Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-06-09 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held June 9, 1997 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Conrad Odom, Lee Ward, Lorel Hoffman, John Forney, Bob Reynolds, Mark Sugg, Phyllis Johnson, John Harbison and Gary Tucker STAFF PRESENT: Alett Little, Jim Beavers, Tim Conklin, Dawn Warrick, and Sharon Langley APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES The minutes of the May 12, 1997 Planning Commission meeting were approved as distributed. Old Business: AD97-5.00 ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST - CONDITION OF APPROVAL GLENNWOOD CENTER - SE CORNER MISSION RD. & CROSSOVER RD. The first item was an administrative request regarding Commission condition of approval for Glennwood Center (pp 372) submitted by Harp's Food Stores for property located at the southeast corner of Mission Road (Highway 45) and Crossover Road (Highway 265). The request is to delete a condition of approval regarding the sound wall. Mr. Odom reminded the Commission they had requested the applicant bring them a specific plan regarding the area to the south of the shopping center in lieu of the sound wall. Mr. Bill Clark, representing Harp's Food Stores, explained they were a tenant of the Glennwood Shopping Center and were involved in the creation of the grocery store and the space around the grocery store. He introduced Mike Thurrow of Harp's, Dirk Thibodaux of Country Heritage, and Andy Cozart of Cozart Development, LLC. He restated the directive from the Planning Commission: a sound wall was not required but Harp's would need to bring a detailed plan to the Commission specifying the type of fencing and landscaping where the sound wall had been planned. He pointed out an 8 -foot chain link fence, the irrigation system and vines to be planted every three feet along the fence. He noted the Harp's property was at the southeast corner of the shopping center. Mr. Clark reiterated the residents' previous concerns: (1) security, (2) privacy, and (3) maintenance. He pointed out the 8 -foot chain link fence should provide security, the vines on the • Planning Commission Meeting June 9, 1997 Page 2 fence should provide privacy and the irrigation system should provide maintenance. He further stated it was his understanding they were not able to plant trees since the utilities were directly under the area where they would have planted the trees. He also pointed out the sound wall would have required detailed footings over the utilities. He stated the residents had been given the plan and a letter explaining the plan. He noted they had not heard from any of the residents since that time. He also pointed out the chain link fence would abut any existing wood fences along the south property line of the shopping center. He requested they waive the requirement of the sound wall. Mr. Clark then reviewed the detailed plans. He pointed out the fence went the length of the south property line and the following would be planted along the fence: 119 Nellie Stevens holly, 18 Cleveland Select pear, 17 American holly, 16 Amur maple and 221 mixed vines (including euonymus, trumpet vine and purpleleaf honeysuckle). Ms. Little then read a memo from Beth Sandeen, Landscape Administrator: "The plan prepared by Country Heritage Landscaping dated 6/4/97 will provide adequate screening. The proposed plant material consists of a combination of small growing trees (all trees shown on the plan will not attain a height greater than 20 - 25 feet) and hedge type shrubs, none of which will interfere with existing utility lines." Mr. Odom asked if there was now a requirement for plantings over utility easements with nothing over 20 feet in height. Ms. Little advised it was a requirement in order to work with the water and sewer division of the City. She noted that it was a requirement but was not a regulation. Mr. Beavers stated the plan as shown needed to be coordinated with drainage. He stated Mr. Cozart had contended he had discussions with Mr. Beavers and Beth Sandeen. He advised his discussions with Mr. Cozart were to the effect that whatever was done had to work with existing drainage designed by CEI He stated the plans probably would work but he did not know until he had CEI's opinion. He pointed out there was a drainage swale along the entire south property line and he wanted to be sure nothing interfered with the capacity of the swale. In response to a question from Mr. Clark, Mr. Beavers suggested Mr. Cozart contact CEI regarding the plans and then CEI could write Mr. Beavers a letter saying the plans would not interfere with the drainage. Mr. Cozart agreed to contact CEI Public Comment: There was no public comment. • • • Planning Commission Meeting June 9, 1997 Page 3 Ms. Little advised she had received a call from Ms. Lomax who stated she was in agreement with the plan as presented. MOTION Mr. Harbison moved to approved AD97-5 deleting as a condition of approval the sound wall and accepting the landscape plan as presented to the Commission. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. Mr. Sugg requested they add the condition regarding the drainage being approved by the City Engineer. Mr. Harbison agreed. The motion carried unanimously, 9-0-0. • Planning Commission Meeting June 9, 1997 Page 4 New Business: AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS The next item was the presentation of amendments to the Planning Commission By-laws. Ms. Little stated there were three items to be discussed: (1) Appointment of Alternates for Subdivision Committee. She advised currently the by-laws provided for two alternates to the subdivision committee. She explained recently there had been a meeting and staff needed to call upon the alternates; both alternates were busy and therefore, there were only two members for the Subdivision Committee meeting. She suggested it would serve the public better if staff had a way to call upon either an appointed alternate (making more alternates than two) or, in the absence of an appointed member, staff could request any Planning Commission member to attend the Subdivision Committee meeting. She added that member could then sit with full voting rights. (2) Delete the word "Chairman" and replace with the word "Chair". (3) Miscellaneous Wording Changes. Ms. Little explained some of the wording was not clear. Under Article III. C. "...Mail notices of such meetings shall be given at least four days in advance of each such meeting." She stated staff suggested the following wording. "Notice of such meetings shall be mailed at least four days in advance of each meeting. Under Article III. J. the by-laws currently read: "Every member of the Planning Commission desiring to speak shall address the chairman and, upon recognition by the chairman, shall confine herself or himself to the question under debate and shall avoid all personalities and indecorous language". Staff suggested the following: "Members of the Planning Commission desiring to speak shall address the chair and, upon recognition by the chair, shall confine themselves to the question under debate and shall avoid all personalities and indecorous language." Mr. Harbison stated it was the consensus of those attending the last agenda session that the language concerning notice of meetings should be changed to read: "Notice of such meetings shall be received at least four days in advance of each meeting." Ms. Little explained staff could control when notice was put in the mail but could not control when the notice would be received. Mr. Harbison stated that, if notice was mailed four days prior to the meeting, people might only get one day's notice. He suggested notice being mailed seven days prior to the meeting. In response to a question from Mr. Odom, Ms. Little stated staff had not discussed this item with Planning Commission Meeting June 9, 1997 Page 5 the Legal staff. She explained planning staff had interpreted the section to apply to any notice to the public. She went on to say notices were mailed to adjoining property owners 16 or 17 days in advance of the meeting. Ms. Johnson stated notice dealt with the regularly scheduled meetings and she did not believe the length of notification was important. She pointed out all Commissioners received a yearly schedule of meeting dates. Mr. Odom contended the notification was not for Planning Commission members but for FOI requirements and that was why he believed it would be important for the Legal Department to review any changes. Ms. Johnson pointed out Article III dealt with notification to the Planning Commissioners. She suggested looking to see whether this was notification of the Commission or others and, if others, move the section from Article III Ms. Little stated it might be an unnecessary section since the Commissioners now had an agenda session. Ms. Johnson pointed out the ordinances directed notification of the adjoining property owners. Mr. Tucker noted that, on the alternates for Subdivision Committee, the section reading: "...In the absence of an appointed Subdivision Committee member..." inserting the words "or available alternates"... Mr. Odom stated he believed the Planning Commission should number the alternates in succession. Planning Commission Meeting June 9, 1997 Page 6 CU97-8.00: CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST (PLANT NURSERY) MICHAEL & JOY URWILER - S OF HUNTSVILLE & W OF MALLY WAGNON The next item was a conditional use request submitted by Ronald Woodruff on behalf of Michael & Joy Urwiler (pp 610) for property located south of Huntsville Road and west of Mally Wagnon Road (5635 E Huntsville Road) for a plant nursery under Use Unit 2. The property is zoned C- 1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains 2.5 acres. Mr. Odom advised staff recommended approval contingent upon the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: Compliance with Section 160.195, Conditions governing applications of conditional uses; procedures, of the zoning code. 2. Compliance with Section 160.117, Off-street parking lot design, required number of spaces, landscaping and location of parking lots within the city. 3. The conditional use shall apply to the existing dwelling, as constructed, and site plan as submitted by the applicant. The parking lot shall be paved with concrete, asphalt (hot mix), or semi -permeable soil pavers. 5. The applicant shall apply for and the Planning Commission must approve a large scale development plan within one year of approval of this conditional use. Mr. Woodruff advised his client was in agreement with the conditions of approval. In response to a question from Mr. Sugg, Mr. Conklin explained a large scale development was required because the site was over one acre in size. He added the applicant would have to receive large scale development approval prior to receiving a building permit for the greenhouses. Mr. Tucker asked if the applicant was prohibited from removing the trees. He noted there were some beautiful trees on the site. Mr. Conklin advised the applicant would have to comply with the tree preservation ordinance. Ms. Johnson asked if granting the conditional use would change in any way the applicants' right to cut the trees. Planning Commission Meeting June 9, 1997 Page 7 Ms. Little explained the conditional use had no effect on the trees since the property was currently zoned commercially and the tree preservation ordinance was in place. Public Comment: There was no public comment. MOTION Mr. Forney moved to approve Conditional Use 97-8.00 with all staff comments. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, 9-0-0. • Planning Commission Meeting 1ay1 1997 Page 8 • LSD97-8.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - SALVATION ARMY (pp 601) SALVATION ARMY - S OF 15TH ST.. & W OF HWY 71B SOUTH The next item was a Large Scale Development submitted by Rick Rogers of CEI Engineering & Associates, on behalf of the Salvation Army for property located south of 15th Street and west of Highway 71B South. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and 1-1, Heavy Commercial -Light Industrial, and contains 4.81 acres. The staff recommended consideration of the project based on staff findings. If the Planning Commission approves the project, staff requests the approval be conditioned upon the following: Conditions of Approval: 1. Planning Commission determination of compliance with the City's Commercial Design Standards and construction of project in substantial compliance with the Commercial Design Standards presented to and approved by the Planning Commission. 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. 4. 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. 5. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a 6 -foot sidewalk with 6 feet of greenspace along Salvation. Sidewalks need to be labeled on the plat and added to the legend. 6. Dedication of right-of-way as shown on the plat and improvement of one-half of Salvation to current City standards. The specific improvements, widening or total reconstruction, are subject to further review by the City. The City may, or may not, elect to participate in the improvement of the existing northern segment of the street depending upon available funds and priorities. 7. Any outside storage areas must be screened from the public view. If vehicles of any type are stored, they must be moveable and stored on a paved surface which is screened. • • Planning Commission Meeting 1•99.7 jUNeg199 Page 9 8. Submittal of a separate easement plat for this project is required prior to the issuance of any building permits. 9. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar Mr. Rogers advised his client agreed with the conditions of approval. Ms. Little called the Commission's attention to the facade elevation, noting the building would be constructed primarily out of metal siding with a number of windows. She pointed out that the building was not in strict compliance with the Commercial Design guidelines. She also noted the building did not have frontage on a major city street. She added the building was appropriate for the location and use. Mr. Reynolds advised that he liked the Salvation Army and the proposed location. He did, however, note the current building was in direct violation of Item No. 7. He asked for assurance there would be no outside storage at the new building. Bill Kisor assured Mr. Reynolds there would be no outside storage at the new building. In response to a question from Mr. Sugg, Ms. Little advised the landscape administrator had reviewed the large scale and had approved it. She read the following statement from Ms. Sandeen: "Move or add one tree to island in parking lot. Crape myrtles to not count as "trees" in this area, only shrubs." Public Comment: There was no public comment. MOTION Ms. Johnson moved to approve LSD97-8.00 subject to the staff conditions of approval with one change -- Item No. 7 with the first sentenced changed to state "No outside storage areas shall be allowed." and the second sentence remaining as presented. Mr. Harbison seconded the motion. Mr. Kisor agreed to the change. In response to a question from Ms. Hoffman, Ms Johnson explained there would be no change to the second sentence regarding outside vehicles, only items for sale, etc. Ms. Little noted they would be making a finding the structure did meet the Commercial Design Standards by including it in their overall approval. The motion carried unanimously, 9-0-0. Planning Commission Meeting -Maria-1-997 12,1997 cU-. q97 • Page 10 • • LSD97-10.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - McDONALD'S McDONALD'S - SE CORNER OF CROSSOVER & MISSION (GLENNWOOD) The next item was a large scale development submitted by Rick Rogers of CEI Engineering & Associates on behalf of McDonald's (pp 372) for property located south of Mission Road (Highway 45) and east of Highway 265 (Crossover Road) in Glennwood Shopping Center. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 0.718 acres. Mr. Odom advised the recommendation of the staff was consideration of the project based on the following conditions of approval: 1. Planning Commission determination of compliance with the City's Commercial Design Standards and the Glennwood Shopping Center guidelines and construction of project in substantial compliance with the Commercial Design Standards presented to and approved by the Planning Commission Discussion at the Subdivision Committee meeting included the roof shape and finish, the type of glass for the future play area and landscaping to the east of the retaining wall (heights to 14 feet). Please note that large "trees" cannot be allowed over the city's new 24 -inch water line which is also in front of this wall 2. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or is representative, and all comments from utility representatives). 3. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 4. Staff approval of 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 plat review process was reviewed for general concept only All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. 5. Sidewalks: a. Determination by Planning Commission if a sidewalk from Highway 265 into the Glennwood Center is required. If such sidewalk is required, it must be further determined if this walk will be on the McDonald's property or if the sidewalk will be off-site on Glennwood. b. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 6 - foot sidewalk with a minimum 10 -foot greenspace along Highway 265. The sidewalk shall be continuous through the driveways. Planning Commission Meeting ` -12, t997 zltm2-' qE ,qq7 Page 11 6. A separate easement plat for this project must be submitted prior to the issuance of any building permits. 7. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. 8. The owner must provide to the City an agreement or acknowledgment that the city's rights to utilize the water, sewer, drainage and utilities easements are such that if the City must repair or maintain any public water, sewer or drainage then the City is obligated only to replace or repair asphalt, concrete or grass and that all replacement of retaining walls, rails, landscaping or other specialty items will be at the owner's expense. Mr. Rogers advised his client agreed with all conditions except further discussion on a couple of items. He noted the first one was regarding the Commercial Design Standards and the other was regarding the sidewalks Ms. Little stated the sidewalk in question was the one leading from Highway 265 into Glenwood Shopping Center. Mr. Beavers stated it had been his understanding the Subdivision committee had wanted the Planning Commission to further discuss a sidewalk along the side of the McDonald's drive or a sidewalk along the side of the southern access into the shopping center. Mr. Odom suggested they first discuss the roof shape and finish, the type of glass for the future play area and landscaping to the east of the retaining wall. Ms. Little pointed out the renderings received from McDonald's and the overall concept for the shopping center. She advised the Planning Commission needed to find whether the final design of the McDonald's building was in compliance. Ms. Johnson advised she had expressed some concerns at the Subdivision meeting and raised the question as to whether the roof line might reflect the roof line of the entire center rather than being dust the typical McDonald's roof line. She noted there were some McDonald's without the standard roof. In response to a question from Mr. Odom, Ms. Johnson advised she had seen the latest rendering from McDonald's which was contained in her agenda packet. Mr. Tucker asked if they should make comments regarding the play land area also. Ms. Little stated comments about the play land area would be appropriate since McDonald's was asking for that area as a future expansion. • Planning Commission Meeting 947- 9uneue.9,i997 Page 12 In response to a comment from Ms. Johnson, it was determined the "front" elevation faced to the south. Mr. Gary Brem, McDonald's, explained the direction of the elevations. Ms. Little asked what the elevation from Highway 265 would look like. Mr. Brem advised that elevation was not rendered. He verbally described the Highway 265 elevation stating it would be a mirror image of the east elevation with the addition of drive-thru windows. Mr. Odom recommended the roof line should extend for the entire length of the building in order for the building to be consistent with the rest of the shopping center. Mr. Brem contended that, if they took the roof line for the entire length of the building, all that would be visible would be the roof. In response to a question from Mr. Odom, Mr. Brem stated the building was 75 feet in length. Mr. Sugg suggested putting a hip roof over the freezer section. Ms. Johnson expressed concern that there were no elevation renditions of the Highway 265 portion of the building. She stated it was the public that had the greatest interest in the design standards and it was the public's view the Planning Commission was unable to see. Mr. Sugg pointed out the building would be 14 feet above Highway 265. Mr. Beavers stated the 14 -foot retaining wall was only at the northwest corner of the tract. Ms. Hoffman advised she would like to see the northern rendition also. Mr. Tucker asked how the McDonald's building design elements compared with the remainder of the Glennwood Shopping Center. Mr. Brem stated the McDonald's building was a standard design for McDonald's restaurants. Mr. Tucker asked if the proposed design was the only one used by McDonald's for the play place. Mr. Brem stated the play place design was the only one he had ever constructed. He further noted it was not their intention to construct the play place at this time; it might be constructed in • the future. • Planning sion qtg., ! / q7 Page 13 �I Mr. Odom advised any recommendation for approval, in his opinion, could not include the play place. Mr. Forney pointed out the Commercial Design Standards required a rendered elevation drawing of the main facade at 1/16" to 1 foot minimum scale showing adjoining context and description of external building materials. He advised they needed to determine what was the main facade. He stated he believed it was very important for the Planning Commission to see the view apparent from Highway 265. Mr. Brem argued the main facade was where the building was approached, which, in this case was from the south. • Ms. Jolmson pointed out there would be no other building between Highway 265 and the McDonald's. Mr. Sugg contended all four sides of the building were main facades because all four had exposure. Mr. Brem requested a few minutes to get some photographs of a similar building. The Commission agreed to discuss the sidewalk issue while Mr. Brem was gone. Ms. Johnson stated she believed there should be a pedestrian entrance to McDonald's from Highway 265 but, due to the elevation, the sidewalk could be further south. She reiterated there had to be a pedestrian approach into the shopping center Mr. Reynolds agreed. Mr. Rogers stated the original construction plans and large scale development for Glennwood Shopping Center showed a sidewalk from Highway 265 further to the south. He noted there was a future development site further to the south (on the south side of the drive entering from Highway 265) which would be a more appropriate area for a sidewalk. Ms. Johnson advised the Subdivision Committee also discussed a sidewalk along Highway 265 going at the back of the liquor store property to access Highway 45. Ms. Little agreed and stated there was a sidewalk which paralleled Highway 265 and turned east at the north boundary of the subject property, then continued to the east boundary of the subject property and then turned north to intersect with Highway 45. She pointed out there currently was not a sidewalk along the liquor store boundaries and second, staff believed the proposal was safer for pedestrians. Planning Commission Meeting • Mme, 37u0t q /99] Page 14 • Mr. Odom asked who would be responsible for installing the sidewalk Mr. Beavers stated they were putting an obligation on Mr. Cozart and Glennwood, which was separate from McDonald's. Mr. Odom stated Glennwood had already been approved. He asked how they could later require something different than what was approved. Ms. Little advised the entrance sidewalk was not addressed at the large scale development review but the wrap-around sidewalk had been addressed and required at the large scale review. She advised the reason the entrance sidewalk had not been addressed was because the entrance was a private drive and there was no requirement for a sidewalk. She pointed out there was a sidewalk on the McDonald's site plan but it did not intersect with the sidewalk along Highway 265. Mr. Forney stated he also believed there should be a sidewalk into the shopping center from Highway 265. He further stated he did not understand why it would be impossible to do that in front of the McDonald's property. He pointed out there was an entry drive at a 1:15 slope and, by extending the slope the width of the sidewalk, there would be room and the grade would be handicap accessible. Mr. Rogers stated it was his understanding from the grading plan that, from the top of the curb on the adjacent parking, the grade from the access drive reached a 3:1 slope. Mr. Forney stated they could just move the parking lot back, changing the grade. Mr. Rogers contended the site plan was very tight and did meet the City's ordinances as far as parking lot depths and access aisles. Mr. Forney expressed his belief the sidewalk connection to Highway 265 was crucial and further believed there should be another sidewalk accessing Highway 265 to the south of the entry drive. He contended it was possible to do grade work on the north side of the entry drive to allow the installation of a sidewalk. Ms. Little stated that, whatever decision the Commission made, the staff needed to know who would be responsible for the installation. Mr. Brem returned to the meeting with photographs of a similar building. Mr. Reynolds asked if the roof would have the white lines. He stated he did not care for the white. • Mr. Odom agreed with Mr. Reynolds. Plan ing M2y 1'), 19Commission m MMeeting 97 • " C� Page 15 • • Mr. Brem reminded the Commission the shape of the roof was a trademark of McDonald's and the beams were also a trademark of McDonald's. He contended that, when they started removing those features, the building became generic. He advised it was the building shape that attracted the business. He stated McDonald's buildings were easily recognizable. Mr. Reynolds asked how many different designs McDonald's had. He advised he had seen other McDonald's that did not have the mansard roofs nor the white lines. Mr. Brem stated it was a matter of what made sense for the site development. He stated they tried to accommodate what they could but there was a limit of what they could expend to make sites viable. He explained they took their standard building and tried to conform with the materials through color without manipulating the shape of the building because the building lost the identity. Ms. Hoffman pointed out they were not asking McDonald's to change the shape of the building, Just the roof line. Mr. Brem stated the typical McDonald's building was a concrete block but they colored the block to match the brick in the shopping center, added dryvit on top of the block, agreed to the metal standing seam roof and finally had changed from a double mansard to single mansard roof, all to conform to the shopping center. Mr. Forney reminded the Commission they had asked the developer if there would be a specific design theme and Mr. Cozart had presented such a theme to them. He stated it was his understanding that the entire development, including the outlots, would be developed to that standard. Mr. Brem agreed and stated there was a list of 7 or 8 items that were required. He stated that list included the colors, the materials, etc. but nothing specifying the shape had to identically match. Mr. Forney stated he believed it would be good for the Commission to review the specifics of the Glennwood approval He stated it appeared the building was a standard McDonald's with a paint color match and a change of a roof line. He contended that was not going very far in the direction of the proposed theme. He stated the Commission was not interested in the general strategies of McDonald's marketing; they were interested in the specific McDonald's they were reviewing. Ms. Johnson pointed out the McDonald's would be at one of the busiest intersections within the City making it very visible She advised she was very uncomfortable in taking any action on McDonald's until the Commission had an opportunity to see the other two facades. She requested further discussion on the entry sidewalk. Planning Commission Meeting 411 Mar 1-271-997 the /797 Page 16 • • MOTION Mr. Forney moved that the McDonald's Large Scale Development provide a sidewalk connection from Highway 265 into the Glennwood Center along its south property line on the north side of the entrance drive. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Mr. Rogers reminded the Commission that, if such a motion passed, it could cause some waivers for the parking and circulation requirements. Public Comment: There was no public comment. Ms. Johnson stated she was reluctant to vote that the sidewalk would be required since she was not sure they had enough information to make that decision. She advised she would be more comfortable if the applicant was aware the sidewalk was probable and give them an opportunity to see how it would affect the parking. Mr. Forney stated he believed the Subdivision Committee would need to work with the applicants to see if the proposed location of the sidewalk would work. He advised his motion was not meant to be a requirement but a consensus of the Planning Commission. The motion carried 8-1-0 with Commissioner Ward voting no. Ms. Hoffman stated she believed the applicant should be advised that the Planning Commission seemed to be in agreement that the general appearance of the building and the sidewalk were two main issues. Mr. Odom agreed with Ms. Hoffman. He asked if the Subdivision Committee could approve the large scale or if it would need to come before the entire Commission again. Ms. Little advised that, if there were no requests for waivers, it could be approved by the Subdivision Committee. She explained that typically, if the item could be controversial, the Subdivision Committee passed the item on to the Commission for input. She further stated she would not feel comfortable with the Subdivision Committee approving this large scale. MOTION Mr. Forney moved to send the large scale back to the Subdivision Committee. He noted they had before them drawings of both the proposed building and a proposed addition. He asked if they were looking at both or just one. Planning Conunission Meeting ,--1-997_groy • Page 17 Ms. Little stated they would be approving both since the parking shown on the plat was for both items. Mr. Reynolds stated he was concerned with the 14-foot retaining wall. Ms. Little stated staff had talked to the developer about the wall and she believed they proposed to cover the wall with shrubbery and vines. • • Mr. Rogers stated there had been discussion regarding additional landscaping in front of the wall. He explained the wall was not 14 feet but a little over 12 feet at its highest point. He further stated the wall quickly decreased in grade in both directions. He noted the current plan showed large shrubbery in front of the wall. He advised there was a newly installed 24 -inch water line going through the green area so no trees would be placed in that area. He added vines could also be planted to grow up the wall to hide it. In response to a question from Mr. Odom, Mr. Rogers advised the wall would be made of keystone. Ms. Johnson stated she would prefer the shrubs be evergreen so they would provide coverage 12 months a year. Mr. Rogers stated evergreen shrubs had been specified. Ms. Little reminded the Commission they had approved a concurrent plat and then lot splits to create the subdivision. She stated the Planning Commission minutes of June 24, 1996 had the following: "Mr. Reynolds noted there were 13 buildings on site. He advised the Commission he would like to see all 13 buildings to have the same look. Mr. Cozart stated he would sell 6 of the lots and retain ownership of the remainder. Mr. Tucker asked if there had been any consideration of having monument signs rather than normal signs for the businesses. Mr. Cozart stated he would be willing to take the Commission's suggestions to both the architect and new businesses." She advised that was the only reference she could find regarding signage. She noted the large scale development approved in June, 1996 there was no signage shown but on the large scale submitted by McDonald's there was a sign shown. She asked if the Commission intended to allow each outlot to have separate signage or was it their intent to have combined signage for the entire subdivision. She noted whatever decision that was made for the McDonald's site would carry through the rest of the subdivision Mr. Odom stated he believed from the minutes of the June 24, 1996 meeting the intent was one commercial unit with one sign. Ms. Johnson asked what that would mean for McDonald's. n Planning Commission Mee • Ma, li, 1997 ✓✓7 Page 18 • • Ms. Little stated there was a proposed monument sign at the northwest comer and read from the plans: "Proposed monument i.d. sign per city standard, no higher than top of associated building." She explained the requirements for large scales did say the sign was to be shown for review by the Commission. She advised there was no signage shown on the original large scale of June 8, 1996. In response to a question, Ms. Little stated a monument sign was not normally as tall as a building. She explained a monument sign was no higher than six feet. She further noted the only place which required monument signs was the Overlay District. She again asked if the Commission wanted combined signage for the entire shopping center where all businesses were identified on one sign or was it their intent to have a separate sign on each lot. Mr. Odom stated it was his understanding the shopping center was one development and there would be only one sign for the entire development. Ms. Johnson agreed with Mr. Odom. Mr. Sugg asked if the Commercial Design Standards addressed signage. Ms. Little stated the Commercial Design Standards did not address signs. She further stated the sign ordinance was in control of signage every place except the overlay district. She advised the sign ordinance would allow one on-site sign per commercial lot, a maximum of 30 feet higher than the roadbed, 75 square feet in area, setback 40 feet from the right-of-way. Mr. Odom stated he would like the Subdivision Committee to address the issue knowing the Commission's intent. Mr. Tucker stated that, in his opinion, a monument sign was the standard six-foot high sign, not one building -height tall. Mr. Harbison seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, 9-0-0. Planning Commission Meeting • May 12, 1997 �� % /997 Page 19 LSD97-11.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - MAY CONSTRUCTION MAY CONSTRUCTION - SW CORNER - MILLSAP & PLAINVIEW The next item was a large scale development submitted by Brian Ray of Development Consultants on behalf of May Construction for property located at the southwest corner of Millsap and Plainview (Lot 15, CMN Business Park). The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 1.37 acres. Findings: This project is subject to Commercial Design Standards. It is located in an area which is currently developing - Proctor & Gamble LSD to the east, Raben Medical Building to the northwest and Rio Bravo Cantina to the northeast are all under construction. Use of the setback reduction option (from 50 feet to 25 feet with landscaping) has been requested for both the north and east property lines. Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings. If the Planning Commission approves this project, staff requests the approval be condition upon the following: : Conditions of Approval: • 1. Approval of the setback reduction Required landscaping must be coordinated such that no trees are on the existing sewer lines (existing sewer lines in existing easements along Millsap and Plainview) or the existing storm drainage pipe between the curb and sidewalk. • 2. Planning Commission determination of compliance with the City's Commercial Design Standards; and construction of the project in substantial compliance with the Commercial Design Standards presented to and approved by the Planning Commission 3. Provisions for future cross -access south and west. 4. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - Arkansas Western Gas, Southwestern Bell Telephone, Ozark Electric, SWEPCO, TCA Cable) 5. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 6. Staff approval of 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 plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. Planning Commission Meeti g �9� /gs7 • Page 20 • 7. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 6 -foot sidewalk with a minimum 10 -foot greenspace along Millsap and a minimum 6 -foot sidewalk with a minimum 6 -foot greenspace along Plainview. Coordination with Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator and Landscape Administrator may be necessary for the sidewalk along Millsap in regard to the large tree in that vicinity. Two access ramps shall be provided at the corner and coordinated with the Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator. 8. Buildings must all be sprinklered or the center structures shall be divided by a four hour fire wall per Fire Chief. 9. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. 10. A separate easement plat for this project must be submitted prior to the issuance of any building permits. 11. The owner must provide to the City an agreement or acknowledgment that the City's rights to utilize the water, sewer, drainage and utilities easements and/or rights-of-way are such that if the City must repair or maintain any public water, sewer or drainage then the City is obligated only to replace or repair asphalt, concrete or grass and that all replacement of pavers, walls, rails, landscaping or other specialty items will be at the owner's expense. Ms. Little stated they needed to be clear on the allowance of the 25 -foot setback. She explained that, in order to do that, 10% of the area was required to be landscaped. She pointed out the areas on the plat which would have to be landscaped in order for the large scale to qualify for the 25 - foot setback. Mr. Greg Bone, Development Consultants, stated they understood that requirement. He further stated his client agreed to all of the conditions of approval Mr. Forney stated this development had been grandfathered out of the Overlay District. He pointed out one or more signs could exist on the site. Ms. Little stated it was staffs understanding the signage would be on the building. Mr. Bone stated that was correct. He stated the owner had no intent of any separate stand-alone sign. Ms. Johnson stated that, if the applicant was telling the Commission there would be no stand- alone signs, she would like that added to the conditions of approval. • Mr. Bone agreed to offer that as a condition. Planning Commission Meeting May -4-27-1-997917%.6 I /997 • Page 21 Public Comment: There was no public comment. MOTION Mr. Forney moved to approve the setback reduction since the large scale had met the landscaping requirements. Mr. Sugg seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, 9-0-0. Ms. Johnson advised there had been discussion regarding the sidewalk issue at the Subdivision Committee meeting but staff was not indicating any problem at the present time. • Ms. Little stated the applicant had combined the two sidewalks into one and had also agreed to ramp the curbs. She pointed out Item No. 6 was for the staff to approve the final detailed plans for sidewalks plus Item No. 7 stated two access ramps would be provided. • • • Planning Commission Meeting Mar b -271-997L--- % 9 97 Page 22 MOTION Ms. Johnson moved to approve LSD97-1 1 subject to staff comments and an additional condition that the Commission accept the offer from the applicant that there be no stand-alone signage for the development. Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, 9-0-0. Planning Commission Meeting • May 12, 1997 (.3,002.- / C/CJ7 Page 23 CP97-1.00: CONCEPT PLAT - ROBERT SCOTT TOWNHOUSE PROJECT (A P.U.D.) ROBERT SCOTT HOMES - S OF WEDINGTON. E OF SUNSET • • The next item was a concept plat for Robert Scott Townhouse Project, a P.U.D. (pp 442) submitted by Wayne Story of Robert Scott Homes for property located south of Wedington Drive and east of Sunset Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains 3.22 acres Ms. Little explained the applicant was proposing a Planned Unit Development and, under the P.U.D. ordinance, there was a requirement that the Commission receive a concept plat. She further noted there were a number of issues on the concept plat. She stated the development did need to be named for filing purposes and the applicant proposed the name Robert Lynn Court. She stated there were 3.2 acres with 12 2 -story, 2 -dwelling unit buildings (a total of 24 units). She noted the current zoning was R-1. She stated the first issue was the number of units and she had made it clear to the applicant that additional units over the density for the current zoning did require approval by the Planning Commission. She advised the next issue was ingress. She pointed out a drive from Wedington which was at a 12 - 15% grade, turned immediately to the west and then made an immediate turn to the south. She stated the staff was concerned about the grade and alignment of the street and also that the street was a long cul-de-sac. She noted there was open and undeveloped land on three sides of the tract. Mr. Beavers stated that, when the development proceeded into a preliminary plat design, the streets would have to be designed in accordance with the street standards. He advised the two 90 degree turns would not meet those standards. He also noted there would probably have to be a detention pond which would affect the layout. He advised there were existing drainage problems on Vista Street. Mr. Story stated the two 90 degree turns were basically a 40 -foot easement and he anticipated making that a curve. He further noted they intended that the turn onto the newly moved Vista Drive would place the private drive on the existing Wedington Road He presented a copy of the State Highway Department plans for both Wedington and Vista. Mr. Odom asked if the detention pond was installed how it would figure into the required green space for a P.U.D. Ms. Little stated the required green space was 30% of the total site. She stated that on the most recent P.U.D. they had ended up counting no more than one-half of the detention pond as green space. She also noted no easements were counted as green space. She also pointed out the plans called for a single cul-de-sac, private road with gated access at the north boundary of the main parcel. She explained the general plan did say gated access was discouraged. She stated there was only one gated private road within the City. Planning Commission Meeting • -1-2;-1�0< 91 fq7 Page 24 Mr. Beavers asked if the right-of-way on the existing Wedington Drive would be reverting back to the property owners. He pointed out that, if that were the case, Mr. Story would have to acquire that right-of-way to provide the extension back to the subject property. Mr. Story advised that, to his knowledge, it would stay as right-of-way. He stated he would check with the Highway Department. Ms. Little stated she believed the Commission did need to give the applicant some guidance regarding the density and private road cul-de-sac issue. Mr. Odom stated he did not believe Mr. Story should count any of the detention ponds as green space. In response to a question from Mr. Odom, Ms Little stated with 3.2 acres 12 units would be allowed under R-1 zoning so they were proposing double the amount allowed. Mr. Odom stated he did not see how any adequate use of green space could justify doubling the amount of density allowed. • Mr. Story advised they had found, after further calculation, they had 3.7 acres and had ended up with 52% open space and the resulting units per acre was 6.5. Mr. Odom asked if Mr. Story was using the yard spaces to calculate the open space. Mr. Story advised the ordinance required the open space be reduced by the amount of any private lots. He stated they were considering only the buildings themselves as private lots together with a 15 x 25 area at the back of the structures and the driveways. He stated they had the 10,000 square foot open space as well as two other common spaces and a 10 foot space around the perimeter of the property. He advised all of that would be maintained by a property owners' association. Mr. Sugg expressed concern with the way Vista Drive was being changed and the grade change. He noted the only way out was downhill which would be very dangerous with bad weather conditions. Ms. Little pointed out there was probably a 30% grade. She noted there was a concern with the grade during bad weather. Ms. Johnson expressed concern about the cul-de-sac which would limit further development to the south. • Mr. Odom agreed with Ms. Johnson. • • Planning Commission Meeting �uirLi9,1997 Page 25 Mr. Forney stated he normally supported higher density but he believed the proposal was a particularly high density and he was not convinced by the calculation of the 52% open space. He pointed out the open space would still be private since they were proposing a gated area. He also noted there would be a great deal of non -permeable surface so they would not be getting the benefit of drainage. He asked if the neighbors had been notified. Ms. Little explained the neighbors had not been notified because it was too early in the process. She added there was not a requirement for notification for concept plats. Mr. Story stated the property owner to the north had been notified and had no problem with the development. Mr. Sugg expressed his belief the green space would still be yards for the structures, which did not meet the intent of the ordinance. He suggested clustering the houses closer together. Mr. Odom stated he could not see any difference in this project than rezoning the property to R- 2; that he did not see the project followed the spirit of a P.U.D. Mr. Forney explained the P.U.D. ordinance was enacted to enable building clustering, grouping of open space, increased density and alternative to public facility improvements. He noted there was no building clustering, there was no grouping of open space and the facilities would be private rather than public. Mr. Story stated he was trying to meet the ordinance which required they not have more than 2 units per building. He explained that, when they went to more than 2 units per building they had to meet 250 -foot setbacks. Mr. Odom asked if the duplexes could not be clustered closer together. Ms. Little pointed out there could be single family homes. She explained the duplex units would have to be approved through a conditional use. Mr. Harbison noted the proposed project did not satisfy the P.U.D. ordinance regarding grouping of the open space. Mr. Story stated that, in a small P.U.D., it required a minimum of 10,000 square feet of open space. He stated they could move the other two areas of open space to maximize the open space in one area but they had felt it would be appropriate to have more than one area available for various uses. Mr. Sugg pointed out that, if the applicant put 10 feet between the duplexes rather than 25 feet, • they could have two 10,000 square foot open areas. Planning Commission Meetin • X79 tc- 9 �P97 Page 26 • • Mr. Odom pointed out the 10,000 square feet Mr. Story was talking about was a detention pond. Ms Hoffman agreed and stated the entire project might be a moot point once a drainage plan was designed. Mr. Story stated that, at the moment, there was no detention pond designed for the project. He advised they would move the buildings closer together to consolidate the open area. Ms. Johnson stated that sometimes in P.U.D.s they tolerated additional density because the neighbors did not have the density in their face; but, in this project, the neighbors were the ones most exposed since the duplexes were on the external lot lines. She pointed out there was no buffering for the neighbors. She stated she did not believe that complied with the spirit of the P.U.D. ordinance. Mr. Reynolds stated that, with the drainage problem which existed in the area, the project would have a detention pond. He advised he believed the 10,000 square feet would be used for the detention pond. Mr. Beavers stated he would not even want to guess as to the size of the detention pond until he saw a drainage plan. Mr. Story stated he believed the Commission was suggesting the buildings be moved closer together, detention drainage be accommodated and a public street with accommodations for connectivity. Mr. Odom stated he had a problem with the density. Ms. Johnson and Mr. Forney both agreed the density was excessive and noted it appeared to be an R-2 development. Mr. Story stated he had discussed the property with City staff and they had mentioned a P.U.D. Ms. Little advised staff had said it was the only way the property could be developed with a private street; staff had not supported the plan. Planning Commission Meeting • � 4k 9,1997 Page 27 • • AD97-6.00: ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING REGARDING CONDITIONAL USE CU96-12 - FRANCIS HOLCOMB DETACHED SECOND DWELLING UNIT The last item was an Administrative Hearing regarding CU96-12, a detached second dwelling unit for Francis Holcomb submitted by Francis Holcomb for property located at 521 N. Washington. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and the conditional use was granted to allow construction of a second dwelling unit. Ms. Little reminded the Commission that, on May 13, 1996, they had been asked to approve, and did approve, a second dwelling unit. She stated staff had begun receiving a number of comments and questions from residents in the historic area. She advised staff had visited the site and had taken numerous photographs of the site. She pointed out the difference between what had been constructed and what had been approved by the Planning Commission and a rendering of what the builder was proposing to correct the building. She reviewed the items which had been approved for the north elevation: one garage door approximately 16 feet wide and an opening for the structure in the gable that faced north. She pointed out the slope of the roof was now facing north and two garage doors had been framed in and a screened porch had been added. Mr. Harbison asked what the developer was proposing which would change the north elevation. Ms. Little noted all that had been added was a window box with flowers. She then reviewed the other three elevations, noting the south elevation had the roof rotated 90 degrees from that approved. She advised the applicant proposed to put in two windows on the lower portion of the structure. She explained the proposal had been made because the property owner to the south had expressed concern about looking at the blank walls. She advised they could also receive some facade relief by simply hanging double sets of shutters so the face of the building would be broken up. She noted the Planning Commission had a wide array of options available to them. (1) to direct staff to enforce the Planning Commission's original approval and require the builder to construct the building as it was presented; (2) applicant has presented revised drawings showing proposed changes which the Planning Commission could choose to approve; and (3) for the Planning Commission to propose changes which would make the building more aesthetically pleasing or more compatible with the historic district neighborhood. She advised there was a separate array of options within the changes: (1) removal of the porch, (2) addition of windows, (3) addition of fake windows with shutters, (4) require the roof gable to be built as originally approved, (5) additional trim detail to more closely approximate the existing house. Ms. Little explained Don Ginger, the applicant's son and builder, had talked with the neighbors and the neighbor to the west had requested a 36 -inch path to be created along the west side of the driveway and a concrete drive creating an island from the tree to the garage door and to cover any • • Planning Commission Meeting Mitirf-271-99794Ud 9, /fl7 Page 28 exposed concrete with landscaping. She stated the neighbor to the south had requested to cover any exposed concrete with landscaping, plant one tree of at least 10 feet in height and add a window m the lower left garage. In response to a question from Mr. Odom, Mr. Ginger stated he did not realize the plans, as approved, were "stamped in concrete". He further stated the changes were his fault. He advised the windows were changed for privacy. He noted that, if he had known he was doing something he shouldn't, he would have called the City. Mr. Odom asked what security the Commission had that the recommendation Mr. Ginger was now proposing would be what he did. Mr. Ginger asked what the Commission would suggest. Ms. Little stated the City had received a number of calls from residents of the historic district. She advised the people in the area were angry and upset, part of which was directed at the staff. She stated staff had explained the reason for the conditional use process was to allow the Planning Commission to look at such items and make conditions necessary to protect the neighborhood. She advised staff had requested the conditional use come back before the Planning Commission because the structure had not been built the way the Planning Commission had approved. She noted they had asked all of the neighbors to the meeting. Mr. Tucker stated it was upsetting to him He explained that, in essence, it had hindered others in the historic district from getting a conditional use for a second dwelling unit. He pointed out it also questioned the credibility of both the Commission and staff as to whether the public felt they were up to the task of protecting the City's interest. He noted very little of what had been built was as approved. Mr. Reynolds asked why he strayed from the conditions approved by the Commission by changing the roof, not putting the windows in and even adding a porch without coming back before the Commission and getting permission to make the changes. He stated the Planning Commission functioned for the City and Mr. Ginger was a part of the City. Mr. Ginger stated that, if he had known he was doing something wrong, he would have called the City. He advised the reason the changes had occurred was that originally the second structure was going to be the rental unit but then it became the primary unit. Mr. Odom asked what Mr. Ginger did for a living. Mr. Ginger stated he was a builder. Mr. Tucker asked if he had also brought developments before the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Meeting • 9441-A-1 /997 Page 29 Mr. Ginger stated he had. Mr. Tucker pointed out Mr. Ginger would have been familiar with the rules. Mr. Ginger stated he was not aware the conditions were "in concrete". He added he was willing to do whatever it would take to correct the situation. Mr. Forney noted there were evident changes in window locations and roof orientation. He asked if the overall square footage or height of the structure changed. Ms. Little stated the height had not changed and the square footage had not changed with the exception of the screened porch. Mr. Ginger advised the height might be a little lower. Mr. Forney stated he was surprised the building met the 8 -foot setbacks; that it seemed very close to the neighbors. He asked if any of the neighbors had questioned the location of the building. Ms. Little stated there had been no questions of location to her knowledge. She stated she knew • that on the west it met the 8 -foot setback She stated it became problematic with the addition of the screened porch because it put the structure very close to the main building. She advised she had no complaints from the neighbors regarding the setbacks but had received a complaint regarding access. She stated the neighbor to the west (Carolyn Hickson) was concemed about having access to the rear of her property. She explained the current home Ms. Hickson owned plus the main structure on the subject lot had been in her family and they had always gone down the side of her current house to get into her backyard. She advised there were two ways this could be accomplished: (1)Ms. Hickson could go down the driveway, except when she got ready to go to the west, there were railroad ties being installed, so she had asked for a step, or (2) there was a 5 -foot space on Mr. Ginger's side that would be maintained in grass and plants which might have to be removed. She advised she believed Ms. Hickson had worked out the problem with Mr. Ginger prior to the meeting. • Mr. Dennis Becker, architect for the project, advised Mr. Ginger was very creative and made the changes in the best interest of what he was doing. He noted originally there had been a double door but they put in two single doors in order to keep within the scale of the neighborhood. He stated the reorientation of the roof occurred so that instead of having a front facing gable to the neighbor to the south, it was now a side facing gable. He noted it was 15% less square footage that Ms. Thomas (the neighbor to the south) had to look at. He advised there would be landscaping going in to break up the facade on the south. He contended the elevation of the roof line was a better situation than when it was presented to the Commission. He stated the facing of the front gable on Washington was much more in keeping with the elevation of the house. He pointed out the entire elevation of the second dwelling was lower than the existing house so it would take a subsidiary position. He also pointed out the screened porch on the front could not Planning Commission Meeting gwn-t- /497 • Page 30 • • be seen from the street due to the large maple tree. He added the placement of the windows had been changed for privacy for both the neighbors and for his mother. He stated Mr. Ginger did break the rules but he believed the Commission needed to look at what rules were broken, what degree they were broken and for what purpose. He advised Mr. Ginger was always looking to better the project. He agreed Mr. Ginger should have contacted the City prior to making the changes but the changes had enhanced the project. Mr. Tucker disagreed the project had been enhanced. He advised the roof line seemed to loom over the street. He further stated that, whether the changes were better or not, the Planning Commission should have been made aware of the changes prior to construction. He stated he would look very favorably on removing the porch, adding the windows and trim. Mr. Sugg stated it was unfortunate that this project would affect others in the historic district. He noted they did treat the historic district as a special place because it was. He advised he did understand that if a builder was constructing a tract house and decided to make a change, he did not have to go to the Planning Commission to make that change; but this was a special case. He stated he wished there was a special district for the Historic District which would alleviate problems such as this. Mr. Ward stated he believed some of Mr. Becker's points were valid He expressed his belief the north elevation looked better than the proposal and he believed some of the neighbors would have been unhappy had the building been constructed as approved. He contended the change in the roof line did not help nor hurt the building. He added he believed the screened porch was an asset rather than a detriment. Mr Ginger advised he just was trying to make everyone happy. Mr. Tucker asked if there was a mechanism for someone to request changes after a conditional use had been approved. Ms. Little stated that, if it were considered a minor change, it could be approved administratively but, if staff considered the change to be a major one, it would be brought back before the Commission. She stated she believed most of the changes on the subject building would have had to be approved by the Commission. Mr. Forney stated he believed the situation was unfortunate but he did not want to get into the debate of what looked better. He stated he wished they could come up with a proposal that was a positive addition rather than a punitive solution. He suggested spending money on embellishing the entire neighborhood with plantings, etc. Planning Commission Meeting • Merl -2714397 9-0-1-•-• 9, /q9 Page 31 • Public Comment: Anne Thomas, 525 N. Washington (the resident immediately south), presented a letter from Richard & Joan Smith, 326 N. Washington, expressing dismay that the builder had not done what he was supposed to do. The Smith's contended the building did not fit in with the neighboring architecture and requested the Commission require the builder to make changes to the structure to meet the original plan. Ms. Thomas advised that in May, 1996, she had expressed very strong doubts to Ms. Holcomb and had requested to see the plans for the structure. She stated she had informed Ms. Holcomb that, if she believed the plans did not fit into the neighborhood, she would opposite the request She informed the Commission she had seen the plans which had a few Victorian touches and had agreed not to oppose the project after Ms. Holcomb told her she needed more income. She added Ms. Holcomb had told various stories to the neighbors regarding the use of the structure. She stated the last time she had spoken with Ms. Holcomb in May, 1997, she had been told Ms. Holcomb would be living in the second structure and would be retuming to Florida in September. Ms. Thomas contended it had been difficult to communicate with Ms. Holcomb in an honest fashion. She reminded the Commission that, in the paperwork submitted originally with the conditional use request, there had been a handwntten statement from Ms. Holcomb declaring the new building would be used as a rental for grandchildren, extra income or a live-in health care worker. She advised Ms. Holcomb was not in compliance with her statement. She also noted the approval was given with a deed restriction that the use of the detached second unit as an independent dwelling could continue only as long as one unit was owner occupied. She noted that, if Ms. Holcomb moved to Florida she would not be in compliance with the deed restriction. She also advised the placement of the roof line and end gables were exactly opposite of the plans she had been shown in 1996; the windows deviated from the plans; the materials used was not compatible with the surrounding houses; and the screened porch was not compatible with the surrounding Victorian houses. She advised the recent painting of the house had helped its appearance and she was sure some landscaping would also hide some of the tlaws. She advised the area had fought many battles to keep the historic district intact. She advised the historic district needed the City's protection to prevent further damage to the area. She requested they assess penalties for those that did not follow the rules. Mr. Odom stated the Commission could require Mr. Ginger to construct the building as it was approved. He asked Ms. Thomas if the City would be better served to require the reconstruction of the building as approved or working with what had been constructed. Ms. Thomas advised the structure looked like a barracks from her house. She stated anything that could be done would help; but pointed out the rules had not been followed. She also advised she would like to have the opportunity to look at Mr. Ginger's proposed changes together with • the original plan. Planning Commission Meeting • �-au/V� 9;/moi 97 Page 32 • Mr. Orlan Maxfield, 533 N. Willow (one block east of the subject property), advised he had been a resident of the historic district for 41 years. He stated his argument was based on principle and neighborhood. He contended items such as this would be used as leverage for a historic district ordinance. He advised he was out of town when the Commission heard the original conditional use request but was in town when construction began. He stated he had some difficulty in believing the structure had been approved because of its size and appearance. He noted detached second dwelling units were regulated in order to protect adjoining properties from the adverse impacts associated with appearance, effect on property values, etc. He contended he believed the structure did have an adverse effect on the adjoining properties. He stated he had reviewed the approved plans and made a comparison of what actually existed. He further stated he believed the changes made a very detrimental difference. He recommended the Commission require that the building be brought into conformity with the original, approved design. He contended the City could not have effective regulations and effective planning unless a firm stance was taken by the Commission. Ms. Thomas stated that, after reviewing the proposed changes, she believed there were some things that could work - windows that were the same size and shape as used in the original house, at the bottom and the top. She stated that she still believed the gables should have run north and south instead of the way it had been placed. Mr. Reynolds pointed out the three windows on the south side of the existing house and advised he would like to see that added to the second dwelling unit. He contended the problem with the new structure was lack of windows. Mr. Sugg stated he believed the reason the new structure stood out as being different was due to the lack of detailing similar to the existing structure -- the thickness of the window casings, the difference in gables, etc. He suggested adding a stone base to the new structure in order to mitigate the scale of the building. Mr. Harbison agreed. He asked if they added additional trim detail to closely approximate the existing house what process would be followed -- who would know what the detail looked like before it was added and whether or not it really conformed. Ms. Little stated she believed that would take additional drawings to be presented to the Commission. Ms. Johnson asked if it would be possible to require the owner to meet with the adjacent property owners in order to come up with some drawings of design detail and the, after that had been done, submit the drawings to the Subdivision Committee before it came back to the Planning Commission. • Mr. Odom asked if there was a stop work order in effect. Planning fission Meeting ye/ 7 • Page 33 J� _ • • Ms. Little stated she believed there was not much more work to be done. She also noted the structure was occupied without a final inspection. Ms. Hoffman stated that, in their previous experience in the historic district, the second dwelling unit was aesthetically pleasing and fit in with the neighborhood. She agreed with Ms. Johnson's assessment of the way to correct the situation; that it was very important Mr. Ginger work with the neighbors and get something consistent with the design of the existing house. She requested that any paving around the maple tree be of permeable pavers. Mr. Odom stated he believed the structure should be built to the original specification. He advised he was seeing far too many blatant offenses of Planning Commission actions. He stated the punitive nature was self -inflected and would encourage the Planning Commission to approve the structure as originally submitted. MOTION Mr. Tucker moved that the house at 531 N. Washington meet the requirements of the original conditional use. Mr. Odom seconded the motion. Ms. Johnson asked if the motion failed and then some other avenue was taken and came back before the Commission later, what it would take to later reconsider the failed motion. She advised she could contemplate that, while she was not willing to favor the motion at this time, if nothing acceptable was worked out, she might support the motion later. Ms. Little stated she believed a person who voted in the majority must be the one that brought it back up for reconsideration and it would take a majority of those present to reopen it. The motion failed 3-6-0, with Commissioners Sugg, Forney, Hoffman, Ward, Harbison and Johnson voting no and Commissioners Odom, Tucker and Reynolds voting yes. MOTION Ms. Johnson moved they suggest that, if the applicant wished, Mr. Ginger attempt to set up a meeting with the two adjoining landowners (to the west and to the south) at their convenience and, if those landowners were willing to meet with him, he come up with some drawings of items they might find acceptable and, after that had been done, he come before the Subdivision Committee before it came back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Tucker seconded the motion. Planning Commission Meeting • -.May 12, 1997 qj X997 Page 34 Mr. Odom asked if Ms Johnson would like to include some of the options, such as removing the porch, in her motion. • Ms. Johnson stated she preferred the neighbors being directly affected to have the first chance at review and then, after their review and comments, the Planning Commission should be able to make comments. Mr. Harbison noted two important items were more windows and fine-tuned details consistent with the details on the original structure. Mr. Forney stated that, while he supported the spirit of the motion, he could not support the motion because he was afraid they were asking the two neighbors to "carry the water" for the entire community. He stated he did not want to put those neighbors on the spot. Ms. Johnson advised she was sensitive to what Mr. Forney said but believed that, if the neighbors were not interested, all they had to say was they were not going to do it. Ms. Hoffman suggested Mr. Ginger prepare the plan, present it to the neighbors but, if the neighbors could not agree with it, it still be reviewed by the Subdivision Committee and have public comment at that time. Mr. Forney stated he would support that motion. Ms. Johnson withdrew her motion and Mr. Tucker withdrew his second. MOTION Mr. Forney moved that the owner should re -submit a new proposal to the Subdivision Committee for approval or purview. Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion. Mr. Tucker asked if it would also come back before the full Planning Commission. Mr. Odom stated it would. The motion carried unanimously, 9-0-0. Ms. Little advised Planning Commissioner training had been scheduled for Saturday, June 28. She stated she had anticipated beginning at 10 a.m. and being finished by 2 p.m. • The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.