Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-07-24 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on July 24, 2000 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN LSD 00-7.10: Large Scale Development/P.U.D. Approved (Indian Springs phase II, pp 372) CU 00-16.00: Conditional Use (Arkansas Oaks Inc., pp 321) Approved LSD 00-17.00: Large Scale Development Approved (McDonald's, pp 134) MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Nancy Allen Don Bunch Bob Estes Lorel Hoffman Conrad Odom Loren Shackelford Lee Ward Don Marr Sharon Hoover None STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Tim Conklin Diana Varner Sheri Metheney Ron Petrie Dawn Warrick None • • • Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2000 Page 2 Consent Agenda: Approval of minutes from the July 10, 2000 meetings. LSD 00-7.10: Large Scale Development/P.U.D. (Indian Springs phase II, pp 372) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Sweetser Properties for property located south of Hwy 45 and west of Madison Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 3.20 acres with 18 units proposed. Odom: Good evening ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the Planning Commission meeting of July 24, 2000. Before we begin tonight's meeting I would like to remind everyone there is a meeting of the 2020 plan Update Committee this Thursday night the 27`" at 5:30 p.m., here in the City Hall in room 111. Now moving on to official business, the first item we have on tonight's agenda is the Consent Agenda. These are items that will be approved unless a member of the audience or a member of the Planning Commission wishes to pull them from the Consent Agenda to discuss. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: Does a member of the audience wish to pull either of those items for discussion? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom. Seeing none, does any member of the Planning Commission wish to pull either of those items for discussion? Seeing none will you call the roll? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call Consent Agenda passes on a vote of 9-0-0. • • • Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2000 Page 3 CU 00-16.00: Conditional Use (Arkansas Oaks Inc., pp 321) was submitted by Bill Helmer on behalf of Perry Butcher for property located at the southeast corner of Mt. Comfort Road and Bridgeport Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 13.39 acres. The request is for a temporary construction facility and real estate sales office. Odom. Staff's recommendation is for approval of the conditional use subject to the following conditions. There are five conditions of approval The first is that the construction office facility shall obtain a temporary occupancy permit from the City of Fayetteville for a period of no longer than 3 years. The second condition is that parking shall be provided to accommodate one employee and two guests. Parking shall be arranged in order for vehicles to enter and leave the property in a forward motion. The third item is that the structure shall be skirted in a suitable material which is compatible with the existing materials. The fourth item is that landscaping shall be provided on the north, east and south sides of the structure. The fifth condition is that one sign, which is no larger than 16 square feet in size, must be attached to the front of the structure stating that the facility is a temporary sales office and construction trailer for the Bridgeport and Arkansas Oaks developments. Staff, are there any further conditions of approval? Conklin: There are no further conditions of approval. We do have the conditions signed by the applicant. Odom: I would ask the applicant to please come forward at this time. State your name for the record and give us any presentation that you would like to make. Helmer. My name is Bill Helmer. Basically it is just what you read. We want to have an onsite office where we can meet with our construction folks and give out information on the development. Sales information. Odom: Staff has stated that you have signed the conditions of approval so you are in agreement? Helmer. That's correct. We are okay with all of that. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: Before we go on to questions, is there any member of the audience that would like to address us on this issue? Please come forward and state your name. • • • Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2000 Page 4 Hutchinson: My name is Sam Hutchinson and I live in Bridgeport. My concern is the term temporary. It's at the very entrance of the subdivision and our covenants do not allow a temporary facility on the lots. I'm concerned about the appearance of the building and certainly the duration of the "temporary" building. Is it going to be a mobile home type facility or is it going to be constructed? Is it going to meet the codes of Bridgeport? Odom. Do you have a copy of the covenants with you? Hutchinson: I did not bring them. Conklin: Hutchinson: Conklin: Hutchinson: Conklin: Hutchinson Conklin: Hutchinson: Odom: Mr. Chairman, this is not part of Bridgeport Subdivision. It is our entrance road goes right by the lot. Yes. I understand that but this is not part of the Bridgeport Subdivision. I understand that. To answer one of your questions, it's not a permanent building. It's a type of mobile home or trailer that is on a chassis so it's not going to be a permanent building there. The condition the we recommended is it be there no longer than three years for phases IV, V, and VI. Where will it be located on that 13 acres? I have a map if you want to come up and take a look at it. Here is Bridgeport and Mt. Comfort. It's going to be located right there (indicating the SE corner of the intersection). This is the entrance to Bridgeport Subdivision. We will have a temporary building right at our very entrance. Those are my concerns. Thank you very much Mr. Hutchinson. Would any other 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 applicant for questions and comments of the staff or Planning Commission. • • Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2000 Page 5 Estes: Mr. Chairman? Odom: Commissioner Estes. Estes: Tim, is three years a typical period for a conditional use for a temporary construction facility and temporary sales office? Conklin: We've only had one other construction sales type office approved since I've been employed at the city and that was in Covington. Do you remember what the terms were? Warrick: Two years. Conklin: Two years for that one. This is for phases IV, V, and VI of Bridgeport Subdivision. In my mind, yes, it would probably take that long to construct those subdivisions if not longer. Estes: My concern would be the three year conditional use, that we would have no superintendency control over how it was maintained during that period of time. If it fell into a state of disrepair, there would be a three year conditional use and that concerns me. As I look back over some of the temporary sales offices and temporary construction shacks I've seen, they get in a fairly dilapidated quickly. They weather, they are not maintained and the grounds are not kept. I would have a concern with the three year period for a temporary construction shack and sales office. Helmer: I can certainly understand that and I understand Mr. Hutchinson's concern. Obviously, we have a great deal of incentive to have a nice looking facility because we want Bridgeport to look good more than anybody does because of the money that's invested until we get it sold out. Of course, once we sell it out then there would be no need to keep the facility there. It would be time to remove it and go on. Estes: Will this be a removable facility or will it be what we sometimes see, where there's a facility put in place and later remodeled and sold as a unit? Helmer: This will be a removable facility and it would be removed. The long term plans is for the property where it will be sitting will be developed into residential lots and it would need to be moved at that time. • Estes: I have nothing further. • • • Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2000 Page 6 Bunch: Odom: Bunch: Helmer. Bunch: Helmer: MOTION: Hoffman: Odom: Hoffman: Mr. Chairman? Commissioner Bunch. Would you be needing water? What are the concerns about sewer and water for a freestanding trailer? The only thing I saw in our packet was electricity. As far as the office needs are concerned, we would not need water and sewer. I will probably have a water cooler with bottled water for folks to have something to drink. The only thing I could foresee needing any water for would be to maintain the landscaping. We would have to make arrangements, possibly with the Bridgeport POA to get water from them for that. One other question, on the parking places, you call for three parking spaces. My experience has been that on a construction trailers, three spaces usually is not adequate. It may be adequate for a sales office but if you have three phases of development going you will usually have job site superintendents and maybe various trade superintendents. Maybe we are going a little bit too far with the construction part of it. Basically what we need is a place for me, as the overall project manager for Bridgeport, to meet with the job superintendent. This will not be where the construction people are actually working out of this building. It will just be a place for us to meet. They will have their own facilities that they will be working out of. Mr. Chair? Commissioner Hoffman. I will attempt a motion on this. I think I understand your needs and the concerns of the gentlemen from Bridgeport as well. I will recommend approval of CU 00-16 with the addition of 2 additional conditions. Number 6 being that the staff review the condition of the facility in a one year period and that if is not maintained to sufficient standards, if it becomes dilapidated and is a dusty nuisance or the landscaping has not been maintained, things like that, that it be brought back by staff to the Commission. So this is a one year conditional permit with the possibility of renewal, by staff, in one year. The second condition is that no port -a - potty be parked outside the facility. • • • Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2000 Page 7 Helmer. No problem. Allen- I'll second that. Odom. We have a motion and a second for approval of CU 00-16.00 with the following conditions of approval. Hoffman: Mr. Chair? Odom: Yes, go ahead Commissioner Hoffman. Hoffman: I want to clarify my condition number 6 that it would be a three year conditional approval but renewable annually for a maximum of three years. Odom. We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman and a second by Commissioner Allen for approval of CU 00-16.00 subject to all staff comments and in addition that staff review the condition of the facility in one year and bring it back to the Commission should the condition of the facility not be in order. Number 7 that there be no port -a -potty. Are you in agreement with the additional conditions? Helmer: Yes. Sure. Odom. Staff, do you have anything further? Conklin: Nothing further. Odom. Any further discussion? Call the roll. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call the motion passes on a vote of 9-0-0. • • • Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2000 Page 8 LSD 00-17.00: Large Scale Development (McDonald's, pp 134) was submitted by Ben Aguirre on behalf of McDonalds for property located at the northeast corner of Joyce Blvd and Mall Ave. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2 acres. The request is to build a McDonald's Restaurant. Odom: Staff's recommendation is for approval subject to conditions of approval There are currently 14 conditions of approval Staff are there any further conditions of approval? Conklin: There are no further conditions of approval. Odom: Do we have a signed conditions of approval? Conklin: No we don't. There are some issues that we need to address this evening with regard to curb cuts and signage. Hoffman: Excuse me, Mr. Chair? Odom. ' Yes. Hoffman: I must abstain from this item. Odom: Commissioner Hoffman will abstain. Estes: Mr. Chairman? Odom: Commissioner Estes. Estes: It is necessary that I offer to abstain from considering LSD 00-17.00. The reason is that within the past two calendar years I've had litigation with this applicant. This litigation has been settled and has been resolved and is not now pending. But for that reason, I feel it is necessary that I offer to recuse. Odom: I'd ask the applicant to please come forward at this time. Tell us who you are for the record. Aguirre: Ben Aguirre with McDonalds Corporation. Fullerton: Kris Fullerton. I'm the real estate rep for McDonalds Corporation. • • • Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2000 Page 9 Odom: Commissioner Hoffman has abstained and Commissioner Estes has offered to abstain because of past litigation. Do you care if he continues or do you want him to abstain? Fullerton: We accept that he waived his right. We waive his abstaining. He can remain on the board. Odom: Thank you. I'll ask you to go ahead and make your presentation at this time. Aguirre: Basically what we are proposing is a new McDonalds restaurant. We would like to call special attention to the fact that this will be our largest facility that we build currently to date. It will be a high volume facility. It will include an enclosed play -place which will mean, ultimately, increased traffic and increased patronage to the site. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: Let me ask if there is any member of the audience that would like to address us on this issue? Anyone like to speak to this large scale development? Please come forward. Michaels: My name is Jennifer Michaels and I live in Springdale. Right on the border of Springdale and Fayetteville I go through this area at least twice everyday. Over the past three years I've really noticed great traffic congestion. My concern, and I wrote a letter to Mr. Conklin regarding that traffic, is that there are some problems right now with people turning into Home Depot turning left and blocking that left lane on Joyce Boulevard. People do a u -turn at Joyce and Hwy 71 which backs up that turning lane. People whip out of the left lane into the right lane on Joyce because people are trying to turn left. This McDonalds is going to be right in the middle of that. Mr. Conklin assured me that they would have an extra lane for people to pull in and that may help some, but my concern is the egress from that restaurant. They will either have to turn right or left onto Joyce or they will have to exit to Mall Avenue. If they exit to Mall Avenue that would mean the traffic light at Mall and Joyce would have to be extended from Mall which would back up Joyce Boulevard even more. I'm not against a restaurant there or growth, I'm Just concerned about the traffic. I've been rear-ended in that area. I think if you talk to the motorcycle policeman that is there every day he will tell you that the area is very congested. I don't have a solution but it just seems to me that this will make things worse than it is right now and with CMN opening you are going to have a mess there and there will be more accidents and a lot more congestion. I Just wanted to give you my concerns. • • • Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2000 Page 10 Odom: Thank you Jennifer. Any other member of the audience like to address us on that issue? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom: Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the applicant for questions and comments of the staff. Conklin: Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Michaels' letter is on page 3.7 of your agenda packet. Odom: Mrs. Michaels, Tim has given us a copy of your letter in our packet that we have. We have a couple of variance requests before us. Staff, do you want to cover those? One of them you are recommending and that's for the variance to allow the 10 foot landscape strip in lieu of the 15 foot landscape strip. Conklin: The Planning Commission will need to approve a variance. This is condition number 3 in your staff report on page 3.2. The variance request if to allow a 10 foot landscape strip in lieu of the 15 foot landscape strip between the property line and the parking areas as required by our Commercial Design Standards. Staff is in support of this variance request because the applicant will be dedicating, or is in agreement to dedicate, an additional 1 foot of right-of-way along Joyce Boulevard and 12 additional feet along Mall beyond the requirements of the Master Street Plan. They have agreed to do this in order to set the sidewalk back and provide a greenspace between the curb and the sidewalk. Joyce Boulevard we are getting an additional foot of greenspace or right-of-way. On Mall Avenue we have a situation where we have a local street that has been developed with a boulevard, or median. The staff is unable to require any additional right-of-way because it was not designated as a collector or above at that location. They also had approximately 40 feet or so from the centerline already so they are in agreement to dedicate an additional 12 feet of their property to provide a 6 foot greenspace and a 6 foot sidewalk along Mall Avenue Those are the reasons why staff is in support of granting this five foot variance from the 15 in order to get the sidewalk back off of the curb. That is the variance with regard to the setback and additional right-of- way we will be getting. On item 3d, the variance from the Parking Lot Design Standards requirement for a maximum internal drive aisle width of 18 feet for aisles with spaces at 60 degree angles, typically with one way direction, our aisle widths are 18 feet. The applicant is requesting a width of 35 feet on the east side, 37 feet on the north and west sides, and 25 feet on the south side. We granted a similar variance for the McDonalds on Wedington near Salem Road. The Justification for that is that we do have the drive-thru lanes that are incorporated through this internal circulation. Also, trucks that come to drop off food and • • • Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2000 Page 11 supplies will be using this drive aisle. Something we also considered were people with trailers or RV's that may be going to McDonalds will need the additional clearance. Staff is in support of that variance also. Mr. Chairman, would you like for me to go on to item 4 with regard to the parking? Odom. Let me ask if any of the Planning Commissioners wish to address that particular variance request first The two variance requests. Anybody have questions or comments of the applicant or staff of those two variance requests? Now go on to the next one. Conklin: Condition number 4 is a request to the Planning Commission to grant a conditional use to allow 27 additional parking spaces for a total of 63. The ordinance currently allows up to 36 spaces by right. This request is being made in order to provide adequate parking for a restaurant and provide parking for people that will be staying at this restaurant longer due to the play area. At the agenda session, the question was asked if the ordinance was amended to what the Planning Commission approved that would allow 53 spaces. They are asking for 10 additional spaces above what that amendment would allow. For those who are not aware, that amendment did fail at City Council. The City Council has requested that the Planning Commission look at restaurants on a case by case basis and make a decision with regard of whether or not to grant a conditional use for the additional parking. Odom: Anyone have any comments or questions with regard to the additional parking spaces? Marr. Mr. Chairman? Odom: Commissioner Marr. Marr. A couple of questions. What percent of the business is drive-thru business versus actually coming in and staying in the restaurant? Fullerton: At this particular restaurant we anticipate, probably, 57 percent will be drive-thru, which is a smaller percentage than we typically see which is usually around 62 percent. Due to the play -place and people coming into the play -place and the children playing and the parents staying longer with their children. Marr. Thank you. • • • Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2000 Page 12 Odom: Anyone else have questions or comments with regard to the parking? Let's move on then to the next item. Conklin: Condition number 5 is regarding a curb cut at the southwest corner of this site. Staff is recommending that that be eliminated. We did include a memo from our traffic superintendent, Perry Franklin, with regard to the safety of that curb cut. Staff feels like allowing a curb cut at this location will create an unsafe situation for motorists traveling on Mall Avenue turning left off of Joyce and turning right off of Joyce of the cars potentially backing up in this driveway and therefore we are asking that that curb cut be eliminated. That's number 5. The plans that you do have before you this evening, do show that curb cut at the southwest corner. Odom. Would you all like to address that issue? Aguirre: Yes if we could. One of the things we were trying to solve on this site is interior circulation of traffic on the lot, on and off of the lot. Our thinking is that, because we have dealt with several situations where we have had a McDonalds in a layout on a corner such as this, our feeling was that with the median on Mall Avenue it would help alleviate any potential dangers with traffic hazards by having this cut. It would be a plus in letting traffic flow onto and off of our lot as well as relieving interior circulation pressure. I might express that we propose traffic in off of Mall Avenue on that side and it would be a right out only because Mall Avenue is medianed out as one way traffic northbound. Fullerton: We also have safety concerns on Joyce Boulevard with people crossing traffic to make a left into the restaurant. With that congestion that she was speaking to earlier there could be opportunity for cars to stack making a left in. People would not be able to make a left in across Joyce Boulevard into our site backing traffic up through the intersection. We do project this to be a high volume store. I do consider it to be a safety issue as far as crossing Joyce Boulevard. If they could make the left at the light and where the Mall Road entrance is one way and then make a right into the site it would alleviate any traffic issues on Joyce Boulevard making a left across traffic into our location. The traffic light would control those left turns. Odom: I don't think that they are saying that you have to eliminate both of them, only the one on Mall Avenue closest to the intersection. You would still be able to access your facility from Mall Avenue. • • • Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2000 Page 13 Fullerton: Allen: Odom: Allen - Fullerton: Allen - Fullerton: Aguirre. Fullerton: Aguirre: Fullerton: But then you get into the onsite circulation issues as far as people having to circulate completely around the site, crossing over the drive-thru traffic trying to circulate off of the site. Then you have people pulling out of their parking spaces while you have people trying to circulate around the site which creates potential safety issues there as well. Mr. Chair? Commissioner Allen. Did you say this is the largest McDonalds in the area? We project it to be the highest volume in Fayetteville with the play -place and the mall and all of the generators around that site, it will be a high volume store. Is it significantly larger in square feet than the other McDonalds? The building size is larger in square footage. Ben can speak directly to that. That is true. In particular, I think our building at this site is just a little over 6,000 square feet. It also will include 1,808 square feet of play -place. That is substantially larger than our typical facility. It's designed specifically to handle high volume locations such as this. The parking spaces that will be on the west side of the building, you will have people pulling out and people trying to circulate around to get into the drive-thru so you have potential stacking and safety issues there as well. One thing we might emphasize specifically, as Kris is eluding to, if you can imagine a customer trying to exit our drive-thru lane. If there is only the one cut toward Joyce Boulevard at the Joyce and Mall intersection, if the only cut we had was on Joyce, they would have to be circulating back through across the grain of the flow of traffic to get off of the site which would gridlock the entire site fairly quickly. This is our only outlet, so to speak, to alleviate that pressure immediately. It would not direct traffic into the intersection. It would force them to go right, or northbound, on Mall up past the median cuts. Our feeling was that it was the safest way to alleviate the largest problem we could potentially have on the lot. And, Tim you can speak to this, our cut as shown was in compliance with what is allowed as far as from the corner. We were setback far enough from the corner in compliance with the ordinances. • • • Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2000 Page 14 Conklin: That's correct. Under our subdivision regulations, we do have a table. I just want to inform the Commission that you have limited curb cuts in other areas over and beyond what the ordinance requires for safety. Marr. Mr. Chair? Odom: Commissioner Marr. Marr. Just to give you my thoughts on it, and I'm only one of eight, I rely on our city staff in terms of traffic study and access. I think it's more important, in my thoughts, the safety on the public street and the backup that could be caused and the volume in that area. I personally would not support this curb cut based on this recommendation from the city staff. Estes: Mr. Chairman? Odom: Commissioner Estes. Estes: I have some familiarity with the safety issues that are involved on the site and in particular what I would call pedestrian knock down cases or patron knock down cases. I think I have some understanding of why you want the curb cut where you want it but what you are going to have to deal with is that our Traffic Superintendent has written us a memo that tells us that in his opinion that curb cut does not need to be there. Not for issues concerning site safety but issues concerning the intersection. Can you help us out and tell us why you feel it is essential to have that curb cut on the southwest corner and what it will do in terms of traffic circulation and traffic flow and particularly what I'm concerned about is that you have children that are visiting your facility that are accompanied by parents. Oftentimes, there is more than one child. Oftentimes children are not supervised to the level that perhaps they should be and children run out in traffic. Parents follow their children into traffic and sometimes people are knocked down in parking lots at places like McDonalds and some of your competitors. Is this curb cut on the southwest corner going to make this facility a safer place for your patrons and if so why and balance that against the issues that Mr. Franklin has brought to our attention in his memo regarding the traffic safety issues at the intersection. Aguirre: Our feeling is that this will make it a safer circulation on the interior lot simply by providing an outlet for the stack -up of cars that are trying to exit the lot. We've got adequate ingress off of Joyce Boulevard, however, if that one ingress was the only egress off of the lot we would have a more dangerous circulation on the facility. • • • Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2000 Page 15 Balancing that with what the traffic inspector has mentioned, I think we are doing our effort or our share to alleviate the congestions at that intersection by widening the road. I feel like we are going above and beyond to help coordinate construction activities off of our site as well as immediately on our site to help alleviate the traffic problems you have on Joyce. I think from that aspect we would be addressing both of the issues. Fullerton: If you have a car coming out of the drive-thru making a left and you have someone trying to enter the site off of Mall Avenue making a right then you have people pulling out of their parking spaces and people coming out of the restaurant and you have three or four activities going on just on the west side of the property. The drive-thru makes the left, the people trying to enter the drive-thru lane are trying to make a left as well, that is a congestion point at that point of the property. When they come out of the drive-thru and want to go right out of the site you will be crossing over people trying to go left into the drive-thru so you have a potential situation there. Not to speak again on the issue of Joyce Boulevard and people trying to make a left into that site. Mall entrance road is one way and it is northbound with a right out only. Right in, you are going to have people going straight and pulling right into the drive-thru lane alleviating the potential backing into a car or a car backing into them or kids crossing in front of the car trying to get through the drive-thru lane. Odom: Do you have any further questions? Estes: A comment, Mr. Chairman, from my familiarity with these issues, I've learned two things. One is that the placement of the parking is critical. If you just put parking on the perimeter of the site and cause patrons to have to cross open concrete and open parking lots with traffic going through those parking lots, someone is going to get knocked down. The other thing that's important is that you have a good flow around the building and through the site. If you have a situation that I can see happening and that is what has been described by the applicant, some child coming out of that building along those handicap ramps and attempting to access those parking spaces on the front is going to get knocked down is what's going to happen. In time that is what will happen. To provide that curb cut on the southwest corner will help with that traffic flow. Now, don't take my word for it. Think about it and ponder it for a moment and work through your thought process the different traffic flows and take out that southwest cut and you will have a situation where somebody is going to get hit by a car on the southwest corner of that lot. • • Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2000 Page 16 Odom. My only problem with your analysis is that you're talking about an internal traffic flow. Estes: Yes I am. Odom: The thing that concerns me is the stuff outside of the development that Perry Franklin has stated, quite frankly, he doesn't recommend and he's our Traffic Superintendent. I think the burden is on the applicant for it's own internal problems and one thing we need to be considering is what happens outside of the development not only what happens within it. Fullerton: If I could know his concerns we could possibly better speak to it. We have addressed our concern of safety issues in making a left across Joyce Boulevard. At the intersection, people taking a left then making a right, that movement is not going to be, you are not going to have to stop your car then take a right. It's going to be one fluid movement. I don't see the congestion as an issue from our standpoint. If we could know what his concerns were we could better speak to them if that's allowable or possible. Aguirre: In other words, we have not been given a copy of his letter. Odom: Here you go. Petrie: Mr. Chairman, I can try to sum that up. I discussed that with Mr. Franklin in length on his recommendation. His primary reason is that there is not sufficient throat length on that driveway. It doesn't meet the recommended ones in the UDO and it's probably less than one car length to that one parking space. Anytime someone is backing out of that one parking space they will block the whole drive. One car will have to stop and the next one will block all of Mall Avenue and that's the main concern. Fullerton: Aguirre: Petrie: • Estes: Well, if that's the concern, maybe there is a solution to come up with to alleviate that concern. We are open to suggestions to widening the throat of that drive cut or possibly egress or ingress only at that site. It's recommended in the UDO for an un -signalized driveway to be a minimum of 40 to 60 feet of throat length. Mr. Chairman? • • • Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2000 Page 17 Odom: Estes: Petrie: Estes: Petrie: Estes: Petrie: Estes: Petrie: Odom: Petrie: Odom: Petrie: Odom: Aguirre: Odom: Commissioner Estes. Ron, if those three parking spaces on the south were eliminated would that give you the throat length of the drive that would meet the UDO requirement? Right. They do show four spaces Yes. I'm looking at an older plan. There are four there, but my question was, how many of those would you have to eliminate to get the throat length to comply with the UDO? I'm sorry, Ron, on the material that we have there is four but I'm corrected that on the blueprint there is three. Right. So if you eliminated the three that are on the site plan, can you put your ruler to that? That would meet the 60 foot requirement which is the maximum requirement in the UDO. I think for that situation that is what I would recommend is the maximum of 60 feet. Was that Perry's only concern, Ron? That was his major concern. Do you think that would change his recommendation? Possibly, yes. Probably. I'm not even going to touch that. Did you want to comment on that? I did not hear all of the comments that you are making. I understand there is a possibility of eliminating some parking spaces? The elimination of three parking spaces on the southwest corner would give you the required UDO acceptable 60 feet, right Ron? • • • Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2000 Page 18 Petrie: Yes sir. Odom: That would possibly or probably change his recommendation. Fullerton: We would be willing to eliminate those three parking spaces to allow for the drive cut. Odom: Commissioner Ward did you want to make a comment? Ward: Is it more important for you to ingress or egress at that southwest corner? Aguirre: It's imperative that we have egress out of that drive cut. Odom: Okay. More important is egress. Aguirre: If we don't have egress, or an outlet, for the outbound drive -thea traffic and traffic circulating a lot it becomes a safety issue. Ward: People coming in there from the Wal-Mart store would have to come way on up to Mall Lane and make a complete circle around to get in the drive-thru lane. Aguirre: That's correct. Ward: I didn't know what was more important, ingress or egress. Shackelford: Mr. Chairman. Odom: Commissioner Shackelford. Shackelford: Just a comment directed to Commissioner Ward's statement. Personally I think you need ingress and egress both here. If you are traveling east on Joyce and you wanted to take a left at the light so you didn't have to cross traffic, if you couldn't ingress onto the lot at that intersection and you had to go to the following intersection and wanted to go to the drive-thru, you would have to completely loop the building to do the drive-thru and completely loop it again to leave. I think I would support an ingress and egress both at that curb cut as long as we did away with those three parking spaces and met the requirements. I don't really think we serve any purpose limiting it to ingress or egress only. Odom: Anyone else have any comments? • • • Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2000 Page 19 Bunch: On the parking? Odom: Yes, on the parking. Okay, moving on to the next issue. The other conditions are standard except for the proposed signage. Do you want to go over that issue? Conklin: The sign they are requesting is 15 feet tall and 58 square feet and will be located on the southeastern boundary line setback 45 feet from Joyce Boulevard. They do have some concerns. Previously when they met with staff, we did discuss using a monument sign at this location. Their concern is with regard to the Northwest Arkansas Mall which was allowed to have an offsite sign on Mall Avenue at the intersection of Joyce and Mall. Staff is still recommending that they utilize a monument sign. A monument sign is defined under our ordinance as a sign that is no taller than 6 feet. This doesn't meet that criteria. We did require a monument sign be used at Simmons Bank which is to the east of this site. Their sign is 5 feet tall and 10 feet long for a total of 50 square feet and the actual sign face is 3 feet 3.5 inches tall. At Circuit City they were allowed to have a sign that is 12 feet tall and 12 feet long. The actual sign face on that sign is 6 feet tall. The Circuit City sign would not meet our ordinance requirements for a monument sign today that we have adopted for all commercial districts today. I did go out today and take a look at their concerns with regard to where the Northwest Arkansas Mall sign will be placed and what you can see. I took some photographs for you to look at. What I did was put a public hearing sign. Actually, eliminating those three parking spaces and landscaping will provide an area for this monument sign that I'm recommending. There is room to place a sign which used to be in parking. I looked, heading east on Joyce Boulevard, at what you could see and what would be in the way. I've highlighted in orange where this McDonalds sign could be located and highlighted in pink where the Northwest Arkansas sign would be located. What I did is take a look at the median. It's staked where the sign will be located. It's pretty much where that parking sign is, the white sign in the island. Then I looked at where this sign could be placed after the additional right-of-way is acquired and where a monument sign could be placed. In fairness to McDonalds and the applicant, their sign is meeting the sign ordinance for a pole sign placed on their site. I'm trying to be consistent with what the Planning Commission has required in the past with regard to the use of monument signs in this location. I do feel strongly that we do have an ordinance that defines what a monument sign is, which is a 6 foot tall maximum sign of 75 square feet and if we are going to require a monument sign it should meet that ordinance requirement. Fullerton: Can the applicant ask a question? Odom: Sure. • • • Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2000 Page 20 Fullerton: For clarification, because it was not clear when we were in our Subdivision meeting, where the easement was running and that the sign would not be placed on the utility easement that's within the utility easement. So is this placed inside or outside of the utility easement when it will be installed? Conklin: Once again, Mall Avenue is entirely city right-of-way so there is no utility easement. We do have utilities in there. Yes, the sign is located in an area that will be over those utilities. That is the location of where that sign will be located. Fullerton: The orange, for clarification, is where the sign could be after we have dedicated the right-of-way? Conklin: Sure. What I attempted to do in that photograph, I went out this afternoon and measured off the 12 additional feet off of Mall Avenue that would establish the new right-of-way line and then went back the 10 additional feet. Then on Joyce Boulevard I went back 16 feet with the 10 additional feet. I tried to approximate the location of where that sign could be placed and put a public hearing sign there and took photographs of it. I drove the car back on Joyce Boulevard heading east to see what would be in the way of that sign. That's pretty much my analysis of trying to determine if the Northwest Arkansas Mall sign is going to block visibility. I bring this up, and I'm not trying to spend too much time talking about this monument sign versus a pole sign, but I did meet with the applicant ahead of time and they did agree to use a monument sign in this location and then after the mall sign was approved, they indicated they would rather use this 15 foot tall freestanding sign on Joyce Boulevard. Fullerton: We did present all of our signage to Mike McKimmey prior to our Subdivision meeting and he had signed off and approved all of our signs including the 15 foot sign which would be constructed in a manner that would tie into the rest of the development in the area We've got a rendering, I don't know if you have a copy of the color rendering, showing the sign will have a brick base and would get it up to a level that it would be visible so people would know we are there. Aguirre. The other thing to mention on that sign, per definition by the ordinance, if we set the sign back off of Joyce Boulevard a certain distance, it stated we were allowed a 30 foot sign. What we did was set it off that same 45 foot distance and are only requesting a 15 foot sign. The actual sign face is not the full height. It's Just the top piece. Our concern is that, from the photographs that Tim has put together shows the visibility of the site at the intersection, but our concern is to be visible further down Joyce Boulevard, not just right at the intersection. In many cases that's too late for our customers to decide once they have reached that point. We • Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2000 Page 21 Estes: Odom: Estes: Conklin: MOTION: Estes. Odom: Ward: Odom. Bunch: Estes: Odom: need to be visible. When the mall sign went in it kind of obstructed any possibility of that view from further down the road with such a low sign. Mr. Chairman? Commissioner Estes Tim, if the three parking spaces are eliminated on the southwest corner of the site to provide for the throat length, does that give a place that an additional small monument sign could be placed? There is room to place a sign. The ordinance requires it to be 10 feet setback. The variance requested with regard to the landscaping under Commercial Design Standards, is for a 10 foot landscape strip. Those three spaces, which are 19 feet long, would provide an area for a monument sign. With regard to additional, we are only allowed one freestanding sign on this site. Mr. Chairman, with that said, let me move for approval of LSD 00-17.00 subject to conditions of approval and staff comments with the following exceptions, in item 4, there would be a total of 60 parking spaces. Item 5 would read that the driveway on the west side of the project near the Joyce Boulevard/Mall Lane intersection shall be allowed with the elimination of three parking spaces to comply with the UDO throat length requirements. We have a motion for approval by Commissioner Estes. I'll second. We have a second by Commissioner Ward. Commissioner Bunch? Is that 60 or 61? We are showing 64 parking spaces on the drawing. Commissioner Bunch, in our material I count four parking spaces on the site plan and three. My intent is to eliminate three parking spaces. I don't know if it goes down to 60 or to 61. It depends upon where you look in the materials. The motion is to eliminate three. The request is for 63 originally. • • • Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2000 Page 22 Bunch: Are we looking at the whole deal or lust the one issue of parking? Odom: The whole shooting match. The motion is to approve the whole shooting match. Bunch: Then I have some other questions I need to ask. There is something on the drawing that I have not understood where we have a triangle with at B in it. It's on the legend designating light security but where it shows up on the drawing has nothing to do with lights. I'm at a loss. If we are going to approve this I want to know what I'm approving. Also, the triangle with an A in it has to do with the legend that addresses parking. On the drawing I have no idea what it addresses. There are two clouded in drawing A & B and it's not reflected in the legend. So, what are we looking at. Aguirre: Let me approach and I can probably clarify that for you. Estes: Mr. Chairman, before that question is answered, I have another one that can be answered at the same time. At Subdivision, Commissioner Bunch, when we looked at the lot light recommendations, the metal pole length and the diameter of the poles was a little off on the material we had at Subdivision. If you can correct us on that at the same time you answer Commissioner Bunch's question. Aguirre: All of the clouded areas are revisions. Anytime you see a cloud on that drawing it has been revised from the first submittal and that is referenced here. Revision A was done on 6/28/2000 and that refers to any triangle with an A. It's not in this legend. Bunch: I understand the triangles. What is this? Aguirre: All of that was revised. Bunch: So it's not that A designates parking. Aguirre. No. It's Just that the parking was revised. Ward: This is revisions. Bunch: Okay. Aguirre: Then you can reference it here. It calls that bubble A. Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2000 Page 23 Bunch: Then you have bubbled B here as light poles, the only thing is it doesn't really detail. What is within bubble B here? Aguirre: It's light pole height, sanitary sewer easement, gutter lines, and drives. Bunch: And it's this bubble right here? Aguirre: That's correct. They had to revise these drive cuts and they had to move the light poles with that. Bunch: Okay. I think I understand now what your convention is on this. Aguirre: The other issue was the lot lights. You will see there is a clouded area. Estes: I understand. I Just wanted to be sure that that was brought out when you responded to Commissioner Bunch because there have been revisions on the height of the metal poles and the diameter of the metal poles. Aguirre. That's correct. That was made as part of revision B. Bunch: Thank you. One other question for staff. Normally when we receive a package for this, I don't know if I received all of the drawings or not, but we usually have site elevations showing existing elevations and proposed elevations. Is that a requirement or is that we something we normally receive? We don't have that on this. Since it's on a hillside, it gives us an idea of drainage issues. Sometimes we go ahead and approve large scale developments when we have sufficient information to give us a general idea of what the drainage issues are on the site, knowing the calculations will be performed later and the city engineering staff will review those before final approval. Usually it helps us to have an idea, we have no idea from looking at these drawings of anything other than a finished floor elevation on the building. We don't know if there are hillside cuts, if there is fill, what the ramping situation is going into and out of the street. We are sitting here talking about whether or not to have curb cuts but we don't know what the grades are. I feel that is very important in our considerations if we know we are going up over a hump or something like that. I guess my question for staff, aren't we required to have that information in order to make our decisions. Conklin: To answer your question, no. Sometimes an engineer will put the grading information on the site plan, but typically on just a regular site plan with regard to compliance with the zoning and subdivision regulations so we don't typically require that to be show on the site plan. That's separate from zoning. If it's Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2000 Page 24 something in the future you would like to see, we can request that that be show on there. Sometimes an engineer will combine the site plan and grading plan together so what you are seeing is their preliminary grading plan that is also submitted to engineering for their review. Aguirre: We also did put together a preliminary grading plan and submitted it. It was labeled as C-2 and submitted with this package. I'm not sure where the distribution goes from the initial sending we do. Several copies of the site plan and the preliminary grading plan were issued. It did not have the finalized supporting drainage data but it showed contour lines and the basic flow of the lot. Bunch: It also helps us when we are looking at things like circulation and visibility and where to locate signs. I guess we've been spoiled by having them on most of the LSD's that we receive. I know on many of the lots we look at it's very apparent because there is not much change in elevation but on this lot there is a considerable change in elevation. It helps to have those in making our decisions. Conklin: About half of your Large scale developments that you review do have the topography and contour information shown on there for the preliminary grading. If it's something that you would like to receive we definitely can get it to you. Bunch: For the future, please. Conklin: Sure. Hoover: Mr. Chair? Odom: Mr. Bunch is that all? Bunch: Yes. Odom: Commissioner Hoover. Hoover: Tim, I have a question on the landscape plan. According to our landscape ordinance, don't we have a requirement that the frontage of the property should have trees? Conklin: We do require one tree for 30 feet. Kim Hesse has reviewed this plan and has approved it. Hoover: There are not trees on Joyce Boulevard. • • • Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2000 Page 25 Fullerton: On the adjoining lots, there are no trees. Conklin: That is something I can get with Kim Hesse about. We go through Technical Plat Review and Subdivision Committee and I'm not sure what her reasoning was with regard to that. Hoover: I was looking through Subdivision notes and I didn't see any. Conklin: I can definitely get with Kim Hesse and make sure they are complying with the ordinance with regard to tree planting along the streets or at least in front of our parking lots. That's what we are talking about, the are between the property line and the parking lot within that 10 foot landscaped area. The ordinance does require 1 tree for 30 feet. I am aware that Kim has allowed people to group those trees and I've seen that done before and she's recommended approval on those types of landscape plans. I'll get with here on the situation regarding this McDonalds. Hoover: Is there any way to make sure? Odom: There is a procedure to amend the motion. What you do is you simply say I'd like to offer an amendment to the motion and we will vote on the amendment first. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION: Hoover: I'd like to offer an amendment that this project be reviewed again for our landscape ordinance and is approved by Kim Hesse. Odom: We have a motion to add a condition that the plan be reviewed with Kim Hesse to make sure it complies with the city's regulations. Allen: I'll second. Odom: There is a second to the amendment. Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Any comment with regard to the amendment? Aguirre: The only thing we would like to mention, and we have an aerial photograph here which shows the adjoining properties to the east, that have undergone this street widening already, and subsequent landscape creation and neither of those two developments have trees planted in their frontal property. We can submit this for review. • • • Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2000 Page 26 Odom: I'm familiar with the property that you are talking about and it may very well be that Kim has already approved it once and she may approve it again. Fullerton: That's fine. We understand that. Odom. Any further discussion? Will you call the roll on the amendment? ROLL CALL FOR AMENDMENT: Upon roll call the amendment to the motion passes on a vote of 8-0-1 with Commissioner Hoffman abstaining. Odom: Any further discussion on the underlying motion for approval of the large scale development? Shackelford: Just one brief point. As it stands I do support the monument sign. I think there is additional signage on this building that has pretty good visualization for the building. My concern is that if this property is reviewed by the landscape administrator and trees are required in front of the property, I worry about the visibility of a small monument sign with trees in front of the property. If it is deemed necessary to put trees on the front of the property I think we need to revisit the sign issue and give some serious consideration to the 15 foot sign that they have asked for. Odom: Tim, can they come back on that single issue and still move forward with their project if they wanted to? Shackelford: Basically if trees are required on the front of this property then my concern is that the monument sign would not be visible with trees on the front of the property. If those trees are required, can the applicant come back and let us review the 15 foot sign that you requested on this. Conklin: I guess, for clarification, I did not understand the motion to include the use of the monument sign. Estes: Mr. Chairman? Odom. Commissioner Estes. • • • Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2000 Page 27 Estes: Because I made the motion, let me speak to that. Item 2, it was my intent in making the motion to adopt the staff recommendation. Item 2 reads staff is recommending that a monument sign, maximum of 6 feet in height and 75 square feet be installed for this project. It was my intention that the motion contain item 2 as a condition of approval Odom: Thank you. Conklin: And to answer your question, can they come back, yes. It it's deemed that the trees will block visibility, yes they can. Kim Hesse did ask that the trees be planted at 30 foot intervals along Joyce Boulevard and those did not get shown on the landscape plan. I'm not sure why that is. It was her recommendation on June 27, 2000. Fullerton: We will change that. Shackelford: With that being said, I have some difficulties with requiring only a 6 foot monument sign on the frontage of the comer piece of property where there are going to be trees located on the front of that. I think you are almost going to have to get a 15 foot sign so they have some signage visibility over those trees. Odom: You can offer amendments that we can vote on. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION: Shackelford: Odom: Shackelford: Odom: Ward: I'll offer the amendment that we approve LSD 00-17 subject to staff comments with the exception of item 2 allowing the 15 foot sign that has been proposed by the applicant. What you have just done is offered an amendment to approval. You do whatever you want to but my recommendation is that you would move an amendment which would allow the applicant a 15 foot tall 58 square foot freestanding sign located 45 feet from Joyce Street right of way. That's what I wanted. We have a motion to amend the underlying motion to approve which would allow the proposed 15 foot tall 58 square foot freestanding sign. Where are we going to put this again? Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2000 Page 28 Shackelford: Where the three parking places were removed on the southwest comer of the development. Odom: Could that go on the southwest corner? Or would it have to go back to the original location? It would be too tall at the southwest corner. Conklin: The monument sign offers an incentive to have the sign lower and use the monument sign with a 10 foot setback. Anything taller will have to be set back. Bunch: Depending on what type of trees those are, they would be under the sign. Odom. We have a motion to amend, do I have a second? Motion fails for lack of a second. Any further discussion on the underlying motion? Fullerton: Can the applicant have clarification on what has just occurred? Odom: Yes. You Just lost on the application for the 15 foot tall 58 square foot freestanding sign. We are going along with staff's recommendation for a monument sign 6 feet in height and 75 square feet. Fullerton: Now we are double back where we were because now we have trees going to block us plus we are going to have only visibility at the intersection. Now we are twice as bad off as before we started. The trees are going to grow very high and our sign was placed in accordance with the ordinance and Mr. McKimmey did approve that sign at 15 feet with a brick base which would allow us at least some visibility because those trees are going to grow and cover us up. And as was presented earlier, if you are sitting at the intersection, you can see that 6 foot sign but if you are back further and you want to make a decision to make a left, you have to have time to get in the left lane to make that maneuver. Odom. How tall is your building? Aguirre: The highest point on our building is 19' 6" to the top of the parapet of a roof. That is one specific point on the highest part of the building. Odom. Okay. • Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2000 Page 29 Aguirre: Odom: Bunch: Shackelford: • Odom: Shackelford: Odom: Bunch: Aguirre: Bunch: • Aguirre. The other thing that we might mention is that the median on Mall Avenue currently does have trees in it that we are trying to overcome and we were willing to setback to get above those and I think now we are definitely snookered beneath not only the mall sign, but as well as the median trees on Mall Avenue and now the trees that we are going to have to plant on Joyce. Well, I'm sorry you feel snookered. Anyone else have any other comments? Yes. I have a comment to address that. I think in your selection of the trees, if you work with the Landscape Administrator you will find that most of the trees will be trimmed up to a height higher than six feet so people can walk under them. You will actually have more visibility with a 6 foot monument sign than you would with a 15 foot sign because eventually the trees would grow up to where they would obscure the 15 foot sign. I think you will probably, by method of tree selection, wind up with more visibility with a lower mounted sign because it will be below the foliage line of the trees. Mr. Chairman? Commissioner Shackelford. You are right to a point. It depends on how far away from this development you are. The difficulty is going to be if you are 100 yards away from the development are you going to be able to locate that monument sign underneath the tree canopy in time to get in the right or left lane, depending on the direction you are going, to turn into the development. My point is, from a distance away from the intersection, you will not be able to distinguish the restaurant in time to get in the proper lane to turn. That's my main argument for the pole sign. Any further discussion on the underlying motion? I have one unrelated issue. Is there going to be any equipment on the roof and have we addressed roof screening? We do have HVAC, our air conditioning equipment on the roof as well as exhaust fans that are screened by a 48 inch high parapet wall. The actual mansard roof itself. The roof recesses down to screen the equipment. So all of the roof mounted equipment will all be below the mansard roof? That is correct. • • • Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2000 Page 30 Bunch: Thank you. Odom: Any further discussion? Call the roll. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call the motion carries on a vote of 7-1-1 with Commissioner Marr voting against and Commissioner Hoffman abstaining. • • • Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2000 Page 31 Odom: Staff, do we have any further items on tonight's agenda? Conklin: There is no additional business. Odom: Then we are adjourned. Approximately 6:50 p.m. • • • %-,y-CC pp?rot/ o 114' ales dt15eir.1' GSD -CO -7.10 t #02k.(.5D co,Cb llo �}rnrnenobi neu -�"O MO 112)1(1 00- 170r) ��Ltnc!-ap, n�c MOTION UoPFinan//,, MtrJr) JP r SECOND 0-11 en f4I l e n D. Bunch 9 I/ V B. Estes 9 y y L. Hoffman V 1 i gb-51nL.)," S. Hoover y N. Allen y y Al D. Marr Y v Y C. Odom Y Y Y Shackelford Y 1 9 L. Ward t/ I Y ACTION !qfPinoPA f1-ppro f-pPfn✓QA VOTE 9 -0 -0 g-0 - O R -r) - I • 7-07V-00 n"mm& ° ( Ool-io —°°-/700 tL4 en-# ID Yl - /54/51/7) LiD- CO -17W D oue MOTION ShGickejco(ieryiets SECOND 00, (C1 D. Bunch 1 B. Estes Y L. Hoffman a h_i_�in A )0;5-I-0t.Y1 S. Hoover Y N. Allen Y D. Marr 11 C. Odom y Shackelford Y L. Ward Y ACTION rQ.-1 L- Appovect VOTE ,(Qct of 7-4 - 1 a a