it. But that can all be done before the City Council acts. Pate stated that the City of Fayetteville provides water lines extending well outside the city limits, to the Madison County line, so we actually don't have easements on all of those lines, but we have easements on lots of lines outside the City of Fayetteville proper. It's unusual for us to come to a process to vacate those, and in the six years I've been here this is the first time the Planning Commission or City Council has seen a vacation outside the city limits, so it's a unique process. Planning Commission May 26, 2009 Page 6 of 24 Blake Jorgensen, stated he is not here to represent the project, but I assume the utility easements are within the right-of-way and the water line can be extended and the utility easement is there to serve that. I would ask that we forward this on and add that we will clarify that these easements could be provided in the future, just allow us to clarify these issues when it gets to City Council. Unfortunately I don't know much more about this project. Motion: Commissioner Graves made a motion to forward the request to City Council with a recommendation of approval. Commissioner Kennedy seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission May 26, 2009 Page 7 of 24 CUP 09-3283: (WRIGHT/ 3075 E. MISSION, 372): Submitted by WADE & KELLY WRIGHT for property located at 3075 E. MISSION BOULEVARD. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL AND RMF -24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY, and contains approximately 2.28 acres. The request is to operate a children's daycare on the subject property. Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, gave the staff report, describing the request. The property formerly housed a dance studio. Across the street to the north is Vandergriff Elementary School, and to the south are some duplexes, to the east across Hunter's Ridge is an office park area. Because part of the property is zoned RMF -24, a Conditional Use Permit is required to allow for the day care facility which is Use Unit 4. The applicant is proposing for approximately 2,000 sq. ft. to be fenced off for the children's play area, which is shown on the site plan in the staff report, along with the zoning boundary which bisects the property. The Sidewalk Administrator recommends that new sidewalk be constructed along Mission from where the existing driveway ends to the western boundary of the daycare facility site, which is approximately 100 feet. Staff finds that the use is compatible with surrounding land uses, consisting of elementary, residential and office uses. With standard conditions of approval it would be an appropriate and acceptable use and provide a valuable service to the citizens in this area. Staff recommends approval with conditions listed in the staff report. Wade and Kelly Wright, applicants, stated that the area is perfectly situated for a child care facility, and that they are available for questions. No public comment was received. Commissioner Zant asked if the applicants have any problems with the conditions in the staff report. Wright stated he had no problems but has an interest regarding the front entrance. I know that the traffic on Mission is congested at times and it is an issue that has been discussed. However, staff did not suggest we not be able to use the entrance. We probably cannot open if we cannot use that as a front entrance. We have no problem with the dumpsters. I do have an issue with Condition #2, which states that "no more than 61 children, or the number approved by the State's Licensing Board, whichever is fewer, shall be permitted at the child care facility." We do have a small problem with that. We are aiming to build a high quality facility, which means a low teacher -to -child ratio. So this capacity of 61 is our design capacity, not the legal capacity. For example, DHS allows a certain number of children in the room such as 6 infants to one teacher. We will be operating at 4 infants to one teacher. We would hope that the City would not limit us to that since we will be sufficiently equipped in size to hold more. It's not our goal or intent to ever do so, but no one likes to have an extra rule saying you can't if business should warrant. Commissioner Zant asked if the applicants have given any thought to the vehicular flow through the property. I understand there will be 5 year olds and younger, and the children will be dropped off and carried into the property. Is there a favored vehicular flow you are learning towards? Wright stated that the front of the building has about 16 parking spaces without referring to the Planning Commission May 26, 2009 Page 8 of 24 parking on the side, which is where we expect employees to park. So that parking up front is where we expect people to pool in to park. There's four spaces at the very front to come in to those doors. It's my preference for people to exit onto Hunter's Ridge for several reasons. One is that if you turn on Mission, our main entrance is directly across the exit from McNair Middle School. That would lead to two cars facing each other, so Hunter's Ridge seems like it would be easier. There's also a back way out if people should choose to go down Hunter's Ridge and onto Crossover another way. However, the main reason I voiced that is because if we had a car trying to exit from our main entrance, there's just less space for other vehicles to come in. Now, it's plenty wide for two vehicles, however, you can never have too much space. Commissioner Zant asked how many employees the applicant expects to have. Wright stated he expects 13 employees. Commissioner Zant asked how many parking spaces there were altogether. Wright said there were 23 spaces altogether. Commissioner Zant asked if he had any objections to the sidewalk requirement. Wright stated he proposes to lease the building, and he has discussed the sidewalk with the property owner and how they would appropriate that between them. In the past, he had been told that because the property this building was located on was one parcel, and many years later bought the parcel next to it, though now it reads as over 2 acres, it's actually just under a one -acre parcel. They never did a lot line adjustment and somehow it had gotten combined, and my understanding was that the sidewalk would be required if he ever developed that neighboring lot, the vacant lot between our building and the larger development between Crossover and Mission. It's difficult to try and start a new business and every dollar increased makes it more difficult. We're not developing this property and don't believe it's appropriate at this time, it just adds to the burden to open a new business. Commissioner Zant stated he believed the applicant would have to work out that problem with his landlord. I think the Commission is in favor of the request, but safety is of a critical nature with the type of business you're running. Commissioner Honchell asked what the applicant anticipates the peak hours of pick-up and drop- off being. Wright stated that the peak hours will be from 7-8 AM. A second peak will be for pick-up, however, as people tend to drop-off at the same time they pick up over a period of several hours from anywhere between 3-5 or 5:30 would be the peak pick-up time, so the number one peak will be the morning hours, and a secondary peak somewhere there. Honchell asked if Hunters Ridge was fully accessible from his lot, and if he can advocate using that as an entrance or exit. Wright stated that it is, and it works well as an exit because it prevents people from trying to turn Planning Commission May 26, 2009 Page 9 of 24 around in the middle of the main entrance and trying to leave. We do not believe it works well as an entrance because if you look at the property and pull in from Hunter's Ridge, there is a step down where you would park to get to the front door, you need to walk up to the side of the building, step down, cross around to the front and come in. Or, you would drive around the building, come in to park, and have to retrace your steps. It wouldn't prevent people from being able to access our building, however, I think that any new business owner thinks about how easy it is for a customer to come to their door. Commissioner Honchell stated that you have the middle turning lane, and the only concern I have is that you'd have cars sitting in the turning lane trying to turn left into McNair, and your traffic from the east would be trying to turn south into your lot and then possibly have people exit off Hunter's Ridge back onto Mission. Wright stated that if there's a lot of traffic, the easiest access is to go down Hunter's Ridge and cut over on Setter. As I said initially, I can't deny that traffic is somewhat of an issue at this property. Good and bad things go with that. However, we don't believe it is such an issue that it would prevent us from opening our doors. Commissioner Honchell asked if staff has ever conducted any sort of traffic study in this area. Do we know if there is a high rate of accidents in this area? Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director, stated that he believes there is a higher rate of avenue to the west between Box Avenue and Mission, not sure if it extends this far east. One factor that will help traffic is the addition of a signal at Mission and Starr Dr. Hopefully that will help pulse traffic a bit more to let people in and out. Probably the biggest difficulty with anyone turning in or out of here in the morning is simply going to be the backup of traffic. The access that Mr. Wright mentioned out of Setter is probably the most feasible way of getting out. Honchell stated he wouldn't have a problem with it if the applicant were to advocate at least exiting the property via the back way. Wright stated that personally he loves that option, but he didn't know if the City would like us funneling our customers to the neighborhood, however it's only a matter of two right turns, so you can get to the street without ever having to make a left-hand turn. So that is the ideal way to get out. Pate stated that in theory there will be a general distribution of traffic. Not all traffic will go one direction, so that's the point behind the connectivity. You can also get to Starr Rd. which is a signal from this access, or you can also get to Crossover or Huntsville, so there are at least three access points. Kit Williams, City Attorney, stated that the applicant has been reluctant on condition # 1 regarding sidewalk improvements. The Conditional Use means we can look at whether or not to require sidewalk improvements. A Conditional Use does not say we can require whatever we want to. The test here would bet the difference in the impact this development would have compared to what was there before. In other words, this is not a new building, it's been there a long time as a dance studio and now it's going to be a child care facility, so the Planning Commission needs to make a common Planning Commission May 26, 2009 Page 10 of 24 sense determination of how much impact his facility will have more than what the dance studio would have had, and the need for a sidewalk in this particular location. It's not whether the sidewalk is nice and safe, it's whether his use of the building impacts the City's sidewalk infrastructure needs more than the dance studio, and by how much. Does it make it as much as what has been recommended by the Sidewalk Administrator down to the end of the extended lot now, or somewhat less as he has asked for. This is a common sense decision you all need to make. Since he has raised that, it is incumbent on the Planning Commission, pursuant to our Unified Development Code, to make that determination about whether or not you believe the recommendation the Sidewalk Administrator is what you want to go with, or whether you think there's nothing more that should be asked or somewhere in between. That's what he has asked for tonight, even though he has not filed it in writing or done anything, but rather than wait and have him come back before you, I think it would make sense for you all to make your decision tonight about what should be done. Commissioner Graves agreed that the sidewalk would be a safer condition for folks who might walk to this site. I don't have any way of knowing what the customer base for the dance studio was to know whether this would generate more or less traffic, although certainly it's going to be more concentrated traffic at certain times of the day than the dance studio was, and also times when traffic is concentrated at the school across the street, so it may create a more intense vehicular traffic situation. Logically, you could expect to stay out of all that mess; some folks may park at the commercial spot next door and walk their children over to the day care just to keep their cars out of the situation at Mission and having to get in and out of that particular spot. I haven't done any measurements out there, neither has the City, neither has the applicant. I am inclined to support staff. Motion: Commissioner Graves made a motion to approve the request with the conditions recommended by staff. Commissioner Zant seconded the motion. Commissioner Lack discussed the regulation for the maximum number of children and that the CUP needs to be permitted for a specific number. If the applicant desires to change that number that could come back before the Planning Commission at a later time. Wright discussed that they only have capacity to increase by about 15 more children. Commissioner Lack discussed the sidewalk adjacent to the lot, asking if the undeveloped portion is considered part of this lot. Pate discussed that the recommendation is for sidewalk to be constructed along the portion of the lot that is developed, and that the remaining undeveloped portion of the lot would be required to install a sidewalk at the time of development. Commissioner Zant stated that it seems excessive for a tenant to have to build a sidewalk. Williams discussed that it is the tenant that is applying for the CUP which gives the Planning Commission the right to ask for the sidewalk. Commissioner Honchell discussed that he doesn't think the sidewalk is warranted. Planning Commission May 26, 2009 Page 11 of 24 Commissioner Lack discussed that tenants make improvements to buildings almost every time they lease a new building and sees the sidewalk within than parameter. Commissioner Winston asked about phasing the sidewalk over time or the option of paying money in lieu. Pate discussed that if money in lieu is an option, it is normal in almost all cases for the entire amount to be paid up front. We're recommending construction of the sidewalk in this case. Commissioner Cabe discussed that if this sidewalk is a high priority then the City may want to enter a cost -share agreement. Williams stated that he doesn't recommend that or think the council would be in favor of that option. Commissioner Myres stated that this is not a new development and doesn't feel like the applicant should bear the brunt of the impact with the sidewalk. Motion: Commissioner Myres made a motion to amend condition No. 1 to remove it from consideration. Commissioner Winston seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 5- 3-0 (commissioners Cabe, Graves, and Lack voting no). Commissioner Winston discussed that it is hard to quantify the difference in pedestrian traffic between a dance studio and a childcare facility, although it feels like some sidewalk is warranted. Commissioner Kennedy discussed that he feels like something is warranted but not all of it. Commissioner Myres discussed that tabling the item may be warranted to get more information on the sidewalk and the maximum number of children that may be proposed. Motion: Commissioner Winston made a motion to amend condition No. 1 to require the sidewalk to be extended to the west to the extent of the western fence of the playground as shown on the scaled site plan. Commissioner Graves seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 5-3-0 (commissioners Honchell, Myres, and Zant voting no). Commissioner Lack clarified that the location of the fence as indicated on the site plan is the requirement for the sidewalk. Commissioner Cabe asked about the factors that go in to making a recommendation on sidewalk determination. Planning Commission May 26, 2009 Page 12 of 24 Pate explained the factors for determination of sidewalk improvements and recommendations. Motion: Commissioner Graves made a motion to approval CUP 09-3283 with the amended condition of approval No. 1 to extend sidewalk to the western edge of the fence as indicated on the site plan. Commissioner Zant seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 5-3-0 (commissioners Honchell, Myres, and Zant voting no). Planning Commission May 26, 2009 Page 13 of 24 CUP 09-3284: (SMITH 2 -WAY/ 106 MASONIC DRIVE, 213): Submitted by MIKE SMITH / DAVE REYNOLDS for property located at 1106 MASONIC DRIVE. The property is zoned RSF- 4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 2.96 acres. The request is for a 140' flag -pole cellular tower on the subject property. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report, describing the requested cell tower proposal. Dave Reynolds, applicant, stated that AT&T needs a tower in this area to fill a gap in coverage and capacity located between the existing towers in the area that AT&T currently utilizes. Red Dixon, Christian Life Cathedral, stated that the church owned surrounding property and that the house on the adjoining lot may within the fall zone of the tower and that there was an ongoing property line dispute between the church and the subject property owners. Natilie Butnell, neighbor, asked about the location of the compound and if it would prohibit the extension of Hemlock. Jacob Hudson, neighbor, asked if there was study on property values where adjacent to cell towers and what the length of construction would be for this tower. Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director, recommended adding a condition that the compound and cell tower would be constructed in such a way to permit the future extension of Hemlock. Motion: Commissioner Graves made a motion to approve CUP 09-3284 with the condition added by staff regarding the future extension of Hemlock. Commissioner Kennedy seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission May 26, 2009 Page 14 of 24 CUP 09-3299: (FAYETTEVILLE PUBLIC LIBRARY/ 401 WEST MOUNTAIN, 523): Submitted by FAYETTEVILLE PUBLIC PROPERTY for property located at 401 WEST MOUNTAIN STREET. The property is zoned MSC, MAIN STREET CENTER and contains approximately 2.42 acres. The request is for amplified outdoor music. Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, gave the staff report, describing the request for outdoor music at the Fayetteville Public Library. Finding the use compatible with the surrounding zoning and land uses staff recommends approval of the proposed use. Shanna Clark, applicant, stated that one minor correction was that they would comply with the normal hours of operation of the library with the exception of weekends until 8 PM. She discussed that all events would be staffed by the library to remain acceptable. Commissioner Zant about the types of music. Clark discussed the different music venues ranging from children's, jazz, folk, rock, etc. Motion: Commissioner Cabe made a motion to approve the request, changing condition No. 4 to extend the hours to 8 PM on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. Commissioner Myres seconded the motion. Commissioner Kennedy asked about the hours for music events on weekend mornings. Clark discussed that they would anticipate the earliest event starting at 10:45 AM. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission May 26, 2009 Page 15 of 24 RZN 09-3280: (MATHIAS/ NW CRNR MISSION & BOX, 372): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at THE NW CORNER OF MISSION BLVD. AND BOX AVE. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 1.20 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to C-1. Dara Sanders, Current Planner, gave the staff report, describing the history of requests back to 2003, two of which were rezoning requests. In 2003 a request to rezone from RSF-4 to C-1 was denied by staff, finding it was not consistent with the Future Land Use designation and that it could potentially increase traffic danger in the area. In 2005 the current property owner requested to rezone from RSF-4 to R -O, staff was in favor of that request. In 2006 City Plan 2025 changed the Land Use Designation from residential to city neighborhood, which does encourage low -intensity non-residential uses at corner locations. The applicant is now requesting a rezone from R -O to C-1, stating that the reason is for the potential construction of a bakery with a drive-thru window, which is classified as Use Unit 18, which is neither a permitted nor a conditional use in the R -O zoning district. Staff finds that under the R -O zoning district, the applicant could request Conditional Use Permit approval to operate a bakery on the subject property as Use Unit 13, however staff does not find that the inclusion of a drive-thru window warrants approval of a rezoning request to C-1, which would allow for a gasoline station or shopping center. Staff findings that the C-1 zoning district is not consistent with the Future Land Use Plan designation of City Neighborhood Area. Staff findings that many uses in the C-1 zoning district are not low -intensity uses. Considering the permitted and conditional uses allowed with the underlying R -O zoning district, staff finds that the current zoning district remains to be an appropriate transitional zoning district and recommends denial of the request. Kipp Hearne, H2 Engineering, stated he would like to encourage discussion on two issues: zoning and traffic. I certainly think that with this particular location, we can have a healthy debate over the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial vs. this future City Neighborhood area that's been designated within the City Plan 2025. I think part of the problem here is that we've got this well thought-out plan, but we don't have all the tools for Planning staff to utilize those — we don't have any more distinct zoning districts or use units identified that can be a little more creative in situations like this. That being said, we're going to have to be a little more creative when we come across situations such as this, in that we've got some fairly specific Use Units that we want to apply to this, but understand the concerns of staff that they don't want to introduce other Use Units that would not have the compatibility with the surrounding area. When we started this process — and I think it's a little ironic that the reason we're here today is that we're trying to accommodate a bakery, that was our initial thought, and that would be a part of a larger facility. With a bakery, just the business model of a bakery, it mandates a drive-thru. But we didn't have any way as a Conditional Use to accommodate that drive-thru with R -O zoning. So, we approached staff with this dilemma and if we went to C-1, that offers Use Unit 18 which accommodates us, but also allows us to put a gas station there. Of course, we agreed that's not the appropriate place for a gas station, it's too intense. So, the other option is to simply to do a PZD. That was discussed a little bit, but as much as I like the PZD ordinance, we don't think that this would call for the effort and cost to get a PZD just for a drive-thru for a restaurant or a bakery. That's the real key. Whether a bakery goes there or not, if there's another restaurant that goes in that space, we'd like the ability to offer a restaurant to those folks as well. That being said, this property is located 150 ft. from the intersection of Hwy 265 & Hwy 45, a well -traveled area. Directly to our south is C-2. Directly to our west we have C-1 zoning with the Planning Commission May 26, 2009 Page 16 of 24 gas station. To our north is a multi -family use, to the east is single-family, and beyond that is the school. So in my mind, I don't think I could point you to a more appropriate place in town for C-1 Neighborhood Commercial. It's a great transitional zoning. I have no doubt that in the future, Planning staff will have at their disposal additional zoning criteria available to them that will be more applicable. But at least for right now, I think what we would like to offer is the negotiation with you tonight, a Bill of Assurance that would limit the permitted uses in CA that you would find incompatible with this particular location but still allow us the ability to go forward with the uses that we anticipate. The other issue is traffic. We understand that Police is the other variable here that have offered some comments in the past. This is a very congested area. You have two well - traveled highways here which in my mind reinforces the fact that it is more of a commercial area than a residential area. One major improvement to this traffic problem, and I have just to let traffic dictate the zoning we're looking at here tonight. Yeah, what we're talking about is a little more intense than R -O, it's going to provide a little more traffic, but when you compare that incremental traffic volume to what's there now, I think you'll find that it's very insignificant. The other thing about traffic is, it's gonna kinda take care of itself. There are some turning movements out there right now that are very difficult, and the thing about traffic is, they're not going to do it. We don't go places that are hard to get to. So, it will be easy to get back onto Hwy 45 from this project, we've got Box Ave. available to us which we can access, and we would be in compliance with the Access Management codes out there. The big point that Police have not considered in this is at Starr Road and Hwy 45, a traffic signal is being installed there. Engineering anticipates that it will be installed within a month. So that will be a very positive action that will benefit this entire area. Again, I recognize and appreciate Planning's concerns about transition and traffic, but I don't think they have enough tools to be creative enough to accommodate us. I feel like with R -O, you're really limiting the potential of this property that is perfectly situated for more commercial uses than what R -O can allow. Thank you. Mena Dotty, neighbor, stated she has managed and owned Daylight Donuts at 1968 Crossover Rd. for seven years. Our lease ran out, it was not renewed, and this is where we'd like to move. The Mathiases are building and we can open as soon as they can get it built. We'd sure appreciate it. A lot of our customers have certainly approved us moving to that area. We were hoping to be in the first of August, of course we won't be able to do that as it stands right now. But we're waiting on confirmation of the rezoning first. Andrea Pointer, former employee at Daylight Donuts, stated that there was an enormous amount of patronage at the old store. There were daily regulars, and we have received a lot of expressed interest. We've exhausted lots of possibilities, we've looked elsewhere and haven't been able to find it. As for the traffic, people are going to take care of their traffic. If it's too hard to turn left, they're going to go right. I live in that area, so I understand the traffic. Please consider approving this zoning. No further public comment was received. Commissioner Kennedy asked what uses would be removed from the Bill of Assurance proposed, and asked that the City Attorney discuss the Bill of Assurance process so we all know what it means and how it's enforceable. Planning Commission May 26, 2009 Page 17 of 24 Kit Williams, City Attorney, stated that the Planning department has a form Bill of Assurance that needs to be filled out and signed by the applicant and presented to the Planning Commission or City Council. The applicant will note on the form which Use Units they wish to exclude voluntarily from the rezoning that they're seeking in order to try and make the rezoning something that the Planning Commission and City Council could approve. Bills of Assurance can't be orally done, they have to be in writing. I have not seen that yet, I don't know if anything has been presented at this point. Hearne stated that was thought of this afternoon during discussion with staff. I was not aware I had to submit an official form at Planning Commission this evening. I was hoping to make it a matter of record and we could produce that tomorrow and submit it to staff. Williams stated that you could certainly do that. In my opinion, it would not be effective until it was presented at the City Council level in writing, properly signed and notarized, etc. It must be something offered by the applicants, it cannot be something the Planning Commission can negotiate for. So, you have to listen to comments that the Planning Commission might have and what your thoughts might be in relation to what the City Council would like to see there and would not like to see there and then make your proposal to the City Council about which Use Units you would like to retain in Neighborhood Commercial, and which you feel would be inappropriate and therefore likely to cause your rezoning to be rejected. Hearne stated that in order to help facilitate the discussion, on behalf of the client he would like to modify Use Unit 18 as a permitted use to remove gasoline service stations and include only drive-in restaurants. I don't know that there's really any need to go any further than that. As far as Conditional uses, there's liquor stores. We could remove that now — it is a conditional use that if I presented it to you would decline. So, I'll go ahead and propose to remove liquor stores, Use Unit 24, from the conditional uses. Commissioner Kennedy stated that clears up his question. We will need to discuss how this changes our opinion. Williams stated you could certainly assume that the Bill of Assurance will be submitted as discussed tonight if you want to. You are making a recommendation to the City Council, so you can base that recommendation on what was presented by the applicant here. Commissioner Zant stated that his question was forming around the potential Conditional Use requirements. You've taken liquor store out, I don't know that you'd have problems with outdoor music establishments or sidewalk cafes. Our applicant does appeal that eating places or neighborhood shopping or drive-in restaurants would negatively impact the single-family housing to the east or any adverse impact on the schools to the east. Maybe you'd like to comment on that? Hearne asked if he is being asked for his perspective on the impact of these proposed units of this project on the single-family to the east? Commissioner Zant stated that was correct. Hearne stated that taking this project and looking at the entire area out there, if you look within a Planning Commission May 26, 2009 Page 18 of 24 quarter mile radius of this area, it's a commercial hub. It's a location where two state highways come together, and that inherently is a very intense area. That's why the commercial we're proposing is not going to draw more people in there, it's just taking advantage of the traffic that's already there. In that sense, it's more appropriate for that to be more of a commercial property. Commissioner Zant stated that we sensed that it is to some degree a commercial property, but I think the difficulty lies on whether or not it is too intense for the property being proposed here. Staff is quite concerned over the drive-in restaurant impact and the impact of what would have been the full array of uses here, with schools to the east here. Hearne stated that with the Planners, it's tough trying to predict and dictate — this is going to be an eating establishment but it will be walk-in customers here, that kind of thing — one of the things we've seen in the development community and particularly with trying to lease property is that the business model for eating places, it's part of our culture now to want to go through a drive-thru. More and more business models are being driven toward that. We're just trying to build a facility here to accommodate what the true needs are in the community and in these businesses. Commissioner Honchell stated that the way this was presented to us in our agenda meeting was that it was going to be a bakery. In my mind, it's pretty logical to assume that the housing coming from Starr from the east and anything flowing to the bakery — there's no reason for traffic to be pulled out east other than the school. I think the logical approach would be, take the kids to school, do the turnaround, head back to work which would be due west, loop through the bakery if that's where you want to go, and that would generally take the traffic in a constant roundabout. Unless the applicant would object to having some kind of signage coming over the hill to warn everybody that there is going to be cross-tuming traffic. One thing I did not pay particular attention to was the turning lane. Does the turning lane going up the hill start as the hill progresses east up the hill, or does it cross in front of Box Street? Because if they could extend the turning lane down to encompass Box, or widen an easement to accommodate it, I don't see why there would be any traffic problem. The bakery will open early in the morning, and I think the people who will be drawn there early will be there, and the flow-through traffic will be from the school and residential going east to west, in my mind. Hearne stated that's exactly what we contemplated there. Commissioner Honchell stated that with the addition of the light at Starr, I think that would accommodate an interruption in traffic enough to accommodate it. Hearne stated that we have drawn on some of our conceptual large-scale plans, to help encourage that westerly traffic out of the place, we'd like to explore the opportunity to have a right -out only. Commissioner Lack stated that we should keep in mind that development issues cannot considered for approval or denial of a rezoning application. Commissioner Winston asked if there is a distinction between restaurants with a drive -thin and drive-in restaurants. For instance, Sonic is a drive-in restaurant, and this is an eating place with a drive-thru. Is it possible that Use Unit 18 could read, "restaurant with a drive-thru" rather than Planning Commission May 26, 2009 Page 19 of 24 drive-in restaurants? Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director, stated that Use Unit 18 encompasses any drive-thru or drive-in capacity, in terms of that use. Use Unit 13, which is eating establishments, is a sit-down restaurant type use. So the distinction is made because there's a much higher traffic generation with a drive-in or drive-thru restaurant than a sit-down eating establishment. That's why it's lumped together with gasoline service stations, when you run those traffic models it has a much higher turnover. It's usually a higher peak hour because it's usually a coffee shop or bakery that has a much higher peak hour time. A sit-down restaurant will also have a peak hour time typically at noon or dinner time, so the peak hours can vary related to that. So that's one reason why we make the distinction. So, in many ways it's about traffic, it also refers to simple land -use patterns. I don't think the Bill of Assurance offered here would change our recommendation. We feel that R -O is the actual transition between a residential neighborhood and commercial. There's a very distinct boundary, drainage area between commercial along Crossover Rd. and residential on School, which are much quieter and low -intensity in nature and we feel the R -O establishment is that primary use. There is C-2 across the street from this; I don't think staff would ever recommend C-2 in those locations at this point in time. The actual land use is Bank of Fayetteville directly across the road, so that's more of an R -O office type establishment as well. Commissioner Winston asked what is the lowest -intensity zoning that we have right now that would allow a drive-thru restaurant as a conditional use. Pate stated that there is no other zoning district other than C-1 that allows drive-in restaurants as a Conditional Use. Commissioner Lack asked for clarification that staffs recommendation, even with a Bill of Assurance, would be what? Pate stated that it would be for denial of this application. In 2005 or 2006, when this property was rezoned, it came forward as a C-1, and the compromise then was R -O, because everyone felt that was an appropriate transition and we still feel that is the appropriate transition today. Although I think circulation patterns could possibly be worked out within the development proposal, that's not what we're considering at this point in time. I think if we go that far, another connection to Box Avenue to allow ingress and egress back to Crossover — there are many other options we've discussed with Mr. Box, who has looked at developing this property in the past. There are inherent concerns we have with continuing a commercial zoning along Mission Ave. in this location. Hearne stated that in the past, staff s concern stemmed from the opposition that the Police Dept. had voiced with respect to the congestion out there, and this being one of their highest areas of concern. Now, with the introduction of this traffic light at Hwy 45 & Starr Rd., I believe it's going to become a much safer situation, though we don't have any real data to prove that. Prior to passing the City Plan 2025, was there really a thorough debate over the zoning and transition, or was it primarily from the traffic concerns introduced by Police? Pate stated that from our perspective, that was one component, but if you look at staff reports from back in 2003 and 2004, Future Land Use Plan and land use at this property were always part of this Planning Commission May 26, 2009 Page 20 of 24 discussion. The fact that the Police Dept. has actually commented on this site, which they rarely do, is something that we certainly take into consideration very carefully because it's something that's unique. Most of the reports that you find from our Police Dept. don't have an issue with the zoning, but this one in particular, they have comments related to traffic safety and I'm assuming it's because of the number of traffic accidents or calls they get at this stretch of intersection. But that's simply one of the comments, not the complete basis of our recommendation in the past. Motion: Commissioner Graves made a motion to deny the request. Commissioner Zant seconded the motion. Commissioner Kennedy stated that he believes we're in a situation where you've got a drive-in bakery that doesn't necessarily coincide with what the traffic of a Sonic or something that would be open 24 hours or early in the morning and late at night, so I feel like we've been put in a situation here where the use they're proposing probably would work fine and there may be things that would be allowed in R -O that would produce a situation that would be far more dangerous than a shopping center with a donut shop on the end cap. That said, once you rezone something, they could come back and say well the donut shop has found a new place, and now it's going to be a sandwich shop that will be open early in the morning and late at night. So, I don't like the fact that I have to deny this, but I don't see another option other than a PZD that would specifically spell out that this could only be used for an establishment that would only be open from 5-11 AM or something like that. So, I don't like that this has to be denied, but I don't see another option right now. Commissioner Zant stated he concurs with Commissioner Kennedy's analysis. We're voting classifications and nothing is cast in stone. What one use in a classification is might be offensive and another would be acceptable. I have to agree with staff s recommendation here, I feel that going to C-1 at this location is too intense, and there's single-family housing close by, and the multi -family just to the north, and I don't think it's appropriate to intensify it. Commissioner Myres stated she feels compelled to go against staff's recommendation in this instance. I think a Bill of Assurance goes a long way in giving some assurance that the uses that the property would be put to would be acceptable in this particular location. There's also a great deal of heavy commercial development right across the street which goes some way up the hill before it becomes residential. In some ways this feels like an arbitrary cutoff point, because we've got Walgreens, two grocery stores, all kinds of heavy duty stuff in a radius around this intersection much greater than where this property lies. So, I'm going to vote against the motion as stated, because I think I would be happy to see this go through. Commissioner Winston asked if this piece of property was owned by the Boxes before hand, and if the residents next to it are also owned by the Boxes? Pate stated that the original subdivision was developed by the Boxes, ownership is not entirely by them now, though. Mr. Box and some of the Box family live at the very north end of this property, but there are some other property owners along the street. Planning Commission May 26, 2009 Page 21 of 24 Commissioner Winston stated that the neighbors who will be most affected by this change are either not here or probably are behind it. So, that does affect my vote in some way and I'm really not decided yet. But the issue with the traffic from the Police Dept. also carries a lot of weight. I really appreciate the Bill of Assurance and I'd like to see that use there, I think it would work well and I think that Commissioner Kennedy had a good point that this is a restaurant only open in the morning times, that's when things are busiest, but there's no guarantee that this won't be turned into a Sonic or something that would have a much higher level of traffic. Upon roll call the motion to deny passed with a vote of 5-3-0, with Commissioners Honchell, Myres, and Kennedy voting no. Planning Commission May 26, 2009 Page 22 of 24 RZN 09-3271: (SALE BARN / CAMPUS CREST LLC, 562): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOC for property located at THE OLD WASHINGTON COUNTY SALE BARN, N & E OF 11TH AVENUE AND GOVERNMENT AVENUE. The property is zoned I-1, HEAVY COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUST and contains approximately 8.87 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RMF -24, Residential Multi -family 24 units per acre. Dara Sanders, current planner, read the staff report and recommended denial of the submitted request for the RMF -24 zoning district, finding that the single -use zoning district is an inappropriate designation for the subject property. After publication of the staff report, the representatives submitted an official request to rezone the property to Downtown General. Staff recommended approval of the request to rezoning the property to Downtown General zoning district, finding that the request is compatible with the neighborhood and consistent with the goals and objectives of City Plan 2025, as well as the Future Land Use designation of City Neighborhood Area. Bob Estes, representative, presented background on the subject property and the reasons and justification for the rezoning request. Public Comment Ronald Butler, citizen, is worried that the adjacent cemetery will be closed if the subject property is rezoned. Commander Buckner, citizen, opposed to the rezoning. Robert Williams, resident, would prefer the land be purchased for the cemetery. Bradley Warford, resident, concerned with traffic and compatibility. Michelle Raim, resident, opposed to development. Cathy Casita, resident, opposed to the rezoning. Bruce Schaeffer, employee of cemetery, opposed to rezoning, construction on the site, and noise. Gloria Bailey, director of the cemetery, would prefer the land to be purchased for the cemetery. Billy Joe Bartholomew, subject property owner, believes that the rezoning will lead to development that will be compatible. Aubrey Shepard, citizen, believes that multi -family use is inappropriate next to the cemetery. Chad (?), resident, is opposed to multi -family development. Leonard Sholte, citizen, is opposed to the rezoning. No further public comment was received. Planning Commission May 26, 2009 Page 23 of 24 Commissioner Zant explained the uses allowed under the current I-1 zoning district and that the rezoning request will result in a lower intensity development and work to preserve the community. He stated that the Commission cannot consider Commissioner Myres asked staff to explain the difference between the original RMF -24 zoning district and the Downtown General zoning district. Jeremy Pate, Director of Development Services, explained the difference in uses between the two zoning districts and that staff is considering the long-term use and development of the property not the way in which the property will be developed in the short-term. Commissioner Myres emphasized that the Commission is only considering the rezoning request, not a development request, and whether or not the request is consistent with City Plan 2025. Commissioner Winston asked staff to explain the different setback requirements of the RMF -24 and Downtown General zoning districts. Pate explained the difference between the setback regulations of the RMF -24 district and the build - to zone and minimum buildable street frontage requirements of the Downtown General district. Commissioner Winston asked staff about the zoning of the adjacent cemetery. Pate explained that the property was owned by the Federal Government and is not subject to the City's zoning and development requirements. Commissioner Cabe asked staff to explain why the Downtown General zoning district has more potential than the RMF -24 zoning district. Pate explained that potential development plans cannot be considered when reviewing a zoning request. There is a potential for a mixture of uses should the applicant not develop for multi -family or for future adaptive reuse if the site is developed for multi -family use. Commissioner Honchell asked if there is a way to involve the neighbors in the design of the property. Pate explained that the developers have met with the neighbors and recommended that the residents continue to communicate with the developers but also that the citizens do have the ability to comment during the public process. Dave Jorgensen, representative, commented on the question for more public involvement and the surrounding zoning districts. Motion: Planning Commission May 26, 2009 Page 24 of 24 Commissioner Zant made a motion to forward the request for the Downtown General zoning district to the City Council with a recommendation of approval. Commissioner Myres seconded the motion. Commissioner Winston expressed his support for the rezoning request and not necessarily the intended development of the property. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 6-1-0, with Commissioner Cabe voting no. All business being concluded, the meeting was adjourned at 9:14 PM.