Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-04-26 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, April 26, 1999 at 5:30 p.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED FP99-1, Wedington Place, pp401 AD99-4, Simmons, pp135 Minutes of 04/12/99 LSD99-10, Marshalltown Tools, pp642 AD99-4, Simmons, pp135 CU99-7, Petrino, pp370 RZ99-9, Smith, pp595 RZ99-7, Pendergraft, pp176 RZ99-8, Lake Hills Church, pp255 CU99-8, Lake Hills Church, pp255 CU99-9, St. Louis Bread Co, pp174 • RZ99-10, Foster, pp99 RZ99-11, Foster, pp60 LSD99-12, Razorback Estates, pp287 CU99-10, AAO, pp287 AD99-5, Longer Investments, pp484 • MEMBERS PRESENT John Forney Lorel Hoffman Sharon Hoover Phyllis Johnson Don Marr Conrad Odom Loren Shackelford Lee Ward STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Janet Johns Ron Petrie Dawn Warrick ACTION TAKEN Discussion/Amended Ruling Discussion/Amended Ruling Approved on Consent Approved on Consent Denied Approved w/conditions Approved Approved Withdrawn Approved w/conditions Approved w/conditions Approved Approved Approved w/conditions Approved Approved w/conditions MEMBERS ABSENT Bob Estes STAFF ABSENT • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Page 2 Johnson: I would like to welcome our new Planning Director, Tim Conklin. Tim has been selected by the Mayor as the Planning Director for the City of Fayetteville. He has been on staff 6.5 years. We look forward to working with you. This is a permanent position. Conklin: Thank you. Johnson: The presentation to former Planning Commissioner Gary Tucker will be done at Agenda Session on May 6, 1999. You may recall at the last Planning Commission meeting on April 12, 1999, we had 2 items at that time that ended up garnering 4-3-1 votes. We had FP99-1 Final Plat for Wedington Place and AD99-4 Administrative Items for Simmons Bank. We had 8 persons present and different people abstained but in any event, in both those votes, we had 4 yes, 3 no, and 1 abstain. I ruled as Chair that those motions failed for not garnering a majority vote. Commissioner Odom didn't challenge the ruling but he indicated that he was not certain about the ruling and in response to that it caused me subsequently after the meeting the next day to take a look at Robert's Rules of Order and I decided that probably the ruling had been in error. You will recall that on the final plat for Wedington Place the first vote which was 4-3-1 was to grant the motion and grant the waiver for the overhead electric request. After the ruling that the vote failed, we had a second motion and that motion granted the final plat and it passed 7-0-1. That denied the waiver. After researching the next day, I contacted Jerry Rose, the City Attomey, and told him I thought the ruling I had made the night before had been in error and he agreed. I went ahead and called the 2 applicants to let them know about this and told them that this could be corrected at the next meeting. Mr. Maxwell of Clary Development in Little Rock asked whether it couldn't be corrected at that time. He requested that I confer with the City Attorney on that issue which I did. He believed that it would preferable to go ahead and correct it immediately. Since Mr. Rose believed that was the appropriate thing to do, I deferred and contacted Mr. Maxwell and told him that the first vote would be counted as passing and the overhead electric waiver would be granted. Then I also contacted Simmons Bank, Mr. Joe Ruddell, and told him that his request for a rehearing would be placed on this agenda. I won't again take the City Attorney's recommendation and do the correction after a meeting. I think that is inappropriate. The whole Commission needs to be apprised of this and I don't feel it is appropriate for the chair to be changing decisions between meetings. • Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Page 3 CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Minutes of April 12, 199 Meeting. Johnson: Are there any additions or corrections? LSD99-10: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT MARSHALLTOWN TOOLS - UNHEATED STORAGE This item was submitted by Robert O'Connell and Wayne Jones of McClelland Consulting Engineers on behalf of Marshalltown Tools for property located at 2200 Industrial Drive. The property is zoned I-2, General Industrial, and contains approximately 15.34 acres. Johnson: Is there anyone on the Commission or anyone in the audience who wishes us to take this off the Consent Agenda? Roll Call • Upon roll call, the Consent Agenda was approved with a unanimous vote cif 8-0-0. • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Page 4 OLD BUSINESS AD99-4: ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM SIMMONS FIRST BANK, PP135 This item was submitted by Joe Ruddell for Simmons First Bank for property located at 670 East Joyce Boulevard. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 1.7 acres. The request is to reconsider the previous requirement of semi- permeable parking spaces. Joe Ruddell was present on behalf of the request. Commission Discussion Johnson: Simmons Bank is asking for a reconsideration of the action that we took some time last year having to do with parking. Ruddell: The asphalt is in place. It got there by the machine going around the bank, anything that had SB2 in it, they laid asphalt. As soon as it happened, we told them it wasn't supposed to be there but we were also in a situation where the request for semi permeable surface, we had no idea what semi permeable parking was or what it was suppose be. We were in a position where we were trying to evaluate what products were out there and what product to use. While we were trying to do that, the asphalt got laid. If we cut the asphalt out, there will be a big hole until we could figure out what product to put. We have just in the last month, actually determined what products are available and what products are applicable. That is where we are now. The reason we are here is the products that we have found are not appropriate. These are parking spaces that are used on a daily full time basis while the bank is open. With parking on those spaces full time the grass would never grow. It will be parked on 8 hours a day. There will be heat from the cars, oil leaking from the cars, all those types of things will be adverse to the grass. There is a letter in the packet from the person who is actually selling this product that the it is made to be utilized as auxiliary parking, fire lanes, and golf course cart paths. It is not a product to be utilized on a daily full time basis. That is my presentation. It is not an issue of why the asphalt is there and how it got there. The products that we have to use for semi permeable parking are not appropriate in this instance. This is full time parking that we are utilizing. We have to park in the back. Our security guidelines state that the employees have to be provided a safe and secure entry and exit area. It faces our lock door which can only be entered with a key. That is the reason we have to have this area in the back. If this is an issue of the beautification of the site, we have gone above and beyond the landscaping requirements. We doubled the amount of plants. We installed an irrigation system. Circuit City has 9 inch weeds and we sodded and installed an irrigation system. We've done a lot to beautify the site and we feel like putting in grass and trying to maintain that back there will cause an undue burden on the • Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Page 5 bank. It costs $10,000 not including the removal of the asphalt to install this product. Then it is a minimum of $1,000 per year in maintenance not including replacing sod. We spent a lot to make this a nice site for both Simmons and City of Fayetteville. Our engineer stated that when semi permeable surfacing is done, the reduction in runoff is 1%. Water is not running across the back, it is running across the side and down. We have good drainage control. The installation of semi permeables would interfere with the drainage flow. The water will settle in that area The placement of the system against asphalt and against the curbing allows the water to settle in there and with the seasons, it will crack and subsequently we will have to replace that all the time. Semi permeable pavers are not appropriate. We would like to leave the asphalt. Hoffman: Did you consider an alternate location for the same square footage of semi permeables if you can't park on it 8 hours a day? Can it be relocated? Ruddell: If we put it in the front, how would our customers know that it is parking? Hoffman: Did you look at any driveway areas? Ruddell• We only have one entrance, so to get to our drive through, you have to circle the • whole building. It would be driven on all day. • Hoffman: You have in excess of the allowable parking. Ruddell: We have 9 employees. There are 8 parking spaces in the back. Those are all taken by the employees and that only leaves the places in the front for customer parking. Virtually every place in the front is full at certain times. We have 2 ADA handicap spaces. If you aren't handicap, you can't park there. I respect your opinion. This is an excellent product in specific circumstances but not for this project. Hoover: Did you consider any other products? I understand the staff gave you some other suggestions. Ruddell: There is a gravel pave product. Our problem with it is the majority of our employees are ladies who wear heels and it poses a safety risk to them and increases the bank's liability. It is basically dirt which will get tracked into the bank and it deters from the beauty of the structure. There is one product that would work. It is concrete that has holes in it. It would cost $100,000 to install it in 8 parking places. That is undue burden. Hoover: Did you consider pave stone set on a sand base? I talked to staff about that and they said that could be approved as permeable material. Ruddell: I would have to consult with the project manager. You'll still have water seeping • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Page 6 through which will freeze around your asphalt and curbing which will deteriorate and crack it. A site that is broken like that doesn't work. Hoover: Staff, did you give them some other products? Conklin: There was the concrete with the holes in it and they mentioned it cost $100,000 to put in 8 spaces. We also have approved brick pavers on a conditional use on Spring Street. We have allowed brick or concrete pavers to be utilized for semi permeable soil pavers. Hoover: I do know that the grass pavers he proposed here are being used by a chiropractic clinic that we approved on Spring Street. Conklin: That is correct. They are currently installing the grass pave for Dr. Roma Lisa Gray's office on Spring Street. Ruddell: Is that an area they will be parking in full time? Hoover: It's for their clients? Conklin: That is for their clients. Ruddell: That is the difference. The clients will come in for 30 minutes and they won't be there full time. We come in at 7:30 in the morning and be there until 6:00 in the evening. Hoover: I guess you're thinking about putting it in the rear I think of it being used in the front and incorporated into the design. Ruddell: How will a customer know it's parking? Would you park on the grass? Hoover: It seems to me that it is overflow. We looked at this on tour and there was one car in front the bank at 3:30 on Thursday. I was disappointed that when this was approved that you didn't go back and look at the design. It sounds as if all of this is an after thought. The chiropractic clinic thought about it in the beginning and incorporated it into their design. Ruddell: We originally requested regular asphalt parking. When you asked us to reduce it to semi permeable paving, we had no idea what the product was We did a lot of research on this to find products and get cost estimates. It was at the end of the project before we tallied everything. Johnson: Did you do the research on the semi permeable pavers before you built the parking lot or after? • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Page 7 Ruddell: While it was being done. They ran the machine and poured it and as soon as it happened realized it was wrong. We said we could dig it up now and have a hole where you can't get in and out of the bank or we can wait until we have the product that we wanted to use and put it in. We have the necessary information and are waiting for your determination as to whether or not you agree that this product is not applicable. Public Comment None. Further Commission Discussion Hoffman: In the future, I would suggest that the Commission seriously consider what we are about to vote on tonight in terms of approving additional parking in excess of that required have we always required semi permeable pavers? Conklin: No. You have not. You have approved parking over the 20% amount as a conditional use for asphalt parking for restaurants. Ward: The main thing we are having trouble with is that we feel sometimes there is a blatant disregard for our decisions. We probably don't allow enough parking under our regulations. You need more parking. Ruddell: What we have is sufficient if we can keep the 8 spaces in the rear. Ward: I'm not of the opinion that if they want to leave it there that we should fine them or penalize them. That would open a can of worms. Marr: I was not seated on the Commission at the time of the original approval. It seems that the Commission went above and beyond to approve additional parking. I am bothered by the fact that the construction was started before a resolution of the semi permeable paving material. That is sending a message that the requirement wasn't taken seriously I would hate to set precedent that you can disregard a requirement then come back and ask our approval on what you chose to do. Odom: I know Joe Ruddell personally and I know that he would never do anything intentional or blatantly disregarding any authority. I don't think that is the issue. If we allow this we set a potential precedent for working with a developer and perhaps a blatant disregard of the conditions placed upon them and next coming back and asking for forgiveness later. MOTION • Planning Commission Minutes April26, 1999 Page 8 Mr. Odom made a motion to deny the request for reconsideration of the semi permeable parking spaces. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. Johnson: I accept the motion and second to deny administrative time AD99-4. Is there discussion? Is the motion clear? That is to say that we would not allow the change that the applicant is requesting and they would have to remove the asphalt and replace it with another material. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 7-1-0. Mr. Shackelford voted against the motion. Further Discussion Ruddell: In the requirements that you approved the parking overage, we were granted 18 • places with 6 spaces being semi permeable. Now we have 8 semi permeable. Is it 6 or 8? Johnson: I think the staff needs to deal with that. Conklin: On page 3.10 of the packet: "Jones: He noted one of the items of concern was the parking issue. Little: She stated the applicant would need to provide further information about the parking issue. She inquired if (the) applicant was requesting 24 spaces. • Jones: He confirmed (the) applicant was requesting 24 spaces. Little: She stated 18 parking spaces would be allowed by ordinance." So the answer to your question is 18 total parking spaces. Johnson: You need to address that with staff. • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Page 9 CU99-7: CONDITIONAL USE PETRINO, pp370 This items was submitted by Ed Prince for Sandra Petrino for property located at 1926 East Mission Boulevard. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 2.77 acres. The request is for a tandem lot. Sandra Petrino was present on behalf of the project. Commission Discussion Johnson: This property is almost directly across Highway 45 from the former Dillons Store on 45 east Petrino: The only question I have is on the 6 foot sidewalk in front of lot A & B. Can you work with me to maintain that shrubbery that is there? Johnson: In what way? Petrino: It's 6 feet wide which might infringe on the shrubbery roots. That is the only barrier we have between that existing home and Highway 45. I haven't measured it to see if there is 6 feet there that would accommodate that. Conklin: The Trail & Sidewalk Coordinator, Chuck Rutherford, does try to work with the property owners to get the sidewalk around trees and shrubs. Johnson: It's possible though in that critical location and of course there are schools in 2 directions from this location, the private school one way and the public school the other way, you might have to consider going with more shrubbery, too. Petrino: I don't mean to be obtuse about this. I wouldn't want to encourage any child or adult to try to walk down Mission Boulevard at that particular point. I nearly loose my life everyday getting my mail. Johnson: We find that people don't necessarily walk where it's safe. We have the conditional use which we visited on quite a bit at our last meeting. The staff has recommended approval of the request. Ms. Petrino, I take it that your comments mean that you agree to the 5 specific requirements and the only one that you wish to have some flexibility on is the 6 foot wide sidewalk. Petrino: That's correct. • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Page 10 Public Comment None. MOTION Ms Hoffman made a motion to approve CU99-7 subject to all staff comments with the specific inclusion that the Sidewalk & Trails Coordinator work with the applicant regarding the location and size of the sidewalk. Mr. Odom seconded the motion. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Page 11 RZ99-9: REZONING SMITH, pp595 This item was submitted by Alan Reid on behalf of Greta Smith for property located at 1755 and 1939 Hoot Owl Lane. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural, and contains approximately 5.45 acres. The request si to rezone the property to R-1, Low Density Residential. Alan Reid was present on behalf of the request. Commission Discussion Reid: I am representing Greta Smith to help her try and get through the rezoning process and allow her to split her land into 2 tracts under R-1 zoning. Johnson: This area is off Highway 62 West in the direction of Farmington and it's behind the Ozark Mountain Smokehouse. Public Comment None. MOTION Ms. Hoffman made a motion to approve RZ99-9 subject to staff comments. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. Johnson: Be aware that our action regarding rezoning is a recommendation to the City Council which must pass an ordinance to rezone the property. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • • Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Page 12 RZ99-7: REZONING PENDERGRAFT, pp176 This item was submitted by Neal Pendergraft for property located east of 2680 Joyce Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 4.98 acres. The request is to rezone the property to R -O, Residential Office Mr. Neal Pendergraft was present on behalf of the project. Commission Discussion Pendergraft: I'm representing myself and the three other owners of the property. As you know, Dr. Smith and I own the property immediately to the east that is Paradise Valley. Prior to purchasing this property that is at issue now, I look back at the zoning regulations and it appeared to me that R -O zoning with medium to high density housing which is what is across the street where I believe most of our objections are coming -- I also appear as one of the owners of the property next door. We have no objection to the property being R -O. I feel like the people that have the most at risk here would be the people that are actually on the north side of the street, Dr. Smith, Dr. Hudson, and the Lades. I stated in my application that none of those people have any objections. Dr. Hudson and Dr. Smith are here. They can speak for themselves as to whether or not they have any objections. I was a little puzzled by the trouble that this had when it went through the first time and I tried to explain in a letter what took place there when this came up and I believe it was 96-13. When we rezoned the paradise valley property, the people objecting then had concerns about not building cheap duplexes on the property that is now Paradise Valley and in the last part of the minutes, Swifty Reynolds, who was then on the Commission asked if I would enter into a Bill of Assurance that we wouldn't put any duplexes on this property. I have no interest in going into the residential market, I immediately agreed to that for the Paradise Valley property. I did have some confusion as to why now they are objecting to this request. All of the inquiries we have had about purchasing the property have been from individuals who want R -O property. I don't think it is properly suited for R-1. As much as the people objecting may say that they live in an exclusive residential area, that quite simply is not the fact. If you look going east on Joyce Street, there is commercial property there. There is R -O property there. Immediately across the street from them, I have R -O property. Johnson: Does staff have anything to add to the applicant's presentation or any questions Conklin: Mr. Pendergraft is correct. This did go before the Planning Commission on June 10, 1996. It was tabled at that meeting. On July 22, 1996, the Planning Commission approved a tract that was 6.37 acres; a tract larger than this one. Planning Commission. recommended R -O • zoning. It then went to the City Council on November 19, 1996. At that time, the applicant requested that the property be rezoned R-1. That is the reason why the property is zoned R-1 at • • Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Page 13 the request of the applicant in 1996. This property is shown on our 2020 Future Land Use Map as office and staff has recommended residential office zoning for this piece of property. Pendergraft: I mentioned to every potential purchaser that there probably would be objection from people who lived across the street and they should be prepared to go through a large scale development with the Planning Commission and deal with the tree issue and that they may be better served by putting berms, trees, landscaping, or something along Joyce Street. They should anticipate that their access being from Sunbest Place which was built by myself and Dr. Smith and the Lattas and consider putting their parking in the back. Now that is not a condition of my contract of sale but everyone who has looked at that property is considering Sunbest Place to be the access to the property. Public Comment Ted Brewer residing at 2607 E. Joyce Blvd. which is directly across the street from the property in question spoke in opposition to the rezoning request. Bob Shaw residing at 2633 E Joyce Blvd. spoke in opposition to the requested rezoning. Harvey Smith residing at 2600 E. Joyce Blvd. spoke in support of the requested rezoning. Loyde Hudson residing at 2488 E Joyce Blvd. spoke in support of the requested rezoning. Robert Frans residing at 2517 E Joyce Blvd. which is across the street from Dr. Hudson spoke in opposition to the rezoning request. Further Commission Discussion Johnson: There are 2 observations that I would make. First, looking at what is allowed in an R-1 zone - City Wide Uses By Right, Government Facilities, Single Family and Two Family Dwellings, Offices, Studios and Related Services, and Professional Offices There are other of things allow by conditional uses if approved by the Planning Commission. The other observation is that on the General Plan 2020 this stretch of Joyce Street on the north side is shown to be offices in that location. Hoffman: Staff, in looking at the one mile diameter zoning map on page 6.30, could you tell me of the six R -O properties, are those full or leased to capacity or are they vacant. Conklin: Starting at the top of Zion Road, I believe that property is currently vacant on • Randall. I don't think there is any development up there. The R -O that is on Hwy 265, that is Charter Vista and Youth Bridge. There could be some parcels that are undeveloped but there is • • Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Page 14 the medical offices and HealthSouth. Hoffman: Going west toward Parkview, there are three parcels over in that area. Conklin: I believe that is developed with the medical clinic and west of Parkview there are Dr.'s offices and Collier's Drug Store in that location. Hoffman: That you for refreshing my memory on that. The reason I asked is that we not only have this rezoning tonight but I think we have another 2. I'm curious if there is a need based on the sale of the existing zoning. Pendergraft: I can respond to the Paradise Valley property. There was a comment that a part of it was empty. The reason being is that we have a planned use development in process. I think Commissioner Ward will explain that we have turned down several potential tenants because we are looking for a certain size of building in there. The fourth building we plan to build in there is not ready to be built yet. We don't feel there is the need or the size building requested. Hoover: Staff, can the 2020 Plan that is laid out -- what was the criteria? I can understand the commercial at intersections. Conklin: We looked at office development along the north side of Joyce. We did extend that further to the west. That was one of the reasons we showed those on the 2020 Plan as office. We thought it was appropriate at that time with the Master Street Plan designating Joyce Boulevard as an arterial. Hoover: Because of the type of street. Conklin: The street and the existing development patten in that area Hoover: On R-0 is there a height limitation? Conklin: That is based on additional setback. The higher you go, you have additional setbacks. Hoover: There's no maximum height you could be. I am just concerned in this situation that someone might want to put a 4 or 5 story building right there. It wouldn't be very appropriate. Conklin: "There shall be no maximum height limits in R -O districts provided however that • any building which exceeds a height of 20 feet shall be setback from any additional or boundary line of any R-1, R-2, or R-3 district an additional distance of 1 foot for each foot of height in • Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Page 15 excess of 20 feet." Any additional height over 20 feet, you also have additional setback which is a 1:1 ratio. Johnson: Wouldn't this development come back before us as a large scale so that the Commission would see and have a say over the height of the building? Conklin: It would come back as a large scale development. As long as they met the ordinance requirement, they could potentially build a two story building. Odom: Is Dr. Dill involved in any way? Pendergraft: There are only 4 people involved. That is myself, my sister; Laurie Mason, Mike Hill and David Johnson. We are the four co-owners. Ward: I feel like it's less obtrusive to have an R -O zoning along an arterial street. The few residents out there are backing up to a golf course. MOTION • Mr. Ward made a motion to approve RZ99-7. Mr. Marr seconded the motion. • Johnson: The affect of this motion should it carry would be to recommend this to the City Council. Forney: I think this is a tough call. Rezonings are one of the most important things we do. This is situation where we have a couple of conflicting influences. On the one hand, if you think we should follow our General Land Use Plan which does indicate that this should be Residential Office. On the other hand, we should consider this as a matter of timing. Is this the right time to rezone? Is there a need for additional R -O? I appreciate Commissioner Hoffman's adjoining zoning clarification. The concern I have while I think that this should ultimately go R -O and it is appropriate is that I am a little concerned that we are setting a trend of path where relatively less expensive land is rezoned further out from existing zoned land which is not yet developed. We do have a good bit of existing R -O land which is closer to the center and is also adjacent. There is cheaper property further out. We intend to encourage more spread, more sprawl, and more traffic problems. I think we need to mull this over. Odom: Call the question. Roll Call • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Page 16 Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 5-3-0. Commissioner Forney, Commissioner Hoffman, and Commissioner Hoover voted against the motion. • Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Page 17 RZ99-8: REZONING LAKE HILLS CHURCH, pp255 This item was submitted by Jon Allen on behalf of Lake Hills Church for property located south of Skillern Road and east of Crossover Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural, and contains approximately 3.58 acres. The request is to rezone the property to R -O, Residential Office. John Allen was present on behalf of the project. Commission Discussion Johnson. This property is located next to the Williams Dance Studio on Highway 265 and Crossover. Allen: We began the church 3 years ago and we chose our name as Lake Hills and people have come to our church asking where is are the lakes and where are the hills. We have planned from the very beginning to have a beautiful campus. I'm not sure the picture that you have in • your information is adequate. I would like to show this drawing. We think we will have the most attractive campus within miles in either direction. In the beginning, we knew that the City was interested in multi use and we knew that the City was interested in preserving as much as the natural landscaping as possible. We asked our engineers and architects to do that. I personally walked the property and marked the trees the redbuds and dogwoods and we told our architects we wanted to see the trees saved. Our plan is save as much of a park like setting as we possibly can. I even checked on this ahead of time, and when we come back through large scale development, and we'll have sidewalks and parking which will be moved around as we actually get on the property to preserve trees and so forth. One of the things we planned was not to have a steeple so as not to be artificial looking. We think the way we have it laid out will be very beautiful. One of the things we wanted to do was share parking with the Williams Center which they have happily agreed to do. The reason for that is church parking lots are about the least used place on the planet except for three hours on Sundays. So we proposed an office structure which would use the parking during the week and by sharing parking with the Williams Center that would be to both our advantages because sometimes they get kind of squeezed with the parking usage. There is a kind of sadness when you see what has been native woodlands go down but our desire all along has been to preserve as much of those as possible. The back of the property slopes off to a creek and even though we want to talk in very general terms, in the long term, we plan to keep that area much like a park with picnic tables and those kinds of things back there. We are concerned about the landscaping and trees as you or anyone in the City is. We want to be good neighbors. We want it to be the kind of place where people drive by and look at • this with approval. • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Page 18 Conklin: I would like to clarify that RZ99-8. It a rezoning of property from A-1 to R -O. The purpose for that rezoning is the applicant has requested to use 1,430 square feet of leasible office space within the church. I want to make sure the Planning Commission is clear that a conditional use for a church under use unit 4 is allowable under the current A-1 zoning. The reason for the R -O zoning is before the Commission tonight is to allow an office use. They will use the 1,430 square feet of church office area Monday through Friday from 8 to 5. The next item on your agenda is item 8 and that is the conditional use. A church is required as a conditional use in R -O. They are proposing to build a church that contains 10,300 square feet. Within that 10,300 square feet, they propose to have that 1,430 square feet of office use. I want to clarify that as a condition and if you find that it is not appropriate to use the 1,430 square feet as office use, this property does not need to be rezoned for the conditional use to be approved from the church. Johnson: My understanding is that the 1,430 square feet is included in the large 10,300 feet so that there is one building contemplated. Conklin: There is one building contemplated. Public Comment James Renby residing at 2870 Crossover Road spoke in opposition to the rezoning request. Matt Sluzarek expressed concern about keeping the area as it is now and spoke in opposition to the rezoning request. Further Commission Discussion Hoffman: Staff, was it considered before bring this applicant to us whether or not we could consider a conditional use and for insularly office spaces without rezoning? Conklin: I went through our ordinance trying to figure out a way to do this without this rezoning. One thing the Commission might want to consider is scaling back the R -O to just the front half of the property which would limit it. I was trying to figure out to get 1,430 square feet of office space allowed in that church. There intentions do include having any sign out front but having the names of the businesses on the door. That is very minimal. One solution to try and minimize is to recommend the front half of that lot as R -O. Is still leaves open the possibility that it is rezoned R -O. Odom: Can you not operate any type of business as a conditional use in A-1? Conklin: Not an office use. It is my understanding also that the purpose of the addition of • • Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Page 19 the office space is to provide revenue for the church and that several years from now, they will not have those offices within that church. Forney: To extend Commissioner Odom's questions, what would be the lowest zoning to allow the 1,430 square feet of office use. Conklin: R-2 is probably the lowest. Allen: In A-1, I think the neighbor's would concerned about having a pig farm. Since we come up next to the R -O of the Williams Center, I think this would be a. good buffer between us and the surrounding property which is agricultural now. Our concem is to maintain as much of a wooded area as possible. I think this would be much better. Hoffman: Would it be possible to spot zone 1,430 square feet as R-0? Conklin: I don't like that term "spot zoning." We did do a similar type of rezoning for University Motors over where Doc Murdocks is located. Hoffman: What is your primary objection? Conklin: Normally when you rezone a piece of property it is more for an entire region and not just a small area. Johnson: Is there a way that we can control that office square through the conditional use? If we grant the conditional use for the church as a condition of that is that only 1,430 square feet of the entire R -O block could be used as office. Conklin: I put that condition in my report to recommend to you this evening. With regard to the rezoning, I don't think a conditional use is higher than an ordinance passed on that piece of property. Other methods that applicants have used in the past, offerance of a Bill of Assurance limiting the types or sizes of use. The previous rezoning on this agenda, back in 1996 offered a Bill of Assurance for no duplexes. If the applicant is willing to offer something to limit the use of the R -O zone property to 1,430 square feet as office. That is up to the applicant. The City cannot require it. Marr: Is any of the entire 1,430 square foot office square, use for church offices? Is it all rental space? Allen: When we designed this with the idea of possibly generating income for the church • until we're big enough to need it all, we just said 15% of our floor plan we would make commercial. When you actually look at the numbers it is like 14%. That was the idea. This will Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Page 20 all be revenue generating space until such time as we don't rent it out anymore and our congregation is large enough that it will be an advantage to us. Ward: If you line up close with the Williams Center, as far as their lot size and their R -O zoning, about half of your lot would be zoned R -O and the other half would remain A-1. If you are going to put your church and have that whole building under R -I and share parking with the Williams Center which I like that idea. I don't foresee that you really need R -O. Allen: I would say that this drawing is generally correct. For instance, we have to consider setbacks. In generally, we will be keeping it the way it is. You could rezone the front half of the front 2/3 or something and that would be all right. Forney: I again want to remind the Commission that we are looking only at the rezoning. We know that it is going to be a church and I think that would be a good application. However, for this to be rezoned in perpetuity and their receiving income from the 1,430 square feet, it seems we are using a very large hammer to kill a small flea. I understand their point of view. I suspect there are other ways to address it. I think establishing a use pattern on this property which is very deep is appropriate 1 will not be supporting this rezoning application. Hoffman: I understand and support the concept but I agree with Commissioner Fomey that we should not be spot zoning a section of a large tract of land. I would offer two items of compromise. One, if you agree I would be willing to support and I don't mean to go against staffs wishes you could have a 1,430 square foot office zone in the building and that way if the church sold the property we would have a church with a very small amount of commercial land. Then in the future, if everything works out, it reverts to the church. Johnson: What kind of spot? Hoffman: Located only in the building in the area of the offices. Johnson: It may not be just the part fronting Crossover. Hoffman: Wholly within the building. The reason I am a proponent of this is I do believe it works in certain situations where you don't want a large tract of land to be ruled by a zoning given for a very small portion of the building. Fomey. I feel that Commissioner Hoffman's idea is not all together bad. I would think we might better go at it. It would be well served asking for a lot split so that there could be 2 lots to zone in 2 different ways. I don't think you can have zoning differentiation within 1 lot. Conklin: Yes, you can. • Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Page 21 Forney. Then simply designate a portion of the north part of the existing property back to a limited dimension to the east so that it is adjacent to the existing R -O. I don't think it would be objectionable and it would reach out to Crossover and it would make more sense zoning that. It would not be spot zoning at all. It would be zoning for a limited purpose. That seems to be to be the appropriate scale for rezoning for the need that we see here. Johnson: It appears to me looking at page 7.5 that this property does not touch the R -O to the north. It appears to me there is another owner with a tract of A-1 between this property and the Williams Dance Studio. Allen: Yes. We have an agreement. That is owned by the same person that owns the Williams Center. It is designated as a street. We have an agreement with them that we are going to pave and maintain to make that into a street so we can enter our property off of that easement or whatever it is without having to make an additional curb cut into Crossover. Johnson: Okay. Allen: This will also enhance the traffic flow into the Williams Center because it will • make their access better as well. Shackelford: I agree with a lot of what has been said. It sounds like there is not necessarily opposition with the project as it is now but in the future by rezoning this to R -O. I like the idea that there be a possibility of a Bill of Assurance. Is there a way we could approve this with a Bill of Assurance so that if this property changed hands or something was to change in the future, it would come back before the Planning Commission. Johnson: The way Bills of Assurance come into existence is not at our suggestion but rather if the applicant offers one and tries to talk us into one. I think that would be a way but it is not really before us at this time. Allen: How about a Bill of Assurance stating the property would not be used for anything but church related activities. That would preclude that there would never be any condominiums. Ward: I think we should just leave that east half A-1 like it is right now. If they decided to do anything else, they would have to come back. Crossover Road is a highway and people aren't going to be building houses right up against that. Hoover: On the 2020 Plan, it shows along Crossover all residential. If this is R -O it will • start R -O all down there. Where will it stop? • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Page 22 Johnson: The City has not rushed to make any part of that section of 265 R -O. It has been very difficult getting a rezoning. The idea here is 1,430 square feet is about that size of a very small house. I don't know that we have various possibilities other than to rezone a portion but not all. We have been offered a covenant -- Allen: We could just say that the last half would be used exclusively for church usage and it wouldn't be used for the other uses included in R -O. Johnson: You're talking about the easternmost half of the lot would only be used for church uses and not for R -O purposes. Allen: That sounds right. I don't know how to say it. We're in agreement. If you take half of the property and say that it would always be used in perpetuity for church related activities. We could exclude on there some of the other uses. Forney: I am concerned about municipal memory. It's a good to ask about the problem of recalling Bills of Assurance and how difficult it would be to keep up with this over 30 or 40 years Conklin: With regard to Bills of Assurance, in the past it has been difficult to keep up with especially for Bills of Assurances for improvements that were required by the Planning Commission. With regard to the rezonings, it really hasn't been a problem for us to keep up with them. It seems like most of the projects do get built in the near future after the rezoning. For example, you have on the agenda tonight, Razorback Estates with a Bill of Assurance for 228 units. We have kept up with that one. It was rezoned within the last couple of months. 30 or 40 years from now, hopefully with our technology, we will have better way to keep up such as GIS and being able to tag our mapping system with this information. Forney: I'm totally not reassured. Conklin: We're trying to get where our records are totally tied to the geographic map. Forney: Relative to keeping up with things, in 40 years if we see a potential rezoning to the south of this property in the future, it will reflect R -O and a Planning Commission six years from now would be confused with a Bill of Assurance showing it to be sort of R -O but not really. I'm not in favor of doing things project by project. I think this is an attempt to rezone and we need to think about it in those strict terms and therefore I would not vote for any motion that included the Bill of Assurance. I would support a smaller part being zoned R -O which is continuous with the north property line up to one half of the east west length of the property with a dimension of 1/3 of the north south dimension of the property. We would do better to have a dimensioned condition where it would be possible to have the necessary office space and then • • Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Page 23 maintain our existing zoning otherwise. Johnson: I would remind the Commission that any action we take on the rezoning is going to be a recommendation only. The City Council will have to do the same wrestling that we are doing. That will give the applicant, in the interim, a chance to develop a Bill of Assurance if the applicant chose to do that. If not, we encourage the applicant if he thought it was appropriate to come up with some dimensions so that some small tract would be rezoned and could be defined which we are not really very well able to do tonight. Allen: The property is 800 feet deep and if you wanted to say the last 300 feet A-1 and the first 500 feet R -O, we would be happy with that. Johnson: So the track east to west is 800 feet long. That's an average. I would solicit a motion or some action from the Commission because even difficult issues must be dealt with. Hoffman: What if we made a motion to rezoning 20% of the lot area fronting along 265 to be rezoned R-0. Forney: 20% will not even get us to the front part of the building because we have a 55 foot setback plus the width of the parking lot. If you're saying keep only the top 20% as R -O. Hoffman: 20% of the total square footage. It would actually come to the building. Conklin: Refer to page 8.13 of your packet. As staff, we sketched in where the building would be located with the additional 55 feet of right of way and the 15 foot landscaped easement that would be required. The building is hatched in there. I would prefer to see what Commissioners Hoffman and Forney are describing a dimensioned area to be rezoned. It looks like how to describe it would be the northwest corner of that property we are looking at instead of following along the frontage of Highway 265. A strip in there would be zoned R -O along the north side of the church. That is possibly one way to achieve what you're trying to accomplish to allow 1,430 square foot of office space within your church. I do prefer to have it dimensioned to bring forward to the City Council. Ward: Don't you feel like it would be less appropriate to make this ajagged line? Conklin: Regarding the jagged line, I don't think it would be a problem rezoning just that portion that is needed. That would allow protection for this neighborhood. I don't see any benefit going back to the R -O zoning line to the north. Forney: This is strange way to do a rezoning. Where is the portion of your square feet of potential office space located for this project. • • Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Page 24 Allen: Do you have a footprint of this building in front of you? Forney: We do. Allen: It's the little piece that sticks out to the right. Those 3 offices are the place. Forney. It's the south part of your project. If we do limit the rezoning to the northern edge then that would not encompass it. Hoffman: Keep in mind this is a recommendation to the City Council. MOTION Ms. Hoffman made a motion that a portion of this project be rezoned R -O, that portion being limited to the area between 265 and up to and including the portion of the building containing the commercial office space and the remainder of the tract remain A-1. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. Odom. I'm not opposed to what you are trying to do. I am opposed to the confusion it has created at this level. It would make a portion of this property zoned residential office long after you are gone. There has to be a way to do this easier than what we are doing tonight. I would like the record to reflect that I am in support of what you are trying to but I am opposed to the method by which we are going about it. Johnson: We have before us the motion to recommend rezoning a portion of this property limited to the area along the entire length of 265 and going east up to and including that part of the building with the proposed office space will be located as R -O. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion failed with a vote of 1-7-0. Commissioners Fomey, Hoover, Johnson, Odom, Shackelford, Marr, and Ward all voted against the motion. Johnson: Are there any other motions? Forney: I think another thing we should mention since we've turned this down, it cannot be resubmitted for one year. • Johnson: The rezoning is only a recommendation. • Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Page 25 Conklin: They have a right to appeal to the Council but this does not automatically proceed to Council. Johnson: What difference is it whether they appeal? Conklin: As staff we would prepare the necessary information for the applicant and make sure that it is placed on the agenda. If it is denied, it is up to the applicant to decide whether or not to appeal. Forney: If the proposed rezoning is denied and if the appeal to the Council is denied, you cannot reapply for the rezoning for one year? Conklin: That is correct. Forney: I think that this applicant would do well to visit with staff and find a way to address this project with its very narrow and specific needs. Hoffman: Staff, do you have the ability to designate accessory use areas for office space up • to a certain percentage of the area of the building under the zoning ordinance? • Conklin: Under certain zones, commercial uses can be allowed. For example, if you have an apartment building with a lobby area and they want a snack bar they can have a snack bar within that lobby area. There is nothing in the zoning code that would allow us to designate a certain amount for office use. Of course, the church is going to have office use related to church business -- there is no ability to do that. Johnson: Reverend Allen, you may have noticed that we're a little bit confused. We would like to accommodate your request but we are very reluctant to rezone the entire tract R -O. One suggestion is that you might to remove this from the agenda to give you an opportunity to work with staff and provide more detail to see if you can come up with a different plan other than rezoning the entire tract R -O. At this point, we have not voted on the entire tract, we took a motion that only dealt with part of the tract. So, it's really not for me to say what you do next. There is the sense that we would like to help you if we could short of rezoning the whole acreage. Ward: Is there a way we can table RZ99-8 and still look at the conditional use 99-8? Johnson: I don't know if there is an advantage for us to move onto the conditional use if the rezoning is not acted upon because how does that -- Conklin: The applicant has the ability to request a conditional use for a church. They Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Page 26 would have to removed the 1,430 square feet of office space from it. I think the applicant's option whether he would like to still proceed with the conditional use for a church at this time. Johnson. If we wishes to go ahead, I think we could do that because the church would be allowed in the R -O zone Is it your pleasure to have us go ahead and vote on the proposal before us which is the rezoning of the entire tract and it looks as if the probability is that would fail. Or would you prefer to withdraw this from the agenda so that you have an opportunity to search out other ways to get to your 1,430 square feet of office space without this rezoning by consulting with staff'? Or do you want us to try another motion? Allen: I'm very disappointed that this can't be done. It seems to me that we're having to abide by a lot of arbitrary things and all we want to do is build a church and have some offices. I would be happy if someone would make a motion to rezone half of it and that would fix our situation and won't preclude the property owners who are concerned about condos or whatever on the back half. MOTION Mr. Marr made a motion to rezone one half of the tract of land R -O to encompass the church and office space. Johnson: Can you pinpoint where that one half would be located? Does it touch the north boundary or the south or the east or west boundary? Marr: From Crossover the westernmost half of the tract. Johnson: Is there a second? The motion fails for lack of a second. If the south and west half, that is the south southern half of the west half of the southern half -- it's not exactly the southwestern quadrant but it's sort of the southwestem quadrant, if that were rezoned, would that catch the portion of the building where the offices would located? Allen: I believe so. MOTION Ms. Johnson made a motion to rezone the westernmost half of the southern half of the tract be rezoned R -O. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. Marr: Didn't we take a vote on that section as our first motion? • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Page 27 Conklin: It was not exactly half of the western half, it was an area the encompassed Just that portion that is on that building as the office use. This is actually an area that is larger than what was voted on previously. Johnson: We do have a motion before us and it is not identical to a previous motion. Is there discussion? Roll Call Upon roll the motion failed with a vote of 6-2-0. Commissioners Forney, Hoffman, Hoover, Odom, Shackelford, and Marr voted against the motion. MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to deny RZ99-8. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. Johnson: Is there discussion? Ward: It is probably in the applicant's best interest to table this since we've already taken two votes and see what they can work out this staff. Hoffman: I do want to go on record as being in support of the general idea. We obviously need a better mechanism to get there. Allen: We would like to withdraw this but I would like for the conditional use permit approved tonight and then at a future time if we wanted to come back after consulting with staff if the Commission would reconsider. Johnson: We can forward with the next item on the agenda which is the conditional use. The chair will allow the withdrawal and removal from our agenda of RZ99-8. • • Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Page 28 CU99-8: CONDITIONAL USE LAKE HILLS CHURCH, pp255 This item was submitted by Jon Allen on behalf of Lake Hills Church for property located south of Skillern Road and east of Crossover Road The property is currently zoned A-1, Agricultural, and contains approximately 3.58 acres The request is for a church. Jon Allen was present on behalf of the project. Conditions of Approval The applicant will dedicate 55 feet of right of way along the front (west side) of the property. A 6 foot wide sidewalk shall be provided along Highway 265 to be coordinated with the City Trail and Sidewalk Coordinator. 3. A dumpster pad and dumpster shall be provided and be coordinated with the Solid Waste Division. 4. The applicant shall make a concentrated effort to preserve the natural character of the property, especially behind the facility. This includes leaving and preserving as many trees as possible and provide landscaping around the facility in coordination with the Landscape Coordinator. 5. All parking lot light fixtures shall be shielded and directed downward to prevent unnecessary light pollution. 6. The church shall built in the location as shown on the site plan on page 8.3 of the information packet. 7. The building shall not exceed 10,300 square feet. 8. The applicant will request the Planning Commission to approve shared parking with the Williams Gymnastic and Dance Center at large scale development. Commission Discussion Conklin: I would like to add three conditions. I want to make sure that the location of the • church and where it's built is what is shown on your agenda packet. When the large scale development comes through that will be the location of the church. I want to limit the size of the • Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Page 29 church and make sure that what you approve tonight as a conditional use will be what we see at large scale development is not something larger. Regarding the shared parking, we do not have the site plan showing which spaces are to be shared and at what times and days. Allen: I think you do have the agreement on the parking and we agreed to share all of the parking. I believe they had 69 spots and we had 60. Conklin: Yes. You did supply the shared parking agreement to staff this evening, however, the ordinance does require that a site plan be provided showing which spaces are to be shared and at what time and who they are being shared with. We need that as part of our record. Allen: We were faxed that and told to fill that out and that would be adequate. That's why we did it that way. I'm sorry. Conklin: On the shared parking agreement, it does say, "Individual spaces identified on a site plan for shared users." Allen: I'm not comfortable with limiting this to 10,300 square feet because if we're not • going to have office space, we may reconsider the footprint. It may be generally the same but we may make some changes. This will have to be reconfigured and we may want to come back and make better use of that site. Public Comment None. Further Commission Discussion MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to approve conditional use 99-8 subject to all staff comments and requirements. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. Johnson: Does that include that the building will not exceed 10,300 square feet? Odom: I don't think there is anything that will prevent them from asking -- • Conklin: I just wanted to make it clear that what is being proposed this evening is what the applicant plans to build. If there are future additions for the church they will need to bring that • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Page 30 back to the Planning Commission as conditional use. Johnson: At the large scale development stage, we would ask for all the specifics on the shared parking to be worked out in detail. Roll Call Upon roll call the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • • Planning Commission Minutes April26, 1999 Page 31 CU99-9: CONDITIONAL USE ST. LOUIS BREAD COMPANY, pp174 This item was submitted by Chris Parton of Crafton, Tull and Associates on behalf of the Saint Louis Bread Company for property located at the northeast corner of Front Street and Sain Street. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 0.80 acres The request is for an allowance of additional parking spaces for the building. Chris Parton was present on behalf of the project. Commission Discussion Conklin: This is request for 31 additional parking spaces. Staff does support the request. The amount of parking allowed under ordinance is 24 spaces with 20% over and that is based on the 1 to 200 square feet. The amount of parking that is allowed as conditional use with 20% would only be 29 total spaces. The applicant is requesting 60 spaces. As staff, we have recommended in the past Denny's, Kirby's, and Rio Bravo have been recommended in the past that the Planning Commission approval additional parking. Using the parking ratio of 1 per 4 seats, with there being 165 seats, 42 parking spaces would be allowed. The amount of parking that is allowed also using 1 space per employee with 15 employees would allow a total number of 57. Staff would also support 57 spaces or 60 spaces, whatever the Commission desires to approve. Odom: Would you want the 57 or the 60 spaces? Parton: We would prefer 60. These spaces are necessary. Public Comment Kirk Elsass representing Southwestern Energy spoke in support of the request. Further Commission Discussion Mr. Odom made a motion to approve conditional use 99-9 with a total of 60 parking spaces. Mr. Shackelford seconded the motion. Forney. Under C-2 zoning, the building area is limited to 60% but there is not a limit in that zone for lot coverage by impermeable materials. • Conklin: Yes, sir. It's under Commercial Design Standards, you have to have 15%. • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Page 32 Forney: I want to confirm that the 15% not be lost in the shuffle and that it be left as landscape. Conklin: At the time of large scale development will do a review of the % coverage and we make sure that at least 15% is left open. Forney: Because this is granting a conditional use, we have a fair amount of leeway in this situation. I understand that we are always being asked to grant restaurants waivers for parking. On the other hand, it's not a bad thing entirely because it often leads to the use of shared parking in situations such as Dickson Street where we have different uses like churches. When we toured this site, it my assumption that this is a lunch time crowd and therefore, it is probably not appropriate to look to try to reuse or share surrounding property. I would suggest that since we are having additional paved area is there any way that we can boost the landscaping requirements to create more shade and mitigate the impact. Conklin: That is almost automatic because of the ratio of the number of trees per parking spaces. The more parking spaces you have, the more landscaping your are required to have. Trees should be dispersed throughout and buffered with trees. Forney: So you would not suggest additional trees? Conklin: I think our parking lot ordinance which has recently been amended addresses mitigating those impacts on the parking lot with landscaping. Even allowing more parking, you're still getting more landscaping and more trees. You're not just getting parking. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Page 33 RZ99-10 AND RZ99-11: REZONINGS FOSTER, pp99 and 60 These items were submitted by Glenn Carter on behalf of Mark Foster for property located at 4786 North Crossover Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural, and contains approximately 57.23. Glenn Carter was present on behalf of the project. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the request rezonings from A-1 to R-1 and A-1 to R -O. Commission Discussion Johnson: The request is to rezone an 8.97 acres tract to the west to R -O, Residential Office, and a 48.26 acre tract to the east to R-1, Low Density Residential. • Conklin: With regard to the R -O zoning, this is consistent with past actions that the Planning Commission and City Council have approved. For example, David Lyle Subdivision on Huntsville Road, Deerfield on Huntsville Road, Meadowlands on Highway 16 west, Magnolia Crossing on 6th Street, Walnut Grove, Willow Springs, and Owl Creek have all had an R -O or C-1 type zoning that has been approved as a buffer to the R-1. • Carter: I would like to add that the R -O provides a buffer between R-1 and highway traffic In the staff report I received the word "wall" is used and that will be a decorative concrete fence similar to what you see on Skillern Road at Savannah Estates. Public Comment John Nooncaster was present and spoke in opposition to the zonings. He noted that he believed that the application was incomplete. Further Commission Discussion Hoffman: Are we to vote on these independently? Johnson: Yes. MOTION • • • Planning Commission Minutes Apnl 26, 1999 Page 34 Ms. Hoffman made a motion to deny RZ99-10. Ms. Hoover seconded the motion. Johnson: What does the 2020 Plan show for this area? Conklin: It is shown to be residential. Ward: I really don't think the motion is inconsistent with what we have been doing in the past because a lot of subdivisions have residential offices along highways. It's been proven that most people don't want to live on a major highway. It's better to have a buffer between the highway and houses and I'm not sure R -O is the one to buffer but it is ludicrous for us to try to put homes right up against a state highway. Johnson: There is R-1 already built on Crossover but arguably the problem is urban sprawl because all those lots are huge. I think if this is residential up to the highway then we would have a lot of urban sprawl. Hoffman: I think it is premature to zone at this stage. Johnson: This couldn't come back for a year if this is denied. Hoffman: I'm not adverse to rezoning to Commercial if there is need but I also feel it is our duty to be responsible and not create too much empty zoning. Ward: This is not being asked to be zoned C-1 or C-2. This is residential office zoning which seems to me to be close to what we want out there. Apartments out there is not the best thing either. R -O is the best buffer between highways and residential homes. Carter: I agree with Commissioner Ward. What we are trying to do is create a buffer between the highway traffic and the residential. If we don't create a buffer it's going to encourage large lots and reduced density. I just feel like if we had a buffer zone there with R -O which is not high commercial like C-1 or C-2, it would encourage a less dense type of development with larger lots and it wouldn't worsen the traffic. We feel this is consistent with what has been done in Fayetteville. I would like for you to consider the R -O buffer and the decorative fence. Forney: I'm going to support the motion to deny the rezoning. R -O is a residential zoning which is an attempt to make an office that is relatively unobtrusive. Roll Call • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Page 35 Upon roll call, the motion failed with a vote 3-5-0. Commissioners Johnson, Odom, Shackelford, Marr, and Ward voted against the motion MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to approve RZ99-10. Mr. Shackelford seconded the motion. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 5-3-0. Commissioners Fomey, Hoffman, and Hoover voted against the motion. MOTION Mr. Forney made a motion to approve RZ99-1 I. Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion. Roll Call Upon roll call the motion passed with unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Page 36 LSD99-12: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT RAZORBACK ESTATES This item was submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull and Associates on behalf of Lindsey Management Company for property located on McConnell Avenue east of Highway 71 Bypass. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. The request is for an office and recreational facility in an R-2 zone. Jerry Kelso was present on behalf of the project. Conditions of Approval Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards for the AAO Office Building and Basketball Arena. Staff recommends the brick on east wall of the Basketball Arena be extended up the wall to the top of the door. 2. Planning Commission determination of a waiver request for Section 5.4.3. of the Drainage Criteria Manual to allow a building to be located within 100 feet of a permanent lake or pond. Staff supports the request 3. Planning Commission determination for improvements to McConnell Avenue: A. Improvements adjacent to the proposed site. McConnell Avenue is designated as a Collector Street on the Master Street Plan. Staff recommends that the half of the street adjacent to this proposed site be widened to local street standards with curb & gutter (14 feet from centerline to back of curb). Offsite Improvements. It has been determined that due to safety concerns caused by the significant increase in traffic that will be generated by this development, the substandard intersection of McConnell Avenue and Drake Street will need to be improved. Staff recommended a developer contribution in the amount of $30,023 to go toward these improvements. 4. All Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 5. 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. All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Page 37 6. All drainage within this development such as storm pipes, open swales, and detention ponds will be privately owned and maintained. 7. Payment of parks fees in the amount of $68,400 (228 units @ $300 each.) 8. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 6 foot sidewalk with a minimum 10 foot green space along McConnell Avenue (which is a collector street on the Master Street Plan.) Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. 10. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required. a. Grading and drainage permits b. Separate easement plat for this project. c. Complete of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City as required by 159.34. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not dust guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Commission Discussion Johnson: This property is by the fairgrounds. Conklin: Staff would like to add to condition 1. Staff feels it is appropriate for that brick to be extended up the wall to at least the top of the door. Johnson: There are 10 conditions of approval. Kelso: We have reviewed the items that the staff has recommended and we concur with those items. We would like to ask a couple of conditions for one of the items. One of the items stated that the developer contribute approximately $30,000 to improvements to Drake and McConnell. We would ask that those improvements be done in conjunction with the apartments. In other words, the improvements not be delayed until after the apartments are complete. Also, the developer give his cost of $30,000 at the time of construction of that intersection. Johnson: Staff, what is your reaction to those 2 requests. Petrie: The cost of those improvements have been estimated to be about $55,000. The City of Fayetteville would have to pay for the remainder of the intersection which means the City Council would have to approve using funds to do that. We cannot guarantee tonight when those • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Page 38 improvements will be done or when the funds would be available to do that. Conklin: I would like Dawn Warrick to go over the process on how funds are received and accounted for. Warrick: In these situations, the improvement assessment would be considered a delayed improvement because we do not have a time table as to when that construction would occur. There are three methods for a delayed improvements to be paid to the City. The first is an escrow deposit. The second being a Bill of Assurance. The third would be a performance bond. Those are the only three options that we have which would be 100% of what is assessed. Johnson: So the applicant has the choice. Warrick: That is correct. Public Comment None Further Discussion Ward: First we need to talk about is the Commercial Design Standards and whether we feel like that meets the Commercial Design criteria. To me, this is a very attractive looking building with the brick and the roof material. It looks like it has dormers and ceilings which provides articulation. Forney: The most important sheet to look at the third sheet which shows the rear elevation. We were not able to see this at Subdivision Committee because it was not presented there. That rear elevation will be facing McConnell which is the collector street. For everyone who moves through this area, this will appear to be the front. I think it is very important that we consider that elevation. Hoover: The side elevation will also be seen from McConnell. There is nothing to block the view there. I have question on the AAO Office, are we suppose to be looking at the club house, is that exactly the building? Johnson: Are you asking what this building is that is called apartment club house? Hoover: I see the club house with the apartments but then where is the elevation for the AAO Office? • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Page 39 Ward: Kelso: Aren't they the same? Let me introduce Brad Freiss with the AAO to address that. Freiss: They are the same. The office will be on the top floor and the club house will be on the bottom floor. Hoover: On the plan, there is the apartment club designated -- Freiss: We did that on purpose so that it would blend in with the apartment complex. It is the exact same design and exterior. Conklin: There will be two of these buildings on this project. One will be a club house with the apartment units. One will be the AAO Office Freiss: Correct. Kelso: If you have seen the club house at the Cliff's that is the same building. Conklin: The rear elevation will be fronting McConnell Street. Odom. We have an unarticulated wall. What can you propose to articulate that wall? Freiss: The area where this is located drops down so the whole building will not be exposed. I don't know how to articulate the structure when you're building a gymnasium. Inside of there are 3 basketball courts. Conklin: Staff made the recommendation to extend the brick up to the top of the wall. Yes, it is a flat wall. It is also a basketball arena. Bringing the brick up to the height as on the rear elevation may help. Freiss: We can do that. Hoffman: Keeping budget in mind, would it be possible to plant some trees along that long wall to break that up somewhat? Kelso: We show trees along the street right of way which is required. That's on sheet 3. Hoffman: Can you add a few more trees and some shrubbery? Kelso: No problem. • Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Page 40 Public Comment None Further Commission Discussion Johnson: Is there a motion? MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to approve LSD99-12 subject to all staff comments including the brick on the east wall be extended up to the top of the doors and also the brick on the south elevation be extended up to the same height with additional shrubbery added along the long, unarticulated rear elevation. Mr. Marr seconded the motion. Forney: I would like the minutes to reflect that trees will be planted along the street • frontage and a second row of those along the south and east face of the building. • Odom: I intended for staff to work that out. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • Planning Commission Minutes April26, 1999 Page 41 CU99-10: CONDITIONAL USE AAO, pp287 This item was submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull and Associates on behalf of Arkansas Athletes Outreach for property located on McConnell Avenue east of Highway 71 Bypass The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. The request is for an office and recreational facility in an R-2 zone. Jerry Kelso and Brad Freiss were present on behalf of the project. Commission Discussion Conklin: This is 21,600 square feet and the office of 3,030 square feet. Staff recommends approval Johnson: What is the size of the recreation facility? Conklin: 21,600 square feet. They also have a football field planned at this site. The • conditional use would approve those recreational facilities at this site. • Public Comment None. Further Commission Discussion MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to approve CU99-10. Mr. Shackelford seconded the motion. Roll Call Upon roll call the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Page 42 AD99-5: ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM LONGER INVESTMENTS, pp484 This item was submitted by Laura Kelly of Rob Sharp Architect, Inc. for property located north of Spring Street, on the west side of Block Street. The property is zoned C-3, Central Commercial and contains The request is for a waiver of 18 parking spaces. Laura Kelly was present on behalf of the request. Conditions of Approval on behalf of the applicant Ave., south of Dickson approximately 0.38 acres. 1. The applicant shall pay to the City of total of $3,600 This represents $1,200 for each of the three spaces waived which are not included in the shared parking agreement. Commission Discussion Conklin: I would like to make the commission aware that there are 3 findings that must be • made to grant the waiver and shared parking. One is that the proposed use will not generate as much parking required under the existing standards. Two; that shared parking facilities are available or three; that on street parking can satisfy intermittent and occasional demands. The applicant has agreed to pay the $3,600 for 3 spaces. They do have the shared parking agreement with Central United Methodist Church for 15 spaces. • Johnson: Do you have the detail that you need on that agreement? Conklin: That is correct. We have a site plan showing which spaces will be shared. Kelly: Elaine Longer of Longer Investments is present. The staff has done wonderful research. Public Comment None. Further Commission Discussion Hoffman: This will not come before us as a large scale. Is that correct? Conklin: That is correct. • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Page 43 Johnson: It is because the amount of acreage for the project doesn't trigger those requirements. When we drove by this location on Thursday afternoon, there were lots of on street parking spaces. MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to approve AD99-5 including the required findings in the staff report. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Page 44 OTHER BUSINESS Amendment to Bylaws Johnson: Tim, did everyone get a copy of the proposed amendment to the bylaws at Article 3.F.2? This would amend the bylaws as related to abstentions. Conklin: I did not make copies but I will get those distributed. Johnson: This must be presented at the meeting before a bylaw amendment is voted on. This would change the affect of an abstention. "A majority vote of those members present shall be needed for adoption of any other motion An abstention shall not be construed as a vote either for or against the matter under consideration and the abstaining member shall be treated as if absent for the purpose of determining the number comprising the majority of the vote on that matter. For example, if 8 members are present and the vote is 4 "ayes", 3 '"nays", and 1 abstention, the motion passes." The affect is that someone abstaining has no affect on the action of the body. It's as if the abstaining member was not present for that vote. This will be on the agenda at the next meeting. Another thing in the packet is an opinion for Attorney General Mark Pryor's office. This opinion deals with meetings to which the Freedom of Information Act applies. Since we are controlled by the FOI, I wanted to disseminate this to the members of the Commission. • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Page 45 Ordinance Review Committee Conklin: The City Council Ordinance Review Committee is still working on the cell tower ordinance. May 27 is their next meeting. I also asked the Ordinance Review Committee to take up the issue of the underground utility ordinance and I will be preparing information for them on what the Planning Commission's recommendation was and what the previous Ordinance Review Committee's recommendation was. Meeting adjourned at 8:38.