Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-03-13 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, March 13, 2000 at 5:30 p.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED Appointment of Nominating Committee CU00-4: Candlewood Development, pp294 CU00-5: Candlewood development, pp294 RZ00-11: Ogden, pp638 AD00-5: Stepp, 556 CU00-7: Lewis, pp641 AD00-6: Charleston Place PUD, pp370 CU00-6: Dunn, pp367 RZ00-12: Butterfield Trail, pp176 AD00-1: Horne, pp484 MEMBERS PRESENT 4111 Donald Bunch Bob Estes Lorel Hoffman Sharon Hoover Phyllis Johnson Don Marr Conrad Odom Loren Shackelford STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Janet Johns • ACTION TAKEN Discussion Denied Withdrawn Approved Denied Approved Denied Postponed Approved Withdrawn MEMBERS ABSENT Lee Ward STAFF ABSENT Dawn Warnck Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2000 Page 2 Johnson: I'll call to order the March 13'h meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. One item has been removed from our agenda. Strike item number ten, AD00-1 which is the parking waiver for Horne. That was withdrawn at the request of the applicant. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Johnson: We have the minutes of the previous meeting. Are there any additions or corrections to be made to those February 28th minutes? If not, then they will stand approved as distributed. I will appoint the Nominating Committee at the end of the meeting. Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2000 Page 3 CU00-4: CONDITIONAL USE CANDLEWOOD DEVELOPMENT, PP294 This item was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of Candlewood Development for property located on lot 45A of Candlewood Subdivision. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density, Residential and contains approximately 1.96 acres. The request is for a duplex in an R-1 zone. Dave Jorgensen and Marlin Blackwell was present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Flood plain development permits are required prior o the issuance of building permits for these duplexes. 2. A single driveway off Township Road with a maximum width of 24 feet will be shared by these two duplexes. 3. As much existing vegetation within the Flood plain and flood way along the perimeter of these Tots, as possible shall remain in order to provide screening and privacy for this development as well as adjacent properties. 4. Refuse and service areas shall be treated as for single family homes. Trash will be taken to the street only on pickup days. Refuse and containers shall be stored within a screened area or within the structures during the rest of the week. Commission Discussion Johnson: We will discuss items two and three which are related conditional uses. The request is for a duplex on each of these lots. This property is located on the extension of Township Road to the east. It is near Vandergriff School. This is a subdivision which was approved by the Planning Commission last September and in order to have the duplexes, they must come forward for conditional use. Tim, is there anything additional that you have for us? Conklin: Staff has no additional information. Jorgensen: The final plat was approved toward the end of last year. I had talked to staff about this earlier and it was recommended that we bring this in form of a lot split first of • • • Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2000 Page 4 all and the reason for that is we submitted our preliminary plat showing one lot. Lot 45 is a very large lot. We have divided that into two lots which are 45A and 45B. A is the 1.96 acres and 45B is 1.23 acres. We quite a bit of room on this lot and it sits on the knoll between those two creeks. The lot split was approved at the subdivision level and the owners desire to build townhouses Unfortunately, this has been advertised as duplexes which does have the best connotations to it. It's going to be town homes on both lots and we're calling them upscale town homes. Marlin Blackwell who is the owner's architect is present. We attempted to describe the type of materials and looks that these town homes will have. Hopefully that was included in your packet. Johnson: There is to be a shared driveway no wider than 24 feet. Where is the shared drive to be located? On the lot line? Jorgensen: Yes, ma'am. The shared driveway would limit the access on to Township. Johnson: Have you seen and approved the four conditions of approval which the staff recommends? Jorgensen: Yes, we agree with those conditions. Marlin is here to answer questions. Estes: Tim, with reference to the refuse and service areas, there is the recommendation involving either a screened area or that the trash be within the structure. What is required? My concern is that we do not want a commercial dumpster sitting out there. Conklin: The intent of the condition is that it be treated as a single family home and would have can or bag pickup. If a can is stored outside we would require it to be screened. We won't allow a dumpster on this site. Jorgensen: We don't have an intent for a dumpster. Public Comment Brad Reynolds was present. Reynolds: I live in the second house on Township and I'm also speaking for Mr. Murphy Taylor who lives in the first house. We are very opposed to having a duplex or townhouse or whatever you want to call it in an R-1 zone. What is the purpose of having an R-1 zone if we're going to let this type of building go in there? I have seen that lot flood many times. Is that's why they're not building a home there? • Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2000 Page 5 Yes, because it floods Is it alright for the rental house to flood? We object to allowing a rental house. The homes in Candlewood are around $400,000. It's going to hurt our property values to put rental homes in there. We strongly object. Manny Terminella, 3180 E. Township was present. Terminella: I'm opposed to the conditional use based on a short driving tour I took this weekend of Brookbury, Savannah, Candlewood, Timbercrest, and Covington where I didn't see any other duplexes or townhouses or any other kind of multi family dwellings. I don't see how these fit into the area. This looks like an attempt to develop an undesirable piece of property that may or may not be suitable for a house. A few years back, I think it was in the Willington Subdivision, that proposed a great number of townhouses in the same area and was met with a lot of opposition. I don't think you'll see as much opposition today because Covington and Candlewood both are not developed yet. I'm sure if this proposal came about a year from now, you would see many more people up here. Thank you. • Freida Poore was present. • Poore: My husband and I own the property to the west on the lot boundaries for the proposed duplexes. We've been there since before there was an E. Township. We've been there for 14 years. We've watched all these developments go in and we've put up with loss of privacy and wildlife. We've put up with noise, dust, and traffic. We've never once been up here to complain about any of those things. I'm here today telling you that this is someone profiting at the expense of other people. I do not want it. I'm opposed to it. I've been there and seen the whole two acres under water. All they're trying to do is make a profit off of two lots that aren't good for single family housing. I can't imagine this being passed. That's up to you. I ask that you not do this at the expense of myself and my children. Ten years down the road, if this passes, I may be here asking for duplexes because you've done it for them. Rosemary and Mr. Bowling have also lived there a long time and they share the same views. I feel like that property should have been dedicated as green space for a park but instead they are just trying to make the most of a bad situation. It should not be done at the expense of the other people around there especially when the owners and developers themselves are not going to live in that situation. They're not going to live in that development but we live there and will have to endure this and I ask that you don't do this. Thank you. Commission Discussion • Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2000 Page 6 Johnson: Conklin: Johnson: Conklin: Johnson: Conklin: Johnson: Blackwell: Johnson: Blackwell: Johnson: What are the requirements for flood plain development? I believe that part or all of the construction will be on piers. These will have to be developed safely and securely or they won't be rented very long. What kind of oversight does the City have on development of property such as this where there is flood plain at issue? The Planning Division administers the Flood Damage Prevention Code. When we get a building permit application, we establish what the base flood elevation will be on these lots. There is a requirements for these structures to be elevated two feet above the base flood elevation. We ensure they are elevated. We issue a footing foundation permit then the survey comes out and shoots the top of the lowest finished floor and provides to us an elevation certificate in order to make sure that in the event of a base flood or 100 year storm event, the lowest finished floor of the structure will be two feet above that water level. We do have other structures in the city that are close to streams that are built on piers, don't we? Yes. We probably issue two to three flood plain development permits a month for single family homes and multi family residential structures. FEMA and the City of Fayetteville do allow development within the flood plain as long as you meet those standards. Have you run into particular problems with those sites that have been developed in the flood plain? I have not seen any problems with the permits we've issued where we've required the two feet above base flood elevation. Okay. Mr. Blackwell, in your letter, you indicate that the drive courts are to be surfaced in asphalt paving units. Tell me what you mean by paving unit. What I was trying to do was indicate quality. An asphalt paving unit would be similar to the one at the old Hatfield renovation across from the Hilton. The renovation was for Mr. Terminella. Those appear to be old fashioned brick. The idea of using them is to give a sense of plaza rather than just asphalt and because they come in units, they are similar to brick. You also say in your letter that landscaping will be dense and well groomed and • • • Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2000 Page 7 planting will include perennials, grasses and indigenous blooming trees with natural stone. Would you have any objections to the two items that are included in your letter, that is that the drive courts would be surfaced in asphalt paving units and also that the landscaping would include perennials, grasses and indigenous blooming trees with natural stone and it would be dense and well groomed. Would you object to those two items from your letter being included as conditions? Blackwell: I wouldn't. The owners would be empathetic with that. I think they have seen the value of that in their recent commercial projects. The intention is that not only with the structures themselves be of high quality and on par with Candlewood or Covington but outside will be addressed and developed with high standards as well. I am empathetic with the concerns of the neighbors and I don't think I can address all the concerns but as an architect I can say these units will not be what you might think of as duplex units. Very often when you are given an unusual situation like this, a flood plain and a triangular site, with elevation changes, a builder will often come in and put in something out of the plan book and elevate it two feet above flood plain. What we are proposing is a new model that has been designed specifically for the site. These are pier type structures that are linear and long and are elevated and project into the flood plain and still be high and dry. Estes: Odom: Hoffman: Although this is a request for a conditional use, I see this as being very similar to a spot rezoning. We're being asked to grant a conditional use for R-2 in an R-1 low density residential district. It's at the entrance to two subdivisions, Candlewood and Covington. It's in a flood plain. It's in flood way. That will have a very real impact on how the structures are designed. One of the findings that we must make to grant this conditional use is that it does not adversely affect the public interest. I feel that it does. I would agree with Mr. Estes but I will take it one step further and indicate that we also have to make a determination on the general compatibility with the adjacent properties within the district. That would be mostly single family homes. I don't feel that it meets that requirement as well. I will vote against it as well. I don't specifically have a problem with putting a duplex or townhouse in a residential area if it makes good use of the land. Because we have the flood plain and flood way issues and those are not even final, I will vote against this proposal. Hoover: Are these going to rental units or owner occupied? Jorgensen: The developers of Candlewood will build these and own these and they very well Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2000 Page 8 Conklin: Hoffman. Conklin: Hoffman: Blackwell: Marr: Blackwell: Jorgensen: Conklin: may occupy one of them. Also, I wanted to mention that on the lot split that we had approved previously, we did indicate where the flood plain was on this property, so single family will be built on these if townhouses are not built. We have the buildable area outside the flood plain on lot 45A. That is 14,105 square feet. The buildable area on lot B is 15,501 square feet. The size of these units are going to be 1,500 square feet each, so there is adequate area. That requirement is if you have a lot less than an acre, the ordinance requires that you have 6,000 square feet of buildable area outside of the flood plain. I want to make the Commission aware that what Mr. Jorgensen has stated is true based on what is classified as Zone A on the flood insurance rate map. That is not a detailed study. There is no determined flood heights and it is an estimate of where the flood plain boundary should be. This spring, we should receive the final flood hazard study from the Corps of Engineers. I'm not sure what that will result in with regard to how high the water be and where the flood plain and flood way boundaries will be located on these lots. Does the new flood hazard information take into account the development that has occurred in this area? It will take into account development as of this year. 1 don't know if we have enough information. I wouldn't mind seeing this again after that information is available. I think this is a shot in dark if we don't know where the flood elevation is going to be. One of the things that we are proposing in the design of these is that the garage and entrance area would be built in the buildable area. The living area and the bedrooms would be elevated. The impact to the land would be minimal because they will be on steel columns and will touch the earth quite lightly. It is a pier structure and not a block structure. On the finding of general compatibility with adjacent properties, are there design standards within this subdivision? There are design standards but based on my discussion with the owners, they would be allowing a variance because of the peculiar nature of this site. Isn't it true that there is an R-2 district about 400 feet to the east? It appears to be more than 400 feet. When the Willington Subdivision came • • • Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2000 Page 9 Odom: through, the City Council did rezone the northeast corner to R-2. There was a proposal for some townhouses in that area. That has not developed. Township actually cuts the corner where it's zoned R-2. That wasn't a planned unit development but it was part of an overall scheme. There were residential R-1 homes throughout there and these was an area accessible only through the subdivision and exit to Mission Blvd. Conklin: That's correct. It is similar to Park Place and the entrance there where there are townhouses off of Mission and going south and then single family homes. Hoover: Is the property owned to the south all owned by the school? Conklin: It is owned by the school district. Johnson: It appears to me that two duplexes on 3.25 acres across from P -I property and separated on both sides by streams would negatively impact the property values of nearby subdivision. I don't agree that just because there are subdivisions with exclusively single family dwellings in them that two duplexes of 1,500 square feet each with a two car garage would have a negative impact. I don't agree with the view that these will harm the adjacent subdivisions. MOTION Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to deny approval of the conditional use. Commissioner Estes seconded the motion. Odom: My question is that if the vote to deny fails, is it approved? Johnson: I think not. I believe to approval something, there must be motion and a second. That's my ruling unless someone wants to challenge that. Hoffman: If think as a conditional use, it can't be reheard for one year. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion to deny failed with a vote of 4-4-0. Commissioners Hoover, Johnson, Marr, and Shackelford voted against the motion. MOTION Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2000 Page 10 Commissioner Johnson moved to approve conditional use 00-4. Commissioner Hoover seconded the motion. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion failed by a vote of 4-4-0. Commissioners Bunch, Estes, Hoffman, and Odom voted against the motion. • • Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2000 Page 11 CU00-5: CONDITIONAL USE CANDLEWOOD DEVELOPMENT, PP294 This item was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of Candlewood Development for property located on lot 45B of Candlewood Subdivision. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 1.23 acres. The request is for a duplex in an R-1 district. Dave Jorgensen and Marlin Blackwell were present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Flood plain development permits are required prior o the issuance of building permits for these duplexes. 2. A single driveway off Township Road with a maximum width of 24 feet will be shared by these two duplexes. 3. As much existing vegetation within the Flood plain and flood way along the perimeter of these lots, as possible shall remain in order to provide screening and privacy for this development as well as adjacent properties. Refuse and service areas shall be treated as for single family homes. Trash will be taken to the street only on pickup days. Refuse and containers shall be stored within a screened area or within the structures during the rest of the week. Commission Discussion Also see - CU00-4 discussion of this matter. Johnson: Jorgensen: Johnson: A motion to approve a conditional use takes five positive votes. We only have eight of the nine Commissioners present. If you would like to withdraw this second conditional use in hopes that at some other time, we would have all members present, I would allow you to do so. If I do that, how does the first conditional use stand? It has failed. Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2000 Page 12 Jorgensen: I can see where this is going and we'll go ahead and withdrawn. It's not going to be of any great advantage to me. • • • • Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2000 Page 13 RZ00-11: REZONING OGDEN, PP638 This item was submitted by Ronald G. Woodruff, Attorney on behalf of Joyce M. Ogden Family Trust for property located at 2300 Cato Springs Road. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 4.02 acres. The request is to rezone to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Ron Woodruff was present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommended approval of requested rezoning. Commission Discussion Johnson: The property is adjacent to the City property for the Water and Sewer Services Facility. There has been recent rezoning approved by the Council which is R-2 to the north of this property which is now I-1. The City intended to sell the property and ultimately did not. Everything east and north is now I-1. This was part of a larger tract which was before us four years ago for a rezoning. At that time, did the Commission deny the rezoning? Conklin: They denied the request for the entire acreage. The applicant came back with 6.17 acres which is to the west and it was approved. When the city property was proposed for student housing, there was concern about having thoroughfare commercial C-2 zoning. Now the city property has been rezoned to I-1 with plans to expand that facility. It is consistent with our land use plan. Woodruff: We originally proposed 10 acres for rezoning in 1996 and we withdrew that. I wanted to bring it to your attention that I did go to the city and reviewed the zoning map and it was shown as commercial use and I had to bring their attention that there were four acres still zoned R-2. Public Comment None. Further Commission Discussion Johnson- This action is merely a recommendation to the City Council who will make the • • • Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2000 Page 14 final determination. MOTION Commissioner Marr made a motion to approve RZ00-11. Commissioner Odom seconded the motion. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • • • Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2000 Page 15 AD00-5• ADMINISTRATIVE STEPP, PP556 This item was submitted by Alice Stepp for property located at 1128 China Berry Lane. The property is zoned R-3, High Density Residential and contains approximately 0.22 acres. The request is for a curb cut for a back driveway to access Dinsmore Trail. Alice Stepp was present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the administrative request. As the curb has already been removed, if the Planning Commission votes to deny this request, the applicant will be required to have the curb replaced at her own expense and an inspection by the City Engineering Division will be necessary. Commission Discussion Johnson: This is located in the extreme western part of the City. It is very close to the City of Farmington. Conklin: The applicant asked what procedure there was to allow access to Dinsmore Trail. In 1994, during the preliminary plat approval process, staff made the statement there would be no curb cuts to Dinsmore Trail from the lots in this subdivision. Staff still supports that statement. Stepp: Estes: Stepp: I have spoken to Mr. Jim Beavers on several occasions and made written requests. I am not the one who removed the curb. I talked to my contractor after calling the City to get a permit. My contractor said he could do this and it would not be a problem. He said he would handle everything. He is the one who actually cut the curb. The reason I need a small driveway into the back of my property is because my mother is elderly and my daughter will be driving in a couple of years. According to the police department, we cannot park in front of my house. They have requested that I find additional parking because of a fire lane hazard. I have pictures showing the scraps from our vehicles. We have to have four wheel drive vehicles to get up our driveway in the snow and we need additional parking spaces for the vehicles. My mother is unable to walk up the hill to our house. Is there a reason you cannot park in your garage? I park in the garage. You have to have a four wheel drive vehicle to get up the • • • Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2000 Page 16 driveway. A regular car cannot pull into my driveway. Estes: Is it correct to understand that the driveway is of such a grade that you cannot drive a car up your driveway? Stepp: Correct. Johnson: I'm not sure that we have ever seen a request to cure a driveway that is not useable by a passenger car. Stepp. I have a four wheel drive that sits up high so I can use the driveway. My mother's car cannot negotiate the steep angle of the street and drive. I've tried different approaches and it still won't pull it. Public Comment None. Further Commission Discussion Marr: On agenda session on Thursday, we drove out to look at this and my major concern is that the proposed place for a drive is not far from curve that is on a drive that is very narrow and potentially dangers. In my judgement of my own driveway and the steepness of it, I don't feel like this is of such a degree that this is something we should do. I will vote against this. MOTION Commissioner Marr made a motion to deny AD00-5. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote o 6-2-0. Commissioners Odom and Shackelford voted against the motion. Johnson: If this drive is too steep to be negotiated, this is not something that we are called upon to rectify. I don't think the new drive was in a location that was not safe. When the subdivision was built, this is something that should have been taken into account. Before you bought the property, it should have been considered. • • • Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2000 Page 17 Stepp: We talked to Carl and Allen Walker when they built the house about the steepness of the driveway. He told me that there would be no problem putting a driveway in the back because Dinsmore was a dead end street. • • • Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2000 Page 18 CU00-7: CONDITIONAL USE LEWIS, PP641 This item was submitted by Zhan Lewis for property located south of 2065 City Lake Road to the west. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 25.54 acres. The request is for an equipment shed in an R-1 district as an accessory structure. Staff Recommendation Staff recommended approval of the conditional use subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit shall be sought for the proposed structure with an accompanying site plan showing exactly where the structure will be located on the property. The location of the structure shall be in accordance with the rough site plan submitted with this conditional use application. 2. This accessory building shall not be inhabited. Commission Discussion Johnson: The request is to build an equipment shed as an accessory structure. This property is Just west of Morningside Drive. It is wooded and the 25.5 acres has no improvements on it. Staff is recommending approval of the use. Anytime there is to be a shed built on a property where there are no existing improvements, the applicant has to gain the approval of the Planning Commission via a conditional use. That is the reason this is before us. It is not a typical item that we see. Conklin: I have no additional information. Public Comment None. MOTION Commissioner Odom made a motion to approval conditional use 00-7. Commissioner Shackelford seconded the motion. Roll Call • • • Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2000 Page 19 Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • • Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2000 Page 20 AD00-6• ADMINISTRATIVE CHARLESTON PLACE PUD, PP370 This item was submitted by Greg House for property located at Charleston Place PUD. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 12.84 acres. The request is for a non-residential structure within 75 feet of an adjacent R-1 zoning district. Greg House was present on behalf of the request Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Planning Commission approval of entrance structures which encroach City right of way for Amber Drive. 2. All outdoor facilities allowed by Planning Commission shall comply with § 162.23 Non- residential uses in R districts, with regard to setbacks from adjacent R districts. 3. Appropriate permits must be obtains through the Inspections Division where necessary. A detailed site plan will be required for any structure which must be permitted. Commission Discussion Johnson: I think there are three items that make us the administrative items before us. One has to do with the approval of entrance structure which encroach on city right of way for Amber Drive and this is at both side of the subdivision on Amber Drive. The proposal is to build a permanent gate which doesn't close and I think there are a close of columns as well. Secondly, there is an outdoor facility to be allowed which is in the detention pond and the third is for a recreation facility for what I think was a spring house or something. Conklin: Planning staff has received a complaint from an adjoining property owner regarding a wood dock that has been built over the detention. That wood dock is approximately 100 feet from the north and east property lines. I did review with the planning and development ordinance which stated that anytime you have recreational facilities, those must be shown on the preliminary and final plans for a planned unit development. I interpreted that recreational facilities was a major change and if Mr. House wanted the wood dock to remain over the detention pond that the Planning Commission would have to approve it. That wood dock is meeting the setback requirements for nonresidential uses in residential district. Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2000 Page 21 The requirement is 75 feet. This dock is built over an existing spring fed pond and there is water in it at all times. During storm events, the water does rise and holds within the concrete structure that allows water to exist the pond and travel northward in a channel. That is the first request and whether or not that wood dock can remain on this property. The second request is to install entryway features or ornamental structures. These would be located in the city right of way which requires the Planning Commission's approval. The entryway feature enclosed a fixed 12 foot long gate which is stationary and is not intended to block the street. They are proposing this on each end of the subdivision. The last item that Mr. House has requested approval on is what is referred to an old barn on the property. They would like to use the rock structure and put a porch around it and allow public use of that location. That is approximately 89 feet from the west property line. If the structure is not lighted, the requirement is 100 feet and if it is lighted the requirement is 200 feet. Those are the three item the Commission needs to address this evening. Estes: With reference to the stone barn, what is the setback from the adjoining property? Conklin: Currently it 97.47 feet. However, if the porch wraps around it would add about 10 feet to the structure making the setback 87.47 feet from the west property line Bunch: On the issue of lighting, it that interior or exterior lighting? Conklin: That is not stated in the ordinance but I would interpret that as interior lighting. Odom: Is the structure proposed to be lighted or not? Conklin: I did speak to the applicant this afternoon and he would prefer the structure to be lighted. Johnson: The required setback for a lighted structure is 200 feet. House: I would like to clarify a couple of things. The porch would only be on three sides of the building which would be the north the east, and south sides. The idea was to create an outdoor area for people to enjoy. As far as lighting, it was designed to make it safer even if we restricted the use to day light hours only. We have alleys in this subdivision and some of the residents were requesting that those have lights. We aren't requesting that today but we would like to have your consideration on that issue at some other time. With respect to the dock, our idea was to camouflage the drainage inlet and maintain it by the home owners association in a park setting. We thought a dock was an attractive feature to hide • • • Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2000 Page 22 the concrete structure and could be used to fish from. It's not finished. If the neighbors are concerned about the semipublic use of these structures, we would put something in the home owner's association that the space couldn't be used after certain hours. We came up with the idea of the pillars and gate for the subdivision is so people can tell when they've reached Charleston Place. We have to have a sign as part of the ordinance. We were struggling with how to make that a tasteful identification point. This neighborhood is different. We felt the gate features would distinguish it. Public Comment Reed Greenwood, residing at 1601 Elmwood was present. Greenwood: Johnson: Greenwood: I live just north of the Charleston Place development I am the one who filed the complaint about the pier since I understood this developer had no prior approval for any structures in that green space between our property and the homes on the north side of the project. We've been coming to meetings since 1996 when this was first approved. Many of us in the neighborhood have followed this development closely since it was proposes. We attended several Planning Commission meetings and commented on it and have kept up with it because it is adjacent to our property and it is somewhat of a different kind of development. I'm here to ask that you deny this latest request from the developer. There are several things that I would like to refer to in the copy of the PUD ordinance that was provided to me by city staff in June of 1996. First, "A final PUD plan shall be submitted following the procedures and requirements of the subdivision regulations Chapter 159 In addition to the requirements of the subdivision regulations, the following information shall be submitted. A. Location of Recreational Facilities. Let me interrupt you. We have this set out before us on page 7.6. That is a requirement for the final plat and any recreational facility is required to be shown on that at the time the plat is submitted by the developer In a review of that plat in the Planning Commission office last Thursday, I found that neither of the two structures in the green space north of the driveways at the back of the houses is shown on that plat. We have been working on this since 1996. It's time to get finished with it. The developer has had a long enough time to do that. They have filed their plan. That plan even used covenants agreeing to go forward with the plan as presented. I also understand that those kinds of things shouldn't be changed unless there is compelling reason to make changes. Compelling reasons as I understand the planning and zoning code concern issues such as • • • Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2000 Page 23 health, safety, good drainage. Not recreation or ugliness. Next regarding setbacks in PUD's, there is some variance in interpretation. "When a PUD has a common perimeter with an R-1 district, any use of land within the R-1 PUD other than a single family detached dwelling shall be setback at least 250 feet from the common perimeter." 250 feet is what the ordinance says. This seems very clearly written. I assume the setback requirement was included in the code so that structures that serve as many as 51 families are not nuisances to the adjoining property owners. The proposed structures requested are not setback 250 feet. When this project was originally proposed, there was a pavilion very close to our property in the north side of the project. We were very concerned about the noise and other nuisances that might originate from a pavilion on this site. We researched the PUD requirements and found the 250 foot setback requirement. The pavilion was dropped from that plan. Here the developer comes again with a similar proposal which should be denied again. We continue to have the same concerns we had with the first pavilion Also, the final plat does not show the barn which actually was a garage. There is only the block walls remaining from the garage. We assumed the garage would be torn down along with the house. The only thing shown on the plan is the spring house. The code requires that prior to issuance of more than eight building permits for any residential PUD, all approved non residential facilities shall be constructed. There are twelve houses under construction in this development. We have requirements that the structures be proposed and shown on the final plat which was not done. The developer built one of the structures without proper review and permits. There is a requirement for a 250 foot setback which is not being observed. There is a requirement that the structure must be in place prior to the issuance of no more than eight building permits. I'm not sure why were here Also, in review of the final plat, they were required to provide screening and buffering. Several neighbors have been concerned about that. We thought we were through with this after the final round but sewer lines were run beside our house which was not in the original proposal. That is something that had to be done. We learned about this when we saw the person spray painting the ground for the sewer lines. We called the city and did not receive notification from the developer that a major sewer line was going to go by our house. We had a meeting with officials at the city and the developers and their engineers. We lost a 30 foot pine tree which was within six feet of the digging. We understood that the top soil would be restored to the former level and it wasn't. We understood that grass sod and not seeding was going to be used. I requested through the engineer of the project for the developer to take of the items and he refused to take care of any of it. I can sum up our position and the position of many of our neighbors. We ask that you require the developer to leave a green space area truly as green space without any structures of any kind. We ask that you require the developer to remove the pier that was built without Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2000 Page 24 seeking appropriate approvals and public input. We ask you to require the developer to tear down the rock walls remaining from the old garage. That was never in the plan as approved. Many of us in the neighborhood have an nagging concern. If you approve this what will he be back for next? Swimming pool? Lighted tennis court? A tower like the one off of Old Wire Road. We are looking at the substantial loss of the tree canopy and water shed on the top of this hill primarily because the houses are built on minimal lots and the houses occupy nearly all the lot. Most of the trees will be remove We would welcome the planting of additional trees in the open space to replace those that have to be removed. Chuck Chalfant residing at 1961 Overcrest was present. Chalfant: Our house is directly adjacent to Charleston Place. I'd like to address the pylons to the entryway gates. The gate on the east side specifically is directly adjacent to our property. Johnson. What are you calling the pylon? Chalfant: The pillars are 10 to 15 feet from our property. The gate extends to the end of the median and that would extend into the nature barrier of the creek. Two years ago it was approved that the markings would be placed adjacent to the creek and not in it. If you have to approve this, please make them move it back. I am opposed to the entry gate. It is not necessary to show that you are entering a new neighborhood. There is a creek and a tree line and the houses are significantly different. A gate is not necessary. I was hoping the new subdivision would be more inclusive but we have seen several things that indicate it is not that way. For example, the rock walls that are in front of the detention ponds. They are beautiful from the front but the back is concrete blocks and that is about 10 to 15 feet from my property. Further Commission Discussion House: In response to Chuck's comment, we don't have a problem moving the entry system farther to the west if that is suitable. We just want to define the neighborhood. It's interesting that when we first proposed this development four years ago, everyone was worried it would cheapen the value of their property and that it would low rent, multi family housing. Now they are complaining that it is too exclusive. We are in the process of applying stucco to the block wall and it's just not finished yet. We have not eliminated any trees. We have planted grass to prevent erosion in the areas we have disturbed. I don't how the Greenwood • • • Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2000 Page 25 thought they would get a sodded yard in their easement area. The reason for the entry system is to define the neighborhood and create a feeling that relates to the architecture of the development. I hope you can see that when you're out there. Johnson. This final plat was approved at the Subdivision Committee. I see that condition number eleven provided landscape screening around detention areas. When does that have to done? Conklin: Landscaping is one of the items that we allow the developer to delay. I will get with the Landscape Administrator and help get that finished up. Johnson. If no trees have been removed between the northmost detention pond of the adjacent property, then it sure has a different look from when we toured with site before any development. It was really a very thick, overgrown area. Maybe there weren't trees but there was something back there. Hoffman: I was involved with this process from the beginning. I recall that in the layout of the streets and the development that there is a central green space area that was going to be devoted for a gazebo for community events and the barn and garage would remain in more of a natural state and we a buffer to the neighbors. I think that idea has totally flown out the window. Apparently, the landscaping has not been installed around the detention areas to screen the neighbor's view of this development. The housekeeping is atrocious There is debris on site and it doesn't appear to have been policed at all. With regard to the entry gate, I find they are large and out of scale. MOTION Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to deny all three requests for the entry features, the recreation facility at the old garage, and allowing the wood dock in the detention area. Commissioner Estes seconded the motion. Johnson. Are you proposing removal of the wood dock that was built without consent? Hoffman: Yes, that is my motion. Johnson: I have a question about the distance such recreational structures have to have from the adjacent property. You have stated that the setback is 100 to 200 feet and Mr. Greenwood has stated that it is 250 feet. Can you explain this ordinance? It appears to me it must be 250 feet. I'm look at 166.06 which is the PUD Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2000 Page 26 ordinance. Conklin: In the original violation notice that we sent Mr. House, I used that section. Mr. House questioned whether or not that was appropriate. Within the Unified Development Ordinance, we also have a section on nonresidential uses in R districts. In referencing that, it talks charitable, cultural, educational, recreational and similar nonresidential facilities were permitted and the requirements could be reduced after receiving a plan for development and this section could be substituted for the Planned Unit Development ordinance. My interpretation was it must apply to the Planned Unit Development ordinance somehow. It states in there an outdoor facility or use. We have land use on perimeters discussing things other than single family homes and we also have a section in our ordinances that talks about nonresidential uses in R districts. Therefore, if it doesn't apply to a wood dock or picnic area or outdoor activity area, where it specifically states 166.06, I don't know of any area where it could be applied. Shackelford: Due to my relationship with this applicant, I will be abstaining from this vote. Hoover: Does the ordinance require signage for this neighborhood? Conklin: There is no requirement that a subdivision has to have a sign. Hoover: Were there originally plans for columns at the entries? Conklin: I was not aware of any entry way feature being planned. Estes: I have not been on board from the beginning. I am fresh to this and perhaps that is an advantage. I see they have done some downstream channel diversion. There has been relocation and loss of a watershed. There is rip rap stone as a dissipater and all that has been approved by our City Engineer. What remains is the screening and buffering and the green space. I understand that can be delayed until a later time. The setback requirements for lighted or unlighted nonresidential structures are not being met under any part of our code It has been noted that the preliminary plat was suppose to locate any and all proposed nonresidential structures including gates and monument signs and that was not done. The plat has the final approval and has been filed of record in the courthouse and it is a done deal. If this process means anything, then we need to consider that once the process is completed it is completed. I understand the concept of change orders and design changes and so on but those are normally contemplated in building contained units and not in redesigning subdivisions. I am troubled by this idea that you can approve a final plat then come back with all Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2000 Page 27 these changes without notification and hearing from the public. Johnson: At the time this PUD came through, one of the selling points was it would have a lot of space in the buffer zone and the idea was to be good neighbors. The idea was not to encroach or impose on the neighbors with recreation facilities. When we site a PUD and back it up to an existing neighborhood, we have a duty to stand buy our decision to not allow recreational facilities near the boundary lines. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 7-0-1. Commissioner Shackelford abstained. • • Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2000 Page 28 CU00-6: CONDITIONAL USE DUNN, PP367 This item was submitted by Paul Dunn for property located at 1722 N. Gregg. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.84 acres. The request is for a Limited Neighborhood Commercial use in an R-1 district. Paul Dunn was present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. One wall sign shall be allowed with a maximum area of four square feet. The color of the sign shall be compatible with the color of the structure and only indirect external lighting is allowed. 2. Any outdoor lighting shall be residential in nature and shall be shielded and directed away from all surrounding residential uses. No pole lights shall be permitted. 3. The applicant shall obtain from the Solid Waste Division a "commercial cart" for waste disposal. This oversized trash can with flip top lid shall be rolled out to the curb on pick up mornings and shall be stores within a screened enclosure at all other times. 4. The existing access into the property from Greg Street shall be widened to meet the City's standard 24 foot two-way access requirements. Off street parking is required at a ratio of 1:300 square feet for the proposed office. The applicant proposes to pave and stripe a total of four parking spaces (one of which will meet ADA accessibility requirements) in a configuration which will allow vehicles to exit the site in a forward motion. The general location of these parking spaces is indicated on the site plan submitted by the applicant. A final, scaled site plan must be submitted to the Planning Division with an application for a parking lot permit prior to construction of this parking area. 6. This professional office shall be limited to one insurance agent and one support staff position as proposed by the applicant. 7. This professional office shall be limited to the existing structure. Any expansion of the structure in the future will require Planning Commission approval as an amendment to this conditional use. Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2000 Page 29 8. The applicant shall install screening along the north and west property line adjacent to the proposed parking area. The screening to the north may be in the form of vegetative plantings or may be a six foot tall wooden, privacy fence. On the west, adjacent to the street right of way, screening as required by the City's Parking Lot Ordinance shall be applied. 9. Water shall be turned off immediately and he professional office shall not operate if any of the conditions are not met 10. This conditional use shall be automatically revoked if any condition is not met. Commission Discussion Johnson: There are eight conditions. Is there additional information on this proposed conditional use? Conklin: Staff has no additional information. Johnson: Have you agreed to the eight conditions and signed off? Dunn. On number four which is the 24 foot two way access, according to my measurements, that is not feasible. It is currently 11 feet and there are drain culverts on both sides of the driveway with a water meter at the very bottom. I asked to get a curved driveway and that was not permitted. The maximum I could go is 14 feet. Johnson. Tim, have you looked at that specifically? Do you know for sure that 24 feet would work there? Conklin: I'm not sure based on the existing conditions if that would work. Site improvements could be made to allow a wider drive. The state fire drive requires a minimum of 20 feet. Our ordinance requires 24 feet. That is ensure ingress when a car leaving the facility is turning left. They probably won't have too much traffic so I wouldn't be opposed to allowing a 20 foot access but that would be the minimum. Johnson: Staff's position is then that a 20 foot drive is tolerable but anything less than that is intolerable and whatever needs to be done to accommodate a 20 foot curb cut would be necessary. Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2000 Page 30 Conklin: Yes. Dunn: How can you do that? Conklin: We can workout the engineering issues. I'll have our street superintendent look at it. Dunn: I don't have much traffic. Most of my work is done over the phone. Johnson- I'm not comfortable acting on this issue when the applicant feels it is not doable. MOTION Commissioner Johnson made a motion to postpone CU00-6 until someone from the City can look at this time and determine whether or not it is possible to do a minimum 20 foot drive. Commissioner Marr seconded the motion. Odom: Is there any way to approve this action with a condition that the access be workout with staff? Conklin. I don't see why not as long as they can meet the minimum 20 foot. Odom: Let me ask that if they cannot meet the minimum 20 foot does that change your recommendation for approval? Conklin: I work closely with Mickey Jackson, the Fire Chief, and he has in the past required a minimum of 20 feet for this type of drive. So, I would change my recommendation to denial of the project. Dunn: I have an appointment to close with the bank on Friday. What kind of time frame are we looking at? Conklin: The next meeting is March 27`". Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 8-1-0. Commissioner Odom voted against the motion. Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2000 Page 31 RZ00-12: REZONING BUTTERFIELD TRAIL VILLAGE, PP176 This item was submitted by George Faucette on behalf of Butterfield Trail Village for property located at the southwest corner of Joyce Blvd and Old Missouri Road. The property is zoned A- 1, Agricultural and contains approximately 6 acres The request is to rezone to R -O, Residential Office. Daniel Broyles was present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning. Commission Discussion Conklin: Staff has recommended approval. They are requesting rezoning the property from A-1 to R -O. To the east of this property is Paradise Valley at the intersection of Joyce and Old Missouri Road. That includes the clubhouse, restaurant, and parking lot. To the northeast across Joyce is undeveloped and zoned A-1. It is designated on the land use plan as office. To the west is a church and further south and west is a 60 unit large scale development which we approved several weeks ago. Public Comment Wes Murtishaw was present. Murtishaw: I am President of the Board of Butterfield Trail Village. Also with me is Vice President, Don Honeycut and our Treasurer, David Lashley. MOTION Commissioner Shackelford made a motion to approve RZ00-12. Commissioner Man seconded the motion. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2000 Page 32 APPOINTMENT OF NOMINATING COMMITTEE Johnson: Our last item is appointment of the Nominating Committee. I appoint Commissioner Ward which is a word to the wise not to miss a meeting. Commissioner Marr, would you be willing to serve? Man: Yes. Johnson: I will appoint myself, the chair, as the third member of the Nominating Committee. That report will come back to the Commission at the next meeting. Commissioner Marr will you find a time for us to meet? Meeting adjourned at 7:38 p.m. • • • PC MEETING 031 3 ICO MOTION fh1MUlEs ITEM # CAMoLEVCOD ITEM #CU0O-1 NoRmAM SECOND D. BUNCH B. ESTES 5:ZOFn 5:15Pm L. HOFFMAN S. HOOVER 5:ZgF111 P. JOHNSON D. MARR 5:_7 PM N N 5:zum N C. ODOM Z.th, L. SHACKELFORD L. WARD saFfn N ABsEt1/4n' Aft -k\ -r ACTION VOTE APReov m TO MIEN/ Cb I LEO 4-4 -0 Tm UALLETIA • • • • PC MEETING 0311310d MOTION Cs4LIOU WOOD ITEM # 0000-4 ITEM # EZ.Co-1i a:NNISDN) SECOND 00orn D. BUNCH B. ESTES 7 N L. HOFFMAN S. HOOVER P. JOHNSON D. MARR Y C. ODOM L. SHACKELFORD L. WARD N y prr ACTION VOTE APPOOVED FAILED LVED 41-4-b PAGE- 2- • • • PC MEETING SiS MOTION STEEP ITEM # PCCO-.5 Lew Ss ITEM # CUCO--1 COOm SECOND RACYEL..$-EJEP D. BUNCH B. ESTES y y y L. HOFFMAN S. HOOVER v P. JOHNSON D. MARR y y 7 Ni y C. ODOM N y L. SHACKELFORD L. WARD \I ABsair ACTION VOTE iobaY APPta3U g P/E 3 • • • PC MEETING 343-00 MOTION C -we 1.1fl>D ITEM # AX -(. BUKIN ITEM #CUCO-e ricamkg- C'eukni\J SECOND Estes D. BUNCH B. ESTES L. HOFFMAN S. HOOVER P. JOHNSON D. MARR C. ODOM y 1 N L. SHACKELFORD L. WARD Pyr ACTION VOTE TD DSt1 ASV FD 7-0-I PR PC MEETING I R ICO MOTION &uTTEt2Rl s) ITEM # MO- 17 ITEM # SHRC RSR SECOND D. BUNCH B. ESTES y 7 L. HOFFMAN S. HOOVER N P. JOHNSON D. MARR y y C. ODOM y L. SHACKELFORD L. WARD y P awl - ACTION VOTE Pr ES