Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-11-10 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held November 10, 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, John Watkins, Gary Tucker, Lorel Hoffman, John Forney, and Bob Reynolds. STAFF PRESENT: Alett Little, Jim Beavers, Tim Conklin, Dawn Warrick, and Heather Woodruff. ITEMS REVIEWED: ACTION TAKEN 1. Ad 97-13.00: Blockbuster Right-of-way Fwd to City Council 2. AD 97-16.00: Crystal Springs Phase II MSP Approved 3. LS 97-32.00: Wayne Keller Fwd to City Council 4. LSD 97-14.00: Dollar General Approved 5. LSD 97-15.00: North Park Place Phase II Denied 6. CU 97-15.00: Richard Mayes Auto Approved 7. RZ 97-22.00: Shahryar Khajehnajafi Denied 8. RZ 97-23.00: Shahryar Khajehnajafi Denied APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Minutes were approved as distributed. AD 97-13 00• ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM (BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO RIGHT-OF-WAY) VAN STAVERN- N. OF HWY 62. W. OF SANG & S. OF OLD FARMINGTON RD. The administrative item was submitted by Jim Barnes on behalf of Van Stavem for property located north of Hwy 62, west of Sang and south of Old Farmington Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The request is to reduce the right-of-way dedication from 55' to 45' on the north side of Hwy 62. Ms. Little presented a fax signed by Bob Van Stavem. An amended agreement had been reach. She explained the applicant was willing to dedicate 5' of additional right-of-way along the entire length of the property, with the exception of the Blockbuster lot which would dedicate 15' of right-of-way. The staff supported the applicants request. Mr. Barnes stated the Blockbuster lot (less than 10% of the parent tract) would meet the right-of- way standard. Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1997 Page 2 There was no public comment. MOTION Mr. Odom moved to approve the agreement between the staff and the landowner for the right-of- way variance. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 7-0-0. • • • Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1997 Page 3 AD 97-16.00: ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM (CRYSTAL SPRINGS PHASE II, MASTER STREET PLAN RECONSIDERATION) JED DEVELOPMENT. INC: E. OF SALEM RD. & N. OF MT. COMFORT RD. The administrative item was submitted by Michele Harrington on behalf of JED Development, Inc. For property located east of Salem Road and north of Mt. Comfort Road The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains 35.32 acres. The request is for consideration of a Preliminary Plat revision to accommodate the adopted Master Street Plan. This subdivision was approved on January 23, 1995, prior to the adoption of the Master Street Plan. Ms. Little stated when reviewing the approved subdivision, it was discover the plan was not in compliance with the Master Street Plan. The subdivision had been approved before the Master Street Plan had been adopted. In order to bring the subdivision into compliance the staff had requested the stub out to the north be replaced with a connection to Mount Comfort Road Ms. Mickey Harrington, representative, stated the developer was happy to connect the street. There was no public comment. Mr. Reynolds asked when the connection to Dean Soloman Road would be made. Ms. Little replied the connection had been a requirement for Phase II. She noted the city would have to cooperate in the extension because the street would have to cross their property. Ms. Harrington stated the developer had acquired the land necessary for access to the city's land. The road would be constructed within this phase, before another phase was started. Ms Little noted this subdivision was providing two Master Street Plan connections. MOTION Mr. Odom moved to approve the item. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 7-0-0. • Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1997 Page 4 LS 97-32.00: LOT SPLIT (WAYNE KELLER) WAYNE KELLER-3 NORTH DUNCAN AVENUE. The lot split was submitted by Richard Alexander of Alexander & Gregory, P.L.L.C. on behalf of Wayne Keller for property located at 3 North Duncan Avenue. The property is zoned R-3, High Density Residential, and contains approximately .28 acres. This is the first lot split for the property. The request is to create two tracts. 0.97 acres and 0.180 acres. Findings: This item was heard at the 10/7/97 Technical Plat Review meeting and at the October 30, 1997 Subdivision Committee Meeting. The main points of discussion centered around the requirement for right-of-way dedication per the Master Street Plan. Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of this request due to the non -conformities which would be created if approved. 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 representative -AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, and TCA Cable). • 2. All improvements shall comply with the 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. 4. Dedication of right-of-way in accordance with the Master Street Plan to include a total of 35' from centerline along Center Street, with the exception of the existing house (no portion of the home would be located in the right-of-way). 5. Dedication of a private easement, exclusive of the general utility easement, to provide for the water service between Parcel 1 and parcel 2. A new water meter on Center Street may be required. Mr. Richard Alexander, representative, stated the applicant had suggested an irregular shaped lot with 6,000 square feet, however, he had been advised by the staff to appeal to the Board of Adjustments for a variance from the minimum lot square footage. The staff had recommended approval of the lot split to the Board of Adjustments. In response to suggestions made by the Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1997 Page 5 Board of Adjustments the property line had been moved to the west to allow room for parking on both lots. He added the issue of the right-of-way dedication had been addressed at the Board of Adjustments. They had considered a letter from the Engineering Department discussing the need for the additional right-of-way. The Board had not required the dedication of additional right-of- way. He noted the additional right-of-way would run through the applicant's living room. He asked the Planning Commission to grant a waiver from the required right-of-way dedication due to undo hardships and practical difficulty. He noted the applicant was not refusing to cooperate with the city, but if the city were to widen Center Street, a portion of his home could be taken without compensation. He reiterated the structures were existing, the applicant was not requesting any changes. There was no public comment. Ms. Hoffman noted a non -conforming lot would be created. She did believe the city should waive the right-of-way requirement. She would be voting to deny the request. Mr. Watkins asked why the staff had changed their recommendation from approval to denial. Mr. Conklin explained the staff had not recommended approval of the lot split. The Board of Adjustment's approval of the lot size had been contingent upon the Planning Commission's approval of the lot split. The Board had not addressed the right-of-way issue because they had no knowledge of the dedication requirement. He reiterated at no time did the staff recommend approval of the lot split. He noted the Board had suggested moving the property line to add enough room for parking to Parcel 1. The eleven space parking lot was used primarily by the home on Parcel 1 (the parking lot would be located on Parcel 2). He added after the comments from Technical Plat Review had been considered the recommendation for denial had been made. Ms. Little added the more the staff had dealt with the project the more information had been brought forward. During the review process nothing had encourage the city staff to recommend approval. She preferred her staff to be helpful, even though it might require several meetings with different boards. The staff's advise and guidance were to inform the applicant how a project could be accomplished. She noted the staff did not speak for the City Council, Planning Commission or the Board of Adjustments. Mr. Watkins stated the setback problems would continue to exist whether or not the lot was split. Ms. Little agreed with Mr. Watkins. She added the lot barely met setbacks as it currently existed. The city would benefit from taking the right-of-way because they would not have to purchase it when the street was widened. She noted both of the structures had been constructed as one unit. She believed very little would be gained by the splitting of this lot. �3� • Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1997 Page 6 Mr. Watkins noted the same problems existed throughout the neighborhood. He did not believe the creation of a non -conforming lot was a good reason to deny the lot split. Ms. Johnson suggested the city take an irregular shaped right-of-way. She asked if the city could take the normal required right-of-way along the entire length of Center Street with the exception of the applicant's home. Ms. Little stated the property would be devalued if the right-of-way was dedicated. The setbacks would then run through the house. If the structure were to be destroyed, a variance would be required for it be reconstructed. Mr. Watkins noted the existing lot was non -conforming. Ms. Little agreed a portion of the living room was currently in the setback. Ms. Johnson asked if the existing lot could accommodate the right-of-way and building setback and still allow room for new building construction. • Ms. Little replied the building would have to be very narrow, however, she noted the problems would be greater with two small lots. • Mr. Watkins did not believe the lot split would change anything. Mr. Alexander stated the Board of Adjustments had approved the lot size variance after considering right-of-way requirements (a letter from Engineering), setbacks, utility easements and square footage of the lots. Mr. Conklin responded the Engineering Memo had not been addressed to the Board of Adjustments nor had they received the memo. Mr. Alexander stated the memo had been in the information sent to him. Mr. Conklin replied the information sent to him had been from the Technical Plat Review meeting. Mr. Alexander stated the Board of Adjustments had used it in their consideration. Ms. Little explained after the Board of Adjustments had approved the square footage of the lots. The lot split request had been forwarded through the city to all of the divisions. Each division had made their own comments. After reviewing comments from each department, the staff had decided to recommended against the lot split for various reasons, not just the right-of-way. Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1997 Page 7 Mr. Forney asked if the 35' right-of-way request was for a collector street. Ms. Little stated the right-of-way was for a collector street. The staff had no flexibility on the right-of-way requirement because it was for a Master Street Plan street. However, the Planning Commission could recommend a variance from the required right-of-way, but the City Council would have to make the final decision. Mr. Forney noted the two different setback requirements on the lots. Ms. Little explained Parcel 2 would have frontage on both Duncan and Center Street, which would required two 25' front set backs and two side setbacks. Parcel 1 would only have frontage on Center Street. Ms. Johnson believed the street would be an important collector in Fayetteville, because it provided access to the university, the high school, and Walton Area She noted the dangerous intersection at Duncan and Center. She felt the city would have to widen the street in the future. She felt the Planning Commission would help the city by allowing the lot split and taking right- of-way. MOTION Ms Johnson moved to approve the lot split subject to the staff conditions of approval. Changing condition # 4. 35' of right-of-way, from the center line, along Center Street would be required with the exception the house on Parcel 2. The right-of-way would narrow so no portion of the house was taken into the street right-of-way. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. In response to questions from Mr. Tucker, Ms. Little explained the eleven parking spaces on Lot 1 serviced the apartments in the house on Lot 2. The parking for the house would be split off from the house, if the lot split were approved. In response to questions from Ms. Little, Mr. Alexander stated there were three apartments with seven bedrooms in the house. The garage unit had one bedroom. He stated the owner had offered a parking easement to the Board of Adjustments. Rather than an easement, the Board had requested the property line be moved to allow enough room for new parking if it were needed. The owner had ceded to their request. Ms. Johnson noted the majority of the parking would be located in the right-of-way if the lot split were approved. She noted the city would not be responsible for lost parking, if the street were widened. • • • Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1997 Page 8 Mr. Tucker expressed concern about the parking being on two separate parcels. Mr. Alexander replied the applicant was willing to grant a parking easement to the other lot. Mr. Forney asked if the Planning Commission had to power to grant variance for the setbacks. Ms. Little explained the Board of Adjustments had the ability to grant variances. She explained by changing the property line and adding to right-of-way, the setbacks would be changed. Mr. Forney noted a large portion of the home would be non -conforming and in the setback. He asked if the applicant would be able to reconstruct the building if the home were destroyed. Ms. Little explained the applicant would have to go before the Board of Adjustments before he would be allowed to reconstruct. The Board could grant a variance to rebuild in the current set backs. Mr. Watkins asked if the lot split were approved would the applicant have to go before the Board of Adjustments again. Ms. Little replied the structure would be considered non -conforming. She explained any structure could remain non -conforming as long as it was not enlarged. She added the Board of Adjustments had not considered the right-of-way issue. They had discussed the square footage of the total lot size preserving 60' of frontage. Mr. Forney asked Ms. Johnson if she wished to restrict the density in her motion. Mr. Alexander stated limiting the number of units had been a condition of the Board of Adjustments. Mr. Conklin clarified the Board of Adjustments had included in their motion that the number of units could not be increased. Ms. Johnson stated she would add the density restriction to her motion. The motion carried by a vote of 4-3-0. Hoffman, Forney, and Reynolds voting nay. 3'\ • Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1997 Page 9 LSD 97 14.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (DOLLAR GENERAL) RICHARD SRYGLEY-W. OF SCHOOL AVE. S. OF 15TH ST. & E. OF WEST AVE. The large scale development was submitted by Northwest Engineers for property located west of South School, east of West Avenue and south of 15th Street. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 0 93 acres. Findings: This project was postponed from the October 27, 1997 meeting to allow the applicant to provide the requested material for signage and design standard review. The project is located immediately southeast of an existing laundry on West Avenue, south of 15th Street. Compliance with commercial deign standards, review of the building elevations and signage require further discussion. Recommendation: Approval subject to the following conditions of approval: Conditions of Approval: • 1. Planning Commission determination of compliance with the City's Commercial Design Standards. 2. Signage must be reduced by 66% of the size allowed by the City's Sign Ordinance (maximum of 50 square feet of surface area). 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). 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 5. Fire protection to meet the Fire Chiefs requirements This will include a new hydrant as requested by Chief Jackson. • 6. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards and as noted at plat review. This includes a minimum 6 ft. sidewalk with a minimum 10 ft. greenspace along 15th 3` P- Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1997 Page 10 Street and a 6 foot sidewalk with a minimum 6 ft. greenspace along West Avenue (not 4 ft. greenspace as shown on the proposal). The sidewalks shall be continuous through driveways. 7. Right-of-way dedication per the Master Street Plan and as necessary for sidewalk compliance. 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. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. 10. 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. I I. The trees shown in the north elevation must be incooperated into the landscape plan and the Landscape Administrator must approve the plan. Ms. Little stated there had been concern voiced about the south elevation at the agenda session. The applicant had revised their elevations and would be presenting new ones for the Commission's consideration. Mr. Odom asked if the applicant wanted to pull the item from the agenda (he had allowed the item to the placed back on the agenda after it had been removed at the agenda session.) Ms. Little stated the drawings had been revised since agenda session. Mr. Watkins objected to putting the item back on the agenda. The Commissioners had not had time to review the material or to think about. He added the purpose of the agenda session was to give the Commissioners time to consider the information. None of them had time to look at the information. Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1997 Page 11 Mr. Jeff Palmer, development representative, explained he had misunderstood the purpose of the rear elevation and the deadline. Mr. Odom asked if the applicant wanted to pull the item to give the commissioners time to consider the material. Mr. Palmer replied he wished to go forward. Mr. Odom asked if the Commissioners wanted to consider the item tonight. Ms. Johnson felt the Commission could make poor decisions by rushing into a decision. In response to comments from Mr. Tucker, Ms. Little stated the applicant had not resubmitted the required information from the last Subdivision meeting. Mr. Reynolds stated the staff had never received the requested information. Ms. Ho man asked when the next meeting was, if the Planning Commission decided not to hear the item tonight. Ms. Little the earliest agenda the applicant could get on was December 8. Mr. Forney asked if the south elevation could be seen from a public way. Ms. Little replied the lot to the south was vacant with Salvation Drive to the south. She noted there had been a similar situation on Township. The Commission had used the same criteria for determining the need for additional elevations. Mr. Odom allowed the item to remain on the agenda. There was no public comment. Mr. Rick Shrugley, property owner, stated he had been trying to construct this store since early spring. There had been number of problems. Dollar General was wanting to open a store in February. He had constructed two other stores, one in Farmington and one in Bentonville. He explained Dollar General was a low end retail store which had been very beneficial to the lower income public. There was no public comment. Ms. Hoffman stated the discussion at the agenda session had centered on the square box -like 3`v Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1997 Page 12 structure of the building. She felt the building fell short of meeting the Commercial Design Standards. Mr. Watkins agreed with Ms. Hoffman. He noted the building was metal with a large free standing sign. He did not believe the building met the Commercial Design Standards. Mr. Tucker also believed the building fell short of meeting the Commercial Design Standards. Mr. Forney stated he would be voting to approve the project. He felt the developer had tried to comply with the spirit of the Commercial Design Standards. The applicant had made efforts to improve the appearance of the building. He noted 95% of the buildings in Fayetteville were rectangle, which was the most efficient an effective way to build. Mr. Reynolds asked if the east elevation would be the same as the west elevation. Mr. Kurt Jones stated the east elevation would be identical to the west elevation. The "Dollar General" sign would be attached to the covered walkway. There would also be a free standing sign. Mr. Forney asked if the trees on the elevation had been shown on the plan. Mr. Jones stated the landscape plan had been revised to reflect the trees shown in the elevation. Mr. Watkins stated the Commission needed to apply the Commercial Design Standards which stated square box -like structures were to be avoided or minimized. He felt the Commission should deny the project because it did not comply with the ordinance. Mr. Forney agreed that the ordinance should be followed, however, the Commission needed to be careful about being to literal. He felt the applicant had attempted to articulate the building in a manner appropriate for its type, location, and socioeconomic clientele. He stated the Commission needed to be careful not to make Fayetteville, one socioeconomic level. He added if the property values were raise too much some populations would be forced out of town. He felt the development would be providing an important service to the entire population of Fayetteville. Mr. Odom stated the project met most the provisions of the Commercial Design Standard ordinance. He felt the sign was out of proportion with the building. Mr. Reynolds felt the building was more articulated than the one in Farmington. He liked the shutters and the developer's attempts to improved the building. Mr. Jones stated the sign on the front of the building met the sign ordinance. 5y5 • • Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1997 Page 13 Ms. Johnson suggested to the developer to reduce the size of the signage in order to comply with the Commercial Design Standards. Mr. Watkins stated the Commission could not ignore one of the conditions in the Commercial Design Standards because the applicant had met the rest of the requirements. He stated the Commission had an obligation to apply the ordinance. Because this development was a low end retail store did not excuse it from the Commercial Design Standards. Mr. Reynold asked if the landscaping met the city's requirements noting the pavement went up to the building. Mr. Jones stated the landscape plans had been revised to match the rendered elevations. Some additional plantings had been added to the front of the building. Ms. Little explained there was a 15' landscaped area requirement along a public street front. That area was reducible to 5' with additional landscaping. The required landscaping had been provided. The internal landscaping requirements had also been met. She noted there was not a requirement for landscaping between the drive and the building in either the Commercial Design Standards or the Parking Lot Standards. Mr. Watkins disagreed. He noted the Commission had considered using landscaping along structures in the past to articulate the building. Ms. Little explained she had answered Mr. Reynolds' question from the perspective of the requirements for landscaping. There were no ordinances requiring landscaping to be placed next to buildings. (There was no prohibition against using it.) She added the Planning Staff often recommended additional landscaping was an option to developers. MOTION Mr. Fomey moved to approve the large scale development with all the staff conditions of approval, including the compliance with the Commercial Design Standards. He proposed the free standing signage in condition #2 be reduced to 66% of the size allowed by the city's sign ordinance (limited to 50 square feet of surface feet). The height would be according to the city sign ordinance. He added condition #11, that the trees shown on the north elevation be incorporated into the landscape plan. Mr. Reynolds suggested condition #12, the landscape plan to be approved by the city staff. • Mr. Forney agreed the landscaping needed to be reflected in a plan. 3y� • • • Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1997 Page 14 Ms. Little stated the revised landscape plan had been submitted to the Landscape Administrator. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Ms. Hoffman stated she could not support the development because of the Commercial Design Standards. She did not feel the Commercial Design Standards had been uniformly applied on this building verses other buildings that had come before the Planning Commission. Ms. Johnson stated she was considering supporting the motion because the front of the building had more articulation than a lot of the other buildings that had been before the Commission. She did not believe the drawing help the applicant, because it did not show the three dimensional elements on the building. However, she felt the sign on the front of the building was large and out of scale with the rest of the building. If the sign were to stay the same size she would be voting against the project. Mr. Jones stated the developer was willing to reduce the size of the size by 25%. Ms. Johnson moved to amend the motion to include condition #13 which would limit the length of the sign to two-thirds of the length of the proposed sign. The height of the sign could remain 5'. Mr. Forney and Mr. Reynolds agreed to the amendment. Ms. Johnson asked why there was a "Tract B" on the plat. Ms. Little explained the project had been submitted as three separate tracts of land. The staff had done a lot split to clean up illegal lot splits She thought the "Tract B" was a carry over from previous legal descriptions. Mr. Jones explained "Tract B" was a carry over from a deed. The legal descriptions had been taken from three deeds which referenced lots A and B. Mr. Tucker asked if the staff had considered a cross access to the east. Ms. Little stated the staff had considered cross access to the south. The staff had determined West Street was not a high traffic volume street, therefore cross access was not as important. She added the staff had felt the site had adequate access from two street. The staff had failed to consider cross access to the east, because the site to the east was residential. However, since this application had been filed, the site to the east had been purchased and was in the process of being cleared for redevelopment. She noted there were areas where cross access would be feasible. She suggested a cross access either at the northeast property line where there were two 9X9 3‘kl • • • Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1997 Page 15 parking spaces or a drive in front of the dumpster pad running to the east for cross access. In response to questions from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Little stated the property to the east was not going to remain as a residential use. The property had sold and the residential structures were being torn down. She noted the property was zoned commercial. Mr. Watkins objected to hearing the project because of the late submittal. He felt it could lead to bad decisions. Ms. Johnson stated cross access needed to be addressed before the motion was voted on. Mr. Reynolds noted the distance from 15th Street to Salvation Street was less than a half of a city block. Mr. Forney stated the lot was very accessible because it had frontage on two streets. West Street was not a traffic problem because it was not a through street. She noted there was a potential for cross access to the east. He asked if the two 9X9 parking spaces were required to meet the parking requirement. Ms. Little replied the two spaces were required. She thought the southern most connection was the most reasonable place to locate a cross access. The staff tried to encourage developers to bring the building as close to the right-of-way as possible, within 25' from the right-of-way. This developer had chosen not to located that close to the street. The staff would encourage the adjacent lot to bring their building up to 25' of the right-of-way. The southern connection would be close to the Salvation Street. The dept of the property was 275'. Based on the location of this development, she would suggest the cross access be located to the south. If they were to use the two parking spaces as cross access it would be within 80' of the stop light. Mr. Forney stated he would not amend his motion to include the cross access. He did not believe there was a need for cross access. The motion carried by a 4-3-0 vote. Watkins, Tucker, and Hoffman voting nay. Mr. Watkins asked for the Commercial Design Standards to be added to the joint meeting with the City Council. He did not believe the Planning Commission was applying the Commercial Design Standards and the City Council needed to be aware of it. 3a� Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1997 Page 16 LSD 97-15.00 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (NORTH PARK PLACE, PHASE II) SMITH -BROOKS - 3380 N WIMBERLY. S OF FUTRALL DR & E OF WIMBERLY DR. The large scale development was submitted by Milholland Engineering on behalf of Smith - Brooks Investments for property located south of Futrall Drive and east of Wimberly Drive, at 3380 N. Wimberly Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approx. 1.82 acres. Findings: This project was tabled at the 7/17/97 SC due to the need for additional information from the applicant and some revisions to the plat. Sidewalks which had been requested to be waived have been added to the plat per City requirements. A letter from the North Hills Arch. Review Committee has been received. Cross access to the east has been provided. This project was tabled at the 10/16/97 SC. Additional information was requested concerning parking space sizes, cross accesses with adjacent properties, accurate elevation drawings, detailed information on overhead utilities on site, greenspace calculations and reorientation of the vicinity map on the project plat. At the 10/30/97 SC meeting the project was reviewed and forwarded to the full Planning Commission with the recommendation by the committee that the overhead electric line be buried the full length of the property line and to allow the waiver for the greenspace reduction for parking lot setback. Recommendation: Approval subject to the following conditions of approval: 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 - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, TCA Cable) 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. 4. Dedication of right of way per the MSP as shown on plat. • Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1997 Page 17 5. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a 6' sidewalk with 6' landscaping along Wimberly Drive (area where sidewalk is adjacent to curb has been approved by Sidewalk & Trails Coordinator and Landscape Administrator), and a 6' sidewalk with 10' landscaping along Futrall Drive. 6. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year 7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. Separate easement plat for this project c. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by § 159.34 "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. 8. Compliance with Commercial Design Standards. • 9. Placing all utilities, including the overhead electric line(s) underground the full length of the property plus the length required to function. • 10. Applicant is requesting a setback reduction along both frontages (reducing setback for parking lot to 5'). 11. Resolution of parking calculations in regard to proposed use(s) of the structure. 12. The owner must provide to the City an agreement or acknowledgment that the City's rights to utilize the water, sewer, drainage and utilities easements are such that if the City must repair or maintain any public water, sewer or drainage then the City is obligated only to replace or repair asphalt, concrete or grass and that all replacement of retaining walls, rails, landscaping or other specialty items will be at the owner's expense. Mr. Mel Milholland and Danny Smith represented the item. Mr. Milholland concurred with all the conditions of approval with the exception of the burial of the overhead power lines. He stated the ordinance exempted transmission lines over 34 KV and above. The definition of a major main or minor main was not relative to the voltage, but the amperage. The amperage braking point between the two line was 600 amps. A major main was 601 amps up to 1200 amps. A minor lie was up to 600 amps. A major line came from the east of the Southwest corner of CMN Park and ran to the bypass. The line was not over 34 KV, but was considered to be a major line. • • • • Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1997 Page 18 Ms. Little clarified a minor line carried less than 600 amps and voltage, which was not a problem to place underground, but the major line was difficult to place underground. Mr. Milholland explained the 1200 amp class circuit carried anything from 601 to 1200 amp, which was considered a Major line. 601 amps was the braking point. The overhead line east of the building was considered a minor. He asked the commissioners to consider the intention of the ordinance which was beautification. Installing the major line underground would create the need for two large boxes which would be more visible than the three overhead poles. He explained each overhead line had life expectancy of 30 years. This overhead line had been install in 1991. There would be $17,000 lost if the line were required to be placed underground. He suggested installing the line at one time when all the land had developed. The developer would be willing to contribute to the cost of the relocation. Ms. Little stated the purpose of the ordinance was to protect property values, enhance appearance of new developments (beautification). It would reduce the amount of tree pruning and removal and it would provide safe and reliable utility service. She added the applicant had provided information on the cost of placing the lines underground. There were two separate estimates. $74,297 was the estimate to install the major transmission line underground. The $21,000 estimate was for the minor line. The applicant did not object to the cost of installing the minor line underground. The applicant was requesting a waiver from the major line ($74,297). There was no public comment. Ms. Hoffman asked why the applicant was having to cross the street and run onto the adjacent property. She asked why the line could not be buried up to the property line. Mr. Dennis Burrack, SWEPCO, stated in order to dead-end the conductor on this piece of property, rather than crossing the road, the existing structure would have to guided back. The pole would have approximately 10,000 pounds of tension and would have to be guided down. The guide wires would run into the parking lot approximately 30-35 feet. Rather than adding another structure to dead-end the line on the applicant's property, the same amount of money could extend the underground line to the north and up the existing pole. There was no reason to place the extra structure on the applicant's site. Mr. Tucker asked if there was an opportunity for cost sharing. Ms. Little thought there was only one remaining tract of land which was owned by the Brewers. Mr. Watkins asked if the developer would be willing to contribute a proportional share to the relocation of the line. I • • Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1997 Page 19 Mr. Danny Smith, applicant, stated he would be willing to contribute his share for the installation of the line. Ms. Little stated the city would take cash or a letter of credit. She added the contribution could be a condition of the Large Scale Development approval. The city would have to rely on SWEPCO for the estimate, because the city did not have an electrical engineer. The city would require a cash contribution or a letter of credit equal to 150% of the estimate. The cash would go into an escrow account. If the contribution was a letter of credit, it would be checked 3 months before expiration and then extended until the work was accomplished. In response to comments from Mr. Tucker, Mr. Watkins stated the line had been drawn in the ordinance as the cut off for placing the line underground. This line did not meet the city's definition. Mr. Milholland stated the developer was not requesting an exemption, he was asking the Commission to consider a letter of credit for a portion of the line installation. Mr. Watkins stated he had no problems with this building meeting the Commercial Design Standards. However, he did have a problem with not seeing this project until tonight. He requested all drawing regarding Commercial Design Standards be available at the agenda session or the item not be placed on the Planning Commission agenda. Ms. Little stated the elevations had been presented at an earlier Subdivision. A separate rear elevation had been requested. The applicant had not provided additional copies when he resubmitted. The whole package had never been presented at one time. The applicant had misunderstood the deadline and the number of copies required. Mr. Odom stated no item should be placed on the Planning Commission agenda, unless all the required materials were presented at the agenda session. Ms. Little stated she would only take information from one point of contact, to avoid future problems. Mr. Reynolds stated the subdivision Committee had rejected the project because there needed to be additional information. The item had been tabled at the second Subdivision meeting because the applicant had not supplied the requested information. If the Commission was going to hear an item all the information needed to be submitted on time for the Commissioners to review. Ms. Little replied she would make it clear to the applicants that all the information would have to • be provided or they would not be placed on the agenda. • Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1997 Page 20 Mr. Forney questioned the waivers requested. He asked why the development had been exempted from the Overlay District. Ms. Little referred to a letter dated May 27, 1997. She explained this tract of land was not a part of CMN Business Park, although it was on the same side of the street and appeared to be apart of CMN Business park (which had been exempted from the provisions of Overlay District.) The lot was in North Hills Medical Park, which had private covenants. The original covenants for North Hills required all parking lots to be set back 25'. When she had written the letter, she was unaware that there had been an amendment to the covenants which reduced the setback from 25' to 15'. She noted the Commercial Design Standards still applied. North Hills review committee had approved a reduction for the parking lot setback from 15' to 5', pending the City's approval. She added the City required the parking lot setback to be 15' however, there was an option to reduce the setback to 5' with additional landscaping. She added the Landscape Administrator had recommended the reduction of the setback with the addition of a landscaped berm. Ms. Hoffman questioned the standard parking lot setback for the other developments along this street. • Ms. Little replied to the west in Park Hills the setback was 25'. To the north, Colliers and a bank, the setback had been reduced to 5'. Mr. Watkins questioned the number of parking spaces and the calculation of those spaces. He noted if the building were to develop with significantly more sales space than office spaces, then there would not be enough parking. Ms. Little explained if the building was regarded to have office space with sales associated with it, the required parking would be 110 parking spaces rather than 140 spaces for sales. She was concerned because the adjacent lot had developed as professional office space. With only 45 parking space required. The applicant had to add approximately 20 more parking spaces on the adjacent property. Had the calculations been made at 1 space per 200 square feet 67 parking spaces would have been required. Because of tenant finish out and the unknowns, there would be a real burden with keeping track of the allocated parking. The staff had requested a floor plan of the building. The applicant had told the staff they did not have a floor plan and could not furnish one. The only way the staff could enforce the parking requirement would be to keep tract of the square footage of office space leased out She added it was a very tight sight. She noted the Commercial Design Standards required 15% of the site to remain open. The applicant was barely meeting the requirement. Mr. Milholland stated his client was not going to exceed the 10,000 square feet of sales space. • He felt there would be a surplus in parking because of the square footage in public space. • Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1997 Page 21 Ms. Little replied the staff needed a bill of assurance stating each time a tenant finish out was requested a total parking tally would be provided. If not, then all the previous building permits would have to be pulled and the current tenants verified to calculate parking. Mr. Milholland stated his client was willing to present a tally with each tenant finish out. Ms. Little noted the same applicant had developed the adjacent property with the parking problem. He had expected the building to be used as office space, but in reality the space had been rented as retail. The owner then ran into a problem with parking and had to construct additional parking on the adjacent lot. She preferred to avoid the same situation. Mr. Watkins suggested adding as a condition of approval that retail space would be limited to 10,000 square feet, which would be enforceable with a bill of assurance. Mr. Tucker asked how the staff would keep tract of the businesses leasing the building to keep a tally on the parking. • Ms. Little replied the staff had to rely on the building permit applicants for accurate information. The city did not have a business licences to double check. She added it was rare for the owner to ask for less parking. Normally, the owners were asking for additional parking to offer to their perspective clients. The simplest way to handle the parking problem would be to provide the 140 parking spaces normally required. • Mr. Danny Smith, applicant, stated when North Park Place I had developed it had been design for 1 parking space per 300 sf. He did not want another parking problem. He was willing to commit to the 10,000 square feet of sales spaces. Mr. Tucker asked if the Planning Department saw all building permits. Ms. Little replied the Planning Staff did review all building permits, including remodels. Mr. Forney expressed concern about the site being developed to the maximum. He was also concerned about the density of the development and the parking on the east side of the building which had no provisions for vehicle overhangs. He was not convince that this dense of development should be allowed on this site. He was normally in favor of density, however, he felt this would be unusual relative to North Hills Medical Park where a lot of effort had been made to adhere to a standard. Ms. Hoffman agreed with Mr. Forney. She asked if the Commission would be granting a variance for the reduced parking lot setback because the applicant was providing additional landscaping to allow the reduction to 5'. Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1997 Page 22 Ms. Little stated the reduction was an option the developer had. There was a 15' required setback, reducible to 5' with additional landscaping. Mr. Watkins asked if the development had met the requirement for additional landscaping. Ms. Little replied the plans showed the additional landscaping and the Landscape Administrator supported the request. She added North Hills had granted a waiver from their covenants. She felt the setback reduction was an option for the developer. In response to questions from Commissioners, Ms. Little read the section of the ordinance regarding the parking lot setback and required landscaping. In response to comments from Mr. Forney, Ms. Little explained the applicant was proposing compact parking spaces on the east side of the building in order to meet the 110 parking spaces. There was not enough room to provide the standard 19'X9' parking spaces. They would be providing compact parking spaces which were 7'/2'X17'. Mr. Forney noted a door on the east side of the building opened up into the compact parking spaces. Ms. Little replied the developer had removed one of the parking spaces to allow the door to open. Ms. Hoffman asked if the applicant had considered slanting the spaces to provide a better parking space. Ms. Little replied slanted parking spaces would not yield the required number, became they were required to be the same width as a standard parking stall, 9'. Mr. Milholland stated it was the developer's option to reduce the setback to 5' with the additional landscaping. It was not a variance. It was not a waiver. Mr. Odom replied the Commission had to approve the landscape plan. The Landscape Administrator only made a recommendation to the Planning Commission. Mr. Tucker noted the parking was not specifically addressed as a condition of approval. Mr. Odom stated the parking would be addressed in two ways: a condition of approval limiting the sales space to 10,000 square feet and a bill of assurance that each time a tenant finish out was issued the developer would present a total parking tally. 4,4 Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1997 Page 23 MOTION Mr. Watkins moved to approve the item subject to the conditions of approval and the condition that the developer would contribute their proportional share for the burial of the large power line. The sales space would be limited to 10,000 square feet. A bill of assurance for a parking tally with each tenant finish out. And to allow the 5' parking setback. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion. Mr. Tucker would be voting against the motion because of the parking, believing that as a matter of convince the tracking on the office space and parking would be dropped. He felt 110 parking spaces was not adequate. He added the parking was so tight it would increase the chances of an accident. Mr. Reynolds stated he would be voting against the item because the parking was not adequate. Mr. Odom asked the staff if they were comfortable with the bill of assurance offered by the developer, was it adequate to enforce the parking problem. Ms. Little replied it would not be an easy item to tract. Providing the 140 parking spaces normally required for this type of use would be the easiest and safest way to ensure adequate parking on site. In response to questions from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Little stated the ordinance allowed for 35% of the total parking to be compact parking spaces. 39 compact parking spaces would be allowed out of 110 parking spaces. If 140 parking spaces were required, 49 spaces could be compact. She added if any of the green space were removed to add additional parking then the project would not meet the Commercial Design Standards. Mr. Forney commented this site could not be developed with a 28,000 square foot building. He felt they would be compromising the city standards, public safety, and welfare by over extending this site. Ms. Johnson felt the motion would overburden the staff. She did not believe the staff should be required to keep such close tract of this development. Ms. Hoffman asked if there was available land to lease for additional parking. Ms. Little replied there was vacant land to the east. She did not know if it was available for lease. Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1997 Page 24 Mr. Milholland stated the developer had complied with the ordinances. He questioned if the developer had complied with the ordinances why should the Commissioners deny the item. Ms. Little replied the applicant had just submitted information required by the staff tonight. The staff had requested a floor plan. They had been told a floor plan would not be provided. She noted the applicant did not cooperate with the staff. She questioned how much time the staff would have to spend in order to receive the required information to enforce the ordinance. She appreciated the Commission's concern over the parking issue, because it was unfair for the Planning Staff to spend more time on this project than other projects. Mr. Milholland replied the ordinance did not require a floor plan. The developer preferred on open floor plant to lease. Mr. Reynolds stated if the developer were to install the 140 spaces, then he could rent to who ever he wanted and the city did not have to worry about it in the future. Mr. Milholland replied the developer had clientele that did not need the parking. Mr. Watkins did not see the difference a floor plan would make. The question had been the allocation of the space between the retail and office If the developer was willing to commit a certain percentage to be retail and no more. The floor plan was irrelevant. Ms. Little explained it would be easier for the staff to keep tract if the allocations of office space and parking with the floor plan. Mr. Watkins did not believe the floor plan mattered. The staff did not need to see how the 10,000 square feet was spread out in the building. Ms. Little stated it made a difference. She asked if the developer could not provide a floor plan, how could they provide elevations. How did they know where the windows and doors were going to be located if they did not know where the offices were going to be located. The staff had tried to get the floor plan in the beginning. Mr. Watkins replied if the developer was willing to commit to the limit on retail space. Then it was their problem to live up to that commitment when the floor plan was developed. Ms. Little replied the staff did not normally check the parking on tenant finish out. The floor plan would assist in the ease of issuing building permits. Mr. Forney felt the parking should be calculated for the worst case scenario. The client wanting to rent now, would not rent the space forever. The initial situations would not work forever. 55'' Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1997 Page 25 The developer needed to calculate the parking for what it might be, not what they were hoping it would be or wanting it to be. Mr. Watkins stated the ordinances did not required a project to be 100% of one use. Ms. Little stated they normally did not have people asking the commission for Tess parking. Normally people were wanting more parking than what the ordinances allowed. This was an unusual case. They normally assigned one category for parking and expected it to stay one category. The applicant could do it, although she was uncomfortable with only 110 parking spaces on this site. Mr. Smith stated they had dedicated 10,000 square feet for sales for Blue Cross and Blue Shield who were planning a full service claims office. If he did not lease the space to Blue Cross and Blue Shield, then the building would be converted into office space which would only required 98 parking spaces. The motion failed on a vote of 3-4-0. Hoffman, Reynolds, Tucker, and Forney voting nay. • Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1997 Page 26 CU 97-15.00: CONDITIONAL USE (RICHARD MAYES AUTO) RICHARD MAYES- 1641 NORTH LEVERETT AVENUE The conditional use was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of Richard Mayes Auto for property located at 1641 North Leverett Avenue. The property is zoned C -2/R-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and Medium Density Residential. The request is for 12 parking spaces to be located in the R-2 zone. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval for 12 spaces located in a R-2 zoning district contingent upon the following: 1) Compliance with § 160.195, Conditions governing applications of conditional uses; procedures, of the zoning code. 2) The 12 spaces be developed in accordance with the site plan submitted as part of this application. • 3) The project be constructed as shown on the site plan and the building be constructed to meet commercial design standards. Mr. Dave Jorgensen represented the item. Mr. Jorgensen stated the building would have 8 bays. The requirement was for four parking spaces per bay. There were 32 parking spaces provided. 12 spaces were located on a portion of the adjacent lot behind a house, which was zoned R-2. The applicant was in agreement with all staff conditions. There was no public comment. MOTION Mr. Forney moved to approve the conditional use with all staff comments. Mr. Johnson seconded. Mr. Watkins questioned where the 32 parking spaces were located. Mr. Conklin explained there were 8 spaces located in the building. • Ms. Hoffman asked if the conditional use would prevent the adjacent lot from being sold separately which would create a parking deficit. �A • • • Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1997 Page 27 Ms. Little stated the lot could not be sold separately without creating a parking problem. She suggested a deed restriction be placed on the R-2 lot. Mr. Jorgensen agreed to the deed restriction. He added the parking had been designed to leave enough room to split the house off. Ms. Little added 7,080 square feet would be remain if the parking were split off. The minimum lot square footage for a single family home in R-2 zoning was 6,000 square feet. Mr. Forney added the motion the requirement for the deed restriction. Ms. Johnson concurred. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0-0. • • • Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1997 Page 28 RZ 97 22.00 AND RZ 97-23.00 REZONING (SHAHRYAR KHAJEHNAJAFI) KHAJEHNAJAFI- N OF WEDINGTON DR.A ND W. OF RUPPLE RD. RZ 97 22.00: Rezoning was submitted by Lew Steenken on behalf of Shahryar Khajehnajafi for property located north of Wedington Drive and west of Rupple Road. The property is zoned A- 1, Agricultural, and contains approximately 5.61 acres. (East side of Meadowlands Drive contains 2 97 acres and the west side of Meadowlands Drive contains 2.64 acres). The request is to change the zoning from A-1 to C-1. RZ 97-23.00: Rezoning was submitted by Lew Steenken on behalf of Shahryar Khajehnajafi and Fred Rehat for property located north of Wedington Drive and west of Rupple Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural, and contains approximately 3.24 acres. The request is to rezone from A-1 to C - Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested 5.61 acre rezoning from A-1, Agricultural to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. This request is inconsistent with General Plan 2020 Future Land Use Plan which designates this property as residential. Staff would support a motion to rezone this property to R -O Residential Office which is more consistent with General Plan 2020. Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested 3.24 acre rezoning from A-1, Agricultural to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. This request is inconsistent with General Plan 2020 Future Land Use Plan which designates this property as residential. Staff would support a motion to rezone this property to R -O Residential Office which is more consistent with General Plan 2020. Mr. Steenken stated he would be addressing his client as Mr. Shar. He stated the properties adjoined each other. He noted to the east of the properties was an E -Z Mart. To the west was a nursery. Across the highway was a restaurant. The area was surrounded by high density residential uses. Mr. Shar was interested in selling his property to an individual who was needed commercial zoning. The buyer was wanting to develop small retail shops that would service the growth on the west side of town. Commercial development on the west side of town would reduce some of the traffic problems on Wedington because the people living on the west side would not have to travel as far for services. He noted most of the subdivision were located off the highway. He felt the best use of the property would be in service oriented shops that would service the area residents. There was no public comment. Ms. Hoffman asked what types of neighborhood services an R -O zoning would allow. Mr. Conklin replied R -O allowed for professional offices, single family and two family • Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1997 Page 29 dwellings, studio, barber shops, studios, medial supplier. With a conditional use restaurants, cultural and recreational facilities and many of the limited neighborhood commercial uses were allowed. Mr. Steenken replied the owner would prefer to have the property zoned Commercial. Mr. Odom did not believe the commission should deviate from the land use plan. The area was designated as residential. He felt a better use of the property would be a buffering zone of R -O He would not be supporting the C-2 request. Mr. Watkins would not support the Commercial or the R -O rezoning because there was ample commercial property in the area that had not been developed. The rezoning would encourage strip development along the highway. Mr. Reynolds noted there were eight C-2 properties, four C-1, and four R -O properties that were vacant in the area now, without rezoning this property. He felt there was enough commercial property available in the area. • Mr. Forney felt the commission needed to stay with the land use plan which encourage the • making of nodes and discourage the making of strips. Mr. Steenken felt they would be developing the node concept by developing the Rupple/Wedington area. Ms. Johnson did not see how Wedington could develop as a strip, because there were new subdivisions in place along the highway on both sides. This was unlike an area that could become a strip. She felt the Planning Commission should consider a mixed use and that they were over simplifying their approach to rezoning in this area. Mr. Tucker felt mix use was appropriate in the area, however, there was plenty of land in the area suitably zoned to accommodate the proposed use. Mr. Forney noted the Commission had approved rezoning in the past in hopes of services being provided, but the only services provided had been the increase in property values. There was no guarantee that this rezoning would accommodate any of the needs. MOTION Mr. Forney moved to deny the rezoning request. Mr. Steenken asked if the commission would consider an R -O zoning at this time. • Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1997 Page 30 Ms. Hoffinan stated she would support an R -O zoning as a buffer between the highway and the residential. She did not believe the commission was able to adequately address the matter. She recommended a R -o with a buffer toward the back. Mr. Odom stated the applicant could resubmit an application for another rezoning to R -O. He could not come back for a C-2 zoning. Mr. Steenken asked to vote on the C-2 zoning and table the R -O zoning. Ms. Little stated if the Commission denied a commercial rezoning he could not resubmit for a commercial zoning for a year. The motion to deny carried by a vote of 6-1-0. Hoffman voting nay. Mr. Odom stated if the applicant wished to consider the R -O zoning to get with staff on a resubmitting. He added the applicant was able to appeal the Planning Commission to the City Council. • Ms. Little stated since the motion was to deny the applicant could appeal to City Council, which could approve a rezoning to R -O. • Mr. Forney felt they should consider the R -O because the entry to a subdivision would be off a residential street. The meeting adjourned at 9:15 pm.