Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-06-24 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on June 24, 1996 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry Allred, Phyllis Johnson, John Harbison, Conrad Odom, Bob Reynolds, and Gary Tucker MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Sugg, Gary Head and John Forney STAFF PRESENT: Alett Little, Dawn Thomas, Jim Beavers, and Janet Johns APPROVAL OF THE .TUNE 109 1996 MINUTES Ms. Johnson advised there was a correction on page 19 of the minutes of the June 10, 1996 meeting. She stated the vote shown on the second motion regarding RZ 96-13, Canterbury Place, was incorrect and should be 4-2-1. The minutes were then approved as corrected. isMs. Johnson informed those present that the first item, RZ96-13, a rezoning request for Canterbury Place had been removed from the agenda at the request of the applicant and would not be heard at the present meeting. NEW BUSINESS CU96-15: CONDITIONAL USE - FAYETTEVILLE SENIOR CENTER AREA AGENCY ON AGING - 901 S COLLEGE The first item on the agenda was a conditional use request submitted by Engineering Design Associates, PA, on behalf of the Area Agency on Aging for property located at 901 S. College, (south of 7th Street and the west side of College Avenue). The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 6.855 acres. This request is to allow use unit 4 for a Community Facility. A large scale development is associated with this conditional use request (see below.) In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Little explained the tract was heavily wooded with frontage along South College. She stated the northern border abutted 7th Street. She advised the City was working with the Council on Aging and the intent was to develop the parcel shown on the map with cross -hatching. She noted the original parcel had been a subdivision but the right-of-way and easements located within the subject tract had been previously vacated. • Planning Commission June 24, 1996 Page 2 Ms. Johnson advised the staff recommended approval of the conditional use subject to the following conditions: (1) approval of the large scale development for the Senior Center; (2) compliance with Section 160.195 (C)(2) with regard to landscaping, striping, and screening; and (3) proposed lighting to be directed downward, away from adjacent residential properties. She pointed out there was an existing structure (containing approximately 1,860 square feet) which would be kept as administrative offices, together with an additional 13,458 square feet of buildings to be added for a senior center (10,187 square feet), an adult day care (2,593 square feet) and administrative offices (2,593 square feet). She stated the proposed hours of operation were to be from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. with hours being extended for special events. She pointed out it was anticipated the Senior Center would have three full-time and 3 -part time employees with an average of 100 patrons per day. Kim Hesse, Engineering Design Associates, appeared before the Commission and requested a variance for the setbacks of the entrance structures. Ms. Little stated she believed the variance request should be discussed with the large scale. She explained there were drawings and elevations in the Commissioner's packets showing the proposed entryway structures which were over 30 inches in height. • Ms. Hesse explained there would also be a sign mounted on the entry structures. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to approve CU96-15. Mr. Odom seconded the motion. Mr. Harbison noted the staff report referred to this item as CU96-15 in the "Request" area of the report and then as CU96-14 in the "Recommended Motion" area. Ms. Johnson directed the Commission to correct the report to reflect CU96-15 throughout. The motion carried unanimously. CJ • Planning Commission June 24, 1996 Page 3 LSD96-23: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - FAYETTEVILLE SENIOR CENTER AREA AGENCY ON AGING - 901 S COLLEGE The next item on the agenda was a large scale development submitted by Engineering Design Associates, PA, on behalf of the Area Agency on Aging for property located at 901 S. College, (south of 7th Street and on the west side of College Avenue). The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential) and contains approximately 6.855 acres. This item was not placed on the Consent Agenda because of the previous conditional use request. Ms. Johnson advised the staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: (1) approval of a Conditional Use request; (2) staff approval of the final grading, drainage, street, tree, water, sewer, and parking lot plans; (3) retaining walls shall be set back from the drives and curbs installed; (4) staff approval of the entry structure; and (5) plat review and subdivision committee comments. She pointed out the conditional use had been approved. She also noted the applicant had signed a form agreeing to the conditions of approval. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Ms. Little stated the entryway plans were shown on the large scale plans. • MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to approve LSD96-23 subject to staff comments. Mr. Tucker seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. �J • Planning Commission June 24, 1996 Page 4 LSD96-25: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - GLENNWOOD SHOPPING CENTER COZARUCEARLEY - SE CORNER OF HWYS 265 AND 45 The next item on the agenda was the large scale development for Glennwood Shopping Center submitted by CEI Engineering on behalf of Don Cozart and Keith Cearley for property located at the southeast corner of State Highways 265 and 45. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 14.74 acres. Ms. Johnson advised the staff had recommended approval of the large scale subject to numerous conditions. She noted the applicant had not submitted a signed sheet agreeing to those conditions. Mr. Rick Rogers, CEI, appeared before the Commission representing the applicants. Ms. Johnson then reviewed the staff conditions of approval: 1. All conditions of the original 1994 large scale development approval which do not • conflict with new ordinances including the "sound dampening wall' and screening of mechanical equipment; The approval is for the total 14.74 acre large scale development and any deviation shall require new large scale development submissions and approval for the parcels deviating from this large scale development plan; All lighting shall be designed such that light does not spill over into the adjoining residential properties; 4. Improvements to State Highway 265 as shown on the proposed large scale development drawing. The improvements must be coordinated with the AHTD and City staff and may be either actual improvements or cash contribution as determined to be best by the AHTD and the City; Construction of six-foot sidewalks along Highway 265 and 45 where five-foot sidewalks are shown on the drawings. The City shall reimburse the developer for the extra one foot of width; 6. Compliance with the parking lot ordinance including landscape requirements and access requirements. A joint access agreement shall be required for all properties; P i45 -e! Planning Commission June 24, 1996 Page 5 Staff approval of the detailed plans, specifications, and calculations where applicable for grading, drainage, water, sewer, streets, and tree preservation. All improvement shall meet the City Engineer's latest criteria; 8. Staff approval of the east property line retaining wall design and the location of water and sewer lines in proximity to the retaining wall; If the material excavated from the Glennwood site is placed upon another site within the City of Fayetteville, then a second grading and drainage plan for the fill site shall be approved by the staff prior to exporting material from the Glennwood site; 10. Dedication of 50 feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Highways 45 and 265; 11. A separate easement plat will be submitted prior to any building permits being issued; 12. The drainage within the total large scale development shall be privately maintained by the owner; • 13. Utilities to be underground and all mechanical equipment screened; 14. The Owner shall execute a letter of agreement stating he understands the City is not responsible to repair or replace any surface (other than normal asphalt or concrete pavement and grass), landscaping or trees within an easement due to the City's normal maintenance or repair work on any water and/or sewer line or appurtenance; and 15. Plat review and subdivision committee comments. In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, Mr. Rogers advised his clients did agree with the last 14 conditions and had questions regarding the first condition. He explained the term "sound dampening wall" was unclear to him and his clients and asked if a 10 -foot wooden privacy fence with an increased vegetative barrier would serve as a sound dampening system. Ms. Little explained the condition for a sound dampening wall was ascribed to the project by the Planning Commission in 1994 after numerous adjoining residents had expressed concern regarding the delivery truck traffic. She stated there had been no specifics regarding decibels, etc. She advised that, while wooden walls do have a sound dampening effect, they are not as effective as a concrete wall. She agreed vegetation would help with the sound but she did have some reservations regarding that type of screening and would need to review the matter with engineering. 0 /55 • Planning Commission June 24, 1996 Page 6 In response to a question from Ms. Little, Mr. Rogers stated the "sound dampening wall" he had received a cost estimate on was $200,000. He advised a portion of the $200,000 was for engineering of the wall. He stated they had reviewed two walls, one for approximately $180,000 and the other for over $200,000. He explained the wooden wall and landscaping would cost approximately $50,000. Ms. Little drew the Commission' attention to the elevation drawings, noting the highest area on the eastern side of the site was 1433 feet. She pointed out the plan was to bring the grade to 1416 feet (bringing the site down 17 feet). She explained bringing the site down 17 feet would provide a grade separation and sound dampening. She stated the highest area on the southern side of the site was 1416, to be graded down to 1412; the western edge to be graded down to 1405 feet. She recommended there be at least of 12 feet of sound dampening material installed at the south side of the project. She explained earth was one of the most effective sound dampening materials. Ms. Johnson asked if it would be appropriate to have staff work with the applicant regarding the sound dampening. She advised that, if an agreement could not be reached between the staff and the applicant, the applicant could come back to the Commission. • Ms. Little advised she believed that was the intent of the 1994 Commission. Mr. Allred recalled the adjoining residents were more concerned about the mechanicals (air conditioning, filters, etc.) which would be running all of the time and making constant noise. Mr. Tucker stated he believed this project would be a nice development for the area. He pointed out, however, there appeared to be approximately 20% more parking spaces than required with two large parking areas (one for the grocery store and one to the north) without interior shading. He suggested reducing the number of spaces by 5% and planting trees within the lots. Mr. Rogers explained the grocery store was a chain which had requested a certain number of parking spaces (many more than allowed by ordinance) and so the number of spaces for the entire project had been increased. Mr. Don Cozart, the applicant, explained that, when the original large scale had been approved in 1994, the parking requirements had been one space per every 200 square feet but the ordinance had been changed to one space per every 250 square feet. He stated the parking was the most critical issue to the development. In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Little advised the current requirement was less than the former and the applicant was meeting the current requirement. She pointed out one of the staff recommendations was for shared parking. She stated that, as in any shopping center, • varying operations at varying times allowed for the sharing of parking. • Planning Commission June 24, 1996 Page 7 Ms. Johnson asked if the staff was agreeable to the number of parking spaces being 20% above that required by ordinance. Ms. Little stated they were in agreement. Mr. Tucker pointed out there was an angle to the southernmost access point from Highway 265. He asked if that would cause problems. Mr. Rogers explained the angle was due to the radius from the south boundary of the access road to where it tied into the future improvement of Highway 265. He further stated the angle at the, access point further north along Highway 265 was due to the severe grade. He advised both accesses had been approved by the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department. Ms. Johnson asked if there were any concerns regarding three access points along Highway 265 being close to the intersection. Ms. Little explained the access points were very similar to the previous large scale as approved. She pointed out the northernmost entrance was over 425 feet from the intersection. • Mr. Jeff Erf, 2711 Woodcliff, appeared before the Commission and requested a requirement that the outbuildings on the project be constructed in a similar design as the rest of the buildings. He stated it was his understanding a McDonalds was to be constructed on the site and would like for it to match the architecture and style of the remainder of the shopping center. He also asked if the design of the project had to meet the requirements of the drainage ordinance. He stated he did not believe it would meet the drainage requirements. He expressed his belief there would be more run off than allowed and permitted. He stated the intent of the ordinance was that post development run off be similar to pre -development run off and there had been no provisions made for retention of storm water. He further stated it appeared the developer was planning on collecting the run off and putting it into the triple culvert under Highway 45. He expressed concern about the capacity of the culvert. Jim Beavers, Engineering, explained he had discussed this project with Don Bunn, City Engineer, who had informed him there was an approved drainage study in the file which could be used as the basis for the project. He stated the drainage study had been approved with the original large scale and Mt. Bunn had believed the city should honor the approved plan. Mr. Beavers stated he agreed with Mr. Bunn; that the plan, for the most part, met the intent of the drainage ordinance. He stated it was true the run off would be increased but the peak flows leaving the site would not be increased. He advised the original drainage plan had been approved and the report had been updated since the approval. 0 . Planning Commission June 24, 1996 Page 8 In response to a question from Mr. Erf, Ms. Johnson advised that, although there have been some changes to the large scale, the original drainage plan was similar and suited the amendments in the current plan and improved the overall drainage from the site. Mr. Tucker stated he was not satisfied with the parking. He noted the parking for the grocery store would have been 182 spaces plus 20% would be roughly 40 more spaces. He pointed out It appeared there were 263 spaces broadly applicable to the grocery store. Ms. Little stated Mr. Cozart had agreed to meet the requirements of the parking lot ordinance. She stated she did support the 20% over minimum parking spaces for the subject site. Mr. Odom asked if there would be any covenants for the development which would address design standards. Mr. Cozart stated lots had been sold to McDonalds, Taco Bell, Ozark Cleaners and the Bank of Fayetteville. He advised all of the purchasers had agreed to landscape the buildings to fit the shopping center design. He stated it was his plan for the site to be one of the nicest shopping centers in Northwest Arkansas. • Mr. Reynolds noted there were 13 buildings on the site. He advised the Commission would like to see all 13 buildings to have the same look. Mr. Cozart stated he would sell six of the lots and retain ownership of the remainder. Mr. Tucker asked if there had been consideration of having monument signs rather than the normal signs for the businesses. Mr. Cozart stated he would be willing to take the Commissions suggestions to both the architect and new businesses. Ms. Laleh Amirmoez stated she had been working on the theme of the center. She explained a committee had been formed of all the new property owners and she would be submitting a design to that committee. She advised a theme had not been selected at the present time. In response to a question from Ms. Little, Ms. Amirmoez explained that, while they would not be designing the buildings for the new owners, there were things that could be incorporated into their designs to blend each building into the overall facility. Ms. Little advised the developer of the shopping center had the right to require anyone who purchased property in that shopping center to conform to the protective covenants. She stated the • protective covenants could cause the buildings to be designed similarly. • Planning Commission June 24, 1996 Page 9 Mr. Cozart stated he would put design standards in the covenants. Mr. Odom stated he would like to see the shopping center approved but he also would like to see some design standards established. He suggested approving the large scale contingent upon some type of design standard coming back before the Commission for approval. In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Little stated it was possible for the Commission to approve the large scale subject to future review. She explained the approval would not be complete until all items were met. She cautioned the Commission that it was not within their power to require the buildings to be similar. After discussion, it was determined Ms. Amirmoez would submit the design plan, as approved by the Committee, to the Commission. see the offer to include trees within the parking lots. Iv% Il [WI Mr. Odom moved to approve the large scale subject to all of the conditions of approval, including the sound dampening wall (with the details to be worked out with staff) and a condition . that the applicant must have the design plans be reviewed by the Commission prior o the issuance of building permits. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Mr. Allred asked if they could legally ask to review the design plans. Ms. Little explained the Commission could not require the developer to offer the designs but they did have the right to delay approval until they had all the information they wanted. She advised that, if the developer would offer the designs, the Commission could approve the large scale subject to the design. Mr. Tucker stated that, if the Commission were to entertain an offer from the developer, he would also like to see the offer to include trees within the parking lots. Ms. Johnson advised she was not sure the motion was within the purview of the Planning Commission. Mr. Cozart offered to present the designs to the Commission for review. He further advised that, as far as the parking lot, Harps Grocery had two main concerns (1) visibility of the store and (2) easy accessibility to the parking for their patrons. E • Planning Commission June 24, 1996 Page 10 Ms. Johnson reiterated Mr. Cozart's offer: that he had offered to show the Planning Commission some major design features reflective of the architectural theme in the large scale development before issuance of any building permits. Mr. Cozart stated he was in agreement with that statement. Ms. Johnson ruled the previous motion inappropriate due to Mr. Cozart's offer. MOTION Mr. Odom moved to approve the large scale development subject to staff comments and the offer made by the applicant. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Beavers cautioned Mr. Rogers that the sound dampening wall could change the design of the . retaining wall. • • Planning Commission June 24, 1996 Page I 1 LSD96-24: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - ADMINISTRATION BUILDING FAYETTEVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS - 1001 STONE STREET The next item was LSD96-24, a large scale development for an administration building for the Fayetteville Public Schools submitted by Hailey/Amirmoez & Associates on behalf of the Fayetteville Public School for property located at 1001 Stone Street (north side of Stone, west of Buchanan Street). The property is zoned P-1, Institutional, and contains approximately 3.71 acres. Ms. Johnson advised the applicant had requested three (3) waivers: (1) not to pave the existing parking lot on the west side of the Administration Building; (2) not to modify the entrance to the west parking lot to increase the sight distance; and (3) not to provide parking at the 1 per 300 square feet ratio. She noted staff recommended approval of the large scale subject to the resolution of the three waiver requests. She then reviewed the following staff comments: (1) resolution of Waiver No. 1 - staff recommends the existing gravel parking lot on the west side of paved no later than August 15, 1997 or the date the new building opens for use, whichever is later; (2) resolution of • Wavier No. 2 - staff recommends the waiver be denied and the sight distance for the two west drives be improved and brought into compliance with the existing ordinance; (3) resolution of Waiver No. 3 - staff recommends accepting the total of 40 parking spaces with the condition that additional parking spaces will be provided if additional area in the building is converted to office space; (4) if the maintenance building is removed and replaced by a parking lot as described in the Amirmoez letter of June 13, 1996, then the parking be constructed in accordance with the parking lot ordinance; and (5) staff approval of the final grading and drainage, water, sewer, and tree preservation plans. All improvements shall meet the City Engineer's latest criteria; and plat review and subdivision committee comments. Ms. Little explained that item 4 was cautionary and staff only wanted the applicant to understand any parking lot would need to meet the parking lot ordinance. Ms. Amirmoez explained there was limited funding for the project and the school administration had wanted to spend the majority of its funds on improving the learning environment for the students and the working environment of the teachers. She stated that, due to the limited budget, she had minimized the work on site by limiting the development of certain areas of the overall site. She explained they had, therefore, left the west side of the property alone. She pointed out the requested waiver regarding paving the existing parking was due to the limited budget. She advised the Commission the School Administration would be able to do the paving in approximately one year and, instead of a waiver, would be asking for a year's extension. .J • Planning Commission June 24, 1996 Page 12 Ms. Johnson stated the staff had recommended the parking lot be paved no later than August 15, 1997 or the date the new building opened, whichever was later. Ms. Amirmoez stated she was requesting a year extension from the time the building was opened, explaining there would be other construction funds available at that time. Ms. Little stated staff would support the request that the parking lot be paved no later than August 15, 1998. Ms. Amirmoez stated their requested waiver to not modify the entrance to the west parking lot related again to budget problems. She advised they had attempted to eliminate the dangerous situation at the west parking lot. She agreed the sight line of vehicles coming up Stone Street was limited but, due to the topography of the street, the problem could not be resolved. She also pointed out the two drives were very close together, creating conflict. She explained they planned to abandon the access for students and install a gate to be controlled by the maintenance staff. She advised the third problem was the cars parked along the street and the rock wall limited the sight line of cars leaving the administration parking area. She stated they had eliminated a loop being used by the students which would lessen the amount of traffic in and out • of the area. She pointed out this was an existing situation, one that was not created by the current project. She suggested a 4 -way stop sign. She further stated they were in agreement with staff's recommendation on the resolution of waiver request No. 3. Mr. Reynolds suggested closing the lower drive rather than installing a gate. He pointed out the maintenance workers would be able to use the other drive. He also suggested placing "No Parking" signs on the north side of Stone Street in front of the Administration Building. Mr. Roy Carr, Interim Superintendent of the Fayetteville Public Schools, advised all of the on - street parking space was needed but once the lots were set up they would be able to eliminate some of the on -street parking. He further advised they had eliminated 20 - 30 feet of parking adjacent to the lower drive. Ms. Amirmoez stated that, while that did not solve the problem, it had improve the sight distance somewhat. Mr. Carr expressed his belief the problem would be solved once all the parking was asphalted. He agreed to close the lower driveway instead of installing the gate. MOTION Is Mr. Allred moved to approve the large scale development subject to staff comments with the addition that the lower road be totally blocked. . Planning Commission June 24, 1996 Page 13 Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. In response to a question, Mr. Allred stated his motion did include the extension to August 15, 1998 to pave the parking and denial of waiver request No. 2. Ms. Johnson reiterated the motion: approve the large scale development subject to staff comment No. I with the date being changed to 1998; deleting staff condition No. 2; approving staff conditions 4, 5 and 6; and adding the requirement the lowest drive be closed to all use permanently. Mr. Carr requested the lower drive be gated with access only to maintenance staff. He explained that drive was used probably more during the summer when school was not in session than in the winter. \051010111011705 MI I [1XII Ms. Johnson moved to amend the motion to allow a gate to be kept closed and used only by maintenance staff. • Mr. Harbison seconded the amendment to the motion. The amendment to the motion carried 5-1-0 with Commissioners Allred, Johnson, Harbison, Odom, and Reynolds voting "yes" and Commission Tucker voting "no". The motion carried 4-2-0 with Commissioners Allred, Johnson, Harbison and Odom voting "yes" and Commissioners Reynolds and Tucker voting "no". 11, • Planning Commission June 24, 1996 Page 14 CP96-3: CONCEPT PLAT -OVERCREST COURT P.U.D. MTM OF EL DORADO, LLC - E OF OLD WIRE RD., W OF OVERCREST ST. The next item was a concept plan for Overcrest Court, a P.U.D. (also known as Ambercrest Court) submitted by Houses, Inc. on behalf of MTM of El Dorado, LLC for property located east of Old Wire Road and west of Overcrest Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 12.87 acres. The request is for a planned unit development with a total of 61 lots. Ms. Johnson advised this item was for discussion only since it was a concept plat. She stated considerable time had been spent at Subdivision Committee meeting discussing the plat with the area residents that attended the meeting. She pointed out staff had stated the cul-de-sacs, as shown, were not adequate and must have a minimum 40 -foot radius. She further noted that, before the preliminary plat on this project came before the Commission, the issue of access to Hackberry Street had to be resolved. Ms. Little stated the property was zoned R-1 but, under the Planned Unit Development ordinance, the zoning must be observed with 30% open space; but, if the applicant provided • more than 30% open space, the density could increase to 7.5 units per acre. She pointed out the applicant had provided more than the 30% open space, but specific calculations were needed. In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Little explained the staff had assumed a connection to Hackberry Street but had found a parcel of land under separate ownership which would not allow the connection. She stated the minutes of the Planning Commission, when they approved Winwood Subdivision, called for the stubout of Hackberry. She advised Mr. House was to contact the owner of that parcel regarding the possibility of purchasing the access. She also pointed out Amber Drive on the west side of the project was currently constructed as a cul- de-sac; however, there was a 50 -foot right-of-way extending to the property line of the subject tract. She advised there was a number of residents residing on Amber who had purchased their property with the understanding the cul-de-sac was permanent. She stated the tract at the end of Hackberry might have been an illegal lot split since it was not shown on the City records. Ms. Johnson expressed her belief that access to Hackberry was important; otherwise, there would be a lengthy cul-de-sac together with other numerous cul-de-sacs. Mr. Harbison stated he had understood Amber Drive was a stubout. Ms. Little stated right-of-way did exist to the property line but was built as a large cul-de-sac. She further stated one of the Planning Commissioners had made a good suggestion when on tour; • Planning Commission June 24, 1996 Page 15 one that staff planned to follow up on: that when right-of-way existed, the City would attempt to post signs showing there was an intention to extend the street. Mr. Allred advised the Commission had, a few years earlier, required the streets to be stubbed out rather than cul-de-sacs so everyone would be on notice that the street could be extended. He went on to say the Subdivision Committee had spent over an hour on this project, discussing the development with the area residents. He stated the residents were concerned about the small lot sizes, the increase in density. He advised there had been discussion regarding the use of the private drive north of Amber. He pointed out that, since it was so narrow, it would only allow for one-way traffic but it might help the traffic circulation. He stated the subdivision committee meeting was very good for both the area residents and the developer. Ms. Johnson stated one of the concerns she had noticed was the location of the pavilion (adjacent to the north property line). She noted the suggestion from the Subdivision Committee meeting had been that it would be more appropriate to locate that type of activity in the center of the development. She advised the other concern she saw was the detention pond and where the pond would drain. She stated it appeared the pond would drain to the north so the drainage would needed to be looked at closely. . Ms. Johnson advised the area residents present they would have an additional opportunity to comment on the project at the preliminary plat stage. She asked that their comments be additional, new comments, not items discussed at Subdivision Committee or earlier at the present meeting. Mr. Odom advised that, while he was in favor of taking public comment for concept plats, he had told area residents comments would not be taken since they had previously never taken public comment on concept plats. Ms. Johnson asked the Commission's decision. She explained they had not taken public comment on previous concept plats because the public had the opportunity to comment at Subdivision Committee and again at the preliminary plat stage. Mr. Allred stated he believed the Commission would do a better job when receiving public comment. He added, however, the comments did need to be limited only to new comments. Mr. Kenneth Kinnamon, owner of the property at 1661 Boston Place, advised he had not received the certified letter until the morning of the Subdivision Committee meeting and therefore, did not know what had been said at that meeting. He expressed concern that three small houses would back up to his property. He advised there were no high density residences within a one mile Is radius of the subject tract and opposed an increase in density. He stated he believed the type of development proposed attracted transient residents which did not make for good family • Planning Commission June 24, 1996 Page 16 neighborhoods. He recommended developing the property similarly to the existing neighborhood. Mr. Reed Greenwood, 1601 Elmwood, stated the P.U.D. ordinance required a 250 foot perimeter setback for any structure other than single family dwellings. He added he presumed that would apply to the pavilion. Mr. Charles Debes, 1374 Amber, asked if, since the Hackberry extension was in question, it was the intent to make access through Amber Drive and exit through the private utility drive north of Amber. allow 18 feet for two-way access. Mr. Allred stated they had discussed the extension of Hackberry at the Subdivision Committee meeting, not knowing a separate parcel blocked that access. He advised there had been no discussion regarding ingress and egress to the property. Mr. Greg House, Houses, Inc., advised he had a contract to purchase the separate tract on Hackberry in order to extent the street. • In response to a question from Mr. Tucker, Mr. House advised he had mailed the information packet and photographs to all of the adjoining residents together with the residents on the south side of Amber. He added he had tried to visit with as many of the residents individually as he could. Mr. Tucker advised he believed that, after reviewing the packet, the project would be a quite attractive addition to the area. Mr. Odom asked if the private drive (to the north of Amber) was suitable for only one-way traffic or possible to be made two-way. Ms. Little stated it was her understand the drive between Amber and Hackberry would be public and that the cul-de-sacs would be the only private streets. She stated the developer had changed the width of the cul-de-sacs to 22 feet. She noted the Solid Waste Division of the City had asked the cul-de-sacs have a 40 -foot radius. She added the private drive north of Amber appeared to be a 20 -foot easement. Mr. House stated the surveyor had shown it to be 30 feet in width. Ms. Little stated the minimum width for a private drive was 22 feet (constructed). She reminded the Commission they had, in the past, given waivers to allow 18 feet for two-way access. t • Planning Commission June 24, 1996 Page 17 In response to a question, Mr. House explained that, due to the concern of the residents on Amber, they had discussed the possibility of using the private drive and eliminating the Amber access. He stated it could still be a private drive as a part of the P.U.D. He pointed out the width should keep people from using it as a cut -through from Highway 45 to Old Wire. Ms. Johnson pointed out the street, as drawn, did not appear to attract high speed traffic since it had trees, a median, curves, etc. like to see that alternative. Mr. Odom stated he would like to see the use of the private drive rather than Amber. He advised he was not committed to that plan, but would like to see that alternative. is • /C- k • Planning Commission June 24, 1996 Page 18 PP96-5: PRELIMINARY PLAT - HERITAGE VILLAGE, PH. II C & B LAND AND CATTLE CO. - N OF HWY 16, E OF 59TH AVE. The next item was a preliminary plat for Heritage Village, Phase II, submitted by Development Consultants, LLC, on behalf of C & B Land and Cattle Company, Inc., for property located north of Highway 16 and east of 59th Avenue. The property is zoned R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential, and contains approximately 17.36 acres with 24 single family lots and 23 duplex lots proposed. Ms. Johnson advised staff recommended approval of the plat subject to the following conditions: (1) consideration of the proposed duplex lots - at the December 12, 1994 Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Bundrick explained he had requested R-1.5 in order to construct affordable, single family homes; (2) resolution of the street width for Plantation Street - 24 feet instead of the standard 27 feet; (3) staff approval of detailed plans, specifications and calculations, where applicable, for grading, drainage, water, sewer, streets and tree preservation; (4) a statement from adjacent property owners Barr and Fredrick that they did not desire a stubout access to their property; (5) a note on the plat that lot 105 would not be built upon and a letter to the City explaining how that lot would be maintained; (6) construction of a permanent cul-de-sac between • lots 131 and 132; a copy of the protective covenants to be filed with the City; (8) construction of 4 -foot sidewalks along one side of each street to match the pattern of Phase I; and plat review and subdivision committee comments. Mr. Beavers added there would be off-site sewer charges in an amount to be determined by the City Engineer (approximately $200.00 per lot). In response Ms. Johnson reading the section of the December 12, 1994 minutes relating to construction of single-family homes, Mr. Richard Bundrick explained the terrain made it difficult to construct single family homes. He pointed out there would be approximately 150 single family homes and 23 or 24 duplexes. He advised that, due to the terrain, each duplex lot would have to have individually designed residences. He further noted staff had advised he could, at a later date, obtain lot splits on each of the duplex lots but they did not recommend he do so. Mr. Bundrick advised that, in order to satisfy the City Council's concerns when the property had been rezoned, he had signed an agreement that he would place no more than a total of 170 units in Phase I and Phase II. In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, Brian Ray, Development Consultants, advised the southern edge of Phase R was along the northern right-of-way of Chattel Street. He added the duplex lots were north of Reliance Street (once called Estate Street). He further stated they 1Bwould be willing to construct a 27 -foot street rather than the 24 -foot previously requested. • Planning Commission June 24, 1996 Page 19 Ms. Johnson asked why there were three cul-de-sacs to the north instead of stubout streets. Mr. Ray explained there was a ravine 30 to 60 feet deep immediately north of the site. He also pointed out Hamestring Creek was immediately to the north and that area had been designated as park lands. Ms. Johnson asked why staff was asking the adjoining property owners if they wanted the streets from this project to be stubbed out. Ms. Little advised the Barrs had access to their property from Fountain Street and terrain made it difficult to stub out at any other location other than Reliance Street. She stated there was very steep terrain to the Fredericks' property but access could be gained somewhere between lots 135 through 137. She explained staff believed it would be better for the developer to determine whether the stubout was necessary. She pointed out the Barrs and Fredericks had not contacted the City asking for the stubouts. Mr. Ray advised they had not directly been in contact with the Barrs or Fredericks. He pointed out the Frederick property went down at a 3:1 slope from Heritage Village. is Mr. Beavers agreed with Mr. Ray that access to the Frederick property would not benefit the Fredericks due to the terrain. Mr. Ray advised the Fredericks did have other access and were hauling fill material out of their property. He stated they were objecting to staff comments No. 1 (consideration of duplex lots) and No. 4 (statement from the Barrs and Fredricks). MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to staff comments. He asked for clarification regarding the agreement the developer had as to the total number of units. Ms. Little stated the total number of lots was to be no more than 170. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Ms. Johnson reiterated the motion that they approve the preliminary plat subject to staff comments plus the additional staff requirement that the applicant pay off-site sewer improvement costs of approximately $200.00 per lot. She noted Requirement No. 2 had been agreed upon - that the street width of Plantation would be 27 feet wide. She then read a portion of the staff • comments - "The Subdivision Committee and staff recommend allowing duplexes subject to the integration of duplexes into the total development (not segregated as shown on the proposed Planning Commission June 24, 1996 Page 20 preliminary plat) and a minimum of two off-street parking spaces per side for all duplexes (in addition to any garages). She asked if that was included in the motion. Mr. Allred stated it was not. He explained it was his understanding the reason for the duplexes to be segregated was due to topographical restraints of the area. He stated he was comfortable with what was proposed by the developer. He went on to say, however, the two car parking spaces per side (together with garages) was agreeable since they were reducing the street width, causing the need for additional off-street parking. Mr. Bundrick advised he did not have a problem with providing off-street parking. The motion carried unanimously. is • • Planning Commission June 24, 1996 Page 21 LS96-17 - LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - MOLLY COURT, PHASE II GLENN SOWDER - S OF NORTH STREET & W OF GREGG AVE, The next item was a large scale development for Molly Court, Phase 11, submitted by Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Glenn Sowder for property located on the south side of North Street and the west side of North Gregg Avenue. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, and contains approximately 1.66 acres with 37 proposed units. The staff recommended approval of the large scale subject to the following conditions: (1) payment of parks fees in the amount of $6,660.00; (2) dedication of 40 feet of right-of-way for Gregg Avenue; (3) approval of a separate variance in the building setback along the North Street right-of-way from the Board of Adjustment (staff supports this proposed variance); (4) minimum setback on the south property line shall be eight feet; (5) approval of a parking waiver to allow 51 spaces in lieu of the required 45 spaces (staff supports this request for additional parking spaces); (6) construction of a new four foot sidewalk along Gregg Avenue with the sidewalk being located on the outer edge of the right-of-way; (7) staff approval of the detailed plans, specifications and calculations where applicable for grading, drainage, water, sewer, streets and tree preservation. All improvements shall meet the City Engineer's latest criteria. All new water • and sewer easements shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width; (8) staff approval of the parking lot and landscaping plan; (9) all drainage facilities, including detention if deemed necessary by the final design, shall be privately maintained; (l) a separate easement plat will be submitted prior to any building permits being issued; (l 1) the applicant/owner shall execute a letter of agreement stating that he understands the City is not responsible to repair or replace any surface (other than normal asphalt or concrete pavement and grass), landscaping or trees within an easement due to the City's normal maintenance or repair work on any water and/or sewer line or appurtenance; and (12) plat review and subdivision committee comments. Mr. Glen Carter, Jorgensen & Associates, stated his client was not in agreement with all of the staff comments. He advised he wanted to comment on conditions 2, 3, 5 and 7. In response to a question from Ms. Johnson; Ms. Little advised Gregg Street was shown as a collector street on the Master Street Plan. She noted there had been a long standing plan at the City to find a way to divert Gregg Street around Wilson Park. She explained that, while there was not a definite plan, there was a plan for Gregg Street to be located further to the west. She went on to say staff was asking for the additional right-of-way only along the north 120 feet of Gregg; not the entire length of the property. Mr. Carter explained this would lead to a gridlock traffic pattern on Maple Street (Gregg to Frisco, Frisco to the east over to the yellow building owned by University Baptist Church, to • Dickson Street, to West Street). He stated the Sowder family had created a 100 x 100 foot green • Planning Commission June 24, 1996 Page 22 space/picnic area adjacent to the subject property and the taking of the right-of-way destroyed the usefulness of the area. Mr. Sowder expressed concern that, should the city take 40 feet of right-of-way and place a sidewalk along the right-of-way, the sidewalk would run under the eaves of his mother's home and through the closets of the structures located at 601, 603 and 605 West Adams. He further advised he believed the taking of such right-of-way was unconstitutional. Ms. Johnson advised the applicant would need to talk to the Board of Adjustment regarding item no. 3; the Planning Commission had no control over the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Carter advised there would be 37 units, 12 of which would have 2 bedrooms (a total of 49 spaces). He pointed out most of the units would be rented to couples with two cars. Mr. Sowder requested at least two parking spaces per master bedroom or 74 spaces. Ms. Little explained the ordinance called for one space per bedroom or 45 spaces but would support the 51 spaces shown on the plat. • Mr. Allred advised the number of spaces had not been discussed at the Subdivision Committee meeting. He asked if, after the units were constructed and the applicant found he did not have enough spaces, he could return to the Commission for additional spaces. Ms. Little stated the applicant could request additional spaces if he found 51 were not adequate after the units were constructed. Mr. Carter then addressed item no. 7, explaining many of the easements were already in place with water and sewer lines already existing. He stated the easements varied from 10 to 15 feet. Mr. Sowder stated there was a large scale development plan in place which had shown 15 foot easements for the entire project. He explained that, since the configuration of the buildings had changed, he had to get approval on a new large scale development. Mr. Beavers explained it was intention that any new easements be 20 feet in width, not existing easements. Mr. Sowder advised it had been his intention to use turf block for the parking area so that there would be better drainage on the site. He went on to say that, if he were required to put in detention ponds, he would not go to the expense of using turf blocks. • Planning Commission June 24, 1996 Page 23 Mr. Beavers explained the turf blocks would be taken into account when Jorgensen & Associates presented their final drainage design. He further stated a detention pond might not be required but he would not know that until he saw the final drainage design. Mr. Tucker stated the plan showed 2700 square feet of landscaping from 9 trees. Mr. Sowder reviewed his landscaping plans, including 500 evergreen trees. In response to a question from Ms. Little, Mr. Sowder stated he had met with Beth Sandeen, City Landscape Administrator, approximately 3 months earlier. Ms. Little advised Ms. Sandeen had, after reviewing the tree preservation plan, marked it adequate. Mr. Allred asked if the staff would support an additional 10 parking spaces as overflow parking should Mr. Sowder use the turf block pavers. Mr. Beavers stated he did not believe the two were related. • Ms. Little stated staff did favor additional parking for apartments but, on the subject site, she did not believe there was room for additional parking. Ms. Rose Gergerich, 220 Adams, asked where the exits were from the development; and if there were sidewalks the length of the property along Gregg Street. She explained she was concerned regarding pedestrian traffic. Ms. Johnson stated a sidewalk was required along Gregg Street. Ms. Gergerich asked about the gymnasium shown on the plat. Mr. Sowder explained it was an exercise area for the residents only. In response to another question from Ms. Gergerich, Mr. Sower assured her only three trees would be destroyed on the tract. Ms. Gergerich expressed concern that Gregg Street would be widened. Ms. Little explained the process of acquiring right-of-way and street widening. In response to a question from Ms. Gergerich, she stated the staff would not support a variance along a street that is might be widened in the future. • Planning Commission June 24, 1996 Page 24 Mr. Odom asked where Mr. Sowder proposed in placing the additional parking spaces if they were granted. only 120 feet. feet from the centerline of the road would Mr. Sowder stated the original plan had 75 parking spaces. He advised he would get the Commission a copy of that plan. Mr. Reynolds pointed out the staff wanted 40 feet of right-of-way on Gregg Street for the first 120 feet south of North Street. He asked what would happen to the property immediately south of the first 120 feet. Ms. Little stated it had been a staff recommendation at the time the first town houses were approved that right-of-way be taken. She explained the developer had not agreed to give right- of-way at that time. She advised that, when the street was widened, it would probably be cheaper to purchase the single family homes on the east side of Gregg Street. In response to a question from Mr. Reynolds, Ms. Little explained right-of-way dedication on large scale developments was in accordance with the Master Street Plan. She stated that, if money was taken for street improvements, there was a five year time period; but staff was not • asking for money to improve the street. Mr. Reynolds advised he did not understand the advantage of taking the additional right-of-way for only 120 feet. feet from the centerline of the road would Ms. Little explained it was a benefit to have the additional right-of-way when the street was widened. She went on to explain that, if there was insufficient right-of-way, the City would have to acquire the right-of-way at that time. Mr. Sowder advised the three existing houses had been at that location since the early 1900's and 40 feet from the centerline of the road would be approximately one foot into each of the houses. Mr. Odom pointed out Gregg was shown as a minor arterial on the Master Street Plan and he believed it was staffs obligation to request additional right-of-way. In response to a question, Ms. Little explained the current right-of-way was 25 feet from the centerline and the staff was asking for an additional 15 feet of right-of-way. She stated the right- of-way width of a minor arterial street should be 80 to 100 feet. Mr. Sowder reminded the Commission that, when he had requested rezoning of the property, the Wilson Park neighborhood had protested the rezoning because they believed it would cause • additional traffic on Gregg Street. He pointed out that, if Gregg Street was widened, it would also cause additional traffic. • Planning Commission June 24, 1996 Page 25 Mr. Odom stated that, when the Master Street Plan had been adopted, Gregg became a minor arterial. He pointed out that, when the street was widened, it would bypass the park. Mr. Reynolds asked how much property had been acquired for right-of-way from the east side of Gregg. Ms. Little explained the city had not acquired any property from the east side of Gregg since the property was all single family homes. She advised that, until some type of development occurred, the City did not request additional right-of-way. She went on to say the City only asked for additional right-of-way as conditions of development. Mr. Allred expressed concern that, once the City started acquiring larger rights-of-way in residential areas, it would open the area up for increased traffic and more intense development. He noted, however, that, if they did not require the additional right-of-way, they would not be following the Master Street Plan. Ms. Johnson pointed out the Commission always required additional right-of-way (when needed) whenever they reviewed a large scale development. • MOTION Mr. Harbison moved to approve LSD96-17 subject to all staff conditions of approval, including No. 2. Mr. Tucker seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-1-0 with Commissioners Tucker, Allred, Johnson, Harbison and Odom voting "yes" and Commissioner Reynolds voting "no". 0 • Planning Commission June 24, 1996 Page 26 AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING CODE Mr. Harbison advised the UDO Committee had reviewed the proposed ordinances included in the Commissioners' packets. He stated the proposals applied to neighborhood commercial, thoroughfare commercial, central commercial, downtown, heavy commercial, and light industrial. He further stated the three members on the Committee had been unanimous regarding the provisions of the ordinances. He asked that Tim Conklin, Planning, review the ordinances telling how the proposed ordinances differ from the current ordinances. Mr. Conklin reviewed the proposed ordinances as follows: No. 2 - Landscaping Along Front Property Lines which requires a 15 -foot wide landscaped area along the front property line, planting trees at a ratio of I tree per 30 feet; except in parking lots, the landscaping can be reduced to 10 feet from the property line. No. 3 - Landscaping General Provisions which is similar to the overlay district landscaping general provisions. is No. 4 - Screening Required - which requires screening similar to the overlay district except exempting I-2 and E-1 zones; requiring trash enclosures to not be visible from the street; and requiring outdoor storage of material and equipment be screened with natural vegetation. No. 5 - type, Height and Location of Fences which prohibits razor and barbed wire fencing in C- 1, C-2, C-3, C-4 and R -O zones and, if visible from the street, prohibited in I-1, I-2, E-1 and P-1 zones; chain link fencing, visible from the street, is prohibited in C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4 and R -O zones, except for residential uses; and limiting the height of fences located in front of primary structures to 30 inches. No. 6- Development Site Coverage which was similar to the design overlay standards. No. 7 - Shared Drives and Cross Access Between Properties (a new standard) which provides for shared drives and cross access between properties. No. 8 - Building Material Composition - does not allow metal siding on the front of buildings and no more than 50% metal siding on all other walls visible from the street. No. 9 - Length of Building Walls - Wall planes cannot run in one continuous direction for more than 50 feet without a significant offset. 0 No. 10 - Variances - providing a new variance procedure similar to the overlay district. • Planning Commission June 24, 1996 Page 27 He advised the design standards had been advertised and could be acted upon at the July 8 Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Harbison also pointed out they had a proposed ordinance requiring utilities to be located underground throughout new subdivisions. Mr. Conklin stated they were also looking at amending the parking lot ordinance to require 10 feet of landscaping with 2'/z feet high screening in all zones. Mr. Harbison also noted they were still reviewing the proposed ordinances and the section on Variances would probably look more like the one in the Design Overlay District ordinance. Ms. Johnson advised Mr. Tucker had been sitting in with the UDO Committee. She appointed him as an additional member to the UDO Committee The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. • 0