Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-10-28 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE • PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on October 28, 1996 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Phyllis Johnson, John Harbison, Conrad Odom, Jerry Allred, Mark Sugg, John Forney, Bob Reynolds, Lorel Hoffman, and Gary Tucker. STAFF PRESENT: Alett Little, Rich Lane, Jim Beavers, Dawn Warrick and Heather Woodruff. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES The minutes were approved as distributed. CONSENT AGENDA LS96-43.00: LOT SPLIT (PP565) KARYN BROPHY- 1700 E. HUNTSVILLE RD. • The first item on the consent agenda was submitted by Karyn Brophy for property located at 1700 E. Huntsville, Rd. The property is zoned R -O, Residential -Office, and contains approximately 0.98 acres. The request is for a lot split for two tracts of 0.42 and 0.56 acres each. Both tracts will have frontage on Huntsville Road. The staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Preparation of warranty deed for dedication of right-of-way on Huntsville Road. 2. Copy of original warranty deed showing current owners acquisition of subject property. 3. Improvements as shown on plat including the following: a. Installation of 5' sidewalk at 1700 Huntsville Road and 5' sidewalk on the newly created lot at the time of development. b. Addition of plat page 565 to title block. c. Dedication of a total of 45' from centerline for right-of-way on Huntsville Road. d. Show zoning of adjacent property on plat. e. Addition of vicinity map to plat. 4. Utility easements as requested at Technical Plat Review as shown on plat including the following: a. 15' utility easement centered on the newly created property line (7.5' on each side). 0 303 36� Af Planning Commission Meeting • October 28,1996 Page 2 LS96-44.00 LOT SPLIT PHIL EZELL- S OF WEDINGTON DR, AND W. OF BETTY JO DR. The next item on the consent agenda was submitted by Phil Ezell for property located south of Wedington Drive and west of Betty Jo Drive. The property is zoned R -O, Residential -Office, and contains approximately 2.42 acres. The request is to split the tract into two parcels of 0.69 and 1.40 acres and a Street right-of-way dedication of 0.34 acres. Tract A (0.69 acres) will front Wedington Road. Tract B (1.40 acres) will be behind tract A. The staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Preparation of warranty deeds for dedication of rights-of-way (2): a. 25' public access required on the west property line of the original and the proposed lots. b. A total of 35' of right-of-way is required from the centerline of Hwy 16W. 2. Installation of a 5' sidewalk along Wedington Drive to connect to the existing sidewalk on the east side of the property. 3. Developer will be responsible for extension of all necessary water and sewer lines to serve the • new lot (Tract B) these facilities are not available on site at this time. Water and /or sewer service lines will not be allowed to cross property lines. 4. Addition of plate page 440 to title block. 5. Tract B will come back through the Planning process for a Large Scale Development approval. 0 Planning Commission Meeting • October 28,1996 Page 3 LS96-45.00: LOT SPLIT MELANIE STAFFORD- N. OF HWY 16W AND W OF 59TH STREET. The last item on the consent agenda was submitted by Melanie Stafford for property located north of Hwy 16 W and west of 59th Ave. The property is zoned RA, Residential Acre, and contains approximately 3.64 acres. The request is to split the tract into two parcels of 1.84 acres each. Both tracts will front Wedington Road and tract 2 will also front 59th Avenue. The staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Installation of 4' sidewalk along Wedington Drive for Tract 2 for the split, installation of 4' sidewalk for Tract 1 at the time of development of that lot. 2. $300 parks fee payment for the newly created residential lot. 3. Revise the plat to show the following: a. Plat page 397. b. Sidewalks in the legend and on the plat along Wedington Drive as required. 4. Dedication by warranty deed the 30' right-of-way as shown on 59th Avenue. 5. Dedication by warranty deed the amount required to provide a total of 55' of right-of-way fro • the centerline of Wedington Drive. 6. Dedication of utility easements as required at Technical Plat Review and shown on plat including the following: a. 15' easement on property line between tracts 1 and 2, 7.5' on each side of line. b. 30' easement to cover a 2" high-pressure gas line along the north side of Wedington Drive. This line must be located and the easement centered over it (15' on each side) which may extend the amount of total right-of-way dedicated in that location. 7. The access to the adjacent property to the north must remain open on Tract one. MOTION Mr. Forney moved to approve the consent agenda. Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion. The item was approved unanimously. • �S &A� • Planning Commission Meeting October 28,1996 Page 4 NEW BUSINESS LS96-40: LOT SPLIT PRESTON FERGUSON- N, OF HUNTSVILLE RD, AND E. OF STONE BRIDGE RD. The next item on the agenda was submitted by Preston Ferguson for property located north of Huntsville Road and east of Stone Bridge Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 1.45 acres. The request is to split the property into two parcels of 0.72 (Tract 2) and 0.73 (tract 3). Please note that Tract 1 was previously spit form this property at the June 10, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. The staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Tracts 2 and 3 shall come back through the Planning process for formal Large Scale Development approvals. 2. Installation of a 5' sidewalk along highway 16 for tracts 2 and 3 at the time of development for each tract. The 5' sidewalk along Highway 16 for Tract 1 was a condition of the previous lot split and must be fulfilled. • 3. Fulfillment of all previous conditions of approval for the split of Tract 1 including the required new fire hydrant and additional street right-of-way. 4. Street lights at a maximum spacing of 300' along Huntsville and Stone Bridge Roads. 5. Revision of the plat to include the following: a. Addition of plat page 528 to title block b. Addition of sidewalk to the legend c. Label the required setbacks for tract 3 6. Dedication by warranty deed the property necessary to provide a total of 55' from centerline for right-of-way on Huntsville Road. 7. Money in lieu of improvements for the estimated costs of improving Stone Bridge Road to City standards for the length from Highway 16 to the northwest comer of the panhandle of tract 1, approximately 300'. The total amount will be based upon improvements equal to one-half width of a City Street (one half of a 28' street). The funds may be provided in one lump sum or pro -rated between the new lots and paid at the time of the development of tracts two and three. The total estimated amount must be approved by the City Engineer. 8. All public improvements and utility easements will be subject to further review at the time of LSD submittal for tracts two and three. Mr. Mel Harris, Northwest Engineer, questioned item #7, the money in lieu of improvements for Stonebridge. He requested the option to construct the improvements. 0 Mr. Beavers agreed to giving the developer the option of constructing the improvements or 3i2 % • Planning Commission Meeting October 28,1996 Page 5 donating money in lieu. They could make their decision when tract 3 was brought in for Large Scale Development. the option to construct the improvements to Stonebridge or to give money in lieu at the time tract Mr. Harris stated he would be glad to make the decision when tract come up to be developed. Mr. Gary Sorensen, an area resident, question the future plans of the lots and if another item on the agenda was the same property. Ms. Little stated lot 1 was requesting a change in use for an existing building. Ms. Johnson explained the Planning Commission could only address the item before them; the lot split. If development was to occur on the newly created lots they would go through the Large Scale process. Mr. Sugg question why the improvements to Stonebridge were tied to tract 3. Mr. Beavers stated tract 2 had no frontage on Stonebridge. • Mr. Sugg replied the City may never receive improvements to Stonebridge if tract 3 was never developed. Mr. Beavers responded tract 2 should be required to do improvements to the street because it did not touch Stonebridge. He clarified the small panhandles that were shown for the sewer lines would not be required. The City would allow normal rectangular lots with private sewer line service easements for this project and similar ones. He added the developer could square up the lots if he wished. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the item subject to staff comments with item #7 amended to allow the applicant the option to construct the improvements to Stonebridge or to give money in lieu at the time tract 3 came forward for development. Mr. Harbison seconded the motion. Mr. Forney question if the zoning had changed to the east and what the required side setback would be. Ms. Little stated there were no side setbacks requirements in areas zoned commercial. They • could build on the property line or attach to another building. • Planning Commission Meeting October 28,1996 Page 6 The roll was called, the item was approved unanimously. • is M9 • Planning Commission Meeting October 28,1996 Page 7 LS96-47.00: LOT SPLIT FOR WRMC DIALYSIS CENTER WRMC DIALYSIS -S. OF MONTE PAINTER DR. & E. OF NORTH HILLS BLVD The next item on the agenda was submitted by Northwest Engineers for property located south of Monte Painter Drive and east of North Hills Blvd. The property is zoned R -O, Residential - Office, and contains approximately 15.53 acres. The request is to split the property into two tracts of 2.19 and 13.14 acres. The 2.19 acre tract is also in the process, and on this agenda, as a Large Scale Development 96-33 for the WRMC Dialysis Clinic. The staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Revision of plat to show the following: a. Addition of plat page 251 to title block b. Show property zoning 2. Additional requirements, public improvements and utility easements are addressed with the accompanying large scale development. (LSD 96-33). Mr. Harry Gray, Northwest Engineer, stated the applicant had no problems with the conditions. • Mr. Tucker questioned the curved property lines. Mr. Gray replied the property lines had been curved to accommodate the future rerouting of the boulevard. MOTION Mr. Harbison moved to approve the lot split with the stated conditions. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The roll was called and the item was approved unanimously. 41 VV • Planning Commission Meeting October 28,1996 Page 8 LSD96-33.00: LARGE SCALE FOR WRMC DIALYSIS CENTER WRMC DIALYSIS CENTER The next item on the agenda was submitted by Northwest Engineers for property located south of Monte Painter Drive and east of North Hills Blvd. The property is zoned R -O, Residential - Office, and contains approximately 2.19 acres. The applicants are also requesting a waiver to allow 39 additional parking spaces for their clinic and 18 additional parking spaces for the adjacent rehabilitation hospital. The total parking request is 83 spaces. The total " required" for the clinic is 26 spaces. The staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of the requested parking waiver. 2. Provide a T sidewalk with a 4' green space along Monte Painter Drive. 3. Request that the adjacent Rehabilitation Hospital install access ramps (handicap ramps) for their existing sidewalks. 4. Provide a minimum of one van accessible parking space. 5. Provide storm water detention in accordance with the Storm water Management (Drainage) • Ordinance. Ownership and maintenance of the detention facility shall be vested in the property owner. 6. Additional fire hydrant as requested by the Fire Chief. 7. Staff approval of the detailed plans, specifications and calculations where applicable for grading, drainage, water, sewer, streets, sidewalks, parking lot and tree preservation. All improvement to comply with the City's current requirements. 8. Plat review and subdivision committee comments, including the written plat comments mailed to the applicant. 9. The developer's engineer shall prepare and finalize a separate easement plat prior to the approval of any building permits for this development. 10. The LSD approval will be valid for one calendar year. Ms. Johnson asked for justification of the parking waiver. Ms. Little stated the applicant had provided a letter to the Commission justifying their request. They were asking for additional parking to accommodate their current number of employees and patients, as well as additional shared parking for Northwest Arkansas Rehabilitation Hospital. Ms. Johnson questioned if there were any controls over how the sharing would be done. Ms. Little replied she was not aware of any additional agreements between the Dialysis Clinic and the Rehab Hospital. She added, both facilities were owned by WRMC. • g1 • Planning Commission Meeting October 28,1996 Page 9 Mr. Gary stated WRMC was a partial owner of both facilities. Ms. Johnson question if the City needed to arrange an agreement between the two for the shared parking. Ms. Little thought it would be difficult for the City to enforce any agreement. She added it would be self policing. Ms. Hoffman questioned the applicants planned to install handicap access ramps on the existing sidewalks. Mr. Gray stated they had written a letter to the Rehab Hospital requesting they consider installing handicap ramps but, they had not heard back from them. Ms. Johnson commented 26 spaces were required and they were requesting an additional 57 spaces for a total of 83 parking spaces. Ms. Little stated the City did have maximums, which had been designed to regulate commercial • businesses who were paving large expanses of land and then use them for out door storage. They were not intended for medical center. She added the applicant had justified his request for an additional 90 parking spaces. Ms. Johnson questioned if the request was for more than what was really needed. Ms. Little stated the staff did not have any evidence that the request was for more than what was needed. Mr. Odom stated he had seen people parking in streets at the rehab hospital on several occasions. Mr. Tucker questioned how they had arrived at 18 for the shared parking spaces. Mr. Gray stated 18 spaces would satisfy the Rehab hospital current need for parking. Ms. Johnson asked the applicant if he was in a position to agree to the other conditions that the Planning Commission were requesting. Mr. Gray stated they were in agreement with all the other requirements. Ms. Johnson stated the Commission felt they had the authority to require the handicap ramps be installed even though they were on the Rehab Hospital's property, because they were requesting • additional parking for them. She asked Mr. Gray if he felt that something would be done. She 312 • Planning Commission Meeting October 28,1996 Page 10 • asked what would happen if the Commission approved the request and the Rehab Hospital decided they did not want to build the ramps. Mr. Harbison asked Ms. Little if it would be possible to approve the additional 18 parking spaces for the Rehab Hospital contingent upon a receipt of a bill of assurance from them that they would provide the ramps, adding this would allow the applicant to go forward with the space for the Dialysis facility. Mr. Tucker questioned the distance between the back of the building to the southwest property line. Mr. Gray replied it was approximately 35'. Mr. Tucker asked how the rear of the building would look. Mr. Wilhelm, architect, stated the entire building was subject to the covenants of the of the development, including the back of the building. He added the rear of the building would be the same as the front with the same detail and character. MOTION Mr. Harbison moved to approve the item with the conditions #2-10 as stated and waive 39 spaces to be used by the owners of this property bring the total to 65 parking spaces. In addition, approval of a wavier for another 18 spaces contingent upon the Rehab Hospital providing the City a bill of assurance stating they would install access ramps on the existing sidewalks. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Mr. Wilhelm questioned if the ramps would be required at all sidewalks on the Rehab site or would it be specifically the ones at the entry. Ms. Little they were talking about the sidewalks along Monte Painter Drive. Mr. Gray stated both entrances were off Monte Painter drive. Mr. Reynolds questioned if the addition of the ramps along Monte Painter would make the hospital completely handicaps accessible. Mr. Gray stated he was not that familiar with the Rehab Hospital, but it would make the sidewalk is on the City's property handicap accessible. • Planning Commission Meeting October 28,1996 Page I1 Mr. Harbison amended his motion stating the Rehab Hospital must come into compliance with the ADA in terms of sidewalks. current regulations. Mr. Gray defending the building was in compliance when it was constructed and he did not know if it would meet the current regulations. Mr. Harbison withdrew his amendment. The roll was called and the item passed unanimously. • 0 3'3 314 • Planning Commission Meeting October 28,1996 Page 12 LSD96-34.00: LARGE SCALE UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST FELLOWSHIP ENGINEERING DESIGN ASSOC.-S. OF CLEVELAND & W. OF STORER ST. The next item on the agenda was submitted by Engineering Design Associates for property located south of Cleveland Street and west of Storer Street. The property is zoned R-3, High Density Residential, and contains approximately 1.1 l acres. The LSD request will provide a building expansion of approximately 1900 square foot, pave an existing parking lot and construct a new paved parking lot with 12 spaces. The applicants have requested three waivers: 1. A waiver of parking requirements. 50 spaces are required and 42 spaces are proposed. 2. A waiver of sidewalk requirements along Cleveland Street. 3. A waiver of the setback requirements along Oakland Avenue and Cleveland Street (Board of Adjustments 11-4-96). The staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: • 1. Approval of the requested parking waiver. 2. Approval of the requested setback waiver. 3. Approval of the sidewalk waiver along Cleveland. 4. Plat review and subdivision committee comments, including the written plat comments mailed to the applicant. 5. Staff approval of the detailed plans, specifications and calculations where applicable for grading, drainage, water, sewer, streets, sidewalks, parking lot and tree preservation. All improvements to comply with the City's current requirements. 6. Improve Storer Street to City standards 14' from the centerline. 7. Provide money in -lieu of improvements to Cleveland Street. Improvement to Cleveland Street are currently scheduled for 1998/99. The amount requested to be determined by the Planning Commission as fair and reasonable for the proposed expansion. 8. Dedicate by warranty deed the right-of-way necessary to provide 35' of ROW from the centerline of Cleveland Street. 9. The LSD approval will be valid for one calendar year. Ms. Johnson questioned #6, the 14' from centerline on Storer Street. Mr. Beavers stated the plat had labeled the street improvements as 13'; they needed to be 14' to correspond with the current street standards of 28'. Ms. Johnson clarified it was to improve one-half of Storer Street. She clarified the setback Is requirements on the #3 waiver was to be addressed by the Board of Adjustments. 316' Planning Commission Meeting • October 28,1996 Page 13 Mr. Sugg stated he would abstain from this item. Ms. Johnson commented the Commission would have to determine whether they would require money in -lieu of Cleveland street improvements and, if they did, the amount of money they would require. Mr. Beavers felt uncomfortable requesting any amount of money from the church for improvement to Cleveland. Ms. Johnson commented the cost of half of the sidewalk and the street improvement on Cleveland would be $25,000-30,000. The city would typically receive this amount if it was a completely new development. She asked the applicant if they agreed to the conditions of approval. Ms. Kim Hesse stated they did not have any conflicts with the conditions. Mr. Tucker stated he was comfortable granting a waiver for fewer parking spaces. • Ms. Johnson questioned if there was on -street parking available for the church. Ms. Little commented the streets were narrow, but there was on street parking available on the north side of Cleveland and on the west side of Oakland. Ms. Johnson questioned if the City would build sidewalks when they constructed Cleveland Street in 1998 and 1999. Mr. Beavers stated the sidewalks would be built by the City; adding Engineering did not feel sidewalks should be built by the church at this time. Mr. Odom ask Mr. Beavers about his reservations for taking money in -lieu from the Church. Mr. Beavers explained the proposed addition was relatively small compared to the existing facility and the amount of traffic generated by this expansion would be insignificant. Ms. Johnson asked the total square footage of the addition and the total square footage of the existing facility. Ms. Hessy stated the existing facility was approximately 3300 square feet and the addition was approximately 50% of the existing structure. She asked the Commission to be flexible when considering the sidewalks, explaining the church had no problem with making improvements to their site but they wanted the improvements to benefit the patrons of to church. They also felt a • sidewalk along Cleveland would not be as beneficial as a sidewalk along Oakland. Their plat 31� • Planning Commission Meeting October 28,1996 Page 14 was presently showing a sidewalk along Oakland, which had not been required, but the Church felt it would help connect other sidewalks in the neighborhood. Ms. Johnson questioned the length of the proposed sidewalk on Oakland. Ms. Hessy replied it was approximately 250', adding the sidewalk along Cleveland would be approximately 267'. Ms. Johnson questioned why there were no requirements for a sidewalk along Oakland. Mr. Allred asked if the City would be asking any of the other adjoining property owners along Cleveland to participate in the improvements. master street plan had Mr. Beavers responded only an active, on going development would be required to participate. Mr. Allred questioned if the improvement would be made whether or not the church was building an addition. • Mr. Beavers stated the City would do the improvements in 1998 and 1999. Mr. Allred commented that, if the Commission accepted Ms. Hessy proposal then, the City would be getting a sidewalk on Oakland and all the property owners on Cleveland would be getting improvements at the City's expense. Ms. Little stated the City had a master sidewalk plan for years, but the City Council had passed an amendment to the master street plan which would supersede the current master street plan. In that plan Oakland was considered a local street and local streets were required to have sidewalks along both sides. Ms. Johnson clarified that, according the master street plan, the applicant was incorrect in saying a sidewalk was not required on Oakland. Ms. Little stated sidewalks were required on both sides of Oakland. She had communications from the Sidewalks and Trails coordinator expressing his expectation of sidewalks along Oakland. Ms. Hessy replied she had spoken with Mr. Rutherford earlier, confirming that the original master street plan had shown the sidewalk on the other side of Oakland. Ms. Little stated the City Council's resolution stated all streets local and above would have • sidewalks on both sides. The only exception would be residential streets, but there were only • Planning Commission Meeting October 28,1996 Page 15 two subdivisions with residential streets, and Oakland was not one of them. Mr. Tucker questioned if Storer Street was required to have sidewalks as well. Ms. Little stated they were required and the sidewalk was shown on the plat. Ms. Johnson questioned since Oakland was a street that required sidewalks on both sides, would the staff change condition #6 to require Oakland Street to also be improved. Mr. Beavers replied the City would not require improvement to Oakland Street because there were some apartments being built south of this property and they had not been required to do any improvements and it would not be fair to require it of the church. Ms. Hoffman asked why sidewalks had not been required for the apartments. Mr. Beavers responded the apartments had not gone through the large scale development process, because they were under an acre in size. • Ms. Little stated the apartments had pulled their building permit before September 15, before the new sidewalk regulations were in effect. She added the Commission now had to work under the current set of guidelines. The ordinance requiring sidewalks on both side superseded the master sidewalk plan, which was based on the master street plan amendment. Ms. Johnson commented the addition would increased the size of the building by over 50%. Typically when they had new constructions they were never exempt from contributing to street improvements. Mr. Harbinson stated the general consensus was that both waivers should be granted; adding the real issue was, if the Commission did grant a waiver for a sidewalk on Cleveland, whether or not they would require a payment in -lieu and what that amount would be. Mr. Forney stated he would support both of the waivers, but he would not support a payment in - lieu that was more than U7 of the cost of the sidewalk, because the facility would only have an impact on the neighborhood one day of the week. He would also vote in favor of a motion that did not require any in -lieu payment. MOTION Mr. Forney moved to approve the item subject to the conditions listed deleting item #7 requiring money in -lieu for the street and sidewalk improvements on Cleveland street. 0 V? 7�� • Planning Commission Meeting October 28,1996 Page 16 Mr. Allred seconded the motion. Mr. Odom stated he would vote against the motion because, although he was in favor of the waivers, he was not in favor of exempting the church from money in -lieu. He added the Commission had treated churches the same as other developments in the past and he felt the motion gave the church special treatment. Mr. Tucker stated he would also vote against the motion, based on # 7. He thought a 1/7 contribution would be a reasonable amount. Mr. Harbison question Mr. Beavers why the staff had not recommended an amount for the money in -lieu. Mr. Beavers stated their recommendation had been zero. Mr. Harbison questioned if Mr. Beavers would be able to tell the Commission what 1/7 of the cost would be. • Mr. Beavers replied it would be approximately 1/7 of $30,000, but they could ask the applicant's engineer to provide the City with a detailed cost estimate. Ms. Hoffman stated she would vote in favor of some participation in the improvements to the sidewalks. The roll was called. The motion failed 3-5-1, Johnson, Odom, Reynolds, Hoffman, and Tucker voting nay. Sugg abstaining. Ms. Johnson observed this was the first she had ever heard of treating a church as a 1/7 participant in infrastructure. She thought if they started the 1/7 approach they would have to justify why this one church was allowed this and not any others. She suggested using a portion of the development. MOTION Ms. Johnson moved to approve the item subject to the staff recommendations, with $10,000 as the required amount of money in -lieu for the sidewalk improvements to Cleveland. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Mr. Harbison questioned how she had arrived at the $10,000. 0 • Planning Commission Meeting October 28,1996 Page 17 Ms. Johnson explained the addition would be 1/3 of the size of the total building and the cost of the improvement would run approximately could $30,000. One-third of $30,000 would be $10,000. The roll was called. The item was approved unanimously, with Mr. Sugg abstaining. Ms. Hessy asked for clarification, questioning if the sidewalk on Oakland would still be required explaining it would make a difference in the church's budgeting. Ms. Johnson asked why she did not want the sidewalk on Oakland. Ms. Hessy stated they were faced with a budgeting situation and, until they had received all their cost estimates, it could make a difference whether or not it would be built. Ms. Johnson stated it was the chairs opinion that the project had been approved with the understanding that Oakland was to have a sidewalk. Ms. Little stated the Planning Commission had the responsibility to decide the cost of the off-site improvements. The methodology they were to use was the rough proportion or rational nexus. • Usually the City would require improvements to street and sidewalks along the applicants frontage. Ms. Johnson questioned why the staff had not required any improvements to Oakland. Ms. Little responded they had not asked for improvements to Oakland, but the Sidewalk and Trails coordinator was expecting to have sidewalks along Oakland and Storer. Ms. Hessy stated she had spoken with Mr. Rutherford and he had told her that the sidewalk on Oakland was not required. Ms. Little stated the sidewalk on Oakland was reflected in his report. Mr. Harbison questioned if a sidewalk had been required on Oakland. Ms. Little stated the report did not say that it was not required but the Commission had to rely on what was shown on the plat as what they were expecting to be built. Ms. Johnson stated the chair would rule that the motion did not require improvements to Oakland Street but did require the sidewalk to be built along Oakland and a $10,000 contribution for improvements to Cleveland. 0 319 • Planning Commission Meeting October 28,1996 Page 18 LSD96-35.00: LARGE SCALE FOR ARBY'S FLINTCO, INC.- S. OF W. 6TH ST. AND E. OF RAZORBACK DR. The next item on the agenda was submitted by Flintc, Inc. for property located south of W. 6th Street and east of Razorback Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 1.09 acres. The request will provide an Arby's immediately east of the existing Sonic. The staff recommended approval subject to the conditions listed: 1. Dedication by warranty deed the right-of-way necessary to provide a total of 55' from centerline of Hwy. 62 (6th Street). 2. Trees and landscaping proposed must meet the recommendation of the City Landscape Administrator for location and size. 3. Asphalt sidewalk to be replaced with 5' concrete sidewalk and access ramps as shown on plat. 4. Provide an additional fire hydrant and supporting 8" water line ( as shown on the plat) at the south side of 6th street at the east entrance to the property. 5. Revision of plat to show the following: a. Addition of plat page 521 to title block. • b. Addition of street lights, fire hydrants, sidewalks, etc. to legend c. Show location of sign. d. Show property owner to the north. e. Dimension all easements. 6. Staff approval of the detailed plans, specifications and calculations where applicable for grading, drainage, water, sewer, streets, sidewalks, parking lot and tree preservation. All improvements to comply with the City's current requirements. 7. Supplement grading ad drainage plan with erosion control details and resubmit with permit application prior to any construction. 8. Submittal of easement plat prior to building permit being issued, any necessary revision of easement plat to be completed prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. 9. The LSD approval will be valid for one calendar year. Mr. Neil Erickson, representative, stated he had a signed copy agreeing to the conditions listed. Ms. Little stated the width of isle had been narrowed, moving the parking closer. Ms. Hoffman asked if there were too many parking spaces and how they had calculated the parking. Ms. Little explained the parking had been calculated based on the number of employees plus one space per table. She added they were meeting the requirement. 0 3Zo • Planning Commission Meeting October 28,1996 Page 19 Ms. Hoffman asked if that was the standard way to calculate parking. Ms. Little stated it could also be calculated based on square footage, but they had discovered through work that it needed to be based on number of employee plus number of expected cliental. This new method had been passed by an amendment through City Council. MOTION Mr. Odom moved to approve the item subject to the staff conditions. Mr. Reynolds seconded motion. The roll was called. The item was approved unanimously. • 3zf 3 zi; • Planning Commission Meeting October 28,1996 Page 20 PP96-6.20: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CHARLESTON PLACE (A P.U.D.) GREG HOUSE -N. OF MISSION & E. OF AMBER The next item on the agenda was submitted by Greg House for property located north of Mission and east of Amber. The property is zoned R-1, low density residential, and contains approximately 12.84 acres with 69 lots proposed. The proposed development is a residential Planned Unit Development with one public street connecting Hackberry Drive and Amber Drive ( with a center round -a -bout), three private streets and a private green space (with detention ponds). The staff recommended the Planning Commission consider the request. If the Planning Commission approves the proposed Preliminary Plat for Charleston Place PUD, then the following conditions of approval are requested: I. Staff approval of the detailed plans, specifications and calculations where applicable for grading, drainage, water, sewer, streets, sidewalks, parking lots, and tree preservation. All improvements to comply with the City's current requirements. 2. No waivers from any ordinances, design or construction standards or improvement to the • development. All privately maintained streets and drainage shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the existing City Ordinances, standards and criteria. 3. The private streets which will include private drainage, the drainage in the swales, the drainage from the streets into the detention ponds and the detention ponds shall be privately owned and maintained by the Developer or another private entity in accordance with the Storm water Management (drainage) Ordinance. 4. The PUD covenants shall provide for the maintenance of the private streets, drainage and detention and shall name the City as a third party to these covenants. The Covenants must be approved by Planning, the City Engineer and the City Attorney. 5. All plat review comments including those written comments furnished to the applicants. 6. Payment of Parks fees in the amount of $20,700.00 at final plat. 7. The east -side entrance signage/ landscaping at Hackber y will be located west of the existing creek/ditch. 8. The detention ponds will be designed to work with the existing trees and appear more "natural" than a standard trapezoidal shape. 9. The existing sewer line easement shall not be vacated until the new sewer line is in service. A separate and formal easement vacation must be requested after the new sewer line is n service. No interruptions in service for the existing sewer line will be allowed until the new sewer line is in service. 10. Fire hydrants and spacing shall meet the Fire Chiefs approval. Ms. Johnson questioned #4, the reason why the City wished to be the third party to the covenant. 0 3z3 • Planning Commission Meeting October 28,1996 Page 21 Ms. Little stated that under the PUD ordinance the City was required to be a third party to the covenants. If for some reason the home owners association did not maintain the streets or the private areas of the development the City could make the improvements, but the City would also charge the home owners for the maintenance to the private areas. Ms. Johnson questioned if there was any additional information. Ms. Little stated she had additional information regarding the calculation of the amount of open space and the allowed density. Under R-1 zoning (4 units were allowed per acre) the allowable density for the property would be 51 units. If the applicant had chosen to develop a 30% open space PUD, then the allowable density would be 51 units. With the additional 5% open space, 35%, the allowable density was 96 units. The applicant was presenting a 35% open space PUD with 69 units proposed (18 more units than what would be allowed under the R-1 density). She added there was an alternate way to calculate open space: for each additional lot an additional 2,200 square feet of open space. If they were to use the alternate method, the total open space for 69 units would be 3.30 acres. The applicant was offering 4.49 acres for 69 units. Mr. Forney questioned if the greater density was by right or negotiable. He quoted from section • 160.121 (E)(2)"the following density bonus is provided for additional open space... Only one of the above density bonus methods may be granted" he suggested that "may be granted" would allow for some flexibility in granting the bonuses. Ms. Little pointed out there were two paragraphs under subparagraph E of § 160.121: the first paragraph stated the density of the PUD would be the same as the underlying density and the seconded paragraph discussed density bonuses, "In addition to the dwelling unit density otherwise permitted, the following density bonus is provided" She stated the section continued into the open space provision " with 35% open space the permitted dwelling units per acre is 7.5." Staff had always interpreted the section as if the developer gave the 35% open space, they were permitted 7.5 units per acre. She commented Mr. Forney's idea of negotiating the density bonus would depart from what they had done in the past. She also quoted from paragraph B subparagraph 5, "Screening and buffering in reference to type, dimensions, and character." She indicated the Commission had the ability to prescribe additional screening and buffering if they felt it was necessary. The Planning Commission had the ability to say the developers could not have the density they would like, although it was a departure from how the Commission had treated it in the past. She thought they would be on sounder footing in regard to screening and buffering to say the developer was permitted the 7.5 units per acres because they had given the 35% open space; however, in addition to that, they would need additional screening and buffering. • Mr. Tucker questioned if 35% open space would allow the developer to go up to 96 units. . Planning Commission Meeting October 28,1996 Page 22 Ms. Little replied it would, but they had only proposed 69 units (18 units over the allotted density). Mr. Harbison stated in the past the density bonus had been read as a matter of right. The difficult question for him was how the open space and the setback area would fit together. The developer had also been given the option between the two methods for determining the green space. Ms. Little commented that if they were to use the 2,200 square feet of addition area, times the 18 additional units, they would only be receiving 1.94 acres as opposed to the 4.49 acres they were receiving under the 35% method. Mr. Harbison added the other method not only would allow the developer to develop 69 units but he would not be required to provide as much open space. Ms. Johnson stated part of the trade off with a PUD was to allow denser development in one area and to have more green space in another area. She added, it was appropriate if there were unique physical features on the land that would be saved. On this project there were several features: a cemetery, an existing pond in the northeast, a spring box, and a grove of old trees that would be • preserved in the open space provided by the PUD. She added some of the homes that were adjacent to the property were built during a time when they were building on larger lots, but the homes along Amber Street appeared to be 20' from their neighbors sidewalls. She questioned if the City's current ordinances allowed construction that close together. Ms. Little stated the side setback in the R-1 zoning was 8' for each home for a minimum of 16' between structures. Ms. Johnson observed that some of the homes appeared to be 16-20' apart from the sidewalls. One of the things she had been trying to weigh was the trade off for the existing neighborhood with this kind of broad buffered green space, versus a standard R-1 development where the neighbors could have houses in their backyard. She added the private streets would be maintained by the property owners association so the City would not have the expense. She questioned Ms. Little as to any drawbacks to the public for the streets being kept private. Ms. Little replied the only drawback would be to the residents living in the subdivision, who would be ultimately responsible for the maintenance to Cypress, Covington, and Moss Lane, the advantage was, there would be no setbacks on a private street. Mr. Reed Greenwood, an area resident, questioned the criteria a PUD would have to meet and who would certify if the conditions had been met. He quoted from the PUD ordinance four criteria that must be met in order to approve a development: more efficient use of land, more • efficient use of public facilities, more usable open space through structured grouping and other 3zS • Planning Commission Meeting October 28,1996 Page 23 design techniques, and preservation of appropriate natural or physical features. Ms. Johnson stated the Planning Commission would decide if the PUD had met the requirements. Mr. Greenwood stated he had several concerns. The first was the practicality of placing 96 units on 7.47 acres. He suggested for housing of this density they were looking at a condo or apartment complex by a different name. The density issue was a major concern for him, as well as the congestion of traffic, schools, etc. He added he had invested a lot of money building retaining walls and french drains to accommodate all the springs and the runoff in the area. He felt any development on the hillside should be limited in density and that both surface and underground drainage be evaluated. Another concern was that the development was totally out of character for the neighborhood. This would be setting a precedent if they allowed lots this small to be built as single family residential adding the green space should be in the lawns not common ground. He suggested Mr. House was taking advantage of the planning regulations and argued this was a subdivision that had twisted the City ordinances. He questioned how the old farm lane would serve the residents, which was counted as green space. • Mr. Tom Pevehouse, an area resident, submitted a petition with a total of 284 signatures. Dr. William Bailey, an area resident, suggested this development was designed basically for greed, not to add green space or to assist in better utilization of land. He added it did not meet any of the requirements of a PUD. The ordinance talked about strenuous exercise such as soccer and football. He questioned where they would play soccer and football. He questioned how the Commission could consider that all the requirements had been made, other than legal, by the manipulation of the space that had been allotted by the development. He believed the item should be voted down. Mr. Terry Turpin, an area resident, commented the maximum width of some of the buildings would be 25'. He asked how much of the open space would run down the private lane and how much of the land could actually be able to be used by the people. He asked when the drainage would be approved by the City. He added land in the flood plain could not be considered in the open space calculation. He questioned if the wetland was more than 50%. He suggested that the intent of the people who had drafted the PUD ordinance was not this type of development. Mr. Mike Lyman, an area resident, questioned the math used to determine density, since they were taking 35% for green space; but, when they calculated the density, they included the entire 12 acres. He questioned how they could use the entire 12 acres for their density if they were required to donate 35% to green space. He questioned what it took to amend the covenants; how long they remained intact; and if the covenants could be changed after the development had been • approved. '3ZL • Planning Commission Meeting October 28,1996 Page 24 Mr. Frank Farmer, an area resident, stated the density would greatly increase the traffic on Winwood, which was the only street which connected Hwy 45 to Township. He explained that, when this street was originally laid out, it was not a through street and was not designed for the heavy traffic it now handled, it did not even have sidewalks. This would affect the quality of their neighborhood. The basic character of neighborhood would change greatly. It would be changing from a town to a city environment. Mr. Ted Johnston, an area resident, stated from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. they had counted 80 cars and, with the addition of 69 units, it would increase their traffic greatly. He also expressed concerns about the high density and the small lots. He objected to a PUD because it was so different from the general area and stated the area should be retained as R-1. Mr. Kim Scott, an area resident, stated the development was out of character for the surrounding area. Ms. Johnson questioned Mr. House about the private drive at the northern part of the property and if the detention pond would be the entire width of the strip. • Mr. House stated he did not know the exact size of the pond, but they were proposing a trail system around the property which would allow people to walk along the edge of the pond. He added the ponds would typically be void of water after an average rain and most of the time the area would be dry. They would try and leave most of the trees, even the ones in the middle of the catch basin. Ms. Johnson questioned the length of the private access and acreage contained in the strip. She asked what other uses were planned for the area and if it would be landscaped. Mr. House stated there were some beautiful existing trees. They had planned on incorporating it into the trails but had not discussed further landscaping. approximately half of an acre which was included Ms. Little stated she had used an average number in the calculations of the strip of land: an average distance of 700' and average width of 35' resulting in 24,500 square feet or approximately half of an acre which was included in the green space calculations. Ms. Johnson questioned if any of the property was in the flood plain. Ms. Little stated they had the certification from the surveyor that, according to the FEMA official designation, none of the property was in the 100 year flood plain. Ms. Johnson clarified that on all the City's maps it did not show any of the land was in the flood • plain. • Planning Commission Meeting October 28,1996 Page 25 Mr. Odom questioned the minimum size homes that would be allowed by the restrictive covenants. Mr. House stated they had listed 1,000 square foot as a minimum to allow for some flexibility for the smaller lots but, there would be a variety of size of lots. Their intention was to build high end smaller homes. Their goal was to have a variety of homes from 1,000 square feet to 2,000 square feet depending on the market. Ms. Johnson questioned the setback requirements. Ms. Little stated the side setback for a PUD was 5' and there had to be a minimum of 10' between structures; along public streets there was a 25' front setback requirement but along private streets, there were no front setback requirements. Mr. Harbison questioned if they were take out the half acre for the access drive would the developer still meet the 35% requirement. Ms. Little did not believe he would. is Mr. Harbison questioned if they removed the strip the developer would not receive the density bonus. Ms. Little replied he would not, but she had not allowed the applicant to count any of the area utilized for utilities, because the City had a number of utilities that believed they must clear their utility easement. She explained she did not believe cleared easements met the spirit and intent of the ordinance as far as meeting the open space and the buffering requirements. The regulations did not tell her she could not count the utility easements. They would meet the requirement if they were allowed to count the utility easement. Mr. Harbison stated the ordinance was not flexible as to the density provided the developer met the green space requirement. If the developer met the requirements, he had the right to that amount of density. Ms. Little stated the developer could chose the other method for calculating green space and they would have less green space. Mr. Harbison question if there was 35% of useable green space. Mr. Forney questioned if the ponds had been calculated as green space. He also asked the definition of wetlands. C] 3a? 3z�R • Planning Commission Meeting October 28,1996 Page 26 Ms. Little stated they had counted the pond in the open space calculations because it was useable for recreation purposes such as fishing, sailing toy boats, etc. Ms. Johnson questioned why some of the denser development was not on the southern edge and what items were in the covenants that would comfort some of the neighboring residents. Mr. House responded they did not have an objection to switching some of the lots around, provided they did not have to start the process over again. Ms. Little stated they did not like to see the lots change more than 2-3% without going through the process again. The other thing the City liked to do was to check with the utility companies to make sure any changes that might be made after they had seen the plat would not disrupt their service plans. Ms. Johnson question the maximum number of lots possible on the southern edge of the PUD. Mr. House stated he could make lots 10-44 into three lots, if he could narrow lots 1-6 at the south east comer of the property. There would not be an increase in the total number, but rearranged. • Ms. Johnson asked if they would be able to handle the changes administratively. Ms. Little stated it would be easier on lots 1-3 than it would be for 4-6, but she thought they could work it out. Ms. Johnson question if there were any covenants that Mr. House was willing to bind himself to that might ease some of the fears of the neighbors. Mr. House stated he had provided a copy of the covenants, and there were some details on what could and could not happen with some of the homes. He explained his intentions were to make the development very tasteful and high end from the structure and design standpoint. He wanted the development to have a traditional feel (as dictated in the covenants) and there were details on the types of trim, the height of the ceilings, a certain budget, which had to be spent on landscaping, etc. After 20-25 years, the covenants would expire but the home owner association would not. Ms. Hoffman questioned any provision in the covenants for off street parking. Mr. House responded every lot would have to provide enough off street parking to accommodate the use of the home. A two bedroom home would have less parking than a five bedroom. They were requiring garages. • 37ry • Planning Commission Meeting October 28,1996 Page 27 Mr. Forney commented he would like to see a more specific number for parking. Mr. House replied they would be willing to state a minimum number. Ms. Hoffman questioned what the parking requirements would be for a two bedroom apartment. Ms. Little stated it was one per bedroom. Ms. Johnson asked if the additional covenants relating to the trim and ceiling heights, etc. gave any sense to the unit cost. maintenance agreement with the City as a third party. Ms. Little stated each of the items indicated high quality construction. They were items that, when the appraisal done, they would get extra credit for having these features. Mr. Sugg questioned if Mr. House intended on being the only builder. Mr. House replied that was his intention. • Ms. Hoffman questioned if the same design standards applied when the lots were sold separately. Mr. House responded they would and, in addition, there was an architectural control committee. Mr. Tucker questioned if the City would have any involvement with the property owners association after 20 years. Mr. House responded the property owners association did continue. Ms. Johnson questioned the City's role in the covenants in the association after 20-25 years. Ms. Little stated the City would be the third party to the maintenance agreement forever and that any changes to covenants would have to be approved by the City Council. All of the areas held in common had to have a perpetual maintenance agreement with the City as a third party. Ms. Johnson stated the PUD needed to meet certain requirements that he commission had to specifically look at. Section 160.121 (A). ..... To be approved, a PUD must comply with... all of the following purposes: more efficient use of land; more efficient use of public facilities; more useable open space through structure grouping...; and preservation of appropriate natural or physical features." She went on to read in (B) " The Planning Commission shall not approve any PUD unless the • Commission expressly finds that satisfactory provision has been made...: ingress/egress to the 330 • Planning Commission Meeting October 28,1996 Page 28 property... off street parking and loading areas where required... refuse and service areas utilities...; screening and buffering ..." etc. Mr. Forney expressed his belief the first four of the conditions had been met. The PUD did use the land more efficiently as well as public facilities; it did preserve appropriate natural or physical features (the pond and the existing trees). He did have concerns that the Commission "must expressly find that satisfactory provision had been made concerning the following: ingress and egress... off street parking... and open space requirements. Mr. Harbison commented he had been looking at the same list and had reached the same conclusions that the only problematic item was ingress and egress. Ms. Johnson stated the PUD had a connection to the east and to the west which connected to Mission and Old Wire. She questioned their specific concerns. Mr. Forney questioned if the traffic generated by the additional 18 units would be better handled if there was a third access (the existing lane at the north edge going out to Old Wire). He advised he did not think it would be a good idea because of the houses to the north and south. He did • not know the effects of the additional 18 units, but he did generally support additional density in this area. Mr. Harbison agreed with Mr. Forney. He questioned Mr. Beavers if the additional 18 units would create traffic problems since there were only two access points. Mr. Beavers did not believe the additional 18 units would have a large impact. Ms. Hoffman questioned if the Planning Commission could require stop signs to be placed at certain areas. housing type, lot size and • frontage requirements and thus promote uniformity of sizes Mr. Beavers suggested they make the recommendation to the Traffic Department. Mr. Harbison questioned if all the commissioners agreed that the requirements of (A) and (B) of section 160.121 had been met. Ms. Little replied they were dealing with the zoning ordinance. They were to use the same criteria as they would for any other zoning decision. She added they were also required to use the requirements set out in (A) and (B). Mr. House commented it was not a zoning request. He quoted from the general 2020 plan, "The existing zoning districts separate housing types by density, housing type, lot size and • frontage requirements and thus promote uniformity of sizes and density. In a policy shift • Planning Commission Meeting October 28,1996 Page 29 consistent with the General Plan 2010 principles, this land use plan establishes a policy for residential areas to be planned as traditional neighborhoods containing a mix of different density and housing types and lot sizing." That was what they were proposing. They were wanting to change the density and the lot size some, but they were creating a nice buffer between the new and the old development. Mr. Forney concluded the applicant had met the open space requirements. Mr. Tucker questioned the wording on the covenants, section 32 the second paragraph. He stated he assumed Mr. House's intent was that the streets were to be maintained to City standards by the home owners association or by the City if the property owners association failed. Mr. House did not have a problem inserting that language. Ms. Little stated the covenants had not been reviewed by the legal staff and there would be some changes, but they would have the final version at the time of final plat. She added the PUD was the only type of development that was required to present the covenants with the preliminary plat. • Mr. Harbison commented the Commission must find that the development was consistent with the current land use objectives, principles, and policies. Mr. Odom stated he would vote against the PUD but not because he did not think it was a good thing. He thought it accomplished what the 2010 plan was trying to do. He contended PUDs were the way they ought to do things since they offered great buffers from adjoining neighborhoods and great security with the neighborhoods knowing exactly what would be constructed. He stated it was a mistake but, with the large outcry from the neighborhood about the density requirement, he was going to respect their wishes. Mr. Tucker stated he would be voting in favor of the item with or without the small alterations Ms. Johnson had recommended. He asked if not here, where would this type of development occur, unless it was further out where they would not get the benefit to the infra structure savings to the city. He was convinced the restrictive covenants plus the additional items Mr. House had offered indicated a high quality development would occur. He felt there was a bias that small lots also indicated poor quality in houses. Ms. Hoffman believed the developer had the best of intentions and she would be voting in favor of the project. 33/ • Planning Commission Meeting October 28,1996 Page 30 MOTION Mr. Forney moved to approve the PUD with the following alterations: in the covenants item #17 require off site parking for a minimum of one up to three vehicles depending on the number of bedrooms; item 32, which Mr. Tucker had addressed; and the additions to item #15, which included ceiling heights and trim. Ms. Johnson questioned if he wished to include the idea of decreasing the number of lots in 40- 44 and increasing the lots in 1-6. Mr. Forney stated that was not his proposal. Mr. Tucker seconded the motion. Mr. Allred questioned the appeal process. Ms. Little stated appeals were sent to the City Council within 10 days. Mr. Sugg commented he would be voting in favor of the PUD. He felt it was truly an infill project and it was appropriate and would improve the neighborhood. He felt changing the density of lots 40-44 would help. I:11u 100 133 1 D1►M 0 Ms. Johnson moved to amend the motion so that the area with lots 40-44 would be reconfigured to three lots and the additional lots could be moved to the area between lots 1-6. Ms. Hoffman seconded the amendment. The roll was called and passed by a vote of 7-2-0. Odom and Allred voting nay. Ms Johnson stated the motion was to approved the PUD with the change detailed on item #17 in the covenants, the change detailed item #32 in the covenants and the inclusion of the proposed additions to item #15 with the amendment of the five lots in the north part being limited to three lots and the other two lots being made up in the southeastern part of the development. The roll was called and the PUD passed by a vote of 8-1-0. Odom voting nay. 0 33Z 3 Planning Commission Meeting October 28,1996 Page 31 RZ96-18.00: REZONING TO C-2 JOYCE OGDEN NE CORNER OF CATO SPRINGS RD & TREAT ST. The next item on the agenda was submitted by Ronald Woodruff on behalf of Joyce Ogden for property located at the northeast corner of Cato Springs Road and Treat Street. The property is zoned R-2 (Medium Density Residential) and contains approximately 10. 19 acres. The request is for a rezoning to C-2 (Thoroughfare Commercial). The staff recommended approval of the rezoning as requested based on the designation of this area in General Plan 2020 as Regional Commercial. General Plan 2020 states the purpose of regional commercial development is to "maximize and enhance the existing regional commercial areas of the City and to create regional identity". Section 6.4e under Regional Commercial: Implementation Strategies reads as follows, "Direct new regional development into designated regional commercial centers". This area (71 Bypass intersection with U.S. 71/ Razorback Road/Cato Springs Road) is specifically designated as a new center" of regional commercial activity. Mr. Tucker questioned if the property was in the overlay district. He added the 2020 Plan did • show this area as regional commercial, but it also preferred nodule type development. Ms. Little stated a portion of the property was in the overlay district. The 2020 plan tried to place more neighborhood commercial in nodes regional commercial was placed in areas that would attract from various regions. Mr. Sugg stated the area should be used as residential. Ms. Johnson questioned the number of residents now on the property. Mr. Woodruff stated there were two existing homes on the site. Ms. Johnson commented she could not remember an area where a five -lane highway had gone in first residential. She had seen the reverse where a five -lane had gone through an existing residential area. Mr. Sugg defended the City encouraged it by zoning it commercial. Ms. Johnson did not believe the property would develop as residential. She noted that, if they did not rezone the property to commercial, it would probably just sit there undeveloped. Ms. Hoffman did not believe there was a need for the entire tract to be rezoned commercial. The • frontage would be appropriate, but the back of the tract was reaching into a residential • Planning Commission Meeting October 28,1996 Page 32 neighborhood. To rezone the entire tract for a dense commercial use would be excessive. Mr. Woodruff responded residential was not practical for this tract of land because of the railroad toward the back of the property. They would have five lane highways on two sides and a railroad track to the rear. Ms. Johnson questioned the street in the northeast corner. Mr. Woodruff stated it was used as a driveway for Mr. Treat, the adjacent neighbor. Mr. Harbison commented he was leaning toward denial of this request. The Planning Commission bylaws instructed that they must determine that there is a current need in the City for the rezoning as of the date for the proposed rezoning. Fayetteville now had more than 400 acres of undeveloped C-2 land, most of which they had rezoned in the last year and half. He could not see the need for additional C-2. Mr. Sugg commented this area was to be the new gateway into Fayetteville. His concern was that there was too much C-2, he felt C-1 would be more appropriate. • Mr. Tucker stated one benefit was that it was in the overlay district. Ms. Little replied about half of the property was in the overlay district, but did include most of the frontage. MOTION Mr. Odom moved to approve the rezoning. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. Mr. Forney stated he would oppose the rezoning for the same reasons that he opposed designating this area as regional commercial when they passed the land use plan. He explained that the proximity to the Highway 62 intersection was too close. The City did not need two different nodes that close together. He would be consistent and oppose the rezoning. The roll was called. The rezoning failed by a vote of 3-6-0, Harbison, Sugg, Forney, Reynolds, Hoffman, and Tucker voting nay. 11 335 • Planning Commission Meeting October 28,1996 Page 33 CU96-27.00: CONDITIONAL USE (PP528) ROBERT EITER-N.OF HUNTSVILLE RD & E. OF STONE BRIDGE RD. The next item on the agenda was submitted by Robert Eiter for property located north of Huntsville Road and east of Stone Bridge Road. The property is zoned C-2, thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 1.45 acres. The conditional use request is for a Dance Hall. The staff recommended approval contingent upon the following: 1. Inspection by Fire Marshall and Building Inspector. 2. Compliance with the noise ordinance, including section 96.04, limiting maximum noise levels by land use. 3. Provide 25 parking spaces, two of which must be ADA accessible, and landscaping. Applicant must obtain a parking lot permit and drainage permit if additional parking is required by Planning Commission. 4. Compliance with conditional use criteria, section 160.195 with specific regard to refuse location, lighting and glare, and signage. Is Ms. Johnson asked if the Planning Commission could regulate the hours of operation for a dance hall. Ms. Little stated they could not. Mr. Odom asked the zones in which dance halls were allowed by right. Ms. Little stated there were no zones by right. They were only allowed as a conditional use in C- 2, C-3, and C-4 zoning. go. Mr. Eiters right to have a business was less than their right to have a quite safe Ms. Isaacs, an area resident, expressed concerns about the dance hall becoming a nuisance with drinking and loud noise. She added there was an existing facility nearby for the young people to go. Mr. Eiters right to have a business was less than their right to have a quite safe neighborhood. She thought this would be one of the worst possible uses for this property. Ms. Johnson asked Ms. Isaccs how close she was to the proposed dance hall. Ms. Isaccs replied she lived .3 miles. Ms. Gliss, an area resident, stated she was opposed to a dance hall at this location expressing concerns for the residents safety. She added there had been a shooting in the area a couple of . months ago. 33 (� • Planning Commission Meeting October 28,1996 Page 34 Mr. Gottenspiren, an area resident, was opposed to the dance hall because of the increased traffic by people who had been drinking. There would also be an increase in the noise level. He added it would have a negative impact on property values as well as continued developments. Ms. Little commented they were changing the existing use of the building from a bar to a dance hall. Mr. Reynolds asked if the Commission had dealt with the owners of Speedy Sports Bar, the previous occupants. Ms. Little stated a bar was a use "by right" under C-2, adding the only reason the applicants were before the Commission tonight because the Council thought dance halls should be looked at more closely, in regard to parking and intrusion into adjacent neighborhoods. Mr. Reynolds commented that the place had been closed up before because it had been such a nuisance. He asked how many time the police had gone to this establishment and how much of a nuisance it was to the neighbors. • Mr. Lane stated the police department had only been out to the sports bar once and that was two days ago for a bugler alarm. Mr. Harbison commented they could still have a bar; the conditional use was to allow dancing. Mr. Sugg asked if the noise ordnance would still be in effect. Ms. Little stated the noise ordinance would be in effect whether or not there was dancing. Mr. Tucker asked if the ownership had changed. Ms. Little did not think the ownership had changed, but the person who was leasing the property had changed. Mr. Tucker asked if they had a liquor licences. Mr. Robert Eiter, stated their intent was to have a restaurant and a dance floor. He added the building was well insulated and noise would not be heard outside. Mr. Gottenspire asked if this was the same building as the sports bar. Ms. Johnson stated it was the same building as Speedys Sports Bar. She questioned if Mr. Eiter • had operated the sports bar. • Planning Commission Meeting October 28,1996 Page 35 Mr. Eiter stated they were not even in the area when it was in operation. Ms. Little questioned if they intended to serve liquor. Mr. Eiter stated they had applied for a beer and wine permit to go along with the restaurant. Mr. Odom asked if they were currently operating the restaurant. Mr. Eiter stated they opened the restaurant last Thursday. MOTION Mr. Forney moved to approve the conditional use. Mr. Tucker seconded the motion. Ms. Little stated the staff would like to add an additional condition: If there were complaints within one year the staff could bring the item back to the Commission for further review. 0 Mr. Forney agreed with the condition. The roll was called. The item was approved by a vote of 6-3-0. Harbison, Reynolds, and Hoffman voting nay. to 33P7 3 3-? • Planning Commission Meeting October 28,1996 Page 36 CU96-28.00: CONDITIONAL USE (PP486) ALLTEL MOBILE -150 NW SKYLINE DRIVE The next item on the agenda was submitted by Carrick Inabnett on behalf of Alltel Mobile Communications is a conditional use request for a communications tower (monopole). The property is located at 150 NW Sklyline Drive and zoned P-1, Institutional. The staff recommends approval of the conditional use request contingent upon the following: 1. A building permit application for the 55" concrete pad and for the proposed equipment building. 2. No razor or barbed wire on proposed fence. 3. Proposed lighting be directed downward away from adjacent properties. 4. Additional requirements as determined by Planning Commission. Ms. Johnson stated the applicant had agreed to all the conditions. She commented the applicant had a 20 year lease with the Western Methodist Assembly. She added there had been some discussion on requiring the tower to be located on the City water tower, but the City would be • doing something with the tower in a couple of years. Mr. Karrick Inabnett, representative for Alltel, pointed out on the conditions for the concrete pad would be a concrete foundation for the tower and there would be a 4X9 concrete pad for a generator tank should it need to be brought in during an emergency lost of power. Ms. Johnson stated the City would like to have all the towers located in one place. She added they were hoping that tower users would be able to use the same tower. Ms. Little stated they had discussed the feasibility of other companies with similar requirements to locate on this tower. It had been her understanding that it would be possible. The City would require a Bill of Assurance stating that Alltel would allow others to lease space on their tower at a reasonable price. Ms. Alisa Cofield, Alltel Mobil, stated that Alltel as a company would entertain all location request. Ms. Johnson questioned if under their lease did they have the power to sublease to other people wanting to use the tower. Ms. Cofield stated they were able to sublease under the standard terms of their agreement. Mr. Beavers asked it the City of Fayetteville would be conceded any special conditions if the traffic department wanted to move its antenna from the water tower to this tower. Would they • have to lease the space or would Alltel provide with City with a space. Planning Commission Meeting • October 28,1996 Page 37 Ms. Cofield replied they would entertain the request, but any applicant would have to submit antenna requirements, what type of transmissions they would be operating, the frequency. All applicants would be required to submit the information, so they would not be having interference problems as well as a structural analysis to make sure that any additional antennas could be supported by the tower. MOTION Ms. Hoffman stated it was not her intent to approve any additional towers at this location. She moved to approve the conditional use subject to staff recommendations and a bill of assurance stating they would let others sublet space on the tower. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. Ms. Johnson rephrase the Planning Commission would require as a condition a bill of assurance from Alltel that they would approve any reasonable request for other tower users to go on this site. is Mr. Harbison suggested approved request provided they meet the technical requirements. Ms. Johnson suggested the language that Alltel would approve any reasonable request so long as they were technically and structurally feasible. Mr. Reynold questioned what would be screening the tower after construction. Mr. Inabnett stated that a number of the trees would remain in place. Mr. Reynolds requested the Landscape Administrator work with Alltel to obtain a pleasing end result. Mr. Forney asked the purpose of the platform at the top of the tower.. Ms. Cofield stated the platform would hold the antenna. Mr. Forney question how they would get the tower on site and what color it would be. Mr. Taylor stated it would be brought in sections, it would be painted sky blue. The roll was called and the item was approved unanimously. • 339 • Planning Commission Meeting October 28,1996 Page 38 CU96-29: CONDITIONAL USE FOR A STUDENT CENTER CHURCH OF LATTER DAY SAINTS -NE CORNER OF ARKANSAS AVE. & REAGAN ST. The last item on the agenda was a conditional use to allow a student center was submitted by Karl Friar on behalf of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints for property located at the northeast comer of Arkansas Avenue and Reagan Street. The property is zoned R-3, High Density Residential, and contains approximately .037 acres. The staff recommended approval contingent upon: 1. Approval of a variance from setback violations, southern portion of structure. A variance will also be required on the west side setback if the applicant intends to cover the porch. 2. Compliance with § 160.117, Off -Street Parking, with regard to spaces (20 required, one must be ADA accessible), landscaping, and application of a parking lot permit and drainage permit. 3. Compliance with conditional use criteria, section, § 160.195 with specific regard to refuse location, and ingress/egress, and that any proposed lighting be directed downward away from adjacent properties. • Ms. Johnson stated they had on file from the applicant approving the conditions. Mr. Sugg questioned the proposed parking area, was it a parking lot. Ms. Johnson asked Ms Little to explain the approval from the variance from setback violations. Ms. Little explained on the south side of the lot a bay window and a portion of the rear building was extended into a portion of the 25' front setback. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the item subject to staff comments. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Ms. Paula Marinoni, an area resident, thought the proposed use was a good use for this site, but she was concerned about the 20 space parking lot. There were three large trees. She asked if they could reduce the parking to 18 spaces. She also requested if Beth Sandeen could consult with them to lay the parking lot around the trees to allow for more water to get to the roots of the trees. She added she would like to see the character of the area maintained and thought this would help. L] Sib ,7qt • Planning Commission Meeting October 28,1996 Page 39 Ms. Johnson questioned if the Commission had any authority to do anything about trees. Ms. Little stated they did have authority. She had looked at the property particular how they would access the parking lot off Arkansas and there was adequate space for them put a drive in that would allow access into the center portion of the lot. There would be enough room for the 20 spaces and the perimeter trees could be salvaged easily, there may be one tree in the center that might not be able to be saved. Ms. Johnson questioned if they were to approve this conditional use would the motion need to have something specific relating to the trees. Ms. Little replied she like to be as clear as possible and suggested they make it a requirement. She suggested adding it to the conditions. Mr. Sugg questioned where the number for the 20 spaces had come from. Mr. Lane responded it was based on the proposed number of students in the center. • Mr. Sugg did not believe there was a use for 20 spaces and asked if they could share the drive as opposed to making a new curb space. He also suggested using a permeable materials for the parking lot to preserve the area as much as possible. Mr. Forney questioned if any of the other student centers around campus that had parking. He suggested that Arkansas Avenue had some of the best on street parking in the area. Ms. Little reponed that Reagan Street and Arkansas Avenue was completely lined all day, every day. Mr. Sugg asked when the main use of the facility would occur. Mr. Friar stated Monday thru Friday there would be walk on traffic from the University campus. On Sunday from about 10:00-2:00 would be the highest amount of use of parking, at this time there would be the lowest usage for the parking on Reagan and Arkansas. Presently, they had limited parking maybe 4-6 spaces. The 20 spaces would be the highest most demand on a Sunday afternoon. Ms. Johnson asked if they could live with less than 20 spaces, because of the parking on the street and across the spaces. Mr. Friar responded they could get by with 16-18 spaces. 0 3q?� • Planning Commission Meeting October 28,1996 Page 40 Mr. Tucker questioned the previous use of the property and the existing parking. Mr. Friar answered it was a sorority and the there was approximately 6 spaces in the back of the lot. Mr. Tucker questioned how many people had lived in the sorority house. Ms. Little stated they had asked preliminary questions about the sororities, but they did not find any one with any answers. Mr. Harbison questioned if they could limit it to 12 spaces. Mr. Friar stated he could not make that decision, they would have to ask one of the regional offices of the church. Mr. Robert Boyce stated they taught religion education classes at the facility on a weekly bases, people would come from the community as well as campus and would need places to park. During the week Arkansas and Reagan were full with student parking and they would need to • provide parking for the people who would attend the classes at the center. Twenty parking spaces would be ideal, but they would be able to live with less. If they went with much less there would not be enough parking for the people who regular attended classes. Mr. Allred suggested they vote on the motion and if it failed they could arbitrate the number. The roll was called and the motion failed, 4-5-0. Johnson, Harbison, Forney, Hoffman and Tucker voting nay. MOTION Ms. Hoffman moved to approve the conditional use subject to staff comments with two changes, that 18 spaces only be allowed and the landscaping would be approved by the Landscaping Administrator. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Mr. Tucker commented this was a conditional use and would be a good time to request that permeable materials be used on the parking lot. He would support 18 parking spaces if they would use permeable materials for the parking lot. AMENDMENT is Planning Commission Meeting October 28,1996 Page 41 Mr. Tucker proposed an amendment that the parking lot be paved with permeable surfaces. Mr. Harbison seconded the motion. Mr. Forney stated he would opposed the amendment because a compacted gravel lot would not perk. There would also be handicaps accessible space on gravel. He preferred to go with the City standard parking lot. Mr. Beavers commented he was under the impression they were talking about the turf block parking. They did have engineering design data that did show they did percolate. Ms. Johnson did not think they had enough information to change the City requirements for this parking lot. They had already reduced the number of spaces to save the trees. The roll was called. The amendment failed by a vote of 4-5-0. Johnson, Odom, Allred, Forney, and Reynolds voting nay. MOTION • To approve the conditional use subject to the staff comments with the changes and only 18 parking spaces and the landscaping be approved by the Landscape Administrator. The roll was called and the item was approved by a vote of 7-2. Forney and Tucker voting nay. The meeting adjourned at 10:15pm. • 3qL3