Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-05-24 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on May 24, 1999 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED Approval of Minutes - 05/10/99 AD99-12: By Law Amendment CU99-12: Sparks, pp599 VA99-7: MTM, pp370 RZ99-12: Shireman, pp409 RZ99-13: Fochtman, pp209 RZ99-14: Fochtman, pp209 RZ99-15: Fochtman, pp209 LSD99-14: Nelms, pp248/249 CU99-13: Bank of Faye, pp401 AD99-8: Bank of Faye, pp401 AD99-9: Bank of Faye, pp401 • MEMBERS PRESENT • Bob Estes Lorel Hoffman Sharon Hoover Phyllis Johnson Don Marr Conrad Odom Loren Shackelford Lee Ward STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Kim Hesse Janet Johns Ron Petrie Dawn Warrick ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved Approved Approved Denied Denied Denied Denied Approved Denied Approved-eastem curb cut Postpone MEMBERS ABSENT None STAFF ABSENT Brent Vinson Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1999 Page 2 Johnson: I would like to announce that Commissioner John Forney has resigned for purposes of taking a teaching position at Auburn University. He has been stalwart member who has gone above and beyond and we could always rely on what he tells us about any of the rules. We will miss him. He served on the Commission for 4 years. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes from the May 10, 1999 meeting. The minutes were approved as distributed. • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1999 Page 3 OLD BUSINESS AD99-12: ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM BY LAW AMENDMENT This item was submitted by Commissioner Lorel Hoffman to amend Article III(E) of the By Laws of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. Johnson: We have a separate sheet from the bylaws and if you will refer to page 2.1 in the packet which is the proposed amendment: "If any Commission member desires to abstain from voting, the member must inform the chair of his/her intention prior to the commencement of discussion of the item." The word "must" could be changed to "should." Would you object to the following: "Any member who abstains should inform the chair of his/her intention prior to commencement of discussion." Public Comment None. MOTION Mr. Ward made a motion to approve the amendment to the bylaws. Mr. Marr seconded the motion. Roll CaII Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1999 Page 4 NEW BUSINESS CU99-12: CONDITIONAL USE SPARKS, PP599 This item was submitted by Dawn Sparks for property located at 1430 West Cato Springs Road. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately 0.69 acres. The request is for an aquatic plant nursery. Dawn Sparks was present on behalf of the project. Staff Requirements 1. Screening must be provided along the fence at the rear of the property abutting the residential zoning to the north. 2. The driveway must be paved with a hot mix asphalt or concrete and a turnaround area provided. (Amended requirement) The driveway must be finished with river gravel and a turnaround area provided. 3. The shrub hedge along Cato Springs Road must be cut and maintained to 2-1/2 feet tall in order to provide visibility for vehicles entering and existing the driveway. 3. (Amended requirement) The shrub hedge along Cato Road must be removed from the sidewalk to the driveway in order to provide visibility for vehicles entering and exiting the driveway. All outdoor displays of merchandise and aquatic tanks are hereafter to be located in the backyard of the property as shown on the site plan. Commission Discussion Johnson: Have you agreed to accept all of the conditions? Sparks: I have not. I have a problem with paving the driveway. The cost of paving the driveway would be over 2/3 of the initial investment that I have so far made. I called a finisher and MidContinent Concrete and it would be around $1,700 to pave my driveway. It is 78 feet long by 20 feet wide plus the turnaround area. I'm only a part time business. 23 hours maximum per week. I want to know if it would be possible to keep with the natural rock and Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1999 Page 5 landscaping that is existing. Everything in the yard is made of wood and we are planning on adding pathways of creek gravel in the yard. Would it be possible until I can go full time to keep the drive river rock? This is a hobby that has gotten out of hand. I can't afford the expense of paving the driveway at this time. I would also like to know if it would be possible to only cut down half of the bushes instead of all the bushes as required under condition 3. They are currently 15 feet tall and they are 20 years old. If I cut them down that low, it would kill them. I don't have a problem with the bushes being gone in that section from the driveway to the sidewalk. This is my residence and I would like to have some privacy from Cato Springs Road. I have no problems with the other 2 conditions. I would like to make a slight change. I want to put a flower bed in front on the south side of the turnaround. Johnson: Is this reflected on the drawing on page 3.9? Conklin: That is correct. Sparks: It shows 3 bushes on the right side of the driveway. Those belong to Summercorn Foods. Conklin: Staff doesn't have any problem with additional landscaping being placed in the yard. Ward: How many customers do you have per day or per week? Sparks: I really don't know how much interest there is in Fayetteville for water gardening. Ward: How many customer do you have now? Sparks: None. This is Just a hobby. We got tired of traveling to Fort Smith and Tulsa and Joplin to buy aquatic plants. Ward: • Are you selling plants, now? Sparks: Not yet. I have the stock and the fish. Estes: From time to time, we have tried to make an effort to avoid pavement and concrete. For that reason, I am more than sympathetic to the applicants' request to allow gravel on the driveway. I would like to hear from staff on that issue. Conklin: The parking ordinance requires businesses to pave their parking. Johnson: Is there a contemplated problem with any kind of runoff or erosion or anything • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1999 Page 6 like that? Conklin: I have not observed any problems. The applicant could tell us if there was any situation that we need to be aware of. Sparks: The drainage ditches are overgrown and need to be cleaned out. There is standing water even in August and we have a problem with mosquitos. Johnson: Those ditches are in the right of way. Sparks: In heavy rain there is some standing water. Estes: Cato Springs is heavily traveled and the visibility going in and out of your driveway is an issue we should discuss. Do I understand correctly that you are going to remove the hedge up to the sidewalk? Sparks: Yes. Estes: What is the measurement of the hedge? Sparks: I would say 25 feet. Estes: You would be removing that hedge as a substitute for condition 3 to cut and maintain it to 2 % feet tall? Sparks: Yes. Public Comment None. MOTION Mr. Estes made a motion to approve CU99-12 subject to amended staff requirements. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. Odom. I am opposed to the motion primarily because the condition to pave the driveway has been removed. We must make our ordinances apply to everyone. I don't think not having the funding is a valid reason for waiving the requirement. I know that on a couple of occasions we've had churches before us not wanting to pave their parking lots because they don't have the • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1999 Page 7 funds available. I would support a motion that would allow you time to develop business and in order to gain the equity. We have allowed that with the churches in the past. Hoffman: This is a home occupation and we have always required that the residential character be retained. We have allowed houses being used for businesses on Highway 45 and Mission to have gravel parking. Odom: The ordinance was to prohibit gravel in the street. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 6-2-0. Commissioners Marr and Odom voted against the motion. • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1999 Page 8 VA99-7: VACATION MTM OF EL DORADO LLC, pp370 This item was submitted by Laura Kelly of Rob Sharp Architects on behalf of MTM of El Dorado LLC for property located at 1586 Amber Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. The request is to vacate a portion of a 20 foot utility easement within Charleston Place Subdivision. Laura Kelly was present on behalf of the project. Staff Requirements 1. The foundation which encroaches the easement must be cut and removed from the easement. 2. No portion of the roof may over hang the easement. Commission Discussion Johnson: At plat review, none of the utility companies had any objections. The only entity at plat review who reserved comments was water and sewer. Petrie: We have received comments from water and sewer. They are recorded above. This easement was requested to be vacated due to relocation of the sanitary sewer line. They started a house adjacent to the new sewer line and unfortunately, the footing is actually in the easement. Staff recommends approval contingent upon requirements of the Water & Sewer Superintendent. Shackelford: I will be abstaining from the vote. Johnson: Our action is a recommendation to the City Council who takes the final action on any vacation. Public Comment None. MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to recommend approval of the vacation subject to the requirements as listed above. Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1999 Page 9 Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-1. Mr. Shackelford abstained from voting. • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1999 Page 10 RZ99-12: REZONING SHIREMAN, PP409 This item was submitted by Ken Shireman for property located at 1701 Mission Boulevard. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 2 acres. The request is to rezone a 0.577 acre tract on the northwest corner of the property to R -O, Residential Office. Ken Shireman was present on behalf of the project. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the requested rezoning from R-1 to R -O based on the findings that the General Plan 2020 for Land Use designated this area as residential; there are numerous other R -O tracts within the City; and, the proposed zoning would increase the traffic congestion on Mission. Commission Discussion Shireman: I bought this property in January of 1998, after the Planning Commission had approved a conditional use. There was an existing building on the site with 1,000 square feet and you approved a conditional use for that and I have since remodeled that into my architecture office into that building. My next plan is to see if we can get a rezoning approved. I would like to build one more professional rental unit near my office on the front part of the .577 acres and then building my home in the wood behind it. There is a total of 2 acres onthis site. If you'll notice on the plan that I provided earlier, as I understand it, the minimum lot for an R -O zone is 100 feet. If you divide the lot with 120 feet wide with 100 feet of frontage on Mission, that leaves me 70 feet of frontage for our driveway which leaves us room where we can have a nice landscaped drive, gated if we want to. These buildings are covering 10% of the lot and I think we are being very generous with the land in this proposal. We want to retain the wooded environment and I want to preserve the residential character of the neighborhood. It affects me as much or more as anybody in the neighborhood and I don't want to do anything that is detrimental to the neighborhood and certainly not to my property and certainly not to my neighbors. I want to talk about the staff report. It stated single family residences do exist in this area and if you look on the map it looks like an R -O zone in a sea of R-1 which it is. The land use plan is residential. I understand that. They say Highway 45 is a principle artery. They also state that the residential office district is designed to provide office without limitation to the nature or size and allowing community facilities, restaurants and compatible residential uses. The other uses are single and two family residents, offices and studios, and professional offices Those are the only ones that can be granted R -O with obtaining conditional use from the Planning Commission. I show 10 parking spaces on the plan that I provided to you. I propose a • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1999 Page 11 new drive. I want to have a concrete parking lot and sidewalk. The land use is not consistent with the plan. I don't think this will appreciably increase traffic congestion, nor will it increase the load on public services. Therefore, the only reason I see for denial is that it goes against the land use plan. It would be impractical to use the land for any of the uses permitted on the existing zoning classification. The only use permitted under the existing zoning is single family homes. There are extenuating circumstances. It is justified for rezoning in order to keep the quality of the neighborhood. (Mr. Shireman presented two letters, one from Phillip Cameron and the other from David Parish attached hereto and made a hereof) (Mr. Shireman also presented a large poster of his neighborhood's land use plan.) I have talked to the property owners and no one objects This would provide a buffer zone for the property on the back. Marr. I will be abstaining from voting on this matter. Public Comment Phillip Cameron, residing at 1163 Viewpoint, spoke in support of the request and urged the Commission to keep the woodland. Robert Buff, residing at 5161 W. Wheeler Rd and owning property in the subject area spoke in support of the request and stated that he had recently remodeled his rent house in the subject area and stated that it was not an investment that he feels has adequate returns. Jesse Burkes, residing at 1709 Mission Blvd. spoke in support of the request and stated that he had also made a substantial investment to improve his property and that there hasn't been a lot of additional improvement in the neighborhood. John Honeywell, residing 1833 Viewpoint, spoke in support of the request but expressed concern about setting a trend for the area to be entirely office. Further Commission Discussion Ward: My original thought when we went on tour was against adding more office to the area. R -O would provide a buffer for the existing homes that would be further up the hill. Hoffman: You and your neighbors have presented some compelling arguments but this Commission has given several conditional uses all up and down this street for commercial • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1999 Page 12 businesses in a residential neighborhood. In looking at the need for additional R -O zoning, I'm just not sure it's there. The Commission just finished approving another R -O rezoning which I was opposed to. You may be a bit before your time. That is my personal thought on that. A conditional use request would not preclude building a residence behind any of these lots. They are already a buffer in my mind. I'm not inclined to rezone the property. Johnson: My concern is that any time we have a major state highway, that is one of the handful of routes into the City. The idea that by our zoning code, we can force that property to be R-1 but we can somehow induce and entice people to build nice residences there to make an entryway, I have not seen that in my experience. I have to anticipate that 45 is going to be improved. I have to anticipate in our life, hopefully, that it will be 4 lane. If and when it happens, it's going to be more similar to Lincoln and I think that we are not going to see many residences. What we will see is what we are beginning to see on the stretchis rental property. It has a large cemetery. It has a vacant grocery store. It has a large school. To me this is a transitional neighborhood. It's a neighborhood that has some mixtures of uses. We should give this stretch of 45 a chance and zone it R -O which I feel is more appropriate. Odom: We have a land use plan which we have to use as a guide. It is not written in stone. I think we can accomplish what you want by considering a conditional use. Using conditional uses in a residential area allows us to have more control over the development of that area. That control is very important in this area. I would be supportive if this came back as a conditional use. Shireman: The reason I'm requesting a rezoning is I discussed this with Alett Little. She's the one that suggested I file for rezoning. This also has to do with economics. I'm not sure how bankable the mortgage is under conditional use. I have not talked to the bank but what assurances do they have that the conditional use is good for the life of the building. Conklin: Conditional use runs with the land. Shireman: I don't have any objection to a conditional use. I want small buildings. I want to keep the trees and I want green space. I would like to do a nice development on the property. MOTION Ms. Johnson made a motion to approve RZ99-12. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. Roll Call • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1999 Page 13 Upon roll call, the motion failed with a vote of 3-4-1. Commissioners Estes, Hoffman, Hoover, and Odom voted against the motion and Commissioner Marr abstained. • • • May 23, 1999 Keo Shireman 1701 Mission Blvd. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Ken, The ever increasing traffic count on Mission Boulevard makes property along Mission Boulevard less desirable for residential use. Consequently, the rent income for residential property along Mission Boulevard is less than that of other residential areas in Fayetteville. The lower rents result in less than acceptable return on investment for property improvements. If land along Mission Boulevard is zoned R-0 (Residentail Office), investment to improve existing properties would be justified and the overall appearance of Mission Boulevard could be improved. 1 support the R-0 (Residentail Office) zoning for property on Mission Boulevard as long as the design and/or remodeling of strictures maintains the present residential appearance. I have spoken to Mrs. Jean Swift who owns the property to the south of mine (1655 Mission Blvd) and she also supports the R -O (Residentail Office) zoning as a way to improve the appearance of property along Mission Boulevard. Best -Re Philip Cameron 1663 Viewpoint (1655 Mission) Fayetteville, AR 72701 EXHIBIT A • R A L E s T A T E A N D C 0 N s u L T A N T s • INC a RPORATED Providing Information for Making Informed Decisions Since 1986 May 17, 1999 To whom it may concern: It has been my experience that R -O zoning does not decrease the value of properties previously zoned R-1. In many cases it has proven to increase values. I have been actively engaged in the real estate profession in Northwest Arkansas for over twenty years. Appraisals, Inc., the company I founded in 1986, has provided real estate appraisals for over eighty nationwide lenders within the past year. Respectfully submitted, David Parrish, CR0216 President 60 E. Township, Suite 1 Fayetteville, AR 72703 email: appinc@nwark.com Phone: 501442.5804 Fax: 501-442-7782 EXHIBIT B • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1999 Page 14 RZ99-13: REZONING FOCHTMAN, pp209 This item was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of Earl Fochtman for property located south and west of Highway 112, north of Trucker's Drive and east of Deane Solomon Road. The property in tract 1 is zoned A-1, Agricultural, and contains approximately 7.48 acres. The request is to rezone the property to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Dave Jorgenson was present on behalf of the project. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the requested rezoning from A-1 to C-1 based on the following findings: The Land Use Plan shows this area as residential; the proposed zoning of C-1 is not needed at this time; and, the proposed zoning would increase the population density and would increase the load on public services including schools, water, and sewer facilities resulting in on site and off site improvements at the time of large scale development or preliminary plat approval. Commission Discussion Conklin: I passed out a map showing the entire 106 acre tract that Earl Fochtman intends to purchase. He has done a preliminary design with streets. It may be helpful to look at all three of those together in conjunction with the remaining acres. At agenda session, you had questions about why the entire 106 acres was not being requested for a rezoning at this time. I have spoken with the applicant and their engineer and they did not want to request the additional rezonings unless they could achieve the rezoning of the 2 C-1 tracts and the C-2. This is primarily due to the cost to apply for that type of rezoning. Jorgensen: The prospective owners on this are Earl Fotchman and Buddy Peoples. We also have the owner and the owner's representative here in the audience to answer questions. The reason we didn't request a rezoning on the overall parcel of property is because the cost for this rezoning is $2,500. The prospective owners did not want to incur this cost if they could not get commercial zoning out of the property. The drawing that Tim referred to is for the overall parcel of property and this is what the owners would like the rest of the property to look like in future rezonings of the property. The reason for this request at this time is that they didn't want to go to the expense of rezoning the overall parcel if they couldn't get commercial. The entire boundary along the south side is zoned I-1. The property to the east is C-2. The property to the west is agricultural. The property to the north is agricultural except for the I-1 or I-2 in the grape vineyard. There is a small parcel in the grape vineyard that has been rezoned either 1-1 or I-2 for • • Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1999 Page 15 some reason several years back. We know that the 2020 Plan does not recommend any commercial property out in this area We know that it's the staff position to try to go along with the 2020 Plan when they can. We know that plan is not set in stone. It is guidance for future development. We also know that things are happening as far as looking into the future as far as development and which direction it is going to go or how it will progress. The next item on the agenda is a perfect example of this which is the 33 acre parcel of property that is before you for the large scale development for the Nelms car dealership. We thought it would be a natural progression to increase in this area of expansion and provide some additional commercial property along Highway 112. It's bound to improve in that direction. I've taken something from Ms. Johnson what she referred to earlier on the previous rezoning. We have a state highway very close to the bypass. We feel it is inevitable that we're going to have commercial development out this direction. We feel this rezoning we have presented to you provides a reasonable buffer area as you go from Highway 112 in a westerly direction. We're not asking for a tremendous amount of commercial property but we are asking for something to buffer the future residential that we would like to put in as you progress to the west. You will notice that we have commercial to the northeast corner. As you go west, we have residential which is R -O directly in the middle. R-1.5 to the north and then R-1 to the northwest. We feel that we're trying to create a community in that area that will provide for additional conveniences and provide adequate buffer. Hoffman: Unlike our previous rezoning, I think the face of this area is definitely changing and changing rapidly. Has the City started work on the roads for the industrial park which is directly adjacent to this tract? Conklin: The City is in the process of preparing a preliminary plat for the Arkansas Research and Technology Park. I'm not sure what the timing on that is. Warrick: They are wanting to get the streets started this summer. There is some marshy area on that property. Hoffman: We will have a large I-1 area going in and being developed within the year I can see the need for the buffer zoning of the commercial development adjacent to 112, but why are you asking for a commercial zoning on RZ99-13, the L shape that is back from 112 and -- Jorgensen: The 7.48 acres? Hoffman: Yes. There is no primary road frontage there. Jorgensen: Right. We could settle for R -O there. We have 106 acres and we're trying to get more commercial out of that property. That and the pure and simple fact that we have not commercial but heavy duty industrial to the south. In fact, it surprises me that we have I-1. I've • Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1999 Page 16 been doing this for quite awhile and you all have, too. It surprises me that there is I-1 in this particular area. I wonder about the 2020 Plan and whether this was designated to be I-1 or was the plan done after this was zoned. Basically, it was just the fact that we have so much I-1 to the south, we wanted to go ahead and try to get some C-1 out of it. There has been some question about what the rest of this picture Looks like with respect to our rezonings tonight. The prospective owner is offering to make sure that the rest of the property is rezoned similar to what you see in this picture if we do get the commercial zoning. Johnson: I'm not aware that there is any vehicle through which you can do that. Jorgensen: Right. I just made that statement and I know that the Planning Commission has the leverage by just simply saying that if you don't zone it this way, we're not going to go for anymore. I'm just making the statement that this is what they want the rest of the property to look like. Public Comment Scott Smith, representing Melba Graves, who owns the property, spoke in support of the • rezoning. Tona Demers, representing some of the adjoining property owners, was present in opposition to the request and expressed concern that the subject tract may contain wetlands. • Further Commission Discussion Johnson: It is my view, that wetlands, which is something that the federal government defines and regulates, is not something that a local planning commission has one iota of input in. As far as I know, the only way I know we get involved in anything related is if we are dealing with a flood plain or any other land feature or drainage problem, we may require in it's development, not rezoning, will be complied with. I'm not aware that it affects a rezoning. Conklin: I agree with you. The wetlands issue will have to be addressed at the time of subdivision preliminary plat. At this time, the presence of wetlands on this property, I don't see how that would impact your decision that you make tonight. Johnson: I believe it wouldn't. I think we should address things that we have preview over and it is certainly something that the land owner and developer must confront but it is not something that we have any say about. Were the property rezoned, then at the time it was developed, those issues could affect how it can be developed and we would require that the federal law be complied with However, that is way down the road and it has no play in whether or not property is rezoned. It doesn't hurt to put the would be developer on notice that they may i • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1999 Page 17 well -- Estes: Our 2020 Plan has this property listed as residential. The 2020 Plan being a guide and that is what I see it to be is just a guide. We have some leeway or some discretion. Personally, I do not see this area developing as R-1. Some evidence of that is that there is I-1 to the southwest. There is the large scale development for the Nelms dealership to the southeast. With that said, I again look back to our 2020 Plan which is a policy decision made by our City Council and it mandates that we not approve strip centers but we give preference to commercial nodes. What I see before us is a rezoning proposal to do just that, rezone a commercial strip and not a commercial node. I do not believe that we have the prerogative to be disruptive to the policy that has been set by the City Council and the 2020 Plan to do something that by policy they have mandated that we not do. With those things said, I would vote against each of these 3 rezoning in their present state and present condition as they are brought before us this evening. If this was brought to us to rezone the entire tract as commercial, I would see a commercial node and I would see that as being consistent with the policy that is mandated by the City Council and I would vote for that rezoning. Johnson: I would observe that the only thing that we can consider this evening is the application and the application consists of just under 30 acres and we must disregard the other drawings that show R -O and R-1.5. That is not to be considered. I agree with Commissioner Estes, I would be much more favorably disposed toward this rezoning, if we had the whole kit and caboodle before us As it is, we are only looking to rezone the L shaped tract of just under 30 acres to C-1 and C-2 and so I will oppose it because it think it shows us such a small piece of this puzzle and I think we should be able and if we are going to be asked to recommend a rezoning to see the entire puzzle that this property is intended to become. I think the piece mill approach, doesn't serve the City well. Although, I certainly don't think this being R-1, which it could be changed to, makes any sense at all. It is across 112 from regional commercial on the 2020 Plan. I think it is ludicrous to think it has some single family dwellings across from regional commercial. Odom. Does the 2020 Plan show this as single family residential? Johnson: I'm sorry. It shows residential. Conklin: The 2020 Plan does designate this property as residential. Residential does include single family. It also includes multi family apartments. We're not just looking at single family homes. That would be consistent with the Plan for this area. Ward: I have no problem with the way they have this change from A-1 to C-1 or A-1 to C-2, but I will go along with both Commissioner Estes and Commissioner Johnson. • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1999 Page 18 MOTION Mr. Ward made a motion to deny RZ-13 Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion. Hoffman: I would like to see the Targe piece. I feel what was presented unofficially is more appropriate. Hoover: I am also in agreement with Commissioners Johnson, Ward, and Estes that if this was brought to us with the entire project, I would be inclined to be in agreement with this commercial area. I think the way they have divided up the property if they do bring it back is very appropriate. It would be nice if more property owners did have a master plan like this so we wouldn't have to go about this so piece meal. Conklin: If we do deny each of these rezonings in this configuration, just so staff is clear, if they do come back with the overall zoning scheme for the 106 acres, it would considered a new request and it could come back forward to us. There is a stipulation that they cannot bring it back forward within one year after denial. Johnson: I guess that is an administrative decision. I think from the Commission's point of view, they have shot themselves in the foot by doing this piece meal thing and showing us the whole pie which we kind of like. If I had to say, I would say yes, they could come back if they bring the whole thing. If staff doesn't disagree then that would allow them to come back. Conklin: I'm comfortable with that, I just want to make sure that because the ordinance is clear that if you deny a rezoning and you bring that the same rezoning, it can't be reconsidered. Johnson: I would say a 100 acre tract give or take, is measurably different from this under 30 acre tract, so without hearing descent from the Commission, then our take is, yes, it could come back if they bring the whole acreage. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1999 Page 19 RZ99-14: REZONING FOCHTMAN, PP209 This item was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of Earl Fochtman for property located south and west of Highway 112, north of Trucker's Drive and east of Deane Solomon Road. The property in tract 2 is zoned A-1, Agricultural, and contains approximately 9.85 acres. The request is to rezone the property to C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial. Dave Jorgensen was present on behalf of the project. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the requested rezoning from A-1 to C-2 because the Land Use Plans shows this area as residential and C-2 would not be consistent with the plan; additional C-2 land use is not needed at this time; the propped zoning would increase traffic danger and congestion; and, the proposed zoning would increase the population density and would increase the load on public services resulting in on site and off site improvements required at the time of large scale development or preliminary plat approval Public Comment None. MOTION Mr. Marr made a motion to deny RZ99-14. Mr. Shackelford seconded the motion. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1999 Page 20 RZ99-15: REZONING FOCHTMAN, PP209 This item was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of Earl Fochtman for property located south and west of Highway 112, north of Trucker's Drive and east of Deane Solomon Road. The property in tract 3 is zoned A-1, Agricultural, and contains approximately 10.34 acres. The request is to rezone the property to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Dave Jorgensen was present on behalf of the project. Staff Recommendation Staff recommended denial of the requested rezoning based on the following findings: the Land Use Plan shows this area as residential; C-1 zoning is not justified or needed at this time; the proposed zoning would appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion; and, the proposed zoning would increase the load on public services including schools, water, and sewer facilities resulting in on site and off site improvements being required at the time of large scale development and preliminary plat approval. Public Comment None. MOTION Mr. Marr made a motion to deny RZ99-15. Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. Further Discussion Johnson: This can be appealed to the City Council. I think the applicant understood that the primary objection at this level is we want to see the whole thing. i • • Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1999 Page 21 LSD99-14: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT NELMS AUTO PLAZA, PP248/249 This item was submitted by Rick Rogers of CEI Engineering on behalf of Don Nelms for property located at the northwest corner of Arkansas Highway 112 and Interstate 540. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 33.56 acres. This property is within the Design Overlay District. Rick Rogers, Audy Lack, and Don Nelms were present on behalf of the project. Staff Requirements 1. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards ordinance requirements. 2. Planning Commission determination of requested waiver of Design Overlay District landscaping requirements. Location of tree/landscaping along the front property line (adjacent to I-540 and Hwy 112). Ordinance requires one tree per 30 linear feet along the street right of way. The subdivision committee supported this waiver request. 3. Planning Commission determination of a waiver request by the applicant to install seven (7) monument signs within this development, one (1) for each building, plus an additional sign at the entrance to the development. Overlay District requirements state, "each separate, non residential lot will be allowed a single, ground mounted monument sign located on the building site. In the case of lots with double frontage, two ground mounted monument signs shall be allowed." 3. (Amended) The six signs proposed to serve the individual buildings shall be limited to 50 square feet per sign of sign area and they shall comply with other overlay district requirements in regard to setbacks and height. That the monument sign located at the entrance be a maximum of 10 feet tall, set back a minimum of 10 feet from the street right of way. Staff recommends that Planning Commission make a finding that this request is in keeping with the overall design theme of the development as established for compliance with the Commercial Design Standards and Design Overlay District ordinances. • Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1999 Page 22 This request must be considered by the Board of Sign Appeals since it is a variance from the Sign Ordinance and this part of the project is outside the Design Overlay District boundary. Two off site easements (drainage and utility) must be signed and filed of record prior to the City's acceptance of construction plans for this project. 5. All open channels, drainage pipes, drainage structures, and the detention pond shall be privately owned and privately maintained. 6. All utility easements shall be located outside the detention pond andthe associated berm area. 7. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 6 foot sidewalk with a minimum 10 foot green space along Highway 112 from a point just south of the proposed access drive, through the driveway and north to the north property line. 8. Dedication of right of way along Hwy 112 (by separate warranty deed) to meet the • requirements of the Master Street Plan (55 feet from centerline) as shown on the plat. • 9. All plat review and subdivision comments. 10. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, sidewalks, parking lol:s and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. 11. Large scale development approval is valid for one calendar year. 12. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: grading and drainage permits; separate easement plat; and, completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City. Commission Discussion Johnson: Have you had a chance to read the 12 specific conditions of approval from the staff? Rogers: Yes, I have and we are in agreement. • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1999 Page 23 Johnson: Have you also seen the amendment to condition 3 that was given at least to the Commission today that has to do with your signage? Rogers. Yes, we have. Johnson. Is that acceptable as well? Rogers: Yes, ma'am. I believe it is. Johnson: I have a question about the addition on page 9.4.a. "The 6 signs proposed to serve the buildings shall be limited to 50 square feet." That is per sign? Conklin: That is correct. Johnson: 50 square feet per sign. You need to add that. We must determine compliance with Commercial Design Standards and we must deal with the waiver of certain landscaping requirements that primarily has to do with grouping of trees. We must deal with the waiver in number 3 of the number of monument signs. Your pictures tell us a great deal and we have spent some time on this at Subdivision and also at agenda session. Rogers: I would like to introduce Audy Lack with Miller Boskus Lack. He is the consulting architect who has developed this presentation for you. It would be more appropriate for him to introduce those that are not familiar with the pictures that you are seeing or answer any questions. Hoffman: I would like to briefly summarize the discussions of the Subdivision Committee. We went over all the issues including most importantly the waiver of the tree spacing requirements and the island landscaping requirements that were waived under the initial large scale last year. We made the determination in the Subdivision Committee, we felt those waivers could still stand and that they have provided the appropriate number of trees, they are just not spaced every 30 feet which would be required under a normal development. We further made the finding that the design standards had been met. These individual dealerships meet all of the conditions for commercial design standards. They do not have the square, box like structure that we are all so afraid of. I think we are fine with that. We also discussed the connectivity issue to the north of this site. This is a rather large site that would be under a more conventional retail development probably subject to be connected to adjacent sites. To the north, we have the drive in movie theater. There is a creek dividing these 2 properties. The Subdivision Committee felt that the creek did pose a barrier. The one way ingress and egress that is proposed for this site is determined to be adequate because the car dealership does not generate or is not anticipated to generate as high a volume of traffic as you would have with a normal retail grocery store or other type of development. It does have a loop road so there would be no long dead ends per se. I • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1999 Page 24 think the Subdivision Committee went over fairly carefully and thoroughly these particular items and I wanted to bring that to the Planning Commission's attention. Public Comment Candy Clark, the chairperson of the Tree and Landscape Committee, urged. the Commission to deny the landscape waiver. Beverly Melton, member of the Tree and Landscape Committee, also urged the Commission to deny the landscape waiver. Further Commission Discussion Johnson: You're not saying there are too few trees, it's the location of the trees and the fact that they are grouped rather than being linear along the right of way. Clark: We are talking about the specific requirement from the linear spacing along the right of way. Estes: With regard to the tree waiver, at the Subdivision Committee meeting which I was asked to attend by invitation, I was very much opposed to the tree waiver. The arguments that are put forth that somehow it shields the product and prevents effective marketing of the product, I don't find merit because we drive through Plano, Richardson, and north of Dallas, and we see the trees in front of the car dealerships. The next issue for me was that I had to give some consideration to the fact that this applicant had been before this Commission once before and the waiver had been granted. I think the applicant is entitled to rely upon the actions of this Commission. There is some amount of reliance placed upon our action taken. Having waived once, I am troubled by now denying the waiver. Listening to the very well spoken and articulate remarks in opposition to the waiver, more than adequate green space is going to be left in this project. A substantial amount of this project is being left to green space. The issue is not the number of trees or the amount of the green space, it is the placement of the trees. As you come from the south and view the proposed project to the north and as you come from the north and view the proposed project off to the north you are elevated. You're going to see the cars. You're not going to see the trees. The trees are not going to be any sort of a buffer. You're going to see the cars parked in the parking lot. The issue then becomes to me, how much of the project is devoted to green space and this applicant has devoted a very large percentage of his development to green space. I am brought to the issue that it is not the amount of green space or the amount of trees, it is the location of the trees. Having once waived the requirement that the trees be placed in a certain position around the perimeter, I am in favor of the waiver. Hoffman: I am disappointed that we did not hear from your Committee at Subdivision • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1999 Page 25 because we did spend a great deal of time talking about this issue and it was not easy for me because I wasn't on the Commission that approved the initial waiver. I do feel that this applicant has a certain amount of vested interest in the continued waiver and after I looked at his landscaping plan, you will note at the intersections and corner of the property, he has a pretty big grouping of trees. Granted he doesn't have the trees in front of the two parking lots that face the bypass, but in between those, he has large groupings and he's got large groupings of trees at the entrance to the property and lots of plants around the internal circulation road. For that reason, we decided to go ahead and allow the waiver. Hoffman: Did I hear that the ordinance does address dealerships? Conklin: They exempt the display areas from being landscaped. Hoffman: And that wouldn't apply to this? Is this not considered display areas? Conklin: There are display areas in this project and then there are areas where people bring their cars in for repair and storage. Johnson: What percentage of the project is required to be green space and what percentage is in fact green space? Conklin: The requirement is 25%. Warrick: They have approximately 26% green space. MOTION Ms. Hoffman made a motion to approved the project subject to the 12 staff requirements and finding that the Commercial Design Standards have been met, granting the landscape waivers previously addressed, and including allowing 7 signs. Mr. Odom seconded the motion. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1999 Page 26 CU99-13: CONDITIONAL USE BANK OF FAYETTEVILLE, PP401 This item was submitted by Shahin Riahi of Polk, Stanley, Yeary Architects, Ltd. for property located in Lot 2 of the Wedington Place Addition. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 1.135 acres. The request is allow 6 additional parking spaces for the bank. This property is within the Design Overlay District. Shahin Riahi and John Lewis were present on behalf of the project. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the request based on these findings: extra parking spaces have not been shown to be needed for this usage and that extra parking spaces would become an unused paved area; and, the proposed additional parking spaces are not generally compatible with adjacent property and other property in the district. Commission Discussion Johnson• This request is for 6 additional spaces for a total of 22 parking spaces which is requested because of the 12 staff members and 10 patrons at any given time. Conklin: The ordinance allows 16 parking spaces. We feel that the additional 6 spaces are not necessary to serve this development. Lewis: We have had a history of building branches with not enough parking spaces. We would acquiesce on this point if necessary. The architects which we have selected have a national reputation. They have done a lot of work in Fayetteville. They did the old First National Bank building. They did the college of engineering building. The new student union at the University. They are doing the Bank of Fayetteville renovation. They designed the branch that is on Dickson Street known as the train branch. They have designed the new branch that we awarded the construction contract on at Highway 265 and 45 last week. We have tried to design a branch that would be a credit to our community but also one that would work as far as the bank is concerned. The curb cuts and the other items that we would ask for your forbearance on simply help keep our customers from running into each other. That may be an important ingredient to having a branch that does work. The design of the branch is very attractive. It is a pretty large building. It is about the size that we are building out east. The buildings are intended to attract people to them. The building out east has sensitivity to the architecture of our community and the history of our community. The 4 corners of it are octagons which mimics the shape of our old courthouse. We have not tried to make a cookie cutter branches but tried to make them unique and attractive and a credit to our community. • • Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1999 Page 27 Johnson: It might be easier to sell the parking space waiver if we had the large scale before us. Ward: How many employees will be working at this particular branch? Lewis: We have projected 12 employees and 10 customers at any one time. Ward: It has been my view from the other banks that we have to work with and the restaurants that we've had to work with is that we are not allowing enough parking for those particular uses: banking and/or restaurants. I know on Friday afternoon, one particular bank I go to, there is no place to park. It is dangerous This is a branch bank. I'm not sure that the City Council shouldn't address this and give us some leeway as far as banks and restaurants. This comes to us on almost every bank and every restaurant. They need additional parking over what we are allowed to give. We had a messy situation on a bank development requesting additional parking. We agreed to allow additional parking on semi permeable pavers. I feel like they need the parking. Lewis: funds. It would be cheap to leave the grass. We aren't trying to avoid expenditure of Hoffman: Since this is adjoining other commercial property, do you suppose we might be able to lease shared parking for your employees across the access drive and take care of them that way? Lewis: I have not talked to the developer about that. We could try that, sure. Hoffman: It's an idea. Public Comment None. MOTION Mr. Ward made a motion to approve CU99-13. Mr. Shackelford seconded the motion. Johnson: If this conditional use fails, have we then set the maximum number of parking • spaces in the large scale if it comes before us subsequently? • Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1999 Page 28 Conklin: Yes. This is why this item is before you this evening. They would like to set the number of parking spaces for their large scale development. The 16 are allowed by right without a conditional use. They have brought this before you this evening to request the 6 additional spaces so if it is denied, as staff, we would expect to see a large scale development with 16 parking spaces shown. Johnson: I guess perhaps anything under 22. I don't know if we don't allow a conditional use for 26, that would preclude another request. I've never seen this done this way procedurally and I'm perplexed. Conklin: If they came back with.a request for 20 spaces, I think the Commission could look at that during large scale development. As staff, you're giving us guidance as to what to look for when the large scale development comes through and to the applicant on what the Planning Commission would approve. Marr: Is there a reason why we wouldn't be dealing with this at large scale development other than the fact that we have this request. • Conklin: This and the other two items were brought before you because the applicant would like to get these issues resolved prior to designing the project. In the past, we have had applicants bring a large scale development through and at that time, we would approve point by point, parking, curb cuts, overall design of the project. The applicant has chosen this way. They feel like if they can get these answer now they would be better able to design the project to meet the approved conditions. • Hoffman: I can understand the applicant's need to do this; however, when I'm seeing a portion of the project, I am more likely to be conservative. It's almost like we're doing Subdivision Committee work here. Marr: That is my thought. It seems to be that would be making a better decision at large scale development. Estes: Staff has made a finding that the additional parking spaces would become unused paved areas. The applicant by right is entitled to 16 spaces and the applicant tells us that there would be 10 or 12 employees. That leaves room for 4 customers' parking. With this branch out on the western part of town that you will get some customer traffic. Is that what you anticipate? It's not Just a drive in facility. You'll have people coming in to apply for car loans? Lewis: Estes: Yes. I don't see how 4 parking spaces are going to suit the applicant's needs. • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1999 Page 29 Conklin: With regard to making recommendation on whether or not additional parking is needed, as staff, we always ask the applicant to provide us documentation with what is needed from other sites. I did not have anything to review with regard to other banking sites. Regarding Commissioner Estes' comments about restaurants, restaurants have provided us with documentation on the number of customers per hour, sales figures, and other things we can use to look at -- we felt as staff 16 spaces would be appropriate for the site. The Commission may feel like additional spaces over that would be more appropriate. Estes: I wish we were making these decisions in a large scale development context, but we're not. I understand why the applicant has brought this to us as they have. I would anticipate that you would have a customer base out in the western part of the county and I would anticipate they would come to that branch and do their banking business. I would vote for the waiver. I don't like it the way it's being brought to us but I would vote for it. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion failed with a vote of 4-4-0. Commissioners Hoffman, Hoover, Johnson, and Marr voted against the motion. Johnson: A conditional use always requires a minimum of 5 positive votes and this did not get the majority. • Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1999 Page 30 AD99-8: ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM BANK OF FAYETTEVILLE, PP401 This item was submitted by Shahin Riahi of Polk, Stanley, Yeary Architects, Ltd. for property located in Lot 2 of the Wedington Place Addition. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 1.135 acres. The request is for a variance of Design Overlay District standards to allow a curb cut within 250 feet of an intersection. This property is within the Design Overlay District. Shahin Riahi and John Lewis were present on behalf of the project. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The curb cut on the east side of the lot shall be located within the dedicated 50 foot access easement along the northern property line. • Note: This requirement was not included in the motion and therefore, the Commission determined that this could be a waiver request as a part of the large scale development. • 2. The curb cut on the west side of the lot shall be located no less than 130 feet from the intersection of Wedington Drive and Tahoe Place. Commission Discussion Johnson: Do you object to either or both of the conditions of approval? Riahi: I don't have any problem with the condition on the west side. On the east side, we are still asking for the entrance/curb cut in the overlay district to be less that 200 feet to Wedington Drive. Johnson: What page in our packet can we see the requested curb cut on the east side most clearly? Conklin: Page 11.3 Johnson: As drawn, you'll see where the applicant wants the curb cut. It's drawn on the northern part of the eastern property line. Tell us where the staff recommends the curb cut be allowed. • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1999 Page 31 Conklin: The curb cut on the eastern side of the property, we are recommending that it be off the access easement which is the northern boundary line. Johnson: So it would be on the north boundary. Conklin: Yes. On the access easement as it's platted as a part of Wedington Place Subdivision. Johnson: Would that serve as a potentially an access drive for this property and the property to the north? Conklin: That is correct. Riahi: The reason for that is if we pass our site, turn one left, turn another left, and turn another right, then you are lined up with the site. We think that is a very dangerous way of accessing the site and we're faced with 3 streets that we have to face our building with. That is one of the reasons we have a triangular type of building and making the building face these 3 streets, so therefore, it puts our drive through area in back of the building which is on the north side. The only way that we can line up people to come to the drive, is by making them make 3 tums to be lined up with the drive through area Also, it cuts into stack up area for the cars that are trying to line up with the drive through area. Lewis: It also forces the customers that want to come inside the building to drive through the drive in lanes to get to parking on the east side. That virtually renders the branch inoperable. Hoffman: If you did a mirror reverse of this, you could have people coming in off Tahoe Drive and taking a right into your property and being able to go either to the front parking lot or through the drive through. You have them all coming in to the left now anyway. If you had them come in from Tahoe instead, they would just make a left turn into the property, then they could go around your building to the front or they could go straight through the drive through. Did you look at that? Lewis: The building would have to be turned around because the passenger would be on the side of the drive through. We've been working on this for a year. It gets quite complicated. Ward: Steamboat would be the main entry through there. Riahi: You would not be facing your teller and that is a security and safety issue. One main reason is because we have 3 drives that we have to face: Steamboat Drive; Lake Tahoe Drive; and, Wedington Drive. The building needs to face these streets. You don't want to turn your back to the street. The drive through must be on the back of the building which is the north Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1999 Page 32 side. For us to be able to have access to that drive, we have to make those 3 turns if we come from the north side into the area. It's a dangerous situation for us to do that. Lewis: It's been a difficult problem. I know it has been for us and it is for you. I share in your difficult problem. You're designing something around a car If the front of the building is facing 16, then it gives the appearance of the whole division a lot better appearance. That is one of the criteria that we used. We want to keep people off of Steamboat and stack them on our own property. MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to approve the curb cut on the west side of the lot being located no less than 130 feet from the intersection of Wedington Drive and Tahoe Place. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. Johnson: You would delete condition number 1? Odom. I don't include it. Johnson: You don't anticipate a subsequent motion? Odom: No. Conklin: We are not including condition one. Are we granting the curb cut on the east side? Odom. We'll deal with that at large scale development. I think it still has to be approved. Johnson: The motion tells us what happens with the curb cut on the west and the motion as presented does not address one way or another the curb cut on the east. Odom: Is that the one you have a problem with? Riahi: That is the one I have a problem with. We don't have a problem with the one on the west side. Ward: They need one on the east side for ingress. That's it. Johnson: The chair would rule that the affect of this motion is to address the curb cut on the west and the affect of this motion is to give no information on the curb cut to the east because Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1999 Page 33 there is nothing in the motion about that curb cut. It leaves a blank slate for the curb cut on the east Odom: The whole purpose of the administrative item being before us is to address that east intersection. We have staff recommending one thing and we have a picture of another. That's what makes it hard without a large scale. Johnson: This really does force the Commission to function as a committee and having been a member of the Subdivision Committee, that is one of the fortes of subdivision, you really can roll up your sleeves and get down with the applicant and it's very hard for us to do that as a whole Commission without a large scale before us Riahi: The letter that I submitted with this site plan, clearly it showed what I'm asking for which is the curb cut on the east and -- Johnson: That may be, but we have no power over anything but that at this point when it's done piece meal like this. Marr: My feeling is that this is something that should be done in the Subdivision. I agree with both of these. We should move forward with them, but I'm not sure I have the expertise here, not having ever been in subdivision to make that decision as a committee. I would support the current motion only because it leaves the east curb access to be decided at large scale development. AMENDED MOTION Mr. Odom amended the motion to include a 35 feet in lieu of 24 feet of required access from Steamboat Drive to help the traffic flow in and out of the site easier and safer. Warrick: That is actually item number 12. Johnson. We don't have a second. We have the motion to allow condition 2 and the motion is silent about the curb cut to the east. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. Further Discussion Odom. I agree fully that this is better addressed at Subdivision Committee but the • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1999 Page 34 applicant has the right to be voted up or down when you bring an application before us. Johnson: I will entertain a motion on this if one is proposed. Seeing none, that leaves the issue for the large scale development process. Hoffman: On page 11.6, you have an overall layout showing the location of the access drive to the north. You have this site not in it's presented configuration. It is somewhat different. It shows drives off of Tahoe. It does not show a drive off Steamboat. I wantto remind the Commission that if you put a drive to the east off of Steamboat that you will also have in very close proximity another drive that is a main access drive for the shopping drive. Is that howl should read that plan? Conklin: The plan on 11.6 was provided by Clary Development. As staff, when we looked at these administrative item to write the report, the question that we were trying to recommend or answer was where is the most appropriate curb cut along Steamboat Drive? That is the decision we were trying to present to the Commission this evening. Based on the decision of the Planning Commission, I think the applicant can go back and design their project. However, before you this evening you also have a plan showing the building and the parking lot layout. I think that has somewhat confused the Commission with regard to how the cars get in the drive through lanes. We were looking at whether we should have a curb cut on Steamboat Drive at that location. Based on that, the applicant could go back and design the project. Clary Development provided us a letter. They indicated to us the access drive to the north and how they plan to serve their future development to the north of this development. Once again, we have not seen this before a large scale development process either. Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1999 Page 35 AD99-9• ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM BANK OF FAYETTEVILLE, pp401 This Item was submitted by Shahin Riahi of Polk, Stanley, Yeary Architects, Ltd. for property located in Lot 2 of the Wedington Place Addition. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 1.135 acres. The request is to allow a 35 foot wide access from Steamboat Drive. This property is within the Design Overlay District. Shahin Riahi and John Lewis were present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommended denial based on the following findings: §172.01(C)(5)(b)(1) stated that for 2 way access each lane shall be 12 feet wide and a maximum of four lanes shall be allowed. Whenever more than two lanes are propsed, entrance and exit lanes shall be divided by a curbed, raised, landscaped median. The median shall be ten feet wide if 3 lanes are being proposed of 15 feet wide if 4 lane are proposed. Commission Discussion Johnson: What width drive would be allowed? 24 feet? This is going up to 35? Conklin: It would be a 24 foot wide drive. I feel that the Commission should probably not act on this request since the previous one was not acted on with regard to the drive to the east at Steamboat Drive. This is talking about a 35 foot wide access drive on Steamboat Drive. If the Commission decided not to allow that and the applicant came back with a 35 foot drive off the access easement, I think that is a different type of request. Steamboat Drive is a public street. The access drive is internal circulation throughout the development. There are 2 different issues and without making that decision, I don't see how we can say 35 feet is okay on Steamboat Drive when we don't know if there will be a drive on Steamboat. Johnson: Dealing with this issue tonight might put both the Commission and the applicant in a box and it wouldn't help anything. We don't know now where that easternmost access is going to be and where it is on the east might affect how wide we would be willing to make it and whether we would up it from 24 to 35 feet which is the request. Chair tends to agree with the staff. So, if the applicant concurs, we won't deal with this administrative item tonight in an effort not to make a decision really in the blind because we are not going to determine where that easternmost access is. Until we know where it is, then we don't think we ought to decide how wide it will be. If you push us to go ahead and deal with this tonight, we will attempt to, but I agree with staff that you are better served and the Commission is better served if we wait and deal with that whole picture in the large scale. Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1999 Page 36 Riahi: In large scale development? Johnson: I fear what you will find is the same sort of pulling of hair and going in circles that you had on the last administrative item that we would be acting totally arbitrary in our minds if we went with the 35 versus the 24 when we don't know where that east access is going to end up. Warrick. I don't know if this is going to confuse issues or not, unless the access on the east is within the access easement that has been platted for the Wedington Place Subdivision, a waiver will be necessary. There is not 250 feet of frontage on Steamboat on this particular lot and the overlay district requires 250 feet between intersections. Therefore, if it is not within that access easement, a waiver is going to be necessary regardless of where it's placed on the property line. If it is placed in the location as tentatively proposed to you on the plan the applicants have presented, it would be within approximately 20 to 25 feet from the access easement which is proposed to be utilized by the developer of the rest of the subdivision based on the plan on page 11.6. Johnson: Is that to say you concur with Tim which is that this should be left for the Targe scale? Warrick: I don't know if I have an opinion on that. I have a feeling that if it is left to the large scale stage, we will be looking at a plan exactly like this and staff will be making the recommendations that we've made tonight. Ward: Why does the applicant need a 35 foot wide access from Steamboat? Riahi: For additional turning and stacking room for the 5 lane drive through and to have room for exiting the drive through area at the same time to safely manage traffic through the site. We would provide islands and curbs to divide the traffic. Johnson: What happens if the traffic in the drive through that exits onto Tahoe -- what if the drive at Tahoe becomes one way and one can only exit the bank property on Tahoe and one cannot enter the bank property on Tahoe so that the parking spaces around the bank are all approached from Steamboat. Does that not resolve your safety problem? Riahi: Making them one way coming in from Steamboat Drive and having them exit on Tahoe Drive? Johnson: Correct. Odom. If we approve this, are we still going to have the power and authority to address • Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1999 Page 37 those issues at Subdivision? Johnson: I take the view that if we approve the 35 foot wide access from Steamboat, we set the width of the access easement. I think we've tied our hands the next time we see the access easement from Steamboat. Odom: Could the 35 foot access easement be at the very beginning of Steamboat? Johnson: Yes. We've not said where the access point will be but we have determined the width of the access. Odom: My view if that if we say it can be 35 feet that we would approve it if it was near the highway. We would still have the authority to deny the large scale development in it's entirety. Johnson: I concur. MOTION • Ms. Hoffman made a motion to table AD99-9 until after the project has come before the Subdivision Committee. • Mr. Marr seconded the motion. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 6-2-0. Commissioner Odom and Commissioner Shackelford voted against the motion. Meeting adjoumed at 8:14 p.m.