Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-06-08 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held June 8, 1998 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, Lorel Hoffman, Bob Reynolds, Sharon Hoover, Bob Estes, and Gary Tucker MEMBERS ABSENT. John Forney STAFF PRESENT: Alett Little, Jim Beavers, Tim Conklin, Dawn Warrick, Debra Humphrey, and the members of the press. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES The minutes for May 13, 1998, were approved as submitted. ITEMS; RS 98-11.00: Rezoning (West Middle School) Approved to City Council LSD 98-11.00: Large Scale Development (East Side Middle School) Approved VAC 98.00-7.00 Utility Easement (J.B. Hayes and Oma Hayes) Approved to City Council AD 98-17.00: Administrative Item (Cracker Barrel, Signage, ) Denied CU 98-11.00: Conditional Use (Cracker Barrel) Approved VAC 98.00-5.00: Right of Way Vacation (Cracker Barrel) Approved LSD 98-14.00: Large Scale Development (Cracker Barrel) Approved RZ 98-11.00: REZONING (WEST MIDDLE SCHOOL PP 323) NORTH OF MT, COMFORT ROAD AND WEST OF SALEM ROAD This item was submitted by Hailey/Amirmoez Assoc. on behalf of Fayetteville School District for property located north of Mt. Comfort Road and west of Salem Road. The property is zoned R-1 Residential, the request is for P -I, Institutional, and contains approximately 20 acres. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning based on the following findings: 1. The land use plan recommends siting schools within residential areas for better accessibility. 2. Additional schools are needed to accommodate the growth in student population in the Fayetteville School District. 3. The City is in the process of extending Rupple Road from Mt. Comfort Road to provide access to the new school. 4. The new school will increase the capacity of the Fayetteville School District. There were no further conditions of approval. • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 Page -2- 1ahleh Amirmoez appeared on behalf of the applicant. Newton Hailey appeared on behalf of the Fayetteville Schools. Hailey: He expressed his appreciation of the Planning Commission's consideration of this project and apologized for their absence at the last meeting. He has read the staff report and did not have anything to add to the report. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no public comments. PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS: Commissioner Ward moved to approve RZ 98-11.00 for West Middle School. Commissioner Reynolds seconded said motion. The roll was called and said motion carried on a unanimous vote 8-0-0. • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 Page -3- LSD 98-11.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (EAST SIDFXIDDLE SCHOOL pp 372) HWY 45 NORTH OF HUNTERS RIDGE This item was submitted by Milholland Company on behalf of Hailey/Amirmoez & Associates, AIA for property located on Hwy 45 north of Hunters Ridge. The property is zoned P-1, Public/Institutional and contains approximately 60.07 acres. Start's Recommendation: Approval subject to nine conditions of approval. Little: She noted a sheet had been distributed from Lahleh Amirmoez. The staff report stated under sidewalks "Planning Commission determination of the requirement of sidewalks along both sides of the proposed private 36 foot street". Staff felt "requirement" should be changed to "strong recommendation". She stated staff was aware the schools were not certain they would have funds available to construct all the sidewalks recommended by the Subdivision Committee. There were no further staff comments. Ron Petrie with Milholland Engineering appeared before the Commission. Petrie: The applicant does concur with the staff comments. They have no problem with recommendation of placement of sidewalks. However, they prefer to bid the sidewalks. If funding was available, they would be glad to construct the sidewalks. If funding is not available, they prefer to wait and see where the foot traffic was the heaviest and construct the sidewalks accordingly. Odom: He inquired if the applicant was in agreement with the 9 conditions of approval subject to the sidewalk issue. Petrie: He stated the applicant was in agreement with the conditions of approval subject to the sidewalk issue. PUBLIC COMMENT: Virginia Burton appeared before the Commission. Burton: She has three lots that connect on the west side of the proposed school ground. She was concerned about the runoff she is currently getting and the increase of runoff from the new school development. She stated when Vandergriff school was developed she was assured this would be taken care of. It was not and it has become worse. At times she has had as much as a foot of water drain onto her property. She came before the council last time and talked to them. The engineers assured her this would be taken care of at that time. She stated they tried three times and they made it worse each time. She then called the Planning Division and they referred her to an engineer. She called and left messages and her calls were never returned. She has come before the commission to request their help. Beavers: He was not familiar with the drainage problem. He asked Ron Petrie to discuss the issue of drainage with Ms. Burton. He stated for the record he was not the engineer who did not return • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 Page -4- Petrie: her call. He was unaware of any detention problems. He assured her that the City has ordinances that govern putting more water off-site. He stated, if after they review the drainage,a detention pond is required, the school would install a detention pond. Beavers: He inquired if installing a new swale would detain the runoff from Ms. Burton's property. Petrie: He responded not necessarily. From the preliminary design they knew they were going to have to do more drainage calculations. This might entail a detention pond. There is a 100 foot stretch on Ms. Burton's property where the water is currently draining. Beavers: He inquired if they could rechannel the drainage to the school property. Petrie: He responded because of the contours of the property he did not feel they could rechannel the drainage to the school property. He noted there was a deep valley which cut through the subject property. Hoffman: She stated the drainage runoff may be coming from Vandergriff School and the new middle school down the steep valley. She inquired if there was any way to retain it on the property by the bus drive to the west. Petrie: He responded they could bring the drainage further north and put in a collecting pond to the north side of the school. Estes: He inquired where Ms. Burton's property was in relation to the subject property. Burton: She responded and Mrs. Akin live directly south of her property. There is a vacant lot between their property. She lives on Lot 9. Hoffman: She inquired where the drainage on Lots 7 and 8 was going and stated if the developer was not going to retain their water the developer may have to install a pipe to prevent it from running onto Ms. Burton's property. Petrie: He clarified the storm water would be discharged north of Lot 6. Estes: He stated Ms. Burton indicated she lived on Lot 9 and her property currently collects as much as a foot of water on her property. Petrie: He stated they would put a swale along her property line. This would prevent the water from going on to Lots 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. Hoffman: She stated during design and construction it was imperative that the developers work with Mr. Beavers and Mrs. Burton to accommodate Ms. Burton's needs. Beavers: He inquired if Ms. Burton had a problem with the waterflow from the gully on Lot 6. Burton: She responded her neighbor who lives on Lot 6 also has drainage problems. • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 Page -5- Johnson: Burton: Johnson: Little: Johnson: Beavers: Petrie: Beavers: Burton: Odom: Amirmoez: She inquired when Ms. Burton first noticed the drainage problem. She responded she had problems for quite some time even before the school was built. The school could not do anything about it and said it was a natural flow. She inquired if the drainage regulations were in effect when Vandergriff was built. She responded, no, the current drainage regulations were not in effect at the time. She stated with two schools going in adjacent to each other, this school may have to comply with these drainage regulations which may put more burden on this school project. She inquired if this was doable as an engineering matter. He responded it was doable. However, he did not know whether it was reasonable. If there was an existing drainage and you fill in the ditch, the water would reclaim it. He had discussed some options with Mr. Hailey from the Fayetteville Schools. He stated they felt it feasible to run a swale down the property line which would bypass Ms. Burton's property. By extending the swale to the north they could discharge the flow to Mud Creek or a safe place in order to not create additional problems. He explained to Ms. Burton the developer would dig a channel to prevent the drainage water from running onto her property. She stated she was told the same thing at a previous meeting. A man came out to her property and told her if they dug the ditch, the runoff would cross other property. This man recommended to leave it alone. She inquired if this was a "real promise". He responded the developer was willing to make this a condition of approval and it would be a binding agreement. She stated it would not stop all the water. It would stop the increased flow the development would provide. There were no further public comments. PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS: Johnson: Beavers: She inquired what would be the effect to adjacent property if this swale was put in. He responded the preliminary drainage report submitted by Mr. Petrie indicates it would not affect them. However, since this has come through, they have received complaints from Mr. Terminella. The preliminary report stated the detention was not necessary. However, this would be subject to further review as part of the final design. Mr. Petrie would review the drainage to see if detention would be necessary. The preliminary report stated by putting this swale in and changing the timing of the peak flows. The flow water would enter Mud Creek. This would dissipate before the flow from Glenwood Shopping Center would get there. Therefore, it would be better not to have detention. He does not doubt that is what the final report would say. • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 Page -6- Odom: Beavers: Johnson: Reynolds: Hoffman: Amirmoez: Hoffman: Amirmoez: Ward: Amirmoez: Beavers: Amirmoez: Odom: Beavers: He inquired whether these problems and concerns were being addressed. He responded, yes, they were. She inquired about the sidewalks on the private drive. It seemed to her if City feels sidewalks are essential for public health and safety, there was no place more critical than on a school site. She understood the financial constraints the government runs under. However, she could not be persuaded that a school is a place where the sidewalks should be deferred until funding was available. She was in favor of putting in sidewalks along the private drive that connected the two schools. It is contemplated there will be a lot of foot traffic in this area. He concurred with Commissioner Johnson. He stated the commission was in favor of installing sidewalks wherever deemed necessary. He further stated sidewalks were needed and should not be overlooked. She inquired if the school had a time frame they might be able to commit to for installation of the sidewalks within a 6-9 month period when they determined the exact locations needed. She responded the approximate completion date was Fall of 2000. She inquired if the sidewalks would be able to be put in at that time. She responded it may not be on the original bid. She further noted they were providing sidewalks along Hwy 45 for access to the school. She also stated if they do not have the sidewalks at the time the school was opened, the sidewalk provided from Hwy 45 would still create a safe access for the kids to the school. He stated due to internal funding this would not necessarily affect the additional condition of approval. Once the building project was bid, if they were not meeting the particular sidewalk condition of approval, this would delay the project. One of the conditions of approval which the developer had agreed to - and he is not aware if the school would be treated different than any other development - but this would be a guarantee like any other large scale. The guarantee would cover the sidewalks. The guarantee would be required prior to receiving the building permit. The city would hold the money for the sidewalks before the developer could obtain a building a permit. The applicant would try to obtain the initial building permit. They would have to put the sidewalk out of the initial bid because of funding She inquired if it was possible to go ahead and get the building permit to start the construction process. Then by Fall of 2000 - prior to occupancy - if the sidewalk was not complete, then this would fall under permission to occupy the building. He inquired if the funds would have to be in the account before the project starts. He responded any other developer would have to put up 150% of cost of improvements to include the swale to bypass Ms. Burton's property, sidewalks, and any other improvements to Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 Page -7- the site. Johnson: She inquired if the school was particularly exempt from this requirement. Beavers: He responded he had not had any experience with a school since the passage of this ordinance. Little: In response to Commissioner Johnson, she stated no one was exempt from the ordinance. Johnson: She stated she had no problem with the sidewalks being delayed until the school was ready for occupancy for the children. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve LSD 98-11.00 subject to the conditions of approval to include the requirement for sidewalks on both sides of the proposed private drive between Vandergriff and this new school. Sidewalks were to be complete by the time the school opened in the fall of 2000. Odom: He inquired if the developer would not be required to place the funds for the sidewalks in escrow. Johnson: She responded yes, provided there was some other means the city had provided before the building was occupied by the children. Little: She stated the certificate of occupancy indicated buildings are safe for public occupation. This would include sidewalks being installed prior to the issuance of occupancy. Johnson: She wanted to include this language as part of the motion. Odom: To clarify the motion he inquired if the additional condition of approval included the swale to address the concerns of Ms. Burton. Johnson: She responded, yes, as suggested by the engineer. Mr. Reynolds seconded motion. Tucker: He inquired about the temporary occupancy permit vs. a permanent occupancy permit. Beavers: He responded a temporary certificate of occupancy is issued for 30 days and can be extended for whatever period is deemed appropriate. Little: In response to Mr. Tucker's questions, she stated a temporary certificate of occupancy would not be issued unless all items which are of eminent threat to public safety had been addressed. She further noted that no temporary certificate of occupancy would be issued until the items related to public safety had been attended to. Tucker: He inquired if sidewalks would be a public safety issue. Little: She responded, no, she would not deem it a public safety issue. Beavers: In response to Mr. Tucker's question he said, no, the sidewalks would not be considered a Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 Page -8- public safety issue and the building inspectors would not look for sidewalks during inspection. Amirmoez: She inquired if the commission was requiring the sidewalk along both sides of the drive. She stated she would like to discuss this a little bit more because she does not feel it would be necessary. She realized one issue was to keep children from crossing traffic. She did not feel the sidewalk should be required on both sides. Johnson: She noted staff had discussed sidewalks on both sides. She was interested in the staff's view of the safety concerns. There was some discussion regarding the location of the sidewalks and the proposed locations. Little: The sidewalk coordinator recommended sidewalks along both sides of the proposed 36' three lane street. Beavers: He stated the recommendation for sidewalks would also include 32' additional roadway The sidewalk coordinator had recommended sidewalks on both sides of the drive which tapered to a wide two-lane. There was further discussion regarding the requirement for sidewalks along both sides of the drive. Beavers: He noted this requirement was for all developers. Mr. Rutherford was trying to be consistent when he made this recommendation. Odom: He asked Ms. Johnson to clarify her motion. Johnson: She stated the spirit of the motion was to concur with the sidewalk administrator's recommendation. This recommendation was for a sidewalk on both sides. The sidewalk is 36' and tapered to 32' per Mr. Beavers. Hoffman: She inquired if the developer had contacted the highway department and if a recommendation for a turn lane had been requested. Amirmoez: She responded this process had not been completed. They do have to contact the highway department. She stated if the highway department and they required a turn lane, they would meet the requirement. Hoffman: Beavers: Hoover: Beavers: She inquired if the highway department were to require a turning lane, would the school be required to come back before the Planning Commission. He responded yes, because it was a condition of approval they have agreed to. He further stated the reason they had not contacted the highway department was due to the reason this requirement was added after plat review. She inquired what was the ordinance requirement for a private street. He responded he was not sure if there was a requirement. The ordinance stated it shall meet the standards for design for pavement thickness. It did not state sidewalks. The roll was called and said motion carried on a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 Page -9- VAC 98.00-7.00 UTILITY EASEMENT (J.B. HAYES AND OMA HAYES) LOTS 8 AND 9 ON EMERALD SUBDIVISION (PHASE D Utility easement vacation as requested by Floyd Reed on behalf of J.B. and Oma Hays for property located on lots 8 and 9 on Emerald Subdivision (Phase B. The property is zoned R-1, low-density residential. The request is to vacate a 15 ft. utility easement located inside (south) of the northern boundaries of lots 8 and 9 in exchange for a dedication of a new 15 ft. utility easement off-site along the outside of the northern boundaries of lots 8 and 9. The new easement would be located within phase 2 of the Emerald Subdivision on property owned by Hays. Staff recommends approval of the on-site easement vacation and off-site rededication. There are no further conditions of approval. Mr. Odom noted there were no objections from the water/sewer, street department, and solid waste. APPLICANT: Mr. Floyd Reed representing the applicant appeared before the commission. Reed: Thanked the staff, especially Mr. Conklin, for their help. This property has been under contract for two and half months waiting to obtain a building permit and begin construction. I was wondering if upon approval, if there was anyway to expedite this? Little: A vacation requires the approval of the City Council. The minutes from this meeting giving the recommendation of the Planning Commission are needed. As soon as those are available, we will ask that it be placed on the Council Agenda. It might save two weeks at most. This is a fairly lengthy process. PUBLIC COMMENTS; There were no public comments. Discussion: Commissioner Hoffman moved to approve VA 98-7.00. Commissioner Ward seconded said motion. The roll was called and said motion carried unanimously on a vote of 8-0-0. • • Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 Page -10- AD 98-17.00: ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM (CRACKER BARREL. SIGNAGE. PP 559) SOUTH OF 6TH STREET AND EAST OF HIGHWAY 71 AND FUTRALL DRIVE This item was submitted by CEI Engineering on behalf of Cracker Barrel, Inc. for property located south of 6th Street and east of Highway 71 and Futrall Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 3.15 acres. The applicant is requested a waiver to allow one free-standing pole sign with a maximum height of 30' utilizing 75 square feet of area per face. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION: Denial based upon staff findings. No further conditions of approval. Jim McCord, attorney at law, appeared on behalf of Cracker Barrel, Inc. McCord: He introduced Kevin Kerbow, Project Manager in charge of signage, Mac Reppert, Site Development Manager and Rick Rogers with CEI Engineers, Project Engineer. He wanted to address the staff report which summarized the Subdivision Committee Meeting. He stated Mac Reppert indicated the height of the building would be approximately 28 feet and he would double check it. The actual height of the building is approximately 23 feet. The ordinance authorized the Planning Commission to grant a variance based on special conditions where enforcement would result in unnecessary hardship. He noted some of the commissioners had toured the site. The site sets well below the grade of the bypass. The applicant felt the site creates special conditions. The applicant demonstrates special conditions exist peculiar to the land in question. Mr. Kevin Kerbow, Project Manager in charge of signage for Cracker Barrel, Inc. addressed the Planning Commission. Kerbow: He passed out a photographic survey conducted on the property to the Planning Commissioners. McCord. Staff was recommending a wall sign be placed on the south exposure. Thereby, this would negate the need for a free-standing sign. Such a wall sign would give effective visibility from the south. This would not allow visibility to traffic coming from north to south. The applicant felt a free-standing sign was essential to meet the requirement. Kerbow: He stated they conduct a target test on almost every site. This was a tool they use. They made a good faith judgment based on the height needed for the site for free-standing sign visibility. Coming north bound on Hwy 71 a person would have to pass their building. They would not have a rear wall sign. There would be a front wall sign. Because of the layout of Hwy 71 people would have to pass their stores. • Coming southbound on Hwy 71 he referred to Page 1. Coming over the top of the hill you can see their crane. The crane was raised to heights of 50'. At every 10' there is a red flag. They • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 Page -11- scale in the height and square footage of the sign they are requesting. The applicant requests a 34 foot sign with the based area of 75 sf allowed by code which would be a sign visible above tractor -trailers, traffic etc. on the road you access off of Hwy 71 to their site. The photograph on the top of the pages was shot by a 70 mm lens. The photograph on the bottom was taken with a 210 zoom lens or a 3x magnification. He referred to other signage in the photographs. He also referred to the overlay district ordinance and those signs seen which were taller had been grand fathered and permitted. The ordinance went into effect in 1994. Page 1 was 4/10 of a mile from the beginning of the ramp. Page 2 was 3/10 of a mile out. It was about the same height as the Windsor Suite letters on Best Western front facade. Page 3 was 2/10 mile. The bottom of the photograph enlargement reflected a tractor trailer to the left of the orange highway sign. Right behind the tractor trailer there was a white trailer on the road which would be used to access their site. Page 4 is 1/10 of a mile from the beginning of the ramp. At this time he hoped people had the opportunity to view the sign before this time. You get 1/10 or 2/10 from the beginning of the ramp and if people were not in the right lane, they would need to make preparation to safely exit onto the ramp. Page 5 was the beginning of ramp. He referred to some trees on the adjacent property which would be to the right of their sign and would stay. This would hamper visibility of their sign. As you progress to the west closer to Hwy 71 you have the overpass which would block a sign allowed by code to 6' height. Page 6 was where you are turned around on Hwy 71 north bound. The first time a person would see the target would be 2/10 of a mile from the beginning of the ramp. At 1/10 mile you will see their sign would be lower than the Best Western on their building. Their proposed sign would be about the same height as the Windsor Suites. At the beginning of the ramp obviously the building would be visible. The site was lower than the other property in that area. Looking at the survey it would require approximately 18" of fill which would be added. There was an approximate 8' difference in elevation between the asphalt of Hwy 71. He noted they were not here to hide any information and referred to Pages 9 and 10 of the report. There was a highway logo board. They do utilize these whenever they can. This would be handled by another department in Cracker Barrel who would pursue obtaining a spot on the logo board. He noted the fullest identification of a Cracker Barrel site consists of three advertising tools: 1) billboards 2) DOT logo boards, and 3) on -premise signage whenever possible. He noted there was some talk about putting a sign on the side of the building. He stated the company would rather not do this. He understood the commission can approve, deny, adjust or stipulate. He stated the applicant would not install a sign on the side. He understood the emphasis was placed on the other methods of advertising. He passed out a photograph depicting a fallen down logo board in Tennessee. This board stayed down for four months. He noted the boards were a few feet off of the road. There were two roads at the proposed site where they could be possibly damaged on Hwy 71 and Frontage Road. He stated Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 Page -12- Little: Reppert: Johnson: he had talked to Mr. McKimmey and discussed the sign design. They had submitted a sign with lights coming from the bottom of the cabinet and shine on to the cabinet. Cracker Barrel was open to discussing some type of decorative cover; modification of the pole cover; and method of illumination. As far as the sign would be engineered, he noted the wind load requirements would be a consideration in their design. She referred to the sign ordinance at §158.38. "Direct illumination by incandescent light bulbs shall be restricted to light bulbs rated at 25 watts or less". She referred to the side of the building, there was a street constructed to the south. There would be frontage on the side building. It is not a full street because property to the rear and to the east is not developed. This was a change during the process which required the side of the building be made to look like the front. He stated they had made some modification for the design on the side of the building due to the recommendations of the Subdivision Committee. She inquired about the directions of the elevations. The front elevation would face west and the rear would face east. The right elevation faces south. The left elevation was north towards the Best Western Motel. Which elevation would face the new street? Little: She responded the elevation facing the new street would be the south elevation. Johnson: She inquired what the name of the street would be. Little: She responded "new proposed street" for the time being. Johnson: She noted the applicant did not want a sign on the right elevation and would this remain the same even though they know there would be a street there at some time in the future. Kerbow: The applicant stated they prefer one wall sign. They do not want a sign on the back of the building due to existing trees in this location. He stated the pictures which reflect the signs on the rear of the building were incorrect. Reppert: He stated originally it was proposed to put a sign on the back of the building but this had been removed. Little: She referred to Page 128 which stated "One wall sign may be installed per business...A second sign may be allowed if it is determined that the structure has more than one front facing a street or highway right-of-way". Under the ordinance they would be entitled to request a sign for the new street for visibility for those cars traveling north. Odom: He inquired whether the applicant should request it now or when the new street was constructed. Little: She responded the sign request had not been addressed at planning commission and the ordinance permitted it, the staff would permit the sign at the time of the request. McCord: He stated Cracker Barrel just requested one wall sign. Even if the south sign were not put up and would not be visible for south bound traffic. This was Cracker Barrel's main request for the free-standing sign. • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 Page -13- He stated the burden of the applicant was to demonstrate special conditions unique to the property under consideration. They believe they had met this demonstration due to the low elevation and per the letter submitted. The ordinance provided the Planning Commission shall make a fmding the reasons set forth in the application justify the granting of the variance. The variance is the minimal variance to make reasonable use of the land. Public Comments: There were no public comments. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Hoffman: She mentioned her appreciation for the presentation. In reviewing the site and looking at the comparable nature of Best Western which had a large wall sign and stated the applicant would be allowed a comparable size and one wall sign. She stated the site would be clearly visible with the good wall sign and monument sign. She was not inclined to approve a variance for a pole sign. This was an entrance to the city. Kerbow: He stated if Ms. Hoffman reviewed the information submitted and the drawings, etc., it was a non-offensive sign. He referred to Page 4 and their wall sign. He noted the Windsor Suite signage on Page 4 on the front of their building. The front of Cracker Barrel would be closer. Best Western did have a sign which was visible facing the south bound travel and referred to the bottom of Page 4. There was some discussion between Mr. Kerbow and the commissioners regarding the locations of signage in the area and visibility. Hoffman: She inquired if it was possible to obtain a variance to put a sign on the facade which was the applicant's concern and noted it would be better to put it on the wall rather than a pole. Kerbow: He stated if the free-standing sign was made with board and batten material they could design it to match the color of the building. He inquired whether this would be a consideration. The highest part of the front of their building was 23 feet. The side parapet was approximately 19 feet. Even if they put the sign on the side of the building there would still be 11 feet which would take away from the way the building is designed. Odom: He inquired how large a pole sign could an applicant install in the overlay district. Little: She responded the overlay district does not allow for pylon signs. It allowed for only monument signs with a height of 6 feet. Odom: He inquired if the property was not in the overlay district, how large a pylon sign could an applicant install. Little: She responded 30 feet would be the maximum height with 75 sf of footage. If the applicant were a shopping center they would be allowed more footage. This is 30 feet from the elevation of the road and not the site. Odom: He inquired if Cracker Barrel was referring to 30 feet from the road or the site. • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 Page -14- Little: She responded, the site. Kerbow: He stated they were actually talking about approximately 22 feet above Hwy 71. Little: From the present elevation the developer would raise their site between five and six feet. Kerbow: He understood from the engineer it would only be an 18" increase. Ward: He stated he would be glad to see Cracker Barrel in the area. He noticed at most of the Cracker Barrels they have pole signs. The developer had taken a piece of land which was crawdad land and the area chosen south of town is unusual. He would like to see more development in this area. However, he stated this was a tough situation and would be off the beaten path. Kerbow: He stated they would be willing to work with the commissioners to make the pole sign more aesthetically pleasing. Reppert: Odom: Kerbow: He stated the applicant does a portion of their business locally - 25 to 30 percent. Their life blood comes off the interstate and generally pulls traffic off the interstate which would otherwise not stop. In order to make this business successful the formula was to obtain visibility for traffic heading south. He stated he agreed visibility was important to Cracker Barrel but that it was important to everybody. The purpose of the ordinance was to level the playing field for everyone. They need a mechanism to state this would create a economic burden. The burden on the applicant was to prove this land sits differently than other land and he felt it did. He stated he had driven out to this property several times and had struggled with this variance request more than any other. He stated he had never addressed economic hardship in his presentations. His job was to look at what was not there and what would be required for the people that have been traveling for eight hours and have never traveled through Fayetteville. They would like everyone to know Fayetteville has a Cracker Barrel, and that it was in a safe and secure area. The square footage allowed on the sign was not extreme. The issue here was the height. At night you would see the signs more than anything. He had people state if they were not familiar with the area due to the crime area, they may be hesitant to exit off the interchange. At night the signs would be reflective copy. Reynolds: He inquired about Nelms Chevrolet who had the similar situation with their lots and what kind of sign was approved. Little: She responded they received a wall sign only. Reynolds: He stated this was the only piece of property that runs back to Cato off of Hwy 62 that we would have to deal with concerning signage. He stated they should consider helping Cracker Barrel out with this variance and he would be in favor of it. Hoover: She stated part of her reason for moving to Fayetteville was due to the fact there were very few pole signs. She had come from a place where there was an excess of pole signs and would not be in favor of a pole sign. She further stated she had designed restaurants and pole designs. If • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 Page -15- the developer was more flexible they could come up with some alternative plan. Commissioner Estes moved to approve AD 98-17. Commissioner Reynolds seconded said motion. Odom: He did not think a monument sign would be able to be seen from the highway and would be useless. He inquired how high would the sign have to be to be even to the monument sign on Best Western. Little: She could not give him that information. Odom: He stated he would support a pole sign up to what would bring it to the level of the monument sign of Best Western. Kerbow: He stated he could not see the sign they were talking about in the picture. The purpose of a sign was to be effective. Odom: He stated he was in agreement that a purpose of the sign was to help people to get to their place of business. However, they have an ordinance and they have to meet the intents of the ordinance. Hoffman: She stated she would like to see Cracker Barrel come to Fayetteville and would be in favor of increasing their parking to almost three times what was normally allowed by ordinance. Therefore, she preferred the applicant put more thought into this sign with a degree of compromise. Odom: He stated he understood this argument. He stated Best Western may not be seen and therefore, they should get a pole sign as well. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Best Western does not have a monument sign. The monument sign didn't serve any purpose because their property was low as well. Odom: Best Western was allowed under ordinance to have an monument sign. Little: She stated for the record, the speaker was Tim Vansummerin. There were no further public comments. Johnson: Little: Kerbow: She referred to Page 8 of the presentation and noted the front of Best Western looked like it would be taller than the proposed sign. She inquired if the flags on the cranes used by Cracker Barrel were 10 feet apart and the height was 30 feet. He responded it was. • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 Page -16- There was some discussion ensuing about the sign measurements, etc. Johnson: Tucker: Odom: McCord: She stated she felt this was a project which would merit an exception due to the following: 1. The second sign the applicant is entitled to they are choosing not to have; 2. Their building is a very low key building which is not in any shape, way, or form garish. She noted under some of the other concerns was due to the right elevation where they added a porch along the entire length of the building which was requested at Subdivision level. Therefore, she felt with the presentation and the total signage this variance request warranted her support of the motion. He stated he would be in opposition of this motion. The City of Fayetteville has fought a hard battle to protect the scenery. The scenery added value to the City of Fayetteville. He stated when he traveled he looked at the highway markers for location of restaurants. He noted when he stopped at a Cracker Barrel due to an hour long wait they could not get in. This was due to a church crowd and the traffic was local. Therefore, local traffic did not warrant a 30' foot sign for identification. The transient traffic was adequately advertised on the highway signs. He felt all the criteria has been met for need of a variance. However, he did not feel the minimum requirement had been met. He would support a variance request of something less than what was requested. In Fayetteville, Cracker Barrel will not have the opportunity to utilize billboards as in other towns. He drafted a lot of sign ordinances and defended it before the Arkansas Supreme Court. Off-site billboards are prohibited in the City of Fayetteville. Little: The sign inspector, Mike McKimmey, had given the height of roadway elevation as being 1255. This would give the commissioners an elevation from which to specify a height. Odom: He would be in support of a pole sign where the bottom started at 1255. In essence this was where the monument sign would have started at, had Best Western installed it. Kerbow: Little: Kerbow: Rogers: He noted the finished grade at the sign location is approximately 1250.5. He inquired if 1255 was Hwy 71. She responded it would be off of Futrall Drive. He felt they could accept a pole sign with a height of something along the lines of 25 feet. He needed to make a comparison with the elevation along Futrall. He stated according to their survey the approximate elevation would be 1257.5 at Futrall's main access drive. The proposed sign location and the proposed island would be 1250.5. Tucker: Monument signs can only be 6 feet in height and 75 sf in area. Kerbow: He stated if they revised the request from 30 feet down to 25 feet this would give them approximately 20 feet above Futrall instead of the 25 feet requested. This would put them somewhat lower it appears above the text on the wall - all the signage on the wall of Best Western. Odom: He inquired if 25 feet would be higher than what would give you a monument sign at Best • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 Page -17- Little: Kerbow: Western. She responded if you use the 1255 as the elevation of Futrall, the monument sign height would be 6 feet above that. This would make it 1261 feet as the height which would be allowed for a level piece along that area. He referred to the photographs in the manual and noted you would not be able to see a 10 foot flag on pages 1, 2, 3 and 4. You could see a 20' flag. He added the first time you would see a 10' flag was at the beginning of the exit ramp. This goes back to the issue of safety. Odom: He stated he could support a 20' pole. Johnson: She inquired if passers by were dead set on Cracker Barrel and they missed the exit and then decide to go to the next exit and tum around, could they do this. Little: Commissioner Estes stated if you were traveling north or south, you could exit off the bypass and loop back on the bypass. There was no frontage road. Kerbow: He inquired why would we want to put the motorist at this risk due to safety issues. He felt eventually somebody would have an accident. Hoover: She noted when she traveled she relied on the logo sign because it gave you the right exit. Kerbow: The applicant would accept a 25 foot pole. The roll was called and said motion was denied on a vote of 4-4-0, Ms. Hoover, Ms. Hoffman, Mr. Tucker, and Mr. Odom voting nay. • Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 Page -18- CU 98-11.00: CONIJHIONAL USE (CRACKER BARREL. PP 5591 SOUTH OF 61.11 STREET AND EAST OF HWY 71 BYPASS AND FUTRALL DRIVE This item was submitted by CEI Engineering on behalf of Cracker Barrel for property located south of 6th Street and east of Hwy 71 Bypass and Futrall Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 3.15 acres. The request is for parking in excess of that allowed by ordinance. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval contingent upon the following: 1. Compliance with §160.195, Conditions governing applications of conditional uses; procedures of the zoning code. FINDINGS: 1. The applicant has paid the filing fee and submitted an application indicating the section of this chapter under which the conditional use is sought and stating the grounds on which it is requested. 2. The Planning Commission is empowered under §160.117 (D)(2) to consider the granting of a conditional use for parking in excess of the 20% allowed by ordinance. 3. The applicant has designed the parking lot with adequate provisions for ingress and egress. The staff has expressed concern over the location of the bus parking lot to the rear. 4. The special exception to allow additional parking will not have an adverse effect on adjoining properties or the properties generally in the district. 5. The applicant has provide for refuse and service areas. 6. The applicant has provided utilities for the planned improvements. 7. The allowing of additional parking to adequately serve the planned improvement will be compatible with adjacent properties. Mac Reppert appeared before the commission on behalf of Cracker Barrel. Reppert: He noted on the plans there was an error on the parking summary of the plans which stated they hadl52 spaces. It should be 151 spaces. He stated Cracker Barrel depended primarily on interstate traffic for its business. They have 184 seats, and during a busy weekend and holidays, vacation, etc., they estimate 95 cars/hour for customer traffic. During the peak hours 45 employees would be working. During shift change there would be an overlap. If there is an hour wait with people spending one hour for their meal, customer traffic would be estimated at 140. They would need these spots to alleviate people parking on the road and shoulders. They have a minimum requirement of 150 parking spaces. Cracker Barrel does have some stores with more than 150 parking spaces. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no public comments. PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS: Commissioner Estes moved to approve CU 98-11. • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 Page -19- Commissioner Hoffman seconded said motion. Tucker: He stated he was very leery about additional parking above the ordinance requirements. In this case, because of his experience and the documentation provided by the applicant, he would vote in favor of this project. Hoover: She inquired how the applicant arrived at the number of 150 parking spaces. She further inquired whether 130 spaces would work. Reppert: He stated 130 spaces would limit their ability for the business to be successful. He stated they currently have 354 stores. This is the kind of parking required for this particular restaurant. Johnson: She wanted to clarify whether the waiver would be extended to another business. Odom: He responded the conditional use would go with the owner. The roll was called and said motion carried on a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 Page -20- VAC 98.00-5.00: RIGHT OF WAY VACATION (CRACKER BARREL PP 559) SOUTH OF 6TH STREET AND EAST OF HIGHWAY 71 AND FUTRAIJ. DRIVE This item was submitted by CEI Engineering on behalf of Cracker Barrel for property located south of 6th Street and east of Highway 71 and Futrall Drive. The request is to vacate approximately 0.37 acres of City right-of-way extending approximately 315 feet east of Futrall Drive. The existing right-of-way is undeveloped and wholly contained within the proposed lot 2 of "Major addition". If the subsequent PLA and/or the LSD for Cracker Barrel is approved, then new (replacement) right-of-way will be provided between lots 2 and 3 approximately 10 feet south of the existing east boundary and approximately 120 feet south at the west boundary. Please refer to the enclosed line plat from CEI dated 5/1/98. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Dedication of replacement right of way to the south. 2. The applicant shall receive the approval of SW Bell Telephone and TCA Cable prior to the deadline necessary to prepare the agenda item for the City Council Meeting. 3. Easements for existing water and sanitary sewer mains to be 20 feet width for each line centered upon the water and sanitary sewer lines. This condition will also appear on the LSD for Cracker Barrel. It was noted we have received responses from all utility companies and there were no objections. There were no further conditions of approval. Mac Reppert appeared before the commission on behalf of Cracker Barrel, Inc. Reppert: He explained the right-of-way is currently running across the existing site. In order to use the proposed site they would have to move the right-of-way to a new location. This new right-of- way would be adjacent and parallel to its previous location. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no public comments: PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS: Commissioner Tucker moved to approve VA 98-5.00 subject to staff's comments. Commissioner Johnson seconded said motion. Odom: He stated this item would go forward to the City Council for their approval The roll was called and said motion was approved on a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 Page -22- LSD 98-14.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (CRACKER BARREL. PP 559) SOUTH OF 6TH STREET AND EAST OF HWY 71 BYPASS AND FUTRALL DRIVE This item was submitted by CEI Engineering on behalf of Cracker Barrel Restaurant for property located south of 6i° Street and east of Hwy 71 Bypass and Futrall Drive (south of the Best Western Motel and across Hwy 71 from the Clarion Inn motel). The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 3.15 acres. Findings: This project would provide 9,520 sf of restaurant and retail space. The site is located within the Design Overlay District and is subject to Commercial Design Standards. The applicant is requesting a variance from the signage requirements of the Overlay District and a conditional use to allow parking in excess of the 20% overage allowed by ordinance. A right of way vacation is also being sought. A property line adjustment has been requested and its approval is contingent upon the approval of the Large Scale Development and the requests directly affecting it. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval subject to 13 conditions of approval. There are no further conditions of approval. Mac Reppert appeared before the commission on behalf of Cracker Barrel, Inc. Reppert: He noted there were several points that came up during Subdivision Committee. One was the concern of staff regarding the RV parking and the turning radius involved. This has been redesigned and should satisfy the expressed concern. He stated they preferred to keep the buses and RVs from the main entrance of the building. Odom: He inquired if staff had any concerns regarding parking. Little: She responded the applicant had amended their plat and removed one space. This made their parking spaces 151 vs. 152. Reppert: He noted the other concern was the new frontage created by the new road. The original design of the building was not designed in an aesthetically pleasing fashion. They have amended the building. They will be running another porch down the right side of the building and will cover it with a roof. It will be a 6' porch. They will landscape it accordingly and add antiques to this porch. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no public comments. Hoffman: She expressed her appreciation of the voluntary compliance of the Commercial Design Standards with the addition of the porch. Commissioner Hoffman moved to approve LSD 98-14.00 subject to all staff comments and conditions of' approval. • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 Page -23- Commissioner Ward seconded said motion. Hoffman: She inquired if the conditions of approval have been approved. Reppert: He stated the conditions of approval have been accepted. Johnson: She inquired about the status of condition #4 for a variance since this was denied. McCord: He responded they would be appealing this item to the City Council. Johnson: She inquired if the appeal was not approved would there be one monument sign with the top of the sign being 6' tall. Little: Reynolds: Little: She responded if they chose to install a monument sign. He inquired about the curb cuts. She responded the developer has one curb cut to Futrall and one curb cut to the new street of 24'. Hoffman: She stated the intent of her motion would be that they have met the commercial design standards and would exclude any statement regarding the signage. She requested hearing the compromise regarding the sign at a later date. The roll was called and said motion carried unanimously on a vote of 8-0-0. Little: She noted she handed out information regarding transient merchant which the police department will enforce. The police staff will approach anyone who has a temporary stand and will request a copy of their transient merchant license. If they do not have a transient merchant license from the county, a warning will be issued for the first offense. If they fmd them again without a transient merchant license they would be charged with a misdemeanor which is a minimum $500 fine. Reynolds: He expressed his appreciation to Tim Elder in the police department and the aldermen who showed up and supported the Planning Commission. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. • • • 1 1 Asa t or/ 4 n, RZ 98- 11 LSD 98-11 VA 98-7.00 AD 98-17 CU 98-11 VA 98-5 LSD 98-14 MOVED SECOND ,ou'- brize axt,Arai4{,y/ a2 dad /S. Hoover V V t/ N V t/ /P. Johnson V 1/ 1/ ✓ r/ ✓ ✓ /L. Hoffman f/ V ✓ A../ i/ ✓ ✓ kr. Tucker V // V N ✓ V ✓ J!1'arney /L. Ward ✓ ✓ 1/ 17 i✓ B. Estes ✓ ✓ r/ 1/ ✓ t7 ' B. Reynolds ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ i/ i✓ /C. Odom V '/ 1/ ✓ ,✓ Y o,o /-a- 0 le- 0 y_ -V/ o Az -o--0 :y4)-0 leder 1 1 Asa t or/ 4 n,