Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-01-24 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Monday, January 24, 2000 in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN Approval of Minutes from 01/10/00 meeting PP99-15: Appleby Estates, pp250 CU99-25: Donner, pp292 AD00-01: Horne, pp484 LSD99-27: Northpark Place II, 212 CU00-01: Northpark Place II, 212 MEMBERS PRESENT Don Bunch Bob Estes Lorel Hoffman Sharon Hoover Don Marr Conrad Odom Loren Shackelford Lee Ward STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Janet Johns Ron Petrie Dawn Warrick Approved Approved w/conditions Approved w/conditions Tabled Approved w/conditions Approved MEMBERS ABSENT Phyllis Johnson STAFF ABSENT None Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2000 Page 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Estes: I will call the January 24, 2000 meeting of the Fayetteville City Planning Commission to order. The first thing on our agenda tonight is the approval of the Minutes. Are there any changes, additions, or amendment to the January 10, 2000 meeting minutes? Hearing none, the Minutes will stand approved. Staff are there any changes to the agenda as presented? Conklin: There are no changes. • Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2000 Page 3 PP99-15: PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLEBY ESTATES, PP250 This item was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Bleaux Barnes for property located south of Appleby Road and west of Appleby Apartments. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 8.08 acres with 18 lots proposed. Chris Brackett and Bleaux Barnes were present on behalf of the request. Conditions of Approval Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to the following conditions: 1. The two hackberry trees, located just south of the 36 inch elm, shall be located and tree protection indicated on the final grading plan. Also, provide tree protection fencing around the drip line of the 50 inch elm that is designated to be preserved. • 2. All construction, including fencing, shall be prohibited within the flood plain. 3. Vehicular access shall be provided to all backyard manholes. 4. Payment of parks fees in the amount of $7,990 for 17 new lots at $470 per lot. 5. All pipes, open swales, and channels outside of the street right of way are to be private and privately maintained by the POA, HOA, or similar entity. • 6. If requested by the Water & Sewer Superintendent, provisions for future irrigation systems must be provided including a 2 inch water main and gate valve for street crossings. 7. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives.) 8. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) 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. 9. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a four foot • Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2000 Page 4 sidewalk with a minimum six foot green space on Dorchester, and minimum six feet sidewalk and ten foot green space along Appleby Road. 10. Preliminary plat approval is valid for one calendar year. Commission Discussion Estes: Is the applicant present? Brackett: Yes, sir. I'm Chris Brackett with Jorgensen and I'm here representing the owners. Estes: Staff, do you have any comments or information to provide before the applicant makes his presentation? Conklin: This is a preliminary plat. 18 lots are proposed on 8.0 acres. We have the conditions of approval. Estes: The staff recommendation is approval subject to the 10 conditions. Has the • applicant had an opportunity to review and study these 10 conditions of approval? • Brackett: Yes, sir. We have no problems with them. Estes: Do you have a presentation you would like to make to this Commission? Brackett: The property has an existing house on it which will remain there. We have designed the road to keep it at its present location and we have 17 new lots. I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have. Estes: Commissioners, do you have any questions of this applicant? You may be seated for the moment. Public Comment None. MOTION Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to approve PP99-15 subject to staff comments. Commissioner Odom seconded the motion. • • • Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2000 Page 5 Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2000 Page 6 CU99-25: CONDITIONAL USE DONNER, PP292 This item was submitted by Don Donner for property located at 2327 Old Wire Road The property is zoned R -I, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.69 acres. The request is for Limited Neighborhood Commercial use of professional office within a residential zone. Don Donner and Jim Key were present on behalf of the request. Conditions of Approval A six foot tall, wooden, privacy fence shall be installed along the north and west property lines in order to screen the parking and building areas from adjacent residences. The fence shall be placed in such a way as not to impede vehicular or pedestrian visibility along Old Wire Road or Township Street. 2. One wall sign shall be allowed with a maximum area of four square feet. The color of the • sign shall be compatible with the colors of the structure and only indirect extemal lighting is allowed. • Any outdoor lighting shall be residential in nature and shall be shielded and directed away from all surrounding residential uses. No pole light shall be permitted. 4. The site shall be developed as shown on the plans and material samples provided as a part of the application. Setbacks for the structure and for the required sidewalks will be based on the right of way necessary to comply with the City's Master Street Plan. 5. Sidewalk construction in accordance with City standards shall include the installation of a six foot sidewalk with a minimum ten foot green space along both Township Street and Old Wire Road 6. A final tree preservation and landscape plan shall be submitted to the Landscape Administration for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. 7. This facility shall have a maximum of three professionals and a maximum gross floor area of 2,000 square feet as requested by the applicant. No additional professionals, square footage or parking spaces shall be permitted without Planning Commission approval. 8. The applicant shall obtain from the Solid Waste Division a "commercial cart" for waste Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2000 Page 7 disposal. This oversized trash can with flip top lid shall be rolled out to the curb on pick up mornings and shall be stored within a screened enclosure at all other times. 9. The water shall be turned off immediately and the offices shall not operate if any of the conditions are not met. 10. The conditional use shall be automatically revoked if any condition is not met. 11. (Added) Access to the structure shall meet ADA requirements. Commission Discussion Estes: This is an application for conditional use submitted by Mr. Don Donner. Commissioners, because of a previous relationship that I have with Mr. Donner, I will recuse from voting on this item. I will chair the item if there are no objections. Hearing none, I will proceed. Staff, do you have any comment or information that you would like to provide? . Conklin: The applicant has signed the conditions'of approval for the 10 conditions listed. Staff would like to proposed an additional condition, number 11, that access to the building shall meet ADA requirements. Estes: Staff has added an 11`h recommended condition of approval that there be ADA compliance. That is American's with Disability Act compliance. Is that correct, Tim? Conklin: That is correct. Estes: Does the applicant have a presentation he would like to make to this Commission? Donner: I will have Jim Key, the architect, make the presentation. I am in agreement with the ADA requirement. Key: As has been stated, the owner is in agreement to the conditions of approval, including the added condition that the facility be accessible per the requirements for the American's with Disability Act which, of course, upon permitting, we would be showing on the details of that and signing statements as required for permitting that the owner would make this building accessible and that access to the property and to the building itself would be accessible. As we know, the purpose of these regulations is to allow this specific type of use. It's my understanding that a rezoning for residential office zoning was denied on this property in the past. I'm sure the Commissioners are aware, but I would like to share a little bit of information for the benefit of some of the neighbors perhaps and also for the record comparing what we are proposing to do to what a typical R -O zone would allow. As stated, we are in agreement with the • • Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2000 Page 8 conditions, one of which is that the use be limited to specifically, professional office with no more than three professionals and no more than 2,000 square feet. This would greatly restrict the type of use under professional office, which is use unit 25, as opposed to an R -O zone which would allow for considerably many more types of uses including government type facilities and one and two family residential which would include duplexes. With government type uses, it could be anything from a post office to a jail or office, etc. Other types of office and studio type uses would include day care, dry cleaning facilities, antique shops, gift shops, flower shops, bakeries, grocery stores, hardware stores, restaurants and that is not what we're asking for. As stated, we are very much in agreement that we would be limited to category three which is professional offices and includes such things as dentists, architects, attorneys, accountants, and interior decorators. That is specifically what Mr. Donner is proposing to do here and use this property for a small law practice. He currently has himself as one professional practicing in his business and he would like to make provisions for a couple of additional attorneys to come in and work with him. Based on that, I just wanted to state that we see this as an improvement and a limitation on this property. I would hope this would be in a favorable light to the neighbors as it would not allow a variety of other types of uses. I know with rezoning, you have to look for the ultimate use and what could possibly be done with that property if rezoned. Again, this would be restricted to specifically what Mr. Donner is wanting to do or a similar type office use. The staff has addressed the various items that are intended to be regulated by this ordinance which include such things as the appearance of the structure, protecting the adjoining properties from potentially adverse effects including traffic, noise, appearance, lighting, drainage, etc. We are required to provide adequate off street parking that is appropriate in size, location, and scale These types of commercial uses are accessible for the convenience of the individuals living in the residential districts with the intent that they would reduce the number of trips that residents would have to make and in effect make this a more cohesive neighborhood. In looking at the conditions of approval, I think it is shown in the staff's report, which we are in agreement with, that this would not adversely effect the local traffic conditions. I have personally spoken with Tim Conklin and Dawn Warrick from the Planning office, and with Perry Franklin who is the Traffic Superintendent, with Chuck Rutherford, the Sidewalk & Trails Coordinator, and with Kim Hesse, the Landscape Administrator to try to coordinate all these various elements. We are willing to provide the landscaping and buffer necessary to protect the adjacent properties from any potential adverse effects from a development such as this. As is shown in the documents we provided to you, the structure is intended to be residential in nature. What we're proposing to do, if possible, is relocate that existing structure which is on the site in the extreme southeast corner and relocate it to the northwest corner of that property and add onto it with several extensions to increase the square footage but basically keep the same gable type roof lines and break those up with smaller gables. We have done all of the things which were required in terms of complying with the authority and regulations regarding this conditional use. We have paid the fees and filed the appropriate application. I know there was an issue about ingress and egress and we have tried to coordinate those issues and adjust the size of our drives. It is our intent to try and keep with the nature of the existing residential development that was there which had a semicircular • • • Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2000 Page 9 drive that connected Township and Old Wire together. We're trying to improve upon that with the intent to minimize the impact on traffic to allow for the best conditions for both ingress and egress given whatever time of day it is. The structure and massing that we are proposing is within the bulk and area requirements. We're looking at a structure that is less than 7 % of the total area of .7 acres contained on this site. Together with the impervious drainage, the drives and parking area, the total is less than 27% of the entire site which is well within the 40 % allowed for the structure itself in terms of the mass and density of this development. We are trying to accentuate the existing landscaping with features on the site and address those concerns of the Commissioners and the neighborhood and enhance this property and not detract from it. I tried to hit on the majority of the items that we have looked at and the concerns that staff has had. Another consideration that the Donner's have had during the few years that they have owned this property is that it is very difficult to find good tenants who are interested in renting this property for residential purposes. Due to the traffic and noise, the few families who were nice tenants were not interested and they have been faced with the prospect of renting to less desirable individuals which they are very hesitant to do. There have been concerns from the neighbors about the tenants in that space. We feel this is the best compromise and best solution to address that type of issue to allow for a better use that is suitable to the nature of this intersection. Granted that since Township has been extended to the east over the last dozen years, the character of this neighborhood has changed drastically. They have more traffic there with the minor arterial that Old Wire Road has become with the anticipated 12,000 cars or more a day up to 15,000 and the collector criteria of Township Street. We feel this is a very appropriate use and I hope that you agree with us. We ask for your consideration in approving this conditional use contingent upon the conditions which we are in agreement to and anything else which you might ask for us to do. I'll be glad to field any questions. I will sit down. I know you will take comments for the audience and if you have anything to ask of me, I will be available. Estes: Thank you for your comments. Staff has recommended approval of the conditional use subject to the conditions, does the applicant agree with each and every one of the conditions9 Dormer: Yes. I have signed the report and sent it back to the Planning office. Public Comment Mark Corley was present. Corley: I am a neighbor of the Dormer's but my home is separated from this property by essentially one residence which is the Spencer residence. I live on Old Wire on Century Drive which runs just off Old Wire Road I had occasion this afternoon to talk with Dawn and I received some information. I also had an occasion to look at the drawing of the proposed structure and I think most of my concerns have actually been satisfied by the examination of the • • Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2000 Page 10 drawing and by my conversation earlier with your staff. I would like for you to reassure me on a couple of points that I discussed with Dawn earlier. These have not so much to do with the uses proposed with the Dormers but how approval of this request might affect the future. If I'm satisfied that the proposed use would be reasonable for this neighborhood and would even enhance my own property, I never the less have some concerns about what might happen if the same owner or a different owner at a later date wants to change that structure. It's my understanding in talking with Dawn that if a subsequent owner were to decide that a two story, cement block, indoor, shooting range would be better than this professional office, that would have to come again to this Commission for approval. Is that correct? Estes: That is correct. Corley: It's my understanding that if the Donners, after some period of use, were to decide that the residential lighting that is one of the conditions is not adequate and a set of pole lights would be better for their professional purposes, that would also have to come back to the Commission and there would be opportunity for input from the neighbors: Is that correct? Estes: That's correct. The conditional use runs with the land and any changes in the conditional use and by that I mean, any changes in each of the conditions of approval must come back before staff and this Commission. Corley: It's my understanding that although the plan that I saw did not illustrate sidewalks, that sidewalks are contemplated and have become one of the conditions of the design that is being submitted for your approval. Estes: Item number five of the conditions provides for sidewalk construction in accordance with city standards and shall include the installation of a six foot sidewalk with a minimum 10 foot green space along both Township and Old Wire Road. The applicant has stated that they agree to the conditions and have signed off on that condition. Corley: I was one of those who appeared and spoke against the rezoning which was proposed for some of these corner properties in the past. I cannot speak for any of my neighbors but based on this presentation tonight and my conversation with Dawn and the design I have seen, I would say for myself that I would welcome the change to this particular use and I appreciate the entire process. Estes: Thank you, Mark. Does anyone else have a presentation? Albert Erbach, residing at 2460 Old Wire was present. Erbach: My property's southern border is their property's northern border. We've been • • • Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2000 Page 11 through this process several times in the past years with people trying to put commercial properties on that corner. My biggest concern is not so much with what Mr. Dormer is planning but what happens to the other properties on the other corners in the future. There is a one acre piece of land across the street on the south side of Township that has several times been proposed for the location of a convenience store. The property directly across the street on Old Wire where the house is almost out in the street now, I have heard rumors of someone trying to buy that piece of property for another type of commercial establishment. There's always the possibility. I would like to know what the plans are for that intersection. Is it all going to become commercial? If so, what type of businesses would be allowed there and is this just an opening wedge to push commercial project on that corner? Estes: In response to your request, this is a conditional use that is before this Commission. I or any member of this Commission or staff could not speak to what is going to happen to the intersection five years or 10 years from now. What is before the Commission now is the applicant's request for the conditional use. That's all I can speak to at this moment. Erbach: I know they've had a problem renting that house. I don't know how many of you have been out there to look at this house. It's not in very good shape. I think the reason they can't get property renters in there is this house is not in good condition and not because of the noise or anything else. The lady that owned the house across the street and it's almost out in the road on Old Wire, she never had any problem renting that house after she fixed it up and added a small room onto the side of it. I don't feel this should be approved. It appears it already has been. I think it's a wedge in the process of making that whole thing become commercial on that corner and I don't think that is a proper use for a neighborhood such as we have there at this time. Virginia Vaugh, residing next door to the Sears Roebuck house on the corner of Old Wire and Township, was present. Vaugh: I'm wondering what they are going to do with that Sears Roebuck house. Mrs. Donner said they were going to move it on the property somewhere. Are they going to split the property in half? She told me it was historical and I'm afraid they will rent it out. The renters that were there last time were just terrible. The dogs were barking all the time and it drove me insane. I don't want it to go commercial because once it starts, across the street, there will be a 7-11 Store or a beer joint, no telling what will be on that corner. I've been living there for 30 years. The house is not in terrible condition. It's sitting almost in the street. I don't want it commercial. That's all I have to say. Estes: Thank you, Mrs. Vaugh. Jerry Friend, residing at 1640 Stewart Street was present. • • Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2000 Page 12 Friend: My property is a ways from this corner. I don't want to repeat a bunch of what already has been said. I share some concerns that once a conditional use starts, it's harder to argue against the same thing across the street on the corners. I'm very concerned. I feel the young man tried to scare us with mentioning a jail but I think a post office might be a good idea. It would be easier to get to than the one we have I don't want to see it change from residential. I think you should consider the same issues as for not rezoning it. A conditional use should not be allowed. Further Commission Discussion Estes: Are there other comments? Ward: We all were at agenda session and we drove by that place. Basically, all the comers are really an eye sore. This particular place has really become an eye sore. This project will really enhance the whole neighborhood. No one is going to buy this particular lot and build a nice residential home on it. There's too much traffic and too much noise. I feel like allowing this law office here is the best possible thing that could happen to the whole neighborhood. MOTION Commissioner Ward made a motion to approve CU99-25. Commissioner Odom seconded the motion. Odom: I agree with Lee. I think you get the best of both worlds when you do a conditional use of this nature because you keep it from going commercial and because you don't rezone and start that trend of developing a commercial node in this area. When you do a conditional use, you restrict yourself in so many more ways. Not only do I think that doing a conditional use is good, it helps keep the residential aspect of the neighborhood because it puts these additional requirements and constraints on the applicant and it ultimately helps preserve the residential feel without beginning the commercial process there. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward to approve CU99-25 and it has been seconded by Commissioner Odom. Is there any other discussion? Hoffman: I have a couple of questions for staff regarding the existing zoning of the lot and the review of the driveway and approach locations. I'm concerned about the high level of traffic in this area. Conklin: The existing house has a drive on Old Wire Road and a drive on Township. • Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2000 Page 13 Hoffman: If this project does go forward, I think one way in and one way out is necessary. I am concerned about the ability of people to make left turns onto Township: Have you discussed that internally? Conklin: We did go out to the site with the Traffic Superintendent, Perry Franklin. During agenda session, Phyllis Johnson did ask that we take a look at the access. Her question was should two accesses be allowed onto this site. When we went to the site with the Traffic Superintendent, he thought that having an access on Old Wire and Township would be appropriate and acceptable and would not cause any problems. He also thought with the traffic signal there, it would offer enough breaks in traffic to allow cars to get in and out. Staff also looked at the Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation Software. A professional office of this size would generate approximately 23 trips per day. A single family home generates approximately 10 trips per day. That make 13 additional trips that this use would generate. Overall, he did not think that having a professional office at this intersection would cause any problem. Hoffman: He's not concerned about the 90 foot distance between the double drive and Township. Don't we usually require 150 feet from the intersection for a new office use? Conklin: That is for a public street. For a driveway, our standard is 50 feet. This is' approximately 80 feet right now from Township and 100 feet from Old Wire. Hoffman: The second part to my question is that in an R-1 zone, what would be the method by which the property could be developed in multi family say duplex or triplex or something like that. Conklin: R-1 zoning requires a conditional use for a duplex. The site would need to meet the 1,200 square foot minimum lot area and 80 feet of frontage. Anything more than a duplex would require rezoning to R-1.5 or R-2. Hoffman: Thank you very much. The reason I asked those questions is that while I do see this as a vast improvement to the intersection, I am concerned about opening the door for future commercial development and I was wondering if this would create a safety problem with the driveway and what would be the number of residential units which could be built and I don't think duplex would be the best use for this. I think that if it were able to be rezoned for four or more units, that might be better but I don't think a duplex would work. I'm usually not inclined to support commercial uses impeding into a neighborhood but I feel this is a special case because of the high level of traffic at the intersection. Bunch: I have a question for staff. In reading the zoning ordinance 163.21, section C, paragraph 1, where it says we should not require more than one curb cut per lot, have we • • • Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2000 Page 14 sufficiently address that in the conditions? Conklin: We went out there with the Traffic Superintendent. Since this is a comer lot, he thought that two curb cuts would work for this development. Typically, if it was not a corner lot, we would be looking at one curb cut. Bunch: The entrance on Old Wire would not be limited to only one? Conklin: It would be both directions. His opinion was that this use does not generate a lot of traffic and with the traffic signal there, there would enough breaks for cars to enter and exit this site. Estes: Roll Call Is there other discussion? Seeing none, Janet, would you call the roll, please? Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 7-0-1. Commissioner Estes abstained. Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2000 Page 15 AD00-01: PARKING WAIVER HORNE, PP484 This item was submitted by Cathy and David Horne for property located at 21 South Block Avenue (the southwest corner of the downtown square.) The property is zoned C-2, Downtown Commercial and contains approximately 0.12 acres. The request is for a waiver of four parking spaces for an addition of approximately 900 square feet within the existing structure. Cathy Horne was present behalf of the request. Conditions of Approval Staff recommends approval subject to the following condition: Payment of $4,800 ($1,200 for each on-site parking space waived) prior to the issuance of a building permit for this expansion project. Commission Discussion Estes: This is an administrative item This the southwest corner of the downtown square. Staff has recommended approval subject to payment of $4,800 prior to the issuance of a building permit for this expansion project. Staff do you have other comments or additional information which you would like to provide? Conklin: One of the findings that you have to make in order to grant a waiver, is that on street parking could provide for intermittent and occasional demands. There are approximately 233 metered parking spaces in the lots directly west of the building and the Town Center's parking deck will have 267 spaces for additional parking. The money that they are required to pay into escrow will go towards building additional parking in the downtown area. Estes: Is the applicant present? Horne: I am Cathy Horne. Due to a redesign in the interior of where we are going to be moving, at this time, I would request that the waiver be table. We aren't going to request the parking waiver right now. Estes: Horne. • Are you asking that the administrative item 00-01 be tabled? Yes. Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2000 Page 16 LSD99-27: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT NORTHPARK PLACE PHASE II, PP212 This item was submitted by Geoffrey Bates of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Danny Smith for property located at 3380 Wimberly Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.9 acres. The request is for a 19,700 square foot building with 130 parking spaces. A conditional use is being requested for excess parking spaces. Geoffrey Bates was present on behalf of the request. Conditions of Approval Staff recommends approval subject to the following 13 conditions: 1. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards including signage. • 2. Planning Commission determination of a variance request to allow a 4.8 foot landscape street along Millsap and a seven foot landscape strip along Wimberly Drive in lieu of the required 15 foot landscape strip. The Landscape Administrator, Kim Hesse, supports this variance request under the condition that berms and/or larger plants be utilized in these areas. • 3. City Council approval of a waiver request to allow 25 feet of right of way along Wimberly Drive in lieu of the required 35 feet of right of way for a designated Collector Street on the Master Street Plan. This street was classified as a Collector on February 16, 1999. Planning Commission approval of a conditional use to allow 39 additional parking spaces for a total of 130 parking spaces. This development is required to have 79 parking spaces and is allowed 91 spaces with the additional 20% allowance. 5. Approval of a property line adjustment to allow for the additional parking. The additional land is located on the east side of the property and is approximately 60 feet in width and 405 feet in length. This is an administrative item being reviewed by Planning staff. 6. Provide a ramp and access aisles or spaces with direct access to the building to be in compliance with ADA regulations • Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2000 Page 17 7. Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 8. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications, and calculations for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, sidewalks, parking lots and tree preservation. The Information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 9. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a six foot sidewalk with minimum 10 foot green space along Millsap Drive. 10. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. 11. 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 and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 12. All new utilities are required to be underground. 13. Provide screening for the dumpster on all sides visible from the public right of way. Commission Discussion Estes: approval? Has the applicant has an opportunity to read and study the 13 conditions of Bates: Yes, sir. Estes: Does the applicant agree with each of the 13 conditions of approval? Bates: Yes, they do. Estes: Has the applicant signed the conditions of approval? Bates: Yes, we have. Estes: And these have been delivered to staff. Is that correct, Mr. Conklin? Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2000 Page 18 Warrick: They have signed the conditions for the conditional use but not the large scale. The Planning Commission has a few determinations to make with regard to the Targe scale. Estes: Staff, is there any information that you would like to provide the Commission at this time with regard to this large scale development? Conklin: We did receive a letter with regard to the request for the additional parking spaces. That is the next item on the agenda, however, they are showing as a part of their large scale development the additional parking spaces. Estes: Is the applicant present? Bates: Yes, sir. I'm Geoff Bates with Crafton, Tull, and Associates. Estes: Do you have a presentation you would like to make to the Commission? Bates: This plan has been before you before. At that time, the building the was too large and there wasn't enough parking so we've gone back and made the building as small as • feasiblely possible at this time. We've added additional parking from the plan before you last time. This has been a very difficult site because it is surrounded by 3 streets. There is a street on every side of it. On the back of it, there is an overhead power line so we're really locked in to where we can put the building and.that.is why we have asked for the variance for the parking and for 15 feet to five feet for landscaping. Before, when this was before you, it was okay to have a five foot landscape area. They had not passed the new ordinance. Since then, they have also revised the Master Street Plan. We worked really hard to try to comply with all the ordinances. Since this is such a tough site, we had to go with what we have now. I feel this is a good, workable plan. There is a lot of connectivity. We've moved some of the existing dumpsters to the back. We can't really reduce the size of our building and have a feasible project due to the cost of the lot. The Landscape Administrator, Ms. Hesse, and the Architectural Review Committee for North Hills, have both approved the five foot landscape area and think it would be fine. We plan to berm it up and work with Kim Hesse as much as possible to satisfy the city. Do we need to wait to address the parking at this time? • Estes: The conditional use regarding parking in excess of that allowed by ordinance is set as the next item on the agenda so let's stick with the agenda and handle it separately. Bates: We provided two additional entrances for connectivity. One for the property to be developed in the future and one to the existing office next to it now. If you have any questions, I'll be glad to respond. Estes: Commissioners, do you have any questions of this applicant at this time? Thank • • Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2000 Page 19 you. Public Comment None. Further Commission Discussion Shackelford: Prior to beginning the conversation, I need to let you know that due to a conflict of interest, I will be abstaining from the vote on both the large scale development and the conditional use. Estes: Thank you. Hoffman: To summarize the Subdivision Committee discussions, we did find that the elevations of the building met the design standards and they have complied with our request regarding cross access between properties and have shown us elevations of the sign which we did not have. They have also given us the approval of the Architectural Review Committee for the development. I understand there was discussion about the landscaping. It's my understanding that Kim Hesse had approved that based on putting in larger planting material and more mature trees. I think Subdivision found that to be an acceptable trade off to get bigger plants. MOTION Commissioner Odom made a motion to approve large scale development 99-27 subject to conditions and staff comments. Commissioner Hoffman seconded the motion. Estes: There is a motion to approve large scale development 99-27 and that motion has been seconded. Is there any discussion? I have several questions I would like to ask of the applicant and these questions regard massing and density of the project. This is 1 9 acres. Is that correct? Bates: I believe it is larger now since they are going to buy the additional land for the parking lot and I don't believe that acreage was included in the latest report you have. I believe it is over two acres now. Estes: Bates: So we now have in excess of two acres? 2.4 acres, I believe. • • • Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2000 Page 20 Estes: What percentage of the land area is to be occupied by the building? Bates: Less than 20%. Estes: And what percent is to be occupied by the parking area? Bates: I'm showing 63% with the parking lot. That includes sidewalks and everything. That is not Just the parking. It's everything that is asphalt or concrete. Estes: Is 83% then occupied by the building and the parking lot? Bates: Yes, sir. Estes: Staff, in a C-2 zoning, what are the requirements regarding massing and density? Conklin: Under our Commercial Design Standards, you are required to have 15% open area and green space and 85% for buildings and parking. They are meeting that requirement. Estes: I have no other questions. Any other discussion? Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-1. Commissioner Shackelford abstained. • Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2000 Page 21 CU99-01: CONDITIONAL USE NORTHPARK, PHASE II, PP212 This item was submitted by Geoffrey Bates of Crafton, Tull, & Associates on behalf of Danny Smith for property located at 3380 Wimberly Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.98 acres. The request is for parking in excess of that allowed by ordinance. Geoffrey Bates was present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the conditional use subject to the following conditions: 1. Parking shall be constructed as shown on the Large Scale Development plan as approved by Planning Commission. 2. The maximum number of parking spaces developed to serve this facility shall not exceed • 130. Commission Discussion Estes: Staff, is there any information that you would like to provide the Commission regarding this request for a conditional use? • Conklin: Staff has distributed a letter to the Commissioners from the applicants addressing why they need additional parking. They talk about higher patient turn over rate, number of exam rooms available; number of pediatricians available; and, high number of emergencies and phone calls in pediatric clinics. They also cite waiting room elapsed time is often greater and that the majority of time, one patient will need two vehicles if the day care provider is meeting the parent there. They are requesting a conditional use over the amount of parking allowed by ordinance. They are required to have 76 spaces and are allowed 20% over that is 15 spaces which totals 91 parking spaces. They are asking for an additional 39 spaces. Estes: Thank you, Tim. The applicant is present. Do you have a presentation that you would like to make regarding this request for a conditional use? Bates: I would like to ask Don Mobley to address you who is our expert on parking tonight. We also have one of the doctors who will be practicing there who has real numbers that will help to explain the need for additional parking for pediatric clinics. • • • Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2000 Page 22 Mobley: My name is Don Mobley and I'm with Wischmeyer Architects. I would like to refer you to a letter from Mr. Shackelford which is in your packet. Conklin: Page 5.8. Mobley: This letter addresses parking spaces currently provided at their three different facilities. Those three facilities will be combined into this one facility. Currently, they are utilizing 125, so we're really requesting an additional five over what they currently have. Besides the letter which was presented by Mr. Conklin, this is the only support we have for this request. I would like for Mr. Shackelford to address this matter. Shackelford: I'm Larry Shackelford. I wanted to point out some differences that pediatric clinics have that are different from what other physician's offices might have. As stated earlier, pediatricians see a higher intensity in the number of patients than what maybe physicians in general surgery or other practices might see. It's not unusual for both parents to want to come to a doctor's visit. If the child is sick, both of them want to be there. A check up can be a milestone for a child and both parents will come. It's not unusual for both parents to be coming from work or one from home so for each patient that is there, a lot of times there are two cars that are there. When you look at the number of employees that we have and the number of exam rooms that we plan to be there, and the waiting areas that are there for us to have our practice and be able to take good care of our kids, this is the parking that we have. I believe that the requirements have changed. At the time, North Hills Medical Park was developed, there was a higher intensity of parking that was allowed. I believe our request would be in line with development at the time of North Hills Medical Park was developed. Estes: Mr. Shackelford, the material that we have before us, lists the property as having additional property being purchased to accommodate these additional parking spaces. Shackelford: We are just going to be the tenant of this building. It is my understanding that the land adjacent is owned by Washington Regional Medical Center and they have agreed to sell a portion of that property to allow that land to be used as additional parking. Estes: Is there another representative of the applicant who would like to make a presentation to the Commission? Ball: I'm Charles Ball. I am a pediatrician and my group is the Northwest Arkansas Pediatric Clinic. As a matter of fact, we are the largest pediatric clinic in the state of Arkansas. We currently have nine pediatricians. We have two nurse practitioners and we have a pediatric psychologist. There are some advantages to being a large pediatric clinic and one of the advantages is we allow totally separate waiting areas and exam rooms for well child exams whereas in other pediatric clinics, it may have just two or three doctors and everybody is mixed Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2000 Page 23 in the same waiting area and the kid with the flu is right next to the one year check up. Our size allows us to dedicate several doctors and a nurse practitioner just to do well child care Having that under one roof will be a blessing for us. We also have a pediatric psychologist in our clinic and that allows us to have our own pediatric patients to be seen by this person just down the hall rather than having to go to a separate area. As far as well child care that we give, we have a lactation consultant and that is especially helpful to the new moms that come to our clinic for well child care. Currently, we are in three different locations and this can be confusing for our patients and confusing for the doctors trying to figure out where we're suppose to be. Having one large clinic makes it easier for the patient and their parents and helps us meet their needs. Also, the new clinic will be close to the new hospital. Currently, going down College Avenue from where we are on Joyce Street takes a long time. It may take 10 or 15 minutes during an emergency. We would like to be in close proximity to the Washington Regional Medical Center and that would help us best meet our patients needs. Estes: Thank you. Rue: My name is David Rue. I am the Senior Vice President of Washington Regional and I'm here to tell you that we support this project and would encourage you to approve it. It's important to us to have these pediatricians close to the new hospital. Estes: Thank you, Mr. Rue. Is there anyone else would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? Has the applicant completed it's presentation? Bates: Yes, sir. Public Comment None. Further Commission Discussion Marr: If we are going to meet the parking requirement by purchasing additional land, was there a reason that we waived the required landscaping instead of having them acquire enough to do the required green space? Hoffman: Speaking for Subdivision Committee, I don't think we were aware that they were purchasing additional land. We talked about a lot line adjustment. Was that the purchase? Conklin: That is correct. The lot line adjustment entailed that discussion. Once again, the • reason they are not meeting the landscape requirement and staff did support that and the Landscape Administrator did review it and did recommend approval with berming and additional • • • Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2000 Page 24 landscaping, was when this came through in 1997, they did meet the landscaping standards in effect at that time. They would be meeting that today but the ordinance has changed. That is the main reason that staff supported that waiver. Odom: It takes a pretty compelling reason to grant such a large waiver but I think the presentation made meets that burden. MOTION Commissioner Odom made a motion to approve conditional use 00-01. Commissioner Ward seconded the motion. Estes: The motion to approve 00-01 has been made by Commissioner Odom and has been seconded by Commissioner Ward and Commissioner Marr. Is there any discussion? Bunch: As a matter of record, since there has been some confusion about the adjustment on the property line, I would like for staff to comment on the duality of zoning. The additional property is zoned A-1 and the bulk of the project is zoned C-2. We should have that on record so everyone is aware of it. Conklin: This property is zoned C-2. The property that has been adjusted is zoned A-1. Medical clinics and facilities are allowed in A-1. Washington Regional Medical Center is partially in C-2 and A -I. The assisted care facility just to the east is located in A-1. This does allow for parking lots to be built for those types of uses. There is no problem allowing the parking to be in that zoning district. Estes: Any other comments or discussions? I will vote for the conditional use. As Commissioner Odom has articulated, this is a substantial waiver request but understanding the peculiar nature of a pediatric clinic, I think it is necessary and I will vote for it for that reason. Any other discussion or comments? Seeing none, Janet, will you call the roll, please? Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-1. Commissioner Shackelford abstained from the vote. Meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. PC MEETING 01 1Z411(n MOTION PiNAL OF mINuTS ITEM # APPLEBY ITEM # P( 15 HOFFmMN SECOND ODarm D. BUNCH 5: 18 B. ESTES 5: 15 L. HOFFMAN 5: 21 S. HOOVER 5: �4 P. JOHNSON D. MARR y 5•,�5 y C. ODOM 5: 33 L. SHACKELFORD 5t ZS L. WARD 5:Z5 Y ACTION VOTE RPffi?ov PD 1 8-0-6 • • • • PC MEETING 01_)1411 MOTION Did idEe ITEM #CUt-7S I -NE ITEM # NI03-0I SECOND GIS D. BUNCH B. ESTES L. HOFFMAN S. HOOVER y P. JOHNSON D. MARR C. ODOM y L. SHACKELFORD L. WARD y ACTION VOTE • • • PC MEETING "a4-4)° MOTION ftp PPe( ITEM # LSLRR-Z7 horn -I fa1ta ITEM #CL)co-cN ODOM Ottm SECOND I-1CCF Alk) D. BUNCH B. ESTES 7 y y *-L. HOFFMAN S. HOOVER P. JOHNSON D. MARR C. ODOM L. SHACKELFORD L. WARD Aas AW A.�STA+N y y ACTION VOTE •