Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-12-14 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on December 14, 1998 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain St., Room 219, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED Amendments to the Master Street Plan Tune Plaza (LSD98-34) The Cliffs, Ph II (PP98-11) Islamic Center (CU98-25) Hayes (CU95-39) Oates (RZ98-21) Hooker (CU98-15.1) Benard (CU98-26) COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Bob Estes J. Forney (arrived at 7:45 p.m.) Lorel Hoffman Sharon Hoover Conrad Odom Lee Ward STAFF PRESENT Jim Beavers Janet Johns Alett Little Ron Petrie Brent Vinson APPROVAL OF MINUTES ACTION TAKEN Tabled until January 11, 1998 Approved w/conditions Approved w/conditions Approved on Consent Agenda Tabled until January 11, 1998 Approved Approved w/conditions Approved COMMISSIONERS ABSENT Phyllis Hall -Johnson Gary Tucker STAFF ABSENT Dawn Warrick The minutes of the November 23, 1998 meeting were approved as distributed. Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1998 Page 2 OLD BUSINESS AMENDMENTS TO THE MASTER STREET PLAN MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to table the discussion. Mr. Estes seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 5-0-0. • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1998 Page 3 MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to move Item 4 - CU98-25: Conditional Use (Islamic Center) to a consent agenda. Mr. Estes seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion carried with a unanimous vote of 5-0-0. CONSENT AGENDA CU98-25 CONDITIONAL USE ISLAMIC CENTER, PP 482 This conditional use request was submitted by Mahmood Ahmad and Abbas Meigooni on behalf of the Islamic Center of Northwest Arkansas for property located at 1420 Center Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, and contains approximately 0.67 acres. The request is to construct a church in an R-2 zone. • Conditions of Approval Staff recommended approval with the following condition: The Islamic Center meet or exceed all development requirements as stated in the Unified Development Ordinance. The Consent Agenda was approved by acclamation. • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1998 Page 4 LSD98-34: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT TUNE PLAZA, PP 252 This item was submitted by Jim Key, architect, and by Stephen Jeff is of Garver Engineers on behalf of Tune & Tune Investments for property located at 2908 North College Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 1.97 acres. Mr. Jim Key came forward to address the Commission on behalf of Tune & Tune Investments. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards regarding proposed uplit pylons which are a part of the Sonic and are designed to resemble drinking straws. Staff recommends elimination of the "straw" supports and use of supports which mirror the sign. Further, the proposed pole sign for the development does not meet current standards and staff recommends one 75 square feet sign. la. Condition was amended to allow the "straw" pylons but same should be capped and • should not flash different colors but remain a continuous white light and the proposed pole sign should be 75 square feet. • 2. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant and all comments from utility representative. 3. All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. 4. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specification and calculations for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, street, sidewalks, parking lot and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. 5. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 6 feet sidewalk with a minimum 10 feet green space along College Ave In the southwest comer of the property, the sidewalk location shall be coordinated in order to avoid a concrete Junction box. This location shall be approved by the Sidewalk & Trails Coordinator. 6. Dedication of right of way to meet the requirements of the Master Street Plan as shown on plat. College Avenue is classified as a principle arterial which requires a total of 110 feet of right of way with a dedication of 55' from centerline required of this project. • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1998 Page 5 7. Drainage system and all work is to be conducted within the highway right of way must be approved by and coordinated with Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department. 8. The accessible parking space on the north side of the building is located without a ramp or access aisle. This must be resolved to the satisfaction of the Traffic Superintendent and ADA Coordinator prior to the issuance of a building permit. 9. Large Scale Development approval is valid for one calendar year. 10. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required - a. Grading and drainage permits b. Separate easement plat c. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow.) 11. Construction of the ingress/egress divider aisle in accordance with the Large Scale Development plan which should agree with the Landscape plan. Discussion Odom: Are there any further conditions of approval? Little: No. Key: All of the conditions are agreeable. They are straight forward. I would like to discuss the first condition which is the sign age and freestanding pylons which are a key element in the Sonic concept. As you know, this is the old Coy's site at 2908 N. College. We propose to develop a 1200 square feet shopping center with nine retail spaces maximum in that square footage in addition to a Sonic Drive -In facility located on the front of this site adjacent to what is currently the Panda Restaurant. The Sonic 2000 concept that Sonic is promoting includes various elements that are key to their business plan. Two focal elements in that plan are these unlit, vertical, fiberglass, pylon tubes. They are red fiberglass with a fiber optic lighting system, spiraling up them to simulate a soda straw. Sonic has views those as a nice addition that greatly enhances the overall aesthetics and characteristics of their existing facilities and they have in the last recent months made plans and steps to introduce those retrofits on existing facilities and the new facilities built in northwest Arkansas have included those elements. There currently are facilities in place in Springdale and Farmington with plans with update and upgrade the facilities in Bentonville and Rogers. It has been determined that these pylon elements are significant contributor to the increase in sales that they have had. They are very strong elements that helps to identify the Sonic facility. We would like the Commission to consider allowing this developer • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1998 Page 6 to place those elements on this Sonic facility. The sign age that was mentioned, I take it that the Sonic logo sign that includes America's Drive -In as a element is not acceptable because of the advertising characteristic of that trademark. I question where it would be acceptable to use a similar face sign but remove that particular phrase. Little: That would be acceptable. The color would have to be worked out so that they are compatible with the others and the word "Sonic" would be all that would be allowed. The regulation says, "no other advertising." It would also have to fit the size requirement. Key: I had taken the ordinance to stated that in addition to the 75 square feet, there is an increase allowed of 1 square foot for each additional 500 square feet. I take it from the statement here in condition one that is taken as an alternative that is not a given because of the phrasing of "increased by" instead of "increased to?" Little: Yes. The requirement is for shopping centers. For very large shopping centers there is an advantage to use the calculation of dividing by square footage. But, for the small one and I think this would fall in that smaller category, your best advantage is to take the 75 square feet sign allowable. • Key: You are not able to add them together? • Little: No. Key: We will downsize the scale of the sign age on both the center sign age and the individual shops that were to be identified by that common joint identification and the Sonic sign. I believe now we're at a total of 98 square feet so we will reduce it down to where it complies with the 75 square feet area. Little: So you want to talk about the straws that are unlit. Key: I hope that the Commission on their agenda tour had the opportunity to see some of the facilities in the area. I know we discussed at the Subdivision Committee meeting the Springdale facilities. I went up earlier this week to view the one on 412 and unfortunately -- Little: It wasn't working. Key: The front circuit was blown. Evidently the pylons and the front portion of the neon were not on. Little: It wasn't connected when we went up. • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1998 Page 7 Key: I have photographs provided by Sonic Corporation. They emphasize the pylons. We have video that has been made available to us that is intended to show the future of the fiber optic lighting on these pylons. Little: We do have to make arrangements in advance if we're going to show videos. Public Comment No one was present to address the Commission regarding this request and the floor was closed to public comment. Further Discussion Odom: I know it is the staffs interpretation that because of the sign ordinance, the straws and internal lighting is not allowed by ordinance. This is not the place to appeal that? Little: No. I would be appealed through the Board of Adjustments and Sign Appeals. The ordinance provides: "...an illuminating sign on which artificial or reflected lights is not maintained stationary and constant in intensity and color at all times when in use." Those are prohibited. Key: What is the definition of a sign? I question whether the pylons would be considered a sign element. Little: The definition of a sign is: " Every device, frame, letter, figure, character, mark, plane, point, design, picture... which used or intended to be used to attract attention or convey information." It's pretty broad Odom: I don't have a problems with the straws. If we approved this them without the straws they have a right to appeal. Little: Usually, the Planning Commission deals with the Commercial Design Standard issues and when the Planning Commission makes a decisions on signs, we allow that to stand. Both the Planning Commission decisions and the Board of Sign Appeals decisions are appealed to the City Council. If they disagree with the decision of the Planning Commission, they could • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1998 Page 8 appeal to Council in this particular case Estes: Because the Sonic 2000 concept does not conform with the Sign Ordinance and with the Commercial Design Standards and perhaps does not conform with other Cities and Municipalities standards and ordinances. Is there an alternative to the Sonic 2000 concept? Key: It's my understanding that is the concept they are wanting to promote in all their facilities. They have been successful with all their facilities and they have been successful with the exception of a few facilities in Phoenix that I know of particularly where they were not included. I don't know what their altemative is to it. I think you are all familiar with the existing facilities. They have a small acrylic pediment located on the front of their canopies. I don't know if those will remain. It's very possible there would be no element there whatsoever and the canopies themselves would be supported by the steel structure as it is done and the only elimination would be the neon accent along the perimeter of this canopy. Estes: What was done in Phoenix? Key: I do not know. I believe the pylons were just illuminated. They feel they are a very strong element and a factor in their success of their operations and there are plans to develop other Sonic facilities here in the area and I know that this particular business owner would like to see those pylons included. Estes: The reason for my question is as a Planning Commission we are charged with both interpreting and enforcing the ordinances and because the Sonic 2000 concept does not comply, I must vote against. Key: I had not really looked at these as a sign element. I do understand that with the multiple buildings we are limited to a single wall sign per structure. I assume you are classifying these as a freestanding sign but it is attached to the building. It is a vertical element as opposed to a projecting wall sign. Estes: If there are alternatives, I would like to know those alternatives rather than vote against the project. Key: We were asked at plat review and subdivision to contact Sonic which we have done but we are at a loss for an alternative. Their opinion is they would like to see these implemented. They have not had trouble in the surrounding communities. I spoke with the Planning Director in Springdale and this was a non -issue. I see them as a better solution than the acrylic pediments If they are interpreted as being a sign, we have two of them. We also have a wall sign mounted on the building. If this is something that is not acceptable and not approved or if it is a matter of approving it subject to this first condition then let us consider an appeal. Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1998 Page 9 Would this be appealed to the Board of Sign Appeals or the could it go directly to the City Council? Little: Generally, when the Planning Commission is working on a project and they are considering signs as a part of Commercial Design Standards, then that approval becomes a part of your large scale development. There would be other issues. If there were interpretation issues as to flashing signs, I would think the more appropriate place to appeal would be the Board of Sign Appeals. The appeal to the City Council would be the most expeditious route for resolution because both boards may be appealed to the City Council. MOTION Ms. Hoffman made a motion to approve the large scale development subject to all staff conditions and contingent upon the pole sign not being granted the automatic increase in square footage and remain at 75 square feet making the joint sign location meet City standards and that the soda straws not be illuminated in any manner. Mr. Estes seconded the motion. Further Discussion Forney: I don't object to the "straw" pylons. The only this that I think might violate the sign ordinance would be light pollution. They have lights shining out of them. It probably wouldn't be a difficult matter to block that ray of light. If we interpret anything that calls attention to the premises as a sign then every building on 71B would a sign. They all try to call attention to themselves. That's such an elastic interpretation. I think they are building elements. They are not signs. This is one of those cases where I think we have a fairly sophisticated building plan that's used nationwide that is full of vitality and lively and eye catching but in a positive sense. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION Mr. Forney made a motion to amend the motion on the floor to not limit the use of the straw pylon as called for in the Sonic 2000 concept allowing it to be illuminated except blockage of light pollution by capping the pylon in some way. Mr. Ward seconded the motion Further Discussion Hoffman: In that regard, could I fashion the original motion to specify internally • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1998 Page 10 illuminated. It's an architectural element. It was not my intent to do away with that. Forney: There is some sort of animated play of lights within it. It changes colors. Key: To clarify, there is an uptight in the top which was discussed at previous meetings. We will look at blocking that if that is a condition of the approval. In addition to that illumination the only other illumination is the fiber optic cable that spirals around it that gives the simulation of the soda straw effect. That is illuminated by an indirect light source that feed a light beam through that optic cable. There is a prism that rotates that varies the color or shade of that light. It is made to look like it's moving. It's very subtle from a green shade to a blue shade. It's a low voltage light. It's very indirect. You have a clear acrylic tube and it's illuminating from. Forney: My proposed amendment is to allow them to use the Sonic 2000 straw pylon as it except for the uplight out of the top which I think would contribute to light pollution which should be eliminate. Hoffman: I wish that we could have seen an example of it. It was my opinion that it gave the appearance of being a flashing light. Little: I think that we have a problem with the sign ordinance, too. Let me just read that definition under flashing signs: "An illuminated sign on which artificial or reflected light is not maintained stationary and constant in intensity and color at all times when in use." It's not permitted. Forney: My interpretation is that they are not signs. They are a building element. Little: Here's the definition of a sign. "Every device, frame, letter, figure, character, mark, plane, point, design, picture, stroke, stripe, trademark, or reading matter which is used or intended to be used to attract attention or convey information when the same is placed out of doors, in view of the general public. In addition, any of the above which is not placed out of doors but which is illuminated with artificial or reflected light not maintained stationary and constant in intensity and color at all time when in use shall be considered a sign within the meaning of this chapter when placed near the inside surface of a window in such a way as to be in view of the general public and used or intended to be used to attract attention or convey information to motorists. For the purposes of defining the number of signs, a sign shall 1 Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1998 Page 11 be considered to be a single display surface or display device containing elements organized, related, and composed to form a unit. Where matter is display in a random matter without organized relationship to elements or where there is a reasonable doubt as to the relationship of elements, each element shall be considered a single sign." I think it's covered and I think it's clear. Forney: I appreciate Ms. Little's clarification. Having had all of ten minutes to think about it. I think there is confusion about what is a building and what is a sign. My opinion is this element is not a sign. It is a building element that is decoratively lit. Upon roll call, the amendment to the motion failed with a vote of 2-4-0. Commissioners Estes, Hoffman, Odom, and Ward votes against the amendment. SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION Mr. Ward made a motion to amendment condition one to limiting the pylon "straws" to be solid illumination, no movement, no change in color, no spotlights or strobe lights and that the uplighting be deflected by capping the pylon in some manner. Mr. Estes seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 6-0-0. Further Discussion Key: Thank you very much. We will make sure that we comply with all the requirements and work with the Planning Office about the sign age and advertising concerns and work with Sonic to see that we can provide what you have approved. Forney: What about shared access connection with the property to the north? Is the grade too severe there to accomplish that? Little: That is correct. There's a 6 to 10 feet of difference. ROLL CALL ON THE AMENDED MOTION Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 6-0-0. • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1998 Page 12 PP98-11: PRELIMINARY PLAT THE CLIFFS, PHASE II, PP 488 This project was submitted by Crafton, Tull and Associates on behalf of William G. Underwood for property located at Cliffs Boulevard and Highway 265. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and Phase II contains approximately 34.54 acres Tom Hopper and Bill Underwood were present to address the Commission on behalf of this project. Conditions of Approval Planning Commission determination of the requested density bonus for this Planned Unit Development. The zoning district is R-1 allowing 4 units per acre by right. The developer proposes 6.25 units per acre providing 37 35% open space. Zoning Code provides the Planning Commission the option of approving a density bonus of 7.5 units per acre with the dedication of 35 % open space for a Planned Unit Development. 2. Planning Commission determination of requested waivers: a. To allow a structure closer than 100' horizontally to a permanent lake/pond as shown on the plan. The nearest proposed building will be 60' and the remainder will be, on the average, a distance of 75 feet. b. 10% grade at the intersection of Sapphire Drive and Goldrush Drive. Please find attached the list of several examples of street slopes. Staff supports both requests. 3. Planning Commission determination of any additional onsite or offsite improvements. In accordance with 159.33.E., "Off-site improvements to state highways...", the Planning Commission shall determine any improvements required by the developer to be coordinated with the AHTD. Staff requests that the developer contact eh AHTD and determine if improvements to Highway 265 is requested by the AHTD. If improvements are requested and/or such improvements determined to be required by the Planning Commission, then the developer shall provide the improvements as a condition of this Preliminary Plat. In the case of Glenwood Shopping Center, the AHTD and the City required improvements to Highway 265. In the case of Highway 16W, the City assessed a contribution from Clary Development and Sam Rogers Development toward the City's share in the widening project which is funded "50/50" City and State. • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1998 Page 13 The developer has proposed to contribute for the proposed improvements along Highway 265 including sidewalks and 1/2 the cost of the street fronting the property, times the percent increase of traffic due to the development. This amount will be subtracted from the cost of the Right of Way being dedicated along Highway 265. The Engineer has provided a letter showing this amount being $6,649.35. Please refer to the attached letter dated December 4, 1998, from Crafton, Tull, and Associates. Based on traffic projections from the applicant's engineer, staff recommends a contribution of $47,548.70 towards the improvement of Hwy 265 adjacent to this development. This amount represents the increase in projected traffic volumes of 3.7% for the entire width of Hwy 265 in this area as a result of this development. 4. Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 5. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, sidewalks, parking lots 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 6. Payment of Parks fees in the amount of $64,800 (216 units @ $300 each.) Payment is due prior to approval of a final plat for this development. 7. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include 4' sidewalks with a minimum 6 feet green space along Sapphire Dr. and Goldrush Dr. where these streets are to be constructed for this phase. Also, 6' sidewalks along both sides of Cliffs Blvd. adjacent to the curb, and 6' sidewalks with a minimum of 10' of green space along Happy Hollow Rd. within this phase of development. 8. The developer shall work with the City's 911 Addressing Coordinator to further resolve street naming issues. This must occur prior to this plat being forwarded to the full Commission. 9. Contribution for sidewalks along Hwy 265 for both phase I and phase II is necessary. This shall be included in the assessment for improvements to the state highway according to final plans for the widening project and as determined by the Planning Commission. 10. Contribution for on half of Happy Hollow Rd. adjacent to this phase but not included in this phase of development is required as a condition of this preliminary plat. This guarantee will be refunded to the developer upon complete of the construction of this street segment in a future phase of this project. • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1998 Page 14 11. Right of way per AHTD final plans shall be dedicated to AHTD for all approved phases of this project (I & II) as a condition of this preliminary plat. This shall be by separate document and shall occur upon approval of this plat. 12. Any proposed cost share for the construction of collector streets (Cliffs Blvd. and Happy Hollow Rd.) must be presented to City Council for consideration. A formal estimate was prepared by the developer's engineer and presented to the City Engineer. The following is a summary of the approved and budgeted amounts for these cost share items: 1998 - Approved budgeted amount $50,000.00 1999 - Proposed budgeted amount $0.00 2000 - Approved CIP budgeted amount $0.00 2001 - Approved CIP budgeted amount $250,000.00 13. Approval to be valid for one calendar year. 14. Streetlights shall be installed every 300', at intersections, and at cul de sacs along the public streets. If streetlights are not standard, an agreement between the City and the developer is required. 15. Provide As-Builts for street and drainage for Phase I. 16. Provide additional utility easements along Highway 265 for water and sewer relocation. The placement of these utilities and easements is to be determined as a later date. 17. Dedication of right of way, 50' in width extending from Cliffs Blvd. south to the Seddon property at the points called out to be access easements on the current plat (revised 12/3/98.) 18. Sapphire Dr. and Goldrush Dr are called out to have 50' right of ways. This street dimension within these rights of way shall be revised to be 28' which meets the current street standard. 19. Tree preservation areas need to be reworked due to the dedication of utility easements along the north side of Cliffs Blvd. This shall be to the satisfaction of the Landscape Administrator - see attached memo. Committee Discussion • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1998 Page 15 Little: We do have the street names now. Hoffman: And they have been approved by 911? Little: Yes. Odom: Have you had the opportunity to review the nineteen conditions of the approval? Hopper: We have had opportunity to review the conditions. We agree with the majority. There are two or three items that we would like clarification on. Regarding item #3, we have gone through and computed the developer's contribution to the improvements along Highway 265. As you can see, the method by which we computed the improvements showed a net cost to the developer of $6,649. In looking at the City staff's computation, they came up with a contribution of $47,548 as that contribution. That cost does include sidewalks since the State will be construction sidewalks along that highway. Therefore, Item #9, which calls for a contribution for sidewalks should not be included as a condition of approval. I have discussed that with Mr. Beavers this afternoon and I believe he is in concurrence with me that it does include the sidewalk cost. Just as a point of reference, the $6,649 figure that we had given the • City included a credit to Mr. Underwood for the right of way that was being given to the State at a cost of $18,000. The point should be made that if this project was being developed six months from now, the $18,000 would have been paid to him. The $47,548 figure does not give him any credit for giving that right of way. We had asked for that credit as a part of the development costs for this project. This is not something that would stop the project but we feel like Mr. Underwood should be given a credit for that $18,000. Item #12 calls for the City's contribution to improvements to Cliffs Boulevard and Happy Hollow Road based upon the City contributing funds for the widening of both of those streets. We need to move forward with this project and therefore ask the City Council to have those funds available in 1999 in order that this street project and this development may move ahead on schedule. As far as the street lights are concerned, the developer has gone the extra mile in providing upscale lights that give a different atmosphere to this development. There was discussion as Subdivision Committee about shielding these lights from the adjacent neighbors. I went out Friday night and checked the amount of light produced by these street lights and the type of lights will make it very difficult to shield the lights from the neighbors. We would ask that the lights that have been presented be approved with the shielding. They are on 24 feet tall poles and they are a globe style which is not conducive to shielding. We ask that those lights that were used in the first phase be approved for second phase. (Referring to an exhibit) The area in the pink is the first phase. The area in yellow is the second phase. As far as the cul de sac, we looked at the grades after the Subdivision Committee meeting and feel like they need to stay as shown. The drive could be constructed up to the street but it would be very street. We would request that the drive be allowed to stay as designed. We understand that Happy Hollow Road, based on the City's • request will be a four lane road as opposed to two lane. Based upon that, we are in agreement Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1998 Page 16 with the rest of the conditions. Public Comment Dan Coody a resident of Fayetteville and a neighbor to The Cliffs objected to the light fixtures because of light pollution. He distributed information regarding light pollution which are on file in the Planning Office. Dick Seddon the adjoining property owner to the south cautioned that since the second phase of this project is elevated above his property the light will be affecting him and he stated that at Subdivision Committee it was agreed that the possibility of directing the light would be addressed. Further Discussion Beavers: Regarding the sidewalk issue, I would agree that the condition was duplicated. We agreed upon the contribution for Highway 265 then the condition #9 should be removed. Odom: What do we normally do when we talk about a developer giving right of way dedication? Do we give them a credit? Beavers: No, sir. I stated that we did give credit at Subdivision but was later corrected. Hoffman: That has always been included in the estimate? Little: It's really always been treated as two separate items. What we do is refer to the Master Street Plan and determine what the required right of way is and the requirement is dedication of right of way in accordance with the Master Street Plan. Then, we talk about what other off site contributions might be necessary. So, we just treat it as two separate items and I think that is the reason that we've never wrapped it up into one calculation. Odom: For Item #12, the applicant will have to go to the City Council and request that the project be funded in the budget for 1999 instead of 2000 or 2001. Beavers. The City Council has the final word. If the City Council desires to fund the cost share, then it can be built as shown on the plans. If the City Council declines to enter into the cost share agreement, then the developer must build a minimum of a two lane street. He may build the boulevard at his own expense if he chooses. The minimum requirement would be the 28 feet two lane street. Odom. What do we have in that role? • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1998 Page 17 Beavers. More just for your information so that you can discuss it and know that you will get a minimum two lane street if the City Council would not agree to participate in cost share. Odom. That is up to the City Council and not us. Beavers: Yes. Hopper: We would ask the Planning Commission to concur with the recommendation that the street be built as shown. Little: Yes. Beavers: Yes. Ward: One item that we talked about at the Subdivision Committee meeting and I see that they have included them are the easements to the south. My understanding was that we were trying to make more connectivity to that south property which is very large. How wide are those? • Little: They are 20 feet. Ward is correct. Ward: I think they need to be 50 feet. Little: 50 is the normal right of way. Ward: The idea was that the owner to the south was wanting some connectivity into the street but I would like for the future development of the City to have a 50 feet right of way. • Little: We did talk about dedication of right of way and we did not talk about street construction so all we are expecting was for the right of way to be called out. Ward: We don't expect construction. We just need right of way dedication to joint the property and provide connectivity. It might never be used but 20 feet doesn't do anybody any good. Hopper: The discuss took place at length between Mr. Seddon and Mr. Underwood was that he be given access and not right of way to the street. Mr. Underwood is not opposed at some time to share with the property owner to fair share the cost of anything which might take place. Odom: The cost would be to the developer on a future project. Not The Cliffs. Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1998 Page 18 Hopper: In this case, the City is paying for the upgrade and Mr. Underwood is paying for the street itself and there is not a sharing of the property owner to the south in that cost at this time. Hoffman: We trying to get assurance that the right of way will be wide enough to provide for a future street. Hopper: That's not a problem. We'll provided 50 feet of right of way. Odom. Construction would be the total cost of the future development. Little: So we have resolved that there will be 50 feet of right of way at those two places. Hopper: Yes. The plat will be amended. Hoffman: At Subdivision, the discussion did focus on the shielding of the lights. I'm of the opinion that more work can be done on the part of the Underwoods to assure the adjacent property owners by shielding with landscaping or other means so that this does not contribute to the light pollution across this property line. And I think our ordinance also calls for a shielding of some sort regardless to adjacent properties when the zoning is of a lesser nature. Hopper: Have you been out there at night? Hoffman: I have. The type of light is certainly preferable. I'm not well versed in the differences between mercury and sodium but I think the sodium is certainly a more diffused look. I think that the number of light to be put in the parking lot for security of the development will have the affect of illuminating the adjacent areas. We need to find some way to incorporate this into a motion that is agreeable to both sides. Little: Perhaps we could come up with an agreement between staff and Perry Franklin, who pays the City's electric bill, to work with the developer and make sure that the top part of the light is coated in such a way so that the light spreads downwards. Hoffman: And focused inward if at all possible. In other words, not be put on a pole facing adjoining property. Little: The type of light that they using has the light flood that spreads in all directions so it would take measures such as looking at the location of the light in order to affect the light spread. It won't be possible to shade one side of that type fixture but we can affect it by the height and placement. �I • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1998 Page 19 Hopper: We will work to try to minimize the affect on the adjacent property owner by using the same fixture but adjusting height and location. Underwood: The reason we picked these lights were aesthetic quality. I understood the City encouraged developers to do this. If we can we will solve the pollution problem to some degree. The last stage of this development is 200 feet higher than the first stage and no matter how you shield the lights or place them down, when they are 200 feet taller, there is going to be some pollution. We have security to think about and adequate lighting. It may not be possible to do this without some light pollution. Odom. We're talking about minimizing. Hoffman: We're giving you some options. In the absence of parking lot design, when staff reviews your construction drawings, they can look at the placement of the light fixtures and the possibility that the parking lot lighting poles be placed in such a manner that they are not shining unnecessarily onto the other property or that you plant trees. Underwood: I am amenable. I would like to appeal to you for fairness in regard to the credit for right of way. The State came to me with an offer for this property before this project came before any of the committees and had we not proceeded with our project, the City would have paid because they reimburse the State for the right of way. It seems only fair to me that if we are going to pay for our impact on the highway that we ought to have credit for the land that we are giving for that right of way. I appeal to your fairness on that. Estes: How do the proposed street lights relate in terms of standard candle power to City street light standards? Hopper: Their location is in the boulevard in between the lanes. As far as foot candles, I don't have that information. I would guess they are in the range of 50 to 75%. Estes: Lesser or greater? Hopper: Lesser. Estes: It would seem to me that security is essential to this development and if the candle power is 50 to 60 percent less than the standard City street lights, I don't see any basis for objection. Hopper: That is an observation from being out there. It's not a fact. • Forney: I'm unaware in our regulations of any measures of lumens or foot candles or Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting • December 14, 1998 Page 20 • • wattage. Little: That is correct. Forney: I understand your wattage statement but there will be more of these than street lights. They are closer to the ground than typical street lights. I'm concerned about this for some of reasons that the residents raised that the light not just from the direct fixture but reflection off the ground which is pretty hard for us to shield. The current vegetation is as thick as it's going to get. It will only get thinner with more development. I feel like we're making very qualitative decisions here. I don't have much to go on. I think the fixtures being used are aesthetically pleasing. We may be in a situation where we are accustom to that side of Mt. Sequoyah being dark and we're seeing more development. Everybody I know doesn't want any development but people keep coming here and we have to put them some where and generally The Cliffs is closer to the center of town and therefore a suitable place for higher density. Little: The only standard that you have in the ordinance is that outdoor lighted areas are supposed to located 200 feet from any abutting "R district." Street lights are an exception to that. We are talking about two areas of lights. One is within the street which is required by ordinance. It must be one every 300 feet and at the end of cul de sacs and turns. The other is the lighting that is necessary for lighting of parking of lots so that people can see when they are getting into their cars. Forney. They are lights along the boulevard 300 feet? Little: Yes. Forney: Is the west most parking lot between the buildings and the property line and redesign to have the buildings on the west side of the parking lot then that would create more shielding of that illuminated parking lot which we want to be safe and secure but not affect the neighbors in a bad way. Hopper: The people to the west are the Methodist Assembly and I'm not aware of any residents that are there. I would like to work with the staff and do the best to position the lights to minimize the spread. MOTION Ms. Hoffman made a motion to approve the preliminary plat with a caution that there is insufficient information regarding waste water capacity and therefore it is risky to proceed without resolution of that issue by the City Council and subject to all conditions of approval above except as amended as follows: • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1998 Page 21 1. Granting of 6.25 units per acre with 37.35% open space. 3. The $47,548.70 shall remain the assessment for off site improvement and may be appealed to the City Council within six months. 9. Removing the contribution for sidewalks which is covered by condition #3 above. 12. That the Commission recommend the Council appropriate the funds for cost sharing of construction of Cliffs Avenue and Happy Hollow Road as proposed on the preliminary plat. 20. That the following be added to the conditions of approval - a dedication of 50 feet of right of way to the south will be executed. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. Further Discussion • Little: Would you clarify that the access to the south to the Seddon property did we agree that would be 50 feet right of way? • Hoffman: I want that included in my motion. Hoover: At Subdivision meeting, we talked about the sewer capacity and I thought we would have further information. Odom: We have a meeting in January. Little: The information will be available January 5. If you are uncomfortable about approving this without that information then we should wait until after January 5. Odom: I'm uncomfortable but condition #5 covers any action that may affect this development. The developer is on notice that this is a risk. Forney: I assume that is there an effort for moratorium that it will specify where projects are in the development cycle. Odom. A moratorium can be in any form or fashion. It could be on all future develops or it could be on all or any building permits. If we start getting sanctioned by the EPA on a daily basis I have a strong suspicion that it will come to a screeching halt. • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1998 Page 22 Forney: How many units is this? Little: 216. Forney: We need to consider the waste water capacity situation because a moratorium may not affect things which are through the preliminary plat process. Conceming condition # 12, the proposed cost share is not our choice; however, our recommendation should bear some consideration from the Council. What would the typical cost share would be? If this was not a collector street and just a standard street, would be expect the applicant to pay for the full cost of building that street? Beavers: Yes. Fomey: The cost to this developer would be the cost of a two lane street. Since this is a collector with wider paving we would pay for the difference between the two lane and the collector street. Beavers: Yes. Forney: Since they are proposing a boulevard, how does the cost sharing play out? Beavers: The cost share is the difference between the two lane street and the boulevard which puts more cost to the City than it does to the developer. Hopper: For a 28 feet back of curb to back of curb and gutter street section, we estimate the cost at $74.55 per foot. For a 52 feet back of curb to back of curb and gutter street section, that cost is $212.73 per foot. A boulevard is $239.09 per foot. Forney: So we are proposing to Council that they pay the difference between $74.55 per linear foot and $239.09 per linear foot. What is the City's benefit with the boulevard in this particular location? Hopper: You get four lanes of traffic instead of two and it's more aesthetically pleasing. Odom: I think our recommendation should be that the City stick to the agreement made during phase I and fund it now since this is when the project is ready to go forward. Beavers: During Phase I, the Council did approve the cost share for the boulevard. Mr. Hopper may be able to explain why they chose to do that. • Hopper: The reason was that it would be aesthetically pleasing and would a benefit to the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1998 Page 23 City. Forney: We've looked at boulevards before and this doesn't look as if it will be a cut through and in my opinion I don't support expending funds for a boulevard in this area because it won't carry a lot of traffic. Beaver: The total estimate of the City's cost share is $480,000. Hopper: That includes four lanes for Happy Hollow. Hoover: Regarding the landscape and tree preservation, is the Landscape Coordinator happy with how this is proceeding? Little: The only comment from Kim Hesse was that one of the utility easements is shown as a tree preservation area. She has talked to Jerry Kelso about that and the general consensus has been is if that easement is not needed, we are not going to dedicate that so that it can remain a tree preservation area. That is the only issues that I am aware of. Kelso: That is what we talked about. If for some reason that easement is needed we will • designate another area. Hoover: What was the decision on this group of apartments that only has one way in and out? Hopper: We look at that trying to make a connection and the grade is excessive. Hoffman: What does our ordinance require in this situation? Little: The ordinance requires that there be standard city blocks consisting of anywhere from 250 feet to 1000 feet in length. Anything over 500 feet in length requires a waiver from the Planning Commission. We have traditionally applied that 500 feet in length to mean public street lengths and we had considered this area to be more of a parking lot. We did have discussion at Subdivision and we remember that it was the developer would look at making another way for the length of that to intersect with Happy Hollow Road There is a very short distance between the parking lot area and Happy Hollow, so the question was grade. There is an area in the location of Unit #33, that would appear to be able to be connected using one of the benches of the terrain. Hopper: We'll look at that again. If City staff advises we can connect it, we will. We looked at it and felt like that it was not feasible. • • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1998 Page 24 Little: We would ask the Planning Commission's guidance on that and whether we should spend more time on that issue. Hoffman: I raised that point in Subdivision regarding fire and emergency vehicle access. As a compromise to putting a street through is to ask the developer to have an adequate truck turnaround and I will amend my motion to include a vehicle turnaround. Hoover: I have a problem with the sewer capacity question. Approval of the preliminary plat for this is probably not a good idea when we have such unknowns I would prefer that we table this until we have complete information. Estes: I will vote for the preliminary plat. I am concerned about the waste water treatment. We have been put on notice that we are at or near capacity with our waste water treatment. That situation will continue to exist until the City Council sites a waste water treatment plant and until that plant is complete. This is a risk the developer takes. The developer is aware of the situation and they seem willing to accept that risk so I am voting to approve the preliminary plat. Underwood: We accept that risk. Fomey: How many votes does this require? A simple majority or a majority of the full Commission? Little: This requires a simple majority. The conditional use request, annexation requests, zoning changes, amendment to the Master Plan, and amendment to the Planning Commission By Laws requires a majority vote of 5. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 4-2-0. Commissioners Forney and Hoover voted against the motion. • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1998 Page 25 CU95-39: CONDITIONAL USE HAYES, PP 562 This conditional use was submitted by Terry Hayes for property located at 802 South School. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and the request is for a vehicle storage lot and was granted December 11, 1995, and is being brought before the Planning Commission to review the conditions of approval Theresa Coleman was present to address the Commission on behalf of the applicant. Conditions of Approval I . An 8' solid screening wood fence is to be installed on the west, east, and north side of the property to screen all vehicles currently being stored within the existing chain link fence. All barbed wire will be removed unless approved by City Council. Cars being stores on the lot are to be removed after 50 days from the date they are brought onto the site. 4. The parking lot and building must meet the current development design standards in the Unified Development Ordinance. 5. Conditions must be met within 60 days from the December 14, 1998 Planning Commission meeting or Conditional Use 95-39 will be revoked and enforcement of he Zoning Ordinance will be forwarded to the City Prosecutor. Committee Discussion Coleman: I want to discuss conditions 1, 2, 3, and 4. In December, 1995, we talked to the Commission and the Planning Director about a screening fence. At that time, we both agreed that would invite theft so we ruled that out then. I don't understand why this is coming up now. We have had barbed wire for two years. The state requires that we have barbed wire. The Arkansas Towing and Recovery Board states that the cars must be left 55 days in order for the property owner to have due time to pick them up. We have ten days to write a certified letter allowing them 45 days to be picked up. The parking lot and building standards are new and three years ago the parking lot was not mentioned nor was the sidewalk or design standards. The original five requirements have been complied with. Public Comment Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting • December 14, 1998 Page 26 Nick Jeffries owner of Advance Towing supported the staff position to revoke the conditional use permit on the grounds that barbed wire was not required by State law unless you tow for a police agency. Additionally, he noted that there were two other business which store cars at the lot approved for Terry Hayes. Further Discussion Little: Condition #1, the eight feet solid screening wood fence, it was agreed that we felt like a vegetative screening would be preferable to a solid board fence and then there were conditions about what was supposed to be screened. Your regulations on screening states that it is supposed to become view obscuring within two years. It has now been three years and you can still through the screening. This is reason that we have given up on the idea that vegetative screening would work and are now saying that if you choose to allow it to remain there, then it needs to be an 8 feet solid screening wall. With regard to condition #3 and the 55 days, if the Planning Commission chooses to allow the conditional use, we would suggest amending that to 60 days. That would make more sense. With regard to the parking lot and building, I think that it should be noted that when the original approval was given, there was no discussion about there being a building or a parking lot in front of the towing yard. The commercial design standards were not adopted until October 15, 1996. You can see from the picture that has been included in • your packet that as late as March 7, 1997, the building was existing with just particle board covering. It had not been completed. It is also important that at the original approval in 1995, there was no mention of other than one towing operation being in this area This is a C-2 area, we don't normally allow towing yards there. We gave special approval and conditional use for this particular towing yard. I feel that if three towing companies are going to operating there that is something that the Planning Commission specifically needs to approve. Odom. Is there a letter from the neighbor? Vinson: There was only one written complaint from Mr Jeffries and there were three telephone calls from neighbors. Odom. What were the nature of the complaints? Vinson: Loud noises. Lights into their homes as well as unsightliness. Estes: I will vote against the conditional use 95-39. The reason is that this applicant came to this Commission and obtained a conditional use on December 11, 1995. There were five conditions of approval. Two of those have been violated. This applicant has received a first violation notice and a second violation notice and staff recommends denial of the continuation of this conditional use and it is for these reasons that I will vote against. • MOTION • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1998 Page 27 Mr. Estes made a motion to decline conditional use 95-39. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. Further Discussion Coleman: Mr. Jeffries is a rival towing company. I have documentation from the University of Arkansas where he has tried to stop us from towing there. He is not a neighbor and he has no concern about what we are doing. We did do screening I have a letter from Beth Sandeen dated in July stating that we had complied. She requested that we plant four more bushes on the north side. I got a violation in September after Ms. Sandeen left. I planted more bushes. I got another violation notice in November. I called the planning office and spoke to Tim Conklin and asked if he would come can check to see that we had done enough and he brought the new landscape coordinator with him. Until then, I had done everything I was asked to do. I also have a letter from Arvest Bank Group, who we lease from, stating that they are very happy to see our changes. (Ms. Coleman presented copies of the correspondence which are on file in the Planning Office.) I have also made a picture board of the other towing companies zoned C-2 and located on School Street. • Odom. Unfortunately the barded wire is in direct conflict with our City standards. Mr. • Jeffries had the same problem. Hoffman: I agree that the City has some conflicting ordinances between commercial design standards and the police department needs. However, if this is not a licensed police lot which I take it from the correspondence that it is not. And if you are unwilling to agree to four out of five conditions of approval, I will vote against the continuation of this use. I suggest that if this is appealed, that you could find a way to comply with the conditions which would make this a more acceptable. Coleman: Up until July, I was in compliance. The minutes states the bushes should be view obscuring at maturity, not three years. I have a picture of the privet bushes which the City had to replace because they mowed over. Here is what they will look like at maturity. (Ms. Hoffman excused herselffrom the meeting at 7:00 p.m) Forney: This will require a majority of five votes to deny the conditional use. Odom. We will allow you to table the project until the next meeting when more of the Commissioners will be present. Coleman: That would be fine. i • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1998 Page 28 Odom. This project will tabled until January 11. • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1998 Page 29 RZ98-21: REZONING ROZAN OATES, PP138 This rezoning request was submitted by Rozan Oates for property located at 3061 Valerie Drive. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural, and contains approximately 2.83 acres. The request is to change the zoning to R-1, Low Density Residential. The applicant was not present. Odom. It takes five to approve the rezoning. Little: You typically hear the request is the applicant is not present. MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to table the project. Mr. Estes seconded the motion. • Roll CaII Upon roll call the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 5-0-0. Further Discussion Little: The applicant has just arrived. Point of Order Mr. Odom withdrew the motion. Mr. Estes accepted as the second. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion to withdraw the request from the table was approved with a unanimous vote of 5-0-0. Further Discussion • Odom. Let me make it clear that there only five members present. Recommendation of • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1998 Page 30 the rezoning request to the City Council will take five affirmative votes. Since there are only five here, you must have all of us vote for your request. I will give the opportunity to table your request until the next meeting where more Commissioners may be present. If you go forward and are denied you have the right to appeal to the City Council. Regardless, this will go to the City Council. Oates: Let's proceed. Public Discussion No one was present to address the Commission. MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to approve the rezoning request and forward it to the City Council. Mr. Estes seconded the motion. • Rol Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 5-0-0. • • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1998 Page 31 CU98-15.1: CONDITIONAL USE MORGAN HOOKER, PP 484 This request was submitted by Morgan Hooker for property located at 305 West Lafayette. The property is zoned R -O, Residential office and contains approximately 0.16 acres. The request is to allow multi -family dwelling unit in an R -O zone. Morgan Hooker was present on behalf of his request to respond to the Commission. Conditions of Approval 1. The parking area must be built as designed to allow residents to exit without backing onto the street. 2. A 3 feet tall shrub hedge will be planted around the north, south, and west sides of the parking area meeting the approval of the landscape administrator. 3. A concrete dumpster pad will be built on the site to be coordinated with the solid waste administrator. 4. The apartment complex is to house only six two-bedroom apartments. 5. The Board of Adjustments shall rule on whether to allow six apartments on a lot containing less than 8,000 square feet. Committee Discussion Odom: You have the option to table this project until the next meeting of the Planning Commission when a full Planning Commission may be present. If this project is approved it will be taken to the City Council. If this project is denied you have the right to file suit in Court.. Hooker: When is the next meeting? Little: January 11, 1999. Odom: We will continue the discussion and you may table the request any time prior to roll call. Hooker: I have been here before and our first attempt was for a commercial office building. We have lost that tenant and went back to the drawing board. We have downsized the building and decided to go with residential uses. We are ready for construction. We proposed a 5400 • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1998 Page 32 square foot building with 6 two bedroom apartments. We are requesting multi -family structure in an R -O zone. The existing building is a multi -family building and we would like to continue that. Odom: You will remove the structure? Hooker: We will raze the building and construct a new structure. The existing building is dangerous. When I purchased the building it was with the intent to raze it. We are also requesting approval for shared parking. The original building that was approved had a shared parking arrangement. The only difference is we only need to share 4 spaces instead of 24 spaces. It would be in the communities best interest. Shared parking is more efficient. It will enhance the pedestrian nature of Fayetteville's downtown area. The new apartment will be more energy efficient. The new apartments will meet the fair housing act providing more housing options for the disabled. The proposed building will be more attractive than the existing building and will meet the modern building code. I appreciate your consideration. Odom. Do you have any objections to the five conditions of approval? Hooker: No. Odom: Are there any further conditions of approval? Little: No. Public Comment Paula Marinoni, a resident of the Historic District, spoke in support of the project. John Furman residing at 341 Rollston spoke in support of the project. Richard Shewmaker residing on Dickson Street, spoke in support of the project. Further Discussion Hooker: I would like to apologize for the mess we have there. We have a water problem in our basement and we have been too long in correcting that. When we develop the site, all of the solid waste will be gone. Odom: You heard Ms. Marinoni's comment regarding the railing being freestanding. • Hooker: I don't have any problems with that. The rendering shows stairs there but actually • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1998 Page 33 there will be a ramp. Odom: Hooker: What about compliance with the Tree and Landscape Ordinance? I want to save the trees also. I have full intentions of protecting them. Estes: The proposed conditional use will be a remarkable improvement to this property. I support this type of infill development. MOTION Mr. Estes made a motion to approve the conditional use subject to the conditions of approval. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. Further Discussion Forney: My packet indicates that condition four allows only four two-bedroom apartments. Little: We have revised that to six. Forney: Condition five mentions that they need approval from the Board of Adjustments will need to be involved in allowing more than four apartments on a lot containing less than 8,000 square feet. Little: They have an area problem for building more than three. Hoffman: I would like a brief run down on the parking situation. Vinson: I have an agreement from UBC for shared parking. The one for Jose's is not in effect. They did not go ahead with their development plans. All the others are in existence. It currently is taking up 44% of the UBC for the Second Mile Ministries. Odom: There also appears to be adequate on street parking. Has that been taken into consideration? Little: We did not because the ordinance does not provide for that. Roll Call • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1998 Page 34 Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 6-0-0. • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1998 Page 35 CU98-26: CONDITIONAL USE AL BENARD, PP 717 This conditional use was submitted by Al Benard for property located at 708 West Whillock Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 1.01 acres. The request is to create a tandem lot. Mr. Al Benard was present on behalf of the project to present to the Commission. Conditions of Approval The required 25' strip of access will be placed to the east of the existing house making sure to continue providing at least 70 feet of frontages to the other two lots and provide at least 10 feet between driveways. The private drive to the tandem lot shall be paved for a minimum distance of 25 feet from said intersection. Trash cans from the tandem lot residence will be brought to the street by the resident of the house on appropriate trash pick up days only. A concrete pad large enough for two trash cans with a masonry garbage can holder will be provided with screening shrubs to be 3 feet tall at maturity planted on all side except the side facing the street. Committee Discussion Odom: Are there any further conditions of approval? Vinson: No. I do have some copies of other buildings Mr. Benard has renovated. Odom: Please pass those around. Do you have any problems with the three conditions of approval? Benard. No. I wanted to show the pictures. I was told the Commission has gone out and viewed the property. I don't believe that this project would devalue any of the property adjacent and across the street from me. I believe it will enhance it. I try to buy houses that are condemned and I don't raze the houses. Odom. Since this is a conditional use request, it requires 5 votes in your favor. You have the option to table this project to the next meeting or proceed. • Benard: I want to go forward. • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1998 Page 36 Public Comment No one was present to comment on the project. MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to approve the conditional use subject to staff comments. Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion. Further Discussion Estes: Do you typically rent your properties? Hooker: Some of them I rent. The property located on Willow Street is one I intend to sell all three units. Roll Call • Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 6-0-0. • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1998 Page 37 Committee Appointments Odom: We have a vacancy on the Subdivision Committee as well as a chairmanship. I am appointing Phyllis Johnson as the chairman of Subdivision Committee. I am appointing John Forney to the Subdivision Committee. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. • • Principals Danny L. Brown, P.E. Bob H. Crafton, P.E. • Thomas E. Hopper, P.E. Cline L. Mansur, P.E., R.L.S. R.E. (Gene) Reece, P.E. David Swearingen, A.I.A. James L. Tull, C.D.A. Principal Emeritus Lemuel H. Tull, P.E. December 7, 1998 Ms. Dawn Warrick City of Fayetteville 113 W. Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 Re: The Cliffs — Phase II CTA No. 93033-04 Dear Dawn: Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. Architects, Engineers & Surveyors Associates FILE Everett L. Balk, P.E. Al Harris, R.L.S. Kurtis J. Jones, P.E. James W. Kooistra, A.I.A. Tom Mansur, P.E. Robert C. Reece, P.E. Rick G. Rose, R.L.S. George G. Strella, P.E., D.E.E. James P. Swearingen, A.I.A. Richard Wright, RLS Harry G. Gray, P.E. (1941-1997) Attached with this letter are 37 copies of the revised LSDP for Cliffs phase II The following is a list of items that the subdivision committee had asked us to look at prior to the planning commission meeting: I) The parking lot that ends at building #33 cannot be extended to tie into a public street due to grades. The parking lot located in phase I is longer than the proposed one and to our knowledge, there has not been any problems with public vehicles turning around. 2) The proposed street lights will be that same decorative lighting that is present in phase I. It is our intend to use the same lighting that was in phase I for purposes of security, consistency, and the overall upscale look. We have taken pictures of the lights and will bring those to planning commission with us. 3) We are showing Happy Hollow Road to be 52' b/b at this time. We will leave it up to city staff, to determine the actual width to be constructed. 4) The new fire hydrant as requested by the Fire Chief is shown on the revised plans. 5) Attached is a letter that was agreed upon by Mr. Underwood and Mr. Seddon concerning access to Cliffs Boulevard. We also showed the access points on the revised plans. 6) The proposed estimates for the developer's contribution to street and sidewalk improvements along Hwy 265 are included with this letter. Planning Commission'Meeting December 14, 1998 P.O. Box 549 / 2800 North 2nd Street / Rogers, Arkansas 72757-0549 / (501) 638R48I381/TFAX/00/)1 A1IB224 E-mail: cta@craftull.com Website: http://wwW4rattulbcom If you should have any questions or, need further information, please contact us at your convenience. Sincerely, JerryXelso, P E Copy: Jim Lindsey Bill Underwood Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1998 PP98-11 The Cliffs, Phase 11 Page 8.11 1 • • s • • FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE To: Alett Little, Planning Management Director From: Jim Beavers, Engineering Date: 26 Feb 96 Re: street slopes The following street slopes/grades are furnished as requested. Please note that the slopes are approximate and are based upon topographic maps, and not as-builts or surveys. Thus the slopes listed are slightly greater than actual slopes. street average slope maximum slope Township 9 % (N. College to Jimmie) 13 % Ash 5.5 12.5 (east of N. College) North Street 8% (N. College to Hillcrest) Rockwood Trail (western half) 14.3 8.5 16.5 Rogers Drive 12.5 (south from Southern Heights) Center Street 5.4 (west of Schhol St.) 16 11.5 Dickson Street 7.2 13.8 (east of N. College) Meandering Way 9.3 13.5 Victoria Way 11 14.4 Marvin Gardens 10 15 (proposed) Cleveland 7 10.4 (west of Razorback) Planning Commission Meering December 14, 1998 PP98-11 The Cliffs, Phase Il PageS.6 Rock Street 10.2 12 Woolsey 11.3 20 Sunset Drive 10.5 20 Ruth 16 20 Anson 9 20 (western half) Arlington Terrace 18 23 (west face) Sycamore 9 13 (Gregg to Woolsey) Maple Street 6 8 (east face) 10 13 Maple Street (west face) Planning Convnission Meering December 14, 1998 PP98-1 / The Cliffs, Phase 11 .. Page 3.7 • • • • • • • �z 14-92 VN,2��in q STAFF Item #1 1117_3miNUrt-s ABSENT Item mnsrEC SW. #2 PLAN Item #3 98- ISI am Cerie MOTION T. Conklin ODOrn NI J. Johns ODOM SECOND A. Little Y ESTE B. Vinson 651 E. D. Warrick N B. Estes FeeSBJ1- Y y J. Forney gleivEp "1•lorot L. Hoffman pesg,I-t- Y Y S. Hoover peEseff `/ y P. Johnson C. Odom Peggy 1 Y G. Tucker L. Ward Pemarr Y Y ACTION pppe ,,pn TABU= mavE TO CONSE3Jr VOTE 5-0-0 5-0-0 STAFF PRESENT ABSENT J. Beavers Y T. Conklin NI J. Johns V A. Little Y B. Vinson D. Warrick N • • • ZMD 7 . Item #4 (SD98-34 TU►.LF PLAZA AMENnmeur CAP 4STP-Ah1511 LSD9a-34g2.ries TULIP PLAZA Aty.tiornEw CAP TU►tt= °STP.Ats"/NO PLAZA MOTION HOFFPYtAN Renee WARD SECOND FCTES wen psT{-p B. Estes y N Y J. Forney \/ y y L. Hoffman Y M Y S. Hoover y \( y P. Johnson C. Odom y M y .'. .. G. Tucker L. Ward 7 NI y ACTION PASS FAIL PASS VOTE 6-0-0 2-4-0 6-0-0 • • • Item #- 5 AppeOv61) PP99-II THE CUFFS PHIL Item # C. Item #7 eZ 98-21 OA'l$ ! 0„ .. Cu`15-39 WIES MOTION HOFFMAN Orrsrvt ESI! -,S SECOND WAeD t ifleFERNEti( PSTES B. Estes Y T J. Forney N L. Hoffman \f S. Hoover N Y P. Johnson C. Odom y y R. Reynolds G. Tucker L. Ward y Y ACTION PASS TABLED RI APPucq.1T TASL� VOTE 4-Z-0 _I 5-0-0 • • • • Item #- 1 etlrtOvE TASLE ez'e-at CAT --c Item # 1 IaE7G,E 98 ZI X-mil-� Item # 3 CU9a9.I lLtr.. MOTION i31`3nn QOGnei k%TES SECOND -re s WAre Es --s B. Estes y Y Y J. Forney y 1 N( L. Hoffman y v y S. Hoover Y y y P. Johnson C. Odom y y y R. Reynolds G. Tucker y Y I L. Ward ACTION PASS APP20Vm APPecvg> VOTE (0-0-{7 L-8-() %-0-o • Item #.w 9 CU48-z‘ ECU A2D Item # Item # MOTION GOc n SECOND 1 RarnAN B. Estes y J. Forney Y L. Hoffman y S. Hoover y P. Johnson C. Odom y R. Reynolds G. Tucker y L. Ward ACTION APR -COVED VOTE {,-Q-()