Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-09-08 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held September 8, 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: Jim Beavers, Tim Conklin, Dawn Warrick, and Heather Woodruff. ITEMS REVIEWED: ACTION TAKEN 1. LSD 97-18.00: Circuit City Approved 2. CU 97-12.00: Animal Care Clinic Approved 3. VA 97-7.00: David Kyle II1 Forwarded to City Council 4. RZ 97-11.00: Neill/McKenzie Denied APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES The minutes were approved as distributed. LSD 97-18 00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (CIRCUIT CITY) CIRCUIT CITY- 730 JOYCE BLVD. The large scale development was submitted by June Witty of Wilbur Smith Associates on behalf of Circuit City Stores for property located at 730 Joyce Boulevard. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 2.45 acres. Findings: This project is located immediately west of Nelson's Funeral Home on the north side of Joyce Boulevard. The existing metal building on the site will be removed. The applicant has submitted elevations of the four sides of the proposed building. The applicant has requested the required parking and 20% overage allowed by ordinance (84 + 16 = 100 total spaces requested). Provisions for cross access to the west have been provided at two locations interior to the project. Provisions to access the private street to the north have been discussed. Access to the private street is uncertain at this date due to the requirements of the George Town Square and the existing grade. 0 • Planning Commission Meeting September 8,1997 Page 2 A variance is requested for a 15 ft. wide truck entrance drive in lieu of the standard 12 ft. drive. Staff supports the 15 ft. entrance drive. 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. Planning Commission resolution of the allowable type of signage: limited to the building; monument; pole sign. 3. Planning Commission approval of the variance for the 15 ft. truck drive in lieu of the standard 13 ft. drive. • 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. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 6 ft. sidewalk with a minimum 10 ft. greenspace along Joyce Street. The sidewalks shall be continuous through driveways. 6. Right-of-way dedication per the Master Street Plan and as shown on the proposed plat. 7. Widen Joyce street and provide a taper to the west as shown on the plat. This will • include approximately 110 feet of street widening from approximately 47 to 62 feet. The taper will extend approximately 180 feet to the west and replace the existing squared • • • Planning Commission Meeting September 8,1997 Page 3 corner. The applicant shall improve the drainage on Joyce street to current standards for the section across their frontage (approximately 280 feet). The City may elect to improve the drainage approximately 658 feet west to Mall Lane. 9. 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. 10. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. 11. 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. 12. A monument sign in lieu of a pole sign. 13. One additional full sized tree will be added to the east side of the property for a total of three trees. Ms. June Witty represented the applicant. Mr. Odom asked Ms Witty to discuss the Commercial Design Standards, signage, and the variance. Ms. Witty explained there were two driveways into the site. The driveway closest to Nelson Funeral Home had a 15' turn lane. The lane was wider than the standard 12' because there was not an adequate turning radius for a truck. They had added 3' to the lane to accommodate truck traffic into the site. Most of the deliveries for Circuit City would be by truck, which would enter the site at that location. She presented a perspective rendering of the building planned for the site. She explained the site would have two more landscaped islands than what was shown on • Planning Commission Meeting September 8,1997 Page 4 the rendering. She added the site had very bad soil. Their engineer had recommended no landscaping near the building. To compensate they had added three landscape islands in the parking lot. She noted they had exceeded the landscaping requirements. A row of cypress trees had been added to the back of the building for screening. Mr. Meisinger, Circuit City, stated the sign area was less than what was allowed by right. They normally had five tag signs along the front of the building describing their products. The signs had been eliminated for this store. The prototype entry tower was only one sided (the back was unfinished) because of the view from the mall, Hwy 71, and Wal -mart, Circuit city was going to finish the tower on all four sides and place a "Circuit City" sign on each side to complete the look of the tower. The tower would be constructed with a burgundy aluminum surfaced material. They had articulated the Dryvet exterior with score lines for shadow. They were using tan colors to blend with surrounding buildings. Because of the landscaping on the west and east sides the sides of the building would not be seen. The parapets had been raised an additional foot to screen all the roof top equipment. Ms. Johnson asked if the elevation drawings reflected the change in the height of the parapets. • Mr. Meisinger stated the elevation drawings did not reflect the change. The change would be reflected in the working drawings. • Ms. Witty stated they were planning a burgundy pylon sign with white letters. PUBLIC There was no public comment. In response to questions from Ms. Hoffman, Ms Witty stated both the landscaper and the soils engineer, recommended not to place any landscaping adjacent to the building. Circuit City had considered using planters and vines, but the engineer had recommended against it. Mr. Meisinger added the addition of water (irrigation and rain water) would cause the soil to shrink and swell, causing foundation problems. Ms. Johnson questioned the problems with the rain water. Mr. Meisinger replied a heavy rain could cause the soil to lift, thus causing foundation problems. Mr. Watkins asked if developer had considered elevated planters along the sides of the building. Ms. Witty stated they had consider raised planters, however, they were reluctant because of the • • • Planning Commission Meeting September 8,1997 Page 5 chance of leakage. She added two feet of soil would be removed from under the building. The building would be constructed on piers because of the soil conditions. In response to questions from Ms. Hoffman, Ms. Witty explained there was an underground drainage system which would drain the soils under the building and take the water away from the foundation. Mr. Meisinger added changes in the water or soil moisture could cause foundation problems. The water content needed to stay relatively stable throughout the year. The water was design to shed away from the building and flow into the underground storm sewer system. If rain water and seasons of drought were introduced then there would be a fluctuation in the amount of ground water adjacent to the building. The fluctuation could cause foundation problems. Mr. Tucker asked if they could add a watering system to avoid variation in moisture content. Mr. Meisinger replied a period of heavy rain could cause the soil to became saturated. In response to questions from Mr. Odom, Mr. Conklin explained the Commercial Design Standards prohibited large, out of scale signs with flashy colors. The Commission needed to decide if Circuit City's sign was appropriate. The location of the sign was on the southeast corner of the drive from Joyce Street. Mr. Reynolds asked the allowable size of a monument sign. Mr. Conklin replied a monument sign could be 75 square feet. The same as a pole sign. Mr. Meisinger stated Circuit City was wanting a pylon sign which was allowed by right. The sign would be 75 square feet, 30' high. Ms. Hoffman noted this location had views from all four sides and expressed concern about a pylon sign in addition to the signage on the four sides of the tower. Mr. Reynolds preferred a monument sign, because of the large tower with signage on all four sides. He suggested scaling the tower down. Mr. Forney suggested placing planting on the west property line on the opposite side of the parking lot. Ms. Johnson felt the addition of a free standing pole sign to the four signs on the tower, did not comply with the Commercial Design Standards. • • • Planning Commission Meeting September 8,1997 Page 6 Mr. Watkins added the design standards specifically listed the elements to be avoided or minimized were large amounts of signage. He felt the commission had the authority to regulate the signs, whether or not it complied with the sign ordinance. He expressed concern about the building being box -like, with unarticulated walls. He could not vote for the development stating this type of building was not permissible. Ms. Johnson stated she could not vote for the development because of the unarticulated walls and the pole sign. She added she might be able to vote for the development, if it did not have the pole sign. Mr. Meisinger replied they had presented a smaller sign on the building than they could have. They were allowed 150 square feet of signage by right. Circuit City was only requesting a 75 square foot sign. He stated he would agree to a monument sign. Mr. Odom felt the applicant had made an effort to comply with the Commercial Design Standards, but had fallen short. He felt the sides were to long and unarticulated. Mr. Reynolds questioned the number of parking spaces proposed. Ms. Warrick replied Circuit City met the required number of parking spaces plus an additional 20%. Mr. Reynolds suggested using a few of the parking spaces for plantings. Mr. Meisinger replied the store needed five parking spaces per 1,000 square foot of building. This estimate was based on their know projected sales, the number of customers, and the number of employees in the building. To go below a 5 to 1,000 ratio made if difficult for them to operate the store. He added Circuit City did not want customers parking in other parking lots to come to their store. Mr. Watkins commented he did not believe the building met the Commercial Design Standards. Ms. Hoffman suggested adding a landscape island on the east side. Mr. Meisinger replied there was a fence and a tree line along the east property line. He added there was an additional island near the front on the east side that was not shown in the rendering (the island was shown on the landscape plan). They would be willing to add landscaping to the east side, similar to the west side. MOTION Ms. Johnson moved to approve the item, grant the variance requested for a 15' truck entrance, • • • Planning Commission Meeting September 8,1997 Page 7 subject to conditions of approval. She added condition #12. The applicant will have a monument sign in lieu of a pole sign. #13- An additional full sized tree will be placed on the east side of the property for a total of three trees. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Mr. Conklin commented there was not a set standard for a monument sign. The Overlay District had a maximum height of 6'. Mr. Meisinger requested an 8' monument sign stating they needed room for a footing. The sign was 6'X12'. Mr. Odom asked the staff to work with the applicant on the height of the sign. The motion carried by a vote of 6-3-0. Watkins, Odom, and Tucker voting nay. Z$� • • • Planning Commission Meeting September 8,1997 Page 8 CU 97-12.00: CONDITIONAL USE (ANIMAL CARE CLINIC) DR. DONALD STANTON- 903 W. NORTH STREET Dr. Donald Stanton submitted a conditional use request to expand an existing veterinarian small animal outpatient clinic into an R-3 zoning district (Use Unit 25) for property located at 903 W. North Street. The site is zoned R -O, Residential Office, and R-3, High Density Residential. Recommendation: The staff recommends approval contingent upon the following: 1. Compliance with §160.195, Conditions governing applications of conditional uses; procedures, of the zoning code. 2. The site shall be developed in accordance with the site plan submitted as part of this application. 3. The Board of Adjustment granting approval of the variance request. 4. Compliance with Commercial Design Standards. Dr. Stanton, applicant, stated he had not reviewed the conditions of approval. Mr. Conklin stated the applicant would need to go before the Board of Adjustments on September 15. The Board will decided if the addition to the existing building should be granted to allowed the structure to be located on the front property line along North Street. The Planning Commission request was to decide if the expansion of this use was an appropriate for a use in an R-3 zoning district as a conditional use. Dr. Stanton stated they were going to use part of the expansion as a parking lot. PUBLIC There was no public comments. Ms Hoffman questioned if the expansion of the proposed parking lot met the city's requirements. Mr. Conklin replied the proposed parking lot was one space over the allowed seven. The plan showed eight spaces. He added one parking space would have to be removed or a waiver granted. Mr. Odom added the applicant had the right to request a variance for an additional space. • • • Planning Commission Meeting September 8,1997 Page 9 Ms. Johnson noted the site was difficult to build on. She did not believe the addition would adversely affect any of the surrounding neighbors. She was willing to support a parking lot waiver for one space, if the applicant requested one. MOTION Ms Johnson moved to approve the conditional use subject to the conditions of approval and to grant a waiver of an additional parking space to allow for a total of eight parking spaces. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. Mr. Reynolds asked if the parking lot would be paved. Mr. Conklin replied the parking lot would be paved in with concrete or asphalt. Mr. Forney expressed concerns about the drainage from the parking lot. Mr. Beavers stated he had not reviewed the drainage in the area. He added the drainage would be reviewed for a building permit. He added the applicant would have to hire an engineer to prepare a grading and drainage plan for the parking lot, because the lot had over five parking spaces. The motion carried by a vote of 9-0-0. 211 • Planning Commission Meeting September 8,1997 Page 10 VA 97 7.00: VACATION (DAVID H. KYLE III) DAVID KYLE III- ALLEY BETWEEN 21 E. PROSPECT AND 17 E. PROSPECT The alley vacation was requested by David H. Kyle III for the alley between 21 East Prospect and 17 East Prospect (pp 445). The alley is south of Prospect and west of North College. The request is to vacate the existing 15 ft. alley lying west of lots numbered 1 and 2 in Block 17 running adjacent to, and abutting lot 1 in Block 18 in A.L. Trent's revised plat of City Park Addition. The applicant has secured the required approval of the utility companies and the City including: SWEPCO, Arkansas Western Gas, SW Bell, TCA Cable, The City Water/Sewer, Streets and Solid Waste Divisions. Recommendation: Staff recommended approval of the alley vacation subject to the north 20 feet of the alley being retained as utility easement as requested by SWEPCO. Mr. David Kyle, applicant, stated he and his neighbor Rudy Devalt were wanting to split the • alley between them. He added the alley did not lead anywhere because the hillside dropped off into a building. • Ms. Johnson questioned what existed in the alley currently. Mr. Kyle replied the alley looked like part of their yard. He added his fence took in half of the alley. There was no paving or defined path. PUBLIC There was no public comment. Mr. Ward moved to approve the vacation. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. Mr. Reynolds commented he would like the City Council to look into closing the rest of the alley. The motion carried by a vote of 9-0-0. 0� • Planning Commission Meeting September 8,1997 Page 11 RZ97-11.00: REZONING (NEILL/MCKENZIE) BEVERLY JEANNE SKILLERN- BETWEEN SKILLERN RD & ROM ORCHARD RD. The request was to rezone 17.62 acres from A-1, Agricultural, to R-1, Single Family Residential. The request was submitted by Jim Neill and Milt McKenzie on behalf of Beverly Jeanne Skillern. The property is located between Skillern Road and Rom Orchard Road. Recommendation: the staff recommended approval of the requested R-1 zoning subject to a Bill of Assurance that had been offered by the applicant limiting the number of lots to 29 (1.65 units/acre), setting a minimum lot size of 13,000 square feet and preserving the 2.08 acre pond. Mr. Odom stated the annexation had been approved by the City Council. He asked the staff to answer questions regarding the sewer treatment plant being at capacity and other sewer issues. Mr. Beavers stated the City of Fayetteville had engaged a firm to conduct a master sewer study plan for the city. The study had located a site on the west side of town for a second treatment plant. The existing plant had a plant capacity of 17 million gallons per day. The permit capacity was 12 million gallon per day. The plant was nearing capacity. The new plant would be ready in 2001. He had no reason to believe there should be a moratorium on sewer connections. Mr. Odom asked about the sewer line problems. Mr. Beavers explained the city had been placed under an administrative order to eliminate overflows. The city had spent between 18 and 20 million dollars to reduce overflows, however, there were still overflows. The Old Wire Road lift station occasionally overflowed due to infiltrations, such as rain water getting into lines. The city would advertise for a contract this fall for sewer rehab in that basin mainly around Root School which would reduce infiltration. It was the staff's opinion that any residential development in the area would be off set by the rehabilitation of the lines that were planned for this fall. Mr. Reynolds asked the number of subdivisions on the east part of Fayetteville that had been approved, but had not started construction. Mr. Beavers could not think of any developments on the east side. Most of the new developments were on the west side Mr. Odom questioned the traffic problems. Mr. Conklin stated he had spoken with Perry Franklin, Traffic Superintendent, about the capacity on Skillern Road. Mr. Franklin had gone on site to review the sight distance for the entry. The entry met the engineering standard for sight distance. The entrance was located in the middle �1\ • • • Planning Commission Meeting September 8,1997 Page 12 accessing Skillern Road. Mr. Franklin had conducted a traffic count at the intersection of Old Wire and Skillern Road. 1,254 cars were counted in a 24 hour period. A local residential street was designed to handle for 4,000 cars per day. This subdivision, with the bill of assurance for 29 units would add approximately 277 vehicles to the road per day. It was Mr. Franklin's opinion the subdivision would not significantly increase traffic on the road and was not an issue in the rezoning of the property from A-1 to R-1. Mr. Mel Milholland stated the developer was offering a bill of assurance for 1.65 units per acre. The homes would be upscale and similar to the surrounding homes. The developer felt the request was the highest and best use of the land. The development would bring into the city quality development and would extended the utilities for future developments. Mr. Tucker asked which school district this development would be under. Mr. Milholland thought it was in the Vandergriff school district, he noted there were plans to expand the middle school in the district. PUBLIC. Ms. Nina Luther, an area resident, expressed her disappointment that the land had never been placed on the open market so the adjacent neighbors would have had an opportunity to make an offer. She stated the neighbors would like to preserve their quality of life by keeping the surrounding properties as homes on acreage. She felt the new development would break up the continuity of the neighborhood. Mr. J. C. Lancaster, 3076 N. Lancaster Lane, stated they had presented signatures against the annexation and rezoning of this property to both City Council and Planning Commission. He expressed his frustration that the public did not have a chance to speak at the City Council meeting on the annexation. He added his property of 10 acres would be placed under a conservation easement. The land would never be divided for less than three acres per single family dwelling. He suggested it would be more in keeping with the neighborhood if the property was zoned RE, Residential Estate, two acres per single family residence. This zoning would allow integration with the community. He read a letter from another residence, Colleen Gaston, expressing her opposition to the rezoning. Mr. Kyle Baltz, an area resident, asked for a new traffic count. He did not believe the estimate was accurate He noted the sewer overflowed often in the area. He added none of the current owners had the intention of dividing their land. He did not believe the new development would match the surrounding homes. Mr. Roy Rom, an area resident, stated his land would not be developed, it was being placed in • • Planning Commission Meeting September 8,1997 Page 13 the Ozark Land Trust. He noted the neighborhood was well diversified and had character. He did not believe this development was the best use of the land. He felt the developer would be abusing the land by coving over 20% of the land in concrete. He did not believe the new development would have character. He distributed a map illustrating the density of the proposed development in relation to the surrounding neighborhood. He added the neighbors were not anti - development, but they were requesting a lesser density, such as RE. He believed the housing market was saturated. He distributed a survey of the homes available for sale in the surrounding neighborhood. He felt the addition of 29 homes on the property would diminish the scenic character and neighborhood quality. He did not believe R-1 development would be beneficial for the neighborhood. Mr. Al Baltz, an area resident, presented a map of neighborhood and the people who had signed the petition, to illustrate the density in the surrounding neighborhood. He noted there was only one lot that connect the property to Savanna. Susan Brisiel, an area resident, stated she was the secretary at Vandergriff Elementary school where all the children would attend. The school was presently the largest elementary school in Fayetteville. They had grown faster than what had been planned. The school had to convert art rooms into class rooms. Several grades were within one person of being max out, which would mean the kids could not attend Vandergriff. They would have to attend another school. Mr. Tom McKenny, Arkansas Sierra Club, stated the neighbors had been done an injustice at the last City Council meeting because they were not allowed to speak. He asked the Commission to deny the rezoning. Mr. Greg Galbrith, Ozark Regional Land Trust, stated he had spoken with several of the surrounding land owners. He was not opposing development, but asked if conservation had been considered. He added an R-1 development would be in conflict with the existing neighborhood. Some of the neighbors had inquired about placing their land in a conservation trust which would limit the development on the land. He also felt the RE zoning would be more in keeping with the surrounding properties. Mr. Mike Roetezel, an area resident, stated the entry to Savanna had become crowed and was on a blind curve. He expressed concern about safety with the addition of another entry across from their. He also expressed concern about the lots being less than half an acre with small homes being built on the them. He stated he was not opposed to development on the property, but he would like the development to be less dense. He noted there was a trend to place small housing developments near larger housing developments. • Mr. Watkins stated he would be voting against the rezoning because the development would be inconsistent with the surrounding area. The R-1 developments in the area were on the opposite 203 • Planning Commission Meeting September 8,1997 Page 14 side of Skillern Road, which was a natural dividing line. He noted there were other zonings that would be more appropriate. Mr. Tucker stated he would also be voting against the rezoning. He did not believe the developer would be in the surrounding neighborhood or schools best interest. He added the housing market was not there. He agreed that Skillern Road was a natural boundary between near by R-1 zoning. Mr. Milholland stated the housing market was based on the job market. The developer had invested time and money investigating the development and the need for it. He felt there was a need for 2,800-3,500 square foot homes Mr. Forney noted other classifications for larger lots. He asked how many of those zoning were in Fayetteville. Mr. Conklin stated the city had one area of RA. There were no properties zoned RE or RL. Mr. Fomey felt one of the other zonings would be more appropriate. He questioned the use of • the land in the 2020 plan. • Mr. Conklin stated the land use plan did not tie the use and zoning together. The land use plan encouraged the mixing of residential type uses. The area was marked residential. Mr. Forney stated he usually argued for density because of the cost of infrastructure, but he was questioning where the appropriate places for RE and RL zoning were. Ms. Hoffman stated she was in favor of the annexation of the property, to avoid a subdivision developed under county standards with septic tanks and substandard roads. She believed this density was several years ahead of its time. She would not be supporting the R-1 zoning. She would consider larger lots. Mr. Melholland stated R-1 allowed four Tots per acre They were offering a bill of assurance for less than two homes per acre. Ms. Hoffman replied she believed the proposal was still too high in density for the character of the surrounding neighborhood. She was concerned about the pond area and the size of the lots. The average of units per acre was figured for the total acreage for the entire lot. It did not take into account the two acre pond and the roads. The lots would be smaller than a half of acre She noted the smallest lot was 1/3 of an acre. The largest lot was %z of acre. MOTION • • • Planning Commission Meeting September 8,1997 Page 15 Mr. Watkins moved to deny the rezoning request. Mr. Tucker seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 6-3-0. Reynolds, Ward, and Johnson voting nay.