Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-07-12 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on July 12, 1999 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED Approval of 6/28 Minutes RZA99-1: Hanna, pp759 LSD99-18: Bronson, pp175 RZ99-16.1: Mid Southem CU99-16: Deen, pp447 VA99-8: East Avenue PP99-5.1: Stonewood Subdivision, pp99/60 CU99-17: Shireman, pp409 MEMBERS PRESENT Don Bunch Bob Estes Sharon Hoover Phyllis Johnson Don Marr Conrad Odom Loren Shackelford Lee Ward STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Janet Johns Ron Petrie Brent Vinson Dawn Warrick ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved -to CC Approved w/conditions Approved -to CC Denied Denied -to CC Approved w/conditions Approved w/conditions MEMBERS ABSENT Lore! Hoffman STAFF ABSENT None Transcript of Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 Page 2 CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes from the June 28, 1999 meeting. Johnson: Tim, are there any changes to the agenda since we have received it last week? Conklin: There were no changes made. Johnson. The first item on the consent agenda is the approval of the minutes. Are there any additions or corrections to made to the minutes? If there are none, then the minutes will be approved as distributed last week. • • • Transcnpt of Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 Page 3 RZA 99-1: ANNEXATION HANNA, PP759 This item was submitted by John Burrow on behalf of Karen Hanna for property located at 3686 Wilson Hollow Road. The property is in the planning growth area and contains approximately 4.54 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation. John Burrow was present on behalf of the request. Committee Discussion Johnson: The request is to annex into the City for water and sewer service in the future and also for trash pickup. The maps start on page 2.7. Does staff have anything additional to what we had in our packet handed out at agenda session? Conklin: There is no additional information. Johnson: Okay, Tim. Mr. Burrow, tell us who you are for the record and tell us what you have to add or subtract from our packet if you will. Burrow: I'm here on behalf of and with Karen Hanna. We would --first, I'd like to thank the staff for the care and consideration they gave us in preparation and discussion with Tim in this petition and to say on behalf of the City of Fayetteville, we are proud to have you all working for us. It's a simple request for the annexation of this land into the City of Fayetteville. There is absolutely no change in the existing use contemplated. Ms. Hanna simply wants to access city water and solid waste disposal services. That's basically how I would respond to your inquiry. I think this petition is pretty complete. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Burrow. Are there initial questions of the applicant? Seeing none right off the bat, let me ask whether there is anyone in the audience who would address us on this particular annexation request? Public Comment None Further Discussion Johnson: Are there questions, comments or motions? • • • Transcript of Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 Page 4 MOTION Odom: I move approval and forwarding of RZA99-I . Johnson: Is there a second? Marr: Second. Johnson: We have the motion by Commissioner Odom, seconded by Commissioner Marr that we vote approval of the proposed annexation RZA99-1. Of course, remind us that our recommendation on annexation is only that. It's a recommendation that goes forward to the City Council for final action Any questions on this proposed annexation? Roll Call Upon roll call the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. Further Discussion Burrow: When will that be heard by the Council? Conklin: We will place that -- approximately 2 and half weeks from now. I'll give you call tomorrow. Burrow: We're very grateful Thank you all so much and thank you, again. Johnson: Thank you, John. • Transcript of Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 Page 5 LSD99-18: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT BRONSON, PP175 This item was submitted by Kurt Jones of Crafton, Tull and Associates on behalf of Phil Bronson of Yogi & Booboo Properties LLC for property located in Lot 3 of Vantage Square, north of Joyce Street and West of Park View Drive. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office, and contains approximately 2 acres. Chris Parton was present on behalf of the request. Staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Planning Commission determination of a waiver request to allow the interior landscaping to be located at the sides of the parking lot. This wavier request is supported by Kim Hesse, Tree/Landscape Administrator, in lieu of the 4 foot diamonds that protrude into a single row of parking stalls provided that the trees are planted at 1 per 8 parking spaces with the spaces being shorted to 17 feet and trees are added at the rear of the site. • 2. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards. • A signed agreement with the United States Postal Service to allow this development to discharge storm water onto their property as proposed. 4. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a 10 foot concrete or asphalt trail along Joyce Blvd. per the City Trail Master Plan. 5. Plat review and subdivision comments. 6. 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. 7. Large Scale Development approval is valid for one 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 City as required by *158.01. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site • • • Transcript of Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 Page 6 and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Commission Discussion Johnson: Initially, a question to staff. I believe, staff, that the cross access that was discussed earlier has been provided to the property to the east. Correct? Conklin: That is correct. The engineer has informed staff that Collier's Drug Store directly to the east will provide cross access to that development. Johnson: All right. Thanks. We have before us, 8 conditions of approval that the staff has recommended. First, tell us who you are and then tell us whether or not you have seen those 8 conditions of approval. Parton: I'm not Kurt Jones but I ani with Crafton and Tull and yes, I have had a chance to review the conditions of approval and they are satisfactory. Johnson: And you will sign off on those then, Chris? Parton: Yes. Johnson: One of the issues that we have to deal with is a waiver for the interior landscaping and it's to be located not within the interior of the parking lots but rather on the extremity of the parking lot. This waiver request was supported by Kim Hesse, the Landscape Administrator. One of the reasons she recommends this is that the trees are going to be planted at a higher ratio that is 1 per every 8 parking spaces. The parking space will be available to provide the additional trees but the parking spaces need to be shortened. They typically are 19 feet deep and they will be shortened to 17 feet deep. We also have the elevations -- take a look -- for the commercial design standards. Then, Chris, do you have anything additional that you need to tell us and alert us to? Parton: I have nothing further. Johnson: Do you have questions on the drawing for commercial design standards9 What questions do you have initially, Conunissioners, for Chris? Odom: A question for staff, I guess. With regard to the cross access, you were saying that Collier's was going to provide that. I have spoken with a couple of people that occupy some of the buildings out there and they are not real happy about the cross access. It is my understanding, that they really didn't want to comply with it. It's my understanding they don't • • • Transcript of Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 Page 7 have to comply with it even though he is being required to provide that. Is that right? Conklin: That is correct. Our policy has been to require the cross access be built to the property line in hope that the adjacent property owner will connect into that right of cross access. It is my understanding they were going to go ahead and try to construct and they thought it was a good idea. Odom. There may be some disgruntled tenants out there, but I think they can talk about that among themselves just as long it is my understanding that we are not requiring the other property owners to that cross access. Conklin: That is correct. It is not required for that to be constructed at this time. It's required to be constructed up to the property line. Odom: We have some people here to talk about that. Johnson: Any other initial questions from commissioners. Okay, seeing none, I will ask whether there are those in the audience who want to address us on this matter. Public Comment Peggy Bailey from the Northwest Arkansas Neurosurgery Clinic was present in opposition to providing the cross access. Further Discussion Johnson: Who is the owner of the property to the east? Parton: I understand it's owned by -- similar to a Property Owners Association. All the owners of the buildings in the area commonly own what would be the entire complex west of Park View Drive. I initially contacted Carl Collier on Wednesday of last week. I approached Mr. Collier about that and Mr. Collier was very receptive to that like I told you at the agenda session, Thursday. They were going to have to have a meeting of the POA to finalize this. Everyone has to agree to do this. Obviously that meeting would have to take place first Mr. Collier said he was very receptive to that. Johnson: The position, I think, of staff and Subdivision and what we assumed at agenda session last week was that we felt like these applicants should provide for the cross access. We have no power and no desire to require the existing property owner to the east to make a change because of this development. We also know that property owners and uses change over time and if we don't get the cross access put into place as a potential cross access in the future -- if we • • • Transcript of Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 Page 8 don't do it on this property then we've made it much more difficult in the future. We saw nothing to be lost in requiring it here. As to whether or not the property owner to the east believes it's beneficial and connects on or doesn't, that's really not within our authority to determine. So, this is planning long range. Other questions or comments on this particular large scale? MOTION Odom: I'm going to move approval of large scale development 99-18 granting the waiver at the same time for the internal landscaping. Johnson: Is there a second? Shackelford: I'll second. Johnson: We have a motion by Commissioner Odom, seconded by Commissioner Shackelford to approve LSD99-18 including the granting of the waiver about the interior landscaping. Is there discussion or questions on the motion? Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. Johnson: The motion carried on a vote of 8 to 0. Thank you very much. • • • Transcript of Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 Page 9 RZ99-16.1: REZONING 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- 0, Residential Office, and contains approximately 5.2 acres. The request is to rezone the property to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Marshall Carlisle was present on behalf of the request. Staff recommended denial of the requested rezoning. Commission Discussion Johnson: This property was before us a few weeks ago. At that time, a rezoning request to change this to C-2 was before us but after discussion with the Commission, the applicant withdrew that and now has come back with a request to rezone to C-1. The staff has recommended denial based on the finding included as a part of this report which I think primarily zeros in on the fact that on the 2020 Plan, this particular plot does not show commercial but is shown as residential properties. Tim, did you have additional information or explanation that you want to make from the -- I would call to your attention, Commissioners, in our packet on 4.3, staff has done a good job there of showing us the differences between what's allowed in C-2 and C-1, so you can take a look and see what this applicant would be allowed to do. Conklin: Staff does recommend denial for the C-1 zoning as inconsistent with the Land Use Plan that was adopted in 1995. We did support residential office zoning and that zoning was approved in January of '98. Since then, Arkansas National Bank has been developed on the northwest corner of Salem and Wedington Road. There is additional land that is vacant that could be developed under R -O zoning and staff feels that R-0 zoning would be the most appropriate zoning at this time. Johnson- If you would tell us who you are and tell us what you have to say, Mr. Carlisle. Carlisle: I am Marshall Lynn Carlisle, attorney at law, Fayetteville, Arkansas. I represent the applicant who actually is Mr. Sam Rogers, who is present. The engineering is being done by Kurt Jones and Kurt, unfortunately, is out of town but Chris Parton is here on behalf of Crafton and Tull and hopefully, he'll be able to answer any questions you all might have. I think everyone was here a couple of weeks ago except Mr. Estes when this matter was brought before you and there was some discussion about the various differences for development. I think I tried to point out, in our view and I think the view of any person who is reasonably intelligent, who drives out this highway and looks around and sees that this tract of land will never be developed • Transcript of Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 Page 10 residentially. It is going to be put to some commercial use and Mr. Rogers stands ready now to do that, if we can get the cooperation of the City of Fayetteville. I agree with Madam Chairman that the comparison that the staff has done on the packet that has been distributed clearly points out the differences from what we originally asked for and what we now ask for and I can say unequivocally that those things that are not permitted under C-1 and would be permitted under C-2 do not give us any problem. Mr. Rogers is ready to develop the property under the permitted uses as shown under C-1 zoning. I don't think it is necessary for me to repeat my comments that I made at the last meeting concerning the widening of the highway. That's one thing that you all are much more informed about than I am but if we can help with your deliberation by answering questions, I'm here, Mr. Rogers is here, and Mr. Parton is here. With that, I will stop my comments. Johnson: Thanks. Looking at the R -O permitted uses, the uses that I see that are allowed in the C-1 wouldn't be allowed in R -O -- Tim, look over my shoulder on this -- I believe that C-1 would allow additionally, eating places, neighborhood shopping, service stations, drive in restaurants. Conklin: That is correct. Restaurants are allowed as a conditional use in R -O. So, there is • a possibility that under the current zoning, they could bring forward a conditional use for a restaurant on this property at this time. • Johnson: So instead of an eating place that would be allowed under R -O, you would have to come before us for a restaurant under a conditional use. That leaves neighborhood shopping to go in under C-1 and service stations and drive in restaurants, neither of which is allowable under R -O. Conklin: That is correct. Johnson: Other questions of staff or the applicant? Hoover: In C-1, you cannot exceed 40% of building area on the lot. In R -O, what is the maximum? Conklin: 60%. Johnson: So this would be less dense in terms of building on the site. Carlisle: Substantially, that is the difference. Johnson: The footprint. • • • Transcript of Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 Page 11 Conklin: That is correct. Carlisle: And also the C-2 as I understand. Public Comment None MOTION Marr: Estes: Madam Chair, I second that. I would like to make a motion that we approve RZ99-16.1. Johnson: We have the motion by Commissioner Marr, seconded by Commissioner Estes that we approve the rezoning 99-16.1. Of course, our action is a recommendation, if it passes, to go forward to the City Council who has final authority in this matter. Is there discussion of the motion to approve the requested rezoning? Further Discussion Estes: Just briefly, having seconded the motion, I will, of course, vote for the motion. The reason is that it is true that our General Plan 2020 provides that this area is residential but as we all know a plan is just that. It is a projection and is not something that is set in stone. As a person drives through this area and looks at how it is developed to the south, common sense would tell us that this is not going to be a residential area This is going to be commercial area and with the permitted uses under C -I, I believe, are very compatible with the area that is developing. Bunch: I have a question for staff. Are there any other commercial developments to the east that are to process? I know there is considerable amount of land to the east that is zoned commercial. Conklin: That is correct. Directly across the streets, we have a large scale development for Mcllroy Plaza that currently is under development. East of that, there is vacant C-2 property and east of that property would be Wedington Place Subdivision which is currently undeveloped but the final plat has been approved. We looked at Bank of Fayetteville on one of those lots and we've had discussions with other developers in the community about developing additional land in that subdivision. East of the bypass, what's known as the Marinoni Farm, there is acreage right up front along Wedington Drive and Shiloh that is currently being considered for a development. • • • Transcript of Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 Page 12 Johnson: This rezoning does include the existing bank which is located on 1.61 acres, correct? Carlisle: Yes. Odom: I'll be voting against the motion. The reason for this is that the general land use plan does not support this rezoning and while I agree with Mr. Estes, simply the plan not set in stone, in my opinion, in only the most compelling circumstances should you not follow that plan and in my opinion, a compelling reason has not been presented for us to stray from the plan. Secondly, we have an action that is a change from what we have done recently and that should be done by the City Council and not us Lastly, I think there is plenty of commercial C -1/C-2 zoning that are currently being developed in this area. Therefore, I will be voting against this motion. Johnson: I will be voting in favor of the motion for 2 reasons. One is that at our meeting as recent as last month, I don't think all of us did comment upon the suggestion that one of the Commissioners made that this applicant reconsider and go back to the drawing board and trash the C-2 request and come back with C -I. That was the only suggestion that was voiced. It seem to me that although, certainly, we are not bound by talk and we didn't tell the applicant what to do that the applicant might reasonably have felt from all the discussion he heard that if he changed that and came back quickly with a C-1 request that it would be favorably treated and secondly that the City Council will make the final decision about this and we should not usurp their authority. For those reasons, I will be voting in favor of the motion. Bunch: In view of the other piece of property adjoining this, it has been rezoned also, now we have a substantial piece that is R -O and with considerable amount of undeveloped commercial property next to it, I think this would be a good transition into the neighborhood and would caution to allow the chance to develop the whole 10 acres as R -O since that is a recent rezoning. We should deny C-1 at this time to give the neighborhood and the area room to grow and see what the requirements are since this is a long range plan. Roll Call Upon roll call the motion carried on a vote of 5-3-0. Commissioner Bunch, Commissioner Hoover, and Commissioner Odom voted against the motion. Johnson: The motion passed with a vote of 5-3. It goes to the City Council. • Transcript of Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 Page 13 CU99-16: CONDITIONAL USE DEEN, PP447 This item was submitted by James Key on behalf of Stephan Deen for property in Lot 6, Block 9 of the revised plat of Mountain View Addition, located on Vinson Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 0.33 acres. The request is for a duplex in an R-1 zone. James Key and Stanley Deen were present on behalf of the project. Staff recommends approval of the request subject to the following conditions: 1. Off-street parking along Vinson Avenue shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineering Department. 1. (Amended) No on street parking allowed on Vinson Avenue. 2. Trash cans for the duplex shall be brought to the street by the residents of the duplex 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 feet tall at maturity planted on all sides except the side facing the street. 3. The proposed duplex and parking shall be constructed as shown on the site plan and elevation drawings. The duplex shall be constructed using the materials and colors indicated on the elevation drawings. • 4. A grading permit shall be required prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. (Amended) A grading permit and storm water management plan are requires prior to issuance of a building permit. 5. A tree preservation plan shall be submitted to the Landscape Administrator. All trees shown to be preserved on the site plan shall be protected as required by the Landscape Administrator. Committee Discussion Johnson: Staff has recommended approval of the conditional use request It has 5 conditions of approval This lot contains 14,425 square feet. It fronts on Vinson and the entrance -- there will be only one entrance to the duplex from Vinson. It would be, of course, on the street there at Vinson. The bottom floor will be a 4 car garage. According to the owner, the • • • Transcript of Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 Page 14 natural appearance of the property will be preserved as much possible and only 2 trees over 9 inches in diameter will be destroyed. Staff, do you have additional information for us on this particular proposed conditional use? Vinson: Tim and I did go out to the site today and looked at the trees on the property and found that the trees are from the roadway about 30 feet or higher from the surface of the road so they are mature trees. They are tall. Those trees will help screen or shade the duplex from the neighborhood. Johnson: Mr. Key, do you have anything additional for us or are you available for our questions. Key: I am representing Mr. Stephen Deen who unfortunately is not able to be here this evening. Mr. Deen resides out of the country presently and has the desire to return to northwest Arkansas where he attended the University of Arkansas previously He is a native Arkansasan, as he has tried to make aware to the public. He has corresponded to the neighbors to let them know his intent. Mr. Deen's brother is actually here this evening with a letter prepared by Stephen, himself, to present to the Commission after I field any questions. I would like to have him read that letter to you. I will be available for any questions you might have regarding this proposal. As is shown in the package that we submitted to you, we are looking at a relatively small duplex, approximately 4,450 square feet on a 41,025 square feet lot. Each of the duplex living units are approximately 1,400 square feet. We have a total site coverage of less than 10%. This is a 14,425 square foot site with our footprint being approximately 1,363 square feet for the 4 car garage that will be the lower level of this facility. Again, trying to make as low an impact statement on this site as possible. We have been very conscientious about the character of the neighborhood. I worked on a project and the construction of a residence on this street several years ago on a previous project. I'm very familiar with the concerns of the neighbors. We have received a petition from the neighbors objecting to the proposed duplex due to concerns for traffic; for development not in character with the neighborhood. I would just like to say that it is our feeling and obviously, I met with the staff earlier in the week and asked for assistance from the engineer about grading concerns. We have a relatively steep site here which is very consistent with the nature of the land and the lay of the land in this particular area It is fully covered with mature trees as well as a lot of undergrowth. We have had a detailed survey performed which I have made a copy available to the city staff locating all trees 9 inches and larger. There are a lot of smaller trees that will be destroyed by this development. Obviously, if you've been by the site and looked at it, it's our intent that the development of this lot will be better post development than it is now. It will be more pleasing to the neighborhood. It will be more compatible with what is there as opposed to being undeveloped. There are ornamental trees, dogwoods, magnolias, all types of plantings and it is our intent to replace those plantings that we disturb during this construction. The site will have additional flower beds, etc. The off street parking that we propose is very much in character with the types of development that occur • • • Transcript of Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 Page 15 on these narrow streets on Mt. Sequoyah. I believe there are several properties on Vinson itself that have widened pull overs to allow traffic to go around. Vinson is a very narrow paved street. To not provide for some off street parking would be a detriment to the traffic and the neighbors in that area. It is our intent that the occupants would have parking facilities provided for in the covered garage parking. The pull over that's been provided is for guests and visitor parking to keep them off the street. We have, as I said, taken all care to try and be very conscientious to the neighborhood as the information provided to you has shown. I have brought a larger copy of the site plan and the elevations and plants. It is the owners intent that we provide a low impact structure here in keeping with the nature of materials of the facilities in the neighborhood. We are going to be looking at using durable materials including native stones for the base and ground floor of this structure. A composite siding material is very durable and has the appearance of natural wood siding that will not weather and flake and warp and have the potential problems that natural wood siding does. The siding, as I mentioned to the planning staff, is identical to a material that is being used on the duplexes and condos that have recently been completed on St. Charles and Watson Street which is property that Mr. Pettus owns at the northwest corner of that property. It is a hardwood material. It is composite board siding. We are proposing to use a very narrow profile to look more like a traditional siding varying between 6 and half inch exposure on the lower level. The first level being the second level and the narrow siding on the upper level with a stucco finish. This is represented in the drawing presented to you. Johnson: I think we have a copy of the drawing. (Mr. Key strategically placed Larger drawings for viewing of the public and commission.) Key: That's basically our approach. I know there are concerns with traffic and noise and with negative impact affects on drainage, trees, wild life -- it is our position that this development will have no negative impact on the drainage of the site or the wild life on this or on the trees on that site. Obviously, as with any development, there will be some removal of tree structures and planting to necessitate this development but as is shown on the site plan, there is one 10 inch or larger hackberry tree that we are going to be removing which is directly adjacent to the 40 inch oak tree that we're going to have to remove much to our dissatisfaction. We would like to go in there and not remove any trees. Unfortunately, it is not feasible to develop this site without cutting some trees. That is our position. The impact from a traffic standpoint, I don't think would be any more than a single family residence would be. It has the potential to be less due to the nature and size of the duplexes we are proposing. The small, 2 bedroom duplex doesn't have the potential for a family occupying this with a teenage kid and vehicles. It's not like you would have potentially 3 or 4 vehicles per dwelling unit. This is targeted toward an up scale market. The cost of the property in this area and the cost of development for the structure we are planning will necessitate that it will be an up scale rental property. The owner does intend to occupy this structure when he returns to the country. This is Mr. Stan Deen, the applicant's brother. I would like for him to read a letter to the commission. • • • Transcript of Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 Page 16 Johnson: I would ask that he do that. Deen: Thank you for allowing me the time to read this letter from my brother who faxed this to me today. "Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: I apologize to you that I am prevented by business from appearing at this meeting. I have asked my brother, Dr. Stan Deen, to read this acknowledged receipt for the Vinson Street residents petition and to respond to their concems. First, please know that I am not an insensitive foreigner that has no regard for the environment of Vinson Street and Mt. Sequoyah. Further, I am a native Arkansasan. I return to Arkansas twice yearly. I previously lived in Fayetteville for 7 years while earning my degrees at the University of Arkansas. My brother, Stanley, lives in Fayetteville and my mother and I plan to move to Fayetteville next year to make our home. I worked in Asia for 25 years to save and buy my lot on Vinson Street and build my proposed house. To me, this project is very important and highly personal. This property would be owned and carefully maintained by me for the rest of my life. It is not being cheaply built for quick sale. The house will be managed by me once I establish residence in Fayetteville. Until that time, it will be managed by good friend, Dr. Bob who has lived on Skyline Drive for over 20 years. I hope that you can see from the drawing now before you that my building will be a discreet, small 2 family residence. James Key and I have carefully planned the house so it will serve the lot. It is very important to me that my house will be environmentally suitable to the area and look like is has been there for years The house will be very well built at considerable cost. With only 2 bedrooms in each living space, I will be happy to live in one and the other will be very carefully rented to professionals such as visiting professors. I promise you that it will never be rented to undergraduate, University students or families with swarms of children. I would never rent an expensive property to irresponsible tenants. With parking for only 4 cars, the traffic concerns that have been raised should be no more problem than that of a large, single family home. As regard to landscaping, I would be glad to do plantings with a small grass yard to be planted at the back of the lot for open space there and a large number of flowering dogwood, red buds, and deciduous magnolias as soon as the house is built. In fact, several years ago we planted several dogwoods and magnolias on the site. I believe this land would be far more attractive to the neighborhood and passerby after development than it is now. In closing, I thank the members of the Fayetteville Planning Commission for their care and consideration of my application and I hope that my future neighbors on Mt Sequoyah have had their concerns fully and reasonably addressed. I have a great desire as you do to preserve the beauty of Vinson Street. My house and gardens will be one of the most architecturally discreet, environmentally sensitive, and best maintained properties on Mt. Sequoyah. • • Transcnpt of Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 Page 17 Very sincerely yours, Stephen Deen" Johnson: Thank you. Are there initial questions that Commissioners have of the applicant? Public Comment Sally Young, a property owner and resident on Vinson Street, speaking on behalf of the 15 residents on Vinson Avenue and Campbell Road neighborhood association spoke in opposition of the request citing problems with traffic, drainage, and environmental impact. Ken Lake, residing next door to the subject property, spoke in opposition of the request. Trudy Scott, residing on Vinson Street for 25 years, spoke in opposition of the request. Leta Mahaffey, residing on Vinson Street residing across the street from the subject site, spoke in opposition of the request. Further Discussion Johnson: Is there anything that the Commission has within it's power that it can consider to warn the property owner about potential drainage problems. I have to assume that anyone who owns property such as this is well aware and his architect is well aware that one must be very cautious about drainage problems. Is there any kind of cautionary action that the Commission can take to deal with that issue. Conklin: We placed a condition of approval that a grading plan be presented to the City Engineering Department to be approved by them prior to construction of this duplex. Staff was concerned about grading on the site and wanted to make sure they were aware that a grading permit would be required. Johnson: And staff feels that so long as you see the grading plan before any grading at all takes place that this will give you a chance to determine if it will be handled appropriately. Petrie: Unfortunately, this doesn't fall within the Storm Water Management Ordinance. However, in the Grading Ordinance, there are provisions that surface water provisions for collecting and discharging surface water must be shown. Also, there is a requirement that the City Engineer may require a soil engineering study or source calculations and site conditions. Meaning they would have to hire a geotechnical engineer to do the studies and determine the affects of the building. Transcript of Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 Page 18 Johnson: Thanks, Ron. One comment that was made a couple of times, is that if we allow a duplex at this site, then the flood gates will be open and any other duplexes request in the area would be automatically approved. I think that is just exactly opposite of the history of this Commission. I think that when a neighborhood has a duplex that it doesn't necessarily provide a domino affect for a residential area to have future duplex come in In terms of their being 6 families per acre allowed at the density that the development here is allowed, I think the only way there could be 6 families per acre would be if we allowed 3 duplexes on an acre. From my experience with the Commission in the last 5 years, that's most unlikely to happen. I understand the fear, but I don't think it's a realistic contemplation of the action of the Commission. What questions or comments? Estes: This is not a rezoning request, it is a conditional use request. The regulations that we are mandated to follow provides that a conditional use shall not be granted by the Planning Commission unless and until the Planning Commission shall make the following written findings. One of those written findings is that we find there to be general compatibility with adjacent property and other property in the district. As I look at the aerial maps, we are surrounded by R-1 on Vinson, Assembly, and Maple. I do not see that we can meet the requirement of the requested conditional use 99-16 that it is compatible with the properties and other properties in the district. MOTION Estes: I would move that we deny conditional use 99-16. Odom: Second. Johnson. We have the motion by Commissioner Estes and seconded by Commissioner Odom that we deny conditional use 99-16. Is there discussion on the motion? Further Discussion Shackelford: I want to make a real quick point here. We are considering, it's my understanding, strictly a conditional use on the property and whether a duplex can be built here. A lot of the issues that have been discussed here tonight are issues that are going to come up if a house is built here. We're talking about traffic, vegetation, destruction of wild life, displacement drainage, geological stability -- these type of things are going to be a problem whether a single family dwelling is built here or not. So a lot of what's been assessed here are not situations that have come up just because of this conditional use. These problems will again have to be addressed at some point with just a single home built as well. Ward: This lot is going to built on. It's too valuable a lot to sit there vacant and let • • • Transcript of Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 Page 19 everybody enjoy it. I feel like whatever gets built will be a very similar structure as to what we have in front of us tonight. As far as the integrity of the building or duplex, with the one door going into it and the type of material and such, I really have no problem with that. I live on Assembly and I have duplexes above me and down below and in all directions and I really don't notice that there is any difference. I'm not going to vote for this particular use but I feel like the neighborhood probably has to get ready for a very similar structure -- a 3 story, structure with 2 or 4 bedroom and so on being built here. It's not really going to change anything as far as whether it's a duplex like this one or a single family home. You'll end up with the same amount of people there and the same amount of square footage. Key: I just want to say that I, as well, live in this neighborhood. I live within 2 and half blocks of this particular site on Johnson Street at the bottom of Mt. Sequoyah On that small, quiet 2 block long street there are several duplexes. They have not ever caused a problem in that neighborhood. There are other duplexes on Rebecca Street to the north. There are some, also, to the south on the adjacent neighborhood streets. As Mr. Ward commented, there are numerous duplexes on Assembly, Oklahoma, and Fletcher. I provided a representative list of those duplexes to the Commission with my submittal package. There are also duplexes on Washington Street in the Washington Willow Historic District as well as Mt. Nord. There is a very beautiful, small duplex which is very much in keeping with the character of what we are presenting here. The planning staff had found that this particular duplex is compatible with this neighborhood. I feel they are accurate. I don't feel there is reason to deny this application based upon that it is not compatible with the neighborhood because it is. It is not a high density development. It is still considered a low density. As you pointed out yourself, Madam Chairman, there is no way it could be developed to 6 units per acre because of the lot coverage restrictions and the square footage restrictions that would apply to a duplex development in an R-1 zone. That's all I'm going to say. I'd like you to consider this. Bunch: Mr. Key, is there any sort of textural treatment on the grade on the driveway so that in case of icy weather, which we are prone to have here in the Fayetteville area, there could be access up and down that hill or prevent people from having to park upon the street. Key: We're going to look at providing as skid free a surface on that drive as possible. We've tried to maintain a minimum a slope as possible without taking the entire site and requiring removal of additional trees and without making the lower level such a height as to require additional fill underneath it. We'll take every means we can, Mr. Bunch, to try to ensure that the drive is accessible. In acclimate weather when we have ice and snow storms, it would be necessary to get someone out and grade that drive as it's necessary for a lot of residences on Mt. Sequoyah. The nature of this type of site dictates that the drive be more than a 4% slope. We would like it if we could maintain that if there is no physical way to do that without requiring an excessive amount of fill or acquiring adjacent lots to the north and having a very low grade access across the entire acre site to develop these small duplexes on. Obviously, that is not Transcript of Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 Page 20 feasible. Marr. The square footage of the entire project is what, again? Conklin: Are we talking about the entire structure? Marr: Yes. Conklin: It's 4,175 square feet. It is a 3 story structure with a 4 car garage on the first level. It's approximately a 1,400 square foot unit on the second and then an additional 1,400 square foot unit on the third story. Man. Key: So we're talking about 2,800 square feet living area? That is correct. Marr. I will be voting against the motion to deny because I do believe that the structure is that typical of anything that would be built there. I do think that will happen and I do think there have been precautions taken to try to make sure it looks like a single residence. Key: We tried to position the house on the property ,in additional to taking into consideration the existing tree structures, to provide as much a buffer around the structure as possible to maintain the character of the site. We're at least 40 feet from the property line to the south from Mr. Lake's residence. So, if his bedroom window is at least 20 feet from his property line, there will be 40 feet from ours. So, it will be 60 feet between those structures. We're even a greater distance to the north of the property line. We have been able to maintain at least 25 feet to the rear even though there is only 20 feet setback. That 25 feet is from the overhang on the sun room portion of the projection. To the rear of the structure is considerably further from the property line. We will do all that we can if granted the approval to build this facility to maintain the character of the neighborhood. It is Mr. Deen's desire and it's what I have been instructed to do as his architect. Johnson: Are there other comments or questions from the Commissions? Bunch: Mr. Key, on the west elevation, you show a staircase coming down from the porch area to ground level and also on the first floor plan; however, that does not show up on the south elevation and it appears it would go right through the middle of that door I know this is a minor, technical point. If this is presented at some point in time would someone want to have this covered and also where would it wind up because right now it doesn't look like it has a place on the south elevation. • • • Transcript of Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 Page 21 Key: I don't have a copy of the south elevation with me, today. There is a staircase planned on the exterior of the structure on the south side. It would be accessed from the garage level to the exterior, so you come directly upon the porch on the south side of the house as opposed to having to go through the interior stair in the garage and coming out on the same porch. I apologize if I have omitted it from the south elevation document. It is planned to be provided for easy access both in and out for both the tenants. That is the first floor tenant for the lower unit or the upper level unit. Of course, the intent is to serve from the porch level to the grade. One being an exterior for yard access primarily although there would be a door at the bottom of that stair into the garage. The other stair is from the porch level. You go inside the structure and actually go back down towards the east toward the front of the house into the garage space. There is not a plan at this time to cover that stair. That is why the interior stairway has been provided for all weather access. The exterior stairway will actually be to the yard for ease of ingress and egress to the two dwelling units. That door, if it is in the way, could be adjusted either to the east or the west to accommodate the -- Bunch: One of the things that I was looking at when I noticed that was I was looking at the designed drainage on this. I don't envy anyone who would do that I know we talked about a site grading plan but is there any requirement for a drainage plan? Is that within our realm to look at that? Petrie: The Storm Water Management Ordinance does not apply on single family or duplex construction. The only provision is in the grading ordinance where the surface water must be -- provisions for collecting and discharging surface water -- is what it states in the grading ordinance. I hope that answered your question. Key: It is our intention to provide as much for this site or around this structure as possible. There will not be gutters or downspouts provided. The water will sheet flow off the roof. We will provide plantings and porous materials at grade to collect that water on the areas where pavement is not located. On the north side where the access drive is, it is our intention to provide a collection drain to pick up all the water that flows down the driveway and off the house and collect it in that trench system and it will have to be dispersed along the lower portion of the site to the west to prevent erosion on our property and excessive flow to the adjacent property owners. We will obviously provide a grading plan and address that when we present that information to the engineering department. Johnson: We have before us the motion to deny conditional use 99-16. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion failed with a vote of 4-4-0. • • Transcript of Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 Page 22 Further Discussion Johnson: We have a vote of 4 to 4. Conditional uses must pass by a vote of 5 to 3 and so the motion failed because it did not carry. So, the floor is open to any other motion. Shackelford: Based on the fact that all we have to decide is whether or not this meets the design of the neighborhood; based on the fact that all the other arguments will come into play when they build the duplex; I feel this does meet the design. MOTION Shackelford: I make a motion to approve conditional use 99-16. Marr: Second. Further Discussion Johnson: We have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford and seconded by Commissioner Marr that we approve conditional use 99-16. Is there discussion on the motion? Let me ask whether or not Commissioner Shackelford would agree to this addition to condition number 1 -- would you accept an addition to number 1 that addresses off street parking on Vinson that no on street parking shall be allowed on Vinson Avenue. Shackelford: Yes, I would accept that. Johnson: And the second? Marc Yes. Johnson: So that will address the issue that one of the neighbors had about parking on the street itself. Any other discussion on the motion to grant the conditional use? Conklin: With the issue of the storm water management plan, the Commission can make any additional conditions or safeguards they deem appropriate and if the Commission might be more comfortable requiring a storm water management plan to be submitted. That is something that also could be considered as a condition of approval. Johnson: So a storm water management plan be submitted along with the grading permit or after? • Conklin: Along with it -- • Transcript of Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 Page 23 Petrie: They would be submitted together. Johnson: Do you have any reaction to -- AMENDED MOTION Johnson: I'll move to amend the motion to require that a storm water management plan and grading plan be required before the grading permit is allowed. Is there a second to the motion to amend. Marr. Second. Johnson: There is a motion and a second to amend the motion. The amendment would require storm water management and grading plan to be required. POINT OF ORDER Estes: Point of order, please. We have voted to deny conditional use 99-16. Is that not • dispositive of the applicant's request? Johnson: I believe that we haven't voted to deny. The motion was to deny but the motion only garnered 4 votes and so the motion to deny failed It did not garner a majority. • Estes: And now to approve, they need 5 of the 8 present. Johnson: Now on the amendment, I would rule that a mere majority will carry the amendment. Roll Call Upon roll call for the amendment to the motion, the amendment passed with a vote of 7-1-0. Commissioner Ward voted against the motion. Johnson: The amendment to the motion passed with a vote of 7 to 1. Now, we have before us the main motion to grant the conditional use 99-16 with 2 changes from the printed conditions. One is the addition in number 1 that there be no street parking allowed on Vinson Avenue and number 6 now provides that a storm water management plan and a grading we required before grading permit is issues. Is there discussion on the motion? Roll Call • • • Transcript of Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 Page 24 Upon roll call, the motion failed with a vote of 4-4-0. Commissioners Bunch, Estes, Odom and Ward voted against the motion. Johnson: The motion to grant the conditional use failed on a vote of 4 to 4 and since a conditional use requires 5 then the motion is denied. Thank you. • • • Transcript of Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 Page 25 VA99-8: VACATION EAST AVENUE INVESTMENT GROUP, PP485 This item was submitted by Laura Kelly of Rob Sharp Architect on behalf of East Avenue Group, LLC for property located between block 4 and 5 of Harrison's Addition. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. The request is to vacate an unconstructed section of Fletcher Avenue between Center Street and the point where Fletcher Avenue's asphalt surface curves east from the platted right of way. Laura Kelly was present on behalf of the project. Staff recommended approval of the street right of way vacation provided that the portion being abandoned is retained as a utility easement. Commission Discussion Johnson: This is essentially where Fletcher starts turning up the hill. Tim, do you have additional explanation for this proposed street right of way vacation. Conklin: The applicant has requested to vacate that portion of Fletcher Street that would intersect with the undeveloped portion of Center Street. This is to the south and contains approximately 10,900 square feet. The reason for the vacation is for the applicant to add that additional property to property they own to the west and they intend to develop it in the near future. Johnson: All right. Kelly: I represent Robert Sharp Architect who is doing a design for a development that is adjacent and immediately to the west of the portion of the unconstructed Fletcher Avenue that we are petitioning to get vacated. The on site visit, I'm sure, showed how the particular unconstructed portion is extremely steep and undevelopable. l have a comment from the City of Fayetteville engineering department that it was platted largely for water easement purposes as an unofficial comment and not intended to be developed. There is a finding by the city staff that points out that there is no requirement to connect Highway 16 and 45 across Mt. Sequoyah due to the nature of the residential development on Mt. Sequoyah and by vacating this small portion of Fletcher that disallows Fletcher to continue down to Huntsville Road at any point in the future which is advantageous to the residential neighborhood. Johnson: I didn't understand that you said there was something from one of the city offices that indicates that this -- that although this street is platted, it never was intended to be a street? • • Transcript of Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 Page 26 Kelly: Right. Fletcher Avenue -- the platted Fletcher Avenue continues off in a northeast direction for some distance. It follows the city's water main from the tanks on Mt. Sequoyah to the northeast. Conklin: With regard to that comment about Fletcher not being a platted street right of way for a future street extension, I did talk with our drafting division and they did indicate that the right of way was obtained when they did obtain the easement for the waterline. So, not only did they obtain the utility easement for the waterline, they also obtained right of way for a future street extension. Apparently, that was debated and discussed in the 70's and that proposal to extend Fletcher to Huntsville Road was abandoned and they did not pursue connecting that street at that time. Johnson: Do you have initial questions of the applicant? Shackelford: I wanted to let you know that I will be abstaining from this vote. Johnson: All right. I appreciate that, Loren. Public Comment Eva Coltreman, residing across the street from the property in question, was present in opposition to the vacation. Further Discussion Johnson- Is there discussion or questions? Odom: On the map we were given on page 6.1, it looks like a phantom road going to Huntsville Road. Is that on the master street plan? I don't understand this map at all. Conklin: That is not on the master street plan. It is platted right of way, it is my understanding, that was acquired in the 1970's. Odom: But, it's not on our master street plan. Conklin: It's not on the master street plan. Estes: Do I understand that the city owns that as a right of way? Is that -- • Conklin: That is correct. The city owns that portion of Fletcher and actually the entire portion of Fletcher where it heads off to the south and bends all the way down to Huntsville • Transcript of Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 Page 27 Road. Estes: correctly? And that would connect Center Street with Huntsville? Am I reading this Conldin: Yes. Center Street -- actually, if you extend Fletcher down it would go all the way down to Huntsville Road. That is correct. Estes: When we grant the vacation request, we have made that impossible. Am I reading the map correctly? Conklin: The only portion of right of way to be vacated is that small portion that -- let me get a map for you -- page 7.3. It potentially could connect to that portion of Fletcher Street. We're not vacating Center Street with this right of way from where Center Street currently dead ends. If you're on Center Street going up that hill, this stops at Olive Street or just south of Olive. That right of way does continue all the way up to Fletcher Street. One other bit of information, the City of Fayetteville owns the property directly east of right of way vacation. Under state law, the City of Fayetteville will be obtaining half of the right of way. The developer • will only be receiving 30 feet. There is total width of 60 feet. The City of Fayetteville owns the right of way between that entire block of Fletcher. • Estes: So, looking at page 6.3, Fletcher then would connect across Center Street and extend on down to Huntsville Road Conldin: That is correct. Estes: Are we giving up any City property by granting this vacation request? Conklin: We're giving up 30 feet from centerline to the west. Estes: For free. Conklin: Yes, that is correct. Estes: With no consideration. Kelly: It remains a utility easement. Marr: Just to make sure I'm clear on this. I have a question for staff. This platted road that doesn't exist that was done in the 70's, are we to be considering anything with that or not? Should it be here or not? • • Transcript of Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 Page 28 Conklin: There was a resolution the City Council passed on February 20, 1996 and that resolution states: "The City reiterates it's policy that streets or roads should not be extended over Mt. Sequoyah which would connect Highway 45 to 16. Owners and developers of land on Mt. Sequoyah shall not be required nor encouraged to build streets which will act as part of the connection over Mt. Sequoyah between Highways 16 and 45." So, there is a resolution stating that developers are not required nor encouraged to make those types of connections. Estes: Thank you. Johnson: Which means that anytime we have a subdivision, we have to be sure that you can't go through it and get from one highway to the other. Estes: I am troubled by us providing public property for private use without compensation. Johnson: How troubled are you? Troubled enough to make a motion? Our action that we take this evening will not be dispositive. A vacation is something that we merely make a recommendation to the City Council on. I believe that it is not good planning to vacate right of way that theoretically could connect the city. MOTION Johnson: I move that we deny vacation 99-8. Is there a second to the motion? Marr: Second. Johnson: We have the motion by the chair and seconded by Commissioner Marr that we deny vacation 99-8. Is there discussion of the motion? Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 7-0-1. Commissioner Shackelford abstained. Further Discussion • Johnson: The motion to deny the vacation carried on a vote of 7 with one abstention. • Transcript of Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 Page 29 Kelly: Is this then -- the developer now will be encouraged to develop it -- or no? Johnson: My motion was that we have not vacated this right of way. We do not recommend that the City Council vacate the right of way. Kelly: When development occurs next to platted streets, are developers required to develop the street to code? Conklin: That is something we will take a look at when the development goes through plat review process and we'll expect a decision at that time whether or not -- what type of streets and improvement will be necessary to serve this development. Kelly: If it's not requested to be developed, is there another change to petition to vacate? Conklin: Your vacation request will automatically go to the City Council. The recommendation of the Commission will be forwarded to the City Council. The City Council will make the final decision. • Kelly: Thank you. • • • • Transcript of Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 Page 30 PP99-5.10: PRELIMINARY PLAT STONEWOOD SUBDIVISION, PP99/60 This item was submitted by Glenn Carter on behalf of Mark Foster for property located at 4786 North Crossover Road. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office, and R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 57.23 acres with 119 lots proposed. Glenn Carter was present on behalf of the project. Staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. POA or similar entity shall be responsible for maintenance within all designated green space areas. 2. The off site utility easement for the proposed waterline and sewer line (20 feet wide) must be obtained from adjacent property owners prior to the approval of construction plans for the development. The sewer line easement must be located along the Hwy 265 right of way to allow for future widening. 3. Truck access shall be provided to all manholes. 4. All overland swales must have concrete trickle channels and must be maintained by the POA or similar entity. 5. Installation of water service crossings to provide for future irrigation demands including a 2 inch main with gate valve and box per David Jurgens, Water & Sewer Maintenance Superintendent. 6. 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 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. 8. Payment of parks fees in the amount of $44,625 for 119 lots at $375 per lot. Lots within the 100 year flood plain are to be filled above the 100 year water surface elevation to provide a minimum of 6,000 square feet of buildable area. A separate floodplain development permit must be issued before the fill is placed within the flood • • • Transcript of Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 Page 31 plain. 10. The final design of the street intersections that do not intersect at ninety degrees are subject to further review and could change due to safety concerns. 11. Preliminary plat approval shall be valid for one calendar year. Commission Discussion Johnson: 14 of those proposed lots, I believe, are to be R -O. The staff has recommended approval and has 11 conditions of approval. I believe that there are no waivers as such in those 11 conditions. First, let me ask the applicant whether he's seen those 11 conditions and whether or not you agree to all of them. Carter: Yes, I have seen all the conditions and we do agree to all of those. Johnson: Let me ask staff. I believe that you told us at agenda session that the waivers concerning the minimum street standards all had been withdrawn so that the new platted street do comply with all of the street requirements. Is that correct? Petrie: Yes, ma'am. That is correct. Johnson: I looked at the plat and I couldn't tell that on the plat. Tell us how all of the radius have now disappeared -- a centerline radius of less than 150 feet at 6 different locations. Those were the turnarounds, weren't they? Petrie: On the street to the west, Shadowood Avenue -- if you'll compare your 2 plats, you'll notice that the curb has flattened off. Johnson: That's the one that is adjacent to 265 on the west. Petrie: Yes, ma'am. Also, the street furthest to the north, Stonebriar Drive and the street to the east, Stoneview Lane have been revised to meet those standards. Johnson: They sure look the same. Petrie: That was our point all along. That is why we were not supporting the waivers at the Subdivision Committee. Johnson: Why? Spell it out to me. • • Transcript of Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 Page 32 Petrie: Because the changes would be insignificant, if they just met the ordinance. Johnson: Just because they look the same to me doesn't mean that they are the same. Petrie: That's right. The curves are a little less sharp. That's really all that amounted to. Johnson. Are there questions for Mr. Carter? Do you have a presentation to us other than saying you will comply with all the conditions9 Carter: No, I don't. We smoothed those curves out. They were a little sharp and we found in working with the staff, that we were able to smooth those out and make those tangents the proper lengths between the curves to move the curves further apart. It still accomplishes the developer's goals and it looks nice. From what staff is telling me, it is safer. We certainly go along with that and agree with that. We have no other comments. I'd be glad to answer any questions you might have. Johnson: Mr. Carter, I appreciate you working with the staff that way and you still have achieved what you wanted to achieve. Public Comment None MOTION Odom: comments. I'm going to move approval of preliminary plat 99-5.10 subject to all staff Johnson: Is there a second? Marr. Second. Johnson: We have a motion by Commissioner Odom and seconded by Commissioner Marr that we approve preliminary plat 99-5.10 subject to the 11 conditions of approval. Further Discussion Ward: On those 3 stub outs to the east, are those going to stay green space instead of concrete? Are you requiring the developer to finish those off now? • Petrie: Our street standards do require that they build up to the property line. • • • Transcnpt of Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 Page 33 Ward: I don't know if that's such a good idea or not. Conklin: Our experience was when you leave it green space, the residents in the neighborhood do not realize there is a street that will be continued in the future when future development does occur. It's best if we construct it now and that way, everybody realizes the street will go through and will be connected at some time in the future. Ward: My concern about green space -- maybe a sign. It might be 50 years before that area gets developed. Petrie: I was going to point out that we have had preliminary discussion of developing that land to the east. Somebody has already approached the staff and they are presently looking at that land to develop. Ward: I just don't want a lot of concrete out there for no reason just going nowhere. Conklin: There will be an application coming before the Commission. Johnson: We have before us the motion to approve preliminary plat 99-5.10 subject to the staff conditions of approval. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • • • Transcript of Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 Page 34 CU99-17: CONDITIONAL USE SHIREMAN, PP409 This item was submitted by Ken Shireman for property located at 1701 East Mission Boulevard. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. The subject property contains approximately 0.577 acres. The request is for a limited neighborhood commercial use. Ken Shireman was present of behalf of the project. Staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: The parking lot shall meet City parking lot standards. Only 8 parking spaces shall be provided. A 3 foot tall continuous planting of shrubs shall be provided on the east and north sides of the parking lot. (Amended) The parking lot shall meet city parking lot standards. 10 parking spaces shall be allowed. A 3 foot tall continuous planting of shrubs shall be provided on the east and north sides of the parking lot. 2. Trash cans for the office building shall be brought to the street 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. 2. (Amended) Staff will work with the applicant on the recepticle design. 3. The sign for the new office building shall be a professional nameplate erected flat on the wall of the building and not exceeding 4 square feet as indicated by the sign ordinance. 4. The professional office building shall be built according to elevations submitted. All materials and colors shall match the materials and colors submitted as part of this application. 5. The location of the building and parking shall be constructed as shown on the site plan. Committee Discussion Johnson: This property is located on Mission almost across from the cemetery there on Mission. The staff has recommended approval of this conditional use It has 5 conditions of approval. • • • Transcript of Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 Page 35 Shireman: Most of you here have seen me down here before. I don't think Commissioner Bunch was here. I made a presentation on the same piece of property for a rezoning. It was denied 4 to 3 even though we had nobody to oppose it. I'm back now asking for a conditional use. Johnson: Have you seen all of the 5 conditions of approval. Shireman: Yes, I did. I got those this afternoon. I've been sitting back there going over this and making notes. Johnson: And, do you agree with all of them or do you want to quibble? Shireman: I want to quibble. I am not in agreement with number 1. I asked for 10 parking spaces and I think that is the minimum that we have to have to make this project work feasibly. You look at it this way. We have 2 buildings there and you break it down to square footage at 1 per 300 -- I have 1,000 square feet and my tenant has 1,500 square feet so that leaves 3 spaces for me and 5 for him. I already have 3 right now. I have me and the 2 guys that work with me. So, let's make the assumption that I lease this building to 3 attorneys and they have a legal secretary, well there are 4 spaces so we've used up 7 of those 8 and nobody has come to see us, yet. I think 10 is the absolute minimum to make this work. The other problem I have is that we've been in this building a little over a year where my office is now. It is 100% totally unsafe to back out into the street. It's something you don't want to do. I have to have enough maneuverable room so you can come in, see us, and turn around and drive back out the driveway. I will not take issue but make a correction in the staff report. They say there's an existing gravel drive that will be used to access the new office building. That's not true. I plan to have a new curb cut -- I'm planning to bring -- my property comes in right near -- I plan to move it down a little bit -- so it comes in -- comes into the parking lot and I plan to have that all concrete. For that reason, I've got a little problem with the highway department about that but that's what my desires are. I want to bring a nice, concrete apron in there and I want to do this right. I want it safe. It has to be adequately -- there has to be parking spaces for us to conduct our business. We also will receive FedEx and the UPS shipping like most businesses do. We have deliveries from our printing companies and it's very likely we could have a full parking lot. Somebody like that needs to come in and have a place to turn around. That's the main purpose for this. If we have a meeting, I'd like for my clients to come see me. To me that is a very serious, serious, problem I have. The trash can issue -- most of the waste, generally, for most offices is in the form of paper. We don't even use trash cans. Most everybody uses just bags. My neighbor who lives up the hill and has the driveway immediately north of me there and I have discussed with him a Joint trash enclosure in that space between those 2 driveways there. We could do it there or we could put it all on my property, I don't care which. He also brings his bags. He lives up the hill. He has to bring his trash down the driveway to put it at the curb so we would like to have a common enclosure and just do one that we would all use and keep the front nice and tidy for everybody Transcnpt of Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 Page 36 concerned. He was interested in working with me on that also. I don't have a problem with any of the parking lot screening. I want that as well as anybody else. I don't want to look at cars I live up on the hill, too. My only problem with any of those issues -- wall signs, I totally understand. I don't know that -- before I came today, I measured from front and there are some huge walnut trees. There are currently some trees right in this area that will screen this driveway and from there to these walnut trees there is only 70 feet in there right now. What I want to do is pave a parking lot in there. I'd like to have a minimum of 10 cars to make it work. I'd like to landscape and save the trees. Johnson: How many parking spaces do you presently have? Shireman: 10. I want 10. Johnson: No, what do you presently have? Shireman: We got about 5 in there right now. Johnson: My understanding is that number 1, you want 10 parking spaces not 8. Shireman: Yes, ma'am. Johnson. Shrubs are no problem. Secondly, you have a problem with what is required about the trash containers. Shireman: I don't believe I fully understand it. Johnson: Why don't you tell us exactly what you proposed with your neighbor. Shireman: What I would propose to do is build -- I don't know exactly what size. I would proposed to build -- we would probably do a concrete pad or raised pad with a fence of some kind around it around 3 feet tall and we would just drop the paper bags in. This is what we have discussed but I am open on that. I don't fully understand what the staff was asking for with the opening on the street side. I guess to me, I wouldn't want it to be seen from the street either. I'd like to put our trash bags in there where nobody can see it at all and the guys just reach in there and pick them up and throw them in the truck is what I'd like to do. Johnson: Tim, do you have any explanation more than what we have here which is to screen on three sides, 3 feet tall except the side facing the street is open? Vinson: That is the typical design for a tandem lot. That's the requirement with an open area so that the trash men that come by can pick them up. That's the typical way we do that. • • Transcript of Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 Page 37 Johnson: Do you have any objection to work with Mr Shireman to do something like he just proposed rather than having cans have plastic sacks and dropping them down in a wooden enclosure. Conklin: I don't have a problem working with Mr. Shireman. I guess I thought most people used trash cans to put their trash in. I guess you don't have a problem with animals. You're talking about building a wooden structure where you actually have the trash in sacks and you drop it. I always thought that an ordinary trash pickup had to be in a can so the people could pick it up and put it in the trash truck, but I could be wrong. Shireman: When I'm driving around, all I see is a bunch of trash bags sitting out in the road. But, whatever works. I want something that's neat. Public Comment None Further Discussion Marr: I will be abstaining from the vote. Mr. Shireman is the architect for the wonderful new building I work at. MOTION Ward: I would like to recommend approval of CU99-17 with the waiver for at least 10 parking spaces and also with maybe a different type of wood and pad for the trash and let you work with Tim and Brent on that. Odom: I'll second that if you include all the other staff comments. Ward: With all other staff comments. Odom. I'll second. Johnson: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward, seconded by Commissioner Odom that we grant the conditional use subject to the staff comments with 2 changes. The first being that we allow 10 parking spaces. The second being that the trash enclosure be built with a wood fence on probably a wooden pad and that the detail be worked out on that with the planning staff. Staff, do you have objection to that part of the motion? • Conklin: I have no objection to that. • • • Transcript of Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 Page 38 Johnson: Is there discussion of the motion. Estes: On page 8.21, that's the one that shows the proposed future residence. It looks like you have 2 curb cuts on that lot. Is that correct? Shireman: That's already 2 lots. Estes: We've already done that, okay. I'm okay. Roll Call Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-1. Commissioner Marr abstained. • • • Transcript of Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1999 Page 39 OTHER BUSINESS Johnson: That's the last item on our agenda. Do you want to call our attention to the hand outs you have provided us? Vinson: You were handed an invitation to the Historic District Commission award ceremony honoring the Cooper House and the Jackson House for historic preservation which is next Wednesday at 1:30. Conklin: There will be no Planning Commission meeting on July 26. Meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m.