Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-07-14 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held July 14, 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 Watkins, Gary Tucker, Lorel Hoffman, 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. OLD BUSINESS AD97-8 00• BRIDGEPORT SUBDIVISION, PHASE III, POND REQUEST PERRY BUTCHER- S. OF MT. COMFORT & E. OF BRIDGEPORT DRIVE The request for administrative rehearing was requested by Perry Butcher of Creekwood Hills Development, Inc. The request was to revise the conditions of approval for Bridgeport Phase III, as approved by the Planning Commission on August 12, 1996. Specifically the developer requested that the condition no. 4, the requirement to design and construct a detention pond as part of phase III be revised to reflect design and construct a fishing pond as part of future phase IV. Findings: The proposed "detention and retention" pond was offered by the developer to the Parks Board and was not a requirement of the Engineering department. The developer and his engineer offered the detention pond as a method to reduce the flooding of the park improvements downstream. The area proposed to be used for the pond is too small to allow a combination fishing and detention facility. Further, due to the proximity to Hamstring Creek, detention is not required to protect downstream residences. It was Mr. Beavers opinion that the pavilion and play area located downstream had been generally constructed in the drainage channel and detention should not be required just to protect the facilities. The developer's engineer should have noted the location of the improvement; are such to experience erosion problems and periodic inundation. �e� Planning Commission July 14,1997 Page 2 Recommendation: Approval of the request to change from a "detention" pond to a "fishing" pond subject to the following conditions of approval: Conditions of Approval: 1. The pond shall be designed by a licensed professional engineer to account for the embankment construction, embankment safety, spillway and the runoff from the total developed drainage basin. Side Slopes, independent of the embankment, shall be limited to 4 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter. 2. The pond design shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer's office as an integral part of the future of phase IV of Bridgeport. No work of any kind shall be allowed in the construction of a pond, dam or embankment prior to approval of the design. 3. Immediate action of a temporary repair to the erosion problem at the street leading to the park property and pavilion. This is a condition is repeated from the August 12, 1996 Planning Commission (condition no. 3). To date no work toward a temporary repair has occurred. Phase III construction plans will not be approved until this requirement has been salified. Mr. Perry Butcher, developer, stated the Parks Board had approved their request for a fishing pond. He asked the Commission to delete the word "detention" in the Conditions of Approval and to use only the word "pond". He added the pond had been intended for phase IV. The he noted they had dedicated land for phase III. Mr. Beavers stated the Parks Board had been very specific about the pond being part of phase III. He noted their request was different than the conditions of approval listed. He recommended the pond remain in phase III. Mr. Butcher stated land for the pond was to be dedicated as park land for phase IV. Mr. Odom noted phase III had approved with the pond. Mr. Beavers stated the pond had been started in phase II and should have been a requirement for the Final plat in phase II, however, the City had allowed it to be moved to phase III. Mr. Butcher stated he did not have a problem with the pond being constructed in phase III. Ms Johnson was not in favor of changing the building of the pond to phase IV. • • • Planning Commission July 14,1997 Page 3 Mr. Beavers stated the Engineering department did not have problem changing the classification of the pond. He added a detention pond had never been a requirement. It had been offered by the developer to the Parks Board. In response to a question from Mr. Sugg conceming the existing drainage and erosion problems, Mr. Butcher stated they were replacing the pipe under the temporary road with a 54" whistle. Mr. Beavers stated the main erosion problem was the washing gravel. In response to a question from Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Butcher stated the pond area would be turned over to the City for maintenance. Ms. Johnson asked if the City was willing to maintain the fishing pond. Mr. Beavers stated the Parks department had agreed to maintain the pond. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to approve the item with all staff comments adding the condition that the City's engineers sign off on item #3 before phase III was started. He stated the pond must be part of phase III. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 7-1-0. Mr. Tucker voting nay. Planning Commission July 14,1997 Page 4 PP97-3.00: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SUNRISE MOUNTAIN CENTER, PP717 L.LS., INC: WEST OF HWY 71 AND SOUTH OF SUNRISE MT. RD. Preliminary Plat, Sunrise Mountain Center, pp 717 as submitted by Glenn Carter Engineering on behalf of L.I.S., Inc., for property located west of Highway 71 and south of Sunrise Mountain Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and A-1. Agricultural, and contains 5 proposed lots on 15.77 acres. Findings: There was a question as to the correct survey location of Sunrise Mountain Road in relation to this project. According to Carter Engineering, Sunrise Mountain Road does not totally fall within the existing right-of-way. The northern portion of Sunrise Mountain Road is north of the existing ROW. This is important in that the location of the existing pavement and right-of-way will determine the required new dedication for right-of-way and the extent of the improvements to Sunrise Mountain Road for this subdivision. Sewer is not available to this site and must be extended by the developer from the south. Sight distance, traffic and safety are also issues which have been reviewed at the plat and subdivision committee meetings. Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings. If the Planning Commission chooses to approve this project, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: Conditions of Approval: 1. The developer shall improve Sunrise Mountain Road as follows: a. Provide a total reconstruction of the intersection of Sunrise Mountain Road and Highway 71 to provide a minimum street width of 38 feet for three lanes plus curb and gutter on each side. The three lanes will be a minimum length of 150 feet from the shoulder of Highway 71B before tapering back into a standard 28 ft. two-lane City Street. The intersection will be graded as proposed by Cater Engineering on the profile dated June 30, 1997 (copy attached) used to determine the requirements to elevate Sunrise Mountain Road to provide a safer intersection. The profile as submitted indicates that the existing grade of Sunrise Mountain Road will be raised for approximately 300 feet from Highway 71. The fill will require additional right-of-way to allow the side slopes to be 3H:1 V or flatter. The developer shall be responsible to acquire the additional right-of- way necessary to construct the proposed improvements. The right-of-way shall extend to a minimum of the toe of the slopes. tock. • Planning Commission July 14,1997 Page 5 b. Beyond the reconstructed intersection to the west property line of the proposed development, the developer shall improve the contiguous portion of Sunrise Mountain Road a from the existing improved surface to a distance of 14 feet to the south of the centerline of the existing right-of-way. Planning Commission approval of a waiver of the Street Design standards to allow the intersection of Sunrise Mountain Road to come into Highway 71 at 4 percent grade for a total of 50 feet, in lieu of the standard 4 percent for 100 feet. Engineer supports this request as the 4 percent for 100 feet will require significant additional fill and elevation of Sunrise Mountain Road (refer to attached profile). 3. The developer shall, at the developer's expense, extend sanitary sewer from off-site to serve the proposed subdivision. The new sanitary sewer must be designed with elevations sufficiently low to allow a future extension to the north if required by future development. Further, access must be provided to all of the line and truck access provided to all manholes. • 4. 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 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. The minimum width for water and sewer easements will be twenty feet. Wider easements will be required as necessary to provide a 1:1 trench for the sanitary sewer or water mains. 5. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozark, SWEPCO, TCA Cable). 6. Provide for cross access between lots 1 and 2. 7. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 6 ft. sidewalk with a minimum 10 ft. greenspace along Highway 71 and a minimum 6 ft. sidewalk with a minimum 5 ft. green space along Sunrise Mountain Road. The sidewalks shall be continuous through driveways and extend to the property lines The sidewalks will be constructed as a requirement of the Sunrise Mountain Center subdivision and not passed on to the individual lots. • • • Planning Commission July 14,1997 Page 6 8. Revise the preliminary plat to accurately show the setback requirements for all lots for the C-2 and A-1 zoning as applicable (setback for A-1 is 35 feet). 9. Add to the plat a note to reflect the FAA restrictions for building and object heights and restrictions for lighting. 10. The detention pond, all open channels and all storm water drainage outside of the street right-of-way for Sunrise Mountain Road shall be privately maintained by the developer or a POA or other private entity. An agreement to such, in a form acceptable to the City Engineer and City Attorney shall be required. In response to a question from Mr. Odom, Mr Beavers stated the staff and the applicant's engineer were in agreement that the amount of fill required to meet the current street standard was excessive (the actual difference would be less than a foot in vertical height 50' from intersection). In response to a question from Mr. Sugg, Mr. Carter stated the developer would be constructing the entire road for approximately 300 feet, then half of the remaining road They were planning to fill the lots to a grade that would match the elevation of the road to make the buildings more visible from the highway. In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, Mr. Beavers explained the street was offset in the right-of-way. The developer was having to improve more than half a street. Ms. Johnson questioned the condition requiring the developer to construct the portion of the street outside the right-of-way. Ms. Little replied in order to create a safe line of sight, the developer would have to reconstruct the entire street. Ms. Johnson asked asked if the same requirement would be placed on the developer if the street had been located properly within the right-of-way. Mr. Carter asked if the City would help share in the cost of the street improvements. He added they were not tring to avoid any needed improvements. Mr. Reynolds asked if the vegetation on the northwest corner had been removed. Mr. Carter stated they had mowed and removed brush to help visibility. • • Planning Commission July 14,1997 Page 7 There was no public comment. Ms Johnson noted the shared access between lots 1 and 2 was not shown on the plat. Mr. Carter stated he had discussed the shared access and their findings from the traffic study, with the staff. They had been determined it would not be a safe intersection, however, there would be cross access between lots 1 and 2. The future develop plans for lot 2 was for direct access on the south end of lot 2 to move the entrance from the crest of the hill and increase sight distance. Ms. Little stated the staff did not feel that a shared access between lots 1 and 2 would be a safe situation. She clarified there would not be an entry on lot 1 from Hwy 71. The entry would be from Sunrise Road. The entry for lot 2 would be from Hwy 71. Mr. Carter added the entry for lot 2 would be located on the south corner (which would be shown on the large scale development plat). In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, he stated landscaping would be placed on the east and west lines of lots 1 and 2, along Hwy 71 and between lot 3 on the back side. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to approve the item with all staff comments, including the waiver of the Street Design Standards. Mr. Sugg seconded the motion. AMENDMENT Ms. Johnson proposed an amendment suggesting the City participate in the cost of the street improvements on Sunrise Mountain Road due to the street right-of-way error. Mr. Sugg seconded the motion. The amendment carried on a vote of 5-3-0. Odom, Hoffman, and Reynolds voting nay. MOTION The motion carried on a vote of 8-0-0. Z�� • Planning Commission July 14,1997 Page 8 CU97-9 00: CONDITIONAL USE FOR ASSOCIATION OF BAPTIST STUDENTS WARREN DUGAS- S. OF CALIFORNIA BLVD. AND E OF VIRGINIA AVE. The Conditional Use request was submitted by Warren Dugas on behalf of The Association of Baptist Students for property located south of California Boulevard and east of Virginia Avenue. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, and contains approximately .37 acres. Recommendation: The staff recommends approval contingent upon the conditions of approval. Conditions of Approval: 1. Compliance with § 160.195, Conditions governing applications of conditional uses; procedures, of the zoning code. 2. The paved areas in front of the house shall not be expanded. The front yard shall not be surfaced with gravel, asphalt, brick, pavers, or concrete and covered into parking. • 3. The conditional use shall apply to the existing dwelling, as constructed, and site plan as submitted by the applicant. 4. The proposed flood lights shall be shielded and directed downward. Lighting shall not adversely impact the adjoining neighbor to the west. 5. Structure shall be brought upon to Fayetteville building code for approved occupancy. 6. The 1979 conditional use for 959 and 959V2 California Blvd and 1993 conditional use for 979 and 981 California Blvd shall be revoked and reverted by into a residential use. Ms. Little stated Mr. Dugas, Director of Baptist Student Association, was willing to revert the conditional uses from 1993 and 1979 back to the city, provided the requested conditional use was granted. In responds to a question from Ms. Johnson, Mr. Dugas stated they had no intention of parking in the front yard. They were planning to improve the looks of the front yard. There was no public comment. MOTION • Ms. Johnson moved the approve the item subject to the conditions of approval, with the addition to condition #2, that there be no additional parking in the front yard. She noted that the • • • Planning Commission July 14,1997 Page 9 conditions had been met to support a conditional use for this property. Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 8-0-0. • • • Planning Commission July 14,1997 Page 10 RZ97-15.00: REZONING FOR WEDINGTON PLACE CLARY DEVELOPMENT -N. OF WEDINGTON DR. AND E. OF SALEM RD. The rezoning request was submitted by Brian Ray of Development Consultants on behalf of Steve Clary for property located north of Wedington Drive and east of Salem Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 8.95 acres. Recommendation: The staff recommended approval of the rezoning as requested. Rezoning this property will convert the property back to its previous zoning of R-2, Medium Density Residential. In response to a question from Mr. Odom, Ms. Little stated there had been no calls or letters protesting the rezoning of this property. Mr. Conklin stated the site had been rezoning to C-2 in 1994. The original tract was 8.6, the applicant was requesting that 2.78 of the original tract be rezoned to R-2. There was no public comment. MOTION Ms. Hoffman moved to approve the item. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 8-0-0. • Planning Commission July 14,1997 Page 11 CU97-10.00 CONDITIONAL USE FOR A WAREHOUSE TOM JANUARY- N. OF TOWNSHIP AND W. OF N. COLLEGE AVE. The Conditional Use was submitted by Harry Gray of Northwest Engineers on behalf of Tom January for property located north of Township and west of North College Ave. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 1.48 acres. The request if for 6,000 sf. Of warehouse space (10,000 sf. Building) to be approved as a conditional use. Recommendation: The staff recommended approval contingent upon the conditions of approval. Conditions of approval: 1. Compliance with § 160.159, Conditions goveming application of conditional uses; procedures, of the zoning code. 2. The proposed outdoor lighting shall be shielded and directed downward. • 3. The site shall be developed in accordance with the approved large scale development plan. • Mr. Conklin stated the screening, parking, and siting of the building would be addressed during the large scale development phase. Mr. Watkins questioned the compatibility of a warehouse with the adjacent properties. He felt the general use in the area was retail. He also expressed concerns about the increase of truck traffic. Mr. Grey stated the primary use of the facility would be storage of carpet. The truck traffic on Township would only be increased by two or three trucks a week. Ms. Little stated 60% of the building would be dedicated warehouse. The front of the building would be retail sales, which was similar to surrounding businesses. She added this was not a typical type of warehousing. The staff felt the warehousing in combination with the retail, in this area, was not incompatible. Mr. Reynolds stated most carpet warehouses were used as an extended show room. Mr. Odom agreed with Mr. Watkins concerns about a warehouse in a retail area, however, he believed this was a special circumstance. Ms. Little stated the conditional use would stay with the property, 6,000 sf of the building would • • • Planning Commission July 14,1997 Page 12 be designated as warehouse space. He added the Planning Commission was allowed to place additional conditions to safe guard the other blanket portions of the district. There was no public comment. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to approve the item subject to all staff comments. He added the conditional use would run with the use, carpet store. Mr. Tucker seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 7-1-0. Mr. Watkins voting nay. 2C1 • • • Planning Commission July 14,1997 Page 13 LS97-18.00: LOT SPLIT FOR TOM JANUARY TOM JANUARY- NORTH OF TOWNSHIP AND WEST OF N. COLLEGE AVE. The lot split was submitted by Harry Gray of Northwest Engineers on behalf on Tom January for property located north of Township (AHTD Hwy 180) and west of North College Avenue (AHTD Hwy 71B). The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 3.07 acres. The proposed lot split will create two tracts of 1.48 and 1.59 acres. Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings. If the Planning Commission chooses to approve this project, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: Conditions of Approval: 1. Resolution of the issue of driveway location and joint access for tracts "A" and "B". 2. Resolution of the issue of cross access for tracts "A" and "B". 3. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozark, SWEPCO, TCA Cable) 4. Dedication of 50 feet of right-of-way by warranty deed as shown on the plat reflecting future improvements to Township (Hwy 180). 5. Dedication of a sanitary sewer/utility easement suitable to for a future extension of the proposed sanitary sewer to east property line of tract "B". This is an easement only, within the building setback, not a request to extend sanitary sewer to the east beyond that shown on the plat. 6. Sidewalk construction on each tract at the time that each tract is developed. 7. Monument signs to be placed on each lot, in lieu of pole signs. Ms. Little, referring to condition #7, stated individual signs would be allowed for each commercial lot. She noted the January's had planned to place a monument sign on their tract. The staff felt it would be fair to ask the same of the new lot. Ms. Hoffman thought their should be joint access between tracts A and B with one curb cut ft,\I) • • Planning Commission July 14,1997 Page 14 allowed on tract B to Township. Mr. Tucker stated there was a possibility of four additional curb cuts onto Township. He felt the number of curb cuts should be limited. Ms. Johnson suggested moving the eastern most entry toward the east allowing one access to serve both tract A and B. Mr. Grey stated it would create two problems. He explained the drives were established on tract A to allow for the circulation of semi -trucks and sanitation trucks. He added moving the drive toward the east would increase the amount of cutting and grading required from a 2' cut to a 6' cut. He felt four drives would be safer, but would agree to three curb cuts, allowing two cuts for tract A. They would agree to cross access. There was discussion on the different options for entry drives and turning radii for trucks. MOTION Mr. Sugg moved to approve the lot split as shown with the addition of a cross access easement between tract A and B on the southern half of the eastern boundary of tract A. Tract B would only have one access from Township. Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion. Mr. Grey asked for clarification conceming condition #7, monument signs for both tracts A and B. Ms. Johnson questioned if they could have a floating access easement. Mr. Beavers stated the cross access would require some regrading and reconstruction at the time tract B was developed and the access was located. He felt the developer could grade and pave the cross access now or at the time tract B developed. Ms. Johnson felt it would be better to construct the cross access with tract A. AMENDMENT Ms. Johnson moved that the cross access between the two lot be located where the present four parking lots were located in the southeast corner of tract A and the pavement extent due east to • the property line. 7.1 • • Planning Commission July 14,1997 Page 15 Mr. Grey asked if they could only grade the cross access to show the access, but would allow tract B to change their grading plan if they needed too. The motion fail for lack of a second. Ms. Kathy January, owner of the property, asked if the middle curb cut could be wider allowing for Joint access between the two properties. Ms. Little suggested discussing the details of the entry during the large scale development. She suggested Just limiting the number of entryways. Mr. Sugg withdrew his motion. MOTION Mr. Sugg moved to approve the lot split with the resolution of the driveway issue to only allow three access onto Township between the two lots and that there would be a cross access between lots A and B. Along with the conditions of approval, including the addition of one monument sign per lot. Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 8-0-0. 7,1° • Planning Commission July 14,1997 Page 16 LSD97 13.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT FOR RETAIL/WAREHOUSE TOM JANUARY- N. OF TOWNSHIP AND W. OF N. COLLEGE AVENUE Large Scale Development 97-13.00 submitted by Harry Gray of Northwest Engineers on behalf on Tom January for property located north of Township (AHTD Hwy 180) and west of North College Avenue (AHTD Hwy 71B). The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 1.48 acres (subject to approval of Lot Split 97-18). Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings. If the Planning Commission chooses to approve this project, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: Conditions of Approval: 1. Granting of a conditional use to allow warehouse activity in a C-2 district. • 2. Planning Commission determination of compliance with the City's Commercial Design Standards. • 3. Resolution of the allowance for a crushed stone drive around the back of the building (to be used by sanitation and delivery trucks). 4. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozark, SWEPCO, TCA Cable) 5. 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 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 to meet the Fire Chiefs requirements. Large trees, such as pin oaks, shall not be allowed within utility easements. All proposed new trees will be reviewed by the Landscape Administrator. • • • Planning Commission July 14,1997 Page 17 6. Sidewalks shall be constructed on Tracts "A" and "B" at the time of development of each tract. The sidewalk construction shall be in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 6 ft. sidewalk with a minimum 10 ft. green space along Township. The sidewalks shall be continuous through driveways and extend to the property lines. 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. 9. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits. b. A separate easement plat for this project. c. Completion of all required improvements or provide to the City a letter of credit, bond or other surety as required by Section 159.33, Guarantees in lieu of installed improvements, to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not Just guaranteed, pnor to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 10. The development will incorporate the Planning Commission's resolution of driveway location, joint access and cross access for tracts "A" and "B" as determined for Lot Split 97-18. 11. The preliminary plat approval shall be valid for one year. Mr. Grey stated they were asking the Commission approve the large scale with the gravel connection in the rear. There would only be trucks and sanitation vehicles using the area The January's would be willing to sign agreement stating they would pave the area if there were any complaints. Mr. Watkins asked if a stone drive could support the weight of a semi -trucks. Mr. Grey replied the gravel would be thicker than the pavement. It was cooler in hot weather and had a lesser runoff coefficient than asphalt. In response to a question from Mr. Sugg, he stated there was no loading dock. The warehouse doors would be on the west side at the northwest corner. triste • • Planning Commission July 14,1997 Page 18 In response to a question from Ms. Hoffman, Ms. Little recalled they allowed the use of crushed stone with mini -storage. The fire chief generally requested the perimeter be paved. She added the Sanitation Department required the dump pad in front of the dumpster be concrete. She added the Planning Department had received complaints about Rideout's gravel lot. MOTION Mr. Watkins moved to approve the item with the rear area paved and not graveled. Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion. Ms. Johnson stated she would like to discuss the design standards before approving the project. Mr. Watkins withdrew his motion. MOTION Ms. Johnson moved for the eastern most drive to be moved to the eastern most boundary of tract A and that it serve both properties. Ms Hoffman stated she would agree to a 24' wide entry drive. Ms. Johnson withdrew the motion. In response to a request from Mr. Tucker, Ms. Little stated there were problems on College with the wide drives and uncontrolled curb cuts. She noted there were many streets in the downtown area that were less than 24' in width that were traversed by trucks. She was not aware of anything that would cause a semi -truck not to be able to make a turn into a 24' drive with a 40' to 50' turning radius. In response to a suggestion from Mr. Sugg, Ms. Hoffman stated she did not want to create a non- standard curb cut. Mr. Grey stated a 24' drive with a 40' radius would be sufficient. MOTION Mr. Tucker moved that there would be a 24' access drive off Township on the eastern most boundary of tract A, and that there would be paved cross access on the property line. Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion. • • Planning Commission July 14,1997 Page 19 The motion carried by a vote of 8-0-0. Ms. Johnson expressed concern about the appearance of the facade of the building. She did not believe the Commercial Design Standards had been met. She noted square box like structure with predominately metal siding, and large blank unarticulated wall surfaces were discouraged. Mr. Watkins stated he shared Ms Johnson concerns. He did not believe the plan minimized or avoided three of the five standards. He felt this was a classic example of a square box structure with metal siding dominating the main facade with large blank unarticulated wall surfaces. Mr. Grey felt the pitch roof kept the building from being a box like structure. Ms. Hoffman noted entry drive was coming into a metal wall with no landscaping or interest. It had an industrial look. She added the conditional use for a retail use, she felt they needed to bring the appearance up. Mr. Grey noted there were 6' green areas that could easily be landscaped. He noted the building would be 125' from the center of Township Road, there was a row of trees along the west property line. East bound traffic would not be able to see the side of the building until they were in the driveway. Ms. Hoffman thought eventually there would be a line of sight. She stated she would like to see more interest on the walls. Mr. Reynolds stated he would like to see more windows added to the east and west sides of the building to make it more appealing and to break down the box like appearance. Mr. Grey responded part of the building cut back into the hillside on the east side. He expressed his frustration with the Design Standards. He and the January's had tried to comply with the new standards. Mr. Reynolds replied they did not like the box -like structure and suggested he added some architectural features to the east and west sides. Mr. Grey stated they needed more direction on what was required. Mr. Watkins felt they had the standards in front of them and that it failed to meet three of the conditions. • Mr. Grey stated the Januarys had felt they were in compliance. • • Planning Commission July 14,1997 Page 20 In response to a question from Mr. Sugg, Mr. January stated an architect from the building company would be signing off on the plans. Ms Little added, the company supplying the metal building would provide an architect signature. Mr. Sugg noted this was located in a heavy commercial area. The conditional use allowed a warehouse, but it did not need to look like a warehouse. Ms. Hoffman asked if the January's would be able to offer more. Ms. January responded it had not been their intention to avoid any of the City guidelines. She presented photographs illustrating the north side of Township. She noted the views of the property from Township, adding it was very hard to see where they were going to be located. She did not feel the sides of the building would be visible. The building would be two tone with bronze trim and guttering. She did not feel it would be unattractive because they were set so far back and there were trees screening the east and west sides. They had concentrated on the front. They had added the brick and duvet on the building at the Subdivisions request. They were not trying the avoid the guidelines they were tring to abide by them. Mr. Odom stated he appreciated their efforts, but felt the majority of the Planning Commission felt there needed to be some more additions. He added most of the building she had shown in her photographs would not comply with the current Commercial Design Standards. Ms. Johnson noted the building would be more visible after Township had been widen to four lane. She did not believe the building complied with the Design Standards noting most of the buildings along Township would not comply with them. She suggested they table the plan. MOTION Ms. Johnson moved to postpone consideration of the large scale, until a new design had gone thru subdivision. Mr. Sugg seconded the motion. Ms. January stated they would be willing to add windows and landscaping along the sides. Mr. January expressed his frustration with the lack of guidance. He asked if there were any more guidelines. • Mr. Odom stated when they had passed the design ordinance, they did not want to dictate what • • Planning Commission July 14,1997 Page 21 they could or could not do. They had wanted to leave creativity to the developer. Mr. Watkins stated they could not design the building for him. The Commission's job was to determine whether or not his design met the criteria. He suggested bringing in an architect. The motion carried by a vote of 8-0-0. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.