Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-06-22 Minutes• • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held June 22, 1998 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Conrad Odom, Lee Ward, Lorel Hoffman, Sharon Hoover, Bob Estes, and Gary Tucker MEMBERS ABSENT: John Forney, Phyllis Johnson and Bob Reynolds STAFF PRESENT: Alett Little, Jim Beavers, Tim Conklin, Dawn Warrick, Debra Humphrey, and the members of the press. CONSENT AGENDA: APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR JUNE 8, 1998 VAC 98-6.00: VACATION (ROBERTSON) 4297 WEST BELLFLOWER This utility easement vacation is requested by Butch Robertson for property located at 4297 West Bellflower, Lot 32, Meadowlands Subdivision. The lot is zoned R-1, low density residential and contains approximately 0.25 acres. The request is to vacate the east two feet of the existing 12.5 foot utility easement along the west property line of lot 32 (approximately 205 sf). The survey supplied by Jorgensen Engineering indicates that the house as constructed encroaches into the easement approximately 1.5 feet. Please refer to the enclosed survey plat and legal description dated December 8, 1997. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the easement vacation. Odom: He inquired if there was a member of the audience or a member of the Planning Commission who would like to pull this item from the consent agenda. There were no comments. The consent agenda was reviewed, and Commissioner Odom moved to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner Ward seconded said motion. The roll was called and said motion carried on a vote of 5-0-0. Commissioner Forney, Commissioner Johnson, and Commissioner Reynolds were absent. Commissioner Estes was not present for the vote. • • Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 1998 Page -2- OLD BUSINESS: LSD 98-12.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (MEDICAL PLAZA) LOT 14. CMN BUSINESS PARK SOUTII OF MILLSAP AND WEST OF PLAINVJEW This item was submitted by Northwest Engineers on behalf of John A. Griffin for property located on Lot 14, CMN Business Park south of Millsap road and west of Plainview Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains 1.9 acres. FINDINGS: This project is located on the south side of Millsap Road adjacent to the John Cole Retail Center. The building is proposed for medical offices and contains 29,000 sf on two levels (see CDS materials). Cross access to the south and to the east has been provided. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to the 9 conditions of approval in staffs report. 1. Planning Commission determination of compliance with the Commercial Design Standards ordinance. 2. Planning Commission determination of the number of allowable curb cuts for this development. Staff supports one curb cut from Millsap into this development. 3. All utilities shall be located underground. 4. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments furnished to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks Electric, SWEPCO, TCA Cable). 5. Dedication of an additional 5 feet of right of way to provide a total of 30 feet from the centerline as shown on the plat. 6. 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. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 7. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards would require a min. 6' sidewalk with a min. 10' greenspace along Millsap Road. The sidewalk needs to tie into the existing sidewalk at the west end. The placement of the sidewalk must not conflict with the parking lot stall depth or the 5' greenspace requirement. 8. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. If construction has not started within one year then the approval is void. 9. 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. • There were no further conditions of approval by staff. • • Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 1998 Page -3- Little: She referred to a letter dated May 4, 1998, page 2.5. The reason staff does not have a signed conditions of approval is because the applicant wishes to discuss the allowance of another curb cut onto Millsap, as well as the fire hydrant required by the fire chief. Rick Osborne appeared on behalf of the applicant. Osborne: He addressed the fire hydrant issue. The applicant agreed with the safety issue on the fire hydrant. The fire hydrant was shown midway down the east property line. It was noted this was an acceptable location with the City. Little: She affirmed the location of the fire hydrant was acceptable. Osborne: He introduced Kurt Jones, with Crafton, Tull and Associates, who prepared the plans regarding the safety issues of the curb cut. Jones: He referred to his letter of June 4, 1998. He reiterated some of the comments made in the letter. The applicant felt this parking lot facility could not be adequately served with one curb cut to Millsap. He stated the applicant was concerned about the safety issues along Millsap and within the parking lot. The applicant was not aware of any other parking lots in Fayetteville of this size which had been limited to one curb cut. The applicant's concern was this parking lot may not function with one curb cut as designed. Applicant felt it would increase driver frustration trying to get out onto Millsap Road and into the parking lot. This would cause an increase in congestion here. Therefore, they request the commission allow the applicant two curb cuts as requested. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no public comments. Odom: He noted the commission had received some correspondence from adjoining property owners which were not present at the meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS: Tucker: He inquired about the blueprint they have reviewed which reflects an ingress and an egress on one of the entrances. He stated that on the western -most side there were no arrows indicating whether the ingress and egresses were limited. Jones: He responded the applicant's intent was to support two-way traffic ingress and egress. Odom: He inquired whether the applicant would keep the eastern most curb cut if the commission allowed a curb cut. Jones: He affirmed the applicant would keep the eastern -most curb cut. Hoffman: She noted at Subdivision it was discussed that one point of ingress and two points of egress would count as one curb cut. She stated the earlier plan was close to the present layout. It would make the west driveway a bit narrower, and that would be the ingress point. The two egresses would have been on the east side. She noted this was a good compromise in that it • • • Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 1998 Page -4- Little: counted as only one curb cut under the ordinance. She inquired if this could be addressed. She stated this was discussed (particularly with regard to another project). As to 1 - 12' drive in and 2 - 12' drives out (both consisting of 12') for a total of 24'. This would count as one curb cut. For this particular site, having the ingress on the west side would mean going to the drop off - they would enter from the west and go in front of the building along Millsap to the drop off area. She stated if the applicant left the curb cut on the east side it would function better. This would allow entrance on the east side making only those 31 parking places in front of the building inconvenient. Whereas, if the ingress was on the west side, everyone would have to enter at this point of entry, and there are quite a few parking spaces along the back of the subject property which would have to traverse in front of the building. Hoffman: She inquired if the applicant had looked at this as a possible solution. Jones: He responded the applicant had reviewed this as an option. Hoffman: She noted ingress on the east side of the lot would be the correct way to access the parking lot. Little: She responded this was preferable. Jones: He clarified it would be ingress on the east side and egress on the west side. He stated the applicant's concern is this would cause the traffic flow to come down and make a 90 degree turn across traffic into the parking lot. He stated applicant did not feel egress would work at all if it was a stand-alone situation on the west side of the parking lot. Applicant feels they definitely need the egress on the west and the ingress on the east. Hoffman: She noted Mr. Jones had made a good point concerning the traffic crossing so close to the street. In the other alternative, having the egress come in on the west side and have traffic to traverse through the aisle of spaces, she inquired why was this not deemed acceptable. Jones: He responded if they had only egress on the west side of the property, this would force traffic to come in and make two 90 degree turns before a person would get to the drop off area or rear parking lot. Applicant anticipates a lot of the traffic would go through the drop off drive on the east side of the building. He noted the applicant felt forcing traffic to make two 90 degree turns through the parking lot would be awkward. He noted applicant has reviewed several scenarios regarding the parking lot which would work. He further noted there was not enough room on the east side of the building to replace the parking they would lose in the front if the drop off was placed in this location. He stated because of the concerns Subdivision committee expressed the applicant had tried to come up with an altemative. Based on the size of the parking lot, the configuration of the site, and the constraints, the applicant strongly felt a need for two points of entry. Hoover: She inquired if Lowe's parking lot had one curb cut. Little: She affirmed that Lowe's parking lot did have one curb cut. Hoover: She noted she had been there on Sunday afternoon and had not had any problem getting in and • • Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 1998 Page -5- out of there. She was using this parking lot as a guideline for this curb cut issue. Hoffman: She responded she would probably disagree with Hoover regarding the comparison with Lowe's. She stated Lowe's had a different lot design and it contained wider lanes than this project. She stated her main concern was the safety of the traffic entering and leaving Millsap. Was it advisable for the commission to continue to load Millsap with a lot of curb cuts. Jones: Hoover: Jones: He responded concerning the comparison with Lowe's parking lot. He noted Lowe's was a large rectangular parking lot. The configuration of the parking lot provided more room. He noted this project's parking lot was broken into two separate parking lots because of the building location. In order to meet the needs of the facility the applicant had to split parking into a front and a rear lot and the ingress and egress on the west side would basically serve the front parking area. The ingress and egress point on the east side would serve the drive through in the rear parking lot. She referred to Lowe's parking lot. She stated she had been at some pretty remote areas in the parking lot She stated she had driven all the way around in order to fmd the way out. She inquired whether this was an issue that there will be so many cars that they would need them to split up, or for the convenience of the people parked there. He responded it was for the convenience of the people parking. Applicant was also anticipating traffic coming in and out of the parking lot. Their concern was the traffic would back up into the parking lot causing congestion within the parking lot if there was only one point of access. It may also cause traffic to back up onto Millsap if traffic was backed up trying to get in. Also, he noted this was a medical facility. Emergency traffic would be an issue. If there was a situation which necessitated emergency vehicle and traffic was blocked, then the emergency vehicle would not be able to get into the parking lot. Odom: He inquired about the option for one lane in and two lanes coming out at one point of entry. Jones: He responded this would be preferable to one lane in and one lane out. However, applicant does feel they do need a point of ingress and egress on the west side of the subject property. Odom: He inquired about staff's recommendation on one lane in and two lanes out. Little: She stated this option would be allowable and staff would be in support of this. She noted it had not been presented. She had requested after Subdivision committee that the applicant provide any alternatives along with a drawing for discussion. Ward: He inquired if this option would require a median. Little: She responded it would require a median with a 10' separation. Jones: He stated this option would not be a problem. However, he stated applicant still has the same issue for the necessity of a point of ingress and egress on the west side to properly serve the front parking lot. He stated the alternative mentioned would be preferable to just eliminating this drive altogether. • Odom: He stated he was leaning more towards this option. Traffic may be a little cumbersome in the • • • Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 1998 Page -6- Osborne: Odom: Osborne: parking lot if there were not two ingress and egress. However, commission has to keep in mind the safety along Millsap Road. He noted the more curb cuts put on Millsap the less safe this road would be. He asked for clarification on the locations of the ingress and egress. He stated the east driveway would be wider. He inquired how could a car come in at this location, turn right and then how would the car turn around if this was closed off. This would not be safe for people driving vans or large cars. Odom: He stated this would not make any difference because they would be going in forward. Osborne: He stated if the west ingress was closed off then the car would have to circle the whole parking lot to get out. Hoffman: She expressed her appreciation of the applicant's work with them in Subdivision and for adjusting the property lines and sidewalk issues. However, she still feels uncertain about the driveway. Commissioner Hoffman moved to approve LSD 98-12 00 with all staff conditions of approval and to restrict the driveway to one driveway which would conform with City standards. Jones: He inquired if the commission would be eliminating the possibility of a combined drive that might have one lane in and two lanes out. Hoffman: She stated this would be part of the motion. Commissioner Ward seconded said motion. The roll was called and said motion carried on a vote of 6-0-0. Commissioner Reynolds, Commissioner Johnson, and Commissioner Forney were absent. • • • Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 1998 Page -7- PP 98-3.00: PRELIMINARY PLAT (WEST HAVEN SUBDIVISION) NORTH OF DOUBLE TREE ESTATES AND WEST OF WHEELER ROAD This item was submitted by Jorgensen & Assoc. on behalf of Ruth Turner for property located north of Double Tree Estates and west of Wheeler Road. The property is located in the county and contains approximately 52.04 acres with 35 lots proposed. Findings: This subdivision is located in the county north of Double Tree Estates. Washington County approved the preliminary plat with conditions on 2/10/98. There is a Master Street Plan collector street which runs north/south through this development - Staci Lane. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments furnished to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks Electric, SWEPCO, TCA Cable). 2. 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 concepts only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. 3. Compliance with the requirements of Washington County. 4. Provide a copy of the street design and the drainage study, as required by Washington County to the City. 5. The preliminary plat approval is valid for one calendar year. If construction has not started within one year the approval is void. STAFF COMMENTS: There were no further conditions of approval. Chris Brackett with Jorgensen & Associates appeared on behalf of the commission. Brackett: He noted the property was in the growth area. There was no water or sewer. Applicant would install a septic system and would have city water. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Brian Gayer, appeared on behalf of his parents Mr. and Mrs. Gayer, on Wheeler Road. Gayer: He noted his parents would be retiring next year. At the end of the cul de sac his Dad has commercial business there and their concern was for a new subdivision. He stated that the roads are too narrow for increased traffic. Tucker: He inquired if the applicant was primarily concerned about increased traffic on Wheeler Road. Gayer: He responded, yes, he was. He felt they would need to widen the roads to accommodate the increased traffic flow. • • • Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 1998 Page -8- There were no further public comments. PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS: Odom: He inquired if this property was in R-1 zoning. Little: She responded it was in the County and in the growth area. Therefore, it has no zoning. Odom: He inquired if staff knew how many lots the applicant would be allowed since it was in the county. Little: Odom: Little: She stated it would be governed by what the septic system would support. He inquired if this would be 1 lot per acre. She responded the rule of thumb would be 1 per acre and a half. Depending on the soil this may be 1/3 of an acre. Brackett: He stated they would be required to obtain Health Department approval. Applicant has done a percolation test on each lot. Odom: He inquired if the applicant had received Washington County Planning Commission's approval. Brackett: He responded, yes, they do have Washington County Planning Commission's approval He further noted regarding the traffic problem that the City's MSP reflects a plan for a collector which would tie into Staci Lane. This would be another egress other than Wheeler Road. Tucker: He inquired where the proposed new school would be in relation to this property. Little: She responded it would be approximately 3 miles to the east and north of Mt. Comfort Road. Tucker: He inquired if there was any consideration concerning the advisability of the cul-de-sac at the end of West Haven. Little: She responded there was right-of-way to the property line. The cul-de-sac was required for turn around purposes. There is right of way for future street extension. Hoffman: She inquired what the future plan was for the road widening. She noted nothing was happening with Mt. Comfort in the future. Therefore, traffic congestion would continue for awhile until state money could be obtained. Little: She noted Mt. Comfort was a county road up to where it joins with the City part of the road. Commissioner Ward moved to approve PP 98-3.00. Commissioner Hoffman seconded said motion. Odom: He stated he was in agreement with Mr. Garrett's concern of the traffic congestion. However, • • • Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 1998 Page -9- he stated this development only contains 35 lots on 52 acres and this type of development would be more preferable than what has been built. The roll was called and said motion carried on a vote of 6-0-0. Commissioner Reynolds, Commissioner Hoffman, and Commissioner Forney were not present. • • • Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 1998 Page -10- AD 98-18.00: ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM (WENDY'S) 2050 N. COLLEGE This item was submitted by CEI Engineering on behalf of Wendy's Restaurants for property located at 2050 N. College (formerly Mazzio's Pizza). The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The request is to waive the requirements to place all utilities underground. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the utility lines be relocated to the sides and rear of the lot. Brent Massey with CEI Engineering appeared before the commission on behalf of the applicant. Massey: He addressed two items of conditions of approval. One was the waiver for the overhead utilities be placed underground. He stated he had contacted with Dennis Burrack on several occasions but had not received a formal cost estimate at the present time. He noted the lot frontage for this development was 150 feet in comparison to 2-3 miles of overhead utilities. He noted all the lines were not owned by SWEPCO. The poles and the larger wires were owned by SW Bell. There were two 900 pair cable conductors belonging to SW Bell. Mr. Burrack related this information to Mr. Massey in a previous conversation. Mr. Burrack indicated it would require a major switch gear to be installed underground in the approximate amount of $30,000. Mr. Burrack had also indicated to Mr. Massey that due to the size of this piece of equipment it would have to set back of the right of way in the back of the development's parking area. It also would be large enough that it would be above -ground and would require it to be set behind the setback line. He also noted Wendy's had chosen this particular site was due to Mazzio's existing building was almost identical to the Wendy's proposed building. Their intent would be to remove the existing structure and build a new building on the existing pad. Mr. Burrack had provided some numbers for linear footage of cost estimates for the wiring. This would be $40/If which would be roughly $6,000 for wire alone. He stated for this particular site with it being as small as it was the cost could go up as much as 3 times. He reiterated this was an informal conversation between Mr. Burrack and Mr. Massey. He addressed staff's recommendation to go down the side and the rear of the property, Mr. Burrack was in opposition to this idea due to guying and easements. The applicant would be required to take lines down both sides of the property and along the rear Mr. Burrack noted easements from SWEPCO, SW Bell, and possibly TCA Cable would require easements along the sides and rear of the subject property. Mr. Burrack also indicated due to the size of the lines and the poles due to the constraints of the College Street right of way, guying may not be feasible. Mr. Massey stated the recommendations would not meet the intent of the ordinance if it was enforced on this project. He also noted on the preamble it was not standard practice to plant trees under overhead utility lines or above ground. By increasing the number of lines around the site, this would prohibit landscaping. Therefore, applicant requests a waiver due to there only being 150 sf of frontage and not meeting the intent of the ordinance. • • • Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 1998 Page -11- PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no public comments. PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS: Odom: He noted any consideration given would need to be based on fact and not speculation. Since the applicant does not have the information required to make a proper decision it would be hard for the commission to make a recommendation. He inquired what the estimated cost of the applicant's project would be. Massey: He responded the estimated cost would be around $500,000. This does not include the kitchen equipment or the purchase price. Odom: He stated the only figures he has heard was $30,000 for a box and $6,000 for lines. So far these figures do not constitute a hardship on the overall project. He noted the spirit of the ordinance was for a long-term effect of having all the lines from the front of the road to the rear of the property. Therefore, he would be in favor of staff's recommendation. He also stated he would be in favor of tabling this item until the applicant could provide the information needed to make the proper determination. Hoffman: She inquired if the commission could consider a contribution in lieu of construction. Little: She responded, no, this was not discussed. Hoffman: She inquired if the commission could put together their own numbers. Little: She responded, no, the estimate would need to be supplied by the utility companies. Massey: He stated in the long run the developers would be in favor of a contribution to install the lines. Commissioner Tucker moved to table item AD 98-18 to the next meeting. Commissioner Hoover seconded said motion. The motion was approved on a vote of 6-0-0. Commissioner Hoffman, Commissioner Reynolds, and Commissioner Forney were not present. • Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 1998 Page -12- RZ 98-12.00: REZONING (SCHMEIDING ENTERPRISES) SUNSET ADDITION. BLOCK 2. LOTS 1 THROUGH 6 This item was submitted by Landtech Engineering, Inc. on behalf of Schmeiding Enterprises, Inc. for property located in Sunset Addition, Block 2 lots one through six, north of west 6th Street south of Venus Street east of Lewis Avenue Street and west of Eastern Avenue. The property is zoned R-2 Medium Density Residential, and the request is for R -O, Residential Office. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning from R-2 to R -O. Little: She referred to page 5.7 of the packet of information. This page shows the six lots to the North of the C-2 parcel currently zoned R-2. Staff has been in contact with the applicant advising them that staff would support zoning of R -O, residential office. There were no further conditions of approval. Leonard Gabbard, with Landtech Engineering, appeared before the commission. Gabbard: He noted the applicant was requesting rezoning for the north part of the block . It would be • used for residential office. Applicant would be coming back before the commission for a large scale development if it was approved. Odom: He noted the rezoning request would require (5) affirmative votes. There were currently six commissioners and gave the applicant the option to come back or to proceed. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no public comments. Henry Nwauwa appeared before the commission. He inquired if the rezoning was for C-2 or R -O. The paper he had received stated the application was for a C-2 rezoning. Odom: He noted staff had made a recommendation to deny the C-2 zoning. However, staff did recommend rezoning to R -O. He inquired if Mr. Nwauwa was in approval of the application for R -O rezoning. Nwauwa: He stated he would be in agreement with R -O rezoning. PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS: Tucker: He asked for a distinction between the R -O vs. C-2 zoning. Little: She noted C-2 zoning allows for any type of commercial use. This zoning produces the higher • traffic of any of the commercial zones. Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 1998 Page -13- She stated R -O is the zone which permits residential and is used more for office -like buildings. She had talked with the applicant and it was their desire to put offices on the back of the six lots and R -O zoning was the proper zoning for their plans. Tucker: He inquired if there were landscaping and site coverage differences in the different zonings. Little: She responded there was not any difference. Hoover: She inquired if there was a height limitation for the different zonings. Little: She responded for C-2 the height limitation was 60 feet and for R -O it would be an additional setback for each foot over 20 feet. She further noted R -O was a good zone to use for a buffer between residential areas and heavy traffic commercial areas. Hoffman: She referred to page 5.5 which referred to Mazzio's Pizza. She inquired what this was referring to. Little: She responded the applicant had previously provided information for zoning for Mazzio's. Since then staff had learned this was a 3 building development and would contain a common design theme. Mazzio's Pizza, an auto parts store, and the other would be an office building for telemarketing were the proposed uses in this development. Commissioner Ward moved to approve RZ 98-12.00 for rezoning to R -O. Commissioner Odom seconded said motion. The roll was called and said motion was approved on a vote of 6-0-0. Commissioner Reynolds, Commissioner Hoffman, and Commissioner Forney were not present. • • • Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 1998 Page -14- AD 98-19:00: ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM (CEDAR LAKE APARTMENTS PUD» NORTH OF EAST 1S H STREET AND WEST OF MORNINGSIDE DRIVE. This item was submitted by Mr. Tom Embach for property located north of E. 15th Street and west of Morningside Drive. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 12 acres with 96 units proposed. The applicant wishes to discuss the progress of securing a connection to the west to Wood Avenue as required by the approval of LSD 98-4.10 which was heard by the Planning Commission April 13, 1998. The applicant requests the Planning Commission recommend condemnation of only a right of way or suggest an alternative which would present a solution to the negotiation. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Planning Commission forward a recommendation of condemnation to the City Council in order to secure a connection to Wood Ave. for this development. There were no further staff comments. Kurt Jones, Crafton Tull and Associates, appeared before the commission on behalf of the applicant. Jones: He noted the applicant had previously been before the commission on the large scale development phase. The applicant had tried to avoid the connection to Wood Avenue at that time. He introduced Thomas Embach, who had been working on securing the connection. Mr. Jones stated at this time applicant requests the commission reconsider the requirement for the connection to Wood Street. The applicant maintains their position this connection would not be necessary for this development. This has been a costly endeavor. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no public comments. PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS: Tucker: He inquired about condemnation and when the City purchases the property was there a provision for recovery for the costs incurred. Little: She responded, yes there was. She stated when condemnation was associated for ingress or egress needed for development and commission recommends condemnation to the City Council, the developer would bear 100% of the costs incurred. This would include the court costs and the purchase of the land. Commissioner Odom moved to forward the recommendation for condemnation to City Council in order to secure connection to Wood Avenue. 100% of the costs incurred to be borne by the applicant. Commissioner Tucker seconded said motion. The roll was called and said motion carried on a vote of 6-0-0. Commissioner Reynolds, Commissioner Hoffman, and Commissioner Forney were not present. • • • Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 1998 Page -15- LSD 98-20.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (SIMMONS 1ST BANKQ NORTH OF JOYCE BLVD AND WEST OF HWY 71B This item was submitted by Northwest Engineers on behalf of Simmons 1st Bank of NW Arkansas for property located north of Joyce Blvd. and west of Hwy 718. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 1.69 acres. FINDINGS: This project proposes a 3,000 sf branch of Simmons' First Bank adjacent to and west of the Circuit City site on the north side of Joyce Blvd. This project is subject to Commercial Design Standards. Cross access has been provided to the east (two locations) and to the west. The project was approved at the Subdivision Committee meeting on June 11, 1998, subject to commercial design requirements including: all gravel areas to be grass and landscaped, the down spouts are to be incorporated into the structure and hidden from view, the shrubs to be spread out in front of the parking lot with 6 shrubs in the driveway island, the vestibule design to the approved by staff, the sign limited to one monument sign no higher than 6 feet and total area of 75 sf. The parking approved was 16 spaces. On June 17, 1998, the applicant determined that they did not agree with the conditions of approval and desired to have the project reconsidered by the full Planning Commission. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. Planning Commission determination of the requested parking above that allowed by ordinance. The applicant has not formalized the request as of this date but has implied 24 spaces per the original submittal. A conditional use may be requested for excessive parking over the 17 spaces allowable. Additional information will be available at the agenda session June 18, 1998. 2. Planning Commission determination of compliance with the Commercial Design Standards. 3. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments furnished to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks Electric, SWEPCO, TCA Cable). 4. 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 concepts only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. 5. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a 6' sidewalk and 10 ft. greenspace along Joyce Blvd to match the sidewalk at Circuit City. 6. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. If construction has not started within one year then the approval is void. 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 Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 1998 Page -16- Certificate of Occupancy. 8. All utilities shall be located underground. 9. All utility and mechanical equipment (including the elec. transformer) shall be screened from the public view. 10. Joyce Blvd. shall be widened to match the improvements constructed by Circuit City and the street shall be tapered back to the existing street no shorter than a 12:1 ratio. 11. Drainage improvements across the property to include a new 48 inch storm drainage, temporary connection back into the existing drainage and resolution of the conflict between the existing sanitary sewer and the required 48 inch storm drainage. This may include the applicant relocating the existing sanitary sewer. There were no further conditions of approval. Kurt Jones, with Crafton, Tull & Associates, appeared before the commission on behalf of the applicant. Odom: He noted Items No. 1 and 2 require Planning Commission action. He inquired if applicant had any objections to any of the conditions of approval. Jones: He referred to his letter from their office regarding the three items they had issue with. Little: She noted a letter dated June 17, 1998 at page 7.5 and page 7.6 in the packet. Jones: He noted one of the items of concern was the parking issue. Little: She stated the applicant would need to provide further information about the parking issue. She inquired if applicant was requesting 24 spaces. Jones: He confirmed applicant was requesting 24 spaces. Little: She stated 18 parking spaces would be allowed by ordinance. Odom: He noted the packet of information they received said 17 parking spaces. Little: She responded staff took the 3,000 sf and took the 1/200 and it came to 17 and a fraction and staff rounded up to 18 parking spaces. Jones: He noted the three items applicant wished to discuss were: 1) parking issue; 2) screening issue of the down spouts; and 3) pole -mounted sign vs. the monument sign. Parking issue: Jones: Applicant felt that additional parking over and above that allowed by ordinance is required for this facility. He introduced Joe Mills with Simmons Bank who will make a presentation regarding the parking issue. • • • Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 1998 Page -17- Down spout issue: Jones: Sign Issue: Jones: Applicant has reviewed this item. In order to screen the down spouts requested at Subdivision would cause the development to have an elevation that would look worse than having the exposed down spouts. Jim Swearingen, architect, will discuss this issue. Subdivision committee requested a monument sign in lieu of the pole mounted sign. Applicant feels they need the pole -mounted sign based on the location of this development which was next to Circuit City in order to be seen. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no public comments. Odom: He inquired about a previous bank branch which had a difficult time with parking. The commission allowed this bank to have an overage and was similar in size to this bank. Little: She confirmed this information was correct. This bank was out on Hwy 16 west. There was a condition attached to the additional parking allowed. This condition was that it be constructed out of semipermeable soil pavers. The applicant was given additional parking but with a condition. Odom: He noted the previous bank request had up to 30 parking spaces which was twice what was allowed under ordinance. Little: She confirmed this was correct. Hoffman: She noted at Subdivision the committee did not understand the overflow parking area was for employees. Jones: He noted the parking to the rear of the site would not be overflow for employees, this parking would actually be employee parking. Hoffman: She stated the commission did not know the graveled area previously submitted was for the use of parking when the commission made the request that it be changed to landscaping. Jones: He stated originally the plan was submitted for 24 parking spaces based on plat review comments. After further consideration, the applicant felt it was imperative that they receive the 24 parking spaces. Up to 9 of those parking spaces would be for employees with 15 for customers of the bank. Hoffman: She inquired if the 8 parking spaces in the rear of the building was the designated employee parking. Jones: Odom: He confirmed these 8 parking spaces would be anticipated parking for employees. He inquired if the applicant would gravel these parking spaces. Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 1998 Page -18- Jones: He responded it was applicant's intent that the parking spaces be paved. Hoffman: She noted the previous bank had some discussion concerning an actual concrete paver with the spaces but no gravel. Commissioner Odom moved to approve the conditional use for parking for 24 parking spaces. Commissioner Ward seconded said motion. Hoffman: She inquired if the motion would also include the semipermeable paving in the excess 8 parking spaces. Tucker: He stated he was not comfortable with the size of parking requested and the motion. He noted it was a dramatic departure from what would be required by ordinance including the 20%. The commission did approve a significant departure one other time previously, but there was extensive justification by that applicant. He stated his concern was it would be easy for an applicant to come before them and state they really need the excess parking without proper Justification. Odom: He noted under the ordinance the applicant would be allowed 18 parking spaces plus 20% overage which would allow 4 parking spaces for a total of 22 parking spaces. Little: She responded the 18 parking spaces includes the 20% overage. Applicant would be allowed 15 plus 3 for the 20% overage. Jones: He addressed Mr. Tucker's concern. He stated the number of parking spaces requested was not out of line in taking into consideration the similar bank of the same size. He introduced Mr. Mills who would make his presentation regarding the parking study of other banks in the area. The applicant had prepared a chart showing comparisons in parking for these banks. Joe Mills, President/CEO of Simmons First Bank of Northwest Arkansas, appeared before the commission. Mr. Mills concurred with Commissioner Tucker regarding the intent of the ordinance. He stated the bank would be at a competitive disadvantage if they were not allowed the requested parking. Also, he felt it would be cost prohibitive if they could not have adequate parking for the customers. Mills: He presented his chart of the banks in this area of similar size and the parking they were allotted. Odom: He asked Mr. Mills based on his own experience his recommendation for 24 parking spaces was necessary. Mills: He responded their existing facility in Springdale had 6600 sf with 30 parking spaces. This facility is in front of Harps Food Store and they have a mutual agreement with shared parking. He stated they have a facility in Rogers, Arkansas with 10,000 sf and over 75 parking spaces. Their other facility is leased in Town Center, Bella Vista, Ar, and currently have a severe parking problem due to shared parking. • • • Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 1998 Page -19- Hoover: She inquired about Phase I1 of the building. She wanted to know if this was something they would be doing now or anticipating for the future Mills: She responded his position was to plan a facility to allow for growth in the future. Therefore, the plan for expansion is there if there comes a need. Hoover: She inquired if the applicant did develop phase II would they request additional parking. Mills: He responded he would need to consult with the architects, but if these 24 parking spaces were approved, at this time, he stated they would not request more parking. Odom: He wanted to clarify if this conditional use was approved and applicant built phase II would the applicant be required to come back for additional parking. Little: She responded, no. If the commission granted the 24 parking spaces for the 3,000 sf building, staff would allow the applicant the option when the building was added on to leave the present parking, or if they requested 5 additional parking spaces. This could be done without coming back before the commission. Mills: He noted in looking at the property lines and the traffic flow he stated the applicant would not be sure they would have a place for the 5 additional parking spaces. Tucker: He expressed his appreciation of the work of the applicant for his presentation. However, it does not address the avoidance of over -building of parking spaces. He noted the numbers addressed here does not address the times during the day of over -capacity. Therefore, he would be inclined to be in support of this request without the opportunity for the applicant to request more parking for phase II. Odom: He clarified Mr. Tucker's comment that he would support the 24 parking spaces if the applicant would not receive the additional 5 parking spaces for the phase II. Commissioner Odom amended his motion that the applicant would not be allowed any additional parking spaces upon phase 11 without coming before the commission and that 8 of the parking spaces would be out of semi -permeable material. Commissioner Ward seconded said motion. Jones: Beavers: Jones: He stated he had some question and concern for the semi -permeable material and what has been used in the past in the city. He does not see any benefit for this vs. asphalt and inquired what the advantages would be to install the semi -permeable. He responded he did not know of any of the semi -permeable material had been used in the City. However, he knew of some developments which plan to use this material. The two types are the turf blocks with grass growing between them. Another one is similar in the block with pea gravel type system. It would just allow for some infiltration and percolation. He stated he could understand this requirement if the area was larger However, 8 parking spaces he does not see the cost-effectiveness of using this in a 1600 sf area. Therefore, applicant requests all the parking area be asphalt. • Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 1998 Page -20- Mills: He noted another issue to consider was the location of these 8 parking spaces in relation to the facility. If a person was new to the community and seen these 8 spaces with this material they might question whether it would be considered a parking space. Therefore, he concurred with Mr. Jones opinion. Hoffman: She stated her concern was if the commission would allow 20% over the ordinance she felt this condition for the semi -permeable would allow more green area in this expansive pavement. Jones: He responded the money spent on the semi -permeable material could be better spent on increased landscaping. He stated the overall look of the parking lot would be odd to have everything paved with the 8 parking in semi -permeable. Hoffman: She stated she had seen it successfully used and artistically blended in other areas. Jones: He concurred with Commissioner Hoffman if the area was larger. The roll was called and said motion carried on a vote of 6-0-0. Commissioner Reynolds, Commissioner Hoffman, and Commissioner Forney were not present. Commissioner Odom inquired if there was a separate vote required on the pole sign request or could it be incorporated. • Ms. Little responded the pole sign request could be incorporated or based on the level of discussion the commission may take a vote. • Odom suggested discussing the pole sign next. Jones: Odom: Jones: Little: He noted the purpose of the pole sign was for visibility and a monument sign would not make this possible. He stated the City ordinance does not address monument signs. He stated he would not be sure what guidelines to use for the monument sign. The pole sign is definitely allowed in this zoning and applicant does not feel it violates any of the Commercial Design Standards. He inquired what size of a pole was the applicant requesting. He responded it was the standard allowed by ordinance. She noted on the site plan the sign was shown by the entrance. The sign would be 34 sf in area and located 17 feet from the right of way. Jones: He stated he had submitted an elevation of the proposed pole sign. Little: She stated the maximum height of the sign was 30 feet. Ms. Little noted the pole sign was for a total of 15 feet with a pre -finished metal pole (grey or black) letters Simmons First Bank to be red and brown and the rest to be white. Hoffman: She mentioned at Subdivision committee the relation of the sign to commercial design standards. The committee does have some lee way in deciding the type of signs. She stated that a wall sign could be used in lots of ways with some imagination. She further stated if everyone along this Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 1998 Page -21- area had a pole sign you would not be able to see anybody else's sign. Commissioner Hoffman moved to deny the pole mounted sign. Jones: Little: He stated the applicant was not requesting a variance request. The sign requested was well within the ordinance guidelines. However, he was not sure how to address the monument sign if they were limited to a monument sign. Therefore, the applicant requests additional lee way with regard to setbacks and area She confirmed that Mr. Jones was correct The sign ordinance does not address monument signs with the exception of the Overlay District. Therefore, it would not be a variance request. The commission as a part of commercial design standards has the ability to require monument signs vs. pole or pie line signs. Hoffman: She had read the letter for the entry vestibule which has been resolved and was in agreement with this. Jones: He stated he had run into problems with the monument sign guidelines. The square footage and setback requirements in order to get anything halfway visible under the current sign ordinance the sign would have to be setback almost to the building. Therefore, the applicant requests that the monument sign be designed in conformance with the overlay district requirements. Little: She stated staff would be in support of this resolution. Commissioner Hoffman moved to approve LSD 98-20 subject to all staff comments with the finding that the site would meet the commercial design standards with the provision that any signage be limited to a monument sign to be designed in accordance with the design overlay district standards as an alternate method of compliance. Commissioner Estes seconded said motion. Mr. Jones inquired about the issue of the down spouts. Commissioner Hoffman stated the down spouts were fine as presented. The roll was called and said motion carried on a vote of 6-0-0. Commissioner Reynolds, Commissioner Johnson, and Commissioner Forney were not present. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 22, 1998 47/.,101/ egei2 " aril (14' Ow t Attend VA 98-6 LSD 98-12 PP 98-3 AD 98-18 RZ 98-12 AD 98-19 LSD 98-20 MOTION %mkt /zk/ il,m SECOND L4L L / linn f L. Ward / ✓ / / // /V 1/ V S. Hoover V ✓ V / 7 1/ // 1/ L. Hoffman o/ ✓ V / // V // V G. Tucker V / // ✓/ , V ✓ / B. Estes I/ V-!� // ✓ V // C. Odom / / V i/ V 1/ V 1/ A. Little ✓ D. Warrick /� J. Beavers / T. Conklin ,// Vote 5-0- J 6-0 - o (to -o 6 -o --O /7o o ,-ve) cid-o 47/.,101/ egei2 " aril (14' Ow t