Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-09-27 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, September 27, 1999 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Room 219, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED Approval of Minutes AD99-21: WRMC, pp250 LSD99-20: Connolly, pp522 PP99-9: Crystal Springs II, pp245 CU99-18: Martin, pp295 MEMBERS PRESENT Don Bunch Bob Estes Lorel Hoffman Sharon Hoover • Phyllis Johnson Conrad Odom Loren Shackelford • STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Kim Hesse Janet Johns Ron Petrie Brent Vinson ACTION TAKEN Approved Tabled until 10/11 mtg. Approved w/amd cond Tabled until 10/11 mtg Approved w/amd cond MEMBERS ABSENT Don Marr Lee Ward STAFF ABSENT Dawn Warrick Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1999 Page 2 Johnson: I will call to order the September 27 Planning Commission meeting. First, before I forget it, we're losing Brent Vinson. Brent has taken a job with a private firm in Bella Vista and we'll miss working with you. It's been our pleasure and we wish you the best of luck. Do you leave this Friday? Vinson: Yes. Johnson: We have 5 items on the agenda but I believe item number 4, the preliminary plat for Crystal Springs, Phase II has been removed by the applicant. Conklin: That is correct. Johnson: You have also advised that item number 2, administrative item 99-21 also has been removed from the agenda by the applicant. Conklin: Yes. The applicant did request the item to be removed. CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES Jolmson: Are there any additions or corrections to the September 13 Minutes? If not, then those Minutes will stand approved as distributed. • Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1999 Page 3 AD99-21• ADMINISTRATIVE WASHINGTON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, PP250 This item was submitted by Kurt Jones of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Washington Regional Medical Center for property located north of Appleby Road and west of North Hills Blvd. The request is to accept revisions to the Large Scale Development approved on January 11, 1999. Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions previously approved on large scale development LSD98-36. Hoffman: I believe that item number 2 will be coming back to Subdivision this Thursday, but we have not made official notification until now. I would like to point that out. Johnson: Can we get that before Subdivision this quickly if we do the public notice here in this meeting? Conklin: Staff brought this back to Planning Commission because 3 changes have • occurred. They have increased the square footage. The parking has a change in the configuration and location of the entrance. The access drive has moved further to the north. Since this was an administrative item, we did not require them to go back through the entire large scale development process. With regard to notification, we could put it on this Thursday's Subdivision Committee meeting, and make the notification requirement for the next Planning Commission meeting for the residents in that area. • Johnson: If it continues as an administrative item, then I don't think that there would be notice requirements for Subdivision anyway. Conklin: We did not ask for them to do the notification on this administrative item. Mr. Jones of Crafton and Tull is present here tonight. Johnson: Kurt, can you come to Subdivision and just answer whatever questions? Jones: We're talking about Subdivision Committee on Wednesday? Johnson: Thursday at 8:30. Jones: Yes, we'll be there. Then we'll be on schedule to go to Planning Commission two weeks from tonight? Conklin: Yes. The next meeting is October 11. • • • Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1999 Page 4 Jones: Okay. We'll see you at Subdivision • • • Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1999 Page 5 NEW BUSINESS LSD99-20: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT CONNOLLY, PP522 This item was submitted by Tim Sorey of Sand Creek Engineering on behalf of Connolly Inc. for property located on Highway 62 South east of Hill and west of Government. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 1.079 acres. Tim Sorey was present on behalf of the request. Staff recommended approval subject to the following items listed below. 1. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards requirements. Metal side and rear walls are proposed. The applicant does propose to wrap the brick building facade around the front corners to extend approximately 9 feet on the east and west sides of the building. (Added) The brick veneer will be extended a minimum of one-quarter of the depth of the building on both sides and a color pattern scheme will be submitted to stafffor their review and approval of Commercial Design Standards. Dedication of right of way by warranty deed to comply with the Master Street Plan requirement of 55 feet from centerline for this principal arterial. 3. Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 4. Staff approval of final detailed plans, spectfications 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 10 foot green space along Hwy 62. The existing sidewalk is in poor condition and needs to be replaced. A permit from AHTD will be required for any work being conducted within the highway right of way. 6. Large Scale Development approval is valid for one calendar year. 7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: grading and drainage • Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1999 Page 6 permits; separate easement plat for this project; and, 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 and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Commission Discussion Johnson: This is to the west of the Co-op on Sixth Street. The applicant proposes a 12,226 square foot retail center with at least 2 tenants. The staff has recommended approval. There are 7 conditions of approval Has the applicant seen the conditions of approval? We must make a determination on number 1. Has the applicant agreed to the conditions of approval? Sorey: Yes, ma'am. Johnson: Have you had a chance to sign the conditions of approval? Sorey: I have not, but I can. Johnson: Staff, do you have additional information? Conklin: We have provided a color rendered elevation which is on the board in front of you this evening which shows how the front facade of the building will look. The issue that we discussed during agenda session was the sides of the building which are predominantly metal. They have 9 feet of brick on each side that comes back to the south. That is the one issue during Subdivision Committee that they looked at and tried to make a determination on how much of the sides of the building should be brick. At agenda session, we did tour and look at other buildings that had been approved by the Planning Commission including the Dollar General on 15th Street and the Salvation Army. Both of those have metal side walls. The Salvation Army does have windows and the Dollar General has wood shutters. When we were on site, we noticed that coming east on 6th Street that the Art Experience building does block visibility from that one side. However, going west on 6th Street, you would be able to see that side of the building. This is the one issue that I feel the Planning Commission does need to discuss this evening and make a determination whether or not 9 feet of brick on each side is sufficient. Johnson: Mr. Sorey, do you have initial comments for us? Sorey: The developer feels that basically wrapping the side of the building as he has shown on the architectural plans with the landscaping and screening should be adequate to meet the requirements of the City. Johnson: What is the length of the sides of the building? Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1999 Page 7 Conklin: It's approximately 79 feet. Johnson: The proposal is to brick 9 feet of the 79 feet. One concern I had about relying on the existing Art Experience building which is to providing some visual screen is that it is an older building and, of course, if well maintained in its use now, but I can imagine it is in an area that probably would be subject to redevelopment, so I don't think we can think that the building is going to be in place for the long term. I think the screening on this development will have to stand on its own. Did Subdivision come up with any suggestion as to Commercial Design Standards requirement for screening? Odom: At Subdivision, we looked at the face and it looks like it meets the Commercial Design Standards. We were unable to determine whether or not there would need to be anything along the sides because we don't go on tour, so we don't know what's visible and what's not. That's why we recommended that we go on tour and make the determination as to whether or not the sides are viewable from the road. It's my understanding that one side is partially screened. Certainly, if it's a metal, unarticulated wall that is viewable from the main road, I think something would need to be done to compensate for that. With regard to the Commercial Design Standards, we felt the front did meet the standards. Johnson: Where can we best see the screening that the landscaping is going to provide? Sorey: The landscape plan is sheet 6. We're proposing a Bradford Pear and a Red Maple on the corner. Behind the Art Experience is another structure. If the Art Experience were to come out at some point, I would imagine there would be some visibility. We don't have landscaping on this side. We have 2 trees in islands and a screening fence along the side. On the other side there are a few trees and it's open until you get back to a structure that exists which would give you a shallow window. We're showing a wood fence which we could continue a short distance to screen that window. Odom: How tall is the wood fence? Sorey: 6 foot. Bunch: What is the eave height of the building? Sorey: You're getting into architectural questions. I don't have those answers off the top of my head. It's regular size which would be under 20 feet in the front. It has 10 foot ceilings. Johnson: Do we normally allow a wood fence to meet the Commercial Design Standards requirements? Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1999 Page 8 Conklin: I do not recall using fencing to meet the Commercial Design Standards. I do remember other projects where we looked at landscaping to help mitigate the metal side walls but not fences. Sorey: At one point, we were trying to work out a common access point with the neighbor to the east. They would not accept that offer. We were trying to leave that open for a future connection between parking lots. We could add landscaping there instead of the wood fence. Hoffman: At agenda session, we did tour your site and it appeared that you would have some visibility from the street. We want to encourage redevelopment of this area I would hope we can achieve a compromise by putting things along both sides of the building. After we toured your site, we looked at the Dollar General Store that had wood shutters attached to the metal side walls and they have deteriorated within the year and several of them have fallen off. The Salvation Army, in my personal opinion, was more acceptable because it had a window which provides relief from that long side wall. I would suggest that you either put in windows on both sides of your building or that you carry the brick veneer further back in addition to having the screening fence on the sides of the building because you have parking along the west side which • will be clearly visible and on the east side you have a sight line of the building. Is that acceptable to the applicant? • Sorey: I want to ask the developer because windows could be a safety issue. What length would you like to have for wrapping the veneer? Estes: My concerns are the same. Would there be another material that could be used to cover the metal exterior walls? Sorey: Possibly but that is an issue for the architect. The cost factor of putting up either brick veneer or any other type of veneer would impact the developer. I don't know what solution to present to you if the landscaping or the fencing doesn't work. I don't see a big problem with this building in that area. Estes: I'm troubled by using fencing or landscaping to comply with Commercial Design Standards. I'm not aware that we have done that. We haven't done that during my short tenure on this Commission and I would not want to be one of those that begins that trend. Sorey: I understand the design standards are being complied with on the face of the building. Does it also go to the sides or is it just the presentation on the front of the building? Johnson: Looking at our ordinance, the front is not dominated with metal but there a total of 5 elements and 2 are problematic for you. Section D.1.b. prohibits square, boxlike structures • Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1999 Page 9 and if you look at the front of the building that is not a problem but your building is going to be seen from a heavily trafficked state highway and I think since you see the side of the building it is a square, boxlike structure. D.1.c. prohibits metal siding which dominates the side facade and D.1.d. prohibits large, blank, unarticulated wall surfaces which are a problem on the side as well. I think the sides will be seen from Highway 62. Three of the sides are metal and 2 of those will be seen from the highway. I'm uncomfortable when we're put in a position of doing the design work. It's not our place to tell you what to do architecturally. We have told you what we identify as a problem with Commercial Design Standards. Sorey: Could I take a minute and confer with the developer? Johnson: Tim, is there anything in the Commercial Design Standards which talks about the vantage point from which you see the building? I know at one time, we talked about what you could see from the street. Is that a part of our present ordinance? Conklin: I do not believe that is a part of the ordinance but we use that standard of what is seen from the public realm or street right of way and if we can view the sides of the building, we have applied those Commercial Design Standards in the past. Sorey: Could we possibly extend the brick some distance and then use different paint schemes to articulate those sides? Maybe a quarter of the depth of the building to extend the brick? I don't know what the Commission is looking for. Estes: We're looking for compliance with our Commercial Design Standards and as Commissioner Johnson has pointed out, large, blank, unarticulated wall surfaces cause a problem. We will not redesign your project this evening. Hoffman: I think alternating paint colors is a good idea and a step in the right direction. You could see that on the Salvation Army but not on the Dollar General. I think Conrad had an idea that extending the brick might help. Johnson: I think it's hard for us to fashion a motion. Bricking half the side of the building and painting the other half is a little more arbitrary than I think we are supposed to be. I see our Job as being to look at what you present and tell you whether or not we think it complies with the Commercial Design Standard. Those who have expressed themselves have said they do not think it meets CDS because of the side walls. In terms of our coming up with a good fix, we've thrown out ideas. I don't think we're very good at coming up with a fix. I'll leave it to any Commissioner who wants to come up with a motion or I'll leave it to you to come up with a suggestion or I'll leave it to somebody to postpone it until you can have a chance to implement something different. • • • Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1999 Page 10 Odom: I don't want to vote against this. I think it looks like a good project and I want it to go forward. I think everybody feels that way. I think you need to do more work and present a revision to address our concerns about the side walls and the Commercial Design Standards. Sorey: Our major concern is postponing this project any further. We're on a tight time schedule. If we could have a moment to confer -- Odom. We alerted you to this potential problem in the Subdivision Committee meeting and urged you to attend the agenda session to get up to speed. Sorey: We did attend the agenda session but as I understand it you ran late and the representative for the client had to leave and was not there at the site. Bunch: While we're waiting for the applicant to conference, I have a question. In front of the building since there is approximately a 2.5 foot change in elevation and a handicap spot on each end, is there a need for a ramp instead of stairs to make it handicap accessible from either parking spot? Petrie: That change in elevation is why they have provided handicap ramps on both ends of the building. Perry Franklin addressed that early on and it's my understanding they had agreed to provide handicap accessibility on both ends of the parking lot. Conklin: That is my understanding, too. Johnson: I think we will move on to the next item and come back to this after the applicant has had a chance to come up with a solution. (Brief recess) What have you come up with to meet Commercial Design Standards on the sides of the building. Sorey: My client would like to offer to extend the brick veneer a minimum of one-quarter of the depth of the building on both sides and to work out a color pattern scheme revising the elevations and submitting those to staff for their review and approval. Johnson: The issue now is whether or not we think a brick veneer one-quarter of the way around the sides of the building is enough plus a change to the color scheme on the remaining length. Public Comment None Further Discussion • Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1999 Page 11 Odom: I think taking the brick a quarter of the way back is going to take care of sight problems along the side. I think the coordination of doing some type of coloring along the back will help articulate it as well. I think that should work. Johnson: It's hard for me to have a sense of what 25% will do. Sorey: It's basically an 80 foot building so we're talking about 20 feet minimum which would take it to the next column line to tie the brick veneer to. If it ends up being 25 feet they will take the brick veneer to that point. It would be twice what we're showing now on the depth of veneer. Hoffman: Do you have downspouts on the sides of the building? Sorey: Everything drains to the rear. Hoffman: Okay. Bunch: Are the doors going to be as shown on the elevations? I noticed there were some • drawings indicating doors in other places such as in the back. Sorey: Originally, we had multiple doors on the front and doors on the back. The client is expecting this to have 2 occupants so the doors on the front were revised to have 2 front doors and the doors on the rear were no longer needed for fire reasons so they have been brought to the sides. Bunch: So you have a truck door and a main door on each side toward the back? Sorey: It will just be double doors. There are no overhead doors. There is also a fire exit door. Bunch: You still have the ramp with the railing on the east side? Sorey: Yes. Bunch: So those will help break up the expanse of bare metal. Estes: The project in my view is certainly an improvement for the area bound by Government Street on the east and Hill on the west. With the proposal to extend the brick veneer approximately one-quarter of the distance down the side and to provide a paint scheme that will • break up that metal wall, we're still left with the flat metal wall but that taken together with the fencing -- does that still remain in place? • • • Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1999 Page 12 Sorey: Yes. Estes: That and the landscaping that is proposed, in my view that will meet the Commercial Design Standards and I will vote for the project as now proposed. MOTION Estes: I propose that we approve the large scale development 99-20 subject to the staff conditions of approval including the extension of the brick veneer approximately one-quarter of the way along the sides of the building and color schemes along the remaining metal side walls to be reviewed and approved by staff and including the fencing and landscaping as proposed. Odom: Second. Johnson: I have the motion by Commissioner Estes and seconded by Commissioner Odom to approve LSD99-20 subject to the 7 staff comments and to the requirements of the brick veneer one-quarter of the way along the sides of the building and color scheme on the remaining sides to match the front of the building along with fencing and landscaping as proposed. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 7-0-0. • • • Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1999 Page 13 PP99-9: PRELIMINARY PLAT CRYSTAL SPRINGS, PH II, PP245 This item was submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland engineers on behalf of Howard Davis, JED Development, Inc for property located south of Crystal Drive and west of Holcomb Elementary School. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 4.67 acres with 15 lots proposed. Johnson: We have 5 items on the agenda but I believe item number 4, the preliminary plat for Crystal Springs, Phase II has been removed by the applicant. • Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1999 Page 14 CU99-18: CONDITIONAL USE MARTIN, PP295 This item was submitted by Jeff Martin for property located at lot 32, Covington Park, phase I. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.49 acres. The request is for a temporary sales office/construction trailer within Covington Park Subdivision. Jeff Martin was present on behalf of the request. Staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The construction/office facility shall obtain a temporary occupancy permit from the City of Fayetteville for a period no longer than 2 years. 2. Landscaping shall be provided on all four sides of the facility as coordinated with the Landscape Administrator. 3. (Amended) Landscaping shall be provided on the front and sides of the facility as • coordinated with the Landscape Administrator • 3. The construction/office facility shall be limited to one sign attached to the front wall of the trailer. (Added) A sign is required stating that this is the temporary sales office and construction trailer for Covington Park Subdivision. Commission Discussion Johnson. At agenda session, there was a suggestion for another condition and that is that a sign be required stating that this is the temporary sales office and construction trailer for Covington Park Subdivision so that it is clear what the purpose of this is and that it is temporary so people can find their way to the office and also be put on notice that this is not a permanent addition to the subdivision. Staff, do you have additional information on this? Conklin: I have no additional information. Martin: I didn't hear what your third recommendation was. Johnson: The third is that the facility is limited to one sign attached to the front wall. Martin: One sign and then landscaped on? Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1999 Page 15 Johnson: 4 sides. Martin: 4 sides? What would be the reason for landscaping behind it? Conklin: When we looked at recommending approval of this, we wanted to make sure that this trailer was placed on a vacant lot and that you would make it a sales office and landscape around it. With regard to 4 sides, we thought it would make it look nicer. Martin: Let me give you a summary of what I am planning on doing with that trailer. I know you have a plat of where it will be located and what it will look like. The plan is to put the trailer on the southwest corner of the lot by the road. There are lots of trees in that area. The trailer will have a skirt around it and it will be landscaped in front and on the sides to be presentable because it is a sales office for our project manager. It will have some stairs coming up to the front of it and it's going to have some lighting, too. It's going to look pretty and appealing for a construction trailer. However, to landscape the back of it, I don't see how I can do it. There is nothing but trees back there. Conklin: Staff doesn't have a problem with removing the landscaping requirement for the back of the trailer. Johnson: On page 5.9, that's a very narrow back of the property. It's a pie shaped lot. Martin: Yes, it is. This would be located on the southwest corner up by the street. Bunch: This is going to be construction office for your project manager during the week but it's also a sales office, are you sure you want to say that this will only be used Monday through Friday which would exclude weekend sales? Martin: I would like to say that I only build houses Monday through Friday but that is not the case. We have people working on Saturdays as well. Saturdays are when most traffic comes through. We will not hold regular open hours through the weekend. It will be by appointment only. Bunch: Your letter indicates that you will be closed on the weekends and if someone objected and found this letter -- Johnson: That is not one of conditions of approval. If we were going to limit the hours, we would include that in the conditions. Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1999 Page 16 Public Comment None MOTION Odom: I want to move approval of conditional use 99-18 subject to staff comments and amendments and additions to those conditions. Shackelford: I'll second. Johnson: We have the motion by Commissioner Odom and seconded by Commissioner Shackelford that we approve conditional use 99-18 subject to the 3 staff conditions and the change to the landscaping requirement to be on 3 sides and the addition of the sign saying that this is the temporary sales office and construction trailer for Covington Park Subdivision. Is there discussion? Estes: I notice in our materials that you have letters of intent for the surrounding and adjoining lots, have those folks been notified that they are going to have a sales office? Martin: The lots immediately surrounding the lot that the trailer will be placed on will be owned by me. The trailer will be gone by the time those lots are sold and it will be moved. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 7-0-0. Meeting adjourned at 6:21 p.m.