Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-03-27 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville City Planning Commission was held on Monday, March 27, 1995 at 5:00 p.m. in Room 212 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Phyllis Johnson, Jana Lynn Britton, Bob Reynolds, Jerry Allred, Gary Head, and Chuck Nickle OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Tim Conklin, Don Bunn, Sharon Langley, Janet Johns, members of the press, and others The Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of March 8, 1995 were approved as distributed. The Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of March 13, 1995, were amended to show a corrected vote on the large scale development for Central United Methodist Church as 5-0-1 with Commissioner Johnson abstaining. The Minutes were approved as corrected. OLD BUSINESS: Limited Neighborhood Commercial Use Ordinance Ms. Johnson reminded the Commission this would be the second public hearing on the subject ordinance. She advised there had been changes to the ordinance suggested by Commissioner Britton and Alderman Schapper. She suggested the Commission review the ordinance page by page. • Commissioner Johnson then requested A.2 read as follows: 11 ..such as traffic, noise, appearance, lighting, drainage, and effect on property values." Mr. Nickle asked why barber shops were limited to three or fewer chairs under B.1 (a) if there was the gross area in square feet. He also asked if the three or fewer chairs pertained only to barber shops or both barber shops and hair salons. Mr. Conklin explained he limited the number of chairs in a facility because, if there were more chairs, there would be more traffic and a greater need for parking. Ms. Little advised both barber shops and hair salons to be limited to three or fewer chairs. Mr. Nickle stated they were really talking about three operators, not three chairs. Ms. Little explained it went back to the number of parking spaces and traffic in the neighborhood. She stated the number of chairs related to the number of customers going into the business. Ms. Johnson asked if there was a reason to single out barbers and beauty salons for the number of operators if the idea was to control the traffic, as compared to other services. Mr. Head agreed with Ms. Johnson and noted they had not limited any other service profession. Mr. Conklin pointed out the current zoning ordinance had a use unit which limited the • number of operators in a barber shop or beauty salon. He explained the idea was to limit the scale of the business. LN • Planning Commission Meeting March 27, 1995 Page 2 Mr. Nickle stated he did not have a problem with limiting the number of licensed operators but he did think they needed to say licensed operators rather than chairs. He requested that B.l.a. read as follows: "...barber shops with three or fewer licensed operators." Mr. Allred asked if, under No. 3, there were any designations for the types of professions allowed. Mr. Conklin stated he had not wanted to list every type of profession. He explained any office allowed under R -O zoning would be acceptable as long as there were no more than four professionals in the structure. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Nickle advised he did not believe support staff for the professional office should be included when counting the professionals in the office. Mr. Conklin pointed out the current ordinance did not address support staff, only limited the number of individuals performing the actual service. Ms. Johnson advised she believed the term "professional" should be defined. Mr. Conklin stated Commissioner Britton had suggested allowing the City Planner to bring forward similar uses to the Planning Commission if they met the intent • of the subject ordinance (Section B.5). Mr. Allred stated he believed the term needed to be defined so the staff and general public would know which professions were covered. After discussion, Ms. Little, Commissioner Allred, and Commissioner Britton requested that 3. Professional Offices read as follows: "3. Professional offices (Maximum of 4 professionals and a maximum gross floor area of 3,000 square feet) a. Doctors -office for no more than 4 Doctors b. Dentists -office for no more than 4 Dentists C. Insurance d. Teaching of Fine and Liberal Arts e. Photography Studio f. Welfare Agencies g. Architects h. Engineers i. Attorneys j. Accountants k. Business or Management Consultants 1. Realtors M. Brokers n. Interior Decorators o. Veterinary -Small Animals Out Patient Clinics" Mr. Conklin explained the purpose of the ordinance was to create an office -type building or structure similar in appearance and size and scale to a house. Commissioner Allred further requested any interpretation of use units be • determined administratively. N • Planning Commission Meeting March 27, 1995 Page 3 Ms. Johnson stated that, under C.2.a, the proposed ordinance required the building "must have a residential look found in that neighborhood". She asked if it would enhance a neighborhood for a small business to look like a house when it was not a house. She advised some of the most boring things were neighborhoods were cut out of the same pattern. Ms. Britton stated she interpreted section C.2.a to mean having the same bulk and size. She explained in commercial developments there were often flat roofs but in residential areas the roofs had pitched roofs, etc. Mr. Nickle stated he believed the building needed to be compatible with other structures in the neighborhood but he did not feel it needed to look like a house. Mr. Conklin explained this was the one area the city attorney's office had wanted more detailed criteria. Ms. Little explained the business structure would need to conform with the overall characteristics of the neighborhood. Mr. Head stated he did not like the term "residential look". He suggested the term "in order to achieve capability". Commissioner Allred suggested C.2.a. read as follows: 11 .design elements such as building widths, heights, roofs, and • building shapes found within the neighborhood." Discussion ensued regarding a typographical error and verbiage under C.2.d. which should be corrected to read: " ..Site plans shall be designed to maximize unpaved open areas on the site." Ms. Johnson asked how the sign ordinance compared with Section C.2.e. Mr. Conklin explained that, under home occupations, the applicant was allowed to have a 4 square foot sign affixed to the wall. Mr. Nickle stated he did not believe they needed to get so specific as to review the color of the sign. Mr. Conklin explained the intent was to keep applicants from placing a sign which would draw attention to the building such as a bright, florescent sign. He stated it would be nice to have some control over what the sign would look like and if it was compatible with the overall design of the structure. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Conklin stated the sign ordinance did not address the color of a sign but contended that, if the ordinance allowed commercial uses within residential zoning districts, the business owners should not be able to use a sign which would draw undue attention to the business. Ms. Johnson asked if they could not use the home occupation requirements for signs. Mr. Conklin stated the issue appeared to be whether they wanted to regulate the appearance of the sign or just regulate the size of the sign. • Mr. Allred asked which ordinance would need to be followed -- the subject ordinance or the sign ordinance. • Planning Commission Meeting March 27, 1995 Page 4 Ms. Little stated the sign ordinance required 4 square feet. she explained the subject ordinance would be a conditional use so the sign requirements set forth in the subject ordinance would apply. Mr. Allred expressed his believe the signs in both ordinances needed to be as similar as possible. He also noted he believed reviewing the color of the sign was too stringent. He stated he believed common sense was involved. Mr. Conklin gave an example of a developer who had presented very nice renditions of a proposed subdivision but, when the building permit was issued, the building did not resemble the rendition. He further noted that, by granting the ordinance, they were allowing an individual to do something that was currently not allowed so they were not taking away rights, but adding them. Mr. Reynolds asked if the Planning Commission would be reviewing the signs as a part of the conditional use. Ms. Little stated the applicant would need to present a sign that was within the guidelines set out by the Planning Commission. Ms. Johnson suggested the subparagraph be voted on separately rather than as a part of the ordinance. Ms. Johnson then expressed concern that, in section "h", the proposed outdoor lighting was to be directed "downward". She explained there was uplighting available that was no more offensive than downlighting. She stated it could be • less obtrusive than downlighting in some instances. Mr. Allred also pointed out the ordinance stated the lighting was to be turned off at business closing. He noted there were some security systems which required lighting during the night. Ms. Johnson pointed out the lighting would be in a residential neighborhood. Ms. Little stated staff did see Ms. Johnson's concern and had not considered uplighting because the "Dark Sky Society" who were opposed to lights that were not shielded or had uplighting. She went on to say there could be lights angled toward the building which should not be obtrusive to the neighborhood. Ms. Little suggested the section read: ...Any proposed outdoor lighting shall be shielded and directed angularly or downward." Ms. Johnson stated that, if the lighting were not directed downward, it should be directed toward the building so the building would block the lighting from the residences in the neighborhood. After discussion, it was determined section 2.h. should read as follows: "Any proposed outdoor lighting shall be shielded. The height and location of lighting shall be designed to minimize light spread into adjacent properties and shall be turned off at business closing." Commissioner Johnson requested that the Section 4 "Emergency Clause" be stricken due to recent court opinions. • • Planning Commission Meeting March 27, 1995 Page 5 MOTION Commissioner Britton made a motion to approve and forward the Ordinance with the incorporated changes and the Commission's recommendations. Commissioner Reynolds seconded the motion. Motion passed with a 6-0-0 unanimous vote. • 49 N • Planning Commission Meeting March 27, 1995 Page 6 Commissioner Britton requested that Item B. a Large Scale Development for Razorback Exxon, be removed from the Consent Agenda. The remaining item was: A. Large Scale Development - McIlroy Bank, submitted by Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of McIlroy Bank for property located on the northeast corner of Wedington and Salem Roads. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 3.67 acres. MOTION Commissioner Nickle made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda with the exception of large scale development for Razorback Exxon subject to staff comments. Commissioner Reynolds seconded the motion. Motion passed with a 5-0-1 vote. Commissioner Head abstained. • Cl • Planning Commission Meeting March 27, 1995 Page 7 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - RAZORBACK EXXON G & K OIL COMPANY - HWY 62 & E OF FUTRALL The first item discussed which was pulled from the Consent Agenda was the large scale development submitted by W.R. Consulting on behalf of G & K Oil Company and Stephen Griffin for property located south of Highway 62 and east of Futrall Drive. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial and contains .95 acres. The staff recommended approval of the large scale development subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments, approval of final grading and drainage plan, installation of a fire hydrant 200 feet from the development within 12 months and guaranteed with a Bill of Assurance, and, sidewalk construction on Highway 180 and the service road. Commissioner Britton expressed her concern with the western curb cut on Highway 62 and its proximity to the intersection which could create a possible safety hazard to ingressing and egressing traffic. She suggested there be only one curb cut on Highway 62 located as far from the intersection as possible. Commissioner Reynolds pointed out there were two existing curb cuts. Discussion ensued regarding whether the state had regulatory authority or if the City would have superceding authority under the Overlay District. Ms. Little stated the City could be more restrictive regarding the curb cut and the State would acquiesce to their recommendation. • In response to a question from Commissioner Nickle, Mr. Clyde Nickels, W. R. Consulting, advised the car wash entrance was from the east. Commissioner Nickle inquired if access had been considered between the adjoining business. Mr. Nickels responded that physically it was not possible. Commissioner Reynolds inquired about sidewalks located on Highway 62 and along the service road. Ms. Little responded sidewalks were required and should be shown. Discussion ensued regarding the relocation of a 24 inch water line and location of a fire hydrant at the site. Mr. Bunn advised the fire hydrant needed to be installed within 12 months and be located within 200 feet of the water line. He noted the developer had offered a Bill of Assurance for such installation. MOTION Commissioner Head made a motion to approve the large scale development subject to the staff comments and particularly the amendment to the fire hydrant requirement. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-1-0 with Commissioners Nickle, Reynolds, Allred, Johnson, and Head voting "yes" and Commissioner Britton voting "no". 0 E6441 N • Planning Commission Meeting March 27, 1995 Page 8 CONDITIONAL USE 95-10 - SATELLITE DISH NHS GROUP - 4201 N. SHILOH The next item was a conditional use submitted Bill Rudasill on behalf of the NES Group for property located at 4201 N. Shiloh (the Northwest Arkansas Mall). The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The conditional use is for a satellite dish. The staff recommended approval of the request for conditional use on the grounds that the location and height of the satellite dish should not be noticeable to adjoining property owners. It was also noted the mall currently had other equipment mounted on the roof. Commissioner Allred inquired if there was a provision in the ordinance whereby approval of this type of conditional use could be approved administratively. Ms. Little responded there was not. Commissioner Allred requested the UDO be examined to provide administrative authority for this type of conditional use. MOTION Commissioner Allred made a motion to approve the conditional use. Commissioner Head seconded. • Motion passed with a unanimous vote of 6-0-0. L . Planning Commission Meeting March 27, 1995 Page 9 PRELIMINARY PLAT - SALEM VILLAGE (A P.U.D.) HELEN LOUISE WHITFIELD-DUNLAP - W OF SALEM, N OF MT COMFORT The next item was the preliminary plat for Salem Village (a P.U.D.) submitted by William Rudasill on behalf of Helen Louise Whitfield -Dunlap for property located west of Salem Road and north of Mount Comfort Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains 111 units on 40 acres. The staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to comments at Plat Review and Subdivision Committee, approval of detailed plans for water, sewer, streets, and drainage facilities, payment of sewer assessments, Mr. Bunn added changes to the recommendation as follows: "Regarding the right of way resolution requirement, a contribution in lieu of construction would be required on the minor arterial street that is located along the west property line. The contribution would be for one-half of a standard city street with storm drainage and structure required thereon. Regarding the variance request for certain public streets within the development whereby streets would be constructed with 24 feet width rather than the city standard of 31 feet. They would recommend same provided that a Bill of Assurance was given so that the streets could be widen to 31 feet at the call of the City should it be determined that is what it needs to be dependant upon what street widths any adjacent developments to the north or west might 40 construct. Regarding payment of parks fees the Parks Board voted to accept 4 acres of land in lieu of contributions contingent that the full greenspace of approximately 13 acres is open for public usage and is stated in the property owners' association covenants, P.U.D. covenants, and Bill of Assurance." Ms. Little stated the developer had agreed to dedicate 40 feet of right of way along the western property line for future construction of a minor arterial. She pointed out such dedication severely impacted 11 of the lots located to the west making them unbuildable. Additionally she stated the dedication had been made with an understanding that the developer was continuing to work with other property owners in the area to provide a 60 feet right of way extending from the site to Mt. Comfort Road. Discussion ensued regarding Mr. Brad White's proposal. Ms. Little reiterated the staff had agreed to accept a 40 -foot right-of-way dedication plus any drainage that might be required. Discussion ensued regarding the cemetery on Mt. Comfort Road and options for and problems in connecting the proposed minor arterial street at that location. Ms. Little stated that it was paramount to be consistent in decision making and further stated the Master Street Plan showed a minor arterial on the western boundary of the subject property. Ms. Little pointed out the minor arterial involved other property and she did not feel that it would be appropriate to consider property not included in this development as a condition of the plat. Commissioner Nickel inquired as to how the Flood Plain Ordinance impacted the development. • Ms. Little stated the Ordinance was at the Council level but had not been passed. She explained the developer had proposed to provide the city with a letter of FEMA map amendment if the ordinance passed before final approval of this • Planning Commission Meeting March 27, 1995 Page 10 development. She explained the developer would place the required amount of fill in the area to remove it from the flood plain. Commissioner Allred addressed staff comment regarding street variances and requested a Bill of Assurance. Mr. Bill Rudasill stated the Bill of Assurance would provide a 120 day term for the improvements. Mr. Bunn stated 180 days might be more realistic. Discussion ensued regarding which streets would be affected. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not it had been determined that the proposed arterial street would be located per the specifications of the Master Street Plan and which streets would have a width greater than 24 feet. Mr. Rudasill presented a drawing showing the width of all streets in the proposed subdivision. Mr. Whitfield stated the home owners, association would provide at least two trees per lot in the common area along the street and in the alley, either shade or ornamental. MOTION Commissioner Nickle made a motion to approve the preliminary plat subject to the • staff comments as amended. Commissioner Head seconded the motion. Motion passed with a unanimous vote of 6-0-0. Planning Commission Meeting Is March 27, 1995 Page 11 PRELIMINARY PLAT - HERITAGE VILLAGE C & B LAND AND CATTLE COMPANY - S OF WEDINGTON. H OF 58TH The next item was the preliminary plat submitted by Development Consultants on behalf of C & B Land and Cattle Company for property located south of Wedington Drive and east of 58th Avenue. This property is zoned R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential and contains 100 lots on 46.18 acres. The staff recommended the approval of the alley and reduced street widths subject to plat review comments including all utility requested easements and crossings; approval of the detailed plans for water, sewer, streets, and easements; construction of the alleys to full city standards for subgrade and pavement thickness; construction of 24 feet wide streets named Dower Street, Chattel Street, and Tradition Avenue; construction of a full size, 31 feet cul-de-sac on the south end of Tradition Avenue extending to the property line; a copy of letter stating compliance with the Department of Pollution Control and Ecology requirements for removal of the chicken dump site and any other dumps on site; construction of a permanent cul-de-sac at the north end of Heritage Avenue if no development took place to the north within 2 years; dedication of parks land as requested by the Parks Board; construction of sidewalks within the subdivision and along Highway 16 in accordance with City Ordinances; placement of barricades at the north end of Tradition Avenue and both ends of Fountain Street; and payment of $200 per lot for the further development of sewer capacity in the watershed. Mr. Richard Bundrick, the developer, stated it was his understanding the Commission would determine whether or not they would allow development of the • alleys and 24 foot wide streets or no alleys and the standard 31 foot widd streets. Discussion ensued regarding the type of barricades required for the north end of Tradition Avenues and both ends of Fountain Street. Mr. Bunn stated that the recommendation would provide wood construction with reflective markings. Mr. Bundrick stated he agreed to the staff recommendations. He stated there would be one-way alleys to the rear of the lots with no parking along the streets. Further, he stated the heavier traffic streets would be built to the 31 feet standard. Mr. Bunn stated the less than standard width would work if parking was restricted. Discussion ensued regarding cul-de-sacs versus stubbing out for future development access. Further discussion ensued regarding temporary versus permanent cul-de-sacs. Ms. Little pointed out a temporary cul-de-sac provided no storm drainage whereby a permanent cul-de-sac did provide curb, guttering, and sidewalks. Discussion ensued regarding the adjoining 6 acre tract and the potential that it might develop as commercial. Mr. Bundrick stated he would consider dedicating a right of way into the adjoining property. Many suggestions were offered regarding the placement of such right-of-way including Lot 42 having triple frontage, and Lots 43, 44, and 45 having double frontage. Ms. Little stated those lots would be subject to excess setbacks and suggested access at is Lot 38. Planning Commission Meeting is March 27, 1995 Page 12 Commissioner Allred suggested the Commission request a second access and allow the developer and the staff to work out a suitable arrangement. Commissioner Johnson suggested extending Tradition to allow the cul-de-sac to touch the property line. Alderman Len Schaper inquired as to the distance between Fountain Street and Wedington. Ms. Little stated it was approximately 960 feet. Alderman Schaper stated he had requested a change to the Master Street Plan whereby a collector street would run through the entire area. Discussion ensued regarding various options and the impact the terrain would have on the proposed collector street. Ms. Little stated the collector street was not currently shown on the Master Street Plan and therefore the developer could not be required to accommodate same. Alderman Schaper inquired as to park land dedication. Ms. Little stated the Parks Board had agreed to accept 4.25 acres of land as proposed by the developer to provide trail access along the creek in the future. MOTION • Commissioner Allred made a motion to approve the preliminary plat as presented and subject to staff comments including extension of the south access on Tradition. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-1-0 with Commissioners Nickle, Reynolds, Johnson, Allred and Head voting "yes" and Commissioner Britton voting "no". Planning Commission Meeting • March 27, 1995 Page 13 PRELIMINARY PLAT - BOIS D -ARC JULIAN ARCHER - N OF MAPLE, E OF SANG The next item on the agenda was a preliminary plat submitted by Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of Julian Archer for property located north of Maple, east of Sang Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains 19 lots on 26.45 acres. The staff recommended approval subject to the Plat Review and Subdivision Committee; approval of a grading and drainage plan along with a tree preservation plan; approval of the detailed plans for water, sewer, streets, and drainage facilities; ownership and maintenance of all islands by the property owners, association; plat notation on all lots requiring grading permits; construction of sidewalks in accordance with City ordinance; and dedication of street right of way along Sang and Cleveland where required to bring the total right of way to 25 feet on the subdivision side. Ms. Little distributed a map showing the subdivision location and showing the south property line and proximity to Maple Street running east and west. She stated that, under a prior development site along Loren Circle, the City required the dedication of a 25 foot right-of-way along the south property line and subsequent to that Maple street had been paved. Additionally, Ms. Little requested the developer consider extending to the east to connect to the dedicated right-of-way on the west. Discussion ensued regarding two houses in the area and the grade of the terrain. Ms. Little stated the staff would request for dedication of a 25 feet right of • way along the south property line to include a connection to the main thoroughfare between Lots 8 and 9 which would provide a connection both east and west and north and south. Mr. Dave Jorgensen, representing Julian Archer, stated they agreed to the staff comments with the exception of the 25 feet right of way along the south property line. Discussion ensued regarding the fact the right of way for Maple Street extension was not mentioned prior to Planning Commission meeting. Further Mr. Jorgensen stated the additional cost of the requests was approximately $56,000. He pointed out that currently Maple Street was only 22 feet wide and the grading was very steep which would not be a feasible project. He added the dedication of such right-of-way would substantially change the character of the subdivision. He stated the developer was totally opposed to the street extension and, if Maple Street extension was a part of the development, the developer would withdraw the application. Ms. Little stated the staff had originally suggested the plat be returned to Subdivision Committee but the developer had requested to go forward. She explained Subdivision requirements provided the plat to show relation to existing streets and platted easements which the subject plat did not show. Additionally she stated an additional easement for a high pressure gas line between Lots 4 and 5 would need to be included on the subject plat. MOTION Commissioner Head made a motion to postpone the matter and allow the plat to go back to Subdivision for additional study and work on the discrepancies. Commissioner Britton seconded the motion. Motion passed with a unanimous vote of 6-0-0. a Planning Commission Meeting • March 27, 1995 Page 14 PRELIMINARY PLAT - SUNBRIDGE CENTER UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOUNDATION - W OF VILLA. N OF TOWNSHIP The next item on the agenda was a preliminary plat submitted by Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of the University of Arkansas Foundation, Inc. for property located west of villa Boulevard and north of Township. The property is zoned R - O. Residential -Office and contains 5 lots on 13.09 acres. The staff recommended approval subject to comments of Plat Review and Subdivision Committee; approval of the detailed plans for water, sewer, streets, and drainage; approval of a grading and drainage plan; construction of 5 feet sidewalks; fire hydrant spacing in accordance with the requirements of the Fire Department; and looping of the 8 inch water line to the east. Commissioner Nickle noted the Subdivision Committee had discussed a connection to College from Sunbridge Drive. Discussion ensued regarding amending the Master Street Plan to reflect the same. ILt9Y4{*RI Commissioner Allred made a motion to approve the plat subject to staff comments Commissioner Reynolds seconded the motion. Motion passed with a unanimous vote of 6-0-0. is 0 W Planning Commission Meeting • March 27, 1995 Page 15 OTHER BUSINESS Amendment to Master Street Plan: MOTION Commissioner Nickle made a motion to amend the Master Street Plan to reflect the extension of Sunbridge to College. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. Motion passed with a unanimous vote of 6-0-0. Commissioner Johnson requested the recommendation to include the Sunbridge extension to College on the Master Street Plan be immediately forwarded to the City Council. Design Requirements in Commercial Districts: Commissioner Johnson referenced a copy of a proposed Ordinance regarding requirements of Commercial Districts asked that the Commissioners make their comments prior to the second reading of the ordinance in order for the Council to address same. The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.. • E