Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-02-28 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Monday, February 28, 2000 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED LSD00-1: Interface Computer Center, pp286 VA00-1: Millsap Rd Investments, pp213 RZ00-10: Stiles, pp519 RZ00-8: Tyson, pp639 CU00-3: Campbell Bell Bldg., pp484 AD00-1. Horne, pp484 MEMBERS PRESENT Don Bunch Bob Estes Phyllis Johnson Don Marr Conrad Odom Loren Shackelford Lee Ward STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Janet Johns Ron Petrie Dawn Warrick ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved -forward to Council Approved -forward to Council Approved -forward to Council Approved Pulled -rescheduled 03/13/00 MEMBERS ABSENT Lorel Hoffman Sharon Hoover STAFF ABSENT None • • • Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 Page 2 Approval of the Minutes Johnson: I will call to order the February 28 meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. Good evening. Our first item is to consider the minutes from the last meeting. Are there additions or corrections to the minutes of the February 14 meeting? Seeing none, then, those minutes will stand approved as distributed. I believe that one item has been withdrawn from our agenda and that is item number six which is AD00-1 which is a parking waiver. That matter is stricken from the agenda tonight at the request of the applicant. • Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 Page 3 LSD00-1: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT INTERFACE COMPUTER CENTER, PP286 This item was submitted by Kevin Hodges of Carter and Hodges, P.A. on behalf of Jeremy Webb of Interface Computer Center for property located on lot 1 of the Research and Technology Park. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 2.50 acres Kevin Hodges, Rob Sharp, Alett Little, and Jeremy Webb were present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommended approval subject to seven conditions: 1. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards including signage. • 2. The temporary driveway from Shiloh Drive must be removed by the applicant upon completion of Technology Boulevard. 3. Coordinate the final lot line location, water and utility service locations, and the driveway grading and drainage with the City Engineering Department. 4. Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 5. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications, and calculations for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, sidewalks, parking lots and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. 6. Large Scale Development approval is valid for one calendar year. 7. Prior to 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 placement of a surety with the City as required by §158.01. • Commission Discussion • Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 Page 4 Johnson: This is the first project in the Research and Technology Park on Shiloh and I-540 just south of the 112 intersection on the west side of I-540. We have to determine whether the project complies with the requirements of the Commercial Design Standards and to that end you have the drawings in your packet. Staff, let me ask for additional information which you might have for us on this project. Conklin: The applicant has provided to the Commission the two other elevations that were requested at Subdivision Committee and that include the west elevation and the south elevation. Johnson: From what directions will this building be viewed from the streets and highways? Conklin: Traveling on I-540 you will be able to see the south, east, and north elevations. Traveling on Technology Blvd which is planned to be built as part of the Research and Technology Park, you will be able to the west and north elevations. Johnson: You'll see all but the west elevation on I-540 and you'll see the west elevation plus one other when you're on Technology Blvd. • Conklin: That's correct. • Hodges: I'm Kevin Hodges. I'm with Carter and Hodges Engineering. As mentioned, this is going to be the first development in the Research and Technology Park. This is approximately 4,500 square feet. We will have to work with staff on Technology Blvd is not constructed yet and there is still drainage and water and sewer to go in so we will have to coordinate all our efforts with the City. Johnson: Kevin, you have seen those conditions of approval? Hodges: Yes, I have. Johnson: Have you signed off on that evidencing your acceptance of all those conditions? Hodges: Yes, ma'am. Johnson: So, we have that in hand. Public Comment None Further Discussion • • • Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 Page 5 Ward: Why don't you go through the types of materials you plan to use? Hodges: I would have to let Rob Sharp, the architect explain that. I worked mainly on the grading and drainage. Sharp: My name is Rob Sharp. I'm the architect for Interface Computer Center. The materials that we are using are a jumbo size brick as indicated on the color elevations which are in your packet. That is the dark band that is on the east side and the north side. Up high, we're using a cement board panel and that is a masonry/stucco like product. It could be an EFIS or drivet type system. Down low, we're using a split face block at the base. The design of the building is also driven by growth. This is a fast growing company and they expect to expand and so we're going to grow to the south and west. Those elevations are screened by the woodland preserve which is a little less prominent. That is also the elevations that will change as the building expands. Estes: At Subdivision Committee, the plat did not correctly show the number of parking spaces or the sidewalk and landscaping. Has that been corrected and do we have a corrected plat this evening? Conklin: That has been corrected. The parking spaces shown were shown on our tree preservation plan. Those have been removed on the plat you have before this evening. It is correct. Estes: Are you satisfied with the plat this evening with regard to conforming to the parking, landscaping, and sidewalks? Conklin: Yes, it does. Johnson: One of the things that we have to determine is that these plans do comply with the requirements of the Commercial Design Standards. I think we need to have discussion of that. Odom: This is an important project because it is the first building in the Technology Park. It is on one of the main entrances to the Technology Park. I think when we are considering the Commercial Design Standards, one of the things that we have to keep in mind is that the regulations state in part that a Commercial Development which contains more than one building should incorporate a recurring, unifying, and identifiable theme for the entire development site. I'm concerned that what we are doing is approving the building that we have tonight as setting the tone and the standard for the development of the rest of the park. One of the elements which is supposed to be minimized within the standards is that we are to avoid square, boxlike structures which is exactly what we have before us. I think there are other elements of the Commercial Design Standard which have been met and I have never been a proponent that all of • Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 Page 6 them have to be met but I do think that we need to pay particular attention to this project since it is going to be setting the tone and standard of something that is going to be very important to the City of Fayetteville. I would particularly like to hear the architect come up and address that issue with regard to the overall design theme and how they feel that this project before us meets the Commercial Design Standards of the City of Fayetteville. Sharp: In the design of the building, we went through several schemes. We tried to capture the essence of this company and what they are trying to do and capture that in the building. This is a young, fast growing company. They are efficient and they're a fun loving company. We wanted to express that. The building design actually got a little simpler when the proportions were worked out. They like it better. We liked it better as well. That's the reason that we don't have a lot of mansard roofs or towers or anything like that. We're not trying to make a facade that hides what it is. It is industrial zoning. It is a park with technology based operations. It's not like a doctor's office or a lawyer's office where it needs to reflect a certain image in that way. We're not trying to use a lot of effort by making the shape real erratic. We're trying to use the materials in a way where it is a pleasant looking building with high standards. There's a lot of natural light in the building. The landscaping has been carefully worked out. • This has a certain boxlike appearance to the building but it is almost inevitable with the way the building materials go together. If you're trying to put a building together carefully then it's going to have some right angles to it. We've used canopies and done some different things to mitigate the boxlike structure. We're not really trying to make it look like something that it's not. • Johnson: Point out for us what you see as the recurring, unifying, identifiable theme that's in this building that will be carried out in the other buildings in the technology park. Sharp: I'll defer to Alett Little on that. She's driving the project. I really can't say what the neighbors are going to do. We'll let her discuss that issue. Little: I'm the Economic Development Director for the city. We have worked with this project and I am very thankful to say that they never suggested a metal building. We didn't have to work on that particular item or issue with regard to this project. I have now looked at designs for three buildings in the park. Two of the buildings have been designed by the same architect and that is Rob Sharp. The next one happens to be on the next lot over, so those two are not identical but extremely compatible. The other building has been designed by another firm and I was very relieved. Some of their early designs were very high tech. There was a lot of stainless steel. There were a lot of very extreme angles. When we had our discussion so we could talk more about everything in the parking blending together, they went away and came back with a building very similar in design to this building. The recurring elements are the square panel windows that all three buildings are expected to have. The similar earth tone colors will be unified throughout. The use of glass panels for doorways and entryways is unifying. We have • • Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 Page 7 the color, the square windows, the use of glass for doorways. We do not have a unifying canopy theme. I don't know if you would count this as a unifying theme or not, but the shape of the buildings. They are boxlike. That to me in this context tums out to be a unifying theme and of particular importance since this is high tech and more in line with that style of architecture. I think those are the elements that easily came to mind as we went through the buildings that we had looked at so far. Commercial Design Standards is never an easy job. Thanks again for all the work that you put into trying to make the buildings look good together. I think we're going to do a real good job on these buildings. These guys have been great to work with and they were very interested in suggestions that we had. A unified theme is not set out in the covenants of the park. Johnson: The square panels in the rectangular window will be repeated. Little: I'm not meaning to say that they are exactly the same but I can tell you that by looking, those are the things that remind one of the other building. Johnson: Are there other comments or questions? Estes: My concerns are the same and perhaps identical to Commissioner Odom's. If I could ask Mr. Sharp, what is the design theme of this building? As an architect can you tell us in one sentence what the design theme of this project would be? Sharp: We actually summed it up in three themes that we worked with. Efficiency. Elegance. Flexibility. Estes: To be plain spoken about this, I have no particular problem with this particular project meeting the Commercial Design Standards. I am somewhat troubled because this is going to be a benchmark. This is going to set the standard for what is a very significant project within the City of Fayetteville. I'm not sure I want to see 20 buildings like this out there. Odom: We are required to look and avoid or minimize. If one of these requirements is not met, I don't think that you failed the Commercial Design Standards. The first is unfinished concrete precision block walls. I don't think that is a problem here. The second to avoid or minimize is the square, boxlike structure. You failed that one. Metal siding which dominates the main facade. I do not see a problem on that. Large blank, unarticulated wall surfaces. I do believe that the canopies they have shown as well as the boxlike window frames do help in taking away the large, blank, unarticulated wall surfaces. I think that helps that there. Large out of scale signs with flashy colors. You simply have one sign or symbol that in my opinion doesn't detract from the rest of the building. Out of all of the elements, the only one that you've failed is the boxlike structure. In my opinion, that alone doesn't make your project fail. Again, this is a concern because this sets the tone and the theme for the rest of it. This is not quite what • • • Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 Page 8 we expected. I'm going to support it but not with unbridled enthusiasm. Marr: When you begin the development of a new park and to try and you give the first business the burden to be the complete embodiment of the park theme that will be designed by many architects seems to me to be a little unreasonable. I think there has been a good faith effort made. I think it is an attractive building. No, I wouldn't like every building in the park to be a boxlike structure, either. But, I would like to get the park started and I would like to see development continue. MOTION Commissioner Marr made a motion to approve LSD00-1. Commissioner Shackelford seconded the motion. Johnson: We have the motion by Commissioner Marr and the second by Commissioner Shackelford to approve this large scale development. Odom: I have one comment. Alett, you alluded that there isn't anything in the covenants to the development stating any kind of unified theme. I was wondering whether an effort was put forth to go ahead and do that to help out with this so we don't have to compare these things as much. Little: We have not actually closed on any lot. We could but what wording would you put there. If we were going to put wording there, I would put wording very similar to what is in the Commercial Design Standards ordinance. You already have that. What you have in this development that you don't have in any other counnercial development is city ownership. We have a front end person already working on that element before it ever comes to Planning Commission. I have more safeguards on this than any other. I would not recommend it but if that is something that you would like to recommend to us or something you would like to require before you approve the final plat, we'll accommodate that. Odom. No. That was not offered as an amendment but only for discussion purposes. Johnson: I am concerned because Alett is telling us she is complying with our requirements which is that there will be a recurring theme. You've discussed what the next developments in the technology park will look like. We've said this is not quite as interesting and innovative as it might be. You've already confirmed the fears that have been expressed that once this goes in it will set the standard. Little: It will be used as one of the measures of compatibility. We've named at least • Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 Page 9 three elements that would be used each time to check for compatibility. It's not to say that each one of those elements has to be in there but you should look for probably two of the three elements to be in each one of the buildings that comes along. Ward: Alen, what other business do you foresee going into this technology and research park? This is a computer company. What else do you see going in there? I could see a lot of different companies coming in there and I don't know that a real theme has to be put in. Little: No. A theme must be in. Within the covenants there are requirements that the business be research oriented or technology oriented. I'm talking with four companies. They are all technology oriented. We haven't struck a deal with a research oriented company. The zoning on the property is I-1. That is somewhat going to color what goes into the park. It is a rather high scale park. Some buildings you just like and some buildings you really like. I happen to really like this building. I wouldn't want every building to look exactly like this, I think it has very attractive features that could be used over and over again and it can be a very interesting kind of development. • Johnson: I think one concern that has been expressed is that maybe 25 of them might get a little boring. • Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 6-1-0. Commissioner Estes voted against the motion. • Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 Page 10 VA00-1: VACATION MILLSAP RD INVESTMENTS LOT 17, PP213 This item was submitted by Henry Kelly, Jr. of Millsap Road Investments for property located at 655 Millsap Road, lot 17 of CMN Park, Phase I. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.58 acres. The request is to vacate a portion of an existing water line easement within lot 17. Henry Kelly was present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Provide an additional 15 foot wide water/sewer easement adjacent to the existing 25 foot utility easement along the east side of lot 17. 2. Provide an additional 15 foot wide water/sewer easement adjacent to the existing 20 foot • utility easement on the south side of lot 17. Commission Discussion Johnson• Staff has recommended that we approve this and send it forward to the Council for it's final action. Staff, do you have additional information for us on this proposed easement vacation? Petrie: The only thing that I might add is that the water line that is in this easement was abandoned probably about 15 years ago. It has just come to our attention that this easement wasn't vacated some time ago. Johnson: It's an old easement that does not work with the new development there. Petrie. That's correct. Kelly: I'm Henry Kelly. Johnson- Do you have anything additional for us or are you here to field our questions? Kelly: I'm here to field questions. It's our understanding that the actual water line has • been capped off and not used for many years. We have worked with the City staff to try to give additional lands to make up for the easement area in case they need access in the future. We • • • Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 Page 11 would request if there is a possibility of taking less than 15 feet but if the 15 feet is necessary we'll grant that. Johnson: Ron, how do you feel about whether the City could accept less than 15 feet? Petrie. I wouldn't recommend making it any smaller. The 15 feet easement was recommended to me by the Dave Jurgens,the water and sewer superintendent. They intend to put a new line in this area within the next year or so. The existing easements are presently full of utilities such as electric and gas. The existing easements could not be used for the purpose of a new water line. I would not recommend it any smaller. Public Comment None MOTION Commissioner Odom made a motion to approve vacation 00-1 subject to staff comments. Commissioner Marr seconded the motion. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 7-0-0. • • • Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 Page 12 RZ00-10: REZONING STILES, PP519 This item was submitted by M B Stiles for property located at 2650 Old Farmington Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 0.72 acres. The request is to rezone the property to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Mike Stiles and Sally Langford were present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning based on the findings included in the staff report. Commission Discussion Johnson- This is a part of a larger tract. The larger tract is slightly under two acres. The balance of the tract is presently zoned C-2. Is that correct, Tim? Conklin: That is correct. Staff is recommending approval of the C-2 zoning. This tract does contain the 1.98 acres. Of that, 1.26 acres are already zoned C-2. The applicant has requested the rezoning in order to have the entire tract zoned C-2. It is designed as commercial by our land use plan. Rezoning this additional 72 acres will provide the applicant with a tract of land entirely zoned C-2. This evening, staff has received four phone calls from neighbors who are in opposition of the rezoning. We have also distributed to the Commission a Bill of Assurance which was offered by the applicant stating that there will be no sexually oriented business located at this site. Stiles: My name is Mike Stiles. I'm the person that filed the zoning change. I represent a partnership of four people My other three partners did come with me tonight. We need to address the idea of a nude, dancing bar. Johnson: Are you going to do that? Stiles: No, ma'am. Johnson: We have in hand a bill of assurance where you have specifically stated that you won't have such an endeavor and you won't allow the property to be used for that purpose. Have you had any connection with any nude, dancing club anywhere else? Stiles: I have never been involved in a nude, dancing club anywhere. • • • Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 Page 13 Johnson: The reason for the question is that the concern about a nude, dancing club is no more directly related to what you're going to do there. It has nothing to do with what you've done in the past, what establishment you've had in the past, or what you propose to do here. It's totally irrelevant to what you're going to do. Stiles: This has nothing whatsoever to do with our plans. We plan on a family dinner theater. We will actually try to appeal in many instances to church groups as customers. We are not going to be a nude, dancing bar. Mr. Estes was good enough to also pass around some letters from people that we have dealt with in the community and developer that we have been working on our plans with. He has detailed knowledge of what we're planning on doing as far as the building goes. There is a letter from our CPA. He's gone over our business plan and he also knows in detail the number of people, how we're going to pay folks, and he also stated that we're not going to have anything to do with a nude, dancing bar. There is a letter from an engineer we are using to provide estimates on utility costs and he also has intimate knowledge of what our plans are as far as construction and how we're going to use the facility. We do not plan on having a sexually oriented club. Johnson: It seems to me unfortunate that we're having this discussion. Somebody found a newspaper article about a dinner theater somewhere. Somewhere there was a dinner theater with nude dancing. Is that your understanding of where the idea originated? Stiles: Yes. We saw it today reviewing the Planning Departments file. That is the first time we were aware of it. That does not apply to our intent whatsoever. Johnson: Apparently, this particular bar was in Stratford, Wisconsin. Stiles: We're here to answer your questions. Public Comment Richard Culver was present in opposition to the request. Culver: I surely got your attention. Johnson: Did you send us the article? Culver: I want to apologize to Mr. Stiles if there was any thought that I was suggesting that this was the kind of business that he intends to open. I did not mean to imply that. However, once this property is zoned C-2, whatever Mr. Stiles' immediate plan is, there quite a latitude for businesses. If somebody has a piece of property that they invested money in and they want to get a return on that investment, I'm sure they will do whatever they can do to get that • • Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 Page 14 return. I believe part of this parcel that is zoned C-2 was zoned C-2 in 1994. Thing have changed since then. Shiloh Drive is now one way. Access to this property off of the bypass for traffic north bound or east bound or west bound, unless they want to make a four mile round tnp from Sixth Street to Wedington and back down to Old Farmington, the access will be Sixth Street to One Mile Road to Old Farmington Road down to this piece of property. Old Farmington Road was recently repaved but it is still a narrow road without curbs or gutters. One Mile Road is even narrower. Two cars can hardly meet and pass on One Mile Road. We're concerned about traffic and access to this property. The motels on the bypass don't cause us any problem as far as noise or nuisance. We are concerned about this particular piece of property and as the adjacent property owner, I'm concerned about possible impact to my future use of that property I think .72 acres that is presently agricultural, if that remains agriculture, that at least gives us a little bit of a buffer from any businesses that may develop there in the future. Also, a number of homes along Old Farmington are being remodeled by the resident owners and that is developing into a residential area. We would like to see it remain a nice, quite, residential area and anything that does go in that C-2 zone would be something more appropriate adjacent to residential property. Again, I want to say that I had no intention to imply that Mr. Stiles intended to provide nude dancing. It was merely an example of the creative thinking that a property owner or business owner can do to get around ordinances. I ask that you reject this rezoning. Johnson: I want to remind the audience that on rezonings, they come to the Planning Commission and if we approve the proposed rezoning, that approval merely sends it on to the City Council for final action. If we disapprove the proposed rezoning, then our action can be appealed to the City Council. I don't want to mislead anybody. We don't have final action on this. Douglas Voiters was present in opposition to the report. Voiters. I live right across the street from that house and up about 100 yards I could hit it with a rock. This is a nice, quiet neighborhood. If there was commercial property there, it has terrible access and frontage. I don't know why someone would want to put a business there. There's no view. People driving by can't see it. It's hard to get to. The road you have to go down comes over a hill which leaves a blind spot facing straight toward the sun. Not only is it blind, the sun is in your eyes and it's narrow. The ditches are deep. It's dangerous. Whoever made the frontage road one way really saved our neighborhood and made it really nice. It's safer and that's more important than profit. We have several retired residents. We have over 31 children in this area and they play all over. For a long time, this was a back road. A short cut. This neighborhood is getting cleaned up. This is a bad road for traffic. Janet Voiters was present in opposition to the request. Voiters: One of the things that no one has addressed about this house is it's historical • • • Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 Page 15 status. This is a Civil War house. I have lived in this neighborhood for two and a half years and I've watched this house sit empty for a year and a half and there was a sign in front of it that had it listed with a realtor and no one bought it. I researched about buying it It was listed for $70,000. Students moved in there. Currently, the people who own the property don't live in the neighborhood. They are just investors. The teenagers and young adults that live there are not friendly and nobody knows them in the neighborhood. We go to their house and knock on the door and they don't come to the door. We're suspicious that they're going to bring some type of a business in there that's going to cause lots of traffic to the neighborhood and they are not concerned about the Civil War house. There isn't a need for a dinner house in that area. There are three hotels that are there. The Quality Inn, the Park Inn, and The Hampton Inn. A bed and breakfast wouldn't even make a profit because there so many other facilities. They're talking about church groups using their facility. At my church, we do our own entertainment. There's not a need for it. There are like six bars on Highway 62. That's one of the reasons everyone is so concerned. We have a lot of entertainment on our side of the city for folks to go and get liquor. Denny's restaurant is the only restaurant in the area. There's no access for the traffic coming and going to a dinner house I almost get killed trying to walk my dog. I have to jump in the ditch, otherwise, I would get run over by a car. I know these folks want to make a profit. From my research, I found out they bought the house for $70,000 and they were trying to sell it for $140,000 six years later. It concerns me that they bought the house just to tum a profit by doubling it and not doing one thing in six years. They're just trying to make money on this. Johnson: I would ask that you do address the rezoning and that you don't address the cost of the property. That's not relevant this evening. Whether you bought the property is not relevant. If you would limit your comments to things that are instructive to us as to whether or not we should favor the rezoning. Voiters: That was one of the reasons that I was concerned about them getting commercial. A portion of that property is already zoned commercial. They haven't done anything with it. They could start a frat house for the UofA That's another reason I'm concerned Johnson: Thank you very much. Rick McKinney was present in opposition to the request. McKinney: I came for another item but your statement bothers me. The rezoning of this property affects the value of the property. How can you not look at what the cost of the property is in rezoning. It's a very valid concern. What this lady just said is she's concerned about the value of the property changing from A-1 to C-2. You must consider the value of the property. That's all. Johnson: You may have misunderstood the import of my comment. I discouraged a • • Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 Page 16 conversation about what was paid for the property and how much is was subsequently listed for and whether this person tried to buy the property. Those issues are not relevant to our discussion this evening. McKinney. I'm not through. That is relevant. They don't have to inquire as to what these people bought this property for but the rezoning alone will change the value of the property. Johnson. We only allow members of the audience to address us one time. Further Commission Discussion Langford: My name is Sally Langford and I'm one of the partners in this venture. My child is living in that house. There are four college students living there now. The house was bought originally with the idea that it is a historic home. One of our partners is a social studies teacher. It's known as the Old Thorpe place. It's approximately 150 years old. I have a friend who is a Civil War buff who has been there and is doing some research for us. Our hope is to maintain the integrity of that property. We do not wish to tear that home down. We wish to incorporate it into our business plans and if that isn't possible then we still won't tear it down. We'll live in it. My husband and I will be here in June as will the Stiles. We were here today looking for property I'm sorry that the children haven't answered the door. They're probably not home. I'm thankful that they are probably at school or at their jobs I understand the profit I'm one of the business types in this venture and we're certainly running numbers. Yes, we need to make a profit. One of the reasons we picked this particular property was that we thought we could buy it for a reasonable amount of money. Obviously, we should have bought it earlier. We didn't get it at that good of a deal. We still think it's a great piece of property and has potential. When we began looking at it as a proposed business site is when we found that the property is split C -2/A- 1. Our first concern was to bring that property into uniformity. We have no intention of destroying the neighborhood. We like the neighborhood. That was part of the reason we bought it. We want to keep the house and all the historic things. We've approached people about writing and performing historic pieces to be performed in the dinner theater. It's not a bed and breakfast. We don't expect people to come and stay. They will come at staggered times. I know that the Planning Commission has looked at the traffic impact. They tell us that we are okay on that and I'm going to trust them. Johnson: Staff, concerning a buffer between this property when it develops, am I correct in thinking that before the property develops into a dinner theater, it would come back from Planning Commission as a large scale. Conklin: That is correct. It would require large scale development approval by the • Commission. • Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 Page 17 Johnson: Tell me what the requirements are if any for buffering between a business in a C-2 and an adjacent zone such as A-1. Conklin: We have screening requirements between commercial and residential uses. It can be accomplished through building a wood privacy fence or use of vegetation. That type of information would be submitted on the plan and approved by the Commission. Johnson: So, if it were re7nned and if it were developed we would deal with the issue of buffering. Conklin: We would have to identify the residential land uses surrounding that and determine the best way to buffer and screen those uses. Johnson. There has also been comment about the approach which is on Old Farmington Road. If it comes back as a large scale, then also we would deal with the issue of traffic generation and whether or not we believe that any kind of off site improvements were required. Conklin: That is correct and the applicant is aware that the commission does review the large scale development plan and will make a recommendation of a condition for off site improvements. Marr: As it stands right now with part C-2 and part A-1, without our having the large scale development plan in front of us to see a footprint, it looks like the same thing could be accomplished just putting the parking on A-1. Is that possible? Conklin: That is possible. Our zoning ordinance and parking lot standards do allow parking to be approved in other zoning districts. Parking in the A-1 zone could be approved as a conditional use by the Commission. Ward: The historic home is in the C-2 zoning. Conklin: That is correct. The home and the barn are located in the C-2 portion. Estes: By looking at page 3.8, the ingress to the proposed rezoning will be down 6'" Street and up Old Farmington Road. Conklin: That is correct unless they choose to use Shiloh from Wedington Drive or I-540. • Estes: Shiloh from Wedington Drive would be egress. Isn't Shiloh one way south? Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 Page 18 Johnson: If you came down from Wedington, then you could turn right onto Old Farmington. Conklin: Or if you exited I-540, the exit is far enough north that you could turn right onto Old Farmington Road and enter the property. Estes: So both ingress and egress could be accomplished by traveling south on Shiloh and turning right onto Old Farmington. Conklin: Correct. Estes: Because the ingress and egress is something we certainly need to think about, has staff given any consideration to the traffic generated. I notice that one of the finding is that the proposed zoning would not create an increase in traffic congestion. Could you edify us and tell us how that finding was made? Conklin: Staff has met with the applicant and reviewed a concept plan. The 1.26 acres is currently zoned C-2. They would be allowed to build a dinner theater on that portion. Rezoning the remaining .72 acres is not going to change the conditions. Ward: I feel there is a need for a dinner theater. This is pretty close to the University and I understand that the University Theater is interested in working with this. They have a lot of property out there zoned C-2. We're only talking about a third of it that's not really zoned anything. To the north is C-2. Across the street is R -O and C-2. MOTION Commissioner Ward made a motion to approve RZ00-10. Commission Odom seconded the motion. Johnson: We have the motion by Commissioner Ward and the second by Commissioner Odom that we approve the rezoning. Whatever action we take either goes directly to the Council or could be appealed to the Council. A rezoning must gain five positive votes to go forward. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. • • • Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 Page 19 RZ00-8: REZONING TYSON, PP639 This item was submitted by R. Read Hudson on behalf of Tyson for property located at 2647 S. School. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 53.38 acres. The request is to rezone the property to I-2, General Industrial. Archie Schaffer was present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning based on the findings included as part of this report. Commission Discussion Johnson: This is another proposed rezoning. This is on behalf of Tyson Foods This request is to rezone the property to I-2, General Industrial. Staff is recommending approval of the requested rezoning based on the findings in the staff report. Tim, let me ask you if you will go ahead and make the presentation to us on the proposed rezoning. Conklin: This is a request to rezone 53.38 acres from I-1 to I-2, General Industrial. Tyson approached the city several weeks ago with plans to add on to their facility on South School Street. At that time, I reviewed the zoning ordinance and zoning map and determined that I-2 zoning is required for a food processing facility. Staff is recommending approval. It is consistent with our General Plan 2020. That plan designates the site as industrial. Tyson Foods, during our discussions, has indicated that they are not changing what they have been doing at this site for the past 16 years. They basically have three operations at this facility consisting of a freezer, a tortilla line, and an entree line. The additions will allow them to increase their existing production in their facility. Overall, nothing will change with regard to what they have been doing there the last 16 years. Schaffer: I'm Archie Schaffer with Tyson Foods. I have with me this evening, Read Hudson from our legal department who submitted this proposal to the City and Ron Howard who is the Plant Manager at the Entree Plant which is the facility that we are proposing to expand. I appreciate the opportunity to visit with you this evening. I'll be very brief in my comments and we will be happy to answer any questions you have. We appreciate your consideration of this request. This plant was originally built in the 1950's by Shakespeare and for a number of years produced fishing equipment such as rods and reels. Tyson acquired it in 1983 or 84 and converted it to a food processing plant. We have essentially been doing the same thing at this location ever since. It is a plant where we produce further processed items in the entree facility • Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 Page 20 which is what we are proposing to expand. Then, there is a Mexican Original Plant adjacent to it where we produce flour and com tortilla products. As Tim said, what we propose to do with this expansion is essentially what we have been doing there for 16 years and that is to produce meal kits, entree dinners, and a new product called Rice Bowls that we need to expand to meet the needs of a particular customer. I brought a couple of exhibits for you to look at. One is a photo of the plant as it exists now. It shows the overall plant and the way we have landscaped it and maintained it. We take a great deal of pride in all of our facilities but this one in particular. I wanted you to be able to see it in case you are not familiar with exactly what we are talking about. The other drawing was included in your packet and I have enlarged it and added the proposed expansion. We have a total of 415,000 square feet in the facility now. We are proposing, with the four small additions on the north side, is to add a total of about 16,000 square feet. As Tim said, the reason we are here tonight is because we didn't realize when we began producing food products there 16 years ago that it needed to be rezoned and when we filed our application for building permit, we discovered that it was improperly zoned. We would ask that you recommend this and that we get it rezoned so we can go forward with our proposed expansion. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you have. Johnson: One question to be sure that I understand, Mr. Shaffer, you mentioned that you do • further processed items. To the layman that would mean entree dinners. • Shaffer: Right. Further processed or value added are terms of our industry but they are fully cooked finished food products. Ward: Archie, you might go through what you are going to be doing in the four different areas of expansion. Shaffer The small, narrow, red cross hatched thing on the left is a receiving area where trucks deliver rice for the Rice Bowl product which is the primary thing we are going to be producing there. That's where we would unload nce. The trucks would back up into that area and then the rice will be transported through a vacuum system from there over to the pink area on the right which is what we call the rice room. That will hold the rice until it's ready to go into the processing plant The green area is an addition to the engine room to operate the machinery. It's attached to the existing engine room now. The largest area which is yellow, is the actual processing area where we're going to be adding a line similar to one that we presently have in the plant to increase the production of this particular product. Public Comment Jerry Patton, residing at 2331 S. School Ave. was present. Patton: My property is adjacent to the Tyson plant and I appreciate the opportunity to • • • Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 Page 21 express my concerns about this zoning change. A couple of things that I need to know right off the bat is how they operated for the years that they have outside of the present zoning laws. I'm not clear on that. Tyson is a fine company. There's no problem with these people. I just happen to be beside them. My business has suffered. There is noise. There is odor. It's debatable as to where the odor is coming from. I see my property being devaluated there and we get back to the word profit and trying to get a retum on your income. We've been here for a long time. My grandfather bought this property in the early 1900's and it's been in the family ever since. I feel this has come up quickly. They have been outside the zoning for several years. We raised the red flag on getting the proper zoning and then the appropriate steps are taken to rezone it properly. Everything is forgotten and we move on down the line I'm involved with a substantial loss on this piece of property. I'd like to see if there could be a time out to give a little more communication to the neighborhood giving us the opportunity to analyze the situation and see if there can't be something reasonable in a win-win situation that could be worked out for everyone. To quickly and abruptly okay this change, when there are so many looming questions, I would certainly appreciate a little more time if that is possible. Johnson: Thanks, Mr. Patton. Let me point out that rezonings come before the Planning Commission first and we take action on them and our action moves directly to the Council for its action and often the Council takes three readings to do rezoning, although it can be moved forward more quickly if they wish to. Rezonings are not something that move quickly through the city. I don't want to get into a debate about it. I'm merely explaining how rezonings work and that the City is usually charged with moving too slowly. Patton: Is there a possibility of a nondecision at this evening's meeting? Johnson: Yes. We can table items. Items can be withdrawn. We understand your position. Patton: If you look at the number of houses that are in Clover Creek and the number of houses that are in the Meadowlark Addition, the buffer zone that is really bordering the majority of the populous neighborhood is my ten acres which pretty much has nothing on it. It's just a flat field. It's zoned R-1 and it has 14 residential lots that have not been developed and they are on a tentative plat. The front five acres, or part of that, is zoned C-2 and it's a commercial zone. I kind of feel like I'm the only voice for a large buffer zone or border that is up against the plant. I'd like you to take that into consideration as well if it has any bearing. Johnson: Thank you. It's my understanding and Tim correct me if I'm wrong about this, it's my understanding that when Tyson bought this plant 16 years ago, the City certainly knew about the proposed sale of the plant to Tyson and I would guess that the City knew that food processing was going to take place in a portion of the facility. Tim wasn't here then I wasn't here then and I don't know who was here then. My understanding is that the City perhaps should have at that time required Tyson to go through a rezoning but the City didn't require Tyson to go Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 Page 22 through a rezoning and so now that it has come before you in the year 2000, you believe the rezoning is needed and thus it is before us and you can't undo what the City didn't do 16 years ago. Conklin: Yes. You are exactly right I have been asked that question several times. I do not know what happened in 1984. I can tell you today that when we get a building permit, we check the zoning and if it's not in the proper zone, I advise them to rezone. That is why they are here tonight. Johnson: Mr. Patton addressed the issue of buffering. It's my understanding buffering is not an issue that comes before us in a rezoning. Buffering would only come before us for projects that have to go through a large scale development situation. This is merely rezoning and that's not a time at which the Commission even has the power if it wanted to talk about buffering. Conklin: You are correct. Rick McKinney, residing at 609 N. Olive, was present. McKinney: I have an office across the street from Tyson. It's intriguing how these things happen. I think that probably Shakespeare was so glad to have the plant sold and move on that a lot of this probably got overlooked. When I looked through some of the paperwork which I have received from different people in the neighborhood and I look at the basic description between I- 1 and I-2, immediately that concerns me being right across the street and normally I am down wind. The prevailing winds come from the west most often. This winter it was from the south. My first question is what amount of ammonia does this plant handle and contain at any one time? Johnson: Mr. McKinney, this is not a forum for debate between the applicant and yourself or this Commission. You may make your presentation to this Commission and we will pick up on the questions. McKinney: It is not a matter of debate. It is a matter of knowledge. If they are intending on expanding the ammonia storage at this facility, I think I have a nght to know that. Johnson: You have a right to tell us what your concerns are and then once you have addressed those, then your role in this meeting is complete. McKinney: I am concerned about the ammonia at any plant whether it's here or in Rogers or anywhere else. It is a hazardous substance. It is lethal if exposed in the wrong way. That was the intent of my question. They may not be expanding their ammonia capacity in this expansion of this plant at all which could have been resolved quickly with the matter of answering the • • Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 Page 23 question. They have been a good neighbor. I have very little to complain about Tyson being across the street from me. I would point out that 1 have noticed a more audible, high pitched noise which comes from the plant. It's very intermittent. It's not a daily occurrence. It's something that does penetrate the closed windows and doors of my office when they are that way. The way that this building was built that I bought, the windows do not open. 99% of the time, my environment is controlled but the sound permeates through the building. I recognize the fact that their freezers have large fans. I'm not addressing that noise. That is an anticipated noise and it's a lower noise than what the new one is. It's my understanding that they do not have a building permit for this expansion, yet construction has been going on at the plant at least in the front area of the pink shaded area that I can view directly out the front door or my office. Large equipment has been delivered. I believe another white cylindrical tank has been erected in the pink area or adjacent to the building. In looking at the I-1 and I-2 descriptions, the fight industrial district is designed to group together a wide range of industrial uses which do not produce objectionable environmental influence in operation and appearance. I would say Tyson fits well within this description. The I-2, general industrial district is designed to provide areas for manufacturing and industrial activities which may give rise to substantial environment nuisances which are objectionable to residential and business use. I guarantee you that if it is objectionable and a substantial environmental matter, I am not going to be in agreement with it. So far, I have not been exposed to this. I'm sure they work with ammonia at this plant. Apparently, they have very good safety features for it. I have never even detected a smell of ammonia in the air. However, some times they burn the tortillas. That is not objectionable but it is noticeable. I would also encourage you to take a little bit of time to let the neighbors off of Cato Springs which back up to this property to let them give some input if they don't realize this expansion is going on. I received my notice through regular mail. It was not certified. I'm not sure how many people actually open every piece of mail they get. I do show an interest in that area and I also believe that type of change between I-1 and I-2 should come registered to a property owner that is within the radius that you mail these things to. I would encourage you to table this for further question and answer time where I can talk to these guys without being sanctioned for trying to get an answer out of them and have them go into further discussion or explanation of the amount of ammonia, if they are adding any and how much they are adding and how they intend to handle it as well as what they intend to do about odor containment on their additional processing. Thank you for your time. Johnson: Thanks, Mr. McKinney. Further Commission Discussion Johnson: Mr. Schaffer, will you do anything in this expansion that you are not presently doing? Will you do anything different other than the same kinds of things you are already • doing? • • • Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 Page 24 Shaffer: No. We'll be doing exactly the same thing. The product mix from time to time may change. Whether it's a rice bowl with chicken in it or a rice bowl with beef. Unfortunately, we do have to put some other proteins in these products from time to time. No, we will not be doing anything substantially different from what we are doing there. To address Mr. McKinney's concems about ammonia. We do use ammonia in our freezer systems at this facility. We will be increasing this system but I can't tell you how much. It's not a dramatic increase. The City does not regulate that but it is very heavily regulated by other government agencies and as Mr. McKinney pointed out, we have never had an incident there. He's never smelled ammonia. It has not been a problem in the past and we would certainly hope that it never would be in the future. We take it very seriously and have professional people trained that work with it constantly to see that we don't have a problem. Johnson: We're glad that you try to deal with the safety issues relating to ammonia and we are equally as glad that we don't have to regulate it. Marr: Mr. Shaffer, this expansion is related to the rice product. Is that currently being manufactured in the facility? Shaffer: It is. Marr: Are you aware of any complaints relative to smell or anything of that nature at this point associated with that product? Shaffer: No. As far as I know, we have not had any odor complaints from this facility at all. Marr: Thank you. Estes: The request is that this property be rezoned I-2, General Industrial. Our General Plan 2020 designates this site as industrial. The staff has made the findings that rezoning this property to I-2, General Industrial is consistent with the land use plan. MOTION Commissioner Estes made a motion to approve RZ00-8 and forward the requested rezoning on to our City Council. Commissioner Odom seconded the motion. Johnson: I have the motion by Commissioner Estes and the second by Commissioner Odom that we approve RZ00-8. Is there discussion of the motion to approve the rezoning? • • • Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 Page 25 Odom: I would be much more in favor of doing a table to talk about certain issues if I didn't know and understand that this is going before the Council and they will visit it in detail and there will be several other opportunities for public comment and discussion at that time. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 Page 26 CU00-3: CONDITIONAL USE CAMPBELL BELL BUILDING, LLC, PP484 This item was submitted by Richard Alexander on behalf of the Campbell Bell Building, LLC for property located at 15 S. Block Street. The property is zoned C-2, Downtown Commercial and contains approximately 0.26 acres. The request is a multi -family dwelling in a C-4 district. Richard Alexander was present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation 1. Any new structure(s) associated with these residential units what will encroach the City right of way must presented to the City Council for approval prior to construction. Commission Discussion Johnson: This is the southernmost building on the west side of the square. Tim, do you have additional information? Conklin: Staff is recommending approval The parking requirements are waived for any existing structures in this district. No discussion of that issue is necessary in this case Johnson: Mr. Alexander, do you have additional information? Alexander: I'll field any questions you might have. We proposing to build some residential units on the second floor of this structure. The first floor is commercial and we've leased a large portion of that to a TV station. We like mixed use projects and it is consistent with one of the standard goals of the city which is to encourage residential downtown. C-3 zones are allowed residential as a matter of right. It came as a surprise that residential was not allowed in C-4 and that is why we did the conditional use request. Public Comment None MOTION Commissioner Marr made a motion to approve CU00-3. Commissioner Shackelford seconded the motion. • Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 Page 27 Johnson: I usually remind an applicant when we are tittle bit short handed with only seven of the nine members present that a conditional use required five votes in order to be approved. I will give you the opportunity to pull the item if you wish to come back on a night when everyone is present. Alexander: I'll take my chance. Johnson: Is there discussion? Bunch: I would like to offer a second condition and that would be that the commercial noise standards apply even though it is residential. It is within a commercial district. I would like to specify that the commercial noise standards do apply even though these are residential units. Johnson: I would take the position that it is appropriate as an amendment to the motion. Is there a second to the amendment. Conklin: The noise ordinance regulates by zoning district. I am concerned how that would • work. Johnson: I think we are calling to the attention that these residences will be subject to the commercial level of noise. Bunch: Even if this is residential, they would be subject to the commercial noise ordinance without action from us? Conklin: It will be subject to commercial zoning regulations. Bunch: I will withdraw the amendment. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 7-0-0. • • • • Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 Page 28 OTHER BUSINESS Resolution 18 Conklin: I am passing down Resolution 18. The Council passed this on February 1, 2000. This is regarding the environmental concerns committee. Section 1 states: "The Fayetteville City Council and all City boards, committees, commission, and departments including the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, Street Committee, and Water and Sewer Committee, are hereby requested to seek and consider recommendations of the Environmental Concerns Committee before making any decisions or recommendations that could have a significant environmental impact including but not limited to public health, water, air, soil quality, wildlife, and natural aesthetics." This Committee has requested that the Planning Commission finds there is project that has a significant environmental impact that they are here to serve the Planning Commission and anything you want to refer to them, they are available to help. Planning Commission Training The second thing is regarding Planning Commission training which is at Westark Community College and any Commissioner wanting to attend needs to let us know so we can prepare the travel request. We will provide transportation and pay the registration fee. I would like to thank, Janet Johns. Johns: This was my last roll call. It has been an honor to work with you all. Conklin: She is taking another position at the City. Meeting adjourned at 7:07 p.m. • • • PC MEETING 02-133tcc MOTION APP alA L CF ITEM # NCIE't-ACR ITEM # LSbC13-I m SECOND S14/4aLairin D. BUNCH 5124 B. ESTES 5: ZZ L. HOFFMAN S. HOOVER N P. JOHNSON S:ZS y D. MARR 5: Z9 C. ODOM 5. 2a L. SHACKELFORD S:Zeo Y y L. WARD 5° ZAP ACTION VOTE AF92.0Va> LVED el -6 JOH IIS W AZftQ Cc tuN • • • PAGE PC MEETING (s7 lZS h MOTION mlp rappeb ITEM # VPOO- I 6cam ITEM # M6-1 waw SECOND D. BUNCH B. ESTES L. HOFFMAN S. HOOVER ABS�.rr C= Tr ASSair ABSENT - P. JOHNSON D. MARR .ODOM L. SHACKELFORD L. WARD y 9 ACTION VOTE APR oveD ilonzpvia) 7-0-0 7-0-0 Z • • PC MEETING a -2g -0O MOTION Thes01\1 ITEM # $?Xt-4 ITEM #CUCO-3 CS -FES ma2R SECOND Ot1m SW C.ICQW-eaD D. BUNCH B. ESTES L. HOFFMAN S. HOOVER 7 \/ Y AEStlfr ile•Gioer P. JOHNSON D. MARR y y C. ODOM L. SHACKELFORD L. WARD Y 1 ACTION VOTE APF2nv c� 7-0-0 Z -O--0 s