Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-10-24 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on October 24, 2005 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED RZN 05-1707: (CURRY, 482) LSD 05-1462: (RIDGEHILL APARTMENTS, 405) R-PZD 05-1635: (FALLINGWATERS @ STONEBRIDGE, ADM 05-1794: (620 N. COLLEGE AVENUE) LSD 05-1715: (BARNHILL CONDOS, 482) LSD 05-1747: (LOT 6, WEDINGTON PLACE PH. H, 401) PPL 05-1733: (WEST HAVEN S/D, 280) PPL 05-1750: (BLUEBERRY MEADOWS S/D, 571) PPL 05-1745: (SUMMIT PLACE, 329) PPL 05-1748: (FALCON RIDGE SUBDIVISION, 609) RZN 05-1754: (PARK WEST HEIGHTS, 208) CUP 05-1752: (GREEN DOOR, 407) CUP 05-1753: (ASPEN RIDGE, 561) MEMBERS PRESENT Jill Anthes James Graves (Arrived Late) Audi Lack Alan Ostner Nancy Allen Christian Vaught Christine Myres Candy Clark ACTION TAKEN TABLED TABLED 685) Fwd to City Council APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED Fwd to City Council TABLED APPROVED MEMBERS ABSENT Sean Trumbo Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 2 STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Suzanne Morgan Jeremy Pate Brent O'Neal Jesse Fulcher Andrew Garner Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 3 Chairman Ostner called the meeting to order. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were seven Commissioners present with Commissioner Graves and Trumbo being absent. (Commissioner Graves arrived later in the meeting). RZN 05-1707: (CURRY, 482): Submitted by KEVIN CURRY for property located at 1501 W HOTZ DRIVE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.40 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RMF -24, Residential Multi -Family, 24 units per acre. Commissioner Allen made a motion to table RZN 05-1707. Commissioner Clark seconded the motion. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table RZN 05-1707 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. LSD 05-1462: Large Scale Development (RIDGEHILL APARTMENTS, 405): Submitted by N. ARTHUR SCOTT for property located at NW OF GREGG AVENUE AT HOLLY STREET. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.68 acres. The request is to approve a residential apartment complex on the subject property with 38 units and 56 bedrooms proposed. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is LSD 05-1462 for Ridgehill Apartments. Ms. Morgan read the staff report. The subject property is located north of North Street adjacent to Gregg Avenue and is zoned RMF -24 containing 1.68 acres. The applicant proposes to construct four residential structures, three are three story structures and one is a two story building with 38 total apartments and 56 bedrooms. The density of the site at full build out is 22.6 units per acre. A wood board privacy fence has been proposed along the south property line adjoining the church. The street committee has reviewed a variety of concept plans for alternative alignments for Gregg Avenue and has been through several different iterations. This property will not be affected by the current proposed street alignment for Gregg Avenue. The retaining wall will need to be moved to the building setback line to meet city requirements. Staff recommends approval of the Large Scale Development with 22 conditions of approval, removing condition ten of the staff report regarding the sidewalk. Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 4 Mr. Tim Cooper represented the owner/developer. He stated the applicant agrees with the conditions of approval as stated. Commissioner Ostner opened the floor to public comment. There was no public comment. Ms. Morgan stated relocating the retaining wall would require a slight modification to the parking lot configuration but it could easily be worked out prior to construction. Commissioner Allen asked about the rear facade of the building. Mr. Cooper stated the east side drops down to the train. Ms. Morgan stated Gregg is a minor arterial in this location and staff did not feel that this development would interfere with traffic patterns. Commissioner Anthes asked about the cleanup of the dump that is on the site currently. Ms. Morgan stated she was not aware of the current use of the property or that the site would be considered a brown field. Mr. O'Neal stated condition number three states all existing structures are to be removed according to all local, state and federal regulations. If there is an old dump on the site it would have to meet those regulations. Commissioner Anthes asked for clarification on the current conditions of Gregg Avenue. Ms. Morgan stated that the street committee is not endorsing the connection to Gregg Avenue and Arkansas Avenue that would effect the property. Commissioner Anthes asked about the guardrail that is required to be placed on top of the retaining wall. Ms. Morgan stated that the guardrail appears to be approximately 120'. Mr. O'Neal explained that it was for vehicle safety, approximately 32" in height. Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 5 Commissioner Anthes asked if there was a possibility of the egress onto Gregg Street being a right turn lane. Ms. Morgan stated the applicant has only provided one which would help. Staff found that a right in only was necessary only to approve the development, but that could be the discretion of the Planning Commission. George ???? with PDC stated besides the retaining wall the cars usually move within 4' of the drive and there should be a good sight distance. He stated he recommends a right only out but that coming in a left in and right in would be a better solution than a right in and right out only. Commissioner Allen asked for clarification from staff on how to ascertain the project to be safe in terms of traffic. Ms. Morgan stated some of the things staff looks at is the development rights, the adjacent streets and how much traffic they can carry, the number of curb cuts from the development to be sure that additional traffic movements are not being created that would be conflicting, as well as traffic counts from the proposed development. Commissioner Allen stated she was concerned with accessing Gregg safely. Commissioner Ostner asked the engineer of record if he felt that the traffic flow was safe. George with PDC stated he didn't do traffic flow studies but in this particular intersection with a 30 mile per hour speed limit there would be a good stopping distance. However, with a left turn out of the project it would be more difficult to stop. He proposed doing a concrete island to force cars to a right turn only. He stated the drive meets the crest of the hill. Commissioner Clark stated she would support a right only out and asked the applicant about the drainage system. Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 6 George with PDC stated underground detention is being utilized on the site 10' to 15' under the slope and then runs into the ditch along the Arkansas Missouri Railroad. Commissioner Clark made a motion to add a condition of approval to require a right turn only with a roll over curb from the property. Commissioner Ostner seconded the motion to add the condition of approval. Commissioner Anthes stated she would like some further traffic study on the project. Commissioner Allen stated she would prefer to table the request. Commissioner Ostner stated he did not think guardrails are effective in a city with low speed limits. Commissioner Anthes asked if the drainage system meets our ordinances. Mr. O'Neal stated it does. The release rate cannot exceed the predevelopment of the site. As the discharge point, staff looks at the velocity of the discharge to make sure that they are not so obsessive that they may cause erosion. George with PDC stated erosion happens when you have velocities in excess of 3 per second with grass being an effective erosion control measure. Commissioner Anthes stated she was concerned about the water shooting out of the pipe into the ditch and was concerned with the velocity. George with PDC stated the only water that is being picked up is from the actual parking lot and is not a huge amount of water. Commissioner Lack stated that the requirement states the guardrail meet city standards, but that doesn't necessarily mean it couldn't be an architecturally designed rail that could be more than the galvanized rail as seen in other areas of town. Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 7 George with PDC stated a handrail along the retaining wall would be suitable. However, it is his preference to keep the guardrail away from the retaining wall itself to keep the vehicular impact as far away as possible from the retaining wall. Commissioner Vaught stated he was concerned with people getting trapped between a wall and a vehicle if a car runs off the road. Ms. Morgan stated the plans that were submitted for review that the sidewalks were shown to be relocated at the right of way line, however the Sidewalk Coordinator recommended retaining the sidewalk as it is next to the curb due to the alignment near the railroad. Mr. Cooper asked if there could be flexibility to have an engineer to look at sight distances to have a left turn prior to requiring that as a condition of approval. Commissioner Vaught stated he would prefer to table the item for an engineer to look at the sight distances. Commissioner Anthes asked for a drawing to understand the relationship of the curb to the vehicular guardrail to the retaining wall to any pedestrian or man guardrail that is to separate to understand better. Commissioner Ostner requested more than one since Gregg twists, he stated he would like to see a section north of the curb cut and near the south end of the lot that would include Gregg Street with more detail to see the handrail/guardrail retaining wall relationship. Commissioner Vaught made a motion to table. Commissioner Myres seconded the motion. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table LSD 05-1462 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 8 R-PZD 05-1635: Planned Zoning District (FALLINGWATERS @ STONEBRIDGE, 685): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located E OF DEAD HORSE MTN RD. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 136.70 acres. The request is to approve a residential planned zoning district with 257 single family dwelling units proposed. Commissioner Ostner announced the request. Ms. Morgan read the staff report. This property consists of approximately 137 acres located south of Stonebridge Meadows Phase II with Dead Horse Mountain Road to the east. The lots range from approximately 8,000 to 39,000 sq.ft. for single family development. The total lot count is 255 single family lots with two lots for lift stations and three lots for POA greenspace as well as a lot for a water tower for the development. There are six phases proposed in the development, each to obtain construction approval within a year of each other. The setbacks range from 15' to 25' based up on the slope. The applicant has worked with the consultants for the hillside ordinance and are requesting a waiver for the cross section of a street, they are proposing a 27' right of way and 33' right of way with 22' and 28' wide streets. They are requesting a waiver for the slope of streets within the subdivision and slope of intersection to allow a greater slope than required. The Engineering Division and Planning Staff are in favor of the waivers. A modification has been made to the intersection of Streets C & D to reduce the slope of the intersection. This property will produce approximately 2,550 additional vehicle trips on the nearby streets. Staff is recommending street improvements on Dead Horse Mountain Road to the subject property including curb and gutter, storm drains and a 6' sidewalk at the right of way. Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Huntsville Road to be constructed with Phase I of this development. Staff also recommends construction of a right hand turn lane on Huntsville Road at the intersection of Stonebridge Road for traffic. If there is not sufficient right of way to build the lane staff recommends requiring an assessment. If the Highway Department would not approve a traffic signal by the time the Final Plat for Phase I is approved staff recommends requiring an assessment. Pedestrian walkways have been provided through the subdivision to the park area. The applicant proposes to preserve 48.6% canopy. In addition, in the covenants they have included a requirement to maintain 40% tree canopy on each lot. There are 35 conditions of approval. Planning Commission determination of Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 9 street improvements, waiver requests of standards for design sections, determination of slopes at intersections, waiver to exceed maximum grades for streets within the subdivision, a waiver of block length requirement not to exceed 1,400 feet, determination of a waiver of maximum distance between street lights (300' maximum), the applicant requests a location every 330'. This is in the bridge assessment area for Dead Horse Mountain Road, the applicant will be assessed $118,654.05 for the bridge. Mr. Tom Hennelly with H2 Engineering represented the applicant. He stated the installation of a full traffic signal at the intersection, Peters & Associates did a traffic study and found that peak traffic at Stonebridge at peak hours was at a level of service of F. The contention is the study was done based on the full build out of 2,550 vehicles per day being added to the traffic count. This development is going to be phased over a period of years and would like the Commissioner to take conditions into account when making a determination. There are water pressure problems and the developer is proposing to put a water tower in on top of the development and extend a 14" water line in from the west across the river to Dead Horse Mountain Road to the intersection of Dead Horse Mountain Road and Goff Farm Road at a tremendous amount. Traffic signal warrants are not currently met from Stonebridge but traffic signal warrants are projected to be met upon full build out. This developer is going to be required to pay for the improvements that other people will be benefiting from and contributing to. He requested that condition eight be revised to read approval for the 4" trees located within the building setbacks and not for every tree to cut down. The side setbacks and rear setbacks was the purpose of preserving the 40% canopy per lot. The water tower is probably not going to be necessary until Phase II and those lots will be dedicated to the city but the developer would rather not dedicate the land until the water tower is required with a phase. Commissioner Ostner opened the floor to public comment. There was no public comment. Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 10 Commissioner Vaught asked if the condition for a traffic signal could be made an assessment will be required at the time that the Highway Department determines a need for a traffic signal. Ms. Morgan stated the condition reads per AHTD approval or an assessment to be paid at the time of Final Plat for Phase I. Commissioner Vaught stated the Master Street Plan shows a realignment of Dead Horse Mountain Road and if the traffic signal would be better warranted at Stonebridge or Goff Farm Road and redirecting traffic that direction. Ms. Morgan stated she was not aware of proposed modifications for Dead Horse Mountain Road. The recommendation for traffic signalization is based from the traffic study performed by Peters & Associates. Commissioner Vaught stated he was not opposed to having the traffic signal installed with Phase II or Phase III to generate some revenue prior to installation. Mr. Hennelly stated he would like to go back to the traffic engineer and determine at what number of additional lots in the area, at what point does the engineer recommend the traffic signal be put in, and then assess the other developers of the lots going in so that everybody is required to pay for their share. The economic feasibility of the project just dwindles. Mr. Whitaker stated it is conceivable that improvement districts can be made to improve a number of things in a district to pay for upgraded infrastructure including roads and traffic signals. Mr. O'Neal stated there have been assessments taken on other developments to pay for traffic signals. Commissioner Clark stated she thought the developer agreed to restricting property owners from removing trees from lots exceeding 40%. Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 11 Mr. Hennelly stated the wording of the condition of approval was the concern. Placing a building footprint on any lot is going to be difficult when a home owner has to get permission to remove the tree from different entities, the POA and the City Urban Forester could limit if someone wanted to place their house right at the setback line. That might cause some confusion and the intent is after the home is built and occupied that authorization has to be given of anybody to cut down a tree larger than 4" after the house is built. Commissioner Clark stated that was her intention to require that after the house and driveway are built. The condition should read after the homes are constructed and the driveways are in. The idea is not to clear cut. Ms. Morgan stated that the covenants state that no 4" caliper tree within the building setbacks shall be cut down. As for the urban forester, there was a lot of discussion before the condition was included in the covenants, based upon the hillside ordinance, the urban forester would be involved in that decision. However, since that is not an ordinance yet, the urban forester is not required. Mr. Hennelly stated there is not a problem with the urban forester having authority of which trees would come down with that condition. Commissioner Clark stated the development has followed most all things in the proposed hillside ordinance. There was considerable discussion about the wording of condition number eight regarding removal of any trees 4" or greater. Mr. Whitaker stated the Planning Commission does not have control over restrictive covenants. Commissioner Anthes noted that this is the largest subdivision ever presented in the City of Fayetteville and asked why the Police Department felt this subdivision would not have a negligible impact on police services. Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 12 Ms. Morgan stated this is a low density development and will be a lower impact than what a standard RSF-4 zoning would be. Commissioner Anthes asked if the flavor of this development was still intended to be different from anything else in the city. Mr. Hennelly stated the developer has obtained input from Design Workshop and with staff to reduce the cross sections to have as minimal impact on the mountain for the city as possible. Mr. Tim Cooper, the Architect, stated it was the developer's intent to have as much diversity as possible in the development. Detailing of the whole concept and marketing it to architects and builders to do unique and site driven homes. He stated there will be an architectural review committee. Commissioner Anthes stated each house will have a driveway and asked if there has been anything to minimize the width of the driveway cuts. Mr. Hennelly stated a single lane with an apron would be something that people would probably want to incorporate. Commissioner Anthes asked about the 28' street sections that were shown. Mr. Hennelly stated in certain locations after working with staff and the Tech. Plat Review Committee, the right of way varies. To be able to get storm drainage and the sidewalk and jockeying of where the utilities are located, the larger street sections are limited to the main through streets. 24' with curb and gutter are as narrow as the developer felt comfortable doing because people will park on the sides of the streets. He stated the reason the through streets are 28' is planning for future connections to other possible development coming from the east from adjacent property owners. Commissioner Anthes questioned the need for traffic calming with the increased length in streets. Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 13 Mr. Hennelly stated that there are some creative measures that can be taken to calm traffic. High speeds would probably not be encouraged because of the vertical alignments. Commissioner Anthes stated she would encourage lots 143 and 146 to be left open so everyone could enjoy the park land and asked if there was a restriction on fencing. Mr. Hennelly stated all lots adjacent to the park will be restricted to wrought iron fencing so that the view is not obscured. There is a 300' throat into the park. The piece of property that is going to be dedicated is a very nice piece of property. Commissioner Anthes stated this subdivision and two or three others tonight are located on the west part of town on Huntsville Road and there is a difficult time looking at the Master Street Plan and areas of connectivity because there are difficult connections and expensive connections because bridges will be required and are therefore, expensive. However, the Commission is limiting east/west stub outs because it may be expensive to build the roads and yet, it could be a very difficult situation to bring every car to Huntsville Road. The city needs to think on a larger city scale on alternate routes to Huntsville Road. Commissioner Ostner stated that waiting on items to get done until future phases concerned him. Mr. Whitaker stated it is a gamble that the Commission takes with every development when it is phased. Commissioner Clark stated that is why Subdivision Committee recommended the traffic signal be required with Phase I. Mr. Hennelly stated the traffic study that was done only made mention of the benefit that it would have on the north bound traffic going to Huntsville. The traffic signal will not help Hwy. 16 traffic, but only allow this traffic onto Hwy. 16 safely. Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 14 Commissioner Vaught stated he was in favor of doing an assessment in phases. Phase I is doing a substantial amount of improvements and he would prefer an assessment district. Commissioner Ostner stated that Peters & Associates reported that currently a light is not warranted and therefore, the Highway Depai tuient may not allow it. Mr. Hennelly stated the growth is rapid in the area and there is intent on developing adjoining property. The city could accelerate the installation of the traffic signal if each developer was required to pay their fair share and the city would get the light faster. Commissioner Ostner asked how a general assessment district works. Mr. Whitaker stated he would need to do more research on the statutes to providing an assessment district. Mr. Hennelly stated the developer would be agreeable to approaching the City Council to establish an assessment district. He then asked about condition number 20, whether dedicating the entire six acres needs to be done at the Final Plat of Phase I. He stated it is unfair to ask the developer to pay everything up front since he has been forthright with showing the plan for the entire development, rather than bringing it through piecemeal. Commissioner Vaught asked if there had to be an assessment district set up or if it could just be money placed in escrow. Mr. O'Neal stated once the infrastructure is built the city can no longer assess and so no further assessments can be taken. If the light is delayed until Phase II or III, the developer may build the next few phases with no light warranted but then a development on the west side comes in and the lots were also assessed, the assessment for those two lots would be disproportionate to what they should be. The question is do you do it per lot basis, which is directly connected to traffic generation, or per acre basis. Commissioner Vaught asked about the option of a cost share with the city. Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 15 Commissioner Anthes stated the light is part of the street infrastructure and the Commission has required off site street improvements. The traffic study is suggesting several intersections that should be watched, Hwy. 16 and Stonebridge, Hwy. 16 and River Meadows Drive. Mr. Hennelly stated that section of Huntsville Road is under consideration by the Highway Department for significant widening so improvements that are going to be made should be placed so that they are ready for the widening of Huntsville Road. Ms. Morgan stated this project has 137 acres and 255 lots with very little frontage on Dead Horse Mountain Road and staff is recommending that the developer only improve half of that street. Staff felt requiring the street light did not exceed the rational nexus calculations for the development. Commissioner Vaught stated the easiest way to pass this project forward was to approve it as staff has recommended and let City Council and the developer work out how and when the assessment is made because the City Council does have options to explore that the Planning Commission can't. Commissioner Anthes asked about condition of approval number 10. Mr. Hennelly stated a temporary cul-de-sac will be built on the property adjacent to this development and that the owner has received permission from that property owner to build that street. Commissioner Clark made a motion to forward R-PZD 05-1635 to the City Council with 35 conditions of approval and findings of fact as stated in the conditions, noting the comments about rough proportionality. Commissioner Myres seconded the motion and asked to remove condition 33. Ms. Morgan stated that was fine with staff and condition nine should be amended to strike the 24' width street and condition eight amended to say side and rear setbacks. Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 16 Commissioners Clark and Myres agreed to those amendments in the conditions of approval. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of R- PZD 05-1635 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 17 ADM 05-1794: Administrative Item (620 N. COLLEGE AVENUE): Submitted by ROBERT SHARP ARCHITECT, INC., the applicant requests to amend the Master Street Plan at 620 N. College Avenue to accommodate an existing structure and proposed development. The applicant requests that the required right-of-way for College Avenue be modified from 55' right-of-way from centerline to 30' right-of-way from centerline. Commissioner Ostner announced the request. Ms. Morgan read the staff report. The structure existing at the location is located within the proposed Master Street Plan right of way. The applicant is requesting to increase the size of the non -conforming building and is therefore, requesting a Master Street Plan Amendment for College Avenue in this location from 55' to 30' from centerline. This area is located within the Downtown Master Plan area, however, the City Council did not approve the portion of College Avenue and therefore, is requesting this amendment. Commissioner Ostner asked for public comment. There was no public comment. Commissioner Anthes made a motion to approve ADM 05-1794. Commissioner Allen seconded the motion. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve ADM 05-1794 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 18 LSD 05-1715: Large Scale Development (BARNHILL CONDOS, 482): Submitted by PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS for property located at 135, 1481, AND 1435 HOTZ DRIVE. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.92 acres. The request is to approve a residential condominium with 43 units and 108 parking spaces. Commissioner Ostner announced the request. Ms. Morgan read the staff comments. The applicant proposes a 43 unit condominium building with a total of 108 parking spaces. Surrounding properties consist of single family neighborhood to the west and multi -family to the north and south as well as the university to the east which is driving much residential development around it. The Highway Department is looking at significant street improvements south of 6th Street. However, staff is recommending an assessment of $38,458 of street improvements to Razorback Road. Street improvements along Hotz Drive and Walton Street would be required, as well as 6' sidewalks on all adjacent right of way. A center lane is also being requested along Hotz Drive to Razorback to eliminate potential traffic conflict. There has been much neighborhood comment. There are 21 conditions of approval. Condition one is Planning Commission determination of street improvements. Condition 6 addresses using the alley to enter the property. Because this is a public right of way, no barricade or fence may be erected to restrict access to this right of way. Condition 9 addresses lighting to this property. ?? with Project Design Consultants was present representing Mr. Kevin Curry. Color elevations were provided to the Commission. Condition 6, the neighbors request that a fence is put across the public right of way and the applicant is pursuing a vacation of the right of way and changing the classification as a utility easement to allow a barricade or fence. The Fire Depailment is ok with that request. Condition 10, the issue that the applicant has with this condition is that a lot of money is being put into the fence in columns along the property line and wrought iron and trees along the perimeter of the development. It is a legal question if the utility companies can determine the rights of that easement. They are saying that it is at our cost in the future if the utilities need to get in there to maintain that easement. Other than that, we are in agreement with all of the conditions. Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 19 Commissioner Ostner asked for public comment. Mr. Tom Overby, who lives two blocks from the development stated he had concerns with the traffic impact from the higher density development. He stated the requirements of the UDC are not being extended to the streets in the Hotz Drive neighborhood, and only adjacent to the development. He stated the Planning Commission has a right to deny a development if it creates or compounds a dangerous traffic situation. The streets in the neighborhood are narrow with no sidewalks and no curbs and the neighborhood does not wish to have the added traffic. Mr. Justin Eichmann, 1527 Hotz, stated the neighborhood has architecturally significant homes and has had a lot of homes purchased recently that have gone through some major renovations. He stated he would like to maintain the character of the neighborhood with the treescape and single family homes with mainly low elevations. He stated he was opposed to a 80' development, five living stories and the curb cut on Hotz. Mr. David Hart, 1529 Markham Road, asked the Commission not to approve the proposal and questioned pedestrian traffic with no sidewalks on Hotz, Markham or Palmer. He stated when the turn lanes are built on Razorback and Hotz as proposed the intersection will become a slipway for traffic to zoom to the north and west and will endanger pedestrian traffic. The developer's proposal to have an underground level to the parking lot is a concern because there is most likely a dense layer of rock and is concerned about blasting and property damage around the blast area. Mr. Tim Crain, 1777 Hotz, stated there has not been a good relationship between the developer and the neighborhood. He stated he thought the city needed to vacate the alley prior to the development being approved, and asked that the Planning Commission reconsider improving Hotz because that would worsen the traffic problems and encourage more traffic through the neighborhood. Mr. Edward Manikan??, 1600 block of Markham Road, stated another PZD at the end of Markham will also add traffic to Markham Road will also add traffic to Razorback Road Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 20 to go north. There are no sidewalks, curb, gutters and deep ditches on Markham. The track team accesses trails up Markham and there is no room for two cars and a pedestrian up Markham and the concern is that these developments will increase the problem. ??, 1530 Hotz, stated she was opposed to the development. She stated she looked for several years to find a house in the neighborhood and appreciates the character of the neighborhood and cannot imagine adding 108 more cars to the neighborhood. She stated she believed underground parking was unnecessary for this development and has been affected by widening a large road previously and is concerned with the effect that it will have on existing structures that are already there. Commissioner Ostner closed the public comment session. Mr. Kevin Curry, owner/developer, stated that there is an issue not to have two entrances to the development. There has to be fire access to the development from Hotz and due to the neighborhood concerns, the proposal is to vacate the alley and gate that access. Hotz Drive has three curb cuts currently for the property that is being considered. This development would decrease that to one and would remove the curb cut from Razorback and limit the access to Walton to one curb cut. There is no blasting anticipated. At the neighborhood meetings, it was emphasized that additional parking was requested and therefore, the proposal is meeting the absolute allowed per the zoning ordinances. The rezoning request for the adjoining piece of property has been tabled because the neighborhood has not responded to the Bill of Assurance offered on it. The other question is widening Hotz since the neighborhood opposes that widening. Commissioner Vaught asked staff if there was anything in the ordinance that controls how underground parking is done. Ms. Morgan stated she was not aware of any requirements. Commissioner Vaught asked if staff would be in support of the Vacation request. Ms. Morgan stated staff has not evaluated that request. With a development of this size, two access points is warranted. Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 21 Mr. Curry stated the issue with condition 10 is that it is the developer's cost to replace anything that is within the utility easement. Ms. Morgan stated when filing an easement plat, a right is granted to the utility companies, and it is a standard requirement that the replacement of anything in that setback would be at the owner's cost. Mr. Whitaker stated condition 10 serves as a friendly reminder to the developer. Anything placed in the easement is at the owner's own risk and anything placed there would be required to be replaced at the owner's expense. Commissioner Vaught stated he understood the concerns of the neighbors in the area. However, the University has been buying property and making parking Tots in this area. The development is meeting the requirements of the zoning district that it is in. There are no design requirements in multi -family zoning. There are going to be problems unless improvements are made, and therefore, supports staff's recommendations for street improvements. A 28' street is a standard residential street section and that allows on street parking. Commissioner Ostner stated he agreed with the connection onto Hotz being important. Does the alley extend from Hotz southward and then turn? Ms. Morgan stated it does jog to the west. Commissioner Ostner stated the current city alley does not extend from Hotz to Walton. He stated there are pluses and minuses with the university being across the street. There will be a traffic impact, however, the connection between Hotz and Walton will help alleviate that impact and not worsen it. The break away barriers are not helpful and just create small cul-de-sac subdivisions which don't work from a Planning standpoint. Commissioner Anthes stated the University of Arkansas purchased the property that they have placed parking lots on. The zoning classification is RMF -24 and questioned what the density of this development is. Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 22 Ms. Morgan stated it is 22.4 units per acre and they are meeting the land area per dwelling unit calculation. Some of the units were downgraded to meet the density requirements. The height requirement that would be a concern is on the side setback. The only side setback on this property is to the west and they are meeting the height requirements. Commissioner Anthes asked on condition of approval 1 staff is talking about improving '/2 of the street section and questioned if sidewalks were required there. Ms. Morgan stated they were required to do sidewalks. Commissioner Anthes asked where the money that was taken for the assessments on Razorback Road went. Mr. O'Neal stated it went to the general street fund for the city's share of improvements to Razorback Road. Commissioner Anthes asked if condition 10 took into account the Highway Department right of way and the utility easements. Ms. Morgan stated the developer has shown the required right of way and a 20' utility easement. Commissioner Anthes stated the City of Fayetteville does have an ordinance against gated subdivisions and questioned if the City Council thought that multi -family developments fell into that category. Commissioner Ostner asked if there are limits on the number of people living in a multi- family zoning district. Ms. Morgan stated no more than four unrelated persons may live in a unit. Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 23 Commissioner Allen stated the Definition of Family is the hardest ordinance to enforce in the City of Fayetteville. She stated the developer has the right to develop, but the neighborhood that is already there has rights too. She was concerned with how deeply the development encroached into the neighborhood and asked for dialogue between the neighbors and developer with who has talked to who and when. Mr. Curry stated that there were two neighborhood meetings. The first was well attended and the second one was lightly attended. In the second one a representative of the neighborhood was appointed to discuss things further, more concerning the rezoning. The rezoning has been tabled indefinitely. Commissioner Allen asked if there was an effort for a third meeting. Mr. Curry stated no, there was not an effort to have an additional meeting. However, he has tried to address the concerns he has understood. Commissioner Allen stated that the Vacation should take place before any development. Mr. Curry stated the Vacation process can be a lengthy process and the reason to do the Vacation is to achieve what the neighborhood would like to achieve. The developer doesn't have an opinion regarding the gating and is amenable to whatever the Commission would rather have and to make the neighborhood satisfied. One of the concerns that the neighborhood had was the noise that could've occurred on the fifth floor terrace of the structure, that will not have windows opening out now. There has been screening along Hotz Drive. The vacation of the alley was a concern. The additional parking was provided so that visitors wouldn't be parking on streets. The light structures that will go in place were picked to minimize the disturbance to the neighborhood. The backlighting of the building was changed to screen for the neighbors. Commissioner Ostner stated living across from the Fayetteville Public Library's parking deck has a significant echo and impacted homes behind that area. He stated he would much prefer to see the LSD submitted without a parking structure. Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 24 Mr. Curry stated there is no parking structure proposed. The parking is under the building with small openings. It is a single story parking structure underground. Commissioner Ostner stated the incidental effect could be very loud. ?? with PDC stated the parking structure does have a pull down door and earth around the outside and so the only part that would be open is a vent 18" high and spaced at different intervals. The parking structure can only be seen from the southwest corner of the building and it is a door with a gated access that will shut automatically. Commissioner Vaught made a motion to approve LSD 05-1715 with the conditions as stated. Commissioner Graves seconded the motion. Commissioner Myres stated the scale of the structure is too big for the location. The color renderings don't look like a dwelling unit, but instead, like an office building. She stated she would like to see it redesigned as a shorter structure not so much like the stadium had a baby. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD05-1715 was approved by a vote of 5-3 with Commissioners Clark, Myres and Allen voting no. Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 25 LSD 05-1747: Large Scale Development (LOT 6, WEDINGTON PLACE PH. II, 401): Submitted by EB LANDWORKS for property located at W OF TAHOE DRIVE, N OF WEDINGTON. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 1.21 acres. The request is to approve a 4,295 s.f. restaurant and 1,400 s.f. additional retail/office space with 40 parking spaces proposed. Commissioner Ostner announced the request. Mr. Fulcher read the staff report. The property is located at the northwest comer of Wedington Drive and Tahoe Place. Surrounding property is C-1 to the south and southwest with all other properties being zoned C-2. The applicant proposes to construct a 4,300 sq.ft. restaurant with 1,400 sq.ft. of additional retail office space with 40 parking spaces proposes. The site will access Tahoe Drive to the east and a shared access drive to the north. Right of way will be dedicated per the Master Street Plan for Wedington. A pedestrian access is available from Tahoe Drive to the front. There was 2.2% existing canopy. None of that will be preserved and mitigation will be required. There is a waiver request for curb cut requirements, that is condition number two. Staff is recommending approval with 15 conditions. 1) Planning Commission determination of commercial design standards. 2) Planning Commission determination of a curb cut waiver to allow a distance of 165' from the intersection of Wedington Drive and Tahoe Place. This curb cut will line up with the existing curb cut for the Bank of Fayetteville. 4) Sanitary Sewer Assessment for additional capacity will be required prior to building permit. 8) Cost of landscaping will be submitted to the Landscape Administrator for review prior to building permit. 15) A warranty deed is required for right of way dedication for Wedington Drive prior to building permit. Ms. Mandy Bunch with EB Landworks presented the project. Ms. Sharon Hoover is the architect for the building and will address any concerns with commercial design standards. Commissioner Ostner asked for public comment. There was no public comment. Commissioner Myres stated the Subdivision Committee was in support of the Commercial Design Standards. Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 26 Commissioner Allen asked for the architect to tell how it is not a box. Ms. Sharon Hoover stated it is several boxes put together. This is a contemporary Asian restaurant with the front awning being a signature piece. There is perforated metal that the awning will be made out of. Commissioner Vaught asked what staff's reservations were on the building. Commissioner Clark stated the elevations that were received at Subdivision were washed out and the model and the materials board changed everybody's mind and there was delineation and articulation. Ms. Hoover stated that there is split faced concrete block, limestone and brick material. The restaurant is the split faced concrete block. The awnings will be out of a perforated metal. Commissioner Anthes asked about the alignment with the north side driveways and the ingress and egress from the parking lot on the shared access drive. Ms. Morgan asked if the property to the north had been constructed at this time. Staff would like to have control of the curb cuts and the parking lot that may be developed to the north. With regard to the curb cut to Tahoe Place staff felt that it was appropriate as long as the curb cut aligns with the bank. Ms. Bunch stated that the entire drive to the north had been constructed with Harps all the way from Colorado behind Sonic. It is part of the parking lot. Commissioner Anthes asked if staff was ok with misaligning with the adjoining parking lot. Ms. Morgan stated it was private and that would be fine. Commissioner Allen made a motion to approve LSD 05-1747. Commissioner Anthes seconded the motion. Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 27 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 05-1747 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 28 PPL 05-1733: Preliminary Plat (WEST HAVEN S/D, 280): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES for property located NORTH OF DOUBLE TREE ESTATES AND WEST OF WHEELER ROAD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 49.57 acres. The request is to approve a residential subdivision with 45 single family lots. Commissioner Ostner announced the request. Mr. Gamer read the staff comments. This property is located in the Planning Area. A development in a similar configuration was approved in 1998 and was approved by Washington County. However, it was not constructed and therefore, expired. Street stub outs for future development of the subject property were required with Double Tree Estates. The request is to create a subdivision with 45 single family lots. Surrounding properties are within the Planning Area. Street connectivity, the applicant has indicated stub outs to the north and west with temporary cul-de-sacs to be utilized until those are extended. Stacey Lane would be extended through the development. There has been a large amount of public comment and there has been a petition signed by the neighbors in Double Tree Estates concerned with traffic impacts and street cut throughs. Staff is recommending approval of this Preliminary Plat with conditions. 1) Final septic permits shall be issued for each lot less than 1 '/ acre. The preliminary approval for the septic systems has been received. 2) Planning Commission determination of connectivity. Staff finds that this does provide adequate connectivity. Subdivision Committee found in favor of connectivity. 3) Planning Commission determination of appropriate street improvements. 4) Planning Commission determination of a waiver of street design principals for block length. Subdivision Committee found in favor of this condition. Condition 9) References the sign indicating future right of way. 16) An assessment shall be approved by the city to construct the street and sidewalk through the northern and western temporary cul-de-sac prior to Final Plat. Mr. Blake Jorgensen with Jorgensen & Associates presented the project. The applicant is in agreement with the conditions of approval. Commissioner Ostner asked for public comment. Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 29 Mr. Rob Girshawn??, 2503 Stacey Lane, stated Double Tree has been a safe, rustic community for several years. He asked the Planning Commission to find in favor of the waiver to reduce access into the neighborhood and at the end of Stacey Lane to put in a 20' paved emergency access. The developer said that they would not object to the proposals for a 20' emergency access and a cul-de-sac at the end of Timberglen?? Place. The Sheriff's Department and the Wheeler Fire Department support the proposal. Mr. Carney has put money down on a lot that would be adversely affected if Timberglen is approved. Commissioner Ostner stated he would not allow the PowerPoint that the neighborhood put together. Mr. Robert Vital??? Gave copies of the PowerPoint slides and asked to show the Commission some pictures on the PowerPoint. Commissioner Ostner stated he would not allow that. Mr. Vital stated the neighborhood has worked with the city in terms of connectivity and the Master Plan. The proposal is to put in a 20' limited access for connectivity between the neighborhoods. He stated this would be similar to what was used on Park Place. In the absence of the Stacey Lane connection that would terminate in Timberplace, a considerable amount of traffic would be coming through the neighborhood. The Subdivision Committee allowed the potential for the waiver of the cul-de-sac. The paved access between Westhaven and Double Tree would be affective. Double Tree Drive is the entrance to the neighborhood, which was built under County standards with no sidewalks and narrower roads. Stacey Lane was not developed originally for a collector street. The original plat was approved in 1998 and within the last several years it would become quite obvious if you were to dump traffic into Stacey Lane and Double Tree Drive you would essentially be turning those lanes into a collector street. There is lots of foot traffic in the neighborhood. Pedestrians would have to divert into a ditch if two vehicles were traveling down Double Tree Drive. Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 30 Mr. April Worrell, 2541 Stacey Lane, and also plans to purchase Lot 38 of Double Tree Estates. She stated that Double Tree Estates has a sense of community and is concerned that the traffic going through the neighborhood is a concern. Ms. Lisa Pryor, 2529 Stacey Lane, stated her father developed the neighborhood and stated she was concerned about the additional traffic going through the neighborhood. Mr. Les Howell stated he supported what the neighborhood has stated. The lots were laid out for Double Tree in 1975 and then was approved in 1995 and slowly developed. He stated he was concemed about traffic coming through the subdivision. Ms. Marris Mayham stated the extension of Stacey seems dangerous and the developer would also have to cross the ravine to make that connection. She was concerned with the connection of Stacey Lane and the traffic congestion that it would cause. Mr. Bill Lowery, 2431 N. Coy, stated the neighborhood has a strong sense of character and reiterated the neighborhood concern with connectivity and traffic congestion. Ms. Kathy Pickhardt stated she was also concerned with the lot sizes of this proposed plat. The original plat that was approved in 1998 also contained no acres below one acre. The current plat has lots that are 0.7 acre. She stated she was concerned with the septic systems on those small lots and having alternate fields and worried about her well being contaminated. Ms. Holly Shipley, 2459 N. Coy, stated she was concerned with increased crime because there is no crime in the neighborhood currently. Commissioner Ostner closed the public comment session. He asked Mr. O'Neal about the state law concerning septic systems on individual lots. Mr. O'Neal deferred to the applicant for the septic system types and what steps are taken. Commissioner Vaught stated that prior to Final Plat approval is required from the State Health Depailment. Condition one states that, but it is ultimately a State Health Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 31 Department issue. Connectivity is an issue that is talked about frequently. Park Place and Rockwood are neighborhoods that complain about traffic problems. He stated the area was expanding quickly and there is a concern for traffic safety and access to Wheeler Road in the area. He stated Stacey Lane is a long, straight street and asked if any options had been explored about wrapping that street or Ting the street. Mr. Garner stated there have been discussions addressing that. Mr. Jorgensen stated the Lot 27 owner would prefer to have a buffer zone there to not have Timberwood connect through to TimberView Place. That layout has been discussed and there was opposition to that. Commissioner Vaught stated one connection was important and asked why staff supported a second connection. Mr. Garner stated it would allow people to get out quicker and did aid the overall traffic flow in this subdivision and in other areas as well. Commissioner Vaught asked if the Commission had ever approved a 1,600 foot cul-de- sac. Ms. Morgan stated she did not recall a cul-de-sac that long. The street standards are somewhat different in the Planning Area. Local streets in the Planning Area if it is not a hilly terrain 1,000 foot dead end streets are allowed and 500 feet on non -hilly terrain. Commissioner Vaught stated the whole point of connectivity is to give options but the more options, the better it is. It can reduce traffic. He stated people would most likely not cut off of Wheeler Road but he is looking at future traffic patterns of the neighborhood. Commissioner Ostner stated he agreed if Stacey Lane was offset at Lot 8 or to the right on Lot 4 it would eliminate the straight shot complex and would allow for the northern connection. Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 32 Mr. Jorgensen stated the northern portion could be moved either east or west. Mr. Garner stated staff would be in support of that. Commissioner Clark stated the reason that Subdivision was favorable to the cul-de-sac as opposed to the southernmost connection of Stacey Lane was topography and putting a road over the ravine. She stated she did not support two connections to Stacey and would more support a longer cul-de-sac and not go over the ravine. Commissioner Ostner stated the two ravines that Timberwoods is already crossing are much steeper. He stated cul-de-sacs give people no options and he would like to see options for cars to not go by Lots 1 and 2. Mr. Jorgensen stated the economic feasibility is a strain on the developer and the neighbors do not support the connection. Commissioner Ostner asked if it was more expensive or less expensive than the ravines that are being crossed on Timberwood Place. Mr. Jorgensen stated it is a more expensive ravine because of the fill in the area where it drops off so fast with a grade of 3 to 1 and storm drain would have to be put in there. Ostner: I am going to make a motion that we approve PPL 05-1733 with all conditions as stated. That would be the drawing on top with the southern connection. Anthes: I will second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 05-1733 was approved by a vote of 4-3 with Commissioners Allen, Myres and Clark voting no. Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 33 PPL 05-1750: Preliminary Plat (BLUEBERRY MEADOWS S/D, 571): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES for property located at HWY 16E, N OF SEQUOYAH MEADOWS SUBDIVISION. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 23.62 acres. The request is to approve a residential subdivision with 73 single family lots proposed. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is PPL 05-1750, Blueberry Meadows Subdivision. Ms. Morgan read the staff report. The property contains approximately 24 acres and is located north of Huntsville Road and Sequoyah Meadows Subdivision, one property west of Waterbrook Phase I & II. The proposal is to establish a residential neighborhood with 73 single family lots. There is floodplain along the northern portion of the property. The applicant will be providing a sewer line from the northeast corner to the northwest corner of the property with a gravel access drive will be provided, as well as access to a cemetery. Street improvements will include widening Huntsville Road to include a turn lane as well as construction of a 6' sidewalk at the right of way line. Staff recommends approval of PPL 05-1750 with 17 conditions of approval. Condition one is Planning Commission's determination of connectivity. It was staff's original recommendation to provide connectivity to the east to connect between this property and Waterbrook. However, the development of that connection would be precluded through a large ravine and may not be feasible. Condition two is Planning Commission determination of street improvements. Mr. Jared England with Jorgensen & Associates represented the owner and developer. He stated the applicant agreed with the conditions of approval. Commissioner Ostner opened the floor to public comment. There was no public comment. Commissioner Anthes stated she was concerned about limiting east/west connections within the city. Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 34 Ms. Morgan stated should an eastern connection be provided it would only be for a small number of single family residential lots. Mr. Chris Brackett with Jorgensen & Associates stated the parcel is 300' wide and is almost entirely a ravine. It would not be feasible to connect with a bridge. That is a substantial connection to make. Commissioner Anthes stated she saw the point but east/west connections are something that the Commission needs to be sensitive to as development occurs east of town. She stated two parcels to the east looks like part of that property could develop if the creek didn't have to be developed across. Ms. Morgan stated there is slope greater than 15%. She stated there were only one or two pockets of area that could be developed with even a single family home. She stated staff did take a look at stubbing off the northern street but it looked like the maximum gain would be one or two houses. Commissioner Clark made a motion to approve PPL 05-1750 with the stated conditions of approval with the findings of fact as indicated. Commissioner Anthes seconded the motion. Commissioner Ostner stated he felt an eastern stub out was important. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 05-1750 was approved by a vote of 6-1 with Commissioner Ostner voting no. Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 35 PPL 05-1745: Preliminary Plat (SUMMIT PLACE, 329): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES for property located on THE SOUTH SIDE OF TOWNSHIP STREET APPROXIMATELY 500' EAST OF COLLEGE AVENUE. The property is zoned RSF- 4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 30.77 acres. The request is to approve the preliminary plat of a residential subdivision with 50 single family lots. Commissioner Ostner announced the request. Mr. Garner read the staff comments. He states the applicant did submit a Concept Plat in July. The applicant proposes 50 single family lots with one lot for detention. Street connectivity, a stub out would be provided in the vicinity of lots 11 and 12 and connection to Overcrest Street is not possible unless property was condemned. The site has existing canopy of approximately 98% and the project preserves approximately 48%. There are four waivers requested for street design. The City Engineer has recommended approval of these. Condition two can be stricken because this is a hilly terrain. Condition three is Planning Commission determination of street improvements. Condition four is Planning Commission determination of appropriate street connectivity. Staff is in support of connectivity as it is proposed. Mr. Justin Jorgensen with Jorgensen & Associates presented the project. He stated the developer agrees with all of the conditions of approval. There is a concern with the requested turning lane on Township. The turning lane would be an additional 11' lane that would be added on to the southern side of Township. Concerns are that most of the traffic coming from this subdivision are going to be coming from the west from College where all of the businesses are so for those that are coming up Township the extra turn lane is not going to benefit them. The other concern is that it is going to create a dead spot where there is an area that could become a turn lane or "suicide" lane where you have a car that is directly facing on coming traffic going up the hill and looking back to see if traffic is coming down and could potentially create a hazard. When this was brought through as a concept plat there was a boulevard entrance shown. The entrance to the west was added to Township so the turn lane was taken off on 3 for grading and tree preservation purposes. Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 36 Commissioner Ostner asked for public comment. There was no public comment. Commissioner Vaught stated when it was discussed as a Concept Plat there was a discussion of connecting the looped street to the southern street. Mr. Jorgensen stated the grade was 18% or 19% and the connection with alignment number two was a steep intersection. Commissioner Ostner stated on the Township situation most of the traffic will come from College, except for the occasional car and then traffic would back up so he would be in favor of the turn lane. He stated the "suicide lane" could be humped up with a gentle curb. At the very least, it should be striped. Mr. Jorgensen stated if people could do that then there is a chance that they might do that. Commissioner Ostner stated the traffic calming offset is tremendous. Commissioner Anthes asked Mr. O'Neal if the section of Township would remain the same or if there were plans for change and how would the turn lane contribute. Mr. O'Neal stated the only plans for Township are to the west from College To Gregg. Discussing the turn lane is almost getting into opinion and that is not what I'm supposed to do. Commissioner Clark stated she felt that there would be a lot of people coming west on Township to take 265 to Springdale. She stated the engineers have came up with something creative for a safe entrance and exit. Commissioner Lack stated most of the traffic will come from the west from College but that the turn lane was important. He mentioned lengthening the curb and the offset to not have such a drastic offset. If it were tapered it would be more recognizable. Blocking the curb to the west side of that might help to encourage people to make the full left turn into the westbound lane. The more gentle ramping out would help. Good signaling device in the street that would suggest that turn would be helpful. Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 37 Mr. Jorgensen stated they would look at the distances for the turn lane. Commissioner Vaught asked about the left tum lane on the alignment 3 street. Is the addition of the southern entrance still warranted? Mr. Garner stated staff felt like it should be required to have a left turn lane out of the subdivision for the ease of traffic flow getting out of this subdivision and didn't feel that adding another entrance didn't affect that. Mr. Lack stated the thing that makes it appealing not to have the left turn lane is the slope and the amount of disturbed area required for the extra width. The western entrance was asked for and the ability to narrow that was talked about. The difficult part of it is understanding traffic in that area. In the morning most of the traffic is going to the west to College and then coming from College in the afternoon. Making a left hand turn from this subdivision is going to be time consuming with or without the tum lane. Commissioner Ostner asked about the eastern exit having a right turn only. Commissioner Vaught stated the second entrance is more important with the turn lane and with this being on a hillside he would rather see the left turn in on Township. He stated he was willing to compromise a left turn lane on the alignment 3 street because there are more options. If you go to the western street and try to turn left you are going to be there a long time but people will learn that as they drive these streets. I will make a motion to approve PPL 05-1745 striking condition number two and requiring the left hand turn lane on Township to be constructed, but striking the left turn lane from the subdivision at the eastern entrance. Commissioner Myres seconded the motion. Mr. Garner stated there needs to be an assessment to construct the street through the temporary cul-de-sac with a cost estimate to be approved and paid prior to Final Plat as another condition. Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 38 Commissioner Vaught accepted the addition of the condition. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 05-1745 was approved by a vote of 7-0. Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 39 PPL 05-1748: Preliminary Plat (FALCON RIDGE SUBDIVISION, 609): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES for property located SOUTH OF HWY 16E, EAST OF HUNT LANE AND WEST OF TALLGRASS DRIVE. The property is zoned RSF- 4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 24.58 acres. The request is to approve the preliminary plat of a residential subdivision with 61 single family lots. Commissioner Ostner announced the request. Mr. Garner read the staff comments. The applicant proposes to construct a 61 lot single family subdivision with street connectivity provided by connecting Tallgrass Drive and Hunt Lane with a proposed east/west Talon Drive through the development and a stub out to the south. Staff is recommending a stub out to the west. Discussion with the applicant indicates that this stub out is not feasible. Street improvements, staff recommends that Hunt Lane be completed with a 28' street section from the intersection of Talon Drive and Hunt Lane and then north of Calico Drive Hunt Lane would be constructed with a 31' street section to allow for a modified left turn lane onto Hwy. 16. Staff is recommending approval of the Preliminary Plat with conditions. Conditions of approval 1, 2, 3 and 4 were read (Condition four typo should be Hunt Lane not Huntsville) Mr. Chris Brackett with Jorgensen & Associates presented the project. He stated with the connection to the west there is approximately five acres and to cross the ravine is very expensive because of the amount of fill that connects that. This piece of property doesn't have anything that it opens up to, if we connect that road there's nothing that can develop in that area for it to continue with. Commissioner Ostner asked for public comment. There was no public comment. Mr. Brackett stated the owner of the adjoining property was opposed to the connection staff recommends as well. Commissioner Anthes asked about the alignment of Talon Drive, the northern edge of Talon would be really good if it was aligned with the northern property line so that there wouldn't be the narrow strip of land that wouldn't allow people to access Talon. Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 40 Mr. Brackett stated one of the reasons is there is a requirement to keep 5' grade separation between the adjoining property and the sidewalk is along that road so the road could be moved 5' north or south because of grading issues. The owner of Lot 19 across the street is afraid of the traffic coming out and directly facing her house. The traffic going to the west is offset from her house so we have moved it as far south as we could. Commissioner Anthes asked if it is better to have a near misaligned intersection of a more missed alignment. Mr. Garner stated it isn't the most desirable way to align up the roads but it wasn't dangerous enough not to allow it. Commissioner Anthes asked what the dimension was between the northern property line and the north edge of the street. Mr. Brackett answered approximately 30'. Commissioner Anthes stated if Talon Trail was aligned along that north property line that the property owners to the north could use the road. Mr. Brackett stated if the Planning Commission desired the developer could dedicate right of way to the north line because the property doesn't serve a purpose. Commissioner Anthes stated it looked like a maintenance problem. Mr. Brackett stated the connection is with the radiuses, pushing it to the north would require to get property from the neighbor for those radiuses. Since you can't move it directly across or to the north moving it 5' north or south doesn't really matter. The owner has looked at landscaping and trying to dress up that intersection. Dedicating of right of way may not allow us to do that. Commissioner Anthes stated dedicating that would leave options open for the future. Mr. Brackett stated all the developer intended it for was landscaping. Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 41 Mr. Sloan asked if they used that area for tree mitigation if it would count against the developer. Commissioner Anthes stated she didn't believe it would. Mr. Garner stated the developer would not be allowed to count the tree canopy preserved in a right of way area or utility easement but with a small amount of right of way area that might work. Mr. Brackett stated the mitigation trees would be planted in that area and if they couldn't plant them there that may be a hardship. It is hard to justify the cost of planting the trees if they may be taken out. Mr. Ostner stated he would like to see the trees planted on lots. He stated if a light were put in on Hunt Lane this intersection could be heavily traveled and it is not safe to have it offset. Commissioner Clark stated short of condemning the house to the south there was no feasibility of aligning the street. Mr. Ostner stated he would like to see the western stub out but Hunt Lane is right there. Commissioner Clark made a motion to approve PPL 05-1748 with the correction to the conditions and the findings of fact therein. Commissioner Myres seconded the motion. Ms. Morgan asked for clarification on the western stub out. Commissioner Clark stated no stub out to the west. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 05-1748 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 42 RZN 05-1754: Rezoning (PARK WEST HEIGHTS, 208): Submitted by MEL MILHOLLAND for property located at SE CORNER HWY 112 AND DEANE SOLOMON RD. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 26.28 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, Residential Single Family, 4 units per acre. Commissioner Ostner announced the request. Ms. Morgan read the staff report. The General Plan designates the area for residential development. The Fire Department states that it is 3.4 miles with response time being approximately 7 'h minutes. The response time goal is within 6 minutes 90% of the time and then additional units within 10 minutes. The Police Department reviewed this proposal and found that at the time of development any entrance onto Deane Solomon would need to be looked at as well as onto Hwy. 112 due to the terrain of these streets. Staff finds that rezoning this property to RSF-4 would be compatible. Property to the west and northwest is currently being developed for single family use. Therefore, staff recommends approval of this rezoning request. Mr. Tom Jefcoat with Milholland Company was present. Commissioner Ostner asked for public comment. There was no public comment. Commissioner Clark asked when Deane Solomon Road was going to reopen. Mr. O'Neal stated there was a catastrophic failure on a 36" water main and the brand new Deane Solomon Road had a portion removed and a lot of water was lost. Commissioner Allen stated at recent neighborhood meetings she had attended, Terry Lawson stated a good response time is four minutes. She stated she didn't feel comfortable with 7 ''A minutes. Commissioner Vaught stated rezoning the area to RSF-4 is more appropriate than R -A and stated he did wish there was a lesser zoning district that could be utilized. Commissioner Clark stated she was in favor of rezoning this property and did not mean, however, that she favored development on the property at this time. Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 43 Commissioner Anthes asked if this was part of a Concept Plat that was saw a long time ago. Mr. Jefcoat stated it was. Commissioner Anthes asked why it was coming through this way. Mr. Jefcoat stated it is taking longer to develop the whole acreage and this is a break out. Commissioner Anthes asked if it was intended to be developed in the same configuration previously saw. Mr. Jefcoat stated the concept plat for the whole development has been turned in and is available to be looked at. Ms. Morgan stated that is a master development plan PZD that is adjacent to this property. Commissioner Vaught made a recommendation to forward RZN 05-1754 to City Council. Commissioner Myres seconded the motion. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 05-1754 was approved by a vote of 5-2 with Commissioners Ostner and Allen voting no. Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 44 CUP 05-1752: Conditional Use Permit (GREEN DOOR, 407): Submitted by ROBERT HATFIELD & APRIL LIZANA HAT -CO, LTD for property located at 1404 N COLLEGE AVENUE, IN EVELYN HILLS SHOPPING CENTER. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 17.21 acres. The request is to approve a dance hall, use unit 29, in the C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial Zoning District. Commissioner Ostner announced the request. Mr. Fulcher stated the applicant proposes to have a small dance floor approximately 18' x 19' within the restaurant. The fact that this is before the Planning Commission is dancing which is a Conditional Use within the C-2 zoning district. Staff is in support of a dance hall in conjunction with a tavern or a bar in the C-2 zoning district finding that the adjacent use does not harm adjacent properties which are commercial in nature. Staff does have seven conditions of approval. Either money or lieu or construction of a sidewalk is required with a Conditional Use. Construction of a sidewalk will be required to adjoin the sidewalk with USA Drug, the length to be determined by the Sidewalk Administrator and the Planning Division. Mr. Robert Hatfield presented the request. He stated the hours for music will be from 6:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. The hours of operation will be from 4:00 p.m. to 12:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Carol Beletfield, 200 E. Oakwood submitted three pages of petitions of neighbors behind Evelyn Hills Shopping Center. She stated LJ's was in the neighborhood for a long time and it became a problem when dancing came in. The concerns of criminal problems was defined by the applicant as general mischievous. She stated there were concerns of felonies, and extra patrols that the Fayetteville Police Department do to monitor one club. She stated other businesses in Evelyn Hills close at the same time as the proposed dance club with people entering into the neighborhood in the rear. The hours of operation being 4:00 in the afternoon, the closest drop-off for children is at the corner of North and Mission so the children will be walking the streets behind this proposed club. There is concern with constant crime that the neighborhood hasn't had since LJ's closed down. The applicant didn't mention live music and dancing in the letters to the neighbors. The application to the ABC says that their capacity is 200 and have the possibility of Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 45 increasing the space to unknown limits. They have access to 4,700 sq.ft. They only plan on having three employees, how are they going to manage those people? Weingarten was concerned about this also because in their lease it says if Weingarten is concerned they can require the club to hire additional security. It is going to be the City of Fayetteville's problem when the police are called out to one club. It is difficult when clubs of this nature are not located in a central entertainment district. They have always had problems with the 620 Club or Doc Murdock's. You also have the addition of the family sector, Chucky Cheese so you have this huge amount of family traffic with kids and you are wanting to put in adult entertainment a couple of doors down. Ms. Barbara Mashburn, 236 Oakwood. Commissioner Ostner stated he was not going to accept comments that wish to insinuate ill actions by the applicant, lying to authorities. The woman before you spoke improperly. I am stating that for the record. The woman before you was out of line. Ms. Barbara Mashburn, 236 Oakwood, stated LJs was never a problem until it became a dance hall. She stated others wouldn't want it in their backyard. She stated Sergeant Carter stated there were 487 police calls to the place. She stated she doubted that there would be acoustic music only at this club. She stated the noise that came from LJ's was so loud it vibrated the walls of her home. Mr. Rob Lick???, 1314 Crestwood, stated he was not in favor of the Conditional Use. He stated he spoke with Alison Lamb of Ozark Foods stated she was told that it was going to be a coffee bar and no mention of a dance hall or music. He stated the information conveyed has not been consistent or accurate. Mr. Bob Albright, 1235 N. Hillcrest, stated he went to the ABC Board and pointed out that the ABC's letter stated that music would not be provided after 11:00 at night and only be open from 4:00 to 12:00. They also made statements that everybody in Evelyn Hills closes at 5:00 except Chucky Cheese. That is not true, there are several businesses that keep hours after 5:00. All of the businesses that we talked to down there didn't want this in their neighborhood, some of them were concerned about closing their stores late in Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 46 the evening with money that close to the bar. The short cut to the back became a disaster with LJs with people drinking and driving. There was no mention to the ABC Board of a dance floor. He asked that the Planning Commission not grant the dance floor because that has lead to noise troubles and crowd troubles as has been seen with LJs and Doc Murdock's. Commissioner Ostner closed the public comment session. Commissioner Allen stated she didn't understand the police report referencing the street name. Commissioner Ostner stated 1220 N. College was LJ's. Commissioner Allen asked what year the bar closed. Commissioner Anthes asked if the existence of the bar itself was allowed by right. Mr. Fulcher stated, yes, everything but the dancing was a use by right. Commissioner Anthes asked if staff supported the assertions of the public this evening that the police reports were related to dancing at LJ's. Ms. Morgan stated staff has not been privy to the police reports and there is no correlation between the two. Commissioner Anthes stated she was concerned with compatibility with adjacent tenants such as Chucky Cheese. Mr. Whitaker stated condition number four is very clear that this will be watched should go a long way towards allowing members of the city government to maintaining a close watch. Commissioner Anthes stated this Conditional Use shall be brought back to the Planning Commission for review and further action or revocation should the city receive valid complaints as a result of the establishment of a dance hall. Determination of a Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 47 subsequent review shall be made by the Zoning & Development Administrator. She stated she would like to know how many complaints triggers the review. Mr. Fulcher stated it would be similar to the zoning complaints received with staff looking into the complaints and seeing the validities and making sure it was not an invalid complaint but also addressing every complaint that comes in. Commissioner Anthes stated there is an ordinance about barking dogs and neighbors who have called numerous times about a barking dog. However, the city has said the only recourse is through an attorney. What recourse do the neighbors have? How clear is that statement? Mr. Whitaker stated the neighbors have several avenues of recourse. The first is to come to the Planning Commission. The Planning Staff is not of the habit of hiding complaints. If they violate the noise ordinance they are going to get popped for that. If it gets to be a problem they would have a private right to a nuisance. Complaints to the ABC could be in order if it is a serious nuisance. Without the alcohol license they aren't going to be running anything there. Commissioner Anthes stated she was concerned with how much people had to put up with before something is done. She stated she also had concern with the children coming out of that building from Chucky Cheese. Mr. Whitaker stated what is before the Commission is dancing, not a bar. The bar is a use by right that has been approved by the ABC. Commissioner Anthes stated she is concerned that neighbors would have to prove that the complaints are from the establishment of a dance hall rather than the bar. Mr. Whitaker stated somewhere down the line you could run into that problem because you can't attack the Conditional Use for the dance hall by saying the bar is the problem. Commissioner Anthes stated that was the problem. Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 48 Mr. Whitaker stated that's the law. It is a matter of fairness and due process. Commissioner Anthes stated if this was allowed to open as a bar and restaurant and you could track what happens with that business and that structure and then you could add the dance hall onto it and say are these equivalent or changed, did something happen with the dancing that makes a difference? I think this is going to be very, very hard to separate it out later if there is a nuisance. Itis going to be tough. Mr. Whitaker stated it would create a proof problem. Mr. Vaught stated condition number six states it stops at 11:00. That will hopefully protect the neighbors. He asked if this could run with the particular owner rather than with the property? Mr. Whitaker stated the Conditional Use stays the same and runs with the property. No matter who owns it will be bound by these conditions. Commissioner Vaught asked if they could limit the size of the dance floor. He stated he didn't want to punish this new person and still allow a reasonable structure for the neighbors. Mr. Whitaker stated if the Commission wanted to limit the square feet of the dance floor that was permissible. Commissioner Vaught stated the sound ordinance probably wasn't in effect when LJ's wasn't around. In condition number four can we put some of the type of complaints that were triggered coming back or do we get into that proof problem? Mr. Whitaker stated the Commission could state noise violations, criminal arrests. When we say valid complaints and someone is being arrested for relieving themselves on people's front lawns? Commissioner Ostner stated the use ceases at 11:00 p.m. and if the Police are called for a zoning infraction they say sorry. The Zoning & Development Administrator enforces this condition from the hours of 8:00 to 5:00 when they come to work. Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 49 Commissioner Allen asked the applicant if he had ever operated a bar and dance hall. Mr. Hatfield replied no, but he had played at a bar and was familiar with how bars work as well as the manager who has a lot of business experience. He stated noise wouldn't be a problem because of the construction of the building. Commissioner Allen asked if he had met with the neighbors. Mr. Hatfield stated no he had not. He stated LJ's was backed up into the neighborhood and this plan is not in the neighborhood, but is adjacent to the neighborhood. Commissioner Allen made a motion to table the Conditional Use request to set up a meeting with the neighbors. Mr. Hatfield stated there is not going to be a way to change the neighbor's attitude because they are mad at LJ's. Commissioner Allen made a motion to table CUP 05-1752 asking the applicant to please meet with the neighbors. Commissioner Vaught asked if we can table it for those reasons. Is that a valid requirement to put on the applicant? Mr. Whitaker stated it could be tabled if the Commission feels that there is more information needed. It is not a stretch to ask the applicant to meet with the neighbors. Is it a motion to table indefinitely or to a date certain? Commissioner Allen stated until the next meeting with the hope that they will come back with some positive comments. Commissioner Myres seconded the motion. Commissioner Anthes stated that if the motion to table passes, she would like to understand if there is evidence from the City of Fayetteville Police Department in the difference in amount of nuisance complaints in standalone restaurants and bars verses Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 50 ones with dance halls and the conditions with enforcement and complaints and if the Zoning & Development Administrator were charged with enforcement and be accommodated during work hours. Commissioner Allen stated she would like to know the year LJs closed and how many violations were before and after. Commissioner Clark stated Code Compliance only works 8:00 to 5:00 and is concerned with that. She stated she wasn't sure 342 sq.ft. of dance floor would cause the destruction that has been talked about. Commissioner Ostner stated in a perfect world he would like the applicant to set up the business and operate without a dance floor for a few months. Commissioner Vaught said he thought he had enough information to make a decision. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table was approved by a vote of 4-2 with Commissioners Ostner and Vaught voting no. Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 51 CUP 05-1753: Conditional Use Permit (ASPEN RIDGE, 561): Submitted by HAL FORSYTH & HANK BROYLES OF TOWN CREEK CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT, LLC for property located at SW OF 6TH ST AND HILL AVENUE. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 30.61 acres. The request is for a temporary real estate sales trailer. Commissioner Ostner announced the request. Mr. Fulcher read the staff report. The City Council did approve one of the units in Phase I or II to be used as a sales office, with the completion of the sales office the temporary real estate sales trailer shall be removed. Mr. Fulcher read the recommended staff conditions of approval. Mr. Matt Crafton with Crafton, Tull & Associates presented the request. Commissioner Ostner asked for public comment. There was no public comment Commissioner Clark made a motion to approve CUP 05-1753 with the stated conditions as written. Commissioner Myres seconded the motion. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 05-1753 was approved by a vote of 6-0. Announcements