Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-07-28 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held July 28, 1997 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS REVIEWED: ACTION TAKEN 1. AD 97-6.00: CU96-12 Francis Holcomb 2. LSD97-13.00: Tom January 3. CU97-11.00: Chandana Becker 4. AD97-10.00: Wal-Mart Sign 5. LSD97-12.00: Blockbuster 6. LSD97-6.10: Meadow Brooks Approved Approved Approved Denied Denied Denied MEMBERS PRESENT: Conrad Odom, Phyllis Johnson, Lee Ward, John Watkins, Gary Tucker, Lorel Hoffman, Bob Reynolds, and Mark Sugg. MEMBERS ABSENT: John Forney. 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 AD97-6.00: ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING REGARDING CONDITIONAL USE FOR DETACHED SECOND DWELLING UNIT (CU 96-12 FRANCIS HOLCOMB) The request for an administrative hearing was submitted by Francis Holcomb for property located at 531 N. Washington. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. A conditional use has been granted to allow construction of a second dwelling unit. A meeting was held on July 9, 1997 with the following present: Don Ginger Alett Little Carolyn Hickson Dennis Becker Tim Conklin Ann Thomas Beginning with drawings date stamped June 30, 1997 the following items were discussed and agreed to by the parties at the table. Items in bold were added at the Subdivision Committee meeting of July 17, 1997 for clarification. • • Planning Commission July 28, 1997 Page 2 All elevations Trim board to match existing house will be added Davidson Street North elevation Screened porch -bottom of porch will be squared off, this area will be sided to match rest of addition and painted to match house Walkway connection to main house will be removed Victorian style brackets will be added underneath the porch -brackets will extend from bottom under porch back to the face of the eastern -most garage (these are not intended to be post which touch the ground- rather arch -style brackets On the face of the porch in the screened area, two bracket will be added to each side and four brackets will be added to the front for a total of eight brackets -these brackets will be miniature versions of the support brackets to be installed under the porch The railroad ties along the west property line will not be installed to allow Ms. Hickson access to her yard Tree (maple) will be treated as shown - drive will be paved to a line where the tree canopy would reach the ground, then pavers will start and continue to a line where the tree canopy no longer is above the drive at which point pavement will start again. The landscape island from the structure will remain as shown on the drawing. Shutters as shown on drawing will remain. There will be no change in the panel above the door. Flower box to remain Washington Street- East elevation A window will be added to the top floor (north side) to match and balance the existing window Flower boxes are to be removed A stone planter to match existing stone will be added Tree which has been planted ( a type of evergreen) will be maintained South elevation- Ann Thomas Trellis in middle of elevation will be installed so as to be nearly centered and will cover pipes. Trellis will be white and will have dormer type covering at top with arch as shown on drawing. A window will be added to the west side of the elevation to match and balance window on the east end of the elevation. The frosted window will be removed and siding installed in this area Two large pin oak trees will be planted as shown on drawing (five gallon size at planting). . No windows will be added to the bottom of the structure on the south elevation. Shutters will be added to the two upper windows -Z3 • • • Planning Commission July 28, 1997 Page 3 West elevation- Carolyn Hickson One large tree- a willow oak or a pin oak will be added between the structure and her house to the west. (five gallon size at planting.) Mr. Conklin stated the neighbors were satisfied with the revised drawings from the applicant. The Commission needed to accept or reject the revised elevation drawings, landscaping and driveway configuration. Ms. Hoffman asked if the City Attorney had defined "owner occupied". Mr. Odom replied the City Attorney, Jerry Rose, had researched the term and had not been able to find a definition. Mr. Rose cautioned the Commission about creating there own definition. PUBLIC COMMENTS There was no public comment. Mr. Reynolds moved to approve AD97-6.00 subject to the staff comments and the drawings. Mr. Ward seconed the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 8-0-0. • Planning Commission July 28, 1997 Page 4 LSD97-13.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (TOM JANUARY) TOM JANUARY -N. OF TOWNSHIP AND W. OF N. COLLEGE AVE The large scale development 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 1.48 acres. Lot Split 97-18 was approved 14 July 97. 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. Planning Commission determination of compliance with the City's Commercial Design Standards. • 2. Resolution of cross and joint access. A total of three driveways are allowed for the two tracts as created. (Re: Lot Split 97-18). 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 Chief's 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. X42 • • • Planning Commission July 28, 1997 Page 5 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. greenspace 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, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Harry Grey, Northwest Engineers, stated the east drive had been relocated to the east property line as requested by the Planning Commission. His client was still requesting a waiver for the gravel drive connection behind the building. Mr. Odom noted the January's had submitted revised drawings of the building to the Subdivision Committee in attempts to satisfy design requirements In attempts to articulate the building a portico had been added to the front, brick work and columns had been added to the sides. He noted there was not a good working definition of "articulation". PUBLIC There was no public comment. Ms. Kathy January, owner, expressed her frustration with the vague guidelines in the Commercial Design Standards. Mr. Dennis Becker, architect, stated the only definition for "articulation" in his dictionary of • • Planning Commission July 28, 1997 Page 6 architectural terms was a concrete shoot. He felt the ordinance was unclear and needed to be looked at again. Ms. Johnson felt the building's design was boarder line on compiling with the Commercial Design Standards. Although they had added a front portico, the building still had a box -like appearance. She noted there were no windows and 50% of the front was metal. Mr. Watkins shared Ms. Johnson's concerns about the building. He stated the building would set a bad precedent for the Commercial Design Standards ordinance. Mr. Tucker felt the overall design met the criteria. In his opinion the pitched roof eliminated the box -like appearance. Mr. Reynolds agreed with Mr. Tucker. He stated he could approve the project, because the January's had done everything the Planning Commission had asked them to do. Mr. Sugg commented the intent of the ordinance was to encourage the involvement of design professionals in the design of commercial buildings. He added the building was still a big metal box. Mr. Reynold stated the January's could not install windows because of the large roles of carpet hanging from the ceiling. Mr. Watkins stated approval of this building would indicate a low level of standard for the design standards. Ms. Johnson expressed concern about the building being located in ha high traffic area She would not be as concerned about the appearance of the building if it were located in a shopping center. She added the design standards had been created to benefit the public. Mr. Ward stated the revised design was an improvement. He felt the January's had gone the extra mile trying to comply with the standards. In response to Mr. Watkins comments, Ms. Hoffman stated the Commissioners were not committing themselves to a low level of standard because of one building. Mr. Watkins stated the purpose of the design standards was to improve the quality of design in an area. He commented the January's building belonged in an industrial park. • In response to questions from Mr. Odom, Ms. Little explained the lot split had been approved with only three accesses for the two lots together. It had been decided during the discussion vCr • • • Planning Commission July 28, 1997 Page 7 about the large scale development that the eastem most drive for this parcel would be moved to the east property line to serve as both joint access and cross access. Mr. Odom asked for a resolution of the crushed stone drive. There was no comment. Ms. Hoffman asked what would happen if the Planning Commission denied the large scale based on the Commercial Design Standard. Mr. Odom explained the applicant would have the option to resubmit a revised plan to the Commission or appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to approve the item with all staff and Planning Commission comments, including the allowance of the crashed stone drive around the back of the building. Mr. Tucker seconded the motion. Ms. January expressed her frustration with the Commercial Design Standards. The motion carried by a vote of 5-3-0. Johnson, Watkins and Sugg voting nay. 2gb • • • Planning Commission July 28, 1997 Page 8 CU 97-11.00: CONDITIONAL USE FOR CHANDANA BECKER CHANDANA BECKER- 1835 MISSION BLVD. The conditional use was submitted by Tim Tarvin on behalf of Chandana Becker on behalf of Chandana Becker for property located at 1835 Mission Blvd. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. The request is for a conditional use to allow limited neighborhood commercial Recommendation: Staff recommends approval contingent upon the following conditions of approval. Conditions of Approval: I. Compliance with §160.195, Conditions governing applications of conditional uses; procedures, of the zoning code. 2. Compliance with § 160.098 Limited Neighborhood Commercial Uses within Residential Districts. 3. Proposed outdoor lighting shall be shielded and directed downward and turned off at the close of business, except for security lighting (limited to motion lights and hundred watt light bulbs). 4. The exterior of the existing structure shall be maintained in a residential appearance. 5. Paving of the driveway and a limit of twelve unpaved parking spaces. Dr. Chandana Becker, applicant, stated she no longer had enough room at her current office to see her clients and teach her classes. In response to the Conditions of Approval, she requested #3 be changed to allow security lighting (residential style). She also requested if paving was required, that installation of it be postponed to allow her time to recoup from the purchase of the property and the renovations. Mr. Tucker asked if there would be signage. Mr. Conklin stated the existing sign on site had not been approved by the City. Ms. Becker would be allowed four squared feet for a sign attached to the wall. Mr. Watkins asked why the staff was requiring additional paving for the drive and three parking spaces. Ms. Little stated the gravel on the drive was washing into the storm drains and clogging them. • Planning Commission July 28, 1997 Page 9 She added a paved drive was safer. A car would be less likely to slide into the intersection if the drive was paved. Mr. Reynolds asked Ms. Becker if she had planned to turn the front of the yard into green space or a parking area. Ms. Becker stated the front would become yard and parking would occur on both sides of the building. Mr. Reynolds asked if the Planning Commission could require the conditional use to run with this applicant. Ms. Little stated the conditional use would run with the property. However, the Commission could limit the use by being very specific with the uses allowed. Mr. Reynolds suggested if the property was changed from a Psychology office that a new conditional use be required. • Mr. Watkins did not believe the Planning Commission should limit the conditional use to a specific occupation. Ms. Little stated the Planning Commission could assign whatever conditions they felt were appropriate. Mr. Reynolds stated it was a nice neighborhood and he wanted to protect the neighbors. Ms. Hoffman commented this location would not be appropriate for a welfare agency or vet clinic, which was also listed under the professional office category. She stated she would like to limit the use. In response to a question from Ms. Hoffman, Ms. Becker stated her classes ranged from 6-20 people. If she was going to have more people she would rent a room at a hotel. Mr. Ray Plack, 325 Rebecca, expressed concern about the property becoming commercial. He felt all conditional uses should be policed for compliance. Mr. Tucker suggested if the professional staff increased, the parking should increase. Mr. Odom replied the building would loose its residential character if the Commission required • additional parking. • • Planning Commission July 28, 1997 Page 10 In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, Mr. Conklin stated he had not recommended the applicant remove the gravel, but had recommended they pave the driveway and three parking spaces. In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Becker stated the graveled area could park a dozen cars. She felt most people would park in front of the building. Mr. Watkins did not believe there was a need to pave the parking lot. However, he was in favor of paving the entry drive . Mr. Sugg suggested limiting the number of spaces. Ms. Hoffman stated she would like to see a clearly defined parking area MOTION Mr. Watkins moved to approve the conditional use with the staff conditions of approval, altering condition #3 to allow security lighting and #5 to only pave the driveway and limiting parking to • twelve spaces (graveled). Ms. Johnson questioned the hours of operation. Mr. Conklin stated there were no limitations on Limited Neighborhood Commercial. Mr. Sugg seconded the motion. • Ms. Becker stated twelve parking space would not be enough for her classes. In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, she stated twenty or more cars could be accommodated on the gravel lot. The motion carried by a vote of 5-3-0. Odom, Hoffman, and Reynolds voting nay. 2�� • • Planning Commission July 28, 1997 Page 11 AD97-10 00• ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM (WAL-MART SIGN) WAL-MART SUPER CENTER- 3919 N. MALL AVE. The administrative hearing was requested by Travis Bousquet of CEI Engineering Associates, Inc on behalf of Wal-Mart Supercenter for property located at 3919 North Mall Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 24 94 acres. The request is for reconsideration of a condition of approval for LSD96-37.00 which was approved by Planning Commission on December 2, 1996. Ms. Little stated when the large scale development for Wal -mart was approved by the Planning Commission, one of the conditions of approval was that there would not be a sign for this development. At the 11/17/94 meeting of the Board of Adjustments and Board of Sign Appeals a representative of Clary Development stated that "Wal Mart had indicated they only wanted to be on the area identification sign." Technical Plat Review minutes from 11/5/96 state: "Note on plat that no free standing signs will be permitted. Sign will be allowed on combination sign for subdivision." This comment was provided to the applicant in writing prior to the 11/5/97 meeting and the note was added to the plat of the project as requested. On 7/10/97 the applicant submitted an application and submittal fee for a free standing sign. Mr. Travis Bousquet, CEI, stated the area identification sign was located at the intersection of Frontage Road and Hwy 71B in front of National Home Center. He explained when Wal-Mart was originally considering the project the sign location was acceptable. Since the original agreement there had been a large amount of development in the area. Wal -mart now felt the location of the area sign was misleading to the overall development. They were requesting a sign in the northeast corner of Mall Lane and Joyce Blvd. The sign would be their typical pylon sign, the same as the one on Hwy 62. Mr. Len Schaper stated the store would be visible from the highway. He did not believe the variance should be granted. Mr. Lynn Beavers, Wal-Mart, stated the area sign could not be seen from Hwy 71, because of the trees. He noted there was visibility from Joyce street, but Wal Mart wanted identification from Hwy 71. Ms. Hoffman disagreed. She felt the National sign was predominate as well as the Wal-Mart facade. MOTION 411 Ms. Hoffman moved to deny the request. vein • Planning Commission July 28, 1997 Page 12 Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Mr. Steve Hartman, Wal-Mart, offered to install a monument sign. He did not feel the area sign was adequate with all of the other developments. He felt the area sign would be misleading to the public. In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Little explained TJ Max and Shoe Camival were split off from the rest of Spring Creek Center by Joyce Street. All of the business on that side were located on one sign in front of Service Merchandise (which was not listed on the sign. They were addressed on the area identification sign, as agreed at the time of development). She continued the Planning Commission and the developer had specifically discussed that this lot would not have a separate sign, but would be represented on the area sign. She added a monument sign did not address their concerns because they were wanting visibility from Hwy 71. Mr. Bousquest replied they were concerned about people coming from the Springdale area that many not be familiar with the location. • The motion carried by a vote of 8-0-0. • Planning Commission July 28, 1997 Page 13 LSD97-12.00 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO) SUPERIOR PROPERTIES- N OF HWY 62. W. OF SANG. S. OF OLD FARMINGTON The large scale development was submitted by Harry Gray of Northwest Engineers on behalf on Superior Properties for property located north of Highway 62, west of Sang and south of Old Farmington Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 1.15 acres. Findings: The proposed LSD is for a "Blockbuster Video" store. The applicant has requested parking in excess of that allowed by ordinance. Refer to the attached letter for the applicant's request and supporting information. Staff was informed at the Technical Plat Review meeting that the "Sprint Tax" building adjacent to this site and the overhead power serving the Sprint Tax were to be removed as a condition of the lease to Blockbuster Video Shared access is being utilized on the east side of the lot (Hardee's) and joint access is being utilized to the west (Tractor Supply). The 1.15 acre lot was created by Lot Split 97-21 approved at the July 14, 1997 Subdivision Committee meeting conditioned upon the granting of 15' for right-of-way across the entire tract for Highway 62. 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. Planning Commission determination of compliance with the City's Commercial Design Standards and underground utilities ordinances. Elevations have been provided to show the front (facing 6th Street), east (facing Hardee's) and rear (facing Old Farmington Road) sides of the proposed building. 2. Planning Commission resolution of the number of parking spaces provided by he applicant. 3. Planning Commission resolution of the width and condition of the existing curb cut to 6th Street on the west side (shared with Tractor Supply). 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) • Planning Commission July 28, 1997 Page 14 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. The Fire Chief has requested that a fire hydrant be installed in front of the building on either the north or south side of 6th Street. 6. Planning Commission resolution of the creation of an additional sign or limiting signage to wall signs on the building. 7. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 6 ft. sidewalk with a minimum 10 ft. greenspace along 6th Street. The sidewalks shall be continuous through driveways and tie back into existing sidewalks to the east and west. • Right-of-way dedication per the Master Street Plan and as shown on the proposed plat. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. 10. All drainage interior to the project shall be privately owned and maintained by the applicant. 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 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. 12. 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, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Ms. Little added the staff had been contacted by the property owner in regards to the dedication of the 15' of right-of-way across the entire tract along Hwy 62. He had agreed to dedicate the 15' right-of- way across the unleased portion of the site (approximately 200') now. The City would receive a letter of assurance from the owner stating when the leases came open for negotiation on the other properties 2'k° • • Planning Commission July 28, 1997 Page 15 that he would dedicate the additional 15' of right-of-way at that time. Mr. Grey stated his client was requesting a waiver from the parking lot requirements. Ms. Hoffman questioned the need for more parking. She asked if the applicant could share parking with the adjacent lot and not have to pave as much. Mr. Jim Barnes, applicant, stated the adjacent lot was to far for his customers to walk. He felt 50 parking spaces was a reasonable request for this type of business. Mr. Odom did not believe it was appropriate to share parking. Mr. Watkins questioned the side setbacks. Mr. Conklin replied there were no side setback in C-2. In response to a question from Mr. Tucker, Mr. Barnes stated they needed to accommodate parking on site as much as possible. Mr. Odom did not believe their request for 50 parking spaces was unreasonable based on his personal experience. Mr. Watkins felt there was enough asphalt on the adjacent property. Mr. Barnes stated his business was not a fair weather business. His customers would not walk a long distance. Mr. Watkins stated the lot would be vacant most of the time. The business would not need 50 spaces all of the time. He did not believe the Commission should plan for peak hours. Mr. Reynolds felt they should consider the 50 spaces. Mr. Grey stated the ordinance required adequate parking. Mr. Watkins felt the applicant should use the adjacent parking lot as over flow. Mr. Sugg suggested breaking the proposed parking lot into smaller lots or using the rear of the building , which was unutilized. • Mr. Dennis Becker, architect, stated the ordinance allowed them to pave up to 85% of the property. 1,4 • • • Planning Commission July 28, 1997 Page 16 Ms. Hoffman asked if the applicant submitted a revised plan after the Subdivision meeting. Mr. Odom replied the Subdivision Committee had advised the applicant not to submit a new plan, but if he wanted the Planning Commission to review a plan it needed to be the original one. Ms. Johnson expressed concern about the building meeting the Commercial Design Standards. She noted the front was articulating with windows and columns, but it was negated by the garish, large, and out of scale signs. She added the existing Blockbuster did an excellent job of meeting the Design Standards. Mr. Watkins agreed. He added it was a box -like structure with large out of scale signs with flashy colors. He stated the walls were large, blank, and unarticulated. He believed it failed on three of the five criteria. Mr. Tucker felt this was a square box like structure. Ms. Hoffman comment the rear of the building faced Old Farmington Road. She suggested the applicant pay some attention to the rear of the building. Mr. Ray Green, attorney for applicant, had interpreted the design ordinance for his client. He argued the vagueness of the ordinance made it impossible for his client to comply with the ordinance. Mr. Becker noted all the bright colors of the neighboring signs. Mr. Odom stated the reason the City had developed the Commercial Design Standard was to prevent that type of developments. Mr. Watkins suggested the applicant hire an architect rather than a lawyer. Mr. Barnes stated he had hired architects. He added he had tried to comply with the City's standards. However, the colors of his sign were standard across the country. Ms. Johnson suggested reducing the size of the signage. She noted the signs on existing Block Buster were smaller. Mr. Barnes stated he had met the sign requirements in the sign ordinance. Mr. Watkins stated the applicant needed to comply with the City's ordinances. He suggested Mr. Barnes amend his plans. Mr. Odom did not find the signs offensive. He felt the ticket sign was out of scale. itfr • Planning Commission July 28, 1997 Page 17 Mr. Barnes offered to reduce the size of the signs. Mr. Len Schaper stated the intent of the City Council, when they pass the ordinance, was to upgrade Fayetteville's commercial areas. He suggested mounting a drawing, so the audience to see what the Commission was discussing. Ms. Hoffman suggested the applicant come back with a revised drawing because this building did not comply with the design standards. She also expressed concern about the parking. Mr. Odom commented the Planning Commission did not want Blockbuster to loose their identity, but it needed to blend into Fayetteville. Ms. Johnson commented the applicant had not made any attempts to change his building. There were other Blockbuster buildings that did meet the city's standard. MOTION •Ms. Johnson moved to deny the large scale. She stating it failed to meet the City's commercial design standards. • Mr. Tucker seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 8-0-0. • Planning Commission July 28, 1997 Page 18 LSD97-6.10: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (MEADOW BROOKS) JIM LINDSEY- N. OF STONE ST. AND W. OF SANG AVE. The large scale development was submitted by Tom Hopper of Crofton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Jim Lindsey for property located north of Old Farmington Road and west of Razorback Road. The property is zoned R-2 (Medium Density Residential) and contains 112 units on approximately 14.23 acres. Note that the development contains 96 units on 13.27 acres north of Stone Street and 16 units on 0.96 acres south of Stone Street. The original proposal (which was denied) had 120 units on the 13.27 acres north of Stone Street. Findings: The proposal is 112 units on 14.23 acres as described above. The City Council has approved the acceptance of money in lieu of land for Parks. The Planning Commission denied the first application of 120 units on 13.27 acres on May 12, 1997. Refer to the minutes of the May 12 meeting. •The City Council upheld the denial on June 3, 1997. The basis stated by the Council was grading (cuts and fills over 15 feet without terracing). • Additionally, questions concerning the grading of the site, drainage and traffic have been raised by adjacent property owners at the previous meetings. Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings. If the Planning Commission approves this project, staff requests that the approval be conditioned upon the following: Conditions of Approval: 1. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives) 2. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking 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. For example, the 8 inch water line as shown may need to be extended approximately 120 feet to Stone Street and reinforce the existing 2 inch water line. The "keystone" retaining walls are an integral component of the final construction plans and a ykk • Planning Commission July 28, 1997 Page 19 formal design of the walls, including a handrail to meet the member spacing and lateral load requirements of the SSBC (building code) for balcony rails shall be required for approval prior to receiving a grading permit. Fire protection shall meet the Fire Chief's requirements. 3. Payment of parks fees in the amount of $26,880.00 (112 units @ $240.00) in lieu of park land dedication per City Council decision 4/15/97. 4. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 4' sidewalk with a minimum 6' greenspace along both Sang and Stone Streets (Both tracts). The sidewalk will be on both sides of Sang for the length to be improved north through the development entrance. The sidewalk will follow the drive into the development to the parking lot as shown on the revised Large Scale Development plan. • The new sidewalk along Stone will be on the segments contiguous to the development and • where right-of-way is available on the property not owned by the applicant. Street improvements to include the total width of Sang Street from the intersection with Stone Street up to, and including, the entrance driveway for the project in lieu of construction of one- half of a street the entire length of the property. The improvements will be to reconstruct to a standard 28 ft. street including storm drainage and sidewalks on each side. 6. Dedication of right of way along the entire south property line (Stone Street) to equal 25' from centerline. 7. The Planning Commission must decide if right-of-way dedication along the project's east property line north of Maine Street (north of the developments entrance drive) is regwred. If required, the ROW width must be established Previous SDC meeting discussion centered on a 20 ft. ROW to the north property line. 8. Off-site sewer improvements are required. Approximately 881 feet of existing 6 inch sewer line is proposed to be replaced with 8 inch sewer line by the developer. All off-site sewer replacements or improvements will be the developer's responsibility and expense. The proposal by the applicant to install a second parallel sanitary sewer will probably not be accepted, but rather a replacement in place may be required. This decision will be made by the Engineering and Water Departments. • • Planning Commission July 28, 1997 Page 20 9. The preliminary drainage report was good but is subject to additional review prior to final approval. All drainage interior to the project, and all drainage outside of the street right-of-way will be privately maintained. A formal agreement in the format required by the Stormwater Management ordinance is required. 10. The intersection of the drive at Sang must be designed to have as flat a slope as possible. 11. Submittal of an easement plat for this project prior to the issuance of any building permits. 12. The Large Scale Development approval will be valid for one year. Mr. Jim Lindsey, owner, stated they were complying with all the City's ordinances. They had taken the Planning Commission's and the City Council's recommendations and reduced the number of units and increased the amount of tree canopy and greenspace. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Randy Zurcher, alderman, stated the City Council should reconsider their decision to accept money in lieu of park land for the second proposal. He stated his opposition to the project, believing it did not comply with the intent of the land alteration ordinance. Mr. Len Schaper, alderman, stated his opposition to the project citing the revised plan still required an excessive amount of grading. He suggested Mr. Lindsey hire an architect to design a development which would complement the natural contours and features of the site. He urged the Commission to continue to deny any development that had an excessive amount of grading. Mr. Roy Stanley, Lindsey Management, defended they had complied with the City's ordinances. He added, Mr. Lindsey was providing a service to the community by providing quality, clean, affordable housing. Ms. Lona Benedict, an area resident, presented a letter to the Commissioners addressing her concerns about traffic, fire safety, and drainage. Mr. Robert Albertson, adjacent property owner, expressed concerns regarding the excessive amount of grading. He did not believe the design had met the intent of the ordinance. He urged the Commissioners not to change their minds. He referred to the City's 2020 plan which suggested slopes 18% or greater be kept free from development. • Mr. John Williams, 140 N. Sang, expressed concerns regarding the excessive amount of cutting and filling required for the development as well as the removal of mature trees. He added there would be • Planning Commission July 28, 1997 Page 21 increased traffic near the school. He questioned who would pay for the widening of the streets coming off Sang Street and the additional load on the sewer system and treatment plant. He felt having projects sited on hillsides should not be allowed. In response to a question from Ms. Benedict, Mr. Hopper, project engineer, explained the stormwater runoff would be collected in either a concrete swale or pipe and directed into two detention ponds. The water would then be discharged into a natural drainage channel on the west property line. In response to a question from Mr. Sugg, Mr. Hopper stated the velocity of the water coming from the drainage pipe would be dissipated by the wet ponds, so there would be no erosion problems. Mr. Beavers stated both wet and dry detention ponds were allowed by ordinance. He confirmed that a wet pond would dissipate the velocity of the water coming from the steep slopes. Mr. Sugg asked if the contours blended into the existing topography, referring to §161.07. Mr. Hopper stated they had met all the City's requirements. Mr. Sugg questioned why the development only had one ingress/egress. He also questioned the length • and the safety of the cul-de-sac. • Mr. Lindsey stated they had not received any negative comments from the fire department In response to a question from Mr. Odom, Mr. Lindsey stated Crossover Terrace had 84 units with only one access. Ms. Little stated the staff had not recommended an additional outlet because it would require additional cutting into the steep hillside. It would lead into a steeper area. Mr. Beavers commented the ponds had been submitted as dry ponds, but they would be reviewed in detail with the construction documents. Ms. Hoffman asked what percentage of the site would be altered by grading. Mr. Hopper estimated approximately 30% of the site would not be altered. Ms. Hoffman stated the intent of the ordinance was not to excessively grade or alter the natural land features. Although the developer had been able to meet the technical guidelines, they had not met the intent of the ordinance. She felt the alteration of three quarters of the site was excessive. Mr. Odom asked the staff for their recommendation regarding the right-of-way dedication. Ms. Little stated the staff had recommended a 20' right-of-way along the projects east property line L \1 • • • Planning Commission July 28, 1997 Page 22 north of Main Street. She pointed out a 25' right-of-way was shown on the plat. She added if the right-of-way was to be 20' then a revised plat would be required to reflect the change. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to approve the item with all staff comments. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. The motion failed by a vote of 4-4-0. Hoffman, Watkins, Tucker and Sugg voting nay.