Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-11-09 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Monday, November 9, 1998 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 313 of the City Administration Building located at 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED CU98-22: Conditional Use (Davis, pp 403) LSD98-29: Large Scale Development (Hopkins Ctr, pp 443) VA98-1 l: Vacation (Emerald Subdivision, II pp 291) RZ98-18: Rezoning (Dixie Dev, pp 604) RZ98-19: Rezoning (Terminella, pp 294) AD98-30: Administrative (Underground Utility Ord.) • MEMBERS PRESENT • Bob Estes John Fomey Lorel Hoffman Sharon Hoover Phyllis Hall Johnson Conrad Odom Robert Reynolds Gary Tucker Lee Ward STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Janet Johns Brent Vinson Dawn Warrick APPROVAL OF MINUTES ACTION TAKEN Tabled -need site plan Approved Approved -sub to utility comment Denied Approved -forward to CC Approved -forward to CC MEMBERS ABSENT None STAFF ABSENT Jim Beavers Alett Little The minutes from the meeting of October 26, 1998 were approved as submitted. • Planning Commission November 9, 1998 Page 2 CU98-22: CONDITIONAL USE DAVIS, pp 403) This conditional use was submitted by Leigh and Candra Davis for property located at 2317 Hatfield Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 0.44 acres. The request is for an adult day care facility to be allowed in an R-1 zone. Leigh Davis was present to respond to the Commission regarding this request. Conditions of Approval 1. The driveway is to be paved from the road to the front door and a turn around area large enough for a van should be provided. (Amended by motion.) The driveway should be paved from the road to the front door with a "T" turnaround. • 2. Ramps and handrails meeting ADA standards are built and inspected at both the front • entrance and back entrance of the facility. 2. (Amended by motion.) Ramps and handrails meeting ADA standards are built and inspected at both the front entrance and back entrance of the facility subject to staff approval and keeping consistent with residential nature. 3. The facility is inspected and approved by the Fire Marshall. 4. The facility is inspected and approved by the Office of Long Term Care and the Department of Human Services. 5. The facility's kitchen is inspected and approved by the Health Department. 6. The facility is to house only four or fewer clients at one time. The applicant and his wife are the only persons to own and run the facility. The business cannot change hands. 8. The appearance and condition of the existing structure retain the same character as the rest of the neighborhood. • • • Planning Commission November 9, 1998 Page 3 9. There is a one year trial period on the conditional use after which it may be renewed if no complaints against the facility have been filed. Committee Discussion Odom: Would the applicant please come forward? Davis: Leigh Davis Odom: There are a list of nine conditions of approval. (Odom read conditions enumerated above.) Are you in agreement with the conditions? Davis: I have no qualms about the conditions. Our main goal is to have a facility to be more like a home or house for people to go to. This is based on the needed from our grandmothers, both of whom have full time care givers. We see a need for quality care, not a- plastic environment for people to walk. We don't want to be the biggest or the fastest. We just want a house for people to come in and socialize with people their age. We don't want to pack them in like sardines. Four or fewer is fine with us. We don't want them to feel like the transition is from a house to a nursing home. Public Comment Dottie Haddle residing at 2316 Hatfield was present opposing the project and expressing concern regarding the driveway, the handrail, trip generationm and drop offs blocking the street. Committee Discussion Odom: Ms. Haddle's concern was preserving the residential nature. I think that there is a condition of approval that says any modifications have to keep with the residential character. Staff, is there any kind of approval process on any drawings? Conklin: They did not submit any elevations of the ramp. Odom. Another concern that seemed to be addressed was the turnaround. It says, "...large enough for a van." Would that include something like the Ozark Transit? Vinson: In my report, I didn't require that they make a turn around big enough for the Ozark Regional Transit. I spoke to the Ozark Regional Transit and they said in instances where the driveway was not large enough, that they would. just park in the street and pick up the • • • • Planning Commission November 9, 1998 Page 4 passengers from the driveway. So, I didn't feel it was necessary for them to have a turnaround large enough for the bus. I did ask what the size of the bus was and the person I spoke to said it wasn't that much bigger than a van. Odom. And the other concern she had was if the applicant moves on that this not be allowed to remain there and that's part of condition number seven, that the applicant must own and run the facility and it shall not transfer with the property. Davis: Okay. Reynolds: What is the size of your lot across the front? Davis: I don't know the exact dimensions. It's about 150 to 160 feet. Reynolds: And what's the square footage of your house? Davis: " • A little over 1,100. Odom: What are the hours of operation? Davis: 7:30 to 5:30. Hoffman: Do you anticipate that all of the clients will be dropped off at one time by the transit or will they be coming -- Davis: It really will be kind of a mixed bag. We've been doing this for three years on the in home side. So what we've seen in the past is you'll have care givers or legal guardians dropping them off and then they'll be gone. Hoffman. And these are private vehicles? Davis: Yes. Odom. How does this work with the employees that work there. Are they allowed in the conditional use situation for employees to work at the facility also? Do you intend to have employees working for you at this facility? Davis: Yes. Odom: How many? • • Planning Commission November 9, 1998 Page 5 Davis: One to two. The state requires one person for up to 8 people then they require two people over that. So, we're staying way under our mandatory limits. Johnson: So what would be the maximum number of employees? Davis: Two. Johnson: Does that include or is it in addition to you and your wife? Davis: At times, yes. At times, no. Depending on whether or not there are part time drop off, some maybe full time days. To that extent you would have to coordinate the schedule of who's going to be there at what time and what employees to bring in. I have no hard, fast rule on that. Johnson: You might have up to 8 people in the facility at one time. You and your wife, two employees and four clients. Davis: Correct. Odom: Have you had someone from the Department of Human Services come out and look at the place? Davis: inspection. No. I wanted to wait until the final proceeding until we schedule with DHS for Reynolds: On this drawing, (referring to page 1.8 of agenda packet) it shows it 100 feet across the front and 190 feet deep. That's different from 150. Davis: I stepped it off. Reynolds: We like to have facts here and we make decisions. I suggest next time if you have a problem, have it measured off. Tucker: You're going to live to at the house and will have some of the area blocked off for your private use. About how much of the 1100 square feet house would remain for your private use? Davis: 200 square feet. We know that there is going to a period of time that we are going to have to live and work with these folks during the day. It's not 24 hours a day. • Johnson: Staff, one concern I have is the first requirement and the paving of the driveway. Planning Commission November 9, 1998 Page 6 I think sometimes one of the things that make a business and a neighborhood look different is a whole lot of pavement. Is there really any reason that this pavement be large enough for a van? Conklin: One of the things we looked at was the ability for the individuals if they are disabled to have a hard surface when exiting a van or vehicle. Johnson: Well, what if the van parked in the street and they came up the driveway and then up the ramp so they could be on a paved surface the whole time. Conklin: I don't believe the driveway is paved. Davis: Right now, the driveway is gravel. I want to provide a turnaround area so that any vehicle leaving the residence would be able to come out front first Johnson: Staff, do you really feel like it's essential that it be large enough for a van rather than a passenger vehicle. Conklin: Once again, we've looked at it and the paving is for the ability for someone to exit out of the van onto a hard surface. A typical driveway wouldn't meet ADA standard parking stall dimensions of 9'x16'. If you have a wheelchair lift a normal drive would not accommodate the lift. Johnson: Do you anticipate that any of your clients will come via van? Davis: No. They'll have to be ambulatory. There may be a van like a personal vehicle of who is driving them. They'll have to be ambulatory as a requirement for this. Estes: Commissioner Johnson, would a 16' driveway be satisfactory giving clients the ability to exit and enter the vehicle? My concerns are the same as yours. Johnson: Sixteen feet in width? Estes: Staff, is that standard handicap standard? Conklin: That is correct. Johnson: I would merely delete the parenthetical language. 16 feet is wider than Cross Avenue which the City Council said was plenty wide for a street. I don't think we need a private driveway on Hatfield wider than a City street that the Council feels is just fine and the information tonight is that there won't be any vans coming there. I'd like to say that it just be paved to the front door and a turnaround area • Planning Commission November 9, 1998 Page 7 Estes: I do not want to see the front yard paved. Hoffman: I'd say possibly adding Language sufficient for the length and width of one car to turnaround and that the staff could work with them on turning radius knowing that we don't want to provide double parking spaces in the front and so on. In addition, I'd like to ask the staff if you will work with them on the elevations of handicap ramp to make sure it's residential in character. Conklin: Sure. Reynolds: I think adding this pavement to the front of this house the way it sets, I think we're going to make it look commercial. And, I don't think there is anything wrong with gravel and grass to soak up the water. The pavement just flushes it off. I'd we will to do away with item number one if we could get him to agree to have three clients. Estes: You are going to need a smooth surface, Commissioner Reynolds, for handicap accessability. • Johnson: I thought Mr. Davis said these people would all be ambulatory. Will you have anybody in wheelchairs or walkers? • Davis: No wheelchairs. Walkers? Possibly, yes. Conklin: Some of the elderly also do have vision problems and that's another thing to consider. Forney. I would think that the applicant would be under an obligation to fulfill the requirements of the ADA in any case and it is not up to us to attempt to specify how they are going to fulfill it. I think we might be getting ourselves into a little bit of trouble telling them how they're going to do that. I don't how some of the legal minds on the Commission feel about that. I understand that the requirement is for a turnaround. Is that simply a "T" or a turning surface with an entrance and exit on the property. Vinson: A "T" was all we had in mind. Forney: I think it would help to have a drawing of this site plan as anticipated. MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to approve the conditional use subject to staff comments. • • Planning Commission November 9, 1998 Page 8 Mr. Ward seconded. Further Discussion Johnson: What happened to the parenthetical language in number one? Odom: As it currently read. Johnson- I think that is excessive and I think we could do better by just limiting it to complying with ADA standards. So, I would vote against the motion. AMENDED MOTION Ms. Hoffman made an amendment to the motion providing that condition one be worded in such a way that the driveway is to remain single with a "T" turnaround sufficient for a passenger vehicle and that item two, the ramp and handrails will meet ADA Standards but that they will be screened by staff for residential character. Mr. Estes seconded the amendment to the motion. Roll Call for the Amendment to the Motion Upon roll call the amendment to the motion passed with a vote of 7-2-0. Further Discussion Tucker: I'm still trying to figure out parking. If there will be as many as four employees and as many as four vehicles there at one time just for employees, have we given consideration to how to deal with that? Davis: I don't have an exact measurement. My thought was to have 5 or 6 spaces along the east side of the property off the driveway on the left hand side. Tucker. That sure loses a lot of residential character. Forney: I am concerned about parking accommodation. I don't think that would in any way meet our standards As far a conditional use that is not residential, it seems to me that we ought to meet the parking requirements. I can't support a motion that doesn't accommodate the parking. • Reynolds: Staff, did you have any idea that they were going to park cars in the yard for • • • Planning Commission November 9, 1998 Page 9 employee parking before you brought this before us? Vinson: No, sir. Davis: I think the realistic side of this is that if we're going to have four people, there will only be one employee. The state requirement is one employee per eight people. Reynolds: In front of the house, where they plan to put the "T", what will it take about 40 feet to install so a van can pull in there and back up and come back out again? Conklin: I think it's approximately 24 feet to back out. Reynolds: Would it be safe to say 50 feet for the "T"? Vinson: The whole length of the driveway is 53 feet from the road to the house. Conklin: More like 40 feet. Hoffman: I have a suggestion. If we're talking about 5 staff cars Davis: Probably 4. Hoffman: You have two and then two more. Would it possible to have the parking at the back? Davis: There is a large back yard. Hoffman: That would retain the residential character. But 5 cars plus traffic coming and going would not. My suggest would be to either table this until a site plan is brought forward for us to approve or vote on it. Johnson: Is that a motion? Odom. There is a motion already on the table. You may move to table the item and we will vote on that question first. MOTION Ms. Johnson made a motion to table the item until the applicant brings us a drawing of the proposed driveway and you've heard our suggestions tonight about that. • • • Planning Commission November 9, 1998 Page 10 Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion and requested that the applicant include the elevations for the ramp construction. Roll Call to Table the Motion Upon roll call the motion the motion passed with a vote of 8-1-0. • Planning Commission November 9, 1998 Page 11 LSD98-29: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (HOPKINS RETAIL CENTER, pp 443) This large scale development was submitted by Steve Hesse of Engineering Design Associates on behalf of Mike Hopkins for property located at the southwest corner of Wedington Drive and Garland Ave. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately 1.27 acres. Conditions of Approval Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards 2. The parapet treatment will extend as far back as the brick treatment on the south and west sides, a minimum of 20 feet. The siding and drivit color should match as per Subdivision Committee Meeting minutes. 3. Planning Commission determination of allowable signage for the project. • 3. (Amended) Signage allowed for the project shall be one monument sign and the wall signage as submitted on the elevation. • 4. Plat Review and Subdivision comments including written staff comments mailed to the applicant and his representatives along with all utility representative comments. 5. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 6. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations for grading drainage, water sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. 7. The water system and fire protection are subject to final design. A looped system to feed the proposed development and to provide fire protection may be necessary. Fire protection shall comply with the more stringent of the water standards and the Fire Chief request. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include the construction of a new sidewalk along Garland Ave. which will connect to the work being done by the AHTD on Wedington Dr. 9. All site lighting shall be shielded from residential properties and directed downward. • • Planning Commission November 9, 1998 Page 12 10. Screening material to be evergreen plant material in the area along the south side 10. (Amended) Screening material to be evergreen plant material on top of the retaining walls along the entire west side and on the easternmost portion of the south side to screen the wall from traffic on Garland Ave. Deciduous plant material may be used on the remainder of the south side. The screening shall be approved by the Landscape Coordinator. 11. Planning Commission determination of any additional onsite or offsite improvements. 12. Dedication to the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department sufficient right of way for the widening of Garland (Highway 112 spur) contiguous to this property as generally shown on the plat. 13. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. If construction has not started within one year then the approval is void. 14. 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). 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. Mike Anderson and Mike Hopkins were present before the Commission representing this request. Committee Discussion Odom: Staff, are there any further conditions of approval? Warrick: There are further conditions of approval I want the statement on the record as a reminder that based on the parking ratio of the development, the parking provided will not support any restaurants within the center. Odom: Mr. Anderson, do you have any questions or concerns about the conditions of approval? • Anderson. No. We are in agreement with the conditions. Planning Commission November 9, 1998 Page 13 Public Discussion No one was present to address the Commission on behalf of this project. Further Committee Discussion Odom: restaurant. The staff has commented that the parking ratio of the center will not allow for a Anderson: Well, if we got into a situation where we thought there needed to be a restaurant then we would fix the parking but at this point in time, I don't know of any plans for a restaurant. Tucker: What provisions do you have for signage? Anderson: We have a small monument sign that is in the front about mid way of the parking and I think that elevations were included in your package. Tucker: There was a reference in Subdivision Committee to a reduction of the drive width from 24 feet to 18 feet. Has that been done? Warrick: That is reflected on the plan. That is for the one way drive that circles the rear of the building. We asked them to reduce that so that people wouldn't mistake that for a two way drive. Hoffman: The Subdivision Committee focused on the location of the driveways and proximity to the busy intersection there. There was discussion whether or not there could be a shared driveway with the adjoining property owner on the south side of the property. It's my understanding that possibility was explored and it led nowhere. Warrick: You are correct. Hoffman: Because the adjoining property owner was not willing. Anderson: Right. They were indeterminate as to what they are going to do with the property. I thought the conversation with staff was that we would go with what we're doing and provide cross access for the adjoining property to the south. Hoffman: I still have grave concerns about the possibility of two driveways being located close together and if and when the adjoining property develops, I would perceive a situation that your driveway would prevent them from being able to get approval for their own driveway and you would have to share yours. • • • Planning Commission November 9, 1998 Page 14 Anderson: That's highly possible. Tucker: Do you have any problem sharing your driveway? Anderson: We are providing for a shared driveway. Johnson: You are providing, not for a shared driveway, but cross access. Anderson: We are not dividing it on the property line but we are allowing for their use in access of that driveway. Until the other property develops, I don't know what you would say. We determined through staff that it was about 500 feet of frontage along Garland. Hoffman: But those are individual Lots? Anderson: No. There are two tracts of land under one ownership. Hoffman: I think I've been under the impression that it has been divided into smaller lots and that if one property sold and not the additional 500 feet that would be problem. Tucker: Was the signage issue taken care of? Odom. The sign would be located where? Anderson. About in the middle of the lot and in the parking there is a center island and I think it is the circular shaped one. Forney: So we have not seen a drawing of that sign? Johnson: We did have that at Subdivision. Forney: We don't have that in our packets. Anderson: There are also completed center elevations in there, too, if you haven't seen that. Reynolds: On the landscaping, you've 132 shrubs and trees to go in there and they will be from the 3 gallon size to 8 feet tall? Anderson: For the trees. Right. Reynolds: How many of those will go on the left side of the wall. • • Planning Commission November 9, 1998 Page 15 Anderson. What we're showing on the planting plan, there has been discussion about additional buffering along the west. We would entertain any comments. Reynolds: We were out there on tour and walked behind those houses to your west and that's when they came up with the idea that we needed some additional shrubbery. Anderson. We're open to that. Johnson: The residential property immediately west is quite a bit higher than this property and although right now there are still leaves on the trees it's pretty well screened but I think once the leaves are off those deciduous trees, there will be a lot of view there, so I would suggest that condition ten be amended to say that the entire west boundary will have evergreen screening on top of the wall. The screening on the south boundary will going to be on top of the wall. Would it be difficult to -locate any vegetative screening on top of the wall along the west property line? Anderson: Not that I can think of. Johnson. Then I think the entire west boundary should have evergreen screening that will grow up to a six feet height. I'm saying this without the tree preservation staffer being here and so that would be subject to her input. The other thing about number ten is the evergreen part of the plant material on the south side was to be on the eastern part of that south side that screens the traffic from Garland. Odom: Condition number 11 deals with the off site improvements and it talks about the applicant contacting the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department with regard to this? Anderson. We talked to them but not in the form of asking if they want contribution. When we went through the staff review, one of the requirements was that we find out what the time schedule is for Wedington and what was going on. Until we got these comments, I didn't know we needed to ask that. We will ask them. Odom: Before we move on, I know it indicates that if improvements are requested and such improvements are determined to be required by the Planning Commission, then the developer shall provide those improvements as a condition of his Large Scale Development. Since we don't know what they are, I don't know whether or not we can say that they are required or not. I guess we will just incorporate into the motion that improvements required by the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department be required of this large scale development before it's approved. Usually, we are a little more specific on that issue. Conklin: The Highway Department requires you to do improvement. This approval is • subject to you making those improvements. • Planning Commission November 9, 1998 Page 16 Anderson: Hopefully, we will be building before that happens. If the Highway Department says the developer has to ante up, obviously the developer will have to do so. Forney. Why is the sidewalk shown by the AHTD is shown adjacent to the street while the sidewalk shown by the developer is shown with a green space between the curb and the sidewalk. As I understand the AHTD standards allow them to build that close but our standards require a green space between. Conklin: That is correct. Our Master Street Plan requires the separation. Forney: Why are we not making this developer do the entire sidewalk according to our standards? Warrick: The Highway Department has finished. Forney: So we're not interested in trying to improve that. Warrick: The sidewalk coordinator determined that since that was just recently installed by the Highway Department and he did not feel it needed to be taken out and replaced. Forney: Regarding the detention area, directly adjacent to your project, it is right up against the sidewalk It looks as though there is a symbol for a fence there. Anderson. That is a handrail. Forney: It seems unusual to have the detention area so close to inhabited spaces. I can't real how much we regulate safety issues against the edge of what could be standing water. Odom: Detention areas don't have standing water. Forney. There could be water there. Conklin: The Engineering Division is not present tonight. It is unusual and I haven't seen a detention area in front of a commercial development like this either. Our Engineering Division has reviewed it and my understanding has approved this design. Forney: A child could go through a handrail. Anderson: We have not designed that and I'm sure that when we go through engineering that they will look at that specifically. I know in the past we have dealt with handrails. What they are requiring, I don't exactly know and if you would like to make some suggestions included in Planning Commission November 9, 1998 Page 17 the conditions, we will look at that. Conklin: I think that the applicant is in agreement that if some type of handrail is required around the perimeter of this detention area, that they are willing to provide that. Forney: What is the highest elevation difference between the retaining wall top and bottom along the east and south sides. Anderson. It will not be over 10 feet tall. Forney. Don't we have something in our regulations about retaining wall height? Conklin: It used to be 15 and the recent ordinance that the City Council passed brought it down to 10 feet. Anderson. When we started this process, I think that the regulation were not enforced in your ordinance and we've made every effort to comply with those. We've tried to accommodate that ordinance. Johnson: The concern we had about the screening on the northwest side, has that been covered in these conditions of approval? You remember that we suggested you move a tree or two? Anderson: Yes. MOTION Ms. Johnson made a motion to approve the large scale development subject to the above enumerated and amended conditions. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. Further Discussion Forney: There was discussion regarding parking for a restaurant. Do they have to come back to review each use? Warrick: When the project was proposed and submitted, the uses proposed were office and retail. The ratio utilized for determining parking was 1 per 250 square feet. The ratio for restaurant parking is 1 per 200 square feet, which is in excess of what has been provided. So, if they were to proposed a restaurant in one of the spaces in this development, they would not have • • • Planning Commission November 9, 1998 Page 18 adequate parking for that unless they were to come back and add parking in some fashion. I'm not sure how that would accommodated. Forney: When you say they would not have adequate parking, would they be able to open a restaurant and have inadequate parking or it would be illegal for them to open a restaurant. Warrick: We could not allow them to open a restaurant with the proposal that we have in front of us. Forney. And we have the control to prevent them from doing so. Warrick: Yes. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission November 9, 1998 Page 19 VAC98-11: VACATION EMERALD SUBDIVISION. PH II This vacation request was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of J.B. Hays for property located at the north end of Emerald Ave. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office The request is to vacate a 100 square foot right of way. Staff recommended approval of the vacation. Dave Jorgensen was present to appear before the Commission on behalf of this project. Discussion Conklin: There are no conditions of approval. Jorgensen: We are trying to vacate a 100 square foot easement because it was originally dedicated in the project to the south which was phase one and now we have phase two completed. So that is the reason for this. Public Discussion No one was present to address the Commission regarding the vacation request. Further Discussion Hoffman: Have we heard from Southwestern Bell and the Water Department? They are listed as pending. Jorgensen: We haven't yet. I tried calling them Friday and they were out and I haven't had a chance to call today. I tried to call Dave Jurgens and haven't been able to make contact with him but I'm sure there's no problem. MOTION Ms. Hoffman made a motion to approve the easement vacation subject to receipt of all utility approvals. Mr. Odom seconded the motion. Further Discussion • • • Planning Commission November 9, 1998 Page 20 Forney: We don't have an easement all the way through this property but only for the making of this cul de sac. Is that correct? We aren't giving up a potential connection beyond this property. Conklin: There was a preliminary plat that was approved by the Planning Commission that did create the cul de sac. There will not be a connection in the future. The cul de sac has been constructed. Forney: We don't need the easement? Conklin: No. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. • • • Planning Commission November 9, 1998 Page 21 RZ98-18: REZONING DIXIE DEVELOPMENT. INC. This rezoning request was submitted by Don Mobley on behalf of Dixie Development, Inc. for property located at the northwest corner of Leeper Road and Pump Station Road. The property is zoned I-2, General Industrial, and contains approximately 1 59 acres. The request is to rezone the property to I-1, Heavy Commercial, Light Industrial. Don Mobely and Lesli Sherwin, President of SelectCare, Inc. were present to report to the Commission on behalf of this rezoning request. Conditions of Approval 1. The development of the child care facility shall be subject to large scale development. 2. The child care facility shall obtain the necessary licenses through the Arkansas Department of Human Services. Discussion (Mr. Mobely distributed a handout to the Commission and Ms. Sherwin gave a presentation of the material distributed.) Sherwin: There are some exciting things happening in Fayetteville and some concerns that need to be addressed. Such as some of the issues that we have spoken about in the last couple of weeks. ChildCare, Inc. and SelectCare, Inc. and the Child Care Foundation of American and I am the President of all three We have been working with Fayetteville Industrial Park along with the University of Arkansas, Department of Human Services, Health Department, and the Mayor's Office. Superior Industries has been working on the child care solution for their company for the past five years. We are in affiliation with several of the other employers in the area also and have developed this to be a feasible child care solution for all the employers, employees, parents, children, and community. When we first addressed Fayetteville Industrial Park with the ideas and issues a shared child care facility, we contacted numerous employers and presented them with our plan of action and a map. We had found no opposition until just recently and their final word was that they don't want to be bad neighbors. They are not opposed to a child care facility being in Fayetteville Industrial Park but they think there would be a better location on the out skirts of Fayetteville Industrial Park. Possibly the Fayetteville Industrial Park may have a separate location for office development. In my research on industrial parks, I have found this to be the case. That is Mr. Gaddy's standpoint. The hazmat evacuation procedure - I have a letter from John Gibson who is the coordinator of Washington County Office of Emergency Services and he will work with us to put together a hazmat evacuation. • • Planning Commission November 9, 1998 Page 22 Public Discussion Mr. Bob Bracey of Superior Industries appeared before the Commission in opposition to this rezoning on the grounds of the hazardous nature and heavy equipment movement of the industries and the fact that the subject area is the only area zoned as industrial. Further Discussion Estes: Approximately how many children will expect to be in your facilities? Sherwin: 128 children. Estes: Do you have projected peak times where you would exceed 120? Sherwin: Absolutely never would we exceed the 128. Estes: Because you are asking us to rezone an I-2 area to provide for your facility, have you considered any evacuation plans in the event of an emergency? Sherwin: Yes. We have the hazmat evacuation plan that will be developed and you have a letter from the Coordinator of Washington County Office of Emergency Services. Estes: completed. It appears to me that no recommendations were being made until the facility is Sherwin: That is standard procedure. They need to look at the facility. Estes: What my concern is if there is some sort of a hazardous spill, how will you evacuate 120 children? Children unlike adults are going to have to have assistance. Sherwin. Yes. And car seats. We are working with the City's bus system and the School District's bus system and we're going to put the plan together from those aspects. Estes: This letter indicates that nothing will be done until you've completed the project but yet you are asking us to rezone. I'm concerned about how you will evacuate children if there is a need to do so. Sherwin: We have vans and we have drivers. We will have all the means we need of getting the children out. It's a matter of simply formatting a plan. • Estes: How many employees do you consider having on site? • • Planning Commission November 9, 1998 Page 23 Sherwin: 25 Estes: And how many vehicles do you consider having available? Sherwin: There will be two vans. There will be 15-20 vehicles. Reynolds. Where I'm confused is our City staff recommends approval of the requested zoning but on page 4 2 of the agenda packet, there is a statement in the report that delineates staff's reservations and it further states that the Fire Chief is opposed due to the hazardous nature of many materials handled in the industrial park. Sherwin: I have spoken to Mr. Jackson a couple of times and he said he would contact Alett Little. I don't know if he has done that. I was not able to talk to her about that. Reynolds: We don't have any paperwork to that affect. Conklin: I talked to Mickey Jackson last Wednesday and his letter that's included in your packet is what he stands by. Sherwin: He told me he would stand by the letter, however, with the evacuation procedure that does make it better. The real issue here is not to be in or to be out of Fayetteville Industrial Park because if we are right outside Fayetteville Industrial Park we still have the same safety issues. Odom: I think you have a great idea. But these are big details. These aren't little concerns and I don't think you think they're little concerns. I think you have taken extraordinary steps because of the extraordinary circumstances and that is children around hazardous material. Unfortunately there is no way that I can support it when the Fire Chief is saying that it concerns him enough to not recommend it. Sherwin: You might also think about is that if I'm not doing this the industries themselves are going to at some point in time. Then you will have children spread throughout the park versus being in one location. Odom: For a child care facility at Superior, they would have to have a conditional use. Is that not correct? Conklin: I-2 does not allow child care. We would have to rewrite our regulations in order to allow that. • Odom. So for them to want to do that on an individual basis, they would have to come Planning Commission November 9, 1998 Page 24 before us and I don't think that we would approve that.. Sherwin: We have to remain relatively close in order for the parents to use it. Reynolds: If you put this in, you would be my neighbor. I like on City Lake Road. There is property near the Post Office or the City had acreage that you might negotiate for but I can't support you in the industrial park. MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to deny the rezoning request. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion to deny was unanimously approved with a vote of 9-0-0. Further Discussion Odom. You have the right to appeal to City Council. • Planning Commission November 9, 1998 Page 25 RZ98-19 REZONING TERMINELLA, pp2941 This rezoning was submitted by Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of Tom Terminella for property located north of Township East extension. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural, and contains approximately 45.87 acres The request is to change the zoning from A-1, Agricultural, to R-1, Low Density Residential. Staff recommended approval of the requested rezoning. Dave Jorgensen was present on behalf of the developer to address the Commission on this rezoning request. Discussion Hoffman: Do you anticipate any increased runoff or pollution to the creek as a result of this development? • Jorgensen: The width of the flood plain at that particular point is 50 feet from the centerline to 75 feet wide so we're making our lots that back up to the creek extra deep for that reason. • Hoffman: You don't propose any channelization? Jorgensen: At this particular point, no. Public Comments No one was present to address the Commission regarding this rezoning request. MOTION Mr. Ward made a motion to approve the rezoning. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion to approve the rezoning request was approved by a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. • Planning Commission November 9, 1998 Page 26 AD98-30: ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM UNDERGROUND UTILITY ORDINANCE Discussion Conklin: The Planning Commission has met with Ozarks Electric and the City of Bentonville. At the last meeting, there was some consensus to add the word "new" to page 6.3 which is the original ordinance passed by the City Council. The material in strike out was what was proposed to be deleted. The material in bold is what was proposed by the Ordinance Review Committee. My understanding was that there was interest in adding the word "new" in Section A as follows: (A) In the new residential developments requiring planning commission approval and new commercial developments all "new" utility wires, lines, and/or cable in said developments utilized by electric and/or telecommunications companies shall be placed underground. Additionally, Section C would remain unedited as follows: • (c) Overhead wires, supporting structures, and associated structures of a temporary nature which provide temporary service shall be exempt from this section. A permit obtained from the planning administrator for said temporary service, addressing the nature and duration of said service, shall be required. Transmission lines of 34.5 Kv and above shall be exempt from this section. • One of the reasons for doing this is that if you require all new utility lines to be placed underground, it would exempt existing lines. Developers are not putting anything over 12 Kv in their development. Only the utility companies are using lines larger than that. The example they gave us where you may have a development that has line over 12 Kv would be for like a General Motors plant which would required an enormous amount of electricity. That would be in modification to what the City Council Ordinance Review Committee sent down to this Commission. It's the Commission's option tonight either to discuss this at our next meeting or you can act on it and decide whether or not you want to add that one word or make other changes. Johnson. There is one other change that I think I would recommend on page 6.2: 2. Only existing lines above 12 KV shall be exempt from this section. In our presentation last week, it appeared as if those were the lines that should be exempt. • • Planning Commission November 9, 1998 Page 27 Conklin: Page 6.3 was included as the entire ordinance. On Page 6.2 you see an ordinance that was drafted to delete a section of the existing ordinance and then replace it with that language. Johnson: What is Page 6.3? Conklin: That is the existing ordinance showing the language the Ordinance Review Committee wants to delete. Page 6.2 is the Draft Ordinance containing language which they want to add to the existing ordinance. Reynolds: I thought they wanted to bury 12 Kv and below. And anything above that would be left on existing poles. Odom: Let me clarify. The City Council revisited this ordinance. Conklin: That is correct. Odom: They did their revisions and conducted hearings on it and they sent it to us essentially just to say, here it is, yes or no. Or did they send it to us with instructions to do with it what you may. What are our instructions? Conklin: According to the memo from Kit Williams, this was brought back before you for "review and comments." I think the issue is the waivers which have been granted in the past. They are trying to look at the ordinance and modify it in a manner that will work for the City of Fayetteville In our discussions, it was determined that anything over 12 Kv, Ozarks or SWEPCO would be putting that line in. The developer does not install anything above 12 Kv lines in a development. Hoffman: In the new commercial developments, in the research park, and so on, did he not say that the larger lines would likely be buried for appearance purposes and they would be greater than 12 Kv new lines and replacing existing overhead lines with new. I would like our ordinance to be able to address that and require that new lines be placed underground. Conklin: As part of what the developer is installing? Hoffman: Suppliers. SWEPCO or Ozarks. Odom: As it's fixing to read, all that would be above ground. • Conklin: That is correct. This is a major change from what we've been looking at. That you as a developer have a piece of land you are subdividing and doing a large scale development • • Planning Commission November 9, 1998 Page 28 and you have an overhead line going across this piece of land, all that you would be required to do was put the electric to serve your development underground. The existing line would remain above ground. Hoffman: That's fine if the existing line remains above ground. But, if the existing line is removed and upgraded to a large service for the entire development, it seems to me that as a Planning Commission we have an obligation that we try to improve the aesthetics of the City. And in doing so, we can encourage new lines to be placed underground. Estes: The addition of the word "new", I think I was the one that first suggested that and the reason is that as the ordinance now reads, new residential development or new commercial development but yet with existing lines, the developer can complete the development and the existing lines are left above ground. If there are to be new utility wires then those go underground. That was my thinking and that was my reasoning. A very pragmatic example of that is the old Mazzio's Pizza or the new proposed Wendy's Restaurant, we have new construction but we have existing lines. If there are to be new lines put in the development then they go underground. The existing lines remain above ground. In examples that have been suggested, the Business Park, the Research Park, if there are existing lines and they come down - - if there is a new line on the property it goes underground. Then you drop on down to the exemptions and lines 12 Kv and above are exempt. Hoffman: I'd like to send something back to Council but I'm not sure if I'm ready to. Public Discussion Colleen Gaston residing outside the City but working and owning property in the City addressed the Commission. She urged the Commission to take the position to try and improve the aesthetics of Fayetteville and encourage utilities to be underground. Further Discussion Ward: I want to send it back to the Council and let them deal with it. It was their original policy and their intent was that this was going to be all new utility lines would be underground. It came from them. They were wanting an active ordinance. Let's send it back to them and let them come up with their own version. We've heard it all before and the developers have taken it straight up to City Council and got unanimous approval of the way they wanted it. Hoffman: I thought we discussed tonight to put in an important exemption for them back in the ordinance. • Ward: I think so, too. Adding the word "new" like Bob has suggested and leaving the 34 • • Planning Commission November 9, 1998 Page 29 Kv lines in there, I think we have accomplished what the City Council originally intended to do all along. Odom: So we Just want to send the minutes of this meeting? Estes: No. It's been sent to us for comment and I think we need to send something definitive back. MOTION Mr. Estes made a motion to send the ordinance back to the City Council with the addition of the word "new" in subsection A to read: In new residential developments requiring Planning Commission approval and new commercial developments, all new utility wires, lines, and/or cables in said development utilized by electric and/or telecommunications companies shall be placed underground. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. Further Discussion Odom: What about the exemption? Estes: That was Commissioner Johnson's language. Odom: Would you like to make an amendment to the motion? Johnson: If the motion stands as stated, does the affect of that not require new 34.5 Kv wires to go underground? Estes: out. No. In Ordinance Section 166.013 subsection B, the exemption - that is exempted Johnson: And so you're going to continue to exempt out new lines 12 Kv? Section 2 as it reads, lines of 12 Kv and above. Estes: We have a memo from Alderman Williams telling us that after serious discussion with power companies, the ordinance was revised to exempt power lines of 12 Kv and above rather than the 34.5 Kv that now exists. That's the draft copy that was enclosed and sent to us. Odom: In our discussions with the utility companies there appears to be some type of • problem in burying lines over 12 Kv. • Planning Commission November 9, 1998 Page 30 Hoffman: There is a great deal of expense involved in burying existing lines. You have to rip them up and bury them. But the problem is, I don't want to exempt new lines. I don't want to exempt raw land from putting big transmission lines underground if they are not there. Existing lines of 12 K or greater than 12 Kv and above would be exempt. Odom: So number 2 in your opinion should read only existing lines of 12 Kv and above shall be exempt from this section. Hoffman: Correct. Am I being clear enough? Odom: So is there an amendment to the motion. Johnson: No. I'll pose no amendments. Reynolds: You have to change 6.3. Odom: Only existing lines of 12 Kv and above are exempt. • AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION Ms. Hoffman made an amendment to the motion as follows: Draft Ordinance Section 160.13 (B)(2) should read: 2. Only existing lines above 12 Kv shall be exempt from this section. Mr. Estes seconded the amendment to the motion. Further Discussion Estes: Would that contemplate say if the utility companies decides to upgrade the lines along College Avenue. Odom: They are existing. Estes: But, if they are upgrading those. Hoffman: Twenty years from now, hopefully they will. At that time, they will be required to be underground. • Reynolds: I think the City has some money in the CIP program to help bury the lines along Planning Commission November 9, 1998 Page 31 North College. Hoover: I'm not going to be in favor of this new proposed ordinance. I like the original ordinance and after visiting with all the different utility companies, it seems like our particular problem is an attitude and philosophy and I'm not willing to back off. I like the original ordinance. Forney: I would appreciate it if the Commission could update me about the meeting last Friday. I was unable to attend that at which representatives of Ozarks Electric and SWEPCO attended. I thought the meeting on Thursday with the representative from Bentonville left me with the feeling that it was not too much to ask that all 12 Kv lines in the City be buried when redevelopment took place. I realize that in Bentonville, they don't have any to re -bury because they don't have them up in the first place. We have heard tales of exorbitant cost for switching gears at both ends of the up and down which apparently are not necessary north of Fayetteville. I hope that there might be something informative by way of SWEPCO and Ozarks Electric. Estes: What the amendment does is all the utility wires go underground. The exemption is only existing lines of greater than 12 Kv are exempt. So, in new construction, if there is new wire, it goes underground. I would not anticipate our City Council would pass this. I view this as being a much stronger piece of legislation than we now have. If there is new residential construction, if there is new commercial construction and new wire, it goes underground. What is exempt? Existing lines greater than 12 Kv. Odom: Before, we were trying to clean things up. According to the current ordinance, that Ma77io's thing should go underground? Why isn't it going underground? Probably because the cost is so great. Yet, elsewhere, it is being done. Hoffman: I think is our attempt to compromise. It's not as strong an ordinance as the original yet does accomplish what I think that the utility companies are already doing in new residential development anyway. They are burying them. There were some discussions about the order in which the houses are built in each subdivision. If the developer goes to the end of the cul de sac and puts those in first then he is charged and a rebate is made as it goes along but it is all underground in new residential. Forney: As I understood it from the staff on Thursday, they could not come up with an example of a residential subdivision in which overhead electric was installed. So I don't think we need this ordinance to accomplish that. I'm not concerned about residential. Hoffman: We have to lump it in with commerical. Forney: I think we are strictly talking about commerical here. I don't think this has • • • Planning Commission November 9, 1998 Page 32 anything to do with residential as I understand it. Conklin: I can't think of one residential subdivision that has above ground electric. Odom. We ran into this with the first waiver request out on Salem Road where there is an existing line. And we required the developer to bury the existing main line. Not just what was in the development but an existing line. This ordinance would not require that. Tucker: Called from the question. Roll Call Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 6-3-0. Commissioner Forney, Commissioner Hoover and Commissioner Johnson voted against the motion. Meeting adjourned at 7:18 p.m. • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MOV, 9 VOTING LOG- PAGE _._ae-3 t ,nI (APPeme-n) rn6T1014 DAMS- mvit to DAVtS mons Davis (setcAltl) 1"711 M?KRAI I. QBOB ESTES (5 I5.) 2. JOHN FORNEY (s SS) \i 3. LOREL HOFFMAN (5: Z7' Yia SHARON HOOVER (S: Z8) mon'�4. �\I 5. PHYLLIS HALL JOHNSON (5:25. Mole ymo�a� 6. * CONRAD ODOM C5; 21 1 N ki 7. ROBERT REYNOLDS (5: Z5) A \ y 8. GARY TUCKER (5:3' Y 1�° - 9. LEE WARD (5: c"0J �° VI D --7-z,„ s__, t ,nI • • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF 1 t 19 VOTING LOG- PAGE 2 023 t Z9 V498- t 1 t1 etig- t8 t eZ `iQ - l9 1. BOB ESTES \t Y \./\-Z 2. JOHN FORNEY V / Y 'Y .. y 3. LOREL HOFFMAN i \II \{ V 4. SHARON HOOVER 6 iY MaTtoW \/ l PHYLLIS HALL JOHNSON rrlo4l� YL5. Y 6. CONRAD ODOM YMAIM 2.140 \ / Y 7. ROBERT REYNOLDS YY \( Y 8. GARY TUCKER Y y V Y 9. LEE WARD Zn►o zuP . Pv1oC1dKJ ��-0-6 - o -o g -dr -C) . Q -CO • • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF 11 /9196 VOTING LOG- PAGE 3 eF3 IMOCE.G--e UnLLN ONOOZGe unu.V1 A111e/D I. BOB ESTES mcmc'J / 1 2. JOHN FORNEY 1\1 3. LOREL HOFFMAN y 4. SHARON HOOVER K V 5. PHYLLIS HALL JOHNSON i 6. CONRAD ODOM Y 7. ROBERT REYNOLDS 8. GARY TUCKER v 9. LEE WARD 6-3 -0 STAFF Item #1 YYll►JUTka• ABSENT Item #2 Item #S1 7 - CUQS-ZZ DAvSS Cu 'SS - 22 Cu4S-z2 DAvts MOTION 7 T. Conklin OOOIY1 NGFPmAN J. Johns SECOND A. Little WAep ESTES B. Vinson IV 1 B. Estes \% J. Forney Y L. Hoffman Y S. Hoover Y P. Johnson y C. Odom N R. Reynolds y G. Tucker L. Ward N ACTION APPe. W/COMA AtY> 1D f11aTtot4 VOTE Aeee . STAFF PRESENT ABSENT J. Beavers 7 T. Conklin ./ J. Johns ✓ A. Little B. Vinson IV D. Warrick • • • Item #17.--- CU48-zz DAVIS Item #S3 LS13%8-2.4 1-6PktNS Item #64 VA 48-11 C- IERAL P MOTION Z'OHnlsotJ X701-1►J*ON %oFPmAN SECOND 1-1tFFmgN WACO ODOM B. Estes "1 V V J. Forney Y" Y 1 Y V L. Hoffman S. Hoover Y y Y P. Johnson Y Y 'Y C. Odom N Y y R. Reynolds + Y\Y v y G. Tucker L. Ward 1 y ACTION TABLE pppQ W/COt,ID. VOTE S -1-O 9-0-0 • • • . Item #45 2Z Re- B DIXIE Item #5 Item #6 MOTION °COrfl SECOND WA(D B. Estes J. Forney L. Hoffman S. Hoover P. Johnson C. Odom R. Reynolds G. Tucker L. Ward ACTION I DFTN VOTE