Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-07-23 MinutesPlanning Commission July 23, 2007 Page I of 21 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on July 23, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219, City Administration Building in Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN MINUTES: July 09, 2007 Approved Page 3 LSD 07-2649 (LONGVIEW MEDICAL OFFICE, 212) Approved Page 3 LSD 07-2574 (LIBERTY BANK OF ARKANSAS, 175) Approved Page 4 LSD 07-2646: (LOT 2 SPRING PARK, 174) Approved Page 8 CUP 07-2657: (TRINITY FELLOWSHIP CHURCH, 252) Approved Page 10 LSD 07-2645: (THE LINKS PHASE I, 361, 362, 400, 401) Approved Page 12 R-PZD 07-2576: (WOODSTOCK COMMUNITY, 438) Forwarded Page 15 A DVD copy of each Planning Commission meeting is available for viewing in the Fayetteville Planning Division. Planning Commission July 23, 2007 Page 2 of 21 MEMBERS PRESENT James Graves Jill Anthes Matthew Cabe Audy Lack Christine Myres Sean Trumbo Lois Bryant Porter Winston STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Andrew Garner Jesse Fulcher Glenn Newman/Engineering CITY ATTORNEY: Kit Williams MEMBERS ABSENT Alan Ostner STAFF ABSENT Planning Commission Chair Jill Anthes called the meeting to order. Commissioner Anthes requested for all cell phones to be turned off, and informed the audience that listening devices were available. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, called the Planning Commission roll. Commissioner Ostner, Myers and Lack were not present. Commissioner Myers and Commissioner Lack arrived after the consent agenda. Planning Commission July 23, 2007 Page 3 of 21 Consent: Approval of the minutes from the July 09, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. LSD 07-2648: Large Scale Development (LONGVIEW MEDICAL OFFICE, 212): Submitted by ENGINEERING DESIGN ASSOCIATES for property located at THE NE CORNER OF WIMBERLY DR. & LONGVIEW ST., S OF FUTRALL. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 5.52 acres. The request is for three 2 -story medical office buildings with a total of 56,194 s.f. and associated parking. 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. Staff requested that LSD 07-2646, Lot 2 Spring Park, be removed from the consent agenda. Anthes called for a motion. Motion: Commissioner Graves moved to approve the consent agenda, and to move the requested LSD 07- 2646 to New Business. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 6-0-0. Planning Commission July 23, 2007 Page 4 of 21 Old Business: LSD 07-2574: (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, describing the background of the request, which included previous discussions regarding the proposed curb -cut onto Joyce Blvd. The request had been tabled by the Planning Commission on June 25, 2007 to allow the applicant additional time to evaluate the safety of the proposed curb -cut and to include projected traffic counts from adjacent developments that had been approved for development. Staff does not find in favor of the proposed curb -cut, finding that it may create a dangerous traffic condition in proximity to two planned and funded traffic signals. The proximity of the signals, with multiple turning movements, a vertical and horizontal curve in the road that reduces visibility, and traffic on Joyce Blvd. lead staff to the conclusion that the direct access to the Vantage/Joyce signal and indirect access to Bellafont drive/Joyce signal on the two roads adjacent to this property achieves a high level of access to the subject property that is safer for future users and the general public, and recommends removal of the access point to Joyce Blvd. It is staff s opinion that an additional curb -cut in this location will decrease traffic safety for motorists and pedestrians in the area, and will contribute to the degradation of the Principal Arterial, as identified in the memo and supplemental information provided by the Engineering Division. Glen Newman, Staff Engineer, read a memo from the Engineering Department regarding the higher percentage of crashes associated with left turn movements, the use of a protected turn signals and the function of an arterial road to move traffic. He referenced the traffic safety data provided to the Commissioners as statistical evidence that additional curb cuts onto arterials degrade the function of the arterial, which leads to increased traffic congestion and danger. No public comment received. Greg Simmons, Peters and Associates, was asked by the applicant to review the access point onto Joyce Blvd. The study reflected all turning movements from the site except the left turn out onto Joyce Blvd., which has been removed from the proposal. The result was that the levels of service were sufficient. The previous traffic study conducted for the development had been amended to include the projected traffic conditions and although the level of service declined with the additional traffic numbers they were still acceptable. He will not dispute the high percentage of vehicle conflicts due to left turns, but the traffic signal at Vantage will create gaps in the traffic flow. Additionally, the drive onto Joyce Blvd. will alleviate some of the traffic at the signalized intersection (a computer simulation of the project traffic conditions was shown). The proposed curb -cut onto Joyce Blvd. will operate as safe as the signalized intersection because of gaps in traffic created by the signal. The driveway is crucial to the operation of a bank with drive-by traffic. Howard Hamilton, Liberty Bank, reiterated the comments made by Mr. Simmons regarding the Planning Commission July 23, 2007 Page 5 of 21 safety of the intersection, and stated that staffs position the last time was that the traffic was too fast, now the traffic is too slow, which is it? Commissioner Anthes asked if the City has an access management policy. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, stated that the City does have access management policies. He referenced the city-wide BWR study that identifies these policies and ordinances already adopted, some of which are included in Chapter 166, Development, of the Unified Development Code. Newman read two sections from Chapter 166.08 referring to access management, which states that "Local streets and driveways shall not detract from the safety and efficiency of bordering arterial routes" and "there should be a minimum number of intersections." Pate stated that the City continues to work on additional access management policies. Simmons stated that by allowing the curb cut, this will improve the intersection by reducing the cars going through the intersection. Commissioner Anthes asked if the driveway onto Joyce was the principal entrance to the project. There do no appear to be as many cars entering the site through this access point as others. Commissioner Winston stated that a Principal Arterial section requires a median. If there were a median present, in front of the curb cut, there would be no question of left -turns. Has a median been considered? Simmons replied no, a median has not been considered. Pate stated that is correct, a median would alleviate the concerns of left -turns by providing the needed barrier. However, in this location, the curb cut is likely too close to the intersection and a median could potentially conflict with the stacking distance of the cars turning left off of Joyce onto Vantage. Commissioner Myers stated that the right -in and right -out designs have not worked on other projects, and reflected on the Nelson's Crossing development, in which cars are using the right- in/right-out incorrectly, increasing traffic danger in the area. She stated she was reluctant to approve a curb cut that she feels is not in the best interest of traffic safety, in close proximity to the intersection. What is the primary access to the project? Simmons stated more vehicles are projected on Joyce than on Vantage. Hamilton stated that the Joyce Blvd. entrance was the designed as the primary entrance. Commissioner Myres stated she was nervous about the access and traffic on Joyce, and can not support the way it is currently designed. Planning Commission July 23, 2007 Page 6 of 21 Commissioner Graves asked if there was any type of waiver required for the proposed curb -cut. Pate stated no, a waiver was not requested for the curb cut separation. The reason this is being called to question is that the that the safety of any curb -cut is a determination for the Planning Commission to make when they review a large scale development. Commissioner Graves stated that staff's information regarding the safety of the curb -cut was general whereas the applicant has provided specific information regarding the safety of the curb -cut and that it meets all ordinance requirements. Traffic safety is a consideration for denial of the project, but at this time there has not been enough objective information provided by staff to deny the curb -cut, in his opinion. Motion: Commissioner Graves made a motion to approve the large scale development with all conditions of approval, which includes the allowance for the curb -cut onto Joyce Blvd. Commissioner Winston seconded the motion. Commissioner Myers stated that she could not support the curb -cut, referenced in condition #3. Commissioner Winston asked if the proposal included a left -turn out. Figure 8 in the traffic study still shows the left turn, but the site plans presented only show a right-in/right-out. Simmons stated that a left turn out would be prohibited. Winston and Simmons discussed the different figures and plans submitted. Discussion ensued regarding the motion and the outcome of the project if the motion to approve failed due to the inclusion of the curb -cut in the motion. Commissioner Graves withdrew his motion for approval. Motion: Commissioner Graves made a motion to find in favor of condition # 1, stating he would go through each of the required determinations one by one. After discussion, the motion failed for lack of a second. Commissioner Anthes stated that she was in support of staff's recommendation finding that sufficient access was being provided to the site and that the driveway was not safe. The City has an established access management policy and ordinances, and the safety and efficiency of surrounding routes must be considered. Motion: Planning Commission July 23, 2007 Page 7 of 21 Commissioner Anthes made a motion to remove the Joyce Blvd. curb -cut, finding in favor of staff's recommendation on condition #3. The motion failed for the lack of a second. Kit Williams, City Attorney, stated that the driveway should only be denied if the Planning Commission finds that it will create or compound a dangerous traffic condition, based on the Unified Development Code criteria for large scale developments. Commissioner Anthes stated that based on the expertise of staff and the information provided that left turns have a higher percentage of crash rates that this finding had been made, and the proposed curb cut would create a dangerous traffic condition. Motion: Commissioner Graves made a motion to approve condition of approval #3 as proposed by the applicant, which would allow the curb cut as indicated on the site plans. Commissioner Winston seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion failed 4-4-0, with Commissioners Bryant, Myres, Cabe and Anthes voting no. Motion: Commissioner Graves made a motion to approve the project, finding in favor of all conditions of approval as recommended by staff. Commission Myers seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 8-0-0. Planning Commission July 23, 2007 Page 8 of 21 New Business: LSD 07-2646: Large Scale Development (LOT 2 SPRING PARK, 174): Submitted by ARMAC CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PPLC for property located at 3825 N. SHILOH DR., LOT 2 SPRING PARK, E. OF HOME DEPOT. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 2.62 acres. The request is for a large scale development on the subject property. The existing structure will remain and there will be 2 additional buildings totaling 22,898 s.f. retail space, 5,000 s.f. restaurant space and associated parking. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, discussed the reasons for removing the subject request from the consent agenda, which included a new condition of approval that was not included in the staff report, but was mentioned at the Technical Plat meeting. Additionally, the building elevations for the project had not been included in the agenda packets that were distributed to the commissioners at agenda session. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report. Fulcher described the project proposal, which was for the addition of two commercial buildings to a lot that was developed prior to the adoption of the Design Overlay District (DOD). Consequently, the property did not meet many of the requirements of the DOD and several waivers were requested. Staff recommended approval of the requested waivers and of the large scale development. The additional condition of approval was for the Planning Commission's determination of street improvements, including an asphalt overlay of a portion of Shiloh Drive that was in substandard condition. Staffs recommendation for the improvements was based on the expected increase in vehicles utilizing Shiloh Drive due to the addition of 17,300 sq. ft. of retail/restaurant space to the property. No public comment received. Shelly West (applicant), stated that she was in agreement with all conditions of approval except for the recommended street improvements to Shiloh Drive. Shiloh Dr. is in good condition along the property frontage and it should not be the owner's responsibility to improve a public street off-site. Commissioner Anthes asked what the rationale was for recommending off-site improvements. Pate stated that the off-site improvements were warranted due to the expected increase in traffic on Shiloh Dr. after the addition of two commercial structures on the property. Commission Graves stated that he disagreed with staff s recommendation for improvements as this was one business changing to a new business. He asked if staff had conducted a traffic study for the site to recommend these improvements. Kit Williams, City Attorney, stated that he would agree with that assessment, as well, if the applicant were simply changing the business. However, the applicants were proposing two additional buildings on the property, which would create additional traffic on Shiloh Dr. and potentially warrant these improvements. Planning Commission July 23, 2007 Page 9 of 21 Pate explained that if the Commission felt a traffic study were needed, this item could be tabled to allow the applicant time to conduct one. However, he stated that traffic studies were generally not expected with large scale developments of this size and that staff would not be recommending street improvements if there was not an increase in commercial square footage on the property. Additionally, Shiloh Dr., the street recommended for improvement, provides the only public access to the property. Commissioner Trumbo asked if 17,000 sq. ft. was the proposed addition for the two buildings. Fulcher stated that the existing building is approximately 11,000 sq. ft. and the two new buildings will total approximately 17,000 sq. ft. Commission Trumbo asked if an additional 17,000 sq. ft. warranted off-site improvements? Pate stated that smaller projects have warranted off-site improvements, but it is up to the traffic generated from the proposed development. Commissioner Lack stated that he concurred with staff s recommendation given that there was a 170% increase in square footage on the site and the recommendation was only for an asphalt overlay and not reconstruction of the street. Motion: Commissioner Lack made a motion to approve the request with all conditions of approval, including the condition for the asphalt overlay of Shiloh Drive. Commissioner Myers seconded the motion. Commissioner Anthes asked staff about the west elevation of Building "C". Fulcher stated that the west elevation faced the outdoor storage area and garden area for Home Depot and was not visible from any public right-of-way. Upon roll call, the motion to approve passed 8-0-0. Planning Commission July 23, 2007 Page 10 of 21 CUP 07-2657: Conditional Use Permit (TRINITY FELLOWSHIP CHURCH, 252): Submitted by TRINITY FELLOWSHIP ASSEMBLY OF GOD CHURCH for property located at 1100 ROLLING HILLS DRIVE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and R -O, RESIDENTIAL -OFFICE and contains approximately 7.19 acres. The request is to allow a Church (Use Unit 4) in the RSF-4 and R -O Zoning Districts. Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, gave the staff report and described the project. The request is to bring an existing church facility into compliance, and to allow for future rebuilding of the church facilities that were destroyed by a fire in January 2007. Garner went though the conditions of approval. Finding the project compatible with surrounding land uses Garner recommended approval. No public comment was received. Jeff Kennedy (applicant, an associate pastor for the church, stated that he had reviewed all of the conditions of approval and was in agreement with all of them, but had a question on No. 10 for the visual and noise buffer. There is an existing 6' privacy fence, and he doesn't does know why the vegetative buffer recommended by staff is necessary. Commissioner Anthes asked staff about the recommended vegetative planting. Garner responded that vegetative plantings are a typical recommendation to provide a buffer between a church and adjacent residences. Garner stated that he felt the vegetative plantings were appropriate in addition to the existing fence based on the uses proposed. Motion: Commissioner Myres made a motion to approve the request with the removal of condition No. 10 regarding the vegetative plantings, stating that existing buffering seemed to already be in place, and that she hopes the church will plant that property line with vegetation on their own. She stated that she doesn't find another buffer is needed. Commissioner Trumbo seconded the motion. Commissioner Anthes asked for clarification as to whether or not the 6' privacy fence would be required to remain. Commissioner Myres answered `yes', that she anticipated as part of her motion that the existing 6' privacy fence would remain. Kit Williams, City Attorney, stated that the motion should clarify that the fence should remain. Commissioner Myres stated that her motion included that the fence would be required to remain, and that she finds in favor of condition No. 1. Commissioner Anthes asked staff how they came to this recommendation for the vegetated buffer. Garner responded that in this case where a church is immediately adjacent to residences that Planning Commission July 23, 2007 Page 11 of 21 vegetation in addition to the fence was appropriate for a visual and noise buffer. Anthes asked if it is still in line with the Unified Development Code with just a fence. Garner responded that `yes' it met UDC requirements. Upon roll call, the motion to approve passed 8-0-0. Planning Commission July 23, 2007 Page 12 of 21 LSD 07-2645: Large Scale Development (THE LINKS PH. 1, 361,362,400,401): Submitted by CRAFTON, TULL, SPARKS & ASSOCIATES for property located at THE NE CORNER OF RUPPLE AND WEDINGTON DRIVE. The property is zoned R-PZD, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT and contains approximately 152 acres. The request is to approve Phase I of a Large Scale Development for 604 multi -family dwelling units, golf course, clubhouse, associated parking and parks. Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, gave the staff report. Garner described the background of approved PZD on the property, recommended street improvements, waiver requests, and a modification to the approved height, as described in the staff report. Finding that the project meets Unified Development Code requirements and is consistent with the approved PZD, staff recommends approval of the large scale development request. Bassam Ziada (public) lives at 723 46`h Avenue had questions about the vision of the City for the west side of town. How will this project affect State Highway 16, and how many trips will this project generate to that road? Where will the vehicles go? He asked staff to look at a comprehensive traffic study of the area to tell where the traffic is going. Jerry Kelso (applicant) stated that he concurred with the conditions of approval recommended by staff. Traffic studies were conducted to determine the amount of traffic generated at full build -out, and the amount of traffic generated with Phase I. Commissioner Anthes asked questions about the traffic study. Glenn Newman, Staff Engineer, responded that the PZD has gone through the Planning Commission and City Council. The traffic study estimated that at full build -out Wedington would have a projected traffic count of 28,736, with approximately 18,000 vehicle trips currently. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, discussed traffic generation and referred the Planning Commissioners to page 43 of the traffic study provided in the staff report. He also discussed that when the City Council approved the Links PZD the developer agreed to improve Rupple Road from Wedington to Mount Comfort. Commissioner Anthes asked about the process, is a traffic study required? Commissioner Lack asked if the existing Rupple Road will remain, and if so, how will it function? Garner responded that yes it will remain. Commissioner Lack stated that both sides will have two lanes, but one side is half the side of the other. The configuration seems odd. Newman responded that the consultant for the applicant will provide a striping plan to City Engineering for review and approval to direct traffic to the appropriate directions. Planning Commission July 23, 2007 Page 13 of 21 Jerry Kelso (applicant) responded that it actually works out well. The existing street will remain while the other side is under construction. The new street will be northbound, the old street will be southbound. The construction will not interrupt the flow of traffic. Commissioner Lack asked about the width of the existing road. He stated concerns with the difference in widths. Jerry Kelso (applicant) stated that it is currently 20-22' wide. Two ten -foot lanes will be provided in the same direction. Pate discussed that this issue was discussed by the City Council as part of the PZD. The transitions into and out of the boulevard section will be critical. The engineering division will review the details of the transition and the improvements at the time of construction approval. It was anticipated that with these improvements Rupple Road will be able to handle additional traffic. Commissioner Winston referred to Exhibit `A' in the Bill of Assurance on how Rupple Road will transition to a single road. Commissioner Anthes asked whether the decorative safety fence around the retention ponds would be actual wrought iron. Pate responded that he didn't know. Jerry Kelso (applicant) responded that the intent is to do the same type of decorative fence as other Lindsey projects. Kim Fuigitt (applicant) responded that it will be a faux wrought iron. Commissioner Anthes asked about the 1' shelf in the lake on parks property. Jerry Kelso (applicant) responded that it is a safety issue with anyone potentially falling into the lake and not having a deep drop off. Motion: Commissioner Graves made a motion to approve the request, with the conditions of approval recommended by staff. Commissioner Trumbo seconded the motion. Hugh Jarrett (applicant) asked if they can do a letter of credit or bond for the traffic signal assessment. Pate stated no, the Planning Commission cannot approve that option. An assessment has to be deposited into a delayed offsite improvement escrow account. There is a method to request that from the City Council. Planning Commission July 23, 2007 Page 14 of 21 Commissioner Graves asked if the large scale development were approved, can the applicant request the City Council to be able to pay a bond or letter of credit instead of cash? Pate stated yes. Upon roll call, the motion to forward passed 8-0-0. Planning Commission July 23, 2007 Page 15 of 21 R-PZD 07-2576: Planned Zoning District (WOODSTOCK COMMUNITY, 438): Submitted by APPIAN CENTER FOR DESIGN for property located ALONG W. WEDINGTON DRIVE FROM 46TH TO BROYLES AVENUE. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 28.90 acres. The request is for re -zoning and land use approval of an R- PZD, Residential Planned Zoning District with 382 dwelling units in mixed use, single family, townhome configuration, 100,390 s.f. of commercial space in mixed use and restaurants in addition to a civic center building and park to be constructed in 7 phases over an 8 year time frame. The request also includes development approval for a portion of the project at this time. Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, gave the staff report He described the request, surrounding land uses and street system. The proposed PZD is to create an urban neighborhood with streets designed to be narrow for safety and pedestrian activity. The property is designated as a City Neighborhood Area on the Future Land Use Plan. Waivers are required for narrow street sections. The project is proposed to be developed in seven phases over eight years. Garner discussed staff's recommended street improvements as described in the staff report, and the revised recommendations on street improvements to that presented to the Subdivision Committee. At the Subdivision Committee eight members of the public spoke and were against the project. The City Neighborhood Designation of the site encourages a variety of residential uses. The proposal is consistent with many of the CityPlan 2025 goals. Garner described the site layout describing that the most intense uses including commercial and mixed use are along Wedington Drive, and that the density and intensity reduces away from Wedington, and that the southern portion of the property is wrapped with single family residential uses adjacent to the existing single family neighborhood to the south. The City Police Department provided a memo consistent with staffs recommendations to limit curb cuts onto Wedington for traffic safety reasons. Staff recommends additional alley width on several of the alleys to ensure adequate turning movement. Garner discussed condition of approval No. 4 regarding recommendations to limit and modify the curb cuts as they are proposed. Staff recommends in favor of Commercial Design Standards. Garner also discussed a requested greenspace waiver and gave staff's recommendation for approval of that waiver. Staff recommends that two conditions of approval be added including: No. 36 that the PZD booklet be revised to add a note for a maximum of 60' building height for PA -1 at the street level instead of 70' as proposed; and No. 37 that the PZD booklet be revised to change the setbacks in PA -3 to note that the side setback for Lot 7 shall be 8'. Commissioner Cabe stated that he is not connected with the development, but has had some business dealings with the development team. These dealings will in no way affect or influence his decision on this project. Bob Estes (public) had concerns with three main issues: density, infrastructure, and Peters and Associates, Inc. 46`h Street is a Local Street and this project will increase traffic on it such that it would be a Collector Street in violation of its current Master Street Plan designation. Density should be based on five factors according to City policy: (1) Density of surrounding development; (2) current zoning designations; (3) urban development goals; (4) natural character of the site; and (5) impact of density on the surrounding properties. This project could meet one out of five of those goals, and would fail on the other four goals. Cannot improve 46`h street because it is a Local Street. In his experience taking several legal depositions of Peters and Associates (the applicant's Planning Commission July 23, 2007 Page 16 of 21 consultant for the traffic study for this project), Peter's and Associates has never present himself as a traffic engineering expert. Commissioner Anthes asked Estes to refrain from making personal comments. Bassam Ziada (public) lives at 723 46`h Street and has lived here since 2000. Background in traffic engineering, civil engineering, member of ITE, member of ITE Advisory Board. He discussed several details in the traffic study. The traffic counts were taken on the week of spring break and are therefore not accurate. 65% of traffic generate from the east will be from 46`h Street. The applicant and staff recommend a traffic signal cost share at Broyles/Wedington. May need one at Broyles, but will certainly need one at 46`h Street. The applicant is not showing any trips heading south on 46`h Street. 46`h Street goes south to Persimmon, and will be used to travel south from this development. He requests to table this item until the applicant provided a traffic study that shows accurate traffic movements. The City doesn't know if Wedington is four or five lanes. He assumed a four -lane section. Water that never came from the north will now come through the detention pond in the south portion of this property from the Highway Department improvements. This project is not compatible with the neighborhood. 100,000 square feet ofretail/commercial and four-story building will be the highest on the west side of I-540 besides the Holiday Inn. He requests this item be tabled until actually have good information regarding the traffic impacts to Wedington. How many trips will be generated from the Links? 16,000 or 28,000? Valerie Bandera (public) is a Fieldstone Neighbor to the north. She likes the project, looks like a City neighborhood. But she doesn't want to live near a city neighborhood area, residential fits in best. She is concerned about the commercial development and types of shops, buildings. She doesn't want a replication of Dickson Street with noise and other problems, etc. She is concerned about four stories looking into her backyard. She will have to rely on compassion and mercy of developers to not put in offending business. She realizes a grocery, gas station, apartment complex could go in on 46`h Street, a very narrow road. She likes the limited number of curb cuts onto Wedington, in favor of that. Please consider the existing residents. Jim Gurlock (public) lives on Lofty Wood Drive. Urges to vote against. Wishes all planning commissioners were neighbors. They would feet the same. No affordable housing in this project. Persimmon is a free way. 46`h will be a mess with this project. Craig Hanshell (public) 4555 Wedge Drive. He talked with neighbors and found recurring issues: property value, crime, traffic. Meadowlands at 9 PM — crime. Girls Gone Wild bus was ran out last year. Persimmon Place and Rupple Row developments. A development like this will strip away the only thing he can call his own. Condominiums for families? He has lived on the west side of town for 13 years, and is an expert. Building an ant hill with this. Persimmon and 46`h Street don't have safe passage with sidewalks to get to school. If families are going in, where are students going? Has safety been considered with a police substation? Phasing over 8 years? Persimmon will be a horrible headache. He doesn't understand where traffic is going. Ben Fuller (public) 620 Mulligan. Wants to voice opposition because of resale value. He saw growth of the school and other development in this area. What better place to live than this area of Planning Commission July 23, 2007 Page 17 of 21 Fayetteville? The west side of town has always been considered the rental side of town. If assurance could be given that no dwelling would be leased, go for it. But that won't happen. Public comment was closed. Hank Broyles (applicant) is a partner in Nock -Broyles Land Development, owners of the project. The city decided with the 2025 plan not to continue RSF-4 and annexing 20,000 acres. They specifically selected this site because of its adjacency to Highway 16, to feed people onto the highway instead of neighborhood streets. They are alley loaded so the streets won't have driveways to create a nice streetscape that will be pedestrian friendly. They need 62 feet for four stories. Have contracted with Live/Learn/Work/Play, Inc. to see what type of mix of uses should be at this site. No strip clubs, adult book stores, etc. Expect one large commercial retail grocery store 20 — 25,000 square feet. All of the other shops will be small (800-1,000 square feet) such as a deli, bakery, clothing stores, cafes, pizza place, banker, dry cleaner. They will target essentials you need to shop for. Research show that these types of developments are attractive to couples, empty nesters, 25-44 year old age group. Todd Jacobs (applicant) discussed the site location. Need parks system on west side like Wilson Park. They are trying to contribute to that along Owl Creek for a 26 -acre park. This development will be with 1/3 mile of a trail linkage to that park, which is within walking distance. They could have proposed a standard strip mall, but wanted to approach the development differently, with deference to the surrounding neighborhood and City Plan 2025. They agree to limit this development to two curb cuts onto Wedington as recommended by staff, when a standard strip commercial would likely have had 6-7 curb cuts. Jacobs presented a powerpoint presentation describing the project. Commissioner Myres interrupted and asked about the setback off of Wedington and it was clarified by Andrew Garner (senior planner) that the setback is 14' from the edge of the right-of-way. Jacobs continued that based on research across the country in the past year and a half, this type of development has brought up property values more than any other type of project. This project will improve 46"' Street from Wedington south to existing improved street, and will contribute half of the assessment amount for a traffic signal as recommended by staff. It took a lot of work to bring a different type of project, but it is better quality and has hit almost all of the City's guiding policies. They believe this project will benefit that side of town, if not the City as a whole. Commissioner Lack stated he doesn't see entrances to parking garages on the elevations. Jacobs discussed grading and how the buildings access to parking garages underground. Commissioner Trumbo asked about the traffic projected. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, stated this development will generate 5,044 average daily trips, based on the traffic study numbers. Planning Commission July 23, 2007 Page 18 of 21 Glenn Newman, Staff Engineer, discussed that with the projected traffic for development in the area the vehicle trips will exceed the design service volume of a five -lane roadway, as indicated in the Master Street Plan. Commissioner Trumbo asked staff to explain a Local Street. Pate explained that a Local Street can be and usually is a through street. Cut -through traffic should be discouraged. Nothing in City policy or ordinance forbids a Local Street from being a through street. Pate described that streets in a typical subdivision are usually Local Streets. Kit Williams, City Attorney, stated that the Master Street Plan is a moving and changing document. Local Streets can still function to a higher level than their designation. Commissioner Graves discussed speed humps. He doesn't know about 46`h Street enough to know if speed humps are needed, but it is an option to prevent cut through traffic. Pate discussed that speed tables are used when determined by Street Committee/Engineering Division to be needed; there is an established City Council policy for installation of speed tables. Commissioner Anthes discussed revisions that needed to be included in the PZD booklet: on -street parking on page 5; page 8 sidewalk cafes should be a conditional use; text on the alley on page 32 is duplicate text. She asked about the alley comments from staff. Pate discussed that more information is needed to make a recommendation on alley widths as proposed. Commissioner Anthes asked about custom street lights, spacing, and height of the proposed lights. Pate responded that a development may use custom street lights, but the City does not pay for electricity or maintenance, etc. Jacobs stated that they understand the additional cost of installation, etc., and that the street lights, if they are custom, would meet the lighting ordinance. Commissioner Anthes asked about connectivity with a potential stub -out east at lot 5 Pate answered that there is alley connection all the way to the right-of-way line if the adjacent property is developed they could tie in to the alley. Jacobs explained the street connection from Street 5 to the north. Commissioner Anthes asked about stormwater treatment. Jacobs responded that City streets don't have a lot of flexibility in stormwater treatment, but that in the private portion of the development, bioswales would be used and pervious spaces would be used Planning Commission July 23, 2007 Page 19 of 21 to capture and treat runoff. They are looking at both volume and quality of stormwater treatment. Commissioner Anthes asked to confirm if traffic counts were over spring break. Newman responded the dated listed on the document is March 21, 2007 and doesn't know if that was during spring break. It may or may not have an impact on the counts. Jacobs stated that they typically hire a traffic consultant when asked for a traffic study by the City. This study looks at a two year growth period for all projects on this side of town and incorporated additional growth based on this project. Commissioner Anthes asked about the designation of 46`h Street, would the right-of-way dedication limit this road to a Local Street in the future. Pate compared a Local/Collector streets and their function. Persimmon/Broyles are Collector Streets and have a very different function than 46`h Street. To answer the question, 46`h street will likely stay as a local street. Commissioner Anthes went through all of the conditions of approval with the other commissioners. No. 3.b.i. — Pate described the concerns with narrow alley cross sections and functional turning movements. Commissioner Anthes described concerns with a zero -lot line garages on narrow alleys. Commissioner Lack stated that if there is 24' right-of-way the pavement width could vary and could be adequate. Pate discussed that certain turning movement scenarios will not work and we want to make sure we're recommending something that works. Commissioner Lack stated that he is fine with staff working the alley widths out with the applicant prior to City Council, but that it would need to be resolved. Commissioner Lack discussed that the elevations meet commercial design standards, but had concerns that the elevations don't accurately represent the grade, and that the elevations don't exactly match the plans. Commissioner Anthes asked about building height where the book specifies 70' height, staff recommends 60', and the applicant stated in their presentation that 62' height is needed. Garner clarified that 60' maximum height is recommended only on the street side elevation. Todd Jacobs (applicant) stated that the maximum building height would be 56', with an additional 6' needed for the parapet wall, making the total 62'. Pate discussed that the maximum height in the Downtown General zoning classification is 56' to the top of the building/roof, and that parapets are not typically included in the building height calculation. Planning Commission July 23, 2007 Page 20 of 21 Commissioner Myres stated that she is okay with 62'. Motion: Commissioner Myres made a motion to amend the new recommended condition by staff, (No. 36) to limit the height to 62' in PA -1 (four story building not to exceed 62' height total, including parapet). Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 8-0-0. Commissioner Lack discussed that any difference in the elevations due to grade would not cause the buildings to be outside of commercial design standards. He can have faith because of that. Commissioner Anthes stated that for the benefit of the neighbors could the Planning Commission discuss transition of the development and how it related to the surroundings. Commissioner Myres discussed that she has no issues with the surrounding land uses adjacent to this development. The development proposes single family residential adjacent to single family residential. There is much residential development mixed throughout the commercial areas. The streetscape is at the pedestrian level. The development transitions back from Wedington to single family neighborhoods nicely. The non-residential uses face onto Wedington. Commissioner Lack discussed height, transition, and density of the development. He stated he believes this project can be a good neighbor and can contribute to where we're going in Fayetteville. He does have pause about four-story buildings right across from Wedington, more so than the southern portion of the development. The higher density in the multi -family residential is viewed as somewhat of a spot zone because of the magnitude of change with the surrounding land uses. It would be more consistent if it were closer to the center and other city services. Commissioner Anthes also discussed agreement with Commissioner Lack's comment that she would prefer this density further in the interior portion of the city. However, land is not available to do this type of density and development in the interior portion of the city. This is in close proximity to Rupple Road. There is a vast amount of RSF-4 both built and un -built. Services are needed without driving to the mall or downtown. Higher density and mixed use could help in this area, by allowing residents not to drive so far. She has some concerns about a height of 4 stories, but not enough to withhold support. Commissioner Trumbo stated that this is in his backyard. This project has really hit home for him. It has been insinuated that he can sell his home, or that he has ties to the developer, which he does not. However, it is a good project here, or anywhere, and he won't have to get out of the neighborhood for services. He would vote for this project anywhere in Fayetteville, because it meets the City's adopted goals. Commissioner Anthes discussed Condition No. 19 for the landscape waiver and there was general agreement from the Planning Commission. Motion: Planning Commission July 23, 2007 Page 21 of 21 Commissioner Lack made a motion to forward the project to City Council with a recommendation for approval, Commissioner Myres seconded the motion. Garner asked to clarify the recommendation on alley width. Commissioner Lack stated that he would be comfortable leaving the alley widths up to staff to work out with the applicant and come up with a recommendation for City Council. However, it would need to be resolved prior to City Council consideration. Commissioner Graves asked the motioner if commercial design standards needed to be straightened out before City Council. Commissioner Lack responded that if it is changed dramatically at building permit staff would bring it forward as a Major Modification. He also stated that would like to add to his motion to condition No. 8 that the applicant shall provide revised elevations to City Council to show grading/garage entries from underneath. Commissioner Graves also asked about the changes to the PZD booklet that Commissioner Anthes noted earlier. Pate read through the items Anthes mentioned earlier. Commissioner Lack added condition No. 38 that the list of items to the PZD booklet noted by Commissioner Anthes be addressed. Commissioner Graves asked about overloading schools, and how should we deal with that issue. Williams responded that the City doesn't have authority over the school board or school district. The school is a state agency and handles those issues. The City can't make decisions based on schools, whether they are crowded or not because the City can't control those issues. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. ANNOUNCEMENTS: No Subdivision Committee this week. All business being concluded, the meeting adjourned at 9.31 PM.