Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-05-22 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on May 22, 2006 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN PPL 06-2054: (LEGACY POINT PHASE V, 436) Approved Page 4 LSD 06-1907: (DIVINITY HOTEL & CONDOS, 484) Tabled Page 5 ADM 06-2093: (SPRINGWOODS PZD, 247/286) Forwarded Page 6 LSD 06-2058: (NELSON'S CROSSING BLDG. 3. Approved 174) Page 8 CUP 06-2071: (BROYLES, 450) Approved Page 23 Planning Commission May 22, 2006 Page 2 MEMBERS PRESENT Jill Anthes Lois Bryant Candy Clark James Graves Hilary Harris Andy Lack Christine Myres Alan Ostner STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Andrew Gamer Suzanne Morgan Brent O'Neal Jesse Fulcher Tim Conklin Leif Olson CITY ATTORNEY: Kit Williams MEMBERS ABSENT Sean Trumbo STAFF ABSENT Planning Commission May 22, 2006 Page 3 Welcome to the May 22, 2006 meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. If we could have the roll call please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call Bryant, Anthes, Clark, Graves, Myres, Harris, Lack, and Ostner were present Planning Commission May 22, 2006 Page 4 PPL 06-2054: Preliminary Plat (LEGACY POINT PHASE V, 436): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES for property located north and east of Phase IV. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILIY — 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 45.51 acres. The request is for a residential subdivision with 133 single- family lots on the previously approved Devonshire Glynn Preliminary Plat property. Anthes: I personally would like to see the administrative item removed from the consent agenda. Would any member of the public or any other Commissioner like to discuss Legacy Point? Seeing none, I will move for approval of the consent agenda, which is item 2. Clark: So moved. Ostner: I'll second. Anthes: A motion by Commissioner Clark and a second by Commissioner Ostner to approve Preliminary Plat 06-2054 on consent. Jeremy, will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve PPL 06-2054 carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission May 22, 2006 Page S LSD 06-1997: Large Scale Development (DIVINITY HOTEL & CONDOS, 484): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at 101 W. DICKSON, BETWEEN CHURCH AND BLOCK. The property is zoned C-3, CENTRAL COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 1.41 acres. The request is for a 10 -story mixed-use building with a hotel, 2 restaurants, retail space, parking garage, and condominiums with a total of 84 residential dwelling units. Anthes: The applicant has requested that this item be tabled to the June 12`n Planning Commission Meeting. Do I have a motion to table? Clark: I will. Anthes: Motion to table by Commissioner Clark. Ostner: Second. Anthes: Second by Commissioner Ostner. Is there discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to table LSD 06-1997 carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission May 22, 2006 Page 6 ADM 06-2093: Administrative Item (SPRINGWOODS PZD, 247/286): Submitted by HUNTER HAYNES for property located at 1540 AND HWY 112. The request is to amend the approved final plat of Lot 6 in the Springwoods PZD to add Use Unit 4 (Cultural and Recreational Facilities) as an approved use within Lot 6. Anthes: May we have the staff report? Fulcher: Good evening. The first item is the administrative item for Springwoods PZD amendment to Lot 6. The request is to amend the use units within Lot 6 to allow Use Unit 4, cultural and recreational facilities as an approved use. The final plat for Springwoods PZD was approved by the Subdivision Committee in April of 2004. The PZD ordinance approved by the City Council on October of 2003 outlined the permanent use units for each of the nine lots within the subdivision. There is a table shown on page 1 of 16 which shows the nine lots the uses and the use units permitted. Within Lot 6 the primary land use was for commercial and outlines those use units 12- 17, use unit 25, fairly consistent with a C-2 zoning district for retail and general commercial uses. The applicant, as shown on page 2, is requesting use unit 4 be added to those approved use units. I've removed some of those items within use unit 4; as you can see in that table there is a line drawn through most of those. At agenda session on Thursday we discussed a few of these items and I believe that all that the applicant will speak to this, but one of the items that we discussed was detention homes. I don't believe that was intended to be left on there but rather it was not understood what a detention home entailed. If the applicant is wishing to and the Planning Commission would like to, we can remove that item just leaving dormitory, elder care, and hospitals as allowable uses within use unit 4 to be added to the Lot 6 within Springwoods. With that, staff is recommending approval of this item with three conditions of approval. We'll be happy to answer any specific questions you have. Anthes: Thank you very much. Would any member of the public like to address this administrative item for Springwoods PZD? Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public comment. Does the applicant have a presentation? Please come forward. It is time for the applicant's presentation. Would you like to speak to that? Davis: Yes. I'm Gary Davis with EGIS Engineering. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. We're fine with removing that one use from the requested uses. Anthes: Thank you very much. Commissioners, is there discussion? Motions? Planning Commission May 22, 2006 Page 7 Myres: Madame Chair, I would like to move administrative item 06-2093 for Springwoods PZD amendment to the City Council with a recommendation of approval. Anthes: We have a motion to forward by Commissioner Myres. Clark: Does that include striking the detention home? Myres: Yes, it does. Anthes: Do I hear a second? Clark: Second. Anthes: Second by Commissioner Clark. Is there further discussion? Ostner: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: I have a question for staff or someone. Can we approve it at this level or does Council actually have to look at it? Pate: The City Council does have to look at this because it is an ordinance amendment. It pertains to the use units, which is dictated by zoning so the final action is taken by the City Council. Ostner: Okay. That's what I thought. Thank you. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to forward ADM 06-2093 carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission May 22, 2006 Page 8 LSD 06-2058: Large Scale Development (NELSON'S CROSSING BLDG. 3, 174): Submitted by CLARK CONSTULTING for property located at SW CORNER OF SHILOH AND JOYCE. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 0.53 acres. The request is for an 11,300 square foot building with offices and retail space. Anthes: May we have the staff report? Garner: Yes, ma'am. This property is located at the corner of Joyce and Shiloh Blvd. You have probably seen the existing Nelson's Crossing Building in the process of being built. The large scale development for those buildings was approved in July of 2005. This development is for the third building in Nelson's Crossing, right at the northeast corner of this property. The building would be 11,300 square feet. As part of this development, some of the parking configuration has been slightly changed for the overall Nelson's Crossing. Street frontage and ingress and egress onto Joyce Boulevard and Shiloh through Nelson's Crossing existing curb cuts were approved. This project is located within I -540's Design Overlay District and they have complied with all of the criteria for the Design Overlay District. This project was forwarded from the Subdivision Committee to the Planning Commission to address mainly one condition, condition number two. They were recommending approval of this project. It references modification of an approved condition of approval and if you will remember, for those of you who were here July 2005 for the Nelson's Crossing Project, access through the eastern curb cut on Joyce Boulevard that was approved for this project was specified to be a right -out exit only and the applicant is requesting that they be allowed to have a right -in and a right -out turn. We've included the meeting minutes from that Planning Commission meeting that had the discussion and why that condition was approved. Staff has discussed this item with our engineering division and we are in support of allowing a right -in and a right -out only finding that it will not create or compound a dangerous traffic situation as proposed on their plans. Another issue that was discussed at Subdivision Committee was condition number one which is Planning Commission determination of commercial design standards. Subdivision Committee generally found in favor of the elevations with some comments that the north elevation could use some additional articulation or maybe awnings or some sort of other articulation. The rest of the conditions of approval are standard or straight -forward and I'll be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Garner. Would any member of the public like to address this large scale development of Nelson's Crossing? Seeing none, we'll close the public comment section. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Planning Commission May 22, 2006 Page 9 S Clark: Good evening. I'm Steve Clark of Clark Consulting representing Dixie Development and the development group that has worked on this project. Basically this was the corner that has Golf USA and has the Northwest Florist. That building, that is the tenants of that building, will be moving into building 1, with the exception of the sign shop. The sign shop will be going somewhere else. The existing building will be demolished. The horse will be moved. Actually that has been successfully moved here in the last few days. Really I think the only thing that is at issue is whether we should have a right -in at our eastern most Joyce Street driveway. In the discussion that happened back when the large scale was originally approved was that we had asked for a full access entry. The conversations were proceeding such that we needed an exit there for traffic. There was some conversation about whether we should have a right-in/right-out. I think we agreed well we'll just accept a right -out. We've looked at it further and the situation is that if someone is coming eastbound on Joyce and happens to miss the first entrance then that means that they have to go all of the way to the intersection go south on Shiloh and then double back and come back in. We felt that having a right -in it would reduce the possibility of having traffic going through that intersection. To address, I think Commissioner Anthes had a concern about the width of the opening or the apparent width of the openings and I went ahead and tightened up the radiuses on those noses at that central island to farther reduce the possibility of someone trying to come in the wrong way. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Clark. Commissioners? Clark: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: On page 18 of 30, the last time we did this you said that you didn't like right -in and right -out because people tend to do bad things. What has caused you to change your mind? S Clark: Well, I prefer full access. But in this particular case it is the lesser of two evils to go ahead and have the right -in and right -out. I have shortened up the noses so that if you I put a real tight radius on those so that it will further limit the people coming in. again, I prefer and think in most cases a full access entry is preferable. In this case, it would probably create a hazard and I concur with the Planning Commission on that. The location of a left turn lane in would create a hazard if we had a full access entry. The lesser of the two evils in this case is a right -in and right -out. Planning Commission May 22, 2006 Page 10 Ostner: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Thank you. The radius on this western curb cut - I can't read it - but I'm guessing it is about a 25 foot radius. And over here on this eastern one we're talking about is very different. Is that what you're alluding to when you said you changed the radii? S Clark: No, I'm talking about the central island that I'm assuming you're talking about the westernmost versus the right -in right -out. No. the ones that I shortened up... Anthes: I have a copy Mr. Clark if you would like to stay at the podium. S Clark: This is what it originally was... Anthes: I need you to move to the podium. S Clark: Right. Anthes: Thanks. Ostner: You brought those noses out. I understand that. That seems like a good step. I'm just wondering why the radiuses are so generous. S Clark: Because at 35 feet I think if I tried to make those 25 feet then I ended up having to bring them in closer to the drive and it essentially eliminates that central island. If you try to make this, either it ends up having a totally separate entrance drive or you have to make the radius long enough that people can come on into the project. It had to do with the central island, that's what the problem was. I can show you the logistics of that, if you want. Ostner: I think I understand. I still don't understand why at 25 foot back-to-back curb is necessary to exit to head north and then east. S Clark: Because we will have tractor trailers leaving that drive. That's the principle reason for making it 20 feet instead of 15. Ostner: Is this island a with a rollover curb or is it just a regular stand-up curb? S Clark: It needs to be a barrier curb to keep people from making illegal left turns or coming out the top of it. Planning Commission May 22, 2006 Page I1 Ostner: Okay. In my experience, the rollover curb that is elevated sharply stops most cars. Most cars will drag. The people who are extremely motivated to break the law are going to do it anyway. That would allow this to be tight and to be proper tighter radius, smaller island, and it would deter most people. That's sort of how I envisioned it. If someone really wanted to go the wrong way they would bump over it. S Clark: The problem with having semi -traffic coming out of it is that if they mount those curbs then the next thing you know they're over on the landscaping and you have these huge ruts and the grass is gone. Ostner: Well, with the mountable curb I was not seeing a lot of landscaping in the middle of that triangle, at least. S Clark: Well the problem is really on the... Ostner: You're talking about tracking. I'm talking about them swinging out so it doesn't track. I will just stop. I'm not sure what the best way is either. Anthes: I have a question of staff. I believe when we approved this the first time we noted that there is less than the required separation of this drive between this drive and the intersection of Shiloh and Joyce. That's why this required a waiver. Is that true? Pate: That's correct. Anthes: And can you remind me about the required separation versus the actual separation? Pate: The required separation is 250 feet. There's less than that currently. The actual separation is - are these smaller plans to scale? S Clark: No, not accurately. Pate: It's approximately 200 — 200 plus feet from that intersection it looks like. The property line is about 138 feet and to the intersection of Shiloh and back to the intersection of this property. Anthes: And staffs' original recommendation was to align this drive with the drive across the street... Pate: Correct. Planning Commission May 22, 2006 Page 12 Anthes Which would have been very close to the 250 feet but would have allowed that cross -traffic. We decided that pulling it back and not allowing a left turn off of Joyce was preferable to that alignment. Pate: We originally recommended - you can see the driveways across the street, across Joyce from this - that this curb cut be aligned with that. The Planning Commission with their approval felt that the interior circulation would be hampered, especially truck traffic that would be in and out of this property, by moving that over basically one bay of parking, and therefore changed that with the approval of the right -out in that location. Anthes: And, Engineering, how did they react to tightening the radii on the island? Pate: We're supportive of what we've seen as far as what has been submitted to the Planning Commission, both engineering and planning staff. In a lot of these situations, the rollover curb is required because that is a point of ingress and egress for emergency vehicles. As you can see, we have another point of ingress and egress on Joyce which is a full access point, one on Shiloh, and then on the southwest corner you also have that cross - access to an internal drive which is adequate for a fire lane as well. So those are points of ingress and egress that are fully functional for fire apparatus to enter this site so that's not as crucial in this location. Anthes: A standard on that procedure would be for that to be a rollover? Okay. S Clark: We don't have a problem putting a rollover curb, that's not an issue, if that's what you want. Anthes: I have a further question about the signs. I know that the sign drawings were not included in the packet and we are in the design overlay district. I don't know that I can read on this map where the signs are proposed. Can you describe it? S Clark: I think you're talking about monument signs. There will be a monument sign on the entry off of Shiloh on the south side of the drive. We are currently in the process of getting those signs permitted. There will be a pylon type sign that will be at the west entrance. I am not dealing directly with the signage. Pam Jones is here. Jones: Good evening. I'm Pam Jones with Dixie Development. We will not be putting a pylon sign on that site at all. We want to have a monument sign at the entrance to the west on Joyce and then on the south on Shiloh. Anthes: So there would be no signage at this intersection that we're discussing at the right-in/right-out. Planning Commission May 22, 2006 Page 13 Jones: That's correct. Clark: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: The north elevation is the back of the building, correct? S Clark: That's correct. Clark: And that's going to face Joyce. S Clark: Yes. Clark: It just strikes me as fourteen kinds of odd. I meant the back of Joyce is such a heavily traveled thoroughfare to put the back of the building to it. Pam is coming back. S Clark: We tried to set this up so that all of our parking is internal to the site therefore the only side that is available is the back. We've tried to do some architecture, certainly some elements on that side of the building that are consistent with the rest of the building... Clark: I think it's a beautiful project. I thought it was when you cut down the tree and got in all kinds of trouble. Jones: We didn't do that. Clark: It's a beautiful project, but I can understand why there were comments in Subdivision about the elevation if it is going to face Joyce because everybody in the city is going to see it five times a day, I think. Jones: I would like to, if I could, address that. I did ask them, I did put awnings over the doors which I think makes sense. There will be signage over that span and the landscaping that is planned is incredible for this site. I think that it will really enhance the corner amazingly and we're real excited about that part of it which I think really benefits the architecture. Anthes: Thank you. Are there further comments about commercial design standards, condition of approval number one? Harris: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Harris. Planning Commission May 22, 2006 Page 14 Harris: I have real concerns about the north elevation as well so I'm listening to what you're saying. This structure is in unique positioning in terms of a kind of gateway structure into one of the most heavily trafficked commercial district... Jones: I'd like to address that. Anthes: You can't interrupt a commissioner while she is speaking. Jones: I'm sorry. Harris: I wasn't in this Subdivision Committee but I'm reading through their comments and talking about awnings, I appreciate the addition of the awnings. I still see sections here, though, that just seem if you will sort of back of house and they still look very much that way, the westernmost section and the section just in from the tower. I'm wondering if you could just, if Pam you would be able to explain just a bit more about the landscaping because that seems to be carrying more of the primary weight of... Anthes: Before you answer, we have a new commissioner and I need to remind Commissioner Harris that our commercial design standards state that landscaping is not a mitigating factor for commercial design standards, and that the buildings need to stand on their own without landscaping detail. This project is also located in the Design Overlay District which usurps different kinds of scrutiny than we have in normal commercial design standards. Now if you would like to... Jones: Well, first of all, an obvious problem is that there is no back of the house. There is no back of the house. You have to consider your tenant and your tenants' needs. We're bringing in national tenants for this site and you have to address their needs. Also, to the signage, which obviously is going to be on Joyce will fill in a little bit there, it meets all of the design criteria and standards. We want the building to be, obviously it is one thousand percent better than what is there now, and I think it is going to be a huge asset to that intersection. It's a beautiful building. It has a copper dome on it. It has real natural rock on the circular area. I think there is a lot of beautiful architectural features and detail that you don't normally see in a building that is 11,000 square feet and I'm very proud of it. I think the addition of the awnings over the back doors and it's also going to be the back of the retailers. It's going to be the back of their house even though it faces Joyce because parking is on the other sides. They can't have windows and things like that. Planning Commission May 22, 2006 Page 15 Harris: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Harris. Harris: Steve, you mentioned I believe or maybe it was Pam, that there will be more tenant signs along the front elevation, is that correct? Jones: On Joyce Street? Harris: On Joyce Street. I keep saying front, I'm sorry, I mean north elevation. That is correct, though? Jones: Yes. Harris: Okay. Let me ask a question of staff. Mr. Pate... Pate: Yes, ma'am. Harris: Or maybe it could go back to the commissioners. In dealing with the Design Overlay District and thinking through this buildings position on this particular corner as a sort of gateway structure, is it possible to hold it to a slightly higher standard, or... Pate: I don't believe so. I think the standards have to be applied to this project with what's in context and the context of this situation. We looked at the rest of Nelson's Crossing Development which is a little different architectural style than Springwoods commercial subdivision I'm sorry, Spring Park Subdivision, which is to the south and to the west, and felt that at the time of the original large scale development approval that it could stand on its own as an architectural design theme in this area as it was a rather large 63,000 square foot building plus another 6,000 square foot building. We did look at it in terms of context of its surroundings, but as far as saying because this building is on this corner it should be held to a higher standard, I don't believe it would be appropriate to make that judgment call, in my opinion. I think it goes to commercial design standards we have to follow the ones that are set forward in the ordinance and that is what we're making our recommendations on. It obviously is difficult to site a building that is so visible on this location with a back of house and we felt the north elevation is articulated to meet our commercial design standards and our requirement with the natural materials, the look of the fronts; many sides and rears do not look like what you are indicating as almost a back of house on the north elevation, and I don't think that would be appropriate in this situation. It is essentially a front -facing fagade so the doors, the windows, the different materials, the articulations and Planning Commission May 22, 2006 Page 16 undulations of the overall building I think are key to staffs' recommendation for this particular project. Harris: Thank you. I appreciate that. I'll get off this particular high ground and let someone else speak. Anthes: Would any other commissioner like to address commercial design standards? Clark: I have a question. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: On the north elevation again, I'm so architecturally inept, on the yellow part that goes whoop -whoop, it's got a little... Anthes: Parapet. Clark: It's got something there. Could we put a little round something on the flat side? That would give it some articulation. I mean you put the band around it... Jones: That's where the proposed signage will go. I would just like to say, we are very concerned about this looking fantastic. We have to consider signage, but the landscaping and I know that isn't part of the design criteria but it meets all of the elements. I promise you if you look at any of our projects you will be thrilled with the way that this site looks. I'd almost personally guarantee it. We go to great pains. Clark: It's going to be beautiful, but we've got to look at that unarticulated side that faces a major thoroughfare, but maybe it is much ado about nothing. S Clark: Well it is a very articulated side. With the exception of a couple of windows, it does match the other elevations. It's the back side of those retail spaces where stockrooms will go. People don't want windows in their stockrooms. Myres: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Myres. Myres: The way I've been looking at this side is in conjunction with the east side. If you're stopped I think the only time you're going to be able to examine either of these facades in detail is if you're stopped at the light coming down the hill from the mall and stuck in traffic. If this is going to give you Planning Commission May 22, 2006 Page 17 something really nice to look at, whether to find fault with it or not, but if you think about where you would be located in your car stopped at that light you're going to see almost as much of the east fagade as you will of the north. If you think about that comer with that beautiful stone tower, sorry to editorialize, but I think it is beautiful with the copper dome on the top, you're probably going to spend so much time looking at that corner detail that you won't notice if there are a few windows missing on the other side. I'm heartily in favor of the design. I think it meets and in some cases exceeds the criteria for the Design Overlay District and I know when we discussed this when it was first proposed and approved it is as someone has already said so much more handsome than anything that has been on that site for a while. I miss the horse, but... It's there, but still. Anyway, that's my two cents and I'm prepared to approve it as drawn. Anthes: I'd like to state that I think the addition of the awnings is an improvement. That helped, and I appreciate it. I believe I can find in favor of commercial design standards on all four elevations at this point is just - I think the flag for me (and why I've been so perplexed for so long about this project) is that normally you get that kind of high profile retail corner and that's the place you want the windows and pedestrians to go by and see it and that sort of thing. It's a good lesson for us when we talk about our ordinances and how we're moving forward because we're describing in this city what you've done. We're describing moving buildings and parking and more but I don't think we've done a good job maybe of being clear about the fact that when we talk about it and moving the fronts of the buildings to the street and parking to the rear we're not talking about turning the backs of the buildings to the major streets and putting parking forward and creating building entrances on the inward sides of all of our developments. I think that maybe we can do a better job of articulating as a community in response to understanding how you guys have interpreted that in this plan. The other thing is that as far as the curb cut goes, I normally think that islands out in the middle are problematic, people run over them all the time, they're usually scratched up, people don't see them, they're not the best way to control traffic, but in this case I feel like staff has reviewed that and they're comfortable with it. I can understand people not wanting to take additional cars all the way to the corner at Shiloh and around and miss that first drive, which considering the traffic situation out of that intersection is likely. If you're in the left lane you can't get over in time and that can definitely happen. I'm also prepared to support condition number two. Is there further discussion? Lack: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Lack. Planning Commission May 22, 2006 Page 18 Lack: I think, and going in order item number one with the commercial design standards it might be subjective to say what is a large unarticulated wall and what is the scale that would be considered a large unarticulated wall and I would be prepared to say that a 20-25 foot section in a wall in a building which is overall fairly well articulated or has many elements on the building would not constitute a large unarticulated wall. With that, I think that the awnings are a help to that elevation. I see the elevation that was evidently presented to Subdivision Committee, the splash of color with the green awnings does definitely attract some attention and provide further articulation. I think that it is probably a little disappointing not to have some interaction with the street from a front on that side, but that's not something that we really regulate by ordinance. That's something that is basically a different conversation. Anthes: At least currently. Lack: I think that with item number one, commercial design standards, I find in favor. With item number two, the right -in and right -out, I can remember and then reading back over the notes while it was debated heavily at that meeting it started out as the potential to be right-in/right-out. I felt like Mr. Clark's concern for the right -in component of that or the right-in/right-out which later became the right -in was the turning factor. I think I felt at the time that right -in would be acceptable. In that I don't feel like it would have any means of creating an additional traffic safety issues so I think that I would find in favor of that, also. With that, I would like to go ahead and make a motion that we approve LSD 06-2058 finding in favor of items one and two and in allowing the right -in right -out modification to the plan. Clark: I'll second it. Anthes: A motion to approve by Commissioner Lack. A second by Commissioner Clark. Is there further discussion? Ostner: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: A question for staff first. Are you aware of the street lights in this area of this curb cut that we're talking about? Just by chance if there are any street lights and how far away. Pate: Street, as in traffic signals? Planning Commission May 22, 2006 Page 19 Ostner: No, like lights so I can see at night. Pate: Yes, there are street lights. I believe they're on the north side of the street for the most part, the new developments, Walgreen's, the banks, I think they've all installed street lights adjacent every 300 feet along that property. Ostner: Okay. Mr. Clark, are you aware of any street lights on this side of the street? Inaudible S Clark: I'm not aware of any additional street lights on that side. Ostner: And your plans don't call for any additional replacement of those street lights? S Clark: I don't think so... (inaudible). Ostner: Okay. Pate: Our development ordinances require that if there are not street lights you have to install those at maximum separation distances of 300 feet. Ostner: Even if there are already lights across the street? Pate: They only have to be on one side of the street. Ostner: It's been my experience that a lot of the confusion that I think we've alluded to or are worried about happens at night. I was considering if additional lighting were installed at this intersection with the right -in and right -out I would consider being able to support it. I was concerned about the right-in/right-out last time. It does seem like it would help to install the right -in to help alleviate the traffic going down Shiloh, however to the west -bound motorists on Joyce you see two curb cuts pretty close together at a glance and you're in traffic you might slow down and not see the signs that says don't turn into one of these, which is where the right -out is easier to recognize as this might not be a place where I'm supposed to turn in. Jones: Could I comment to that? Ostner: Sure, that's okay with me. Planning Commission May 22, 2006 Page 20 Jones: That's why we chose to put the monument sign at the entrance at the other main entrance to draw attention to that as an entrance. Ostner: The monument sign at the other end? Jones: Yes, at the other end, at the west side, so that... Clark: That's considered the main entrance. Ostner: Right, but if you're eastbound and you haven't gotten there yet you don't know, we haven't seen that yet, monument signs aren't giant. Are any other commissioners interested in that? I would offer it as a condition of approval unless... Myres: I'm curious to know if you would allow me to ask a question; what are the hours of operation of this development? Will there be things that are open into the evening? Jones: Yes, there will be. Inaudible (Mr. Clark is speaking away from the microphone) Jones: Most of the ground floor will be. Anthes: Commissioner Myres, were you... Myres: No, that's all I wanted to know. Clark: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: Jeremy, if we allow this right -in and right -out and it becomes the biggest traffic accident spot in the city of Fayetteville can we revisit it and do something about it at that point or is it up to the city to revisit it and do something with it? Pate: I doubt that the Planning Commission would revisit it. If it becomes a traffic hazard, the transportation division would discuss it with the applicant in an effort to reduce that. Obviously if there is a traffic hazard coming into a business that's probably not what the business owners would want, either. Clark: Well, that was my second line of thinking. If you have a lot of people turning in who are coming east which they will try to do a couple of times Planning Commission May 22, 2006 Page 21 and if it becomes a big hassle it will hurt the shopping center and so on, so I would think that you all might do something direct about the situation, as well. Jones: Commissioner Clark, do you mean coming west? Clark: Yes, going west, I'm sorry I meant west, someone coming off of College and going there, but nobody tries to turn on Shiloh because you just can't do it. I'm willing to compromise that because last time we did suggest a right -in and right -out, but Steve Clark you persuasive little devil you said no that doesn't work so we changed courses in midstream. I'm assuming that if it becomes a big traffic impediment and danger that Dixie Development as well as the city would look at it again. Anthes: Do any other commissioners want to address the lighting issue? My question is about our city ordinance - I don't know that we ever required lights as a condition of approval on a large scale other than our regular 300 foot lighting and if we have, please remind me. Second of all, I'm just trying to remember being out there at night and it seems like there is so much light out there in that area, every building, every parking lot, every where is so much light that I don't know that one more is going to have necessarily have the effect that Commissioner Ostner is looking for. I don't know. I guess that I would want to hear from staff about that. Do we even comment about adding lighting? Pate: Not street lights, typically, as long as they're meeting their requirements; obviously if it is a safety issue I think the Planning Commission has some say in that. Staff usually works with the applicant in the placement of parking lot lights. That may be something that we could work out through permitting to work out. This is where the dumpster location is. Early morning hour utilization of that is probably going to be well -lit anyway for solid waste to access that, so I would think that it would be pretty well lit there. Anthes: I guess if I could make a comment I would rather have that area be lit with a street light that looks like it is part of a streetscape than some sort of a wall pack that looks like it is part of a service area for that dumpster area, particularly because that dumpster area is so close to the street, so if you guys would consider that in lighting that area. S Clark: I would anticipate that there would be a parking lot light back inside our property inside that island. There's a landscape item that falls right at the side of the entry drive so I'm anticipating that that would be a parking lot light that would light that intersection. Planning Commission May 22, 2006 Page 22 Anthes: Commissioner Ostner? Ostner: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate everyone's comments. I think I could support that if that parking lot light is going to be at that nearby adjacent... S Clark: Mechanical and electrical is the one that does the parking lot lighting but I will encourage them to get something in that area. I assure you there will be something in that area. Ostner: Okay. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Mr. Pate, will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve LSD 06-2058 carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission May 22, 2006 Page 23 CUP 06-2071 (BROYLES, 450): Submitted by THOMAS BROYLES for property located at 674 CLIFFSIDE DRIVE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE-FAMILY, 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.48 acres. The request is for a detached second dwelling unit (pool house). Anthes: It is 6:15 and we're getting ready to hear our last item on the agenda tonight. Our next item is conditional use 06-2071 for Broyles. May we have the staff report please? Fulcher: I'll get right to it. The request is for a detached second dwelling unit located in Highland Park at 674 Cliffside. The applicant is requesting a pool house which is detached from the main structure, but since it does contain sleeping and bath facilities by ordinance is considered a second dwelling unit and is required to be granted a conditional use by the Planning Commission. Being a second dwelling unit, the applicant is required to meet a number of conditions: building elevations, materials for the building are located within the staff report starting on page 11 through 18. You should also have colored elevations of the existing structure and the ongoing construction of the pool area. The second unit, the pool house, will be the same type of brick as the main structure, the architectural shingles the same type of architectural design. It should be very compatible with the existing structure there. Also it has to comply with the 40% lot coverage for the RSF-4 zoning district which it does and it can not exceed 1200 square feet for a second dwelling. It is approximately 900 square feet. With that, it is straightforward in meeting all of those conditions and findings so staff is recommending approval of it with six conditions of approval. Condition number one and number two are the most important. One goes to the design of the building and it is similar as the existing structure and is built as shown in our packets here. Item two is a deed restriction of the land and shall be filed in the office of the Washington County Clerk and it requires that one of the units on site shall be occupied by the property owner at all times. If you have any specific questions, please ask. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Fulcher. I don't believe I see any members of the public so we'll go straight to the applicant's presentation. Broyles: Hi. I'm Tom Broyles. I really don't have much of a comment. We decided to build a pool and now we have a pool house after hiring an architect. They love to do this sort of thing. It can't be seen from the street. We're up on a hill. You should have a colored picture there of basically we've put a we had to do some retaining walls about seven or eight foot retaining wall at the back of this. Since we had that wall existing, we're taking about 2/3 of it the part in the center which I tried to mark off there and just try to utilize it as one wall of the house. We also have you can see if you Planning Commission May 22, 2006 Page 24 have that picture there where the brick layers there the corner that came out to separate the stairs going up the red stairs over by the house that's actually would be a footing for the house, also. Really all we will do is go straight across there and add the footing on the other side and we have it done pretty much. It's just one story. As you can see, it's elevated about 4 '/2 or 5 feet above our existing house. The architect drew it as three tiers. We have our house leveled, all concrete behind, drainage everything taken care of. We have an existing wall in the back and what we did was to build the house we pulled the land out to square off the lot to build the house so it was fairly flat back there anyways for eighteen feet so we did build a second patio at the next level. We had a garden there so it was real easy to pull the garden out and make the swimming pool at the second level and there is a small patio at the top, this is the third level. We had a foundation specialist who had designed the foundation on our house do all the footings and they were all approved by the engineering department. They're at least four feet under and four feet wall. Paul said that if our house ever fell down this would be here for the next 300 years. We kind of overdid the footings, broke the waterline coming down from my parents house, which is at the top, we have a stairway going up to my parents' house and we broke the water off in the center with those retaining walls with crushed gravel full drainage that runs down on the west side of the house. This retaining wall that you're looking at there at the top of the driveway has full crushed rock behind it. We built those out and it comes back this way on the outside of the house. That's all full drainage there. All the lots in this area have a downward slope. We visited this weekend; the only concerns we had was with the neighbors to the right of this picture. Our lot is elevated above theirs. We assured them that we've broken the water [drainage] off. We wanted to make sure that the roof line didn't over they wanted to make sure that it didn't go over the fence. We're about twelve or fifteen feet from the fence. We'll only have about a one foot overhang, just enough to accommodate the roof. We'll have downspouts on their side. We have a French drain on the lower level that runs down the middle of the driveway. We'll connect the outside water and everything that is kind of kicked off to their house we'll have downspout underground drainage on the right side there which will take it to the existing drain and takes it out to the street. We assured them we would show them the engineering on that and they're comfortable with that. With that, we're just trying to get a little pool house back there and we're asking for permission to do it. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Broyles. Broyles: If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them. Planning Commission May 22, 2006 Page 25 Anthes: Commissioners? I have a question of staff. Will this pool house require an additional sewer or water tap? Pate: Yes. Broyles: We haven't made the decision whether to tap into the existing one or go just straight down. We can go just straight down to the street which from my understanding gives it a separate address, whereas the electricity and everything we just upgraded the electricity to handle both of them. That's already in place, the gas and the electricity, in order to accommodate the pool so we consolidated them all over here to the right where all of the pool equipment is actually away from the house on this back side. We trenched back over to the house so we've already upgraded the electricity, the gas is there, everything is there that is necessary to adapt to the house. We already have a box available for it. But on the sewer line, our sewer line comes out on the west side of the house about 2/3 of the way down from the just off from the main entrance into the house. So our options for the sewer line are plentiful because of the actual slope of the front yard. We can either come straight through the driveway and hook it around and can stay at the same address from what I understand or we'll just go straight down and ask for a sewer tap for that. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Broyles. Is there further discussion? Ostner: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: I have a question for staff. Just out of general interest, if does Mr. Broyles need a water tap, will there be an impact fee? Pate: Yes. Broyles: I'm sorry. I didn't hear. Ostner: The impact fee. Broyles: Yes. Ostner: I wasn't sure what the rules were. I do understand the necessity of laying a new line and getting a new sewer tap and getting a new water tap. Expanding or even finding the existing ones is very problematic, they're often not large enough and have to be completely replaced. Planning Commission May 22, 2006 Page 26 Broyles: Which is what our plumbers recommended, that we just... Since we've already torn out the driveway anyways with the concrete trucks it is split enough now where it won't be I can take a hammer and chisel that out. We intend to repair that anyway. We're not in a tremendous hurry right now. We had to stop the construction to wait on this. We're really waiting for what will be off season in order to do this. We've still got to do a little engineering on the water and finish there. Once we get it approved we'll turn it back to them and get the approvals for the footings. Clark: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: I would make the motion that we approve conditional use 06-2071 with the stated conditions as listed. Graves: I'll second. Anthes: We have a motion by Commissioner Clark and a second by Commissioner Graves. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve CUP 06-2071 carries with a vote of 8-0-0.