Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-08-26 Minutes��erl • MINUTES OF A -MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on August 26, 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: APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES The minutes were approved as read. CONSENT AGENDA Alett Little, Rich Lane, Dawn Thomas, Jim Beavers, and Heather Woodruff. There were four items on the consent agenda: LS96-38.00: LOT SPLIT FOR HABITAT FOR HUMANITY • CU96-19.00 CONDITIONAL USE FOR HABITAT FOR HUMANITY SHAKELFORD- N OF FIFTH ST. & W OF HAPPY HOLLOW RD. The first item on the consent agenda was a request for approval of (1) a lot split and (2) a conditional use for a tandem lot. The requests were submitted by Habitat for Humanity, presented by Patsy Brewer on behalf of Dessie and Verna Shakelford for property located north of Fifth Street and west of Happy Hollow Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 23,690 square feet. The request was for two tandem lots of 11,845 square feet each. The staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant will agree to comply with the requirements of the zoning code section 160.091 for the tandem lots (paving a minimum of 25 feet of the access drive, providing trash receptacles at the public street...). 2. No building permits will be issued until work begins to extend the water and sewer mains to serve the proposed lots. The water main extension must include upgrading the water line to provide fire protection. The City may, or may not, elect to participate in the cost of this water line. • 3. Staff approval of the detailed plans, specifications and calculations where applicable for grading, drainage, water, sewer, streets, sidewalks, and tree preservation. All improvements will Planning Commission Meeting • August 26,1996 Page 2 meet the City Engineer's latest criteria including the new water specifications and the new street specifications. All water and sewer easements will be a minimum 20 feet in width. 4. Utility comments from Technical Plat review. The comments at plat review and the subdivision committee included the need for water and sewer extensions and the need for fire protection. The existing water line on 5th Street is a 2 - inch water line and will not support a fire hydrant. Habitat for Humanity is applying for a grant to improve the water line. The City may, or, may not, also participate in the cost of improving the fire protection for this area. Engineering supports the City cost sharing with the water line to provide fire protection. A sewer line extension will be required to serve the two new lots. Access drives must be provided to the tandem lots. • CI M 1• Planning Commission Meeting August 26,1996 Page 3 CU96-20.00: CONDITIONAL USE FOR A TANDEM LOT WARREN BEARD- S OF THE E -W SECTION OF HANSHEW RD. The third item on the consent agenda was a conditional use request submitted by Warren Beard for property located south of the East-West section of Hanshew Road. The property is zoned A- 1, Agricultural, and contains approximately 3.31 acres. The request was to create a tandem lot. A 3.31 acre tract would be located behind a 6.07 acre tract. The staff recommended approval subject to the conditions of approval: 1. Applicant shall agree to comply with the requirements of zoning code section 160.091 for the tandem lots (paving a minimum of 25 feet of the access drive, providing trash receptacles at the public street...). 2. Private water easements will not be allowed without the specific written permission of both the City Engineer and the Water/Sewer Superintendent. The lot split was approved 21 August 96 administratively which created the two tracts. The • existing water on Hanshew is a 2 -inch water line and will not support a fire hydrant. Water pressure to the back lot will be a problem. The sewer is N/A. Access drives must be provided to the tandem lots. • 5 Planning Commission Meeting August 26,1996 Page 4 VA96-9.00: EASEMENT VACATION GREEN ACRES AND COLT SQUARE BILL KEATING- NORTHWEST CORNER OF GREEN ACRES AND COLT SQUARE The last item on the consent agenda was submitted by Bill Keating for property located at the northwest corner of Green Acres and Colt Square. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 1.56 acres. The request was for an easement vacation because the building encroaches upon the utility easement 3.7 to 4.14 feet. Ms. Little stated that she had received approval from Water/Sewer, Streets, and Sanitation on item VAC 96.9. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to approve the consent agenda. Mr. Odom seconded the motion. The motion carried 9-0-0. •1 • 0 Planning Commission Meeting August 26,1996 Page 5 OLD BUSINESS AD96-20.00: SIDEWALK REQUIREMENT FOR NW VILLAGE INFORMATIONAL ITEM The fifth item on the agenda was information on the sidewalk requirements for NW Village. It was a copy of a letter from the Engineering staff to the Developer of NW Village requesting they build the sidewalk. AD96-17.00: SITE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS INFORMATIONAL ITEM Item six was an informational item, a copy of the Packet sent to the City Council dealing with the Site Development and Design Standards sections from the UDO which the Planning Commission had voted on and forwarded on the City Council. Ms. Johnson stated there had been several small changes in the Design Standard section. • • II' Planning Commission Meeting August 26,1996 Page 6 NEW BUSINESS CU96-22.00: CONDITIONAL USE FOR HOME OCCUPATION FOR CHILD CARE ROSEANNE LEVERICH-S OF TRUST AND E OF ASSEMBLY The first item of new business a request for a conditional use, was submitted by Roseanne Leverich for property located at 430 Assembly, south of Trust and east of Assembly. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 0.61 acres. The request was for a conditional use to allow a home occupation for a child care facility. Ms. Little stated she had a letter from the Inspections Dept advising they had reviewed the site. Ms. Johnson stated the staff recommended approval contingent upon the compliance with the requirements of 160.095 and 160.095 including the following: 0 1. No more than five children can be cared for without a fire -rated wall being installed (as determined by Building Inspections). If a fire -rated wall is installed, a maximum of six children can be kept. 2. No more than 450 square feet of gross floor area can be utilized for Home Occupation -Child • Care. In addition, the applicant must provide a minimum of 80 square feet of fenced play area per child (400 square feet). 3. Limits on hours of operation as determined by the Planning Commission. 4. No person may be employed other than a member of the immediate family residing on the premises. 5. Approval for a one year period, only with the applicant renewing the conditional use permit annually. Ms. Johnson stated the Planning Commission needed to set the hours of operation. The request was for hours of operation from 6am to 6pm. She added, the hours typically set for child care were lam to 5pm. Ms. Roseanna Leverich, owner and operator, stated most of the clients did not work nine to five jobs, they often had to be at work by 7:00 a.m. and they needed the extra time for travel. Ms. Johnson asked the earliest a child would come. Ms. Leverich stated some of the children came at 6am, because their parents had to be at Tysons 40 • Planning Commission Meeting August 26,1996 Page 7 by 7:OOam. Ms. Kelly Montgomery, client, stated her children stayed with Ms. Leverich. She stressed the important role that Ms. Leverich played in their lives. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the item with the hours being 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Mr. Harbinson seconded the motion. The motion carried 9-0-0. is a.3g $1 Planning Commission Meeting August 26,1996 Page 8 • LSD96-29.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT FOR ARKANSAS BOOK SERVICE ENGINEERING SERVICES. S OF MT. COMFORT RD. & W OF SHILOH DR. The next item on the agenda was a Large Scale Development submitted by Engineering Services, Inc., on behalf of Arkansas Book Services for property located south of Mt. Comfort Rd. and west of Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial -Light Industrial, and contains approximately 6.14 acres. Ms. Johnson stated the staff recommended approval subject to six conditions: 1. Planning Commission to resolve to the Commission's satisfaction the concerns of the adjoining property owners concerning screening, fences, lights, buffers and noise (noise from the wall fans). 2. Approval of a parking waver. The applicant requests that no additional parking spaces be required. 3. Staff approval of the detailed plans, specifications and calculations, where applicable for grading, drainage, water, sewer, streets, sidewalks, and tree preservation. 4. Fire protection and hydrants as requested by the Fire Chief. is 5. Utility and staff comments form Technical Plat review. 6. The LSD approval will be valid for one calendar year from approval. The proposed LSD would provide a building expansion of 49,375 square feet on the north side of the existing warehouse building. Comments at Plat Review included the need for additional fire protection. Comments at Subdivision Committee meeting included discussion with two adjacent property owners concerned with the requirements for screening, fencing, lights, and noise control. Please refer to the minutes of the meetings. Ms. Johnson stated the Commission needed to establish requirements for screening, fences, lighting, noise, etc. and make a determination on the request for a parking waiver. She stated the property had a fifty -foot setback, to the north. She questioned how close to the west property line would it be. Mr. Phillip Humbard, Engineering Services, stated it would be 51.44 feet from the building to the property line to the west. Ms. Johnson question if the same requirements would apply to both the west property line and 0 • Planning Commission Meeting August 26,1996 Page 9 the north line. Ms. Little stated property adjacent to both the north and the west property lines were zoned R-1 and would be required to follow the same conditions but the south line was adjacent to I-1, properties. Ms. Johnson stated the commission had concerns about the noise from the fans and the screening from the residential zones. She added the applicant and the Landscape Administrator had agreed upon a landscaping plan. Ms. Little stated, the landscaping plan specified a mix of tree species, including Lobbly Pine and Silver Maples, that would run the length of the north and west sides. Mr. Tucker asked if the proposed landscape plan had been shown to the concerned property owners. Mr. Little stated it had not. • Mr. Sugg questioned if the proposed building would have loading docks on the south side similar to the existing building. He asked if there was any way they could reconfigure the building if they did not need the parking spaces. Mr. Humbard stated they needed the space for the trucks. Ms. Johnson question if the fans could be mounted on the roof. Mr. Humbard explained they had considered that option but the roof mounted fans were more expensive and tended to leak. The fans they were proposing had a decibel rate of 68 decibels at the fan, adding the requirements were that noise not exceed 75- 80 decibels at the property line. Ms. Johnson questioned the decibel level of the existing three fans. Ms. Hoffman questioned if the fans could be placed on the south side of the building away from the R-1 zones. be replaced every two to three years. Mr. Jay Berryman stated they needed to be on the north side for cross ventilation. He added that roof mounted fans often leaked and needed to be replaced every two to three years. Ms. Johnson stated the existing fans were very loud. She questioned the idea of adding more • fans of the same decibel rating to the length of the addition. She asked if they had a preference to roof mounted fans, fans on the north wall or ridge mounted vents. �A Planning Commission Meeting August 26,1996 • Page 10 Mr. Humbard stated the roof fans would work best.. Ms. Johnson question if there would be a need for additional fencing with the proposed landscaping and a fifty -foot setback. She added there was an existing 4' high chain link fence running along Mr. Mendoza property, approximately one third of the length of the proposed addition. Mr. Harbinson questioned if aggregate decibel level of the fans would be considerably higher than the rating on the manufacture's literature. Mr. Humbert did not know if the decibel level was additive. Mr. Harbinson question if the noise rating was from the individual fans or the accumulative noise. Ms. Little stated the ordinance was to measure the noise at the property line of the property emanating the noise. She added the meter did not have away to segregate out traffic noise or any other noise. Mr. Harbinson stated the issue was not how much each fan would generate, but the noise • generated by all the fans. He added the limitations in Industrial zones were 75-80 decibels, depending on the time of day. Mr. Reynolds stated when he walked from the Book Service into some of the neighbors' yards, the fans did not diminish in noise. on the existing structure. Ms. Maria Acco, an area resident, questioned if the additional of fans would be on the new building or on the old one. Ms. Johnson stated they were only talking about the new addition, there would be no additional fans on the existing structure. Ms. Kit Schmelzle, an area resident, stated she lived directly behind the proposed addition. She stated there was an existing concrete drainage ditch about 120' long between them and a creek on the south side. She added she did not want a fence because she had spent two years working in the easement doing landscaping. She stated the Book Service had not finished the back of the building and it was unsightly. She requested they finish painting the back of the building. Ms. Johnson questioned if the drainage came off her property onto the Book Services property. Ms. Schmelzle stated the runoff came from Mt. Comfort Road and the water would back up into is ."?Xf • Planning Commission Meeting August 26,1996 Page 11 the home owners yard. Ms. Hoffman stated on the drawing there was provision for drainage underneath the slab. Mr. Humbard stated the contours were at one foot interval and between the building and the residents property there was about a four foot of fall. He explained the water would come off the property to the north and hit a constructed ditch and be routed into a pipe that would go under the building. In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, Mr. Beavers stated he felt the drainage was adequate. He added this was the first he had heard of a drainage problem in this area. Mr. Kevin Hickey, an area resident, stated the landscaping and maintenance of the grounds was one of his primary concerns. He stated his neighbor to the west, Mr. Henbest, was also concerned about the maintenance of the buffer strip and the drainage. He pointed out the preliminary drainage plans showed the runoff coming off the Book Services parking lot into Mr. Henbest pasture. He requested the runoff be directed away from the pasture. He commented that he was trying to look at the positive side, the building might block some of the noise and lights • from the bypass, but he did not want this noise replaced by the noise from the fans and the lights replaced by the security lights. Ms. Hoffman questioned how the addition of the shields on the existing lights had worked. Mr. Hickey stated it was like having a ball park in his back yard because the shielding was some sort of corrugated material covering the front, leaving the sides open. He questioned if it was possible to mount the lights lower on the walls or place them on the ground facing the Book Service. Mr. Humbard stated they could place the lights on the ground. Mr. Forney questioned Mr. Hickey if he would preferred a fence. Mr. Hickey replied if the landscaping was done properly it would benefit everyone, the neighbors would be screened and the Book Service would have shading to help reduce their need to run the fans. He expressed concern that the addition of a fence would add to the maintenance problems. Mr. Harbinson stated if the commission required the planting of vegetation for screening; the landowner would be under force able legal obligation to continuously maintain the landscaping and if the owner did not maintain, he could bring it to the attention of the city. 40 Mr. Forney questioned if a fence was mandated in the buffer zone if he would prefer a 6' solid �A Planning Commission Meeting August 26,1996 Page 12 fence or 6' masonry wall. Mr. Hickey replied there would not be much difference between the concrete wall on the building and a masonry wall for screening. He stated a masonry wall would add to the maintenance problem by shielding the back of the book services property, making it easily forgotten, until there was a major problem. He thought the easiest and best solution was to maintain the landscaped open space. Mr. Len Schaper, Alderman 4th ward, stated the noise ordinance had changed, the noise crossing a boundary between zones could not exceed the receiving zones standards. Which in this case was 55db during the evening and 68db during the day. Ms. Little read the ordinance, "when a noise source can be identified and its source measured in more than one use district, the noise level limits of the most restrictive use district shall apply at that district boundary." She stated the most restrictive district would be the R-1 to the north. Mr. Schaper commented they would be able to get the noise level down at night if each fan was a 68db fan. He stated there should be more acoustic consideration to this issue. • Ms. Heather Daniel, Council member, asked the commissioners to keep the residents concerns in • mind, because their homes were usually their primary investment. She expressed concern about urban fright which would lead to an exodus of some of the home owners. losing Mr. Reynolds stated that during the Subdivision meeting there had been concerns about trespassing expressed and noted that, while they were on the tour, neighborhood children were trespassing on the Book Services property. He asked if they were concerned about this. Mr. Humbard did not have a problem with the children. Mr. Sugg suggested taking 10' off the north edge of the building to give 10' further from the property line and add the 10' onto the other side, losing a net of 91 square feet. Ms. Johnson questioned if there were any requirements for the security lights. Ms. Little stated the lights could not spread into the neighborhood. Ms. Hoffman questioned if they would attempt to solve the problems with the existing lights. Mr. Humbard stated he would talk to the owner. Ms. Johnson questioned if they had the authority to require improvements to existing building. 40 • Planning Commission Meeting August 26,1996 Page 13 Ms. Little stated the commission could require existing violations to be corrected before granting additional approval. Mr. Humbard stated they would commit to replacing the lights facing the residential area. Mr. Tucker questioned if there were any penalties for the noise violations. Ms. Little said the police department issued tickets. Ms. Hoffman expressed concern that if the fans were mounted on the roof, the noise level would be unacceptable and asked if a shield could be mounted around the fans. Mr. Humbard stated they would take whatever measures necessary to get the noise at or below acceptable levels. Mr. Reynolds asked if there could be a bill of assurance that they would correct the noise problem. • Mr. Humbard stated they would meet the requirement. Mr. Allred questioned if there could be any problems with ground mounded lights and children playing in the area. Mr. Humbard stated he had worked in a building with ground lighting for 20 years near a trailer park with children and there had never been any problems. Ms. Johnson moved to approve the item subject to: Staff comments; vegetative plantings as agreed to by the applicant and the landscape administrator; building lighting to be placed on the ground and directed toward the building; compliance with all ordinances pertaining to lighting the fans being placed on top of the building (with staff being provided advance information verifying the decibel level at the property line will not exceed that allowed in R-1 zones); and the parking waiver be granted. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. The motion passed 9-0-0. 0 Planning Commission Meeting • August 26,1996 Page 14 VA96-10.00: RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION SPENCER ALBRIGHT-N OF LISA LN. & E OF BRENT LN. The last item on the agenda, a vacation of right-of-way, was submitted by George Faucette on behalf of Spencer Albright for property located north of Lisa Ln. and east of Brent Ln. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Ms. Johnson stated the applicant had no intentions of developing the land but did not want the City to consider placing a street through the property. She added the applicant had offered to furnish a bill of assurance stating that, if the property were to be developed, the easement would be donated back to the city. She stated the right-of-way was 50' for the street with a 25' utility easement. Ms. Little added she had a draft copy of the Bill of Assurance which stated the property owners would rededicate the right-of-way if the property was ever developed. Ms. Johnson questioned the advantage of vacating the easement. She added that streets were constructed by developers, not by the City; if they did not intend to develop, the City would not require the street to be constructed. • Ms. Little replied the new owners wished to be assured there would not be a through street coming through the property. Ms. Johnson question Mr. Faucette, representative for applicant, as to why the easement needed to be vacated, stating if the owners were not planning on developing there would be no need for a street. Mr. Faucet stated legally the city could build the street if they wanted to and the Armstrongs did not want to live on the property if a through street was placed on the property. He added that no other property would be served by this street. Ms. Johnson questioned how many residences could be placed on the tract if developed. Ms. Little responded twenty-eight. In response to a question by Ms. Johnson, Mr. Faucette stated the comer property was a 150'X 150' lot owned by the Salvation Army. Mr. Harbinson questioned the activation of the Bill of Assurance, assuming the property was developed. 0 . Planning Commission Meeting August 26,1996 Page 15 Mr. Faucette replied, if the property was developed it would have to go through the City for Large Scale Development and during that process, the City could decide if they wanted the easement back. He added the Bill of Assurance would run with the deed of the land which would be signed by both the Albrights and the Armstrongs. Mr. Harbinson question if any subsequent purchaser would have notice of the bill of assurance. Mr. Faucette stated the Bill of Assurance would be in the county records with the legal description attached. He added the draft prepared by the City Attorney had been approved by both parties. He stated it had not been executed because it had not been required at this point. Mr. Tucker questioned what kind of protection the city would have to insure that no building would occur in the right of way, if the City wanted to recover the right-of-way. Ms. Little stated that, as a right-of-way, the City would own it and have control of it; but if the right-of-way was vacated and something was built within it,the City had given up their rights. She added it would be simple to amend the bill of assurance to say that no structure could be placed within the former easement. • Mr. Faucette stated the utility easement was embodied in the 50' easement and it would not be vacated. He thought the parties would agree to the addition of the provision. Mr. Tucker questioned if there had been any experience where a bill of assurance had not been followed. Ms. Little commented that mistakes did happen. She added people had built in easements and rights-of-way. Mr. Harbinson asked if there were any developments that could occur without the Planning Commissions approval. Ms. Little could not think of an instance where the city would not know about it. She advised that, if there were additional structures placed on the lot they would have to obtain a building permit; if they wished to sell another piece of property, they would have to follow the procedure for a lot split. She added there had been cases of illegal lot splits, but the mortgage and title companies were becoming more aware of the requirements and called irregularities to the staffs attention. Mr. Tucker questioned if it could come before the City for the approval of a lot split after a • building had been constructed. Planning Commission Meeting August 26,1996 Page 16 Ms. Little answered it could happen but a building permit was required before anything could be constructed on the site. Mr. Faucette questioned why someone would build in the right of way if it would create a problem in the future. a bill of assurance than it is to lose an easement. Ms. Johnson questioned how a person would find a right-of-way on a piece of property. Ms. Little stated most rights-of-way were on plat pages or they would have to rely on the title information at the Courthouse. a bill of assurance than it is to lose an easement. Ms. Johnson questioned if the bill of assurance would show up on a plat page. Ms. Little stated the Planning Dept. made notes on the plat pages dates and action taken to tract it back to the files. a bill of assurance than it is to lose an easement. Ms. Johnson expressed her concern that institutional memory was short because of turnover. She theorized it would be easier to lose a bill of assurance than it is to lose an easement. Ms. Little stated Planning records were open to everyone and most people checked with the • Planning office. Ms. Johnson added the information would be found in the county because it would be filed with the legal description. Mr. Faucette added that when they purchased the land twenty years earlier, they were asked to dedicate some land for streets. He explained the roadway issue never came up until the Salvation Army attempted to get there building permit and the easement request came from the Planning records. He stated there were some good checks and balances 1972-1994 in the Planning Office. Mr. Odom stated the area could not be built on because of the utility easement. He did not have any problem with the request. Mr. Forney stated hypothically the City could write the Bill of Assurance that they would never build a road there and that would address everyone concerns. MOTION Mr. Odom motioned for approval of the request subject to the Bill of Assurance Mr. Sugg seconded the motion. 0 • Planning Commission Meeting August 26,1996 Page 17 The motion failed by vote of 4-5-0 with Tucker, Johnson, Hoffman, Reynolds, and Forney voting nay and Allred, Sugg, Harbinson, and Odom voting yes. The item would be forwarded to the City Council for consideration. • CI