Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-08-12 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on August 12, 1996 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration building, 113 W. Mountain; Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Phyllis Johnson, Lorel Hoffman, Jerry Allred, Gary Tucker, Mark Sugg, Bob Reynolds, John Forney, Conrad Odom, and John Harbison. STAFF PRESENT: Rich Lane, Alert Little, Dawn Thomas, and Heather Woodruff. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Ms. Johnson advised a correction on the bottom of page 4 and top of page 5; the motion to approve a rezoning request made by Jerry Allred and seconded by Mr. Reynolds granting a bill of assurance of no duplexes. The motion carried, but did not state if it included the bill of assurances. She thought the Commission did not make the requirement for a bill of assurance a part of the motion. Ms Little commented the applicant had submitted a bill of assurance and she had forward it on to Council with the rezoning request. Ms. Johnson stated issue would become moot. She continued with page 11. The minutes read that CU96-16, • Muggy had been postponed when the motion was to table until the Commission had reports from the Inspection Dept., Fire Dept., and DHS. The minutes were approved with the correction on page I 1 to change postpone to table. OLD BUSINESS: CU96-16.00: CONDITIONAL USE FOR THOMAS AND KAYLE MUGGY DAY CARE FACILITY ON GREENWOOD. S HWY 71 BYPASS, W OF S SCHOOL The first item on the agenda was submitted by Thomas and Kayle Muggy for property located at 945 Greenwood Ave., south of Hwy 71 Bypass and west of S. School St. The property is zoned R-1 and contains approximately 0.43 acres. The request was for a home occupation for a day care facility. Ms. Little informed that since the last meeting, the staff had received the reports from the Fire Dept. and Inspection Dept; and that she had contacted Ms. Muggy to bring the DHS letter. Ms. Little cautioned the applicant to be aware of several requirements if approval was granted. 1. No more than five children be cared for. 2. No more than 300 square ft. of gross floor area be utilized for the home occupation child care . 3. There must be 80 square ft. of play area per child. 4. Approval of the day care for one year only. 5. No employees outside of the relatives living in the home. Ms. Johnson asked to hear from the audience • PUBLIC COMMENT ON CU96-16.00: CONDITIONAL USE FOR THOMAS AND KAYLE MUGGY DAY CARE FACILITY ON GREENWOOD, S HWY 71 BYPASS, W OF S SCHOOL • Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 1996 Page 2 Ms. Kayle Muggy stated she had brought the requested information. She stated Mr. Ledbetter had inspected on May 10, 1996, and that five children would be the number cared for. Mr. Scotty Blase, 420 N. Salem Rd. Fayetteville, stated he was satisfied with Ms. Muggy's care and the facility's location. Ms. Tracy Chainy stated her child was happy and well cared for at Ms. Muggy's. She had no problems. COMMISSION Mr. Reynolds stated he had visited the child care facility and had talked with Mr. Muggy. The commissioner stated that, if house keeping chores were taken care of: cutting grass, repairing slide, and DHS requirements, he would have no problem approving the day care. MOTION Mr. Forney moved for approval of CU96-16.00 for home occupation child care, subject to the staff recommendation. Mr. Odom seconded. • Ms. Johnson ruled the motion out of order, because it did not address the hours of operation. She questioned Ms. Little about other child care facilities that had opened earlier than the ordinance allowed. Ms. Little said there were a number of them that opened earlier for nurses. She stated there had been no complaints. MOTION Mr. Odom moved for approval, subject to the requirements listed and the hours of operation being 6:30 to 6:30. Mr. Forney seconded. No discussion. Motion carried unanimously, 9-0-0. • Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 1996 Page 3 AD 96-21: RECONSIDERATION OF CONDITION PLACED ON APPROVAL LS95-11 LALEH AMIRMOEZ- NW CORNER OF PHARRIS AND MALINDA. The second item on the agenda was submitted by Laleh Amirmoez for property located at the northwest corner of Pharris and Malinda Streets. The lot is zoned R-2 and contains approximately 6,655 sq. ft. The applicant wished to place a duplex on a lot which had been created through lot split LS95-11 with the condition that only a single family home be placed on the lot created by the Planning Commission action.. Ms. Little stated the applicants wished to withdraw the item from the agenda, but they had requested to make a statement. Ms. Amirmoez stated she and her husband had talked to neighbors and had a petition in support of the duplex, but could not in good conscience proceed with the plans. In order to remain on good terms with their neighbors, they would build a single family unit, rather than a duplex. Ms. Johnson stated that, at the applicant request, the item would come off the agenda L� 40 �1 9� �0 • Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 1996 Page 4 AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 160: ZONING, OF THE CODE OF FAYETTEVILLE DEVELOPMENT & ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS The third item on the agenda was an amendment to Chapter 160: Zoning, of The Code of Fayetteville, to provide site development and architectural design standards for commercial, office, institutional, and industrial uses. Ms Johnson requested staff, Commission, UDO members, and audience to keep their comments short and concise, because of all the previous meetings and comments on the subject. Mr. Harbison stated the UDO subcommittee had met twice since the last Planning Commission meeting. They met with people who had submitted written comments and had discussed the comments in detail, incorporating some of the suggestions. The memo beginning at page 3.1 summarizes the comments. Ms. Little pointed out the changes since last meeting on July 22. There are a total of 13 changes, some from Ordinance Review Committee and some from public hearing comments. She stated written comments were received from Jim Foster, Jana Britton, and David Lieb. She read a new letter sent by Jim Foster requesting an informal question and answer session with architects about proposed design standards. She said she had replied by inviting them to the meeting tonight and offering to arrange a meeting with the subcommittee. She also stated the matter would go to the City Council on September 3. She stated all changes had been highlighted and that illustrations had been added. She said they sent letters to local contractors and the Chamber of Commerce to make sure local contractors would be apprised of the latest changes. • She stated the changes: Page 3.3 The words "sense of place" had been removed. Page 3.4 Added a reference to the variance procedure. Page 3.5 Added diameter, to better describe caliper. Also changed height of trees to "trees should be planted that will not interfere with existing power lines". Page 3.6 Removed "screened with fencing or vegetation" and "screen" was substituted in its place because screening was defined elsewhere. "Mechanical and utility equipment over 30" in height shall meet the building set backs", was added under screening options because items over 30" in height are not allowed to impede sight distance. Page 3.6 The word "can" was removed and "may" was inserted in the phrase "iron and plastic grates may be used over the tree root system". Page 3.7 The words "on three sides" was removed from "trash inclosures shall be screened with access not visible from the street". Page 3.7 Descriptive terms relating to outdoor storage were added. "Outdoor storage shall include items for rent or sale other than automobiles and similar vehicles. Storage shall mean that items are located outside for more than 48 hours". Page 3.7 "Chain link fence prohibited if closer to street than the front of the building in zoning districts C- 1, C-2, C-3, C-4 and R -O", was added. Page 3.7 The words, "or any other impermeable surface" were added to paragraph 4 to read "a maximum 85% of development site may be covered by the ground floor of any structure, parking lots, sidewalks, and private streets and drives or any other impermeable surface". Page 3.13 Removed the word "most" to read, "Quality and design elements for commercial office and industrial or industrial structures that are desirable". Page 3.16 Changed wording, "Color rendered architectural perspective drawings of all buildings sides visible from the street or 1 "=32' or 1 "=40' scaled model of the project". • Mr. Sugg questioned why residential uses were exempt from some standards, if the residential use occurred in one of the covered zones; questioned the wording on the grouping of trees in section 3.5 and suggested that no group • Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 1996 Page 5 could count for more than 25% of the required number; stated on page 3.8 site coverage, he thought there should be a section of pedestrian access, shared walks, and cross access between properties; suggested, on page 3.12 G, that the use of natural materials be encouraged; suggested under Architectural Design Standards, under 3.A, the local requirements for use of registered architects be placed; requested under design review, the model needed to include context; continued under C of the same section, requesting a section drawing of the screen because plan view does not describe screening; and expressed concern under 2A, that the determination of insignificant or minor, put too much burden on the staff. Ms. Little explained that the standards were for commercial uses and were not intended to apply to residential zones or residential uses in other zones; stated she was not familiar state laws governing architects on design elements, but was familiar with the state law on structural requirements stating that any building that cost in excess of $75,000 requires design by an architect or engineer. Ms. Hoffman stated that other states required a professional seal for structural integrity. Ms. Johnson stated that if there was a state law controlling, than it does not add any thing to add to the city's requirements. Ms. Hoffman stated she enjoyed reading the proposed ordinances and thought it was a good direction for Fayetteville to be going, adding she would like to see the standards apply to 50% redevelopment. She stated redevelopment on a large scale is an important item to cover in design standards, referring to a letter written by Alderman Williams suggesting design standards address new commercial construction and remodeling of and • rehabilitation efforts in excess of 50% of fair market value of property. She recommended it be added to the ordinance at this stage for recommendation to Council. Ms. Johnson stated the suggestion of the 50% redevelopment be included was a sizable change. She requested the subcommittee's reaction to this proposal, but also commented the Planning Commission could postpone voting on the ordinance tonight as a final document. Mr. Harbinson questioned where the change would be made; and suggested paragraph C after the first sentence. He stated this was not an issue they had spent much time on in subcommittee. He stated he would like to explore the idea in more depth before making a change. He added he was reluctant for the subcommittee to reconvene on this issue. Ms. Hoffman questioned the staff on the amount of redevelopment Ms. Little responded in some cases they talked about making the ordinance apply to redevelopment particularly with regard to chain link fences. She stated they had made a conscious effort that it would mainly affect new things. She added, for rehabilitation efforts, one area which would be affected was North College, stating the area was almost 100% developed. If the ordinance were to apply to rehabilitation in excess of 50% of the value, staff would have the gauge of fair market value. She stated she believed it was a major change, and suggested the Planning Commission make what ever changes they felt were appropriate tonight and forward their recommendation onto Council, adding another round of public hearings at the Council level. Ms. Johnson asked for comments from the public PUBLIC COMMENT ON DEVELOPMENT AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS isMs. Fran Alexander stressed the need for retention of older trees to help reduce runoff. She questioned if the landscaped area was defined well enough. She suggested the city's landscape manual be referenced in place of • Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 1996 Page 6 continuing existing species. She suggesting moving sidewalks instead of removing messy trees and moving utility lines instead of planting small trees. She requested a variance for 100' square foot area around trees for smaller trees. She concluded by stating that by covering 85% of land with pavement the purpose of the ordinance would be defeated. Mr. Elam Denham questioned the meaning of extraction. Ms. Little answered it was a zone that has any mining or resource removal activity Mr. Denham expressed concern over 15' landscaped area and the idea of needing green space. His concern was for good relationship between sidewalk and building for pedestrians, stating it was not always a good idea to have a separation between buildings and sidewalk, citing the square and other locations. Mr. Forney stated all the examples Mr. Denham used were for central business zones where buildings were up to the street edge. Mr. Forney continued that the landscaped area was required for zones with a setback of 30'-50' for buildings. He said the landscaped area was for a space that was mandated in zoning ordinances, noting that setbacks in the areas described by Mr. Denham were nil; and suggested Mr. Denham address his ideas to zoning, not design guidelines. These guide lines are proposed with the given that there is an area of required setback in the zones affected by the proposed ordinance. Mr. Denham stated he wanted people to know it is not always desirable to have a green space between sidewalk and building. He also questioned the definition of architecturally designed. He stated the requirement for color • renderings and models was inappropriate, believing it would be of too great expense, because at the time it is required, projects would still be in the design process and changes might occur. Mr. Greg House, developer and investor, stated the Commission's efforts would benefit every one and as a developer, he supported the proposed ordinance. Mr. Perry Butcher, Architect, stated that regulation of architecture was very difficult to do. He questioned how many architects were consulted during the drafting of the document, requesting that the Commission allow more input from architects. Mr. Harbison replied the city had open public meetings on this subject for several months. Ms. Johnson stated the project had been worked on for several months with a lot of public notice. She commented he was implying that the staff and the Commission hadn't solicited public opinion. She commented that no amount of notice or invitations would be enough to satisfy everyone. Mr. Butcher stated the proposed ordinance would have a long term effect. He suggested that in place of using a model to show the area, to use photographs, stating it would be more cost effective because a model could cost from $5,000 to $25,000. He stated it was too early of a stage for color perspectives to be done, materials had not been selected because budgets had not been set. He commented the Commission would have to be careful not to fall into trends. He cautioned about restricting designers' creativity. He stated legislation would hinder new and creative ideas. Mr. Forney referred to E. L(a). on page 3.16 about the color perspective or model and questioned the original language. 0 Mr. Harbison stated the only addition was a scale model. div • Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 1996 Page 7 Ms. Little stated the subcommittee changed the wording for a scaled perspective drawing, realizing there was no such thing. She commented that Mr. Butcher's idea of using photos was an excellent idea. Mr. Butcher stated most models were just for working to visualize the volume of buildings, and that a more detailed model that would show materials, textures, and colors would be very expensive. He said models are done at a later stage and most projects do not have them. Perspectives are generally after the preliminary designs and estimates are done and the floor plan is set. Mr. Randy Zerher stated he thought the Commission was doing a good job on the design standards, and he supported them.. Ms. Tara Little stated that she supported design standards, but thought they should come from the citizens - not from the top down. She suggested using a method of community involvement such as a visual preference survey. Daryl Rantis, architect, stated he would give up some design freedom for design standards - adding that this was an excellent first step. He expressed concern about the process, stating that the large scale should deal with siting issues. Design issues should be dealt with when applying for building permit and either a design board made up of more design professionals or the Board of Adjustments make the decisions, so not all power of design was given to one board. He also suggested hiring consultants, to help write these difficult ordinances. COMMISSION DISCUSSION ON DEVELOPMENT & ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS • Ms. Johnson stated it was appropriate to vote on ordinance. She suggested reviewing the ordinance in sections. She asked if there were any changes to Section 1, subsection A. Purposes, and B. Zoning Districts. There were none and those sections were approved by consensus. At section 1, subsection C., Site Development Standards, Mr. Sugg recommended item # 6 under A., "Providing outdoor rooms and places for people to gather are encouraged". After discussion, Mr Sugg suggested changing room to space. MOTION Ms. Johnson quoted, "providing outdoor spaces and places for people to gather encouraged". She considered it a motion. Mr. Tucker seconded. Upon roll call, the motion carried on a vote 6-3-0 with Forney, Reynolds and Allred voting nay. Ms. Johnson moved to subsection C.l.a.(2), and suggested adding "and/or retained" to read, "source of landscaping and shall be placed and/or retained in such a manner". She asked if there was an objection or discussion. Mr. Allred stated the city had a drainage ordinance that would override and take care of any drainage. He thought the Commission was getting redundant by addressing it in this ordinance, since the issue is addressed in the drainage ordinance. He stated he thought the sentence should stay as it is. Mr. Harbinson stated he thought the idea was not to retain runoff, but to retain landscaping. • Ms. Johnson said the focus was to maintain the shrubs and vegetation after it has been planted and/ or to retain existing vegetation. She stated the phrase would read, "shall be the primary source of landscaping and shall be !�1 • Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 1996 Page 8 placed and/or retained in such a manner as to reduce runoff'. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved the change as read by Ms. Johnson be made. Mr. Odom seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed by 9-0-0. MOTION Ms Hoffman, referring to her previous statements about the 50% rehabilitation, moved that under C, Site Development Standards, that the first sentence should be extended to read, "existing development; or remodeling/ rehabilitation which amounts to 50% or more of the fair market value of the property occurs". Mr. Sugg seconded. Mr. Odom stated that he had not have enough time to consider the full effect of that change. Mr. Harbinson stated he would vote against the motion, not because it was a bad idea, but because it was a large idea and the subcommittee had not had an opportunity to discuss it. He suggested that the Commission send a cover memorandum to City Council stating this should be taken under consideration. • Mr. Sugg stated he was in favor of the motion and suggested it be added and let the City Council take it out, if they thought it was inappropriate. Mr. Allred stated he was concerned that the change could discourage renovation of smaller properties. Upon roll call, the motion failed 3-6-0 with Harbison, Tucker, Reynolds, Johnson, Odom and Allred voting nay. Ms. Johnson asked the Commission, if they thought the Council should further consider this idea. She stated some people had voted in opposition because the idea had came up at a late hour, and it was significant enough to warrant major study. Mr. Tucker and Mr. Reynolds supported additional study at Council. Ms. Johnson asked Ms. Little to inform the Council that the Planning Commission considered the idea a major change without study and wished the Council to further consider it. MOTION Mr. Sugg moved to add under C. Site Development Standards Lb.(3), Trees, "that no group can count for more than 25% of the required number". Ms. Hoffman seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed 5-4-0 with Forney, Johnson, Odom, and Allred voting nay. • Mr. Harbison commented there had been suggestions referencing the Landscape Manual with respect to the species encouraged. He stated he supported that idea. • Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 1996 Page 9 Ms. Little questioned if they were planning on changing the first sentence from "the discretion of the developer" to "in accordance with the landscape manual". Ms. Johnson stated they were changing the second sentence, about consistency with other species present. She suggested they rewrite the second sentence to read, "However, species which are listed in the Landscape Manual under the Tree Selection Guide are encouraged". There was no discussion. The change was added by consensus. Mr. Sugg suggested that pedestrian access, shared walk, and cross access shall be provided under section C, Site Development Standards, as #6. Mr. Allred suggested changing "provided" to "encouraged" on both 5 & 6. There was a long discussion on the use of the words provided vs. encouraged as well as whether a separate section on pedestrian access should be created. Discussion also was held on the requirements currently enforced for sidewalks and the effect such wording might have on the current requirements for sidewalks. MOTION Mr. Allred moved that "provided" be changed to "encouraged" in section 5. Ms. Johnson said that 3.17 under variances, she thought there was an escape from requirements that were unduly burdensome. • Mr. Forney seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed 5-4-0 with Sugg, Tucker, Hoffman, and Odom voting nay. Ms. Johnson stated the sentence now read: "Shared drives and cross access between properties shall be encouraged to developed and undeveloped properties except in C-3, C-4 zones. MOTION Mr. Sugg moved that item 6 be added as Pedestrian Access to read, "Shared walks and cross access shall be encouraged between developed and undeveloped properties accept in C-3 and C-4 zones. At Mr. Harbison's suggestion, Mr. Sugg revised his motion to include the word "internal" Ms. Hoffman seconded. After discussion about whether the cross access might also be used for pedestrians and discussions about sidewalks in general, Ms. Johnson clarified that sidewalks were provided but under this ordinance, cross access along drives was provided. Ms. Little pointed out that under the current proposal both C-3 and C-4 zones would be excluded from the requirement for pedestrian access. Mr. Allred stated in an industrial zone, security was a concern from one plant to the next. He added it would have a different impact in commercial zones than it did in industrial zones. • Ms. Johnson stated the motion was the addition of item # 6 "Pedestrian access. Shared internal walkways and cross access shall be encouraged to developed and undeveloped adjoining properties". She questioned if C-3 and C-4 • Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 1996 Page 10 should be dropped off, so those zones would be included. Mr. Sugg indicated support for removing C-3 and C-4, adding there was a hardship clause. Ms. Johnson stated the motion was: "Pedestrian Access. Shared internal walkways, and cross access shall be encouraged in developed and undeveloped adjoining properties". Upon roll call, the motion failed 4-5-0 with Tucker, Reynolds, Johnson, Odom, and Allred voting nay. Ms. Hoffman questioned (e). Rhythm on page 3.1 I, she felt symmetrical and asymmetrical was redundant. There was no support. MOTION Mr. Sugg moved under (g) Texture, to add "the use of natural material is encouraged". Mr. Forney seconded. Ms. Little suggested the sentence be added to (k) page 3.13, under desirable elements, Messrs.. Sugg and Forney amended their motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed 6-3-0 with Johnson, Odom, and Allred voting nay. • Mr. Forney objected to one of the illustrations associated with (#8) on Multi -planed, pitched roofs showing a parapet roof. He stated the intent was to encourage the use of richer roof plains. MOTION Ms. Johnson stated the motion by Mr. Forney was to delete the bottom picture that said undesirable. Mr. Tucker seconded. Upon roll was call, the motion carried 8-1-0 with Odom voting nay. MOTION Ms. Johnson moved that on page 3.15 at (1)(3), after the words "metal siding", the words, "which dominate", be inserted and the word "on" be removed. The sentence would read, "Metal siding which dominates the main" ... Mr. Reynolds seconded. Ms. Johnson asked for discussion. She said her observation was that there are plenty of buildings with metal as a facade that where very acceptable, as long as the metal did not dominate the main facade. Upon roll call, the motion passed 8-1-0 with Sugg voting nay. Mr. Forney suggested in section 3 . Architectural Design Standards, that the word "architecturally" be stricken. There was no objection and the word was taken out by consensus. Mr. Allred question in section E, Design Review, if all projects would have to go though design standards. • Ms. Johnson stated it came to the Planning Commission if it was large scale, if it was a building permit it would go to the planning division. • Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 1996 Page 11 Mr. Allred stated he believed it would be a large financial burden on small property owners, that might have a small building they are wanting to build and it would be a large burden on them. Mr. Odom questioned Mr. Allred how he felt about a variance. He suggested adding: "Request for variance from site development for architectural design standards or design review" under the variance provider. Mr. Allred expressed concern over the cost of drawings and models and reminded the Planning Commission they were obligating other people's money. He said if there was a marginal property or small building it would be a significant cost. Ms. Hoffman stated she could see the need to have a design review in context with the size of the project. She suggested adding a clause that buildings under 1000 square foot would be exempt, but added to remove anything other than a large scale development was not appropriate. Mr. Allred stated to not remove it was inappropriate and he would be voting no on entire document if the issue was not resolved, stating he did not think it was fay. Ms. Johnson suggested he make a motion to end sentence I after the word applicable, to delete the clause, "or submitted to the planning division for design review and approval with building permit application", such a motion having the effect that those drawing, information, and plans would only apply to large scale. 13147111tH►] • Mr. Allred moved Ms. Johnson's wording The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Harbinson stated he understood Mr. Allred's concern. He questioned if it could be dealt with in Mr. Odom's suggestion, that one could seek a waiver from the entire design review process, if the process was an undue burden. Mr. Harbinson suggested they look at there was some cheaper way to provide material to the Planning Commission that would enable them implement the ordinance. Ms. Johnson agreed it was a fair suggestion that they look at the specifics, because the specifics would direct the cost. Mr. Sugg stated he would like to add a 1-32' or 1-40' massing model and deleting "color rendered architectural perspectives drawing of all building sides visible from streets". Ms. Johnson stated the alternative proposal would strike the perspective drawings. She asked for a second. The motion died for lack of a second. MOTION Mr. Forney moved they change the language of A to read: a color rendered elevation drawing at 1/16=1' scale showing the primary facade of the project. Mr. Tucker seconded. • Mr. Forney explained that a three dimensional drawing was an expensive proposition. He stated the model was an interesting idea, but depending on scale it would not be an effective tool, especially investigating articulation. He said it would be the most cost effective to require elevation drawings and would allow the Commission to associate 7''-D • Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 1996 Page 12 a material board with an image of the building. He suggested the elevation continue to show some context. Ms. Hoffman added she thought the use of elevations would be a good idea, because elevations were a normal part of the plans required for buildings and could be done at the schematic stages with little or no cost impact to the developers. She added it was a bad idea to just require it for the front elevation. She stated it should show every side, because those drawing would have to be done anyway as a part of their building plans. Mr. Forney added that only one drawing should be color rendered which would add only about $100 to the cost of the drawing. Mr. Sugg added the Commission should leave the option for a model open, in lieu of the drawings, because a model could tell more about the site. Mr. Forney thought they could leave the model and a perspective as an option, but there needed to be an inexpensive way. He added some projects will already have these drawings to present to potential investors. Mr. Tucker stated they were not requiring the drawing be done by an architect. Ms. Johnson stated the suggestion was for E.I(a): "Rendered elevation drawing of 1/16"=1' minimum showing the facade of the project. Mr. Harbison added the thought of context was a good idea and asked Mr. Forney to word that change. • Mr. Forney stated, "A rendered elevation drawing of the main facade at 1/16"=minimum showing adjoining context". Mr. Tucker said his understanding was that this would apply to large scale application as well as small building permits. Mr. Forney added that there was a suggestion earlier to include additional language for perspectives or models. Upon roll call, the motion passed 5-4-0 with Tucker, Reynolds, Hoffman and Odom voting nay. Mr. Tucker commented under (c) there had been comments about sectional drawings or landscaping. Ms. Johnson asked if he had specific recommendation and suggested the commissioner who brought up the idea make a motion or to pass on to something else. MOTION Mr. Sugg moved at E.L(c) to add, "to include a site section drawing". Mr. Tucker seconded. Ms. Little questioned if the section drawing was to represent present condition, or at mature height; and secondly, she questioned if every aspect of screening was to be pictured as there would be several locations on every plan for landscaping and staff needed to know what areas to require the site section drawing for. • Mr. Sugg suggested the site section show the mature growth and include the building outline. Ms. Little suggested: "Proposed landscaping, shown at maturity, to be used as screening shall be shown in section • Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 1996 Page 13 with reference to the building on the tree preservation plan or site plan". Discussion on the cost of including such drawings was held with Johnson, Allred, Forney and Reynolds commenting. MOTION At Mr. Forney's suggestion, Mr. Sugg amended his motion to the wording provided by Ms. Little. Mr. Tucker seconded the amendment. Upon roll call, the motion failed by vote of 2-7-0 with Harbison, Forney, Reynolds, Hoffman, Johnson, Odom and Allred voting nay. Ms. Johnson stated they needed to go back and decide if these things would apply the building permit application situations. Mr. Harbinson referred to paragraph 1 under Variances on page 3.17 and, suggested wording, With respect to building permit applications request for a wavier from design review may be made in writing and shall be submitted along with the application, that demonstrates given the size of the project, such review would constitute an undue burden. Ms. Hoffman questioned to whom this would be submitted. • Mr. Harbison stated it would be returned to the staff for them to make the decision if it needed to go through the design review and stated staff would have the authority to do the design review themselves. Ms. Hoffman asked if they could stipulate a square footage cut off to make it more clear to the applicant what could be considered for this and what would not. She expressed concern of adding an undue burden on the staff. She suggested 1000-2000 square ft. MOTION Ms. Johnson replied she did not think that was the sense of the motion. She restated Mr. Harbinson's comment into a motion, "With respect to building permit application, request for wavier from design review may be made in writing and shall be submitted along with the application that demonstrates the size of the project, such review would constitute an undue burden". Mr. Odom seconded. Ms. Johnson explained this would allow waivers from the whole design review process for small projects. Mr. Harbison stated it would give the staff the authority to grant the wavier. Mr. Allred asked it the staff denied the wavier, was there a way they could appeal. Ms. Little stated that all staff interpretation are subject to appeal to the Board of Adjustments. Mr. Forney stated he would not vote in favor of this, believing they had addressed this by revising (a) and was • concerned about the staff having to deal with a lot of people asking for waivers. Mr. Sugg stated the reason they were trying to implement ordinances was to help people understand what they are • Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 1996 Page 14 going to look like and not to cost the developers more money. He added he was against any waivers. Ms. Little added that on a set of plans there were already elevation drawings, and on almost all of the buildings this would apply to, commercial, office, and industrial, a set of plans would be required. She could not think of a single commercial building where they did not have a set of plans at this same stage. Upon roll call, the motion passed 5-4-0 with Sugg, Tucker, Forney and Hoffman voting nay. Ms. Johnson called for a vote on the ordinance as amended, adding that if it passes it would be forwarded to Council along with the issue concerning the more than 50% redevelopment. The roll was called, and the ordinance was approved by vote of 9-0-0 • 0 • Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 1996 Page 15 AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 160: ZONING, OF THE CODE OF FAYETTEVILLE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES The next item on the agenda was an amendment to Chapter 160: Zoning, of The Code of Fayetteville, to add subchapter: Underground Utilities; to require all utility facilities, including but not limited to gas, electric power, telephone, and CATV cables, to be located underground throughout the development. Ms. Johnson stated this was part of the UDO, dealing with underground utilities. She stated the essence of the article was for all utilities to go underground. She added they would use the word facility in place of line, so transformers and other equipment could be included. She asked if there were any questions or public statements on this proposed ordinance. There were no comments, and she requested a motion. MOTION Mr. Odom moved the ordinance be approved. Mr. Reynolds seconded. There was no discussion Upon roll call, the motion passed 9-0-0. • 0 • Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 1996 Page 16 NEW BUSINESS: AD96-20: SIDEWALK REQUIREMENT FOR NW VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER BROCKETT DAVIS CONSULTING ENGINEERS The next item on the agenda was a reconsideration of the original Planning Commission requirement based on new information from Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department, Brockett Davis Consulting Engineers, and Charles Venable, Asst. Director of Public Works. Ms. Johnson stated they had been provided with new information since last Thursday. She summarized that there were very few options left. She explained that when large scale development was approved, one of the parts of it was a sidewalk along sidewalk 71B. Her understanding was the sidewalk was in the drawing and understood that there was to be a sidewalk. After some of the construction work was done, the developer decided it would be expensive to build, unless he received a waiver. A bond was posted of $18,000 for the sidewalk, if the city had to build the sidewalk. Now the developer has asked for the money back, because realistically the sidewalk cannot be built. It was her understanding there were two options. One as a Commission to grant the refund of the money posted, $18,000, if they felt they could forego the requirement of the sidewalk being built. The second option was not to refund the money and hold the money up to a maximum of five years. And in the five year period the City could build the sidewalk with the money, however, they have been told the actual construction of the sidewalk was many multiples of the $18,000. She stated the City had been told they had a letter from Mr. Venable indicating he did not think the sidewalk was necessary or could be built at this stage. She stated the options were to refund the money, knowing the sidewalk will not be built or hold the money, if they think there might be a chance a sidewalk • might be built. Her understanding was that the sidewalk would not be built by the City. She questioned the staff if they thought it would be built by the City with the $18,000 in hand plus what ever would be needed. Mr. Beavers stated he did not support the construction of the sidewalk. Ms. Johnson asked if he had any estimate what the sidewalk might cost. Mr. Beavers replied that for the City to have the sidewalk built it would cost much more than if the developer to have it built, because it was a small job, the City would pay a premium, double- in excess of $30,000. He commented it was not the sidewalk itself that was a problem, but the drainage and grading that would have to be done for the walk. Ms. Johnson asked if her overview was accurate and if there were any other options available. Mr. Beavers stated he had not asked the contractor. PUBLIC COMMENT ON AD96-20: SIDEWALK REQUIREMENT FOR NW VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER Mr. Virgil Phillips, general contractor, stated he had been trying to keep the City happy and stated they had letters stating they did not need the sidewalks from the State etc. His concern was if he was forced to build the sidewalk, he wanted a letter from the City of Fayetteville, stating he was not liable for any one who went roller blading or skate boarding down sidewalk by 71B that might fall of into the highway and get killed. He stated he driven down the highway every day and there is a lot of traffic and stated that if a sidewalk was installed, someday, someone would get hurt. He stated this was his point of view and he did not represent Barrow Heath. He represented the general contractor. • Ms. Johnson questioned if the Planning Commission asked for the sidewalk at the expense of the developer, including the $18,0009 he had posted as a bond, would the developer be willing to build the sidewalk. • Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 1996 Page 17 Mr. Phillips replied he would be willing to put $18,000 in the sidewalk. He added the $18,000 would not even get the concrete poured. Mr. Reynold questioned Mr. Phillips about an event back on February 10, 1995 stating that the project coordinator was told then that there would be sidewalks along Hwy 71 and again on November 13 and 16, 1995. He referred to documents on page 5.5 which stated a 5' sidewalk would be built along Hwy 71 for the length of the property or a letter of credit for such would be required. He questioned how the City ended up with $18,000 and not $30,000, or enough money to build sidewalk. Mr. Phillips stated that in February, 1995 he was in Iowa. He stated he represented the general contractor. His understanding was when he met with vice -major, that the Planning Commission required the Mr. Heath to put up $18,000 bond for him to get his permit to build Pet Care. The only reason he was here was to get Pet Care built. He was trying to get it done so he could get to his next job. Mr. Reynolds directed his questioning to Mr. Beavers, asking how the city only ended up with half the money to build the sidewalk when they had a letter that stated a letter of credit for such. He stated this had gone through the Subdivision Committee; they had agreed on this sidewalk on these terms; and now the City did not have the money. Mr. Beavers stated that in the agenda packet at page 5.21 there was a memorandum stating where the $18,000 had came from. That was the day Barrow Heath representative had came in to get the building permit for Pet Care. He stated there was a hold on their building permit until the bond was provided. Mr. Beavers said that their estimate was $12,000 and the City took 150% of that. He stated that number was never • submitted as an estimate for engineering to review. He added there had been some confusion in Engineering if the sidewalk was ever required. Ms. Johnson asked how that was relevant to the cost, either they had to post a bond or they did not. If they did not think there would be a sidewalk, we had no reason to request a bond be posted. She stated concern on how things are handled based on the developers estimates, stating one figure and several months later changing, as this would have implications for other projects. Mr. Beavers stated this did not apply to any other project, that Engineering does a very good job with reviewing the estimates on all other projects. This is one very special case where they tried to work with the developer. Mr. Sugg questioned if they could build part of the sidewalk, possibly connecting with IBM. Ms. Johnson questioned the staff if the City must build a sidewalk along the entire frontage of this property. Mr. Beavers suggested they get with the developer's engineer, out of Dallas, and let him submit a detailed estimate, because they were dealing with rough estimates. He stated they could get the work done for less than what the City could, and they might be able to get their contractor to do a lot of grading and site work for $18,000. He thought they might be able to build the south half if not more for what they have posted on bond. Ms. Johnson clarified that the developer's engineer needed to submit a detailed estimate to the city engineer. Mr. Reynolds stated Mr. Nelms had been required to put in sidewalks, as had many other people. He would like to see the sidewalk built. • Mr. Harbison asked Mr. Beavers if he was requesting that the Commission table this item for a couple of weeks to let their engineer do cost estimates. • Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 1996 Page 18 Mr. Beavers stated he would request this. MOTION Mr. Harbison moved that the Commission table the item until they got a cost estimate. Mr. Allred seconded. Mr. Forney asked to also find out what could be built for $18,000. Ms. Johnson stated she would like to know if $ 18,000 would not build a sidewalk, she would like to know what it will build. Upon roll call, the motion passed 9-0-0. • 0 1py o2.)`I • Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 1996 Page 19 PP95-24.10: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BRIDGEPORT SUBDIVISION, PHASE III CREEKWOOD HILL DEVELOPMENT CO -MT COMFORT RD & BRIDGEPORT DR. The item was resubmitted by WBR Engineering on behalf of Creekwood Hill Development Co. for for property located south of Mt. Comfort Rd.. and east of Bridgeport Dr. The property is zoned R- I (low density residential) and contains approximately 5.25 acres with 15 proposed lots designed for single-family residents. Ms. Johnson stated the staff recommended approval subject to eight conditions: 1. Approval of a waiver in cul-de-sac length. The proposed cul-de-sac length is 774 feet. 2. Resolve problems with the deed required for the Parks Department for Bridgeport Phase Il. This was promised as part of the final plat for phase 2 but Parks has been unsuccessful in obtaining a correct deed. 3. Developer to provide an immediate temporary correction of the existing drainage problem with the culvert under the temporary street into the Phase I park. The permanent correction will probably be a new culvert as part of the street design for Phase IV. 4. Dedication of additional Parks land in lieu of fees for Phase III. Design and construct the detention pond promised by the developer to the Parks Board as a part of Phase III prior to the final Plat of Phase III. This pond must meet all engineering design criteria. 5. Staff approval of the detailed plans , specifications, and calculations where applicable for grading, drainage, water, sewer, streets, sidewalks and tree preservation. All improvements shall meet the City Engineer's latest criteria including stormwater management, the new water specifications and the new street specifications. All water and sewer easements shall be a minimum 20 feet in width. 6. Construction of other required improvements, including sidewalks on both sides of all streets, fire • hydrants and street lights as discussed at the plat review meeting. 7. Payment of $200.00 per lot towards sanitary sewer improvements to be due at the time of the final plat. 8. Plat review and Subdivision Committee meeting comments. Ms. Little stated there were 16 lots not 15, that the outlot will be considered a lot. She stated she had a graphic placed over the plat to show the location of the pond and stubout created as a part of Phase III. Ms. Little explained that pond was the reason why the stubout was moved from the south end to the north end. Ms. Johnson questioned if the pond was the retention pond. Ms. Little stated it was not, it was on an existing stock pond. PUBLIC COMMENT ON PP95-24.10 , BRIDGEPORT SUBDIVISION, PHASE III Mr. Rudisill introduced himself and said he was available to answer questions. Ms. Johnson asked if they had the correct legal description for the park lands in Phase II. Mr. Rudisill said it had been resubmitted; approved; dedicated to the city; and recorded at the court house. Ms. Johnson asked if there were any conditions for approval that he had not signed off on. Mr. Rudisill asked about condition of approval #3. He stated they planned on installing the pond on the south end, however, it was not going to operate as a true detention pond. It should be full most of the time and maintained as an amenity to the area for fishing. • Ms. Johnson stated her understanding was that the staff was very specific about the drainage problem involving a culvert under a temporary street and this problem had to taken care of immediately. • Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 1996 Page 20 Mr. Beavers stated that was correct and immediate attention was needed because of the erosion taking place on both ends. He suggested they meet later to discuss some of his options. He added the parks department was concerned that some kind of immediate attention happened. Mr. Rudisill stated they would take care of it. There were no comments from the audience. Mr. Tucker questioned the definition on the outlot Ms. Little informed the lot was not included in the boundaries of the subdivision, but the way the building permit was granted on this was on the entire parcel of land. Therefore, there is no lot of record (outlot) until this subdivision creates that remnant parcel. It is not part of the subdivision so it becomes an outlot, and it is not a separate piece of land until this subdivision is created to separate it off. Mr. Tucker questioned what could occur on that lot. Ms. Little stated a structure was now being placed on the lot, and it was zoned R -I with regard to the rest of the subdivision. She said anything allowable under R-1 zones would be allowable on this lot. Mr. Rudisill stated there were restrictions placed on that property when it was sold, that only one house will be built on it, so it was protected and would not be split in the future. The house being built is one of the owners' house, • and it will be the show house for Bridgeport Subdivision. Mr. Tucker questioned if the outlot had any effect on the calculation for park lands. Ms. Little stated that dedication for parkland had been calculated with that lot included. Mr. Sugg asked where the drive for the outlot would be. Mr. Rudisill stated the access would be off American Drive. If that street was never built, they would build from Bridgeport Drive. MOTION Mr. Allred moved for approval of PP95 24-10 subject to staff comments and a wavier for the length of the cul-de- sac. Mr. Odom seconded. Ms. Johnson informed Mr. Rudisill that he would need to correct the drainage problem. There was no discussion. Upon roll call, the motion passed by vote of 9-0-0. 0 �9 ��2s • Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 1996 Page 21 LSD96-28.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT FOR GARLAND SQUARE APARTMENTS ERC PROPERTIES- GARLAND RD AND CATO SPRINGS RD. The next item on the agenda was submitted by Hill Group Architects on behalf of ERC Properties for property located at the northwest corner of Garland Rd. and Cato Springs Rd.. The property is zoned R-2 and contains approximately 4.06 acres with 56 dwelling units proposed. Ms. Johnson commented this was a proposed HUD project and stated the staff recommended approval of the project, subject to twelve conditions: I. Approval of a parking waiver. 124 parking spaces are required and 91 are proposed. 2. Payment of Parks fees in the amount of $13,440.00. 3. Staff approval of the detailed plans, specifications and calculations where applicable for grading, drainage, water, sewer, streets, sidewalks and tree preservation. All improvements shall meet the City Engineer's latest criteria including the new water specifications and the new street specifications. All water and sewer easements shall be a minimum 20 feet in width. 4. Construction of required drainage improvements, not a "fee in lieu" as requested by the applicant. 5. Developer to provide four dumpster pads and dumpsters (not two as requested by applicant). 6. Dedication of 50 feet right-of-way from the centerline of Cato Springs and 40 feet from the centerline of Garland. Improve the contiguous one-half of Cato Springs and Garland to City standards for a standard 31 ft. street. 7. Construction of 4 ft. sidewalks along Cato Spring and Garland. 8. Fire protection and hydrants as requested by the Fire Chief. 9. Utility comments from Technical Plat review. • 10. A separate easement plat to be submitted prior to any building permits being issued. 11. The Owner shall execute a letter of agreement stating that he understands that the City is not responsible to repair or replace any surface (other than normal asphalt for 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. 12. The LSD approval will be valid for one calendar year from approval. Ms. Johnson stated the justification for the parking wavier it was thought that it was a HUD supported project that probably there would not be as many cars owned by residents. Mr. Odom questioned if there was something that would allow only families to live here and not individual college students. Ms. Little stated this was a specific type of project that did require a family environment and did guard against students living together. One of the members of the family may be a student. She stated that there was information in the Planning Commission packets on the specific type of project this was. Ms. Johnson questioned the issue of the size of the waterline. Mr. Beavers stated it would depend on the developer's engineer's final calculation. It was possible it could be 6" if the pressure was adequate. Mr. Tucker asked why this site was chosen for this type of development PUBLIC COMMENT ON LSD96-28.00, GARLAND SQUARE APARTMENTS • Brenda Love from Hill Group Architecture firm, represented ERC Properties. She stated Mr. Coleman had searched for property, and found this site was the best location. • Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 1996 Page 22 Mr. Tucker asked if the present location also factored in the location to jobs. He stated the property seemed remote to him. Ms. Love stated a market study was made with a realtor. Mr. Tucker questioned the basis for the wavier on the parks land dedication. Ms. Love replied there was not adequate property left on the site after development to give land. Ms. Little stated the Parks Board acted on it and that there was a park located within two blocks of the development. Mr. Sugg asked if any of the apartments were handicapped accessible. Ms. Love stated the apartments in the property were not handicapped accessible, but they are in compliance with the Fair Housing Act which would require modifications if the need arose to accommodate a handicapped individual. Ms. Johnson stated they had a list of twelve requirements which would be in the motion to approve, and if the developer wanted to argue about any of them they would need to do that now. Ms. Love stated she had read them all and one of the statements on the water line did not give them an option. Ms. Johnson confirmed their engineer needed to do the studies and present it to the City. • MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved the project be approved, provided all staff requirements are met along with a water line up to 8" be installed. There was a comment from the public. Loran Pickal spoke on behalf of Maria Kates who owns property next to property. She stated her clients concern was that the nature of her business was dangerous to children. She was requesting the development have fencing around it. Ms. Little added that there was a requirement for screening for all commercial and industrial activity from residential properties and stated that usually it worked the other way, but in this case she felt it might be appropriate to call for screening on the west and the north side of the property since it adjoined industrial property. She said a screen may take one of several forms - it could be fencing or vegetative screening. Ms. Love stated this was not an issue they had discussed previously and asked if this would be an additional requirement. Ms. Johnson clarified that Ms. Little was adding as a staff requirement that a view obscuring fence or vegetation be provided on the west and north side of the property. Mr. Love stated Ms. Judy Titsworth, vice president- owner of property, was present and would address this new issue. • Ms.Titsworth stated she was in charge of the properties they have developed, built and managed since 1979. She stated there was a tot -lot in the center of the property and ERC Properties would not encourage activities on the perimeter of the building. They would have on site management- some one will be there at all times. She did not • Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 1996 Page 23 think the fence should be a requirement. Ms. Little added that the Planning Commission has the authority to waive or grant a variance from the screening requirement. Mr. Reynolds restated his motion to approve the Garland Square, with the water line up to 8" and grant a wavier on the fence. Mr. Allred seconded. Ms. Johnson stated they had a motion to approve the project, subject to all the staffs comments and they had added a staff comment #13, a view obscuring fence. She said that the motion would waive the fence requirement. Mr. Odom stated he would vote against it, because he thought the fence should be required. The Planning Commission is in charge of buffering residential from industrial and commercial area. He thought the residential developers should bear the cost to have the fence put in place to help protect the residents. He added they were not talking about someone who is building their home in an industrial area, but a residential area where there would be residents, who should be allowed to have the same buffers that other areas would enjoy. Mr. Harbinson said that he agreed with Mr. Odom, that the Commission should not give away the requirement. He could not see why the waiver would be justified. • Upon roll call, the motion failed 2-6-1. Harbinson, Tucker, Forney, Hoffman, Odom, and Allred voting nay. Johnson abstained. MOTION Mr. Odom moved to approve the project subject to all thirteen staff recommendations including screening on two sides and a parking wavier. Mr. Forney seconded. Upon roll call, the motion carried 5-2-2. Sugg and Tucker voting nay. Reynolds and Johnson abstained. Ms. Johnson stated the developers would have to provide screening on two sides in addition to the other staff requirements. L or? -S/ • Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 1996 Page 24 RZ96-16.00: REZONING FOR SLOAN CHARLIE SLOAN- E OF HWY 71B & N OF SHEPARD LANE The next item on the agenda was a rezoning submitted by Northwest Engineers on behalf of Charlie Sloan for property located east of Hwy 71 B and north of Shepard Lane. The property was currently zoned A- I and contains approximately 6.43 acres. The request is to rezone to C -l. Ms. Johnson stated the staff recommended rezoning to R -O. The area is dedicated in the 20/20 plan as regional commercial. She said the R -O zoning would allow for office development. She commented the area is east of NW village and abuts it on the west, the area is surrounded by C-2 and R -O. Mr. Kurt Jones, NW Engineers, stated he would prefer C-1, to provide them with more options in the development. He added the C- I zoning would allow narrower set -backs. He added they would like to consider having restaurants on the property which were allowed by conditional use in R -O, but allowed by right in C-1. He believed C -I would give them greater flexibility. Ms. Johnson called for public comment. MOTION Mr. Odom moved to approve RZ96-16.00 from A -I to C-1. • Mr. Allred seconded. Ms. Johnson stated a motion had been made to approve the requested rezoning from A -I to C-1. Upon roll call, the motion carried 9-0-0. • Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 1996 Page 25 RZ96-15.00: REZONING FOR MELANIE STAFFORD WEDINGTON DR. AND 59TH AVE. The last item on the agenda was submitted by Melanie Stafford for property located north of Wedington Dr. and 59th Ave. The property is currently zoned A -I and contains approximately 3.63 acres. The request is to rezone to R-1. Ms. Johnson stated the staff had recommended approval of the rezoning. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve RZ96-15.00 as submitted, subject to staff comments. Mr. Odom seconded. Ms. Johnson stated there was a motion to approve the rezoning and asked for public comment There was no public comment. Upon roll call, the motion carried 9-0-0. OTHER BUSINESS: • Ms. Johnson announced she was appointing Ms. Hoffman to the UDO subcommittee. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. `J v�3„3