Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-12-09 MinutesPlanning Commission December 9, 1996 Page 1 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on December 9, 1996 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Phyllis Johnson, Jerry Allred, John Harbison, Conrad Odom, Gary Tucker, Lorel Hoffman, Bob Reynolds, John Forney, and Mark Sugg. STAFF PRESENT: Alert Little, Jim Beavers, Rich Lane, Dawn Warrick, and Heather Woodruff. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES The minutes were approved as distributed. OLD BUSINESS • AD96-12.00: AMENDMENT TO BYLAWS ALTERNATE FOR SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE The first item on the agenda was a proposed amendment to the bylaws. This item concerned the membership on the Subdivision Committee. The current bylaws require three to four members on the committee. At this time there are three members. They require a unanimous vote to approve items at the Subdivision level. The proposal was to allow alternates to sit in lieu of regular members. The proposed amendment would read "two alternates shall be named; one or both of whom shall sit in lieu of a regular member or members who are absent from the meeting." The intention was to grant the substituting members full voting rights. Ms. Johnson suggested the phrase, "... both of whom shall sit with full voting rights." Mr. Reynolds stated they needed them and he favored that wording. Mr. Tucker asked if the alternates would be appointed by the chair. Ms. Johnson stated she, the chair, would appoint permanent alternates. She explained if a member was going to be absent, they would call alternate A; if alternate A could not attend, he would then call the alternate B. The regular member would be responsible for notifying the staff. Mr. Tucker asked if the language "appointed by the chair" would be helpful. Ms. Johnson did not think it would be necessary, since the chair appointed all committee members. Mr. Reynolds stated all the Planning Commissioners would gain valuable experience by attending the Subdivision Meetings. 40 Ms. Johnson referred to paragraph C2 the staff had added the word "three" She suggested it would be clearer if • Planning Commission December 9, 1996 Page 2 they deleted "three members of the... " Thus it would read, "it shall require unanimous vote of the Subdivision Committee." MOTION Ms. Johnson moved to amend article IV C with the language "two alternates shall be named; one or both of whom shall sit with full voting rights in lieu of a regular member or members who are absent from the meeting." Delete the words, "three members of the" so it would read, "unanimous vote of the Subdivision Committee." Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Mr. Tucker asked if there had to three members present to act on an item at Subdivision Meeting. Ms. Johnson replied three of the five members of the Committee must be present. The roll was called and a unanimous vote of 7-0-0 carried the item. 0 • Planning Commission December 9, 1996 Page 3 CONSENT AGENDA VA96-12.00: VACATION (PP216) JOHN THORN- 2810 BIRDIE DRIVE The next item was submitted by John Thom for property located at 2810 Birdie Drive. The property is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and contains 14,000 square feet. The request is to vacate approximately P of a 10' utility easement on the west side of the lot. The staff recommends approval of the utility easement vacation subject to the applicant providing a legal description of the area including the roof overhang (approximately 28.3 sf) prior to the Planning Commission meeting. The legal description is required for the Council's action. LSD96-39.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT FOR NEW SCHOOL ADDITION SOUTH SUNBRIDGE DRIVE AND EAST OF NEW SCHOOL PLACE. The next item on the agenda was submitted by Jorgensen and Associates for property located south of Sunbridge Drive and east of New School Place. The property is zoned R -O, (Residential -Office) and contains approximately 3.98 acres. • If the Planning Commission approves the LSD, then staff requests that the approval be subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. Approval of the parking waiver. Please not, that the applicant may add the "future" cafeteria expansion to this plan. If this space is added a parking waiver may not be required. This has not been determined as of 2 Dec 96. Note: revised plats do show the cafeteria as a part of the large scale. 2. The owner shall provide a letter to the City assuring that the temporary building will be removed from the site within 30 days after completion of the proposed expansion. 3. Revised the existing entrance from eh cul-de-sac to improve traffic flow and pedestrian safety. 4. Staff approval of the final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot (s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the LSD review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. This shall include the new Sidewalk specification approved by the City Council 19 November 96. All fire hydrant locations and requirements shall meet the Fire Chief's approval. 5. Plat review and Subdivision Committee comments, including the written plat comments mailed to the applicant. Please not that this includes the Public Utilities (AWG, SWEPCO, OZARKS, TCA, SWBELL) and City Staff. 6. The drainage within the development shall be private. The owner shall execute a letter of agreement to maintain the private drainage. The drainage within City right-of-way and the proposed offsite easement is subject to further review. 7. In addition to the necessary site, drainage, and erosion control measures, an easement plat shall be provided to • the City of Fayetteville prior to the issuance of any building permit. 8. The LSD approval will be valid for one calendar year. There was no public comment. • Planning Commission December 9, 1996 Page 4 MOTION Mr. Odom moved to approve the consent agenda. Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion. The roll was called and a vote of 7-0-0 approved the item unanimously. • • 1P • Planning Commission December 9, 1996 Page 5 LSD96-38.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT FOR HANNA'S WAREHOUSE BURT HANNA- N. OF 15 TH STREET AND W. OF MORNINGSIDE DRIVE. The next item on the agenda was submitted by Northwest Engineers for property located north of 15th Street and west of Morningside Drive. The property is zoned 1-1 (Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial) and contains approximately 3.03 acres. If the Planning Commission approved the item the staff recommended the approval be contingent upon the following conditions: I. Planning Commission determination of requirements and compliance with the "Commercial Design Standards". 2. Staff approval of the final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lots (s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the LSD review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. This shall include the new Sidewalk specifications approved by the City Council November 19, 1996. All fire hydrant locations and requirements shall meet the Fire Chiefs approval. • 3. Plat review and Subdivision Committee comments, including the written plat comments mailed to the applicant. Please note that this includes the public Utilities (AWG, SWEPCO, OZARKS, TCA, SWBELL) and City Staff. 4. Dedication of right-of-way to a total of 55 feet from the center of Highway 16 and 6 feet sidewalks as shown on the LSD plan. 5. Water and Sewer easements shall be 20 feet minimum widths and are subject to be wider depending upon the final design of the water and sewer. The easement must allow a minimum 1:1 side slope from the bottom of the lines. "Large" trees shall not be allowed within the water, sewer or utility easements. 6. The drainage within the development's parking area and along the west property line shall be private. The owner shall execute a letter of agreement to maintain the private drainage. 7. Provide an easement plat to the City of Fayetteville prior to the issuance of the building permit(s). 8. The LSD approval will be valid for one calendar year. Ms. Johnson questioned to what extent the Commercial Design Standards apply. Ms. Little explained the proposed building for this site was approximately 37,500 square feet, of that the warehouse area was 32,500 square feet (Industrial Use) and the office area was approximate 5,000 square feet (Commercial Use). The City Council had decided Commercial Design Standards did not apply to Industrial Developments. She questioned the amount of commercial development it would take to cause the Commercial Development Standards to apply. She continued. They would be setting a precedent. It was clear that the Site Development Standards did apply (landscaping). The staff did not believe there was enough commercial space for the Building Design Standards to apply. She noted their property was zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial Light Industrial, and they had no guaranty that in the future the property would not be 100% commercial. Ms. Johnson asked where the office area would be in the building. Ms. Little replied they had not been located. • Mr. Kurt Jones, Northwest Engineers, stated they had not determined the location of the offices. �S2 • Planning Commission December 9, 1996 Page 6 Ms. Johnson asked how they knew the size of the offices if they did not know where they would be. Mr. Jones replied they were allowing for 5,000 square feet of office space, mainly for parking requirements. He added they were being conservative in their estimates. Mr. Harbison asked if the occupant of the office would be different of the occupant of the warehouse. Mr. Jones replied the offices would work mainly as support for the warehouses. Mr. Reynolds asked if all four of the builds would look like the building presented. Mr. Jones stated the other buildings would look very similar. Mr. Reynolds asked if all four of the builds would have the same facade color. Mr. Jones stated they would be white. Mr. Reynolds expressed concern about the building blending in with the two churches. Mr. Jones stated they intending to have the buildings look alike. • Mr. Harbison asked Ms. Little if she considered 5,000 square feet to be the "tipping point" for the application of Commercial Design Standards. If not he asked where the "tipping point" would be. He suggested 1/3 to 1/4 of the floor space. Ms. Little stated this was a land use classification question. The staff did not believe the Commercial Design Standards for the building applied, because the offices were related to the Industrial use. She suggested that 5,000 square feet, approximately 1/6 to 1/7 was not enough commercial use for the Commercial Design Standards to apply. She thought 33%-50% would be enough to warrant the Planning Commission's consideration. She reiterated this was a new ordinance and they would be setting a precedent. Ms. Johnson asked if there would be office space in each building. Mr. Jones stated there would be. He explained the building would function as several leased warehouses, each with its own office space. Ms. Hoffman commented she viewed the offices as accessories to the primary industrial use. She believed the Building Code had a 10% definition but this ordinance did not have a definition. Ms. Little replied 5,000 square feet represented more than 10% of the total area. Ms. Johnson commented the applicant had offered to do the landscaping required by the Commercial Design Standards. Ms. Little stated they were thankful the applicant had offered to do the landscaping, because they would have asked for it. The Commercial Design Standards clearly intended the Site Development Standards to apply to Industrial uses. • Ms. Johnson asked if anyone favored the application of Commercial Design Standards, based on the 5,000 square 0 • Planning Commission December 9, 1996 Page 7 feet of office space. Mr. Reynolds asked the size of the plants they were required to use. Ms. Little stated for Commercial Design Standards specified 2" diameter trees. Ms. Johnson asked if anyone favored applying the Design Standards to the building itself. Mr. Forney asked who governed the signage under I-1 zoning. Ms. Little stated the sign ordinance would govern and they would not try to modify those standards. She added those signs out of scale or incompatible would be discouraged. Ms. Johnson asked about the required screening. Ms. Little replied the zoning ordinance required residential areas to be screened from commercial and industrial activities. They had chosen to leave the existing vegetation of the west side and to use chain link fence and honeysuckle on the east and north sides. Ms. Johnson asked if the ordinance required them to use a chain link when next to R-2 zoning. • Ms. Little explained the ordinance did not require a chain link. They required screening. There were many ways to accomplish the screening: purely vegetative, wooden fences, or other types of fences that were not completely solid, which was the reason for the honeysuckle. Mr. Harbison questioned why the Site Development Standards would apply to this project. Ms. Little explained I- I was not exempt from the standard. Therefore, it applied. Ms. Little asked if they had received the staff's check list for reviewing a project. She felt it was meeting the Site Development Standards. Mr. Reynolds asked how many offices were in the existing warehouses. Mr. Burt Hanna replied there were none. He intended to have an office for each warehouse leasing space. Mr. Reynolds asked if anyone had expressed concerns about the warehouse. Mr. Hanna replied Mr. Bill Curtis, pastor of the Pentecostal Church, had expressed concerns about a beer distributor or a strip joint leasing the warehouse. Mr. Hanna then offered a Bill of Assurance stating he would not least to those types of businesses. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to approve the item subject to staff's comments. Mr. Odom seconded the motion. Mr. Forney asked why Commercial Design Standards did not apply to this project, when the ordinance listed I-1 as • applying. • Planning Commission December 9, 1996 Page 8 Ms. Little replied the City Council had discussed exempting Industrial Parks from the ordinance, but they did not. However, they did exempt industrial uses. She added a warehouse was an industrial use. Mr. Forney pointed out the property could be used commercially if Mr. Hanna ever sold it. He suggested the Bill of Assurance disallow any commercial uses. Mr. Reynolds asked Mr. Hanna if the warehouses would be used for industrial uses only. Mr. Hanna stated had planned to lease the warehouses out to a variety of uses: sign shop, cabinet shop, sheet metal shop, Tyson and Campbell Soup. Mr. Reynolds commented they needed a Bill of Assurance stating he would not lease to any businesses distributing or storing alcoholic beverages or to sexually oriented businesses. Mr. Allred suggested sending the ordinance back to the UDO committee to make some changes. Mr. Reynolds added to the motion that the Bill of Assurance disallow any businesses distributing or storing alcoholic beverages and/or sexually oriented business. Ms. Hoffman stated she would be voting against the motion, because the Bill of Assurance did not disallow commercial businesses in the warehouse or offices. • Ms. Johnson stated they cannot do that. The zoning ordinance allowed commercial activities in 1-1 zones. She added City Council had made it clear they did not want the Commercial Design Standards to apply to Industrial uses. Mr. Harbison thought the Committee should establish a "tipping point" for the application of Commercial Design Standards for a mixed use. Ms. Johnson commented they would have to amend the ordinance. Ms. Little explained there were a number of standard rules of interpretation and office policy. She reminded them they were setting a precedent. Mr. Forney suggested clarifying the definition of a commercial structure. He thought if the Planning Commission was going to take up the topic at the next meeting, one aspect should be the definition of Commercial. They also needed to define what would cause the Commercial Design Standards to "kick in" in an I-1 or I-2 zoning area. The roll was called and the item passed by a vote of 6-3-0. Hoffman, Forney, and Sugg voting nay C, J 31a 5ss • Planning Commission December 9, 1996 Page 9 PP96-8:00: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CANTERBURY PLACE NORTH OF JOYCE BLVD AND NORTH OF CROSSOVER ROAD The next item on the agenda was submitted by Northwest Engineers for property located north of Joyce Blvd. and west of Crossover Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 20.19 acres with 23 proposed lots. The staff requests the approval be contingent upon the following conditions: 1. Staff approval of the final street names. The main street shall be Taliesin Lane. (A future connection to the existing Taliesin Lane south of Zion Road is planned). 2. Due to the proposed park land of lot 6 and the potential for the City to also acquire lots 5 and 7 the street design and lot layout should be flexible. A. In the event that the western street (lots 5-7) is not constructed then the developer shall dedicate a 50 ft. Right- of-way in the general location that the street is currently proposed. B. The main street (constructed) will be Taliesin Lane and shall have a 50' right-of-way, 28' street and sidewalks on each side of the street. The minor street (constructed) will be a "Residential" street with 40' right-of-way, 24' street and sidewalk on one side. • 3. Dedication of 0.53 acres to the City Parks system at the time of final plat. The Parks Board has requested the property which includes the drainage channel to the west (lot 6). Lot 6 has been proposed by the developer (lot 6 needs is 0.51 acres ad needs to be adjusted to 0.53 acres or accepted by the Parks Board). 4. If the plat changes from the plat presented at the 9 December 96 Planning commission Meeting (number of lots and street layout) then the plat must come back through the Planning process, starting with "in-house" plat review. 5. The Developer will be required to contribute $29,991.28 toward the improvement of Joyce Boulevard. 6. Verification that a separate residential drive will be permitted as shown for lot 19. 7. Staff approval of the final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lots(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the LSD review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. This shall include the new Sidewalk specifications approved by the City Council 19 November 96. All fire hydrant locations and requirements shall meet the Fire Chiefs approval. Water and sewer extensions to the north property line will be required. 8. Plat review and Subdivision Committee comments, including the written plat comments mailed to the applicant. Please note that this includes the Public Utilities (AWG, SWEPCO, OZARKS, TCA, SWBELL) and City Staff. • 9. Dedication of 25' of right-of-way across the northern property boundary. • Planning Commission December 9, 1996 Page 10 Ms. Johnson commented the developer was willing to contribute lot 6 to the Parks. She added an adjacent property owner had express some interest in purchasing lots 5 and 7 and donating those lots to the City. It was her understanding that had not been done. Ms. Little stated there were some negotiations going on, but they had not concluded them. Ms. Johnson did not believe they should consider the negotiations, since the project was before them tonight. She discouraged discussion of lots 5 and 7 being purchased and donated to the City, since they did not have any written agreements. Mr. Harbison commented if the City acquired lots 5 and 7 they would not need the street along the front of the lots. Ms. Johnson rephrased his question, since the City did not have any interest in the lots at the moment, how could the Commission deal with the project tonight with that hope. Ms. Little stated there was an issue of connectivity. Taliesin Lane came off of Zion Road. The property owner to the north of this proposed subdivision and south of Taliesin Lane had shown some interest in developing. In preparation for that development, the property owner had purchased right-of-way at the south end of Taliesin, therefore, there is an opportunity for a connection to run from Joyce Street to Zion Road. She added having a common street name would be important if they were making that type of connection. The non -construction of the street on the west side offered some advantages in control of drainage, on the other hand it was interrupted with two • large curves along Kent Drive, Becket Lane, and Weaver Drive. They believed this was a residential area so they did not object to curves. However, strict 90 degree turns like those proposed were more difficult to negotiate and could disorient some people. The 911 coordinators had asked them to use a different name for directional purposes everytime they changed street directions. Mr. Sugg asked if lot 6 was becoming part of a larger land area of parks. Ms. Johnson explained there was a hope that in the future additional land would be donated, but there was no assurance of that. Mr. Sugg believed they would need the road for access to the park. Mr. Kurt Jones, Northwest Engineers, asked the Planning Commission to review the plat it was presented. He disagreed with condition #5, the contribution of to the construction of Joyce Boulevard. They felt it was excessive based on the traffic count of Joyce Boulevard compared to the traffic this development would produce on Joyce. He did not believe the City had asked any other developments in that area to contribute. Mr. Beavers stated the office complex to the east had contributed a similar portion. Mr. Jones stated the traffic generated by a 22 -lot development would be insignificant compared with the through traffic on Joyce. The Parks Board had also asked them to donate a lot that they valued at $65,000 instead of parks fees. He added this was a large hit on the subdivision, he asked the Planning Commission to reduce the amount or eliminate the contribution to Joyce Boulevard altogether. Mr. Reynolds questioned the value of the lots. 0 Mr. Jones stated the owner was planning to sell the lots in that price range. 01 • Planning Commission December 9, 1996 Page 11 Mr. Beavers stated the City was requesting the traditional amount due from the developer. He added for the past several years the City had required %: of a standard street from any developer. Ms. Johnson commented the narrow end of the subdivision was fronting Joyce, which lowered the cost to some degree. Mr. Gary Galbraith, Ozark Regional Land Trust, stated he had a general agreement to purchase lots 5, 7, and 8. Ms. Johnson stated without written agreements they could not consider the agreements in their decision tonight. Mr. Galbraith stated several parties had made an agreement today to purchase the properties. Ms. Johnson commented the Planning Commission was interested in any written agreements they had made. Mr. Galbraith stated Ozark Regional Land Trust had agreed to purchase and hold the property. There had been a price agreed upon and set with the current property owner. They were waiting on the fmances to complete the purchase. Dr. Lloyd Hudson stated he and his wife planned to donate their land to the public as a nature conservatory. They were using Ozark Regional Land Trust as the trustee. They had reached an agreement with the owner to purchase lot 5, 7 and 8. He explained the whole west side would then be placed into a land trust to be preserved. • Mr. Odom asked Mr. Hudson if he purchased the land, would he want the plated road. Mr. Hudson did not see the need for the road. They would not be developing lots 5-8. Ms. Hoffman asked if the Preliminary Plat could be modified before final approval, if the land was bought. Ms. Little responded what the staff had recommended (condition #4) if Mr. Hudson purchased the lots that the plat to go through the process again to give the utility companies a chance to look at the changes. Ms. Johnson clarified if more than one lot came out, then it would need to go through the process again to decide where the utilities and the streets need to be. Ms. Little stated it was question of the need for the street and the need for services to other lots. The purchase of the lots did not make the lot lines go away, they could continue through the process the lots would just be in common ownership. She asked if they would object to a 50' right-of-way, for a future road. Mr. Harbison asked to change condition #4 slightly to read if lots 5, 7, and 8 were sold then they would bring the plat back into the process for plat review. Mr. Allred suggested they approve the item as presented or table it. He added if they approved the plat, as requested by the developer, he could proceed with his plans. If the lots were sold, then he could come though the process again as a re -plat. Mr. Reynolds was not in favor of taking the project through the process again. He suggested tabling the item until they could come to a written agreement. • Ms. Little stated they did not have another meeting in December, the next meeting was in January. • Planning Commission December 9, 1996 Page 12 Mr. Jones stated they would like to continue with the plat as it was presented so they could finish the design and construction plans. The section of street they were considering leaving out would not affect the design of the subdivision. The lot lay out would remain the same. The 50' ROW would still be there. Ms. Johnson stated it could affect the Commission's view of the remaining street. The present street was a straight road and easily navigable. The remaining street would have four sharp 90 degree curves. Mr. Jones reiterated it would not affect their design. If during the design phase they sold the lots then they could come back and ask for revisions. A 28' street could be placed in the right- of- way without changing the plat. He did not envision the plat changing at all. They were talking about leaving sections of the road out, the lots and the right-of-way would still be there. Mr. Odom expressed concern about damaging a sensitive area. Mr. Jones asked for approval to complete the construction plans. He added they would not start building the road immediately. Mr. Reynolds stated he would not vote for this item tonight. He would like to see the item tabled until the next Planning Commission meeting. He added the curves on Becket Lane Weaver Drive, and Kent Drive were too sharp. They would need to be adjusted before he would approve it. • Mr. Jones defended the purpose of the sharp curves was to slow traffic. Ms. Johnson also suggested softening the curves. Mr. Forney added if the west street was removed they would need to widen the remaining street, change its name, and build sidewalks on both sides. Mr. Jones did not believe it would change the layout of the subdivision. He thought they should discuss those changes when the time came. He asked them to approve the plat before them. There was no public comment. %[*) WWI WI Mr. Allred moved to table the item until they could work out agreements. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The roll was called a unanimous vote of 9-0-0 tabled the item. 0 ,�a • Planning Commission December 9, 1996 Page 13 LSD96-40.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT FOR FAST TRAX #9 (PP401) NORTHWEST OIL- 3390 WEDINGTON DRIVE The next item on the agenda was submitted by Milholland Engineering for property located at 3390 W. Wedington Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 1.42 acres. The property is located on lot I of Wedington Place Subdivision and is within the Overlay District. The applicant is requesting waiver/variances as stated on the plat: Variances Requested: 1. A minimum distance of 250' as required from curb cuts to street intersections, as follows: a. From 250' to 200.25': from Shiloh Drive to Hwy 16 entrance b. From 250' to 151.64': from Steamboat Drive to Hwy 16 entrance c. From 250' to 170.73': from Hwy 16 to Steamboat Drive entrance 2. Signs: Sign "A" conforming to City Ordinances, and Sign "B" non -conforming with the following requested variances: a. A waiver is requested to provide the construction of a standard internally lit sign. b. A waiver is requested to provide a standard pole mounted sign 30' in height. The staff recommends the following conditions of approval: • I. Staff request denial of the requested waivers to allow an entrance onto Wedington Drive from lot one and waiver to allow the non -conforming signs. Staff supports only the waiver request pertaining to the entry onto Steamboat Drive. 2. Compliance with all requirements of the design standards of the Overlay District. 3. Resolution of the parking requirements and allowances for the restaurant and convenience store. 4. The applicant must work with the developer of Wedington Place (Clary) to assure that Steamboat Drive is dedicated as a public street as stated by Clary's engineer (DCI) at the Planning Commission Meeting of 23 September 96. The dedication of the street including the maintenance bonds must be provided prior to a building permit for lot 1 (Fast Trax). 5. Staff approval of the final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the LSD review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. 6. Plat review and Subdivision Committee comments, including the written plat comments mailed to the applicant. Please note that this includes the Public Utilities (AWG, SWEPCO, OZARKS, TCA, SWBELL) and City Staff. 7. Dedication of right-of-way to total of 55 feet from the center of Highway 16 west (Wedington Drive). 8. Dumpster location to be approved by the Solid Waste Division. 9. A five-foot sidewalk with a six-foot green space along Steamboat Drive. 10. Water and sewer easements shall be 20 feet minimum width and subject to be wider depending upon the final design of the water and sewer. The easement must allow a minimum of 1: l side slope from the bottom of the lines. "Large" trees shall not be allowed within the water, sewer or utility easements. Engineering and Landscape will work with the applicant on trees and water/sewer lines. 11. Storm water detention shall be required as noted on the final plat of Wedington Place Subdivision. The drainage within the development, and the detention shall be privately owned and maintained. The owner shall execute a letter of agreement to maintain the private drainage in accordance with the Storm water Ordinance and • Drainage Manual. 12. Provide an easement plat to the City of Fayetteville prior to the issuance of the building permit. • Planning Commission December 9, 1996 Page 14 13. The LSD approval will be valid for one calendar year. Ms. Johnson asked if the applicant had read the conditions of approval. Mr. Milholland stated he had. Ms. Johnson stated they needed to add an additional condition (#14), "cross access to the property to the north will be provided at the western property edge." Mr. Milholland stated they had a problem with condition 91, the denial of the waivers. Ms. Little stated there had been questions about the capacity, 40 people, for the restaurant and its 13 parking spaces. Ms. Johnson asked Mr. Milholland to explain his need for another curb cut off Wedington. Mr. Milholland explained the Overlay District required 250' from an intersection to a curb cut. The property was not large enough for that. He added there were others establishments of this nature in this section of town and to the north of Fayetteville, where their curb cuts were within 250'. He thought safety was irrelevant of the Overlay District requirements and had pictures of similar establishments in Fayetteville and Rogers. They had measured from intersections to their curb cut and all of them had measured less than what they were requesting. He added Hwy 16 was two-lane now, but it would be widen in a few years. • Ms. Johnson asked when this portion of Wedington was scheduled to be widened to four lanes. Mr. Beavers stated it had not been scheduled Mr. Milholland believed there were plans to widen Wedington Ms. Little explained the Northwest Regional Planning Commission had a three-year plan for highway improvements. The City had identified Gregg Street from the Bypass north to be its number one priority. She had talked with the Highway department and they had informed her there were no funds for the City's number one priorty or for the widening of Wedington west of the bypass. Ms. Johnson asked to have the second variance request clarified. Ms. Little stated the developer was asking for a wavier to allow a curb cut in the middle of the site. This curb cut would make the curb cut for Steamboat illegal. They would need a waiver for that curbcut. They were also asking for a waiver for a curb cut onto Steamboat Drive (which was the one waiver the staff favored). Mr. Milholland expressed some confusion about the ordinance because it specified two different dimensions, 200' and 250' between curb cuts. Ms. Little explained there were two conditions: the ordinance entitled the property owner to have one curb cut per 200' and curb cuts were to be a minimum of 250' from the nearest intersection. Mr. Milholland stated they had a permit for a curb cut from the State Highway Department. He presented photos of • similar projects, stating they represented the norm. He added there were two that were in the Overlay District on Hwy 62. One of them had been preexisting and the other was the Exxon that had been tom down and rebuilt down after the ordinance had been passed. He pointed out their curbcuts were less than what he was requesting. 40i • Planning Commission December 9, 1996 Page 15 Ms. Johnson asked Ms. Little about the sign ordinance in the Overlay District. Ms. Little stated a standard sign could be 75 square feet located 40' from the right-of-way with a maximum of 30' in height. In the Overlay District the signage allowed was 75 square feet, 10' from the right-of-way, and 6' in height. Ms. Johnson asked if any service stations or other businesses had been built along the Bypass in the Overlay District that required this type of signage. Ms. Little replied Payless Shoe store and the motels along Shiloh Drive. Mr. Forney cautioned if they were to allow the waiver, not to allow the sign to be 30' tall and 10' from the right-of- way. It would be more generous than anything anywhere else in the City. Mr. Michael Andrews, an area resident and a member of Sign Appeals Board, agreed with the staff recommendation to deny the sign waiver. He commented the Overlay District signs were different for a reason. He asked where the curb cuts would be. Ms. Johnson explained they were requesting two entrances, one off Wedington and the other off Steamboat. Mr. Andrews hoped there could be something worked out to allow Fast Trax an east and west entry, but not one on Wedington Drive because of the heavy traffic. • There were no other comments from the public. Mr. Milholland responded they had tried to work out an access agreement with the Holiday Inn Express, but they had no interest in working with them. money set aside for them. Mr. Reynolds pointed out Holiday Inn Express had not installed sidewalks. He asked the staff to find out if they had been required and if there was any money set aside for them. Mr. George Williams, Northwest Oil Co., stated his primary concern was the curb cut on Wedington Drive. He explained a convenience store required good access from the primary street. They could not compete if they had to send people around the corner to get into the property. He stated without access from Wedington their delivery trucks could not bring their merchandise onto the property. They could not get in off Steamboat. Mr. Tucker asked why they could not get in off Steamboat. Mr. Williams explained the street was to narrow. The truck could not make the tum Ms. Johnson stated they had watched the traffic coming from the south on Shiloh traveling north making a left at the light. Her sense was that a curb cut off Wedington that close to the intersection, would be very dangerous because of the high speed of the traffic. Mr. William replied most of their customers would be west bound. They had no objects to placing a "right only" sign so they could not turn left. Mr. Tucker suggested this was not a good location for a convenience store. He expressed concerns for safety. 40 Mr. William replied any type of business would have a hard time making it there. The property itself was very '^ti • Planning Commission December 9, 1996 Page 16 valuable, but its value had been minimized by restricting the access. He added customers needed to have access to the property and delivery trucks needed to have access to property to make deliveries. Ms. Little responded Steamboat was a standard City street. It was the same design the City used on any street in town. Mr. Williams stated a semi -truck could not make the swing onto Steamboat. Ms. Little asked what radius he would need. Mr. Milholland stated they would need a 40' radius. Ms. Little stated the plat showed a 30' radius. She asked Mr. Milholland to redesign the curve to provide a 40' radius. She pointed out their curb cut did show a 40' radius off Wedington. Mr. Reynolds asked who had constructed the street. Ms. Little stated Clary Development had. Mr. Odom asked if Clary had dedicated the street to the City yet. • Ms. Little read a letter from Clary Development expressing their willingness to dedicate the street to the City when they had an approved LSD for lot 1. They were willing to dedicate it now, if they could work out a binding agreement with the City for curb cuts off Steamboat Drive before any large scale development. They wanted to keep Steamboat private in the mean time to allow curb cuts along the street. She stated he was under the impression that the Overlay District Standards did not apply to private drives. The Overlay District Standards were silent on private drives. She added the Overlay District Standard for the distances of curb cuts were meant for traffic management. Clary was under the impression that if it remained private there could be as many curb cuts as he wanted. He also indicated if they approved the project he was willing to dedicate Steamboat Drive immediately. Mr. Odom observed Clary development wanted the street to go public, but they wanted concessions in the meantime. Ms. Little continued with the letter, Clary had advised Northwest Oil that the City opposed any curb cuts on Highway 16. He had encouraged them to submit a plan without a curb cut on Wedington. He did support their variance request. Mr. Odom asked why the streets had not been turned over to the City when they were built them. Ms. Little stated they had agreed to dedicate the streets when a large scale development came through. Mr. Beavers stated there had been a lot discussion about public/private streets at that Planning Commission Meeting. The final decision had been the street could remain private until the time of a large scale development then they would become public. Ms. Little stated they addressed the street dedication in condition #4 • Mr. Reynolds commented Northwest Oil knew curb cuts would not be allowed on Wedington before they began the process. 10 • Planning Commission December 9, 1996 Page 17 Mr. Milholland stated he had not been the engineer for Clary and had no idea of the discussion of which they were speaking. He did not have any knowledge of this requirement until Plat Review. Mr. Harbison asked why they could not make the turning radius on Steamboat. Mr. Williams explained 30' was the turning radius on the outside curb, the width of the lane would not allow a large tanker to turn in with an island in the middle. Ms. Johnson asked if a truck could tum off Wedington onto Steamboat. Mr. William stated they could not turn off Steamboat to access their property. Mr. Milholland explained once the truck was on Steamboat there was only 200' before it had to tum again. Mr. Harbison commented if the access on Steamboat was moved further back to the north the problem would be solved Mr. Milholland replied it would help the situation, but they would be not be able to get the truck around the building. Mr. Allred asked if it would be best to vote on the project and then vote on each variance separately. • MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the item subject to the staff comments and the opportunity to vote on each variance request. Ms. Johnson clarified the motion: to approve the large scale subject to the staff conditions 2-13 plus the addition # 14(cross access), but excluding # I so the issue of waivers was not on the table. Mr. Allred stated that was correct. Mr. Odom seconded motion. Mr. Tucker stated # 3 parking allowances had not been addressed. Mr. Allred omitted #3 from the motion. Mr. Forney expressed concerns about approving something that was going to change drastically if they denied the variances. He would vote against the proposal. He reminded that during the approval of Wedington place in September, they had several items they made specific to that approval, including no additional curb cuts onto Wedington Drive. It was not only in recognition of the Overlay District issues, but it was their response to a large area of potentially commercial space and their consideration of how best to provide access to it. They did this in consideration of this property. It was not to enforce the Overlay. Ms. Hoffman stated she could not support the development. Mr. Allred withdrew the motion. • Mr. Tucker believed there were to many parking spaces requested. • Planning Commission December 9, 1996 Page 18 Ms. Little stated there were 26 spaces requested. Mr. Tucker recommended they decrease the capacity of the restaurant to 20 seats. Ms. Little replied it would lower the parking spaces to 8 as opposed to 13 spaces. Ms. Johnson asked if they had any control over the capacity of the restaurant. Ms. Little responded it was the first time the question had been asked. She did believe the number of seats indicated were on the large size. The 13 spaces designated for the restaurant did not take into account any shared parking with the convenience store. Mr. Milholland explained his client did not have anyone tied down for the restaurant until it was approved. They were estimating the maximum. He believed there would be less than 40 seats. Mr. Odom asked if they could get additional parking later. Ms. Little replied if additional parking was needed, the staff could issue a parking lot permit. The request could be handled at the staff level. Mr. Reynolds recommended the Planning Commission vote on a curb cut off Hwy 16 before voting for the approval • of the project. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to deny the variances requested in La. and l.b. (waiver request for the curb cut off Hwy 16). Mr. Odom seconded the motion. The roll was called the request for variances were denied by a vote of 9-0-0. MOTION Ms. Johnson, in responds to statements made by Mr. Williams, stated that without the variances it made the project unfeasible. Mr. Forney moved to approve the item subject to all of the stab's comments including #1 denial of the waivers requested except the waiver on Steamboat Drive and in condition #3 the number of parking spaces be reduced by five spaces. The addition of condition #14. There would be no variance on the signs. Mr. Odom seconded the motion. The roll was called the item was approved by a vote of 8-1-0. Sugg voting nay. 304 • Planning Commission December 9, 1996 Page 19 PP96-6.20 REHEARING OF PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CHARLESTON PLACE GREG HOUSE- NORTH OF MISSION AND EAST 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 51 lots proposed. Staff recommends consideration of request. If the Planning Commission approved 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 lot and tree preservation. All improvements to comply with the City's current requirements. 2. No waivers from any ordinances, design or construction standards, or improvements 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 provided for the maintenance of the private streets, drainage and detention and shall name the City as a third party to these covenants. These 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 fmal plat. 7. The east -side entrance signage/landscaping at Hackberry 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 standard trapezoidal shape. 9. The existing sewer line easements 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 in service. No interruption 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 Chief's approval. Ms. Johnson asked if they were to deal with the plat that was in the packet or the plat they had approved several weeks ago. Mr. Richard Alexander explained the approved plat had been appealed to the City Council. In response to neighbors' concerns, the developers and owner amended their plat before the hearing by City Council. The primary effect was to reduce the density from 69 to 51 units, the density allowed in an R-1, without any density bonus. In addition they had addressed other concerns from the Council and neighbors, specifically alley ways. They redesigned the drainage, placed green space all around the perimeter and tried to address as many concerns as they could. Ms. Johnson responded this was a completely different plat than what had been approved earlier. Ms. Little explained the Council had sent this plan back to the Planning Commission without any further instructions. She advised the plat had not been through Plat Review for utility comments. Ms. Johnson commented it was a completely different plat and did not see the purpose in approving something that • had not been through the process and might change again. 0V • Planning Commission December 9, 1996 Page 20 Ms. Little explained the developer needed to know which plat to submit. Mr. Alexander explained it was an expensive and lengthy process. Ms. Johnson stated she understood it was a lengthy and expensive process, but the Planning Commission could do nothing about it. All they could do was to deal with the item that was before them. She asked if the Commission was willing to deal with this plat without it having been through proper channels. Mr. Allred commented it should be subject to Plat review and Subdivision. Ms. Little replied if the Planning Commission were to approve this plat she recommended that it go to Plat Review. She did not see the need for it to go to Subdivision. Ms. Johnson commented there were a large number of neighbors opposed to the new plat. She added this plat struck her as a new project. New projects normally went through Plat Review and Subdivision. Mr. Sugg suggested looking at the plat and making its approval contingent upon the utility companies. Ms. Little pointed out if they approved the item and there were significant changes during Plat Review they would see it again. • Ms. Johnson thought it was more appropriate to go to Plat Review first. Mr. Reynolds commented there were procedures and they needed to be followed. He added this was not the plat they had approved. They were looking at a new project and it needed to go through the proper procedures. Mr. House, explained the plat the Planning Commission had approved had been appealed to City Council. In the spirit of compromise, they had proposed a revised plat to the council. It had been his understanding that they could approve the revised plat, deny the revised plat, over turn the Planning commission decision or they could send it back to Planning Commission. They had chosen to send it back to Planning Commission. Ms. Johnson replied it was not back, this was new. If it were back, they would be looking at the previous plat. Mr. House responded he was following the advice of the staff to expedite the project. Ms. Little took exception to "following the advice of the staff." He did ask. They had talked about it terms of what the Council had said. The council had stated they favored having the Planning Commission look at it again. Mr. Reynolds asked if the Council had suggested he submit a revised plat to the Planning Commission. Mr. House explained they had presented a similar plat to the City Council in an effort to appease the neighbors. The Council did not think there was enough detail on the plat for them to pass, so they referred it back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Reynolds stated he wanted the project to go thought the proper procedures. He informed Mr. House he could appeal the Planning Commission decision to the City Council. • Mr. Odom commented he would normally agree this should go though the proper channels, however, this was a unique situation. This had been appealed to the City Council and come back to them. He favored hearing the 4i • Planning Commission December 9, 1996 Page 21 project to night and then sending it back to plat review Mr. Forney asked if it went back though the process would the public have more input. Ms. Hoffman expressed concern that the neighbors had not looked at the new plat. Ms. Johnson was not willing to take public comments on a matter they were not going to deal with tonight. If they were going to deal with it tonight, she would be happy to take public discussion. She asked if the Commission was willing to deal with this tonight. Mr. Allred suggested sending the plat to Plat Review, then bringing it back to Planning Commission. Ms. Little explained the Plat Review was opened to the public, but there could be no public comment at that meeting. The meeting was for the utility companies and the city staff. The opportunity for additional public comment was at the Subdivision Committee level. Ms. Johnson commented this was not an issue that they had denied the public opportunity to comment. They would have opportunity again when it was before the Planning Commission. MOTION • Mr. Allred moved to send the preliminary plat to plat review and bypass subdivision, so it would come directly back to the Planning Commission once it had been through Plat Review process. Mr. Harbison seconded the motion. Mr. Forney expressed concern that the public would not have time to review the plat before they took a final vote. Ms. Little stated the files were available in the Planning Office, and they could come by any time during office hours. Plat review was also an open meeting, but there was not opportunity for public comment. Mr. Beavers commented he did not believe their engineer could design utility easement in time to distribute for this cycle. Mr. House replied they would be willing to come to the next meeting available. Mr. Forney suggested tabling this item until the next Planning commission meeting to give the public time to review it. Mr. Alexander commented Mr. house did not chose the procedure. Ms. Johnson responded he did change the plan after he left Planning Commission. Had he kept the original plan they had approved, then dealing with the plan again would be simple for them. Mr. Alexander replied Mr. House had listen to the Council members and had responded to their recommendations to make concessions. They had been specific about the concessions they wanted to see. He had responded to those • concessions and followed the procedure they had prescribed. Ms. Johnson observed the council did not like what he had done and it appeared to her that he was not successful • Planning Commission December 9, 1996 Page 22 that the individuals on the Council liked, else they had the power to approve the plan. She suggested he had not understood what the Council wanted. Mr. Alexander disagreed, believing there was a difference of opinion of what the commission and council wanted. He was [ring to listen to what they were wanting and responding to that. Ms. Johnson replied if Mr. House had listened to what they had wanted and had heard what they wanted, he would have come up with a subdivision that they would approve. Ms. Little did not believe that was correct. She remembered Mr. Alexander at the meeting saying that he certain that the Planning Commission would know what to do with it and he asked them what exactly did they want done. He received bits and pieces of information at that point. The developer had tried to focus the discussion at council level. Ms. Warrick informed the next plat review was January 7. The roll was called a vote of 9-0-0 sent the item back to Plat Review • 0 1q • Planning Commission December 9, 1996 Page 23 AD96-33: INFORMATIONAL ITEM: SIDEWALK AND TRAILS STANDARD • CI f.,\