Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-06-25 MinutesPlanning Commission June 25, 2007 Page I of 21 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on June 25, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN MINUTES: June 11, 2007 Approved Page 4 LSP 07-2619: (COMMERCE PARK I, 175) Approved Page 4 PPL 07-2612: (COBBLESTONE CROSSING I & II, 246) Approved Page 4 VAC 07-2644: (ZAXBY'S, 521) Approved Page 4 ADM 07-2647: (BIO -BASED) Approved Page 5 CUP 07-2560: (BOHOT, 679) Approved Page 6 RZN 07-2592: (BELLWOOD S/D II, 400) Forwarded Page 11 LSD 07-2574: (LIBERTY BANK OF ARKANSAS, 175) Tabled Page 12 LSD 07-2552: (THE MILL @ WEST END, 523) Approved Page 17 CUP 07-2606: (THE MILL @ WEST END, 523) Approved Page 17 CUP 07-2622: (FRANKLIN, 401) Tabled Page 19 ANX 07-2620: (KEENAN, 295) Forwarded Page20 Planning Commission June 25, 2007 Page 2 of 21 RZN 07-2621: (KEENAN, 295) Page 20 Forwarded A DVD copy of each Planning Commission meeting is available for viewing in the Fayetteville Planning Division. Planning Commission June 25, 2007 Page 3 of 21 MEMBERS PRESENT James Graves Jill Anthes Matthew Cabe Audy Lack Sean Trumbo Lois Bryant Alan Ostner Porter Winston STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Andrew Garner Jesse Fulcher Leif Olson Tim Conklin Glenn Newman/Engineering CITY ATTORNEY: Kit Williams MEMBERS ABSENT Christine Myres STAFF ABSENT Matt Casey/Engineering Planning Commission Chair Jill Anthes called the meeting to order. Commissioner Anthes requested for all cell phones to be turned off and offered audio devices. Antes also welcomed the newest appointed Planning Commissioner, Porter Winston. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, called the Planning Commission roll. Commissioner Myres was not present. Planning Commission June 25, 2007 Page 4 of 21 Consent: Approval of the minutes from the June 11, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. LSP 07-2619: Lot Split (COMMERCE PARK I, 175): Submitted by ARMAC CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PPLC for property located at 2125 E. JOYCE BLVD. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 6.00 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into two tracts of 0.95 and 5.05 acres. PPL 07-2612: Preliminary Plat (COBBLESTONE CROSSING I & II, 246): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES for property located NE OF CRYSTAL SPRINGS S/D PHASES I, II AND III. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY 4 UNITS PER ACRE AND RSF-8, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY 8 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 60.28 acres. The request is for a residential subdivision with 207 single family lots in two phases. VAC 07-2644: VACATION (ZAXBY'S, 521): Submitted by JIM HARRELSON (ESLINC.) for property located on 6th STREET BETWEEN LEWIS AVENUE AND EASTERN STREET. The property is zoned C-2, TOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL AND R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 1.96 acres. The request is to vacate a portion of a utility easement on the subject property. ADM 07-2647: Administrative Item (BIO -BASED): Submitted by MOBLEY ARCHITECTS, INC. for property located at 1475 CATO SPRINGS ROAD. The request is for an extension of the Large Scale Development. Commissioner Anthes read descriptions of the items on the Consent Agenda. She asked if any member of the Commissioner or the public would like to remove any of the items on the consent agenda. Seeing no response, Anthes called for a motion. Motion: Commissioner Trumbo moved to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner Graves seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 8-0-0. Planning Commission June 25, 2007 Page 5 of 21 Old Business: CUP 07-2560: Conditional Use Permit (BOHOT, 679): Submitted by WILMA BOHOT for property located at 124 E. 26TH CIRCLE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.38 acres. The request is for an in-home occupation, daycare, in the RSF-4 Zoning District. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report. Fulcher gave a brief history of the proposed request, discussing the property, conditions of approval and public comments. Finding the proposed in-home daycare fits into the community, is a compatible and complementary use, and will not change the appearance of the single family home, staff recommended approval, with conditions as listed. Commissioner Anthes asked Kit Williams, City Attorney, about the role of the City in enforcing restrictive covenants within neighborhoods. Williams stated that the City is not a party to and does not enforce restrictive covenants. They are between property owners. Bob Cooper (citizen), 2957 S. College Drive, spoke in opposition to the proposal. He stated he had for 10 years lived next to an unlicensed day care in the neighborhood. Cooper described a typical day, which consisted of a flurry of activity in the morning and evening from parents dropping off children. No one regulates or enforces these facilities, who is to say there won't be 12, 15, 20 children? What happens when someone wants to do a car repair or car sales from their home? This is opening a door we don't want to open. Marvin Mitchell (citizen) E. 29`h Street, stated he bought the lot in the neighborhood, built the house, and can't believe the covenants can't be enforced. Kris Jacobs (citizen), state that he has a neighbor who brings in trucks, trailers, and other equipment. Gary Pope (citizen) spoke in opposition to the proposal and stated he would like to open a beauty shop in the neighborhood, if this goes through. Homes are not suited to have 10 children, and it will deteriorate over time. This will degrade the neighborhood and property values. Properties on School Drive are zoned and suited for businesses, go down there. Commissioner Anthes requested staff to describe the conditional use process and what is allowed by conditional use in an RSF-4 zoning district. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, described the conditional use permit process, what is allowed and not allowed in RSF-4 zoning districts, and that not all commercial uses are permitted by conditional use in residential districts. Planning Commission June 25, 2007 Page 6 of 21 Clyde Villinski (citizen) spoke in opposition to the project, stating last year the same group opposed the proposal, their position hasn't changed and he hopes the Commissioners' positions haven't changed. John Hogel (citizen) spoke in opposition to the request, and lives two houses to the west. He retired from Indiana 20 years ago here. It is unfair to take advantage of the neighborhood for a business. Ada Hutchins (citizen) spoke in opposition to the request, and lives directly across the street from the Bohot residence. They retired here because of the surroundings — one way in, one way out, and no commercial activity. This proposal will increase parking and turning around in front of her house. She also stated she did not want to hear the children playing in front of the house. Lois Smith (citizen) stated she lived next door to the applicant. She has spent time and energy to improve her house. She is very opposed to the request, and stated there would be more traffic on the street. The area is quiet, only residential and a daycare will destroy what she has built up. Dick Arnold (citizen) stated this would be a great place for a part-time veterinary clinic. If the daycare is approved, he will be applying for one. Commissioner Anthes described again what is permissible by conditional use and what is not, and asked the audience to please refrain from those types of comments. Laney Higgins (citizen) stated she lives next door and is an elderly widow. 400 members of the golf club currently access this hill, and traffic is a steady stream. People are bringing their children to play golf and go swimming, which creates havoc. Helen Kirby (citizen) spoke in opposition to the project, stating there were 150 homes in the neighborhood, and that 12 or fewer have pre-school age children. The proposed facility would not serve the area. Dave Harvie (citizen 125 E. 26`h Circle, stated he was one of the three property owners that would be most impacted by traffic, and spoke in opposition to the proposal. Casey Haudl (citizen) stated she owned and operated a daycare facility in Rogers. In-home daycare is not considered a commercial use. The State allows one person for 10 children with no help. It also requires a secure area for children, and this has been fenced by Ms. Bohot. Haudl stated she has been to the Bohot residence, and the accommodations are quite adequate. She stated that she is usually busy, and may have three cars at one time at her facility, which has 10 children. Others in the area have family events, yard sales and other events, and it is not fair for someone not to be able to provide this service. She asked the Commission to take into consideration what the applicant has done. (all neighbors protesting from audience) Commissioner Anthes reminded the audience that their comments were respected and they should afford the same courtesy to others. Planning Commission June 25, 2007 Page 7 of 21 Norma Wright (citizen) 1158 Farmer's Street, spoke in favor of the project, and stated she lives close to the area and sees no reason for children not to be kept here. Further, a licensed day care does require checkups. Michael Hensen (citizen) spoke in favor of the request, and stated he owns an Air Conditioning business in the area, and what he does is commercial work. A daycare is not commercial. As long as the zoning is in place and the applicant follows all city ordinances, it should be okay. Hensen stated he respected the objections that had been raised, and hopes the Planning Commission does. Traffic congestion should not be an issue, because there are other ways to get to the property through other streets in the neighborhood and the request should not be denied. Commissioner Anthes reminded the audience to remain quiet. Jerry Clone (citizen) spoke in favor of the request, and stated she was a mother of six kids. Ms. Bohot has a three car garage and plenty of room for parking. Marie Mitchell (citizen) clarified that 27`h and 28`h are cul-de-sac drives and one can not go through on these streets. Commissioner Anthes closed public comment and asked for the applicant's presentation. Wilma Bohot (applicant) discussed the access to her property. She feels the use should be allowed. She has received letters from the State that she meets State requirements, and meets City requirements. Her house is 2400 square feet, with plenty of room for the children. Inspectors do check in with the facility for children. Children are pleasant, and she hoped she would not get to a point that she would not want to hear children playing. Bohot stated they can not think of any legitimate reasons to deny the request. The covenants that were discussed previously expired 20 years after 1969, when they were established. She described the layout of her house and yard, and that the children would be in the den, in the back of the home, and in the back yard, as required by State laws. She stated she wants to offer a quality in-home daycare facility. Commissioner Anthes requested staff to review enforcement of a Conditional Use Permit. Pate described the conditional use permit process, how complaints are received, and how it can be revisited or revoked by the Planning Commission upon review of conditions not being met. Commissioner Graves stated the request was unanimously denied last year by the Planning Commission. He stated the concern was not traffic, for there is a country club that exists in the neighborhood, which is a commercial venture. No evidence has been submitted to support the anecdotal evidence about declining property values from an in-home daycare. Concerns one year ago had to do with public safety, based on some information presented from Police Dept. records that indicated substantial activity at the house. Daycare centers, in his opinion, should be located in neighborhoods, and not in commercial areas. Planning Commission June 25, 2007 Page 8 of 21 Bohot stated that much of the concern previously was because of calls she had made to have the Police Dept. there. Her eldest son lived at the house at the time, and when she requested his friends leave and they would not, she called the Police regarding trespassing. Nothing is on her record, however, she stated; she has worked for public schools for three years, which checks her background and if there was something on her record, she would not be employed there. Her eldest son has moved away, and for the record, does not have anything on his record either. Pate described the police reports received the year previous, which were essentially call logs. He stated that the same logs were received this year, with the same information and anything updated. To his memory, only one call had been added to the log this year. Commissioner Graves stated that perhaps this concern, then, has been addressed, with the eldest son moving away. He stated to the applicant that if approved, people would undoubtedly be watching closely to see if the conditions were followed. Commissioner Trumbo asked if any children in the neighborhood were planning to use the facility. Bohot stated that the neighbor directly across the street had stated they would perhaps use the facility. No others had committed. Commissioner Graves asked if there was anything magic about the ten children maximum. Pate stated that was simply what was requested, and what is allowed by Code. Bohot stated the ten maximum is also permitted by the State. Commissioner Trumbo stated he was struggling with only one issue, the general compatibility; what the neighbor's comments are and how they apply, how they feel this is compatible. Bohot stated she will not be influencing most of the people that spoke objecting, because she is the third house in the neighborhood. Commissioner Ostner stated that he feels the Commission must look at compatibility and fairness. He lived in a neighborhood that had an in-home daycare, and didn't see a great impact. Perhaps it will be a lot less than what people think. He feels his job is to balance the compatibility issue. At this time, Ostner stated he is leaning for voting for the issue. Commissioner Lack stated that he has also struggled with this, in that daycares in homes in neighborhoods are appropriate. There is a reason, however, that it requires a conditional use permit, and that comes down to compatibility with the neighborhood. Most in-home daycares can, in general, be characterized similarly, without much variance. The variable is the neighborhood. Each neighborhood is different. More or less compatibility is based on the neighborhood, or his perception of that neighborhood. Lack stated he sees this as more of a retirement neighborhood, and the facility would not be serving a community function as much as in other neighborhoods. Planning Commission June 25, 2007 Page 9 of 21 Commissioner Bryant stated she had some questions for the applicant. Could you (applicant) speak to the noise level of the facility, and any guidelines for indoor versus outdoor behavior? Bohot stated ten children do not produce a noise level that is that great. The fence, house, sheds and vacant field behind the house all decrease the impact of any noise. Additionally, the school bus runs three times in the morning and afternoon up to the hill. Commissioner Anthes reminded the applicant to please just answer the posed questions. Bohot stated thirty minutes to one hour out of doors is required, depending upon the weather. Commissioner Bryant questioned if the cats that were in the shed would be a factor. Bohot explained that the cats stayed in the shed for shelter. Commissioner Ostner asked the applicant if she would consider eight children maximum. Bohot answered she would rather have ten, but would try eight to give it a chance. Commissioner Ostner stated this would be a 20% reduction in children, cars, noise. Motion to Amend: Commissioner Ostner made a motion to amend condition of approval # 3 to limit the maximum number of children to eight, instead of ten. Commissioner Graves seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed 6-2-0, with Trumbo and Anthes voting no. Commissioner Anthes asked about the hours of operation. Pate stated that conditional use requests for home occupations specifically refer to hours of operation, but this one does not. Williams stated that home occupations would typically require hours of operation from 7:30am to 5:30pm. Pate confirmed this was a conditional use permit for a Home Childcare facility (Use Unit #4), but that staff would not at all be adverse to adding conditions of approval for hours of operation. Commissioner Graves stated that it seems 7:30 am would be very tough for parents to get there to drop off children and still make it to work, and 7:00 am would be more appropriate. Motion to Amend: Commissioner Graves made a motion to add a condition of approval stating: The hours of Planning Commission June 25, 2007 Page 10 of 21 operation shall be limited from 7:00 AM to 5:30 PM, Monday through Friday. Commissioner Ostner seconded the motion. Commissioner Cabe asked if the motion could be amended to allow for a 6:00 PM close, for the same reasons. Both the motioner and seconder to the motion agreed to the friendly amendment to allow hours of operation from 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday. Upon roll call, the motion passed 8-0-0. Commissioner Trumbo stated that the house is set up properly, everything seems to be in order, except compatibility, in his opinion. Trumbo stated that with so many residents opposed, it is hard to find in favor of compatibility. It sounds like most kids will be coming from other parts of the City to this neighborhood, and it doesn't seem compatible. Commissioner Ostner stated he could say almost the same things, and he is hoping that the neighborhood doesn't feel like he is ignoring them in his comments. Neighbors protesting from audience interrupted Ostner. Commissioner Anthes asked the audience to again please refrain from remarks and respect other's comments, or please leave the chambers. Motion to deny Commissioner Trumbo made a motion to deny the request. The motion failed for lack of a second. Motion to approve as amended: Commissioner Ostner made a motion to approve the request, as amended, with all conditions of approval. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Commissioner Anthes asked staff if any comments were received from the Aldermen this year. Fulcher replied none had been received. Upon roll call, the motion passed 5-3-0, with Commissioners Bryant, Graves and Trumbo voting no. RZN 07-2592: Rezoning (BELLWOOD S/D II, 400): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOC for property located at W OF RUPPLE RD., S OF PHASE I OF BELLWOOD S/D. The property is zoned RMF -12, RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY, 12 UNITS PER ACRE and contains Planning Commission June 25, 2007 Page 11 of 21 approximately 8.41 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RMF -18, Residential Multi -Family, 18 units per acre. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report. Fulcher gave a history of the previous zoning request to RMF -12, and the Bill of Assurance associated with that request that referenced the Wellspring project, which is no longer a project. Finding the proposal compatible and complementary to the surrounding neighborhoods, and in general compliance with the Future Land Use Plan, staff recommended approval of the request. No public comment was received. Dave Jorgensen (applicant) stated that the request to RMF -18 is a result of potential development opportunities that will work with RMF -18 but not RMF -12. A Bill of Assurance similar to the previous one has been submitted. Kit Williams, City Attorney, asked if a signed Bill of Assurance had been received. Jorgensen stated he faxed it to Planning this afternoon. Fulcher stated he had not yet received the signed copy. Williams stated this would go before the City Council, but a signed copy was needed to make it official. Motion: Commissioner Graves made a motion to forward the rezoning request to the City Council with a recommendation of approval. Commissioner Winston seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed 7-0-1, with Commissioner Trumbo abstaining. Planning Commission June 25, 2007 Page 12 of 21 New Business: LSD 07-2574: Large Scale Development (LIBERTY BANK OF ARKANSAS, 175): Submitted by CRAFTON, TULL, SPARKS & ASSOCIATES for property located at THE NW CORNER OF JOYCE BLVD AND VANTAGE DR. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE AND C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 2.68 acres. The request is for a 21,613 s.f. bank with associated parking. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report. Fulcher described the issues with access that has been the subject of much discussion with this project. Safety concerns were not addressed with the traffic study, only levels of service. Staff is concerned with the addition of this curb cut to a heavily traveled street, when direct access to two signalized intersections is available to this site. Staff recommended approval of the project as presented, with the exception of the Joyce Blvd. curb cut. Staff is in favor of Commercial Design Standards, and described the street improvements, bridge assessment and all other conditions as described in the staff report. Glenn Newman, Staff Engineer, advised no there were no disagreements with the traffic study and concurred with traffic safety concerns with the proposed curb cut. No public comment was received. James Parks (applicant) with CTSA advised there was proven to be plenty of stacking distance, an additional 10-15' for left turn movements into Liberty. Additionally, the project would be beautifying the corner. Howard Hamilton (applicant) with Liberty Bank stated that Subdivision comments were significant. The traffic study indicated no problem with turning movements. He stated an example of how side streets can create even more issues. Additionally, drive-thru lanes are located on the back side of the building. The nice entry sets apart this bank from others; accessibility and visibility to front sets them apart. Commissioner Graves stated he saw this twice at Subdivision Committee. At the first meeting, the development allowed a left turn onto Joyce, and other waivers were discussed. At the second meeting, the applicant had removed the left turn onto Joyce. In the interim, the applicants had gotten a traffic study. Stacking was the primary concern at the second meeting by staff. Engineering said stacking distance should be enough for the turn lane. Based on comments from Engineering and traffic study, and if the only way to get on-site was at the rear, it could create problems. Despite staff comments, the Subdivision Committee had recommended unanimously for the curb cut. Commissioner Trumbo concurred with Commissioner Graves. Commissioner Lack advised that he chaired the other Subdivision Committee meeting and still had reservations about the curb cut. He would like to hear what staff has to say, and is more concerned with the information presented now about the traffic study not addressing traffic safety. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, discussed safety, level of service, and traffic studies in Planning Commission June 25, 2007 Page 13 of 21 general. Pate read from the traffic study, which defines what level of service is. He also advised that when the 2004 lot split occurred that created this property, access was an issue. In 2006, when Bellafont was approved, access was required to be built for this site. Commissioner Trumbo stated that he thought all traffic studies addressed safety. Parks stated it wouldn't be ethical for an engineer to give a high level of service without taking into account safety. Hamilton stated an A through F system would seem to account for safety. Commissioner Ostner stated that he was not convinced it will be safe with a curve, a lot of traffic, and speed in the area. Commissioner Anthes spoke about the visibility issue with the curve and hill east to west. A drainage structure with a railing was also impeding vision. Staff anticipated this would be the case and required a service drive. She stated she was for approving the project, and finding in favor of staff's recommendations. Commissioner Graves advised that Subdivision Committee didn't have a tour, and that this was forwarded to the Planning Commission for a final determination. Parks asked if the visibility issue was eastbound on Joyce. Commissioner Anthes stated it was also westbound on Joyce, and anticipating the curb cut coming up. Parks advised that the entry will be highly visible, and the traffic signal should slow traffic. Commissioner Anthes stated if adequate access wasn't provided to this site, perhaps she would be willing to take a chance, but would err on side of safety because there is insufficient access to the site. Commissioner Trumbo stated he didn't see safety concerns as others did. Kit Williams, City Attorney, asked if a sight distance survey had been conducted for staff to make recommendations? Newman stated that he had visited the site to look into these issues. A Principal Arterial limits access, places cars onto side streets; a Principal Arterial is designed to move traffic. Based on topography, he felt it was a concern. Williams stated that if the concerns were that this is a safety issue the Planning Commissioners need further information that we don't have in front of us. Pate stated the burden would be on applicant to provide more information; staff is evaluating what Planning Commission June 25, 2007 Page 14 of 21 they have submitted. Commissioner Anthes stated they don't always have hard and fast data. The experience on-site and the long range plans for a Principal Arterial are both important to evaluate. Commissioner Ostner stated the City Attorney's comments seem different than the way they were previously advised. Ostner stated they should rely on the City engineer's degree, experience, etc. Williams stated if you were going to vote on safety issue, you should demand a traffic study. He stated he believes the City has the capability to conduct a traffic safety by Engineering. However, don't ask for a safety traffic study if it is going to be turned down based on other issues. Commissioner Graves stated he could not remember another example of a large scale development where access was turned down if not for safety. The Planning Commission is still talking about some issue of safety. He stated if it is not safe, he won't support it, but he doesn't have information to make that decision. Graves stated he would like, before voting against the curb cut, more information. No evidence has been presented other than opinion. He would rather see real information other than anecdotal evidence. Commissioner Lack advised he would echo Graves' comments. The only thing is safety. At this point he would have to depend on staffs recommendation. Commissioner Winston asked if a lot of work was occurring on the corner. Is the guard rail being taken out? Hamilton stated the rail is not going to be there, there will be a lot of landscaping. Commissioner Winston stated he sees fountains, landscaping, entry, etc. on the plans. The entrance should be clearly delineated with building and landscaping. Winston stated if he were using the bank, he would probably use the rear entries. Newman advised the handrail will remain for safety. Commissioner Ostner questioned the riprap, landscaping plan inconsistencies. The landscaping is not flushed out yet. The applicant and Commissioner discussed the plans' inconsistencies. Commissioner Ostner stated on the issue of safety versus wanting a boulevard, safety is the issue. Has the applicant considered a traffic study with safety being the focus? Parks stated he was not a traffic engineer. Commissioner Ostner stated if a different package of a traffic study was presented, with safety being the focus, perhaps that could aid. Planning Commission June 25, 2007 Page 15 of 21 Williams asked the applicant that assuming safety is the issue, would you rather conduct another study, or see what the Planning Commission determines? Hamilton stated a concept that is safe. Commissioner Ostner stated he would make a motion to approve, but with staff's recommendation. Which would you prefer? Hamilton asked to get clear definitions of what they would need to provide. Commissioner Lack stated that he respected the applicant's desire to know what to provide, as well. Pate indicated the information that would need to be provided would be that which has been discussed: sight distance lines, turning movements, traffic from future development, how the traffic signals affect the traffic, etc. Staff and the Planning Commission have looked at other situations in the recent past — large scale developments — such as Nelson's Crossing and Malco, and determined whether the curb cuts presented were safe or not, with or without a traffic study. In the case of Malco, it was also on Joyce Boulevard, near a signalized intersection, and it was denied. In the case of Nelson's Crossing, a right -in and right -out was permitted, but it has been proven to fail and is not safe. Commissioner Lack stated that he would be looking for a scientific determination that this situation is safe. Commissioner Anthes stated right -in and right -out don't function well in other situations. Commissioner Lack asked if the traffic study showed that. Commissioner Trumbo stated Nelson's Crossing and Malco, he could see curb cuts not in these locations. However he does not think disallowing curb cuts is necessarily the best case. Commissioner Ostner stated he would like to see the study address actual vehicle speeds. Parks stated it is not an engineer's responsibility to enforce the law. Commissioner Ostner stated he understood that, but would like to see it as an option in the study. He asked staff how are traffic lights designed on arterials? Do they stop a lot of arterial traffic or side street traffic? Newman stated that arterials should be for moving more traffic, typically that traffic already on the arterial. Motion: Planning Commission June 25, 2007 Page 16 of 21 Commissioner Lack made a motion to table the item to July 09. Commissioner Graves seconded the motion. Commissioner Trumbo asked if approved, can it be appealed? Williams stated yes. Commissioner Anthes asked the commissioners if all other issues had been addressed or whether they had other concerns. She stated this was for the applicant's benefit, so that something unexpected doesn't come up at the next meeting. Any conditions? Commissioner Winston stated he would like to see clarification on landscaping and handrails. Commissioner Anthes stated that for the next meeting, a traffic study and an updated submittal on landscaping was needed. She stated she just wanted the applicant to understand this is moving forward. Commissioner Ostner advised he is not partially approving. Parks asked if they provide a strong argument, would they be approved? Commissioner Anthes advised they can't answer that until they vote. Curb cuts seem to be the main issue. Parks asked could we appeal to City Council? Anthes answered yes. Upon roll call, the motion to table passed 8-0-0. LSD 07-2552: Large Scale Development (THE MILL @ WEST END, 523): Submitted by Planning Commission June 25, 2007 Page 17 of 21 MORRISON SHIPLEY ENGINEERS, INC. for property located at INTERSECTION OF PRAIRIE STREET AND S. WEST AVENUE. The property is zoned DG, DOWNTOWN GENERAL and contains approximately 1.25 acres. The request is for a 4,251 s.f. building on the NW corner with a restaurant on the first floor and apartments on the second floor, an 8,326 s.f. building on the NE corner with office space on the first floor and apartments on the second floor and additional parking on the south lot. CUP 07-2606: Conditional Use Permit (THE MILL @ WEST END, 523): Submitted by MORRISON SHIPLEY ENGINEERS, INC. for property located S of the intersection of Prairie and West. The request is for an off street parking lot for the associated development. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report, describing the project, its various waivers and variances that had been approved by the Board of Adjustment, and the associated conditional use request for off-site parking. Fulcher discussed findings by the Subdivision Committee, and stated the reasons for staff s recommendations. Staff recommended approval of the project, with the conditions as described in the staff report. No public comment was received for either LSD 07-2552 or CUP 07-2606. Ken Shireman (applicant) made a presentation for the applicant. Shireman stated the project was unique because it is one project on three separate parcels of land divided by public streets. Because of the size of the south parcel, it could not contain a building, so the decision was made to improve it with parking and landscaping as aesthetically pleasing as possible. He described the goals given to him by his client, Burt Box of Milver Investments, to create an environmentally sound urban environment within the Mill District area. No negative impacts are anticipated. He further described the architecture of the buildings and the industrial materials that are in keeping with the neighborhood. Commissioner Lack stated he saw this project at Subdivision Committee. The concerns were the less than 50% of building A along the southwest side of the site and parking on the separate parcel within the build -to area not consistent with downtown goals. Lack stated the Committee found favorably on these two issues, but split on Commercial Design Standards. He thought the style to be consistent with the style in the neighborhood and is comfortable with most issues on the project, though others might feel differently Commissioner Graves stated he was one dissenter on the Commercial Design Standards. It did not have to do with the style or architecture of the building, but he was supportive of staff's opinion on Building B. His comments expanded to Building A, too, on the north and west elevation, where he stated he would like to see some additional color or other articulation to break up the facades. Commissioner Ostner compared Building A (east) and Building B (south). Building B (south) faces the street much like Building A (east) and could be articulated more so, with windows and openings. Shireman explained that part of the reason for that is that the street slopes downward to Prairie. Planning Commission June 25, 2007 Page 18 of 21 Entrances on Building A (east) and Building B (west) have windows and stair -stepped entrances that accommodate the slope, but Building B (south) is not the ground entrance. Commissioner Ostner discussed the location of trees on the site, and requested that staff and the applicant consider aspect (sun direction) to locate the trees on site, so that more trees shaded the parking lot. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, discussed the location of the trees as required by ordinance. He also thanked the applicant for working with staff on the trail, which encroaches on the property. Shireman discussed the trail encroachment and the efforts to relocate the alley to exit with the proposed curb cut on the east side of the project. Corey Roberts (applicant), engineer for the project, stated that the area desired for trees was too tight, but that there would be other plant species located there. Commissioner Ostner questioned the applicant why the parking lot on the south was angled to be accessed from the east. Shireman stated there was no specific reason, it was just a judgment call. Motion: Commissioner Graves stated he was in support of the project, and made a motion to approve, incorporating staff's comments and his own comments on the Building A west and north elevations for Commercial Design Standards in condition # 1, and in favor of condition #2, along with all other conditions of approval. Commissioner Ostner seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed 8-0-0. Motion: Commissioner Graves made a motion to approve the conditional use request, finding in favor of the waiver requested. Commissioner Trumbo seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed 8-0-0. Planning Commission June 25, 2007 Page 19 of 21 CUP 07-2622: Conditional Use Permit (FRANKLIN, 401): Submitted by ANGELA FRANKLIN for property located at 1656 N. TIMBERCREST AVENUE. The property is zoned RT -12, RESIDENTIAL TWO & THREE FAMILY and contains approximately 0.14 acres. The request is for a Home Occupation/Child Care in the RT -12 Zoning District. Commissioner Anthes stated the applicant has requested this item be tabled to July 09, and asked if anyone in the audience were present for this item. Seeing no one, she called for a motion. Motion: Commissioner Graves made a motion to table the item to July 09. Commissioner Ostner seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed 8-0-0. Planning Commission June 25, 2007 Page 20 of 21 ANX 07-2620: Annexation (KEENAN, 295): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOC for property located at 3845 SKILLERN ROAD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 3.00 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. RZN 07-2621: Rezoning (KEENAN, 295): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOC for property located at 3845 SKILLERN ROAD. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL - AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 3.00 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, Residential Single Family, 4 units per acre. Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, gave the staff report for the annexation and rezoning requests (ANX 07-2620 and RZN 07-2621). Garner discussed that the property is adjacent to the City limits and suburban residential development to the west, and rural residential development in the County to the north, east, and south. Garner discussed that water and sewer service are adjacent to the property, and that this area currently receives Fayetteville Police and Fire Service. The analysis conducted by the City for the subject annexation and rezoning requests showed that adverse impacts to public services would not occur. Gamer also discussed that rezoning the property to RSF-4 would be consistent and compatible with surrounding suburban residential development patterns and rural residential uses. Finding that both the annexation and rezoning requests meet the City's goals policies, and ordinance requirements, staff recommends approval. David Jorgensen (applicant) stated that these requests started as a lot split. The owner desired the property to be able to connect to City sewer service, which required the subject annexation and subsequent rezoning requests. No public comment was received for either ANX 07-2620 or RZN 07-2621. Motion ANX 07-2620 (Keenan): Commissioner Lack discussed that the annexation was a straightforward request and met the City requirements for an annexation as discussed by staff. Commissioner Lack made a motion to forward the annexation request to the City Council with a recommendation for approval. Commissioner Ostner seconded the motion. Upon role call the motion passed by a vote of 8-0-0. Motion RZN 07-2621 (Keenan): Commissioner Lack discussed that the rezoning request was appropriate for reasons stated by staff. Commissioner Lack made a motion to forward the rezoning request to the City Council with a recommendation for approval. Commissioner Trumbo seconded the motion. Upon role call the motion passed by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission June 25, 2007 Page 21 of 21 ANNOUNCEMENTS: Commissioner Anthes announced room changes for upcoming Subdivision Committee and Planning Commission meetings. All business being concluded, the meeting adjourned at 8.45 PM.