Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-06-28 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on June 28, 1999 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED Approval of minutes - 06/14/99 CU99-15: Larson, pp367 LS99-11: Larson, pp367 AD99-13: Ice Plant, pp484 LS99-11: Larson, pp367 RZ99-16: Mid Southern, pp401 RZ99-17: Mid Southern, pp401 LSD99-17: Spring Creek, pp174 PP99-4: Summersby Subdivision, pp410 LSD98-12.1: Trichell Medical Office, pp212 LSD99-15.1: St. Louis Bread Co, pp174 LSD99-16: Mcllroy Bank, pp401 • MEMBERS PRESENT • Don Bunch Lorel Hoffman Sharon Hoover Phyllis Johnson Don Marr Conrad Odom Loren Shackelford Lee Ward STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Kim Hesse Janet Johns Ron Petrie Brent Vinson Dawn Warrick ACTIONS TAKEN Approved on Consent Approved on Consent Approved on Consent Approved w/conditions Approved Withdrawn Approved -to CC Approved w/conditions Approved w/conditions Approved w/conditions Approved w/conditions Approved w/conditions MEMBERS ABSENT Bob Estes STAFF ABSENT Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 2 Johnson: I would like to introduce Don Bunch who has been selected to fill the position vacated by John Forney. We are glad to have him with us. I see only one item on the Consent Agenda but I understand there are additional items. Tim, other than the approval of the minutes, are there other items on the Consent Agenda? Conklin: Yes, there are. At the Agenda Session, the Commission put items 2 and 3 on the Consent Agenda and that is Conditional Use 99-15 for Larson. It's a tandem lot request. And Lot Split 99-11 is the lot split request to create the tandem lot. Johnson: I don't recall that we have had conditional uses on the Consent Agenda before but you believe it is appropriate to have those on the Consent Agenda? Conklin: Yes. They are meeting all the conditions of approval for a tandem lot. Johnson: We have those 3 items: the approval of the minutes; conditional use 99-15; and, lot split 99-11. Is there anyone who would like to remove any item from the Consent Agenda? CONSENT AGENDA • Approval of June 14, 1999 minutes. CU99-15: CONDITIONAL USE LARSON, PP367 • This item was submitted by Julia M. Larson for property located at 231 West Ash Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 0.90 acres. The request is for a tandem lot. Staff recommends approval subject to conditions of approval Conditions of Approval 1. The private drive to the tandem lot shall be paved for a minimum distance of 25 feet from said intersection at the time a building permit is issued. 2. Trash cans from the tandem lot residence shall be brought to the street by the resident of the house on appropriate trash pick up days only. A concrete pad large enough for 2 trash cans with a masonry garbage can holder shall be provided with screening shrubs to be 3 foot tall at maturity, planted on all sides except the side facing the street. • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 3 LS99-11: LOT SPLIT LARSON, PP367 This item was submitted by Julia M. Larson for property located at 231 West Ash Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 0.90 acres. The request is to split the property into 2 tracts of approximately 0.32 acres and 0.58 acres. Staff recommends approval subject to certain conditions. Conditions of Approval 1. Payment of parks fees in the amount of $375 prior to filing the deed creating the additional residential lot. 2. Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 3. 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 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. Public Comment None Roll Call Upon roll call, the Consent Agenda was unanimously approved with a vote of 8-0-0. • Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 4 AD99-13: ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM ICE PLANT DEVELOPMENT LLC, PP484 This item was submitted by Cal Canfield on behalf of Ice Plant Development LLC for property located at 339 North West Avenue. The property is zoned C-3, Central Commercial, and contains approximately 0 67 acres. The request is for a waiver of 43 required parking spaces for the proposed addition to the existing building. Cal Canfield was present on behalf of the waiver request. Staff recommended approval subject certain conditions. Conditions of Approval 1. A parking waiver for 43 spaces with the payment of $51,600 in lieu of providing the required parking. 1. (Amended) - A shared parking agreement be presented to staff to cover the entire hours • of operation for any possible tenant within 7 days of approval. 2. (Added) - In lieu of the shared parking agreement, the applicant shall pay the $.51,600 fee. Commission Discussion • Johnson: I understand the addition is going to be a second story added on top of this one story building. This appears to be straight forward, that is, for a parking waiver of 43 spaces. The staff recommends approval with the payment of an in lieu fee of $1,200 per space for a total payment of $51,600. Does the staff have anything additional to add to this? Conklin: The applicant did contact me this afternoon and did indicate that he did have a shared parking agreement with University Baptist Church at the lot located on Lafayette and Campbell Street for 43 spaces. This is new information that staff was told this afternoon over the phone and the Commission needs to decide whether or not to grant a waiver based on a shared parking agreement. I believe that is what the applicant is now requesting instead of granting the waiver subject to the $1,200 per space or the $51,600. Johnson: Were you provided with anything in writing assuring this shared parking? Conklin: I have not received anything in writing regarding the shared parking agreement. • • Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 5 Johnson: Is the applicant here? Canfield: Let me give you this right now, Tim. I just picked it up and haven't even had time to make copies. Johnson: If you want to tell us first what this is, Mr. Canfield? Canfield: This is a request for parking waiver for the Ice Plant Development. Johnson: Yes. What did you hand Tim? Canfield: That document is a shared parking agreement with UBC Church giving us the use of 43 of their parking spaces that we need based upon the square footage we plan to add to our building. In exchange, we have given them the use of our 20 spaces that we have available. Based upon the square footage that we are proposing as additional square footage actually within the existing volume of our building, we determined that we are required to provide in one form or another, 43 spaces. That is what that agreement I have just handed to Tim should do. Johnson: You say that this lot is at Lafayette and Campbell. Which corner or that intersection is this lot located? Canfield: The lot that we are wanting to share parking with them is directly across from UBC. It's their large lot on Lafayette Street. Johnson: It would be on the southwest corner? Canfield: Yes, ma'am We haven't actually sat down and denoted which 43 spaces. I count 71 unencumbered spaces in that lot currently. We have not sat down with UBC and actually said these are the 43 -- as I said, I Just literally walked out of my office with this agreement in hand and raced up here to present to you. We had hoped to have it for you last Thursday in time for your preliminary package but we were working on it right up until meeting time. Conklin: I have passed down a map that indicates where the parking lot in question is for the spaces to be shared. It is at the southwest corner of Lafayette and Campbell Avenue. It is going to be a lot that correlates to the legend in the left hand comer that has stars, squares, and crosses to indicate which parking spaces are available. There are currently 97 total parking spaces within this lot. 26 spaces are currently being shared with Pine Tree Investments which is a residential building to the east and the Three Sisters project on Dickson Street. The request is for 43 additional spaces to be shared in this lot and that would bring the total to 69 spaces being • shared with UBC in that parking lot and it would leave 28 spaces available left in that lot. We have inventoried what spaces have been shared by past Planning Commission actions. If you • Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 6 orient the map and find Lafayette and Campbell Streets, it's going to be just south of Lafayette Street in the area indicated with the symbols. The parking lot is approximately 300 feet from the building at the closest edge and 300 feet to the further edge to the east So, it's within 600 feet of this site. Hoffman: Is that measured along the road? Conklin: That's as a crow flies -- straight line. Brent Vinson and I went out and there is access available between the UA Archeological Building and the parking lot that you could cut across through that parking lot. I'm not sure if that would remain open forever. That is something to consider also. Canfield: I have taken some measurements of my own. Not as crow flies but as a human walks on the sidewalk there are 43 spaces available in that lot within 600 feet walking distance. Johnson: Is the Ice Plant building the one on the west with the darkened outline? Canfield: That is correct. Part of that building has been demolished -- the south half of it. • So if you ignore the southern half of it, the building in question is the northern one half of the building. • Johnson: Okay. Canfield: Here is a diagram that shows you at the corner there is Magnolia Company that is on the corner of West and Lafayette. There is an existing gravel lot and then out building begins. It is shaped in a "U". We're looking at purchasing these 2 portions and I call then our building 1 and 2. Berquist Photography occupies this building and the old rock gym which was bulldozed would be directly to the south. Ward: Tim, on the parking that UBC has up on Vandeventer, is that lot shown here? Conklin: We do not have any shared parking agreements for that lot up on Vandeventer. Ward: So, you're saying that there is not enough shared parking left? UBC doesn't have enough available on Lafayette to meet his requirements. So, he needs to go back to UBC and see if he's within the proximity of the lot on Vandeventer? Conklin: That is incorrect. There are additional spaces available. A total of 71 spaces are available in the lot at Lafayette and Campbell. Out of the 71 spaces, this applicant is requesting to share 43 of those spaces. The shared parking agreement states: • • Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 7 "As owners of the property located at the intersection of Lafayette and Campbell, we hereby agree to share 43 spaces as shown on the attached site plan during the following times and days: Monday through Saturday from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m." This would not include any evening hours. Johnson: 7 a.m. through 6 p.m.? Canfield: It was my understanding that it was going to be written through midnight but I think that we can -- Johnson: What are your proposed hours of operation, Mr. Canfield? Canfield: I'm creating leasable space and if somebody wants to pay me the money to lease it, they can be open 24 hours a day. I'm not going to restrict my tenants on when they can be open. I can't tell you what the exact uses are. I can tell you what we're proposing to try to recruit into the building which is office and retail primarily. We do have one space available that we might look at trying to get a restaurant operation into. Right now, if somebody wants to come lease the whole building as an office, they can have it. Johnson: It seems to me then, we have to evaluate the utility of a shared parking arrangement that ends at 6 p.m. for a lease space the operation of which we don't have any hours for. That is really the issue that is before us, the cut off time being 6 p.m. Canfield: It was my understanding that was going to be written through at least midnight. I don't know why it got written at 6 p.m. I think that if that creates a problem, we can certainly work with that. There is additionally available a lot with 56 spaces owned by the Dickson Street Improvement District at Gregg and Lafayette, approximately 100 feet to the west of my building. Carl Collier, speaking on behalf of the Dickson Street Improvement District, has told me that I can call those spaces mine if I need to for 24 hours per day use. If you would like, I can make that the shared parking arrangement, if I am so required. If I may be allowed to express my feeling and my feel for the situation down there. I think the bottom line is that there is plenty of parking in that area There currently is not a parking problem there. I think certainly in the future it may well become a parking problem. At this point, for the near future, I don't see it. I think the planning staff will agree with that assessment. The Dickson Street Improvement District has a lot that is currently under lease to -- or a portion of it is currently under lease to Sigma Nu fraternity for 30 spaces on a month to month lease. Mr. Collier has indicated that he would terminate that lease at such time as I request for him to grant me a shared parking agreement for 43 spaces. I think again, that if the hours of operation are a problem, my first step • would be to address that with UBC and tell them I would like it for the hours that you tell me you would like it for. My second option would be to go to Dickson Street Improvement District. i • • Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 8 At 4:00 this afternoon, when UBC called me back and said we'll have your parking agreement, I called Carl Collier back and said, "Thank you, but I will not need your spaces." So I didn't go get an agreement from him or I could have had it in my hand right now as well. Public Comment Paula Marinoni, residing at 617 W. Lafayette, was present and spoke in favor of granting the waiver. I have been back in Fayetteville for 3 and half years and made it my mission to try to bring this area back to its historic significance. I met with officials from the State this past week to discuss the future of this area and the building that he is discussing is certainly an important part of that. I am speaking in favor of this project. That area right under the bridges -- I live right there close it -- and that is a problem area. I feel like a mixed use space in this building will be very desirable for this area and helping bring it back. I trust his architectural interest to preserve the integrity of the building and I brought with me tonight, information from the Arkansas Historic Preservation program, where in fact, if he complies with guidelines and qualifies, he could get a 20% tax credit for proper restoration of this in a historic nature. The problems that we've had at that site, obviously gangs are meeting under the bridge. If you look at the bridge and those 2 bridges are also on the National Register of Historic Places, there has been graffiti in the past. There has been dumping over the bridge where someone will stop in a truck and dump the load right there between the tracks -- dishwashers, stoves, TV's -- it's been a big problem. I have had the Sheriff's Department come on 3 occasions, I believe. They painted the graffiti on the bridge, they cleaned up all the mess and they have been patrolling the area. If there was a conditional use there and especially with a restaurant that mightoverlook that track area, it would be very helpful to the city -- to the police department -- because if there are people sitting there, obviously crime will hopefully not happen but at least go elsewhere. As long as they don't come up with live, amplified, outdoor music, I'm in favor of this. Also, I went and walked it today, because in being interested in helping him with getting this project forward and seeing that the parking was a consideration. I walked from the UBC lot down to his building. I counted at the time, 100 spaces and this was at 2 o'clock this afternoon and there were 5 cars in the lot. Even though it is shared by a number of entities in the area, it is never close to full. It's an ocean except when it's Sunday for church. There were 2 church vehicles there and the walking time to his building was 1 minute and 32 seconds which is certainly a doable walk The Dickson Street Improvement District parking lot is also a problem for our neighborhood. It is a haven for dead cars, for expired tags -- I have called the police many times and it's been a problem because it doesn't belong to the City, it belongs to the Dickson Street Improvement District. I'm happy that they are interested in cooperating. Today, there are 8 cars in the lot with 3 expired tags, so I'm very interested also. It would help solve a number of problems if the UBC situation didn't work out to get someone in there and actually use that parking lot. I would appreciate it if you would do everything you could to try to work with him to help this work. If in fact there is any doubt, let him come back with something that might work. Thank you. • Planning Commission Minutes. June 28, 1999 Page 9 MOTION Ms. Hoffman made a motion to approve the parking waiver subject to the following conditions: 1. A shared parking agreement be presented to staff to cover the entire hours of operation for any possible tenant when that is known. 2. In lieu of the shared parking agreement, the applicant shall pay the $51,600 in lieu fee. Odom. I don't think I followed all that. Could I get it repeated? Hoffman: That a shared parking agreement be provided to cover the entire hours of operation for whatever tenant leases the building so when a tenant permit is submitted, staff would require the shared parking agreement to be in effect for the entire hours of operations. Odom: That is an accounting nightmare for the staff, I believe. Ward: I know UBC can't deal with that. • Conklin: That is my concern also. Johnson: Is there a second to the motion? The motion is not brought forward. We're open for discussion. Hoffman: Is the applicant still willing to accept the in lieu fee? Canfield: As a last resort, I think I'm willing to offer that. I don't think that it is necessary. I've made it quite clear that if this is not acceptable, I can call Carl Collier and I can be back in 15 minutes with a shared parking agreement for that lot. Johnson: Those things should have been done before the meeting. Canfield: Yes, ma'am, they should have but they weren't and I'm here right now asking you to look at the situation logically and say, "yes, there plenty of parking down there." If this agreement is not acceptable, I'll go get the next one that goes from 6 p.m. to 8 a.m. from Carl Collier so you can approve it with that as a condition. Johnson: Any motion is appropriate or if you wish to table or withdraw the item until you have those things in hand -- • Canfield: You tell me what I need and I'll have it in hand. • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 10 Johnson: I don't think it's for us to tell you what you need. I think you are aware of the shared parking possibilities. Canfield: May we make a motion to approve it as Ms. Hoffman has mentioned based upon the agreement in hand until 6 p.m. with the understanding that I will fill in the blank to whatever time you all request -- 6 p.m. to midnight; 6 p.m. to 8 a.m. -- I will fill that blank with a shared parking agreement from Dickson Street Improvement District. Johnson: It is my view, that we need the shared parking agreement in hand at the time that we make the decision and what we have now is one that ends at 6 p.m. Again, I'll entertain any motions. MOTION Ms. Hoffman made a new motion to approve the parking waiver with a shared parking agreement within 600 feet to end not earlier than midnight or to provide the $51,600 in lieu parking fee. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. Further Discussion Ward: This is kind of an eyesore for that particular neighborhood. They're really starting to upgrade down in that particular area. I feel, personally, that there is plenty of parking in that general area. I hate to see this get bogged down going to the Planning Commission stage on this because I think Cal is trying to take something that is pretty rugged right now and make it Into something really unique and nice. I would think that between the UBC parking and other parking lots around Dickson Street in general that there would be plenty of parking for this little project. I know in his case it's kind of hard to say that this would strictly be office space or maybe some residential or retail or what. I feel like anytime you have a chance to get somebody of Cal Canfield's caliber to go in and do a project like this, we need to push it forward. I never thought I would agree with anything that Paula would support but that is the case on this project. Hoffman: I disagree. I think we do have a parking problem that is being created with every parking waiver that we grant in the Dickson Street area. If Carl Collier stops leasing to the Sigma Nu's then Paula, they may be parking in front of your house instead of in the lot. That's one thing to keep in mind. Canfield: If you approve the motion as stated until midnight, does the shared parking agreement that I currently have -- can I stack it on top of that one so that I'm getting a shared parking agreement from 6 p.m. until midnight to fill in the blanks where this one leaves out. • • Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 11 Johnson: I can't answer that question. That question is the reason that I would vote against the motion as it presently exists because I think it means that we haven't dealt with this issue. I think we would be saying to staff that sometime in the future, when they decide what they're going do, then they would deal with the parking issue. It seems to me this is the issue that we're supposes to deal with tonight. We have 2 ways to do it and I think that we either should have a parking agreement that is shared space for hours that are acceptable or we could do an in lieu fee or we could postpone this until those things are in hand. It se ms to me that we are just throwing it back to staff to deal with some time in the future. AMENDED MOTION Mr. Ward made an amendment to the motion that if they can get the shared parking from the Dickson Street Improvement District that we would approve it at this time. Johnson: How does staff feel about that? Conklin: The entire 43 spaces at the Dickson Street Improvement District lot or are we talking about stacking this on top of here? I'm not sure how it works. If you have a patron at the business at 6:00 p.m., do they get up and move their car to the Dickson Street Improvement District lot? Johnson: It seems to me that the discussion that we're having should have been done prior to meeting not during the meeting. It seems to me that you have had the opportunity to do it between now and the next time you are here. We don't really have anything before us that would work for shared parking. Canfield: I thought I had the agreement tied up last Thursday and UBC did not respond knowing that I needed it by last Thursday. Fortunately, I was able to get it from them this afternoon and he and I have been in a scramble trying to get something that I thought you all would accept. I apologize for not having everything that you would like to see. Again, I would like reality to come into some sort of play down here and I think the reality is that if I get a shared parking agreement from UBC, not one of my tenants or clients or their guests or customers will ever park in that lot. It's strictly a piece of paperwork and a technicality and I do understand your position on it but I would like for you all to understand my position and know that the buyer waiting in the wings to purchase that building if I don't close tomorrow, is going to bulldoze it. Johnson: We understand your position and we understand that you didn't get what you expected to get on the shared parking agreement. • Shackelford: We pass this type of agreement with conditions of approval all the time. The • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 12 conditions of approval are met at a later date between the applicant and staff I don't guess I'm seeing the difference by putting a condition of approval that the shared parking has to be in place. Johnson: The only issue before us tonight is the shared parking. There are 2 ways to meet the parking waiver. It's my opinion that neither of those things have been done. The applicant is not interested in paying the in lieu fee. He said he would do it if he had to but he doesn't think he should have to. Shackelford: Right. Johnson: Secondly, I don't believe that we have a shared parking agreement available. Shackelford: Let's put some kind of time reference on it, that he has 7 days from this meeting to either get the parking agreement or he has to pay the in lieu fee. Johnson: This happens all the time. We start the meeting and Mr. Canfield come forward and says, "here's the shared parking agreement -- got what you need" until it's read and then it says it ends at 6 o'clock. Those are the issues we deal with when granting shared parking or money in lieu. Ward: I'm interested in bending over backwards for some kind of project like this. I sure would like to see this project go on. Johnson: It's in an area and an individual that we think would be great Hoffman: Is midnight an acceptable time in case a restaurant comes in? I think that if he gets a restaurant in there and it ends at 6 o'clock that that really does not meet the intent of this ordinance so I think business hours 8 a.m. to midnight would cover any eventuality of a tenant lease. Staff could determine if the parking agreement didn't meet those specific guidelines, then he would have to pay the fee. I think the motion could be better worded. I think that would cover us no matter what he leases in that building unless it's a night club and then he would probably have to come back before us for some reason It would cover restaurant, retail, and office. Canfield: We are talking about the square footage that I plan to add to the building. The building is currently 15,000 square feet. I'm hoping to add approximately 10,000 to 11,000 square feet within the existing volume. Of that 10,000 or 11,000 square feet, maybe a third at the most would be dedicated to a restaurant use. We also have spaces on site. Again, we set those aside for the existing building. If you really want to split hairs here, we're talking about potentially 3,000 square feet of restaurant space at 1 to 200 parking ratio and you were talking about 43 spaces until midnight. If you really want to start splitting hairs here. Let's put the uses • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 13 down in the square footage and see what needs to be available and I can probably prove to you that if we go to that step, that parking is available from 6 p.m. to midnight on site. Hoover: Can we get a comment from staff on this motion if it is acceptable? Conklin: I understand the motion is that they provide staff a shared parking agreement and that shared parking agreement allowing them to park in that lot at least until midnight or pay $51,600. I like the idea that Commissioner Shackelford had with regard to the 7 day time frame just so I don't have to try to remember to keep up with it a year from now. I'd like to get this resolved and file it. Hoffman: I amend my motion to include that. I have no objection to that. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • • Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 14 RZ99-16: REZONING MID -SOUTHERN ENTERPRISES, INC., PP401 (Also see RZ99-17: Mid -Southern Enterprises, Inc., pp401) This item was submitted by Marshall Carlisle on behalf of Mid -Southern for property located at the northwest corner of Wedington Drive and Salem Road. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office, and contains approximately 5.2 acres. The request is to rezone the property to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Marshall Carlisle, Kurt Jones, and Sam Rogers were present on behalf of the project. Staff recommended denial of the requested rezoning from R -O to C-2. Commission Discussion Johnson: RZ99-16 and RZ99-17 are companion items. I would like to discuss these 2 items together but they will require separate motions and votes. Our vote on rezonings are merely recommendations to the City Council. The staff has different recommendations on both rezonings. This is at the intersection of the northwest corner of Wedington Drive and Salem Road. There is already a bank in place at the intersection. Conklin: That is correct. Johnson: This is the "L" shaped property just behind the bank. Conklin: The property the banks sits on also is being petitioned to be rezoned to C-2 and that includes Arkansas National Bank. If you'll refer to page 6.25, the C-2 zoning request fronts Wedington Drive and Salem. Arkansas National Bank is currently on that corner. They are requesting that rezoning from R -O to C-2. The 4.77 acres in RZ99-17 is R-2 and they are requesting R -O. Staff is recommending approval of the change from the R-2 to Residential Office. Staff is recommending denial of the R -O to the C-2 zoning which is RZ99-16. Staff recommends denial because it is inconsistent with our future land use plan. It shows this area as residential. Immediately to the east there is property zoned C-2 In 1989, they discussed whether or not to rezone both sides of Salem Road to C-2. At that time, it was determined to only rezone the east side of Salem Road to C-2. The C-2 request was brought before us in November of 1997. At that time, the Planning Commission denied the rezoning request to C-2. They did approve the R -O rezoning and in January, 1998, the City Council did rezone it to R -O. Since then, Arkansas National Bank has been built on that corner. Johnson: Mr. Carlisle, I see that you are here for the applicant. Do you have additional information for us? • • Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 15 Carlisle: I would like to make a couple of comments. Sam Rogers is here and he is the developer. Kurt Jones, the engineer, is also here. Let's hit things directly instead of juggling around. I went back and read the minutes of the '89 Commission meeting. In those minutes, I found that a Commissioner named Hanna, who said that we either need to rezone it commercial now or we'll do it later. I think that is exactly where we are. If you drive down Highway 16, go over the overpass of the bypass and look to your right and your left, there is no way in this world that you can see residential development along this strip of a 5 lane highway. We either do it now or do it later. It appears to me that Highway 16 is exactly the same thing that happened to Highway 62 and it couldn't be better. One of the problems is the jam up of traffic at the intersection of Salem Road. Everybody is trying to get out of there and drive a 1,000 miles to get whatever it is they are looking for because it has not been developed commercially. Sooner or later Highway 16 is going to be developed commercially. The other side is zoned C-2 and nobody has done anything with it. Let me tell you something, if Sam Rogers is granted the C-2 rezoning, you can bet your bottom dollar, you're going to see it developed and it won't be very long He has done this all his life. He has developed residential and commercial properties for over 40 years. I don't understand why the staff approved the R -O to the back of the property and denied the C-2 to the highway front. It appears to me and Mr. Jones, that is the way this property ought to be developed. If you have any questions, we'll try to answer them. Public Comment None Further Discussion Johnson: Looking at the General Plan 2020, I see that the dividing line for the proposed connection is north of Wedington and east of Salem and then there is no commercial on that plan which of course is a general plan. Exactly why that is that way, I don't know. This is residential and office type uses; single family and two family dwellings; office, studios; and, professional offices. Then by conditional use appeal to us: multi -family dwellings; eating places under the R -O designation. C-2 is one of the highest levels of commercial although it is not as high as perhaps the downtown area. Hoffman: Did you all discuss the C-1 designation for this site instead of C-2? Conklin: I have not had any discussion with the applicant for C-1 designation. Hoffman: And is the primary difference between C-1 and C-2 is what? • Conklin: Mobile homes sales, hotels, motels, liquor store, auto sales, pool hall, go cart track, adult entertainment and conditional use for sexually oriented businesses. • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 16 Hoffman: C-1 would cover all the other general commercial -- grocery store, convenience store -- Conklin: Gasoline station. Johnson: The applicant, of course, is aware of the zoning regulations and I presume doesn't have an interest in C-1 or would have expressed that. Hoffman: C-2 does carry some connotations this neighborhood may not be ready for or even need. C-1 would get us to the type of neighborhood commercial enterprises that the applicant was speaking of. With that in mind, I would lean more toward C-1 than C-2. Johnson: What we have before us is the request for C-2. Unless we hear different from the applicant then that is what we must limit ourselves to. Jones: in C-1. The list that Tim read was actually items that are allowed in C-2 but not allowed Conklin: That's correct. Johnson: Let me read to you the items allowed in C-1: city wide uses by right; offices, studios, and related services; eating places; neighborhood shopping; gasoline service stations; and drive in restaurants; and, professional offices. Carlisle: And that's C -I. Jones: I think the main reason that we are asking for C-2 on this property is not that Mr. Rogers is interested in any of those items that are allowable in C-2 but not allowable in C-1 but the density of the development. What is allowable in C-2 -- setbacks and areas on the site -- versus the C-1 development. That is why we are asking for C-2 instead of the C-1 at this point. Obviously we would prefer C-1 over R-0 because of the type development that Mr. Rogers is looking at for this property but we feel like C-2 is what is needed based on the size and configuration of this property and some of the other restrictions that have already been proposed on this property due to previous lot splits and rezonings. We don't feel like it can be developed to it's full potential as a C-1 property versus a C-2. Johnson: The building area on a C-2 lot shall not exceed 60% of the total area of the lot and C-1 lot shall not exceed 40%. Conklin: That is correct. Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 17 Jones: There are also some setback, I believe -- in C-2 there is no side setback for building requirements and in C-1 there are some side setbacks. Conklin: They're actually the same. The difference is under C-1 from side property line when contiguous to a residential district it is 10 feet and in C-2 it's 15 feet. So you have a 5 foot additional setback in C-2. Jones: If it's adjacent to R -zones. Conklin: You have more setback in C-2. Hoffman: My thoughts on it -- I don't know if I can suggest an alternate zoning -- it is true that we have a lot of C-2 zoning that is still vacant in the city and in this area. C-1 does meet the neighborhood's needs than a highly dense kind of regional, if you will, zoning. There was also in these minutes of the '89 meeting, Alderman Hanna, or whatever he was called back then also mentioned that there might be a mall coming in your area. Obviously that hasn't happened. It's gone more toward subdivision use and we will need the supporting commercial development but not the intensive regional commercial development. I don't see that happening on that road. I will not support C-2 zoning. I would support C-1 and I'm not sure about the mechanics of bring forward an alternate motion like that. That is not up to us. Johnson: I don't believe it would be appropriate. That is my opinion and others may disagree. I think it is like somebody petitioning for a divorce and being told they could have an adoption. MOTION Mr. Marr made a motion to deny RZ99-16. Mr. Odom seconded the motion. Further Discussion Shackelford: If we decline this request, what is their limitation as far as coming back with the request if they want to pursue the C-1 zoning. Johnson: How do our actions affect the applicant as he goes forward to the Council. Do they limit him in going forward to the Council. Conklin: They would have to appeal the Planning Commission's decision if you deny this rezoning request. • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 18 Johnson: And as a practical matter, how is that different from the fact that they have to go forward even if we recommend approval. Conklin: They have to provide a letter in writing stating why they feel the Planning Commission is in error to the City Clerk and it's within a certain number of days and then that gets placed on the Council agenda. Johnson: It's my opinion that if we deny the C-2 and if the applicant wished to come back with C-1, he could do it immediately. Conklin: That is correct. Shackelford: Would they come to this board or would that be part of their appeal to City Council? Could they change that between here and City Council? Conklin: No. If they want to ask for a different type of zone on this piece of property, we would have them come back to Planning Commission. If they appeal your decision, then the City Council would make the decision on what zone is proper for this tract of land. Hoffman: They could go forward with C-1, if they wished? Conklin: If the Council wanted to pass an ordinance, they could do that without coming back to the Planning Commission. Marr: I would be in support of C-1 zoning. I feel that meets the needs of the neighborhood and I think it was a good argument you brought up about the need for commercial businesses there that might cut down on some traffic elsewhere. I don't think that C-2 is necessary to accomplish that. Carlisle: It's a little difficult to make any kind of a major decision over here sitting in the pews. I have been asked by Mr. Rogers to ask you if we could table our application at this time so that we would have the opportunity to discuss and maybe come back to you with a C-1 application. Johnson: We have a motion on the floor. It seems to me for purposes of economy of time of the Commission and perhaps the applicant that it might be just as well to allow that unless there is objection from any Commissioner. Is there objection to allowing the applicant to withdraw his request at this time even though we have a motion? In other words, I think we could move ahead and vote on the motion but my sentiment is to allow it to be withdrawnfor them to go back and consider the C-1 option. Seeing no objection, that will be allowed. What about your next rezoning that you have before us, 99-17. Would you hold that aside, too, or do • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 19 you want us to go forward with that? Carlisle: I'd like to get it out of the way if we could. • Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 20 RZ99-17: REZONING MID -SOUTHERN ENTERPRISES, INC. pp401 (Also see RZ99-16 - Mid -Southern Enterprises, Inc. pp401) This item was submitted by Marshall Carlisle on behalf of Mid -Southern Enterprises for property located at the northwest corner of Wedington Drive and Salem Road The property is zoned R-2 Medium Density Residential, and contains approximately 4.77 acres. The request is to rezone the property to R -O, Residential Office. Marshall Carlisle, Kurt Jones, and Sam Rogers were present on behalf of the request. Staff recommends approval of the request to rezone the tract from R-2 to R -O. MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to approve RZ99-17. Mr. Shackelford seconded the motion. • Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • *Per request from Marshall Carlisle on June 29, 1999, this item will not be introduced to the City Council until such time at the associated rezoning RZ99-16 is brought forward. • • Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 21 LSD99-17: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT SPRING CREEK CENTRE, pp174 This item was submitted by Roger Trotter of Development Consultants, Inc. on behalf of Developers Diversified for property located in lots 3A and 4R of Spring Park Subdivision. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 5.488 acres. Roger Trotter was present on behalf of the request. Staff recommends approval subject to specific conditions. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards and the south building elevation shall be painted to match Home Depot's south elevation. 2. Add one fire hydrant in the landscape area on the north side of the entrance off Mall Ave. If sprinkler connections are to be on the rear walls of the proposed buildings, another fire hydrant will be needed in the rear. 3. Stop signs are needed at the entrance/exit locations off of Mall Avenue if they are not currently in place. 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. 6. Large scale development approval is valid for one calendar year 7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits. b. Separate easement plat for this project c. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City as required by 159.34. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 22 8. A screening plan for the dock must be approved by staff. Commission Discussion Johnson: This is property located by the Home Depot south of the mall. Tim, would you make a brief presentation to us on this item. Conklin: This item is a large scale development to allow for development of an Old Navy Store of approximately 25,000 square feet. A Bed Bath&Beyond department store of 32,000 square feet and a 2,000 square foot leasable area. Bed Bath&Beyond will occupy part of what used to be National Home Center which is now Home Depot's building. Old Navy will be an addition to the west with 2,000 square feet of leasable space adjacent to that. There was one condition of approval that was modified at agenda session. That is condition number 1, regarding the south building elevation. The condition now readsthat the Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards, the south building elevation shall be painted to match Home Depot's south elevation I have discussed this condition with the applicant and they are in agreement to paint and use the same materials as what is existing at the Home Depot. They are in agreement with all the other conditions of the staff report. Hoover: I see on the plan there some existing loading docks that should be showing up on the west elevation but I don't see them on the drawing. Trotter: What drawing are you looking at? Johnson. You're saying you can see it from the west? Hoover: You can see it from Mall Avenue. Johnson: The question is about the existing loading dock. Is the compactor existing now? Trotter: Yes, ma'am. The docksare existing and they will continue to exist. Hoover. Under commercial design guidelines, do we have any screening we require for docks that face public streets? What have you done in the past in this situation? Conklin: We have required screening of utility and mechanical equipment in backs of buildings. This is somewhat unique in that Home Depot or National Home Center was developed and then the lots with Goody's and Factory Carpet Outlet developed, Mall Avenue was required to become a public street. So, we had existing buildings out there and then building spaces developed to the south. At agenda session and on tour, we looked at the existing back of the Home Depot building and the members that were there discussed requiring that the building be painted on the lower 1/3 the same color that is on the back of the Home Depot building. Just • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 23 on the plan, I see a 6 foot wood screen fence. That would be screening your dumpster and loading dock. Johnson: Looking at the elevation, am I correct in understanding that essentially the right half of this elevation is the existing Home Depot building and the left half is the new construction? Conklin: That is correct. The 32,000 square feet if you look at your site plan is the existing building. Johnson: Is there anything that will block the view of this south elevation at all from Mall Avenue if you were traveling -- once it's constructed-- if you're coming from the south going north on Mall Avenue? Conklin: This was discussed at agenda session and we were looking at whether or not the development to the south, CMN, Phase II, would have future buildings located there. There are 2 lots, one on the east and one on the west side of Mall Avenue that will be developed in the future. There is also flood plain and flood way for that part of Mud Creek and most likely that building which developed by Home Depot in the south elevation will be closer to the creek. Hoover: There ought to be some kind of screening for Mall Avenue. if it's trees or brick or split face block or something that helps to not detract from that area. I drove around the medical area just looking to see how -- I came up through Millsap and all that -- and I couldn't find just driving the road not 1 loading dock or dumpster or anything like that. It's really nicely done out there and I'm just afraid this area could get kind of cluttered up. I think Mall Avenue is going to be a pretty major street in not too long Johnson: That's fair. It really is the dock you are concerned about and if it's not the -- your looking at the south elevation wall if they change it and paint it to match Home Depot's south elevation. As long as that is done, the only concerning is screening the dock. Hoover: Basically, so. Johnson: You want to hazard some suggestion as to what kind of screening we would seek? Trotter: There is a little alcove in there. It's relatively hard to see now. It will be further screened with more planting and landscaping on the next green area and then with the fence that we've added and we added more landscaping. Johnson: Is the parking lot area to the south paved? At the south end of existing Mall Lane. • • Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 24 Trotter: That is there now. Conklin: Everything is complete. The parking for this building is complete. The only issue you're dealing with is the addition. Johnson: The parking lot is complete? Trotter: Explain to me -- Johnson: At the very end of Mall Avenue as it now exists and if you continued you would run into the barrier. There is a drive -- there is a curb cut into this project. All of that is paved. Trotter: Yes, ma'am. Johnson: But it's not gravel. We had one commissioner express an interest in some screening of the docks. Shackelford: Commissioner Hoover had mentioned that she had driven around other areas that have loading docks but the medical industry doesn't have the use of loading docks that a retail industry would. I guess, it kind of got me thinking, other retail areas that we have approved, have we ever required screening around loading docks on any of the other projects to your knowledge? Conklin: Loading docks have been placed back behind buildings. At one time, this was the back of the building until Mall Avenue became a public street. Shackelford: So, this is a unique situation that we haven't dealt with in the past. Conklin: We have an existing mass of buildings. Shackelford: Is there any sort of screening that you could do but wouldn't affect the use of the loading docks? Trotter: The only thing that I can think of might be putting some additional screening along the road. Shackelford: The property is concreted to the property line. Trotter: I'm not sure about that. • Johnson: This is going to be a heavily trafficked commercial area, isn't? I mean, it's going • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 25 to be one of the prime commercial areas we anticipate. My sense is that nobody would want this to be gussied up more than the folks inhabiting those buildings. Conklin: They're in agreement as I stated earlier to use the same color and they actually have a smooth face concrete block that they put thorough coat on it about 1 /8th of an inch thick and it actually add texture to the back of the block. Trotter: That's going to be split faced. The whole outside of Home Deport is split faced block. I made a mistake during the conversation that you had and it's not smooth block and we intend to match Home Depot which is split face which is a little better. MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to approve LSD99-17 subject to all conditions of approval. Mr. Marr seconded the motion. Further Discussion Johnson: Does staff have any problem with making the decision about the screening Conklin: Staff can make the decision with regard to the screening. You will have to work around a 36 inch water line and the easement associated with that line directly along the south property line of this tract of land. So, with regard to landscaping towards the south property line, it's not going to happen. But, we'll work with the applicant to see where we can possibly get some additional screening, if it's a fence or vegetation in that area. Hoover: I am in agreement with the motion. My question is on this west elevation, it shows the finish material for the rest of building going where the loading dock is now. Is that the intent of the applicant to put on other materials? Trotter: Can I see that? Their intent is to match the Home Depot. Hoover. So you're saying that was how the elevation is drawn. I would like to see it the way the elevation is drawn. That is greatly improved. Marr: That would hide it better than any type of screening you would do. Johnson: I think the question is whether or not we can rely on the elevations that you have given us and indeed we always do. That means that it has to built that way. • Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 26 Trotter: That is existing. It may be a mistake on the architect's part -- where the loading dock is. We will have to leave that as it is. Johnson: Are you looking at the south elevation? Trotter: The west elevation. Johnson: So that we can all participate in the discussion exactly what is it about the west elevation that you're discussing? Marr: The bottom drawing of the west elevation on the right hand side -- the loading docks are not on the drawing and it shows the building finished all the way to the end with materials. Hoffman: Did you mean that you would find it acceptable for the applicant just to carry the same color scheme through the loading dock? Is that what you were asking? Hoover: They still need to do some additional screening but I wanted to clarify that we • were going to get exactly what's on this elevation. • Trotter: You can rely on the elevations. Johnson: This is what we are expecting to see and staff will see to it that this is what we see ultimately. Sometimes when we don't get what we think we're going to see, you have to come back redo it. I've seen that happen before. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 27 PP99-4: PRELIMINARY PLAT SUMMERSBY SUBDIVISION, PP410 This item was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of Mark Foster for property located west of Crossover Road, south of Meandering Way and north of Ridgely Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 40.18 acres with 52 lots proposed. Dave Jorgensen was present on behalf of the development. Staff recommended approval subject to the certain conditions as noted below. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Commission determination of waiver request for cul de sac length in excess of 1,000 feet for hilly terrain (Montview/Whispering Oaks is approximately 1,400 feet long) and the waiver request for cul de sac length in excess of 500 feet for normal terrain (Amberwood is approximately 700 feet long.) Staff and Subdivision Committee supports both waiver requests. 2. Applicant's participation in a City planned drainage improvement project for the Boardwalk Subdivision and a culvert under Ridgely Drive in the amount of $74,258.41. 3. The acquisition of an easement on the Lewis property for the sanitary sewer and drainage extensions is required prior to the acceptance of construction plans. 4. An agreement with the developer and the adjacent property owners to the south concerning offsite drainage improvements (see file for "Letter of Intent".) 5. All swales not located within the public right of way shall be private and privately maintained by the POA, HOA, or similar entity. The proposed swales on the Hamer and Bassett properties will not be maintained by the City. 6. All Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 7. 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 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 June 28, 1999 Page 28 8. Payment of parks fees in the amount of $19,500 for 52 lots at $375 per lot. 9. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a 4 foot sidewalk with a 6 foot green space on both sides of all streets. 10. Preliminary Plat approval to be valid for one calendar year. 11. Installation of water service crossings to provide for future irrigation demands including a 2 inch main with gate valve and box per David Jurgens request. Commission Discussion Johnson: I was unable to attend the agenda session. Did you view this and go out to this location although it's hard to see much of anything out there? Conklin: We did not tour this site. Johnson: There are 11 conditions of approval. There is a cul de sac waiver which is requested. There are drainage issues. An easement is required. Let me ask whether or not the applicant has seen all of these conditions of approval and if so whether or not those have been approved. Jorgensen: I'm representing the owners and developers on this, Mark Foster and JB Hays. We have seen all the staff comments and we are in agreement with all of them. Johnson: With all of them? Jorgensen: Yes. Johnson: Did you sign off on those, Mr. Jorgensen? Jorgensen: I haven't signed off. Johnson: But you will? Jorgensen: But we will. Johnson: Okay. Very good. That leaves one issue that we must deal with and that is number 1, the waivers of the cul de sacs. Are there other specific issues for us to consider other than the cul de sac issues? • Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 29 Conklin: The cul de sac length is the only waiver that is being requested on this project. Staff is in support of the waiver. Hoffman: Fire Chief? Conklin: The Fire Chief does support the waiver as long as the street is built to standard which will allow him to turn his fire truck around. That is the Whispering Oaks cul de sac. Johnson: How long is this cul de sac? Conklin: The cul de sac is approximately 1,400 feet long. The standard is 1,000 feet for hilly terrain. In order for them to meet the standard and have something less than 1,000 feet, they would have to make a loop street and doing that they were unable to meet our city street standards with regard to grade at an intersection. This is a safer type of street not requiring them to go back down the hill through the entryway of the subdivision because of the street grade. Johnson: There are 3 ingress/egress points into this subdivision? • Conklin: There are currently 2. One is through Boardwalk Subdivision and the other is off Manor Drive. The third one is at the end of Amberwood Drive once that land develops to the east. Currently there are 2 ways -- • Johnson: One is a stub out. Conklin: A stub out to the east -- Hoffman: One additional question for staff with regard to the proposed waiver. Did the Fire Chief approve fire hydrant locations? Petrie: He made those comments at plat review and they have located those fire hydrants as he requested. Hoffman: Okay. Thanks. Public Comment Jim Miller, residing on E Shadowridge, was present and requested that the developer be encouraged to maintain the natural state of the area by designating a green space area at the back of the lots on Shadowridge near the utility easement at that location. Mark Scott, residing on E. Shadowridge, was present to express the same concerns as Mr. Miller. • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 30 Ron Skeith, residing at 2345 Manor Drive, was present to express concern about drainage issues that could affect him after this drainage improvements. He inquired as to why so much resources were being expended north of Manor Drive and why there was no study provided for properties south of Manor Drive. Marymn Bassett, residing at 2210 Manor Drive, was present and thanked the developers for working with the neighborhood to help the drainage in that area. She also stated that a Letter of Intent has been executed to provide assurance that the drainage arrangement would be provided. Further Discussion Jorgensen: This subdivision has quite a history on it. It goes back to '94. Johnson: You're not going to review that, I hope. Jorgensen: No. We've tried to work with everyone on this. We appreciate Ms. Bassett and Steve Noland and everybody who help. We had problems on the south side of the subdivision and we tried to work those out. With the developer's contribution of $74,000 to the improvement through Boardwalk I will take a look at Dr. Skeith's problem and see if there is something that we can address on that situation. I believe that he is immediately south of the Harner's residence and I will contact him and see if there is something we can do. As far as Mr. Scott's problem, in the beginning, we had the street originally laid out further to the west and we received comments from other people that maybe we needed to have more green space, so we increased the depth of those lots to 215 feet. Every effort will be taken to preserve the wooded nature of the subdivision. Hoffman: Do we have underground utilities for this subdivision? I assume we do. Conklin: All new utilities will be underground. Hoffman: That was a question of the neighbors and I wanted to clear that up. Jorgensen: This is correct but it brings up the question about what happens to surrounding utilities that are above ground. Hoffman: That is not a subject of discussion on this subdivision. MOTION Ms. Hoffman made a motion to approve PP99-4 granting the waivers. • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 31 Mr. Odom seconded the motion. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • • Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 32 LSD98-12.1: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT TRICHELL MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING This item was submitted by Hannah McNeill of Wischmeyer Architect on behalf of John A. Griffen for property located in Lot 14 of CMN Business Park. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 1.9 acres. Hannah McNeill was present on behalf of the project. Staff recommended approval subject to certain conditions. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Commission determination of a waiver request to allow the interior landscaping to be located at the side of the parking lots. This waiver request was recommended by Kim Hesse, Tree/Landscape Administrator, in lieu of internal landscape islands. I. (Amendment added per Kim Hesse's report dated June 24, 1999) "I would request that • if this variance is to be granted, that medium sized hardwood trees be planted along this boundary versus the soft wooded pear trees that are indicated on the plan." • 2. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards. All Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 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. 5. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 6 foot sidewalk with a minimum 10 foot green space along Millsap Road. 6. Large Scale Development approval is valid for one calendar year. 7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. Separate easement plat for this project c. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City as required by §158.01. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 33 and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Commission Discussion Conklin: This is located east of Plainview Avenue. Johnson: There is an existing medical park and this is on the eastern edge of it. The Planning Commission must approve a waiver request to allow the interior landscaping to be located at the sides of the parking lot. This is recommended by Kim Hesse. If the waiver request is granted, medium sized hardwood be used. We must also determine if this meets with the Commercial Design Standards. Is there additional information other than what we have in the packet? Conklin: There are no additional comments. Public Comment None. MOTION Mr. Ward made a motion to grant the landscape waiver and approve LSD98-12.1. Mr. Odom seconded the motion Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 34 LSD99-15.1: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT ST. LOUIS BREAD COMPANY, pp174 This item was submitted by Chris Parton of Crafton, Tull and Associates on behalf of St. 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 0.918 acres Chris Parton and Kirk Elsass were present on behalf of the project. Staff recommended approval subject to certain conditions. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards including signage. Staff has recommended a monument sign in lieu of the proposed pole sign to be consistent with other developments that have been approved under the Commercial Design Standards ordinance. • 2. Removal of landscaping through the entrance off of Sain Street and the addition of landscaping in the parking lot islands. • 3. Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 4. 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. 5. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a 6 foot sidewalk adjacent to the curb, but behind the approaches through the driveways on both Front and Sain Streets. 6. Installation of a street light at the comer of Front St. and Sain St. 7. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for 1 calendar year. 8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits. b. Separate easement plat for this project c. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 35 City as required by §158.01. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Commission Discussion Johnson: Removal of landscaping through the entrance of Sain -- does that mean that the big, double, Sycamore goes? Conklin: No. There was a drafting error in the plans and they were showing landscaping in the driveway area. Johnson: It is removal of the landscaping that was drawn not the actual tree. Has the applicant seen and approved all of the conditions of approval? Parton: We have seen the conditions of approval. Everything is satisfactory with the developer except for the issue of the pole sign versus the monument sign. Johnson: Staff has recommended that there be a monument sign instead of the proposed pole sign. Do we have a drawing of the pole sign and tell me where that's located? Conklin: Yes. The pole sign will be located near the north property line on the west side just above the crest of the building. Johnson: How tall is it from the ground to the top? Conklin: They are proposing a 30 foot tall pole sign. Johnson: Do you want to tell us why staff is recommending the monument sign? Conklin: This project is located in an area where other large scale developments were approved with the Planning Commission requiring a monument sign. For example, Circuit City, and First Security Bank on Joyce Blvd. There are also existing monument signs in the area. For example, Coldwell Banker, Merrill Lynch, Arkansas Western Gas all have monument signs and are in this general area and to be consistent with the type of signage that has been approved in the past, I recommended that a monument be located on this site. Johnson: Is there an argument that this property could have been required to comply with Design Overlay District requirements? Conklin: Yes, they were required to comply with them unless I exempted them from the Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 36 overlay district requirements. There was a lot split in 1991 creating 4 lots. The other 3 lots were developed by 1994 prior to the Overlay District establishment. Johnson: Why do you feel you have to have a pole sign? Elsass: I represent the buyer on this property which is St. Louis Bread Company and I also represent the seller. This property was developed prior to the overlay district. One of the things that happened and was a condition of this property was -- the property owner of Vantage Square was originally Jim Lindsey and Southwestern Energy which is adjacent to this property. They made a trade so that Southwestern Energy could retain this property and have more control over it. This property was not for sale when we made the contract for this buyer. There are very restrictive covenants on this property. When you mention the properties that are using monument signs over in that area, there are not any of them in the food business. I know there is an argument for a monument sign. There is a place for a monument sign. In terms of retail, you don't see McDonald's and those kinds of places putting in monument signs. For fair competition with Kisor's and El Chico, the pole sign is required. This was exempted from the overlay district for a reason. The developer and the owner feel like this is the best use of the property and they need the pole sign. Bunch: On the elevations, you're showing a sign on all 4 elevations. Will those be lighted signs? Parton: Yes. Bunch: Okay. Public Comment None Further Discussion Hoffman: I drove by today and tried to look at the other restaurant signs. There are pole signs but they're really close to the building and I don't think that they are higher than the building. Would your client consider -- I think your building is 18 feet tall 1:o the top of the parapet -- would they consider a lower sign than the 30 feet proposed? Parton: The one reason they wanted a pole sign was to get the sign above the existing trees out there. Those trees that exist now are around 15 feet maybe a little taller. • Johnson: Which trees are you talking about? • Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 37 Parton: There are some existing Bradford pears. Johnson: Are you talking about on the south part of the property or are you talking about the west side between -- Parton: On both sides. There are trees existing on both sides. Hoffman: They are in front of the property but they don't block the view of the building unless you put the parking lot in between the building -- Parton: But the reason they preferred the pole sign is they can get that sign above those trees. Hoover: I have a question for staff. Have you exempted any monument signs in any of the overlay district? Conklin: I can't think of any. • Warrick: I can't think of any. • Hoover: I guess my concern here is that this is the overlay district. It's my understanding it is the only one that Tim exempted so that there was buildable area on this lot. Is that correct? Conklin: During the plat review process, keep in mind that originally this came before the commission for a request for additional parking for a restaurant. The Planning Commission granted 60 spaces total. During the plat review process, it was clear that the 25 foot green space that was required and additional right of way off of Front Street, that the parking for this type of use which is a restaurant in C-2 which was an allowed use by right in a C-2 zoning district would not be able to be developed on this lot. Yes, I did exempt it. In that letter, that is also included in your packet, I wanted to make sure that I was not granting authority for the type of sign -- for the pole sign -- on this property and that the Planning Commission could make that decision under commercial design standards. Since I did exempt this property from the overlay district, I think the ordinance that we need to look at, is the commercial design standards, and whether or not the sign is out of scale or the colors are flashy or other types of things we have considered in the past when looking at signage for commercial development. Hoover: My concern is if we exempt this are we going to have more applicants coming forward to have pole signs? Johnson: I don't know. Is that the issue -- setting a precedent? • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 38 Conklin: Property that was platted prior to enactment of the ordinance in 1994, I have the authority to exempt that. New development, I do not have that authority to exempt that property from the overlay district. Existing subdivisions or lot splits that we had prior to the overlay district being adopted, I need to make a decision whether or not if this is an area that has been developed and whether or not you can exempt it. In the future, if we have a new subdivision, it will apply to that new land. Shackelford: We looked at this pretty extensively on agenda session. We drove out and looked at the property. The restaurant business is about turning tables, you have to make a profit to pay your mortgage. I think the ability to do this, is due to signage and visibility. That's the reason restaurants want to be in high traffic locations. With the other restaurants on the street having pole signs, I think you would be putting them at a disadvantage by requiring them to have a monument sign. I think it's a deal killer that will drive them off the property. MOTION Mr. Shackelford made a motion to approve project LSD99-15 granting the 30 foot pole sign. Mr. Marr seconded the motion. Further Discussion Bunch: Has this property been purchased yet? Parton: No. They are waiting to close pending this approval. Bunch: Since there are 2 frontages, has anybody considered monument signs on 2 sides or is that not considered enough visibility? Parton: That has not been considered. The owner prefers a pole sign for the simple fact that is gives him the visibility they need comparing to McDonald's or El Chico's or Red Lobster. Bunch: However, from the access road leading to this property, monument signs close to the roads would increase visibility possibly over the others. Parton: It would but that is just from the access road. The key is to get visibility from the main thoroughfare. Because this property sits low, a monument sign wouldn't provide visibility. We discussed the CMN project and the possibility of a flyover developing in the future that virtually renders a monument sign invisible. You have to have a pole sign for visibility from the thoroughfare to give them a fighting change to make this business work. • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 39 Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 5-3-0. Commissioners Bunch, Hoover and Johnson voted against the motion. • Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 40 LSD99-16: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT MCILROY BANK AND TRUST, PP401 This item was submitted by Chris Parton of Crafton, Tull and Associates on behalf of Mcllroy Bank and Trust for property located at the northeast comer of Wedington Road and Salem Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 3.36 acres. Chris Parton and Gary Head were present on behalf of the project. Staffrecommended approval subject to certain conditions: 1. The entrance/exit off of Wedington Drive should be revised to be a right in/right out only configuration to reduce traffic conflicts. (NOTE: Since new drawing were submitted, this condition was deleted.) 2. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards ordinance. • 3. Assessment for Wedington widening project of $16,403.31 for the frontage along Wedington Drive due prior to the issuance of the building permit. The estimate is based upon 263 feet offrontage x 14 feet in width x $4, 455/sf The applicant was notified at plat review that he could propose an alternate estimate. No alternate has been proposed. • 4. Assessment for the construction of a 6 foot sidewalk along Wedington Drive in the amount of $3,945 due prior to the issuance of the building permit. The estimate is based upon 263 feet offrontage x 6 feet in width x $2.50/sf. 5. Assessment for the construction of a sanitary sewer force main in the Hamestring Creek Basin in the amount of $1,723.20 due prior to the issuance of the building permit. This fee is equivalent to $200 per R-1 residential lot. 6. Assessment for future improvements to Salem Road and Shiloh Drive in the amount of $5,040 due prior to the issuance of the building permit. This fee is based upon a surcharge of $1,500 per acre x 3.36 acres. 7. Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 8. 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 • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 41 improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. 9. 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. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City as required by 158.01 to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be complete, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Commission Discussion Johnson: Is the applicant in agreement with all the conditions except for number 1? Parton: Yes. Johnson: Do you agree with all the other conditions? Parton: Yes. We have some revised drawings we would like to introduce to everybody. Johnson: Staff, have you seen these before? Conklin: Yes. They brought them in this afternoon. Hoffman: The changes from the last revisions we saw at subdivision is they have moved the entrance back from the intersection. Conklin: Yes. Head: I want to make sure -- we worked on this entrance before and there was a little bit of confusion. We were concerned that we were going to cause a problem for the bank if we didn't study this a little further. We met with the city staff. We met with the state highway department. They are more comfortable with this drawing. We believe this is the best product. I'm sorry to confuse you from what you had in front of you. I believe this is a safer entrance and exit and hopefully we've gotten the traffic inside the property done. Johnson: Tim, what is your reaction to this or are you able to react to it this quickly. Conklin: The main concern was with regard to internal circulation and cars stacking up to • • Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 42 tum left and entering the facility not being able to turn into the drive through lanes and creating internal conflicts. It is true that we have been in contact with the state highway department and we've talked about driveway design. Yes, this is a better location when you consider truck - trailer traffic if there is a restaurant in here. We've had problems in the past with commercial delivery trucks trying to make turns into developments. They did increase the amount of stacking room by moving back the parking that is proposed which will allow additional cars to stack up as they are turning left and allowing cars to get into the teller machines or drive through lanes. There will still be problems during the peak hour but the problems that will occur at the site will be contained on this site and we prefer this site design. Hoover: Are we still recommending a right turn only with this new plan, also? Conklin: The right in and right out was recommended because of the potential conflicts inside the parking lot during peak hour traffic on Wedington Road and cars stacking up at this location. They are trying to address that issue by creating a large area for cars to stack turning left. Most of the problems will be contained on site. It's just going to be during those peak hour times that people who are using this bank are going to have to decide how to turn left on Wedington Road. Do you use this curb cut or do you go to the light? If you don't require right in/right out only, people are going to have to make that decision on their own during peak hour traffic. Hoover: Are you saying that on the other plan you would require right turn only and with this plan a left turn is okay? Conklin: There is really is no difference other than you have additional stacking room with this plan. They have reoriented to allow better tractor/trailer circulation. Hoover: Does the highway department have any concerns about left turns from this location? Conklin: They are meeting the highway department's standards. Shackelford: I will be abstaining from voting on this project. Public Comment None. MOTION • Mr. Ward made a motion to approve LSD99-16 subject to staff comments and deleting condition • • • Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 43 1. Mr. Odom seconded the motion. Roll Call Upon roll call the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 7-0-1. Commissioner Shackelford abstained. Meeting adjourned at 7:56 p.m.