Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-04-28 Minutes• • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held April 28, 1997 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Conrad Odom, Phyllis Johnson, Lee Ward, John Harbison, Gary Tucker, Lorel Hoffman, John Forney, Bob Reynolds, and Mark Sugg. STAFF PRESENT: Alett Little, Jim Beavers, Tim Conklin, Dawn Warrick, and Heather Woodruff. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES The minutes were approved as distributed. RZA 97-4.00: ANNEXATION REQUEST FOR PRESTIGE PROPERTIES N. OF MT. COMFORT & W. OF SALEM RD. The annexation request was submitted by Michele Harrington on behalf of Prestige Properties for property located north of Mt. Comfort and west of Salem Road. The request is to annex 30.00 acres. The property, if annexed, will be zoned A-1, Agricultural. The staff recommended approval of the request. Ms Harrington stated the property was located on Salem Road across from the school. There was a PUD development to the north. The applicant was requesting RS, Residential Small Lot, zoning for this property along with the annexation. PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR THE ANNEXATION REQUEST Mr. Wilson Kimbrough, an area resident, had no questions about the annexation, but wanted to speak regarding the rezoning. Mr. Bob Whitfield, Salem Village's developer, stated they had made design commitments in keeping with traditional neighborhood design when they had proposed annexation and rezoning of the Salem Village property. He expressed opposition to suburban sprawl. He had hoped his neighbors would develop their land along similar lines as Salem Village. He added there would be another application for RS zoning next month for the north side of Salem Village. He questioned the definition of RS zoning. • Ms. Little explained R-1.5 allowed duplexes and triplexes as a use by right but RS zoning did not. RS did, however, allow the owner to apply for a conditional use for duplexes. She 1 • • • Planning Commission Meeting April 28, 1997 Page 2 explained the reason RS zoning had been created was to allow for small lots, 6,000 square feet lots with 60 feet of frontage, but only for single family homes. Mr. Whitfield stated the applicant was not the owner of record of the property. It was his understanding it was under contract to the applicant. He expressed concem about design and the use of property especially since the applicant currently did not own the property. He added R-1 was the trend moving in the area with $100,000 plus homes. Mr. Jim Kimbrough, 2420 N. Salem Road, questioned if the proposed annexation extended to the current City Limit line. Ms. Little stated it did to the north, but not to south. There would be approximately ten acres, owned by Billy Joe Wilson, that would not be in the city limits. Ms. Harrington corrected a statement made by Mr. Whitfield about the record owner stating the City staff had a warranty deed for the property. The property was owned by Prestige Properties. The warranty deed was dated January 23, 1997. She presented all the closing papers from Heritage title along with a copy of the recorded deed. Ms. Little stated the applicant signed as the owner of the property on the application for annexation. MOTION Mr. Forney moved to approve the annexation of the property. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 7-2-0. Reynolds and Hoffman voting nay. 2 qk • • • Planning Commission Meeting April 28, 1997 Page 3 RZ97-5.00: REZONING REQUEST FOR PRESTIGE PROPERTIES PRESTIGE PROPERTIES -N, OF MT. COMFORT & W. OF SALEM RD The rezoning request was submitted by Michele Harrington on behalf of Prestige Properties for property located north of Mt. Comfort and West of Salem Road. The request is for a zoning map amendment for property, if annexed, from A-1 (Agricultural) to R -S (Residential Small Lot). PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Jim Kimbrough, 2420 N. Salem Road, stated he was opposed to the rezoning request. He thought the density was inappropriate for the surrounding area. He was also concerned about the terrain, ponds and streams. He questioned if there was a real need for this type of development in this area. The area was bordered by Porter Road and Dean Solomon on the east and Howard Nickel Road on the north and Heritage Village on the west and Wedington Drive on the south. There were currently 86 homes for sale, 12 homes for rent, and 34 homes under construction. Over half of the lots in the currently developing subdivisions were still available. The thought this development along with the others could result in 400 homes exiting onto Salem Road which was 20 feet wide. Mt. Comfort Road was currently receiving traffic from nine subdivisions, a mobile home park, elementary school and inbound traffic from Wheeler and Tonitown, as well has people detouring off Wedington Drive. More infrastructure needed to be provided before any more development was allowed. He did not want the same situation to develop that had developed on South Salem Road and Wedington. Rebecca LaTourette, 3340 Mt. Comfort Rd, supported Mr. Kimbroughs views. She questioned if there was a need for additional building lots at this time. She noted there were no sidewalks on Mt Comfort Road. She felt there were improvements that needed to be addressed before they allowed 100's of more cars on the roads. She asked the justification for recommending additional lots at this time. Mr. Odom asked the staff if they could consider traffic when they considering a rezoning request. He asked if they were limited to considering what the surrounding area was. Ms. Little replied the items they were to consider at rezoning were listed in the staff findings. Traffic was one of things they could talk about. They were to talk about it in terms of density that they were going to approve. If one type of density would be better than another type of density. Any time they were rezoning from A-1 to any other zone they were increasing traffic flow. With regard to infrastructure, the City made the developer aware about things that would be talked about in greater detail at the development stage. It was at the development stage when the impacts actually occur. The action of rezoning had no impact. It was the action of development that had an impact. The requirements for both on-site and off-site improvements were discussed as well as the capability of the land to support the type of development and what 3 Rc • • Planning Commission Meeting Apnl 28, 1997 Page 4 improvements were required to support the development. Mr. Bob Whitfield, Salem Village, stated Salem Village had been approved for 111 lots on 40 acres. It was a PUD. The proposed development with RS zoning could accept a density of 135 homes on 30 acres. To accomplish the density, the four existing lakes would have to be eliminated. 13 acres at the south side of Salem Village was now dedicated to the Corp of Engineers for wetlands and park land. The existing lakes were habitats for ducks and geese year round. They contributed to the wet lands. He did not believe the rezoning was homogenous with Crystal Springs or Salem Village. He believed the high density would lead to another tract development. Wilson Kimbrough, 3110 Mt Comfort Road, felt the high density would be unpleasant for him and his neighbors. He asked if the levels of the property would have to be raised like the levels in the area. He expressed concern about the dump trucks. He asked if the Planning Commissioners had experienced the traffic problems on Mt. Comfort. Michael Andrews, an area neighbor, stated he had experienced the traffic problems on Wedington and Salem. The stated they had overgrown the Wedington Drive area too fast. The traffic problems have been a result of that. His alderman agreed with him that they over grew Wedington too fast. He cautioned this would happen again on Mt. Comfort and Salem if they allowed the rezoning to go through. He suggested slowing down to see the impact of Crystal Springs and Salem Village was going to be. He did not want to rezone 100's of homes without seeing the impact first Nathan McKinney, 3043 Apatite Drive, stated the sign on the property stated they were asking for Rezoning from A-1 to R-1.5. Ms. Little explained when the applicant had first applied by had requested R-1.5. The staff explained the purposes of the new zone, RS, the applicant then decided to amend their request. Mr. Odom noted the RS zoning was more restrictive than the R-1.5. Mr. Conklin stated the R-1.5 would have allowed duplexes and triplexes. The RS zoning only allowed single -homes as a use by right. The sign is required to be placed on the property fifteen days in advance of the Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Little stated there was information on the sign as to where to call for additional information. The information had been available in the Planning Office • Mr. McKinney stated he was opposed to the rezoning because it was not in keeping with the existing neighborhoods. Crystal Springs was only about half way developed. He had circulated 4 • • • Planning Commission Meeting April28, 1997 Page 5 a petition opposing any zoning change along Salem Road or vicinity that would allow duplexes or similar high-density housing. There were 43 signatures on the petition. He added all the signatures were from people in the Crystal Spring subdivision or the surrounding area. Mr. Whitfield, compared the density from Salem Village (2.78 house/acre) to the proposed 135 units on the 30 acres, the density would be 4.5 houses/acres. Mr. Robert Price, Crystal Springs resident, stated he was against any rezoning for multi -family or any high density use. In response to a question from Mr. Odom, Ms. Little stated part of the land was designated wetlands. She noted a portion of the site was in the 100 -year flood plain. None of the land was in the floodway. Mr. Whitfield's development to the north was within the floodplain as well as the floodway. Soils were a concern in this area. From the development of the project to the north there has been a lot of soil work done in order to bring it up to standard to serve as a foundation. The city had made the potential developer aware that remedial measures will be necessary on this site as well. In response to a question from Mr. Tucker, Ms Little stated the flood plain was along the creek which ran east -west. The series of ponds were considered a subdrainage area. Approximately six acres were in the floodplain, which is considered 100% buildable. There are some requirements such as lot size and amount of built area. In response to a question from Mr. Sugg concerning wet lands, Ms. Harrington stated the Corps of Engineers were working closely with the engineer, Brian Moore and the developer. Mr. Moore, Engineering Services, stated they had met with Ray Nilus with the Corps of Engineers concerning this project. There was approximately one acre of wet lands on the northwest portion of the property. The wetland would be Left and they would have to receive approval from the Corps. to fill the ponds. Ms. Harrington reassured nothing would happen on the property without approval from the Corp.5 of Engineers. The infrastructure was in the process of being improved. There was a new school and city park. When the school was located it was considered an ideal location because this area of the City was going to develop. Families with small children often did not have the resources to buy the more expensive homes in that area. By approving the rezoning of RS zoning for this land would insure young couples a chance to buy affordable homes. She believed there needed to be a mix of affordable homes and the public had a right to have homes of all prices. The RS zoning would provide a variation in price and still keep a nice development. She noted Mr. Whitfield's development to the north had a lot of undevelopable land, if he had taken his density from the property that could be developed in that parcel, his development is fairly dense as well. 5 • Planning Commission Meeting April 28, 1997 Page 6 He had 40' wide lots in the PUD. This was going to be a nice development and would not ruin anyone's property. She added that development would continue in the area She believed R -S homes would be appropriate around the school. Salem Road would be upgraded there would be a road added on the west side of this property. They were being asked to dedicate right-of-way on the west side for another road. Her client expected to be responsible for all the things the City required. Mr. Odom noted the area was surrounded with R-1, he asked if the applicant had considered R-1 zoning. Ms. Harrington replied he preferred to have RS zoning, because of the demand for smaller yards. She believed there was a need for the RS zoning. She reassured the developer was not wanting to build duplexes or anything other than single-family. She commented the City had created the R -S zoning; she hoped they were willing to use it. Ms. Little asked Ms. Harrington if she was the attorney for Crystal Springs and how long did it take to get the project through the development process. • Ms. Harrington replied it had taken six to nine months, there had been significant opposition to • the development. Mr. Reynolds questioned the amount of water runoff to feed six ponds. If they were to eliminate the ponds what kind of problems could they expect. Mr. Beavers replied he did not have the specific information yet, but any competent engineer could design a system to convey the water down to Clabber Creek. Ms. Harrington added the ponds were manmade. She believed some of the ponds would remain with a few adjustments. Ms. Hoffman asked if there were any long term plans for Mt. Comfort to be upgraded. Mr. Beavers stated he was not aware of any plans at this time. Ms. Hoffman stated she traversed Mt Comfort Road and felt they were close to an overdevelopment scenario for these feeder streets. In response to a question from Mr. Tucker, Ms Little stated there had not been a bill of assurance that would limit the density. In response to a question from Mr. Sugg, Ms Little stated the property would be annexed into 6 • • Planning Commission Meeting April 28,1997 Page 7 the city as A-1, which allowed one residential unit per two acres. Mr. Odom noted they were under no obligation to rezone to anything, it was annexed as A-1. Mr. Reynolds commented they had nothing on record about Mt. Comfort being upgraded in the near future. He would not support an R -S zoning, but he would support an R-1 zoning or a bill of assurance limiting the density of the development. Ms. Harrington stated her client was willing to offer a bill of assurance. Mr. Fomey stated in rezoning they had could not look at a specific project proposal, because they were rezoning the land. The offering of a bill of assurance did not sway his decision. He noted the traffic concerns. He was in favor of the annexation because of the proximity of the school. He did not believe R -S was a good application here. It was more appropriate inside the bypass. They bypass created choke points, which made roads like Mt. Comfort and Wedington heavily traveled. He would not support the rezoning to an R -S because of the higher density. He had seen a PUD work to obtain smaller lot sizes which addressed the need for smaller and less expensive lots. MOTION Mr. Forney moved to deny the rezoning request. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Ms. Johnson asked if part of the RS designation the allowance to have reality dense development and in other areas to have sparse development. Ms. Little replied within the zoning ordinance there were minimum requirements. The minimum for an RS lot was 6,000 square feet, with 60 feet of frontage. There was no maximum. There could be larger lots. Ms. Johnson stated it had been her understanding that under R -S the development would not be cookie cutter like they could expect in R-1 zoning. Ms. Little stated they would have to see the development plan. There had been one other RS development. It was very similar to a traditional R-1 development. It simply had the smaller lots. The lots had been similar in size and shape. • Ms. Johnson had thought RS was an appropriate zoning to be near a floodplain, because they could have lighter development near the floodplain with denser development as they went further 7 • • • Planning Commission Meeting April 28, 1997 Page 8 out. Ms. Little replied there was no requirement for it. They had discussed using the RS zoning on one site on Hwy. 16 E that had a large floodplain. Since that time the City had passed amendments to the floodplain ordinance. Under floodplain ordinances for any lot that was 100% in the floodplain, there had to be a minimum one acre in size. For any lot that was partially in the floodplain, there had to be a minimum of 6,000 square feet of buildable area. The floodplain ordinance was offsetting some of the cookie -cutter design they had seen in the past. The motion carried by a vote of 7-2-0. Johnson and Ward voting nay. • Planning Commission Meeting April 28, 1997 Page 9 RZ97-3.00 REZONING REQUEST FOR CHLOE HOWELL CHLOE HOWELL- 112 UNIVERSITY The rezoning request was submitted by Chloe Howell for property located at 112 S. University. The request is to rezone 0.25 acres from I-1, Heavy Commercial -Light Industrial, to R-2, Medium Density. Staff recommended approval of the R-2 rezoning. The applicant first requested rezoning to R-3, High Density Residential; however staff supported R-2, Medium Density which would allow the applicant to develop the property with two addition dwelling units. Staff recommended R-2, lesser density (allowing up to 24 units/acres), than was originally requested as more suitable for the lot given its dimensions and also as being more in character with the general neighborhood. The applicant agreed with the staff recommendation and had amended her request to R-2 rezoning. There was no public comment. • MOTION • Mr. Forney moved to approve the rezoning request. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously by a vote of 9-0-0. 9 t�\ • • Planning Commission Meeting April 28, 1997 Page 10 CU97-6: CONDITIONAL USE FOR A DETACHED SECOND DWELLING UNIT STEFFAN SARKIN- 608 N. WILLOW, The conditional use request was submitted by Steffan and Casey Sarkin for property located at 608 N. Willow Avenue. The request is to allow a detached second dwelling unit. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. The staff recommended approval contingent upon the following: 1. Compliance with §160.195, Conditions governing applications of conditional uses; procedures, of the zoning code. 2. Submittal of a deed restriction to run with the land which specifies that the use of the detached second unit as an independent dwelling may continue only as long as one unit on the property is owner occupied. 3. The second dwelling unit shall be maintained as presently built, including location, exterior colors, and materials. 4. The conditional use shall apply to the existing second dwelling, as constructed, and any expansion or exterior modifications of that unit shall require approval of a new conditional use by the Planning Commission. 5. A finding that the criteria of § 160.097 regarding the design elements of the proposed structure and the plan in relation to adjacent and surrounding structures have been met. Mr. Odom noted the dwelling unit was created without going through the proper channels. However, the Planning Commission could not consider that issue in the discussion. It was also his understanding the Sarkins had applied for a building permit and were now going through the process. Mr. Steffan Sarkin, applicant, stated they purchased the house in September of 1996. The 500 square foot garden shed had already been converted to match the main house. They had added a mall kitchen and bath to create a livable space for his wife's parents. However, her mother had recently died and they were now renting the building to a University worker. Ms. Hoffman asked if the structure was located on an easement or future extension of Davidson. • Ms. Little replied the easement issue had been resolved in a lawsuit in 1947. The City had no rights to the easement. 10 • • • Planning Commission Meeting April 28, 1997 Page 11 PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Orland Maxfield, 533 N. Willow Avenue, presented a petition with signatures of property owners opposed to the conditional use for a second dwelling unit. He expressed concern that additional rental properties in the area would lead to its deterioration. All but two rentals in the area had been grandfathered in. He feared this would lead to more request for detached second dwelling units and increased traffic. Mr. Jim Boyd, 206 E Davidson, stated he was opposed to the second dwelling unit. He expressed concems about increased traffic. He did not believe a renter would have the same attachments to the neighborhood as home owners would. Mr. George Phillip, 610 N. Willow, agreed with the previous speakers. He stated they were a traditional neighborhood and thought the addition of more rental units would lead to the deterioration of the Historical District. Ms. Claudette Hunnicutt, 520 N. Washington, read a letter from another home owner, Richard and Joan Smith (326 N. Washington), opposing the conditional use for the second dwelling unit. Ms. Hunnicutt hoped the apartments that had been grandfathered in would be converted back into single-family homes. They had purchased the duplex next to them, because they were wanting to control what was happening next door to them. She noted the rentals would increase the number of cars parked on the street. Ms. Faye Alter, 424 N. Willow, stated the block she lived on was predominately rental Most of the people who owned the property did not live in the Historic District. She believed since the Sarkins lived next to the proposed rental they would take care and maintain both units. She supported the Sarkins request. Ms. Karen Rollet Crocker, 215 E. Davidson, stated she had grown up in an area similar to this, which had rental units. Over time the neighborhood had benefited from the rental units. She added it was the best possible quality of rental they could have in a University town. She believed they would have both quality rental property and quality renters. Diane Boyd, 206 E Davidson, questioned why they should approve the request for the additional unit. The neighborhood zoning was for the specific reason of keeping the neighborhood low density. She expressed concern that they were setting a trend to increase the rental units. Tim Web, 1031 Rebecca, believed the Sarkins had made the detached unit to match the neighborhood. He added this was an owner occupied situation, which added additional protection. The Sarkins had met the requirements for the conditional use and he was in favor of it. 11 • Planning Commission Meeting April 28, 1997 Page 12 Ms. Martha Audrian, 433 N. Willow, stated she had signed a petition opposing the second dwelling. She no longer felt right about her signature being on the petition. She lived on a block that had four rundown rental properties. She felt a home owned rental property would be well maintained. Ms. Jenny Swain, 310 N. Willow, supported the Sarkins. She believed the Nanning Commission should review each case to keep the integrity of the neighborhood. The renters along her street added a great diversity to the neighborhood. Her experiences with renters had been positive. Ms. Hoffman stated the Planning Commission needed to make a statement that any future development needed to consider the proper procedures which needed to be followed. Ms. Sarkin stated they had not intentionally violated the City regulations. They had spoken with a City Inspector to see what they had to do the meet standards and what their penalties would be. They had not converted the building because they wanted a rental; they had converted the building believing her parents were going to move there, but her mother had recently died. • Mr. Odom stated this was a difficult issue and he did not like the Historical District to be divided. He added people had commented ordinances were written to protect the rights of property owners. He agreed. Second dwelling units, apartments, and duplexes were not allowed by right in R-1 zoning, but they had the right to petition for a conditional use. • Ms. Sarkin stated she had called other members of the Historic Committee. She had spoken with Betty Blanton who believed they were preserving and restoring a historical building for a useful life. She presented a letter from another home owner in the area, Beverly Block. Ms. Betty Blanton, Historic District Commission, stated the property the Sarkins owned was a nice piece of property and the rental unit did not detract from the home. She added the Historic District needed an ordinance to help prevent this type of argument from occurring. MOTION Mr. Odom moved to approve the conditional use with staff recommendations. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 8-1-0. Hoffman voting nay. 12 ,,0`1 • Planning Commission Meeting April 28, 1997 Page 13 RZ97-6 00: REZONING REQUEST FOR DOWELL ROBERT DOWELL TRUST -E. OF CATO SPRINGS RD. & S. OF TREAT ST. The rezoning request was submitted by Jerry Allred on behalf of the Robert Dowell Trust for property located east of Cato Springs Road and South of Treat Street. The request is to rezone 12.44 acres from R-2, Medium Density Residential, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial Staff recommended approval of the rezoning based on the designation of this area in General Plan 2020 as Regional Commercial. In response to a question from Mr. Sugg, Mr. Conklin stated floodplain restrictions would require the structures to be elevated two feet above base flood elevation or flood -proofed to base flood elevation. Ms. Little added the staff generally recommended that parking lots be located in the floodplain and not the buildings. • Mr. Odom reminded Mr. Sugg those types of questions would be answered during the large scale development. • Mr. Sugg expressed concern about how the floodplain would affect the amount of buildable area. Ms. Little explained the floodway would determine the buildable area more than the floodplain. FEMA prohibited any use of the floodway. The creek and a small portion surrounding it were considered floodway, which was considered unusable land. Mr. Allred added with R-2 zoning most of the lot could be developed. If the property was rezoned to commercial only 75% of the land could be developed. The remaining 25% had to be in landscaping. Ms. Little added this property was located in the Overlay District. Mr. Allred commented if the land was not rezoned to commercial a 298 -unit apartment complex could be constructed on the site. Ms. Hoffman asked where the proposed access would be. Mr Allred stated the access would be off Treat Street, which would have to be widened and improved. There was no public comment. 13 �0� • • • Planning Commission Meeting April28, 1997 Page 14 MOTION Ms. Johnson moved to approve the rezoning request. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 7-2-0. Sugg and Forney voting nay. 14 • • • Planning Commission Meeting April 28, 1997 Page 15 AD97-5.00: COMMISSION CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR GLENNWOOD CNTR HARP'S GROCERY STORE -SE CORNER OF MISSION RD AND CROSSOVER RD. Administrative request regarding Commission condition of approval for Glennwood Center was submitted by Harp's Grocery Stores for property located at the southeast corner of Mission Road and Crossover Road. The request is to delete a condition of approval regarding the sound wall. Mr. Roger Collins, Executive vice-president of Harps Stores, requested to have the requirement for a sound wall along the southern portion of the development removed. The sound wall requirement had been attached to the project by the Planning Commission prior to Mr. Cozart ownership of the project. He stated they had contacted every property owner in the area continuguous to the proposed sound wall along the southern boundary. Harps had sent a letter asking the neighbors to return a letter stating their preference. Eight of the ten owners preferred landscaping to sound wall. One neighbor did not care what they did. The other had expressed concern not with sound, but with privacy. He provided a detailed listing of the property owners contiguous to their southern boundary including their comments. He added there were no City regulations requiring a sound wall He stated it would be an $80,000 dollar expenditure that would not fulfill a real or legal requirement. There were no other commercial developments in Fayetteville, which had been required to provide a sound wall. Harps' goal was to meet all the rules of the City and sell groceries as cheaply as possible and still generate an acceptable return for Harps. The Harps center would produce a minimumal amount of noise in comparison to Hwy. 265 and Hwy. 45. Harps will have approximately three large eighteen -wheel truck deliveries per day. They had agreed to limit receipt from the trucks to 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Trucks leaving their docks would be going west along the southern edge of the development downhill, to Hwy. 265. The other shops in the center were smaller in size and would not have receipt of merchandise from any large eighteen -wheel trucks. Hwy. 265 and 45 have numerous eighteen -wheel trucks at all hours of the day. There was no comparison between the noise level that would exist in their center from truck traffic as compared to the noise level on Hwy. 265 and Hwy. 45. He added the building of a 12' concrete wall would be very unattractive for both the shopping center an the homes that were contiguous to the southern boundary. It could be an attractive site for both grafti and vandalism. He believed there would be a security problem between the sound wall and the back yard of the neighbors. Harps was willing to plant trees along the southern boundary, which would provide a more attractive screening for both the center and the neighborhood. Mr. Odom noted the development had been approved on his motion subject to the condition of a sound dampening wall. He asked what the staff's position now. Ms. Little stated in 1994, when the item was approved, neighbors had expressed concerns about noise the center would generate. At that time the Planning Commission made a requirement for a sound damping wall a requirement. The Commission had left the requirement of how the wall 15 \0`i Planning Commission Meeting April 28, 1997 Page 16 would function up to the staff. She explained after the site began to develop, the eastern edge of the site was lowered 12-14 feet, so there had been a request of the Planning Commission if there needed to be a sound dampening wall in that area. They had discussed it and decided there would not be a need for one in that area, because the earth itself would serve as a sound dampener. The requirement for the sound dampening wall was in response to neighborhood inquiry. The staff supported the sound wall being replaced with landscaping She had spoken with a number of neighbors, and they had felt that a good landscaping barrier (a specific one) would be highly preferable to a large concrete wall Ms. Johnson asked if the Harps had a good landscaping plan to present. Mr. Collins stated they would be planting a combination of evergreens and deciduous trees. Ms. Little stated she had not informed the applicant of the requirement for a landscape plan until today. She felt the Planning Commission needed to be very specific in their decisions. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Don Schapp, 2862 Setter Street, stated he appreciated Harp's calling him and asking him for his comments. When he purchased his home, he was aware that there would be a site constructed behind his home along with a wall. His primary concern was security. He valued his privacy. He expressed concern about lights shinning into his yard, but he looked forward to the conveince the center would provide. However, he had a problem with people seeing into his back yard. He felt Harps had an obligation to provide some protection from theft, such as a wooden fence. Ms. Little pointed out one of the conditions of approval was that all lighting must be designed so the lighting did not spill over onto the adjoining residential properties. Mr. Beavers added the construction plans submitted by CEI for the city to review and approve for a grading plan, showed a 6-8 feet wooden fence in addition to the landscaping. That section was never approved because of the discussion of the sound wall. Ms. Pat Lomax, an area resident, asked to see a specific landscaping plan, if the sound wall was not required. She expressed concern about privacy and safety and neighbors walking through her property to get to the center. She commented a concrete wall would be very ugly. She questioned how tall the trees would be and how far apart the trunks would be and what would be planted in between the trees to discourage people from walking thorough. She questioned who would decide what would go there if the wall was not required. Mr. Odom explained the City had regulations regarding buffer zones between commercial zones 16 • • Planning Commission Meeting April28, 1997 Page 17 and residential zones. By ordinance the developer had to come forward with design that met the ordinance standards. If the Planning Commission did not feel the ordinances had been met, then they would require additional things. Mr. Stuart Fulbright, landscaper, stated they did not have a specific design proposal to present tonight. He had recommended a regionally appropriate native planting that would take care of understory problems. He had suggested a combination of different plants. He thought a good landscaping plan would work and look better than a wall. Ms. Johnson asked if there were any plans to have a fence or wall in addition to the vegetation. Mr. Collins stated they had planned only landscaping and trees. Ms. Johnson expressed concern that when the project was approved it was approved with walls on two sides. Four of the ten property owners, adjacent, had stated they wanted a privacy fence. There were three things they could protect the neighbors from: people walking through their yard, the noise problem, and visual screening problem. Since the neighbors had been told there would be walls on two sides and more than half of the adjacent neighbors had requested some sort of fence in addition to landscaping, she did not believe the Commission had enough information to make a good decision. Mr. Reynolds stated the Commission had approved a wall. The neighbors and most of the commissioners did not have a problem eliminating the wall. However, they were concerned about what they would get in return. He stated he would like to see a drawing of a privacy fence and the types of trees and shrubs they proposed to use. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to postpone the item to the next Planning Commission meeting to give the applicant time to prepare a plan. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. Mr. Reynolds questioned who would be responsible for the maintenance of the landscaping. Mr. Collins stated Harps would be responsible for maintaining their part of the common area Mr. Forney stated Harps would need to provide screening for view, fencing for security, and landscaping and distance for noise control. The motion was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. 17 Planning Commission Meeting April 28, 1997 Page 18 18 \S • • • Planning Commission Meeting April 28, 1997 Page 19 LSD97-1.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT FOR PANELS BY MIKEY PANELS BY MIKEY-E. OF CITY LAKE ROAD AND S. OF PUMP STATION ROAD. The large scale development was submitted by Audy Lack of Hiegel -Miller Architects on behalf of Panels by Mikey, Inc for property located east of City Lake Road and south of Pump Station Road. The property is zoned I-1 (Heavy-Commerical/Light Industrial) and I-2 (General Industrial) and contains approximately 2.0 acres. Staff recommended the approval of the project be contingent upon the following conditions - 1. The Large Scale Development approval is contingent upon final approval of the lot split. 2. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives). 3 All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. All water, sewer, drainage and other site improvements, whether supplied by the developer, the Chamber of Commerce or the City, shall conform to, and follow all of the established criteria for design, review, construction and inspection. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lots and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only All public improvements are subject to addition review and approval 4. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 6' sidewalk with a minimum 10' greenspace along City Lake Road. Sidewalks shall be continuous through driveways. 5. Submittal of an easements plat for this project prior to the issuance of any building permits. 6. The LSD approval shall be valid for one year 7. Final resolution of paving requirements of the holding area Subdivision Committee members questioned the storage vs. parking requirements. 8. The developer shall provide a buffer between the development and the residence on the A-1 property to the north/northeast. 9. The existing curb cut to the south (curb cut not used) will be removed and standard curb and 19 \\\ • • Planning Commission Meeting April 28, 1997 Page 20 gutter installed. Mr. Audy Lack, representative, referred to item #7, the storage area would be used as a holding area for product. It had no use as a parking area Item #8, they had proposed a vine material along the proposed fence. He believed it would sufficiently screen the adjacent property, which was agricultural with a residence. Ms. Little stated they had no additional conditions. She asked if the applicant wanted to discuss removing the existing curb cut, condition #9. Mr. Lack stated there was not a curb or gutter along City Lake Road. The ordinance stated there were not to be curbcuts within 200 feet of each other. They had no plans to use the curb cut. The expenditure would not benefit the public good. In response to a question from Mr. Odom, Ms Little stated the applicant was wanting to use a chain link fence around the property with some type of vining plant, such as honeysuckle. Mr. Tucker questioned why they were considering the development without the lot split being finalized. Ms. Little responded there was only one outstanding issue on the lot split. They had a letter on file dated Thursday, April 24, which would meet the condition, but to be on the safe side she asked for this approval to have the same condition listed. Ms. Johnson expressed concern about condition #7 and the dust the area might generate if it was not paved with anything other than concrete. A similar project had been approved with SB2 gravel which had created a dust problem. If the Commission allowed any thing else they needed a strong assurance about what kind of traffic could occur in the area. In response to Mr. Odom's request for guidance, Ms. Little stated the issue on the paving for the storage area had not been resolved at the Subdivision Meeting. The Planning Commission had allowed gravel at Rideout, which had created a dust problem. She believed it would be a good idea, if they allowed gravel that the City have an assurance about the amount of traffic that would be in that area She also suggested that the Planning Commission ask that this item return within one year on the issue of paving the holding area if there were problems with dust. Mr. Tucker asked if there would be any wholesale or retail sales from this facility. Mr. Lack stated they would not. They only traffic they expected to have on the holding area would be moving vehicles such as fork lifts. 20 \<v • Planning Commission Meeting April 28, 1997 Page 21 Mr. Reynolds questioned where the shipping and receiving area would be located. Mr. Lack stated the shipping and receiving area would be located in the paved area, near the fence. He reassured all the truck traffic and parking would be on paved areas. PUBLIC Mr. Pritchard, plant manager, stated the dust in the gravel area would not be a problem. He reassured the only thing moving in the storage area would be a forklift. MOTION Ms Johnson moved to not require paving of the holding area, conditioned on a one year period which the commission could require the area to be paved if there was a problem. • Mr. Forney seconded the motion. • Mr. Pritchard stated he preferred to make trails of SB2, where the forklift would drive and to use natural landscaping material, such as mulch. The motion carried by a vote of 9-0-0. In response to a question from Mr. Odom, Ms. Little stated they had discussed screening. There was a 25' building setback area. There was also a proposed fencing along the property line. No buffer had been proposed. The staff felt the chain Zink fence should be covered by vines. If a buffer was required, it would have to be a strip of land a lest 12' wide that would be adequately landscaped. The staff preferred screening, the requirement was for screening. She referred to §160.118. Mr. Odom noted in condition #8 the word "buffer" should be removed and replaced by "screening." Mr. Johnson asked how good a sound buffer the proposed honeysuckle would be. Ms. Little replied the vine did not lose all of its leaves during the winter there would be something to break up the sound. It was her understanding the developer was building one specific room, internal to their plant for the noisier part of the operation. Her concern was not for the sound, but with the view and the dust. 21 • • • Planning Commission Meeting April 28, 1997 Page 22 Ms. Johnson expressed concern that the forklifts would be noisy. Ms. Little replied plantings of other shrubs along the fence would have a greater dampening effect. Mr. Reynolds thought shrubs or trees along the northwest corner would help buffer the residential area In response to a question from Ms Hoffman, Mr. Pritchard stated the hours of operation would be approximately 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Ms. Hoffman agreed with Mr. Reynolds that it would be important to add some additional vegetation in the back corner. Ms. Little believed there was 230 feet of property in common with the residence to the north. Ms. Johnson did not believe the screening would have to go along the entire length of the property line. Ms. Little stated there was a property owner to the west and a property owner to the east, Foster. The property line between the two coincided with the beginning of the storage area. MOTION Ms. Hoffman moved to approve item #8 of the staff requirements to include a screening area adjacent to the residential use that will provide a sound buffer complying with the noise ordinance, including shielded lighting not to shine on the adjacent residential use. Landscape to be developed with staff and reviewed after a period of one year. Ms Johnson seconded the motion. There was no public comment. The motion carried by a vote of 8-1-0. Mr. Fomey expressed concern about the existing curb cut. He believed it was unsafe to have the curb cut if it was not leading somewhere. MOTION Mr. Forney moved to approve the large scale development with all staff comments, including 22 • • • Planning Commission Meeting April 28, 1997 Page 23 those approved by previous votes. Mr. Harbision seconded the motion. There was no public comment. Mr. Beavers noted on #9, there was no existing curb and gutter. The repair should match what was existing. The motion carried by a vote of 9-0-0. 23 • • • Planning Commission Meeting April 28,1997 Page 24 LSD97-5.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT FOR FAYETTEVILLE WAREHOUSE FAYETTEVILLE WAREHOUSE CO. -N. OF CATO SPRINGS RD. & W. OF GARLAND The Large Scale Development for Fayetteville Warehouse was submitted by Harry Gray of Northwest Engineers on behalf of Fayetteville Warehouse Co., LLC for property located north of Cato Springs Road and west of Garland Avenue. The property is zoned I-1 (Heavy Commercial - Light Industrial) and contains approximately 8.10 acres. The staff recommended the approval to be conditioned upon the following: Conditions of Approval: 1. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives). 2. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lots and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. Fire protection requirements, including hydrants and supporting water mains shall meet the Fire Chief's requirements. 3 Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 6' sidewalk with a minimum 10' green space along Garland Ave. Access to the bridge, along with pedestrian safety rails will be required 4. Submittal of required documentation concerning rare tree removal and replacement canopies as requires by Landscape Administrator. 5. Relocation of dumpster pad sites which are within the floodplain. 6. Dedication of right-of-way along Garland Avenue to equal 35' from the centerline and to also include area east of the centerline at the northeast corner of the site as shown on the plat. 7. The developer must improve the segment of Garland Avenue contiguous to the development property to one-half of City Standards for a standard City Street. The improvements will require street widening, curb and gutter, sidewalk's drainage and vehicular guardrails at the bridge approaches (west side). The improvements will not include the widening of the bridge. The City 24 • • • Planning Commission Meeting April 28, 1997 Page 25 may, or may not, elect to participate in the widening of Garland to "Collector Street" standards. The city may, or may not elect to improve the existing street section between this development and Garland Square Apartments under construction to the south. 8. Revision of existing easements to meet current City Standards of a minimum 20' easement. 9. Submittal of an easement plat for this project prior to the issuance of any building permits. 10. The developer shall proved covenants in the lease agreements that the storage of hazardous material shall not be allowed. 11. Area lights shall be shielded and directed inward. 12. The Large Scale Development approval shall be valid for one year. Ms. Little stated condition #4 had been met. Mr. Conklin stated he had spoken with Mr. Gray in regards to ownership of the easement to the south Mr. Lewis had a deed with the property owners to the west to have access on the existing paved drive. Mr. Harry Gray, Northwest Engineers, stated the owner and developer did not have any problems with the conditions of approval Mr. Forney questioned if they should think about access through this property to the west. There was an existing railroad track, but he was wondering about the potential access to Razorback Road. He did not believe it was a realistic solution at this time. He did not believe there was a need for the western connection even if it was possible. Ms. Little stated they were passing around a map with the topography and three possible connections to the west. Ms Johnson referred to City Street map, noting there was another street. paralleling Garland that was named Vale. She asked if Vail were extended would it come through this property. Ms. Little replied Vale was on the west side of the rail road tracks. Mr. Reynolds believed any kind of improvement to this property would be a plus. Mr. Forney questioned what control this developer had over the private drive. 25 \4i • • Planning Commission Meeting April 28, 1997 Page 26 Ms. Little stated normally when they looked at a project without public street frontage, the City required the developer to provide one-half of the required right-of-way In the case the developer had an access agreement with the property owner to the south, which would allow him to use the 25' private easement. If they were to change it to a public street, they would require right-of-way off of this developer, north of the existing street, and require some additional improvements to the street. There would also be a difference in setbacks. The requirement for a public street would change the layout. In response to a question from Mr. Odom, Ms. Little stated the staff's first recommendation was for there not to be a public street. They felt the private street was adequate. At the Subdivision Committee meeting, the Commissioners had asked the staff to look for more possible connections to the west. She noted the difficulty in extending a street to the west. Mr. Odom believed connectivity was something they encouraged, but he believed there was a problem with public safety in crossing the railroad tracks. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Don Hunnicutt, property owner to the west, stated there was a private 25' easement to access the surrounding parcels of land. There were three other property owners that had access to the easement. He felt they needed to go back to Subdivision, because he had not been notified. He wanted to see what they could work out about the drive. He suggested developing the access easement as a cul-de-sac. He thought they should discuss converting the private access into a public street to service all the property owners. Mr. Odom asked if the Commission did not require the private access to be converted into a public street, would he be landlocked. Mr. Hunnicutt stated the access would still be through the private easement. Ms. Little noted the City did not have rights to the private access. She explained the City would have to work with the two south property owners who owned the land underneath the access to obtain a right-of-way. Ms. Johnson thought the item needed to be postponed until they were clearer about the other property owners. MOTION • Ms. Johnson moved to postpone consideration of the item until it could go back to Subdivision to answer questions concerning the street and access to this property and adjoin properties. 26 • • • Planning Commission Meeting April 28, 1997 Page 27 Mr. Tucker seconded the motion. PUBLIC Mr. Ken Mourton, owner, stated he was not taking anything from Mr. Hunnicutt. This was an existing easement. All the property owners had received the same easements from Burlington North. They have a nonexclusive easement. The access point as it related to Pedigrew was currently owned by Nancy Lewis. The private lane had been granted to Nancy Lewis in 1995 by Burlington Northern and reserved specifically as a nonexclusive easement for each of the properties. It was not shared by the property owners, but Burlington Northem. He noted this part of town needed some improvements. He believed this project was an improvement. He stated they had originally wanted to come in off Garland. He thought it was better for the City if they were to have access of the private easement, but if it delayed the project they would remove one of the buildings and place the access off Garland. Ms Little asked if Burlington Northern had conveyed the entire 25' easement to the end. Mr. Morton believed there was 300' that was still owned by Burlington Northern. Mr. Rob Lewis, Nancy Lewis's representative, stated the private drive was difficult for the property owners to maintain. He stated they would be willing to donate the easement to the City. The motion carried by a vote of 6-3-0. Odom, Reynolds and Sugg voting nay. The meeting adjourned at 9:40 pm. 27