Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-05-22 Minutes• • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on May 22, 2000 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED Approval of Minutes VA 00-3.00 Vacation (Maguire, pp 600) LSD 00-2.10 (Atlas Construction, pp 367) CU 00-14.00 (St. Clair, pp 251) CU 00-15.00 (Clevenger/Silvis, pp 437) AD 00-16.00 (Northwest Arkansas Mall, pp 173) MEMBERS PRESENT Nancy Allen Don Bunch Bob Estes Lorel Hoffman Conrad Odom Loren Shackelford Lee Ward Don Marr Sharon Hoover STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Diana Varner Ron Petrie Dawn Warrick Mike McKimmey ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved MEMBERS ABSENT None STAFF ABSENT None • • Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2000 Page 2 APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES and VA 00-3.00: Vacation (Maguire, pp 600) Item submitted by Alan Reid on Behalf of Brett Maguire for property located at 701 W. 15'h. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 0.51 acres. The request is to vacate a 10' easement on the back of lots 4 and 5 of Block 2, Tate Addition. Odom. Good evening ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the May 22, 2000 meeting of the Planning Commission. The first item that we have tonight is the consent agenda which consists of two items. First is the approval of the minutes of the May 8, 2000 meeting. The second is a Vacation 00-3.00 submitted by Alan Reid on behalf of Brett Maguire for property located at 701 W. 15th. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 0.51 acres. The request is to vacate a 10' easement on the back of lots 4 and 5 of Block 2, Tate Addition. These items that are on the consent agenda will be approved by consent unless a member of the audience or a member of the Planning Commission wishes to remove any of the items. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom. Does any member of the Commission wish to remove either of the items? PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: Does any member of the audience request we remove either of the items? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call consent agenda is approved 9-0-0. Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2000 Page 3 LSD 00-2.10: Large Scale Development/ P.U.D. (Atlas Construction, pp 367) Item submitted by Chris Parton of Crafton, Tull and Associates on behalf of Dan Ferguson of Atlas Construction for property located on Sycamore between Woodland and North College. The property is zoned R-1.5, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 0 95 acres with 5 units proposed. Odom: The next item on tonight's agenda is LSD 00-2.10 which is a large scale development P.U.D. submitted by Chris Parton of Crafton, Tull and Associates on behalf of Dan Ferguson and Atlas Construction for property located on Sycamore between Woodland and North College. The property is zoned R-1.5, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 0.95 acres with 5 units proposed. Staff's recommendation is for approval subject to ten conditions of approval. Staff are there any further conditions of approval? Conklin: There are no further conditions of approval. I do want to make the Commission aware of condition number one, the determination of the requested waiver to allow a private dead end street in a Planned Unit Development. Staff is in support of this. The ordinance would require a cul-de-sac be constructed. Eliminating the cul-de-sac will help to preserve additional tree canopy. Odom: I'll bring it forward then to the applicant for presentation. Parton: Like you stated, this is a Planned Unit Development with five single family residences proposed. They are fairly upscale residences. We originally brought this to Technical Plat Review with six units proposed. After some discussion with Tim and other planning staff and engineering, the owner decided to remove one of the units from the site to bring the total proposed units to five in order to better preserve the natural features on the site and to preserve the existing tree canopy on the site. We certainly felt we needed to comply with all the ordinances as best we could. As Tim said, we are asking for one variance which is to not construct a cul-de-sac at the end of the private drive in front of units four and five. This will help preserve the open space and the tree canopy in the northwest portion of the property. If we are to have to construct the cul-de-sac we will loose approximately three 30' oak trees. That is the reason for the variance request. Odom: Other than item number one, which is a request for a waiver that we have to act on, do you have any comments? Are you in agreement with the other conditions of approval? • Parton: Yes. Everything is fine. Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2000 Page 4 PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: Is there any member of the audience that would like to address the Commission on the large scale development? Sweethalp: Greetings. Tim Sweethalp, 1847 Woodland Avenue. Basically I'm here to restate the neighborhood's view that we are opposed and will remain opposed to this development, but we don't have much choice. We do want this Commission as well as the Council to know that we are still aware of what is going on. We thought this was settled and now there is a request for a variance. Are there going to be other requests for variances? I don't know, but we are concerned about our neighborhood. We will continue to watch and remember, although it doesn't effect this panel, elections are coming up. Although our Council may view some things that are going on in the community as isolated events, they are not. I'm sure the voters in this fine city... Odom: Tim, I'm going to have to ask that you address your comments to this specific issue. Sweethalp: Well, they are all related sir. I'm just here to say the neighborhood is still very opposed and still keeping an eye on what is going on. Thanks. Odom: Would any other member of the audience like to address us on the issues before the Commission? Seeing none I'll close the floor to public discussion. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom: I'll bring it back to the Planning Commission for questions or comments of the applicant or staff. Allen: Mr. Chairman, this development is in the area where I live so I will abstain from voting and discussion. Odom: Thank you Commissioner Allen. Any other questions or comments of the applicant? Commissioner Bunch, go ahead. Bunch: On this wrought iron fence, it shows 18" x 18" brick columns but how tall is the fence? Parton: It is approximately the same height as the western cedar fence proposed on the rest of the site which is 6'. • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2000 Page 5 Bunch: Parton: Hoover: Parton: Hoover: Parton: Hoover: Parton: Hoover: Parton: Hoover: Parton: Hoover: Parton: Hoover: Does the existing stone retaining wall stay in place? Not at this time. No. We are required to build a sidewalk and have the required green space. From the curb to the sidewalk is 16 feet. That takes out almost every bit of the existing stone retaining wall. The ordinance won't let us keep that wall. I have a question for the applicant. On page 2.4, it looks like the driveway extends up past unit 5. Is this correct? That must be an older plan. It's no longer that way. So does the driveway end with unit five up at the front edge of it? Yes, I believe so. And I'm a little confused. Here is this front tree that is a 30" tree at the edge of the driveway, is that staying or being cut down? That's to be removed. It is right on the edge of the right-of-way and has been severely pruned by SWEPCO. I believe that's their territory. It's been cut back at least once that I know of. Was there a reason this driveway couldn't be moved more to the west so that tree could be saved there? Not that I can think of right off hand. Wouldn't that be preferable to have some existing tree at the front of the buildings? If I'm reading these plans correctly, from the road you won't see any trees. You will see buildings and the trees are back behind units 1,2, and 3. Yes ma'am. Can we save that 30" tree? We can certainly look at a way to do that by moving the driveway to the west I think. Are there any topo problems? • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2000 Page 6 Parton: Not that I remember right off hand. Shackelford: I believe that is the tree Kim Hesse said had been topped. Hoover: Marr: Conklin: Marr: Hoover: Hoffman: Marr: Hoffman: Parton: Hoffman: Petrie: But it doesn't look bad. I just have a question I want to clarify from agenda session with staff. I thought that was the tree that Kim Hesse evaluated as being damaged from it's pruning over history and was okay to have that particular tree removed based on her evaluation. Kim Hesse has reviewed these plans and has approved this tree preservation plan. That's what I understood. When I went out and looked at it, it looked like a healthy tree. I recall that conversation too, but it was confusing to me because it looked like it was fine. It's growing all over the place but it didn't look like it was going to die any time soon. Did other Commissioners look at that tree? It didn't look near it's death to me. In Subdivision Committee we definitely required that the tree canopy be met and I think they have done that. Your idea about saving this tree is a good one and if you all think that you could move the driveway to the west, it looks like it would put it more towards the center of the lot and people would have to veer left or right but, just looking at it, I don't see a problem with that. But if this is indeed one of the trees that is damaged or going to die anyway, I'm not sure I would want to incorporate it into the motion. And I'm just giving you the feedback Kim gave us Just to follow up on the rest of the Subdivision Committee's discussion, you all jump in here if I'm missing anything, we had a setback issue that has been corrected. Right. The detention pond and drainage have been satisfied to the city engineering department. Has that been worked out? We are still needing some additional information that we have to get before we Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2000 Page 7 approve the final plan. The applicant has talked to the school board concerning that issue and it has been resolved, I just don't have that in writing yet. Hoffman: So they have had that discussion and it can be worked out before you get your building permit? Parton: Yes. The school district has said they are okay with it we just don't have anything in writing, like Ron said, to confirm that yet. Hoffman: In terms of the number of units per acre we have discussed this many different times. Staff, can you give us just for the benefit of the neighbors present, a rundown on the allowable number of units under R-1 zoning and the difference between R-1 zoning and P.U.D. designation? What do we gain with P.U.D. versus going straight R-1? R-1.5? Conklin: This project started with a rezoning from R-1 to R-1.5. At that time the applicant did offer a bill of assurance to limit it to six units per acre. This is a one acre site. That went to Planning Commission and Planning Commission voted 4-2-0. It takes five votes to approve a rezoning so they appealed to City Council. City Council did approve the rezoning. This is a Planned Unit Development. The purpose of a Planned Unit Development is more efficient use of land, more efficient use of public facilities, more useable open space per structure grouping and preservation of appropriate natural and physical features. The applicant did bring a plat to us several months ago that was rejected. They redesigned this development and eliminated one unit. Eliminating the one unit and reducing the square footage of the buildings they were able to have the required open space, which is 20 percent on this site and also meet the Tree Preservation Ordinance requirements. Typically in a standard development, you would have individual lots with a street being constructed on this property. This is being allowed to use private drives which are 20' in width versus a standard 26' street. Also, the variance of the cul-de-sac to allow preservation of more tree canopy and overall more open space in this neighborhood. Hoffman: Thank you. Odom. It's interesting that one of the things under R-1, which is what it was before, this could have been developed as four units If that in fact had happened, far less open space and trees would have been saved. It seems as though this is a good proposal as it brings five units and yet saves more than if it had been developed under the R-1 zoning. Twenty percent tree protection requirement? Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2000 Page 8 Conklin: Hoffman: Conklin: MOTION: Hoffman: Conklin: Hoffman: Odom: Hoffman: Yes. The tree preservation requirement is 20 percent and they are meeting that requirement. And they are exceeding, I believe, the open space requirement by about 4 or 5 percent? Yes. They are at 34 percent open space. I really do think that it's important to infill our neighborhoods that are close in with higher quality developments and have a mix of housing styles. That's what makes the city very attractive as opposed to having ticky-tacky subdivisions that every house looks the same. I'm going to try to craft a motion that will deal with the tree issue. Back up again, do we know for sure if Kim said this 30" tree is in poor shape? Yes. She did make that statement at agenda session that this tree had been topped in the past and it was in poor condition. Okay. If it was a viable tree, I would make a motion that would move the driveway to save the tree, but I think with that in mind, I'll just go ahead and recommend approval of LSD 00-2.10 subject to all staff comments with no additional requirements. Would you address the waiver? And with the granting of the waiver for the cul-de-sac. Shackelford: I'll second. Odom: Hoover: • Hoffman: We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman and a second by Commissioner Shackelford to approve LSD 00-2.10 Large Scale Development/P.U.D. subject to staff conditions and granting the waiver as outlined in number one of the conditions of approval. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Chairman, question for Subdivision. Did you talk about the drives by any chance? The issue I have with this layout is from the street we are going to see a whole other drive with no landscaping. I think there is landscaping proposed. Can the applicant address that. • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2000 Page 9 Parton: Yes, there is landscaping between each individual unit, in what you would call their green space, in between the two units that face each other. They will have their own separate landscaping internally. Also along the street right-of-way, the developer has expressed that he will do some pretty intense landscaping between the right of way and the drive. Also, at the entrance is some pretty nice landscaping proposed. Hoover: I guess I don't have the plans to see that. That's just what you are saying is going to happen and I don't see any trees drawn in here on the right of way. I believe we can't plant trees in the right of way. We can only plant bushes. My objection is that we are going from the street to a whole other 20' driveway that parallels the street here. Then we have the face of the buildings where we don't have an opportunity to put anything tall in between those two. I guess under P.U.D. we are trying to make efficient use of the infrastructure. Is that one of our goals? Conklin: That is one of the purposes the Planning Commission has to make a finding on. Hoover: I find that all this driveway along here, there seems to be a lot of concrete on this particular plan. Hoffman: Did you have a landscape plan at Subdivision? I thought I remembered bushes and other things. The courtyards have landscapes? Parton: The courtyards will be landscaped, yes. Hoffman: I understand your concerns. Hoover: It's just that there are a lot of concerns. I've seen these units done before with half the amount of concrete. I guess it's just not an efficient use of the driveway. My issue is there is more concrete instead of more green space. Especially in our public space. Hoffman: We talked about the width of the drive and narrowing it down. Hoover: Yes. Hoffman: The fire department had a requirement on that. Hoover: And they require how wide? Parton: We have reduced the width of the drive down to 20', the narrowest the project will • Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2000 Page 10 allow. Conklin: It's 20'. Hoover: It just appears to me there is a lot of extra concrete. If you looked at the design a little longer, the layout, you could come out using about half the amount of concrete and probably too, saving a little more trees and being softer, user friendly for the public view going by there. Odom: Aren't we granting a waiver for putting more concrete down with the cul-de-sac? The cul-de-sac is required to go into this, is that correct? Conklin: That is correct. The request is to not have to build that cul-de-sac in order to preserve additional tree canopy. Odom. And what is this about the Fire Chief actually requiring concrete to get the fire trucks in there? • Conklin: The state law does require a 20' access to those structures. Odom: And that's what we have? Conklin: That's what we have, yes. Hoffman: We did look at trying to narrow that down. Parton: We did actually narrow the drives by three feet also to reduce the amount of paving on the site. • Odom: We have a motion and a second on the table, is there any further discussion? Call the roll. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call the motion carries 7 1 1. Commissioner Allen Abstained. Commissioner Hoover voted no. Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2000 Page 11 CU 00-14.00: Conditional Use (St. Clair, pp 251) Item submitted by Diana St. Clair on behalf of Kevin St. Clair M.D., P.A. for property located at 152 E. Appleby Road. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 0.32 acres. The request is for 4 parking spaces in excess of that allowed by ordinance. Odom: The next item we have on tonight's agenda is CU 00-14 submitted by Diana St. Clair on behalf of Kevin St. Clair M.D. for property located at 152 E. Appleby Road. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 0.32 acres. The request is for 4 parking spaces in excess of that allowed by ordinance. Staff's recommendation is for approval. Staff, are there any conditions for approval for this? Warrick: There are none. Odom: I'd ask the applicant to please come forward at this time. Tell us your name for the record. St. Clair: Diana St. Clair. Odom: Did you have any presentation you would like to make? St. Clair: No. Unless you have any questions. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom. We will get to questions indust a minute. I want to make sure there is not a member of the audience that would like to address us on this issue? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom: Seeing none I'll close the floor to public comment and bring it back to the Planning Commission for questions or comments of the applicant. Or motions. MOTION: Ward: Mr. Chairman, I'll recommend approval of CU 00-14 for the conditional use. Bunch: Second. Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2000 Page 12 Odom: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward and a second by Commissioner Bunch to approve CU 00-14. Is there any further discussion? Hoffman: I have a question of staff. Do we still meet the landscaping requirement of the parking lot? Do we need another island with the addition of 4 spaces? Warrick: In reviewing the plan, I believe it does still meet the required landscaping. Hoffman: Okay. Thank you very much. Marr: Mr. Chair, I have a question. We seem to make parking lot waivers for restaurants and doctors and banks. Those are the three I remember. My question is, and I asked this last time and I'm going to ask it every time, have we sent this or made any recommendation to have those requirements changed so we don't deal with each of these items every single time? I'm just curious if we have made any recommendations on this yet. Conklin: Staff did bring forward an ordinance recommendation to amend our parking lot standards for restaurants. The Commission, however, did not approve that so we did not take that forward. With regard to banks, I had an intern last summer look at and evaluate bank parking at different times on Friday's and into the fall when the university students were here. It's my opinion that the bank parking seems to be working. The most I saw at any bank was about 45 to 50 percent utilization during peak hours, so I think we are okay on banks. The only other doctor's office I can think of is the pediatric clinic where we had the waiver request. I have not seen that as a big issue. I'll be more than happy to bring to this Commission the increased parking for restaurants. I think that is needed. Every restaurant that we have needs additional parking over what our ordinances do allow. Marr: Thank you. Odom: You made a great presentation. Call the roll. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call the motion carries 9-0-0. Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2000 Page 13 CU 00-15: Conditional Use (Clevenger/Silvis, pp 437) Item submitted by Bill Helmer on behalf of Clifford and Mary Clevenger and Mary Silvis for property located at 831 N. 54th Avenue. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 2 97 acres, R-1 zoning has been requested. The request is for a duplex in a R-1, Low Density Residential district. Odom: The next item on tonight's agenda is CU 00-15 submitted by Bill Helmer on behalf of Clifford and Mary Clevenger and Mary Silvis for property located at 831 N. 54th Avenue. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural. It contains approximately 2.97 acres. R -I zoning has been requested. The request is for a duplex on an R-1, Low Density Residential district. Staff's recommendation is for approval of the conditional use subject to the following conditions. Number one the approval shall be contingent upon the City Council approval of the pending rezoning request from A-1 to R-1 which was recommended by Planning Commission vote of 7-0-0 at the May 8, 2000 meeting. Staff do you want to give just a quick history on this? Conklin: At the last Planning Commission meeting you did recommend R-1 zoning on this property. There currently is a duplex on this property. The applicant did meet. with staff about a month ago and requested permission to build an additional single family home. Staff looked at the existing use of the property with a duplex and we initially discussed R-1.5 zoning. However after they applied for R-1.5 several neighbors did express concern over our R-1.5 zoning. Staff did look at how to allow an additional single family home on this acreage and what we decided was to recommend the R -I zoning which will be going to the next City Council meeting. With regard to the existing duplex, once it is rezoned to R-1 that would make it nonconforming. In order to deal with the nonconforming status we advised them to apply for a conditional use for the existing duplex. They have applied for that conditional use and staff is recommending approval. Odom: Let's make it 100 percent clear this is for the existing duplex. This does not allow another one to be built. Conklin: Yes. This is for the existing duplex. Once we rezone it to R-1 it will make the use of the land nonconforming with the duplex. We are not allowed to allow expansions or building of additional structures once it becomes nonconforming. So we need to clean it up with this conditional use. Odom: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward at this time? Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2000 Page 14 Conklin: I don't believe the applicant is here tonight. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: Would any member of the audience like to address us on this issue? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom. Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the Planning Commission for questions for yourselves since the applicant is not here. MOTION: Shackelford: Hoover: Odom: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to approve CU 00-15. I'll second. Motion by Commissioner Shackelford and second by Commissioner Hoover. Any further discussion? Call the roll. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call the motion carries 9-0-0. • • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2000 Page 15 AD 00-16.00: Administrative Item (Northwest Arkansas Mall Sign, pp 173) Item submitted by Alice Bishop, General Manager of Northwest Arkansas Mall for property located at Mall Ave. and Joyce Blvd. The request is for a maintenance use agreement in order to place a monument sign on City property, within the median in Mall Ave. on the north side of the intersection at Joyce Blvd. Odom: Our next item is an administrative item submitted by Alice Bishop, General Manager of the Northwest Arkansas Mall for property located at Mall Avenue and Joyce Boulevard. The request is for maintenance use agreement in order to place a monument sign on City property within the median of Mall Avenue on the north side of the intersection at Joyce Boulevard. Staff do you have any comments. Conklin: Mike McKimmey with our Inspections Division will be making the presentation on behalf of the City. Alice Bishop is here from the Northwest Arkansas Mall. I'll let Mike McKimmey give you a brief overview of what is being requested by the Northwest Arkansas Mall. McKimmey: I'd like to give you a history on this so I can bring you to where we are at this point. Northwest Arkansas Mall applied for three signs. They were denied by the sign inspector with the recommendation that the variance be requested. That was done on May 1, 2000. The Board of Sign Appeals did approve their request. There was a contingency to their request for the mall sign that is in question here, that permission would be given by the proper authority for the sign to be sited on the public property. That would be this body. The Minimum Street Standards 94- 96 A 1-14 gives you that permission. This kind of sign is an area sign and again it has been approved by the Board of Sign Appeals. So the question to you is whether they can put it in the median at the mall entrance on public property. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: Thank you. Is there any member of the audience that would like to address us on this issue? Bishop: My name is Alice Bishop and I'm with Northwest Arkansas Mall. I just want to say the request for the sign is for it to go on city property. This is property that the mall has maintained for four years. We purchased the landscaping that went on the property. We irrigate it and maintain it in every way. We pick up trash on it. I know we don't own it but we are just asking for the right to use the land. Our main concern is for traffic flow. Especially since there is more development going in on Joyce Boulevard. I'm just amazed at the people that don't know • Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2000 Page 16 where Northwest Arkansas Mall is because we don't have signs that say Northwest Arkansas Mall. That was part of our original large scale development plan that was approved by the City. The signage was on there, it's just that we got caught up in the sale of the mall and that was one of the last pieces of the renovation that we did not complete. We feel it's very important for people to know where Northwest Arkansas Mall is. It won't do any good for us to put it a block up on the median where our property is because people will not be able to see it from Joyce Boulevard. We feel it's very important. It will be a monument sign and if you look at our property, whatever we do we are going to do it the right way. So we are asking for you to give us an agreement to use that property for our sign. Thank you. Odom: Any other member of the audience? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom. Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the • Planning Commission for questions, comments and motions. MOTION: Marr: Mr. Chairman, I think a directional sign there would be good. I think it's not all that odd from letting a subdivision put a sign about their subdivision on similar property. So for that reason I'll move for approval of AD 00-16. Hoover: I'll second. Allen. Mr. Chairman, I'm having difficulty understanding the necessity for the sign. I don't know how anyone other than Ray Charles wouldn't be able to tell the mall is there. I see there are two trees in the lower median. Are the trees going to be displaced? Conklin: One tree I believe will be removed. The sign sits approximately 10' from the south end of the curb from that island. So, I believe there is one tree marked out there that will be removed. Allen: I also wondered about vision problems for cars coming in opposite directions. • Conklin: Perry Franklin, our Traffic Superintendent, did look at this and did feel like this sign would not impede visibility for traffic. He thought it would be okay at this • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2000 Page 17 Hoffman: McKimmey: Hoffman: Odom. Hoover: Odom: Bunch: Bishop: Odom: Allen: location. I do want to advise the Commission that I have been working with McDonald's Corporation on the northeast corner of Joyce and Mall Avenue. During our discussions they have agreed to place a monument sign at that corner. Their concern was visibility of their monument sign. As you know, we talk about signage on all of our large scale developments and they did ask my advice with regard to what kind of sign would be most appropriate in that location. I did recommend a monument sign and they are in agreement, however, they did express concern with regard to visibility of their sign if this sign does go in. I don't have an answer tonight weather or not it's going to block it. It's hard to tell. I just want to make sure that doesn't come up as an excuse to have a pole sign at that corner. Mr. Chairman, is this sign proposed to be 75 square feet or 140 square feet? The sign is proposed to be 66 square feet approximately. Okay. That would be my only concern. I think a smaller sign would not be a visual obstruction. I had read something in the earlier minutes that talked about a 140 square foot sign. So if this one is smaller, I think I could support the motion and I'm sure the McDonald's can adjust their sign to where it can be seen if you are heading east on Joyce Street. Did we get a second on the motion? Yes we did. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that I think the mall has done an excellent job with their landscaping and I hope to see other developers put the kind of effort that they have into their landscaping. That's why I'm going to be in support of this sign. I'm not usually for more signage, but when a developer shows that they are really trying to make a public space a nicer view for me when I'm going down the street, then by all means, I'm going to be agreeable to their needs. Anyone else? Mr. Chairman, am I correct in assuming that this sign will be lighted? Yes. Yes. Mr. Chairman, once again I wonder if someone could explain to me better the necessity for the sign. I think everyone knows where the mall is and if you are at • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2000 Page 18 that location you certainly can see the mall. I think it's pretty to have the trees growing in the median and I don't understand the necessity for the sign. Bishop: Do you want me to answer that? Odom: Yes. This is the time to do that. Bishop: I think most people in Fayetteville know where Northwest Arkansas Mall is but we are not just a Fayetteville mall anymore. We draw from all over Northwest Arkansas, Missouri and even across into Oklahoma. When you get somebody from out of town driving in, if they are looking for Northwest Arkansas Mall they may not be able to find it. That's why we need the signs. They may be coming specifically to go to the Mall. I've had people call me and say I'm out by the Luby's Mall because that's the sign we have up. They don't know it's Northwest Arkansas Mall. My company is amazed that we don't have any signage that has the name of the mall on it. I think Joyce and Mall Lane is a very important intersection and we want people to know that's where you turn to go to the Mall off of that particular street. Odom: Any further questions? Commissioner Marr. Marr. I guess my only comment is I do think it's hard to see the mall from that location. It's over the hill and hard to see unless you know it's there. It's easy to see the mall if you continue up College towards Springdale but I think once you turn onto Joyce Street a directional sign is more appropriate. Odom: Any further discussion? We have a motion before us by Commissioner Marr and a second by Commissioner Hoover, call the roll. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call the motion carries 8-1-0 with Commissioner Allen voting no. • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2000 Page 19 Odom. Staff, do we have any further items on the agenda tonight? Conklin: We have nothing further on the agenda. I would like to make an announcement with regard to our 2020 Update Subcommittee. I did hand out to the three Planning Commission Subcommittee members a schedule this evening. The first meeting is June 8th at 5:30 p.m. in room 326. Then June 29'h, same location and time. July 13th and July 20th. Hopefully it will get to Planning Commission on August 14th and to City Council on September 5th. I did include what discussion items will be at each meeting and look forward to working with this Committee this summer. Odom: Thank you. We are adjourned. • • • mintfits VA' oo-3.00 l.Uf-1540, 578/0° rtaPrcnlGL LSD DO -a. io Cu oo-p4 co MOTION 461.1-' n (A)n [ cL SECOND 5hcr t Ot i n e.h D. Bunch V Y 1 B. Estes 9 Y /� L. Hoffman Y S. Hoover f�1 X112- N. Allen V R t/ , (�T1� n y D. Marr �/ 1% C. Odom 1/ V y Shackelford 11 V L/ L. Ward y Y ACTION 9 -o - o 7 _ / _ / 9 - o - D VOTE • Cut 00-i5 for 0 cx>-Ka.cx) mn - fit J4.,i MOTION iliac Cel rota O .�-�.,_.& /iT. y�> SECOND jic}}n V r L C)c� ✓e r D. Bunch Y 11 B. Estes y V L. Hoffman V Y S. Hoover 11 Y N. Allen lr in D. Marr Y Y C. Odom 1 f 1l Shackelford t V L. Ward ACTION 9.D -0 8-/ -0 VOTE •