Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-09-11 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on September 11, 2000 at 5:30 p m in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN VA 00-8.00 Vacation (Stainer, pp 600) Forwarded Page 2 CU 00-18.00 Conditional Use (St. Joseph Catholic Church, pp 373) Approved Page 3 LSD 00-22.00 Large Scale Development (St. Joseph Catholic Church, pp 373) Approved Page 10 CU 00-20.00 Conditional Use (Coffey, pp 565) Approved Page 17 CU 00-23.00 Conditional Use (Lake Hills Church, pp 255) Approved Page 21 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Nancy Allen Don Bunch Bob Estes Conrad Odom Loren Shackelford Lee Ward Sharon Hoover Lorel Hoffman Don Marr STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Tim Conklin Dawn Warrick Sheri Metheney Ron Petrie • Planning Commission September 11, 2000 Page 2 Consent Agenda: Approval of minutes from the August 28, 2000 meeting. VA 00-8.00: Vacation (Starmer, pp 600) was submitted by Paul Reynolds, Attorney at Law on behalf of Christine Starmer, Estate of Arlan Starmer for property located at 927 W. 15th Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 0.29 acres. The request is to vacate a portion of the unconstructed street right-of-way for Price Avenue. Odom. Welcome everyone to the September 11, 2000, meeting of the Planning Commission. The first thing we are going to go over tonight is the Consent Agenda. These are items that will be approved, without discussion, unless a member of the audience or a member of the Planning Commission wishes to pull them for discussion. We have two items on tonight's Consent Agenda. The first item is the approval of the minutes of the August 28, 2000, meeting and the second item is a vacation. Is that right, Tim? That's the only other item. Is that right? Conklin: That is correct. 0: Odom: That vacation is VA 00-8.00 and that was submitted by Paul Reynolds, Attorney at Law on behalf of Christine Starmer, Estate of Arlan Starmer for property located at 927 W. 15th Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 0.29 acres. The request is to vacate a portion of the unconstructed street right-of-way for Price Avenue. That's the only item that we have on tonight's Consent Agenda. PUBLIC COMMENT Odom: Does any member of the audience wish to pull that item from the Consent for discussion. Seeing none, I guess you are all here about something else. COMMISSION DISCUSSION Odom: Is there a member of the Planning Commission that wishes to pull either of those items for discussion? Seeing none, would you call the roll? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call, the Consent Agenda passes on a vote of 9-0-0 • Planning Commission September 11, 2000 Page 3 CU 00-18.00: Conditional Use (St. Joseph Catholic Church, pp 373) was submitted by Cory Phillips of Freeland -Kauffman & Fredeen, Inc. on behalf of St. Joseph Catholic Church for property located on North Starr Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 18.08 acres. The request is for a church and school (use unit 4) in an A-1 and for parking in excess of that allowed by ordinance. Odom: The next item that we have on tonight's agenda is a Conditional Use 00-18.00 submitted by Cory Philips of Freeland -Kauffman & Fredeen, Inc. on behalf of St. Joseph Catholic Church for property located on North Starr Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 18.08 acres. The request is to construct a church and school, which is a use unit 4, in an A-1 and to allow parking in excess of that permitted by ordinance. Staff's recommendation is for approval, subject to the following Conditions of Approval. I will read those at this time. Number one, approval of the accompanying Large Scale Development, which is the next item on tonight's agenda. Number two, any addition or modification to this conditional use, including but not limited to a change in proposed square footage and/or parking, shall come back to the Planning Commission as a new conditional use application. This conditional use shall only apply to the improvements shown on the site plan to be constructed as the "first phase" and shall not apply to any future phases of construction. Number three, parking lots, access drives, playgrounds and all other outdoor activity areas shall be constructed as shown on the approved large scale development. Number four, a 6' wood privacy fence shall be constructed around the service drive and parking area at the southwest side of the site in order to provide a visual screen for these facilities. Additionally, two of the fourteen parking spaces will be removed allowing for the installation of two landscaped islands which will each contain one evergreen tree. Number five, a minimum 3 foot tall berm with plantings on top shall be constructed along the western property line to screen the parking lot from the public right-of-way and adjacent properties. Number six, the school shall not include grades higher than 8th grade under this conditional use permit. Number seven, the maximum number of students to be enrolled in the school shall not exceed 394 under this conditional use for the proposed facility. Should additional enrollment or building area be contemplated, a new conditional use must be requested. Number eight, no chain link fencing shall be visible from the public right of way (Starr Drive). All fencing shall be compatible in appearance and materials with the approved buildings and site furnishings. All railing erected for safety purposes along retaining walls that are visible from the public right-of- way shall be decorative and made of beck or wood. Number nine, the start of the school day shall be staggered in order to lessen traffic congestion associated with the several school facilities in the area. St. Joseph's School will begin classes before 7:15 a.m. or after 8:15 a.m. in order to stagger the morning start times for Planning Commission September 11, 2000 Page 4 Vandergriff Elementary and McNair Middle School. Currently there is traffic congestion on Hwy 45 between 7:15 and 8:00 a.m that is causing delays for parents dropping children off at the two existing schools and individuals traveling into and out of town. Staff, are there any further Conditions of Approval? Conklin: There are no further Conditions of Approval Odom: I would ask the applicant to please come forward at this time. Hennelly: My name is Tom Hennelly, I am Co -Chair of the Building Committee for St Joseph's Church. We have no problem with the Conditions of Approval with the exception of, and I have spoken with Mr. Conklin about it, the requirement on the materials for the fencing. We didn't want to limit it to just wood or brick. We wanted to keep a metal option in there also. Whatever is built will be approved by the Planning Department. That was the only change to the Conditions. Conklin: That's condition number eight. Odom: Condition number eight which reads that all railing erected for safety purposes along retaining walls that are visible from the public right-of-way shall be decorative and made of brick or wood. Is there something that we could add there that staff would be happy with? Conklin: Yes If they want to use some type of decorative metal type fence or rail, that would be appropriate. Odom: Made of brick, wood or decorative metal. Any further presentation that you would like to make at this time? Hennelly: Other than, I assume you want to keep the Conditional Use separate from the Large Scale Development, so I will limit it. Other than those Conditions of Approval, there is no other discussion that we have. Odom: The two are tied together and since we are here, why don't we go ahead and talk about this at this time. Conditional Use, should it not be approved there is really no need to go forward with a Large Scale Development. Is that correct Tim? Conklin: That is correct. If the Conditional Use is not approved, the appeal is to the Circuit Court. Therefore, you would not hear or vote on the Large Scale Development. • Odom: If the Conditional Use is approved and then we next consider the Large Scale • • • Planning Commission September 11, 2000 Page 5 Development, if that is not approved, that appeal goes to City Council not to the Circuit Court. Conklin: That is correct. The applicant could appeal it or a citizen could get an Alderman to appeal it up to the City Council level. Odom: Tom, thank you very much. What I would like to do at this point in time we have a couple of people in the audience and I would assume that several people would like to address us on this issue. Would everyone that has an interest in this issue, would you please raise your hand at this time? Okay. That's a whole bunch of you so if all of us get up here and start talking and talk for an unspecified period of time, we are going to be here until midnight or later. What I would like for you to do is, the first thing I will do is, if you are support of this project would you raise your hand at this time? That's a vast majority. An excess of fifty people in the audience that is here tonight in support of that. That is now reflected in the record. If all you are wanting to do is get up and say "Hey, I support that." I would ask that you please refrain from doing that because we have that now in the record. With you being here and with you raising your hands. What I would also ask is if those members that wish to address us... Are there a specified number of you? If you wish to address this Commission tonight, now raise your hand. There are only a few of you and so I assume that this means there are some that are in opposition that want to talk about it and there are some in support that are going to speak essentially for the rest of you. Since I have only seen a few hands, I am not going to limit the amount of time that those people can talk, either in opposition or for. However, if the talks sort of inspire you and you start wanting to come up to the podium, don't let that hold you back but if everyone starts coming forward, I'm going to have to ask that you limit your time and don't duplicate what the person said previously. We would appreciate that very much. Now I would like for those members of the audience that would like to address us, no matter whether you are for or against, to come forward at this time. Stand behind each other at the podium. PUBLIC COMMENT Hennelly: Commissioner, I guess I mis-spoke when I said I didn't have any other presentation. I can do that under the public comment. Because these two are tied together, I may touch on some items that are related to the Large Scale Development as well as the Conditional Use. Just to give you some background on the project, the church purchased these 18 acres several years ago in an attempt to kind of spread our wings. As you all know, we are extremely landlocked over on Lafayette Street. I'm sure you can pull the police reports and on every Sunday Planning Commission September 11, 2000 Page 6 morning you can see numerous calls that are in complaining about parking problems and that type of thing that go on over on that side of town. We saw a need to expand the site that we have and give the kids something other than an asphalt parking lot to play on. The first phase that we decided to this in was to build a new school and we tried to coordinate that with the Fayetteville School System going to a middle school concept which is what we have done in adding a seventh grade to our school. We also wanted to make that the first phase so that we could have a place both to have a school where the kids can attend mass and have our Sunday mass in the auditorium/chapel worship center that will be built within this project. In the discussion of the Conditional Use at the Subdivision Committee there was some concern by the residents that live out on Starr Drive, understandably so, about the ability of the road currently to handle any additional traffic. I'm sure you are all aware of the traffic problem that occurs every morning at the intersection of 265 and 45 with the number of residential developments that have gone in on east 45 and everybody is in agreement that it is a problem. In addressing those problems, we have agreed to improve Starr Drive north of our property to Madison Avenue Subdivision to County Road Standards. We have agreed to improve Starr Drive along the length of our frontage, I realize these are Large Scale Development issues, to City Standards twenty-eight feet back to back with curb, gutter and drainage as well as modify the start time of the school day to help alleviate or minimize the impact of the traffic on this area. There were several concessions that we realize there is a problem in that area, we feel like it's a temporary problem and we also understand that there are things that we can do and have agreed to do to alleviate that. I just wanted to give you a little background on that. Odom: Thank you Tom. Next. Konig: High Conrad. Odom: Hello. Konig: Remember me? Odom: I do. Konig: I might have to retroactively flunk you. I taught Conrad a long time ago in school. Odom: You have to tell the record who you are. • • • Planning Commission September 11, 2000 Page 7 Konig: Excuse me. I am Jan Konig. Conrad knows me as Ms. Zachry. I have lived off 265 up Lover's Lane for about twenty-two years. As far as the traffic problem goes, I know when we fought the State to get a four-way stop sign out there, it was so bad. We had nothing traffic wise. We also knew instantly, when Vandergriff and McNair and whatnot went out there that there was going to be a terrible traffic problem and I appreciate that. I just don't want to see St. Joseph's punished for the public schools traffic problem I know this can all be worked out that way. It is a very limited access there. I wish it had been addressed prior to us trying a building program. I know that we would have less traffic problems out there than we do on Lafayette. I know that everyone in the community of St. Joseph's and so on wishes to also help the community of Fayetteville. I really wish you would consider us without penalty for the public school traffic problem. I thank you very much. Odom: Thank you Ms Konig. I think you may have flunked me the first time but that's okay. Any other member of the audience wish to address us at this time? Let me ask this one more time because you have to realize, once I close the floor to public discussion, it's closed for good. Thiessen: Hi. I'm Paula Thiessen. I'm the Principal at St. Joseph's. I have just a little traffic background information for you. This map shows where the families who attend St. Joseph's school live and there are alternate ways out of there besides the Starr Road/265 intersection. There is Wyman Road and other ways they can come from because they come from different directions, Goshen, Springdale and all over. Also, at our current site, we have a traffic plan in place where we dismiss at two different dismissal times. We dismiss K through 3 at 3:00 and 4 through 7 at 3:15. Half the cars go at one time and half go at the other. It takes about 7 minutes for each wave to do that. We have one-way traffic going through our parking lot, we have a traffic flow pattern and policy that we ask our parents to follow that we publish. We will do this at our new school also. With the larger parking lot, we ought to be able to get all of the cars in the parking lot at once so they can line up. Then the teachers are all on duty and we load five cars, where we are presently, at a time. At the new site we will be able to load more cars than that at one time. I think that would help with the traffic coming in and out of there a great deal. Thank you. Odom: Thank you. Any other member of the audience wish to address us at this time? Garling: Hello, my name is Mike Carling. I am under the understanding that Highway 265 is being widened right now. I don't know what correlation the City has with the Arkansas State Highway Department but it seems like something could be Planning Commission September 11, 2000 Page 8 extended out for the City or Highway Department, I don't know which, going out east of 265 to try to widen that section at least out to get down to 265 where it branches off. Do you know? Odom: The City Council doesn't listen to us very much so the State Highway Department is even worse. Garling: Is that right? Odom. Typically, we don't have a lot of say in what is done with state highways and so forth. We do work with, on the Master Street Plan, with city streets and that type of stuff but the State Highway is a completely different animal. They have their own criteria. Our staff works with them. Go ahead Tim. Conklin: I was going to say, the Public Works Director has been in contact with the State Highway Department and the Highway Department is going to look at the possibility of constructing a continuous left turn lane at least in front of Vandergriff and McNair. I'm not sure how far back to the east that will go. The intersection improvements from 265 back up to Box Avenue. It's something that the City does look at and work with the Highway Department and work with the school district too with regard to improvements in that area. Odom: Thank you. Anyone else wish to address us tonight on this issue? At this time I'm going to go ahead and close the floor to public discussion. COMMISSION DISCUSSION Odom: Tom, I'm going to ask you to come back to the podium for questions and continents of the Planning Conunissioners to the applicant. MOTION Hoffman: At this point, I'm going to go ahead and move for approval of CU 00-18.00 subject to all staff comments with the addition on item number eight to include the decorative metal fence. I'm doing this because I concur with the staff findings of the appropriateness of the Conditional Use for the area. I also feel that the church has worked and will continue to work with the neighborhood to alleviate and continue to find ways to mitigate traffic problems in the area. I will also note that I believe that the added traffic placed by this project in that area will increase the traffic warrants that are looked at by the State of Arkansas for additional stop lights and so forth With that being said, I move for approval of this Conditional Planning Commission September 11, 2000 Page 9 Use. Shackelford: I'll second. Odom. We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman, second by Commissioner Shackelford to approve Conditional Use 00-18.00. Do we have any further discussion? Will you call the roll? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call CU 00-18.00 passes on a vote of 9-0-0. • • • Planning Commission September 11, 2000 Page 10 LSD 00-22.00: Large Scale Development (St. Joseph Catholic Church, pp 373) was submitted by Cory Phillips of Freeland -Kauffman & Fredeen on behalf of St. Joseph Catholic Church located on North Starr Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 18.08 acres. The request is to build a church and school. Odom: Don't clap yet. It's not approved yet. The next item on tonight's agenda is the Large Scale Development 00-22.00 submitted by Cory Phillips of Freeland - Kauffman & Fredeen on behalf of St. Joseph Catholic Church located on North Starr Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 18 08 acres. The request is to build a church and school. The findings that the property was annexed on July 18, 2000. The proposal is for 48,099 square foot building to be used as a church and a school with a seating capacity of 500 people in the church auditorium and 394 students in the school. A future chapel is planned. The recommendation of the staff is approval subject to the following Conditions of Approval. Number one, Planning Commission approval of a conditional use to allow a church and school in an A-1 district. Number two, Planning Commission approval of a conditional use request to allow additional parking spaces. Chapter 172 Parking and Loading of the UDO allows 1 space for every four seats in the auditorium for a church and 1 space for every 1200 square feet of classroom area for a school. The code permits 168 spaces maximum. The applicant is requesting 281 spaces. (113 additional spaces). Staff supports this request due to the lack of alternate off street parking in the surrounding areas. Number three, Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards. The building is a single story building on the western two-thirds. It is a brown colored brick veneer wainscot below the window. Above that is a beige or tan EFIS. The roof is a standing seem architectural metal roof winch is a gray colored roof. The materials stay the same all the way around the building, end, front, and sides. The church building committee met on September 6, 2000 to make a final determination of the colors and materials to be used for the building. This information will be provided to the Planning Commissioners prior to the September 11, 2000 meeting. Number four, Planning Commission determination of the requirement for off-site improvements to Starr Road. Staff is recommending that the eastern half of Starr Drive be widened to local street standards adjacent to the site and widened to County Standards to the north of the site. See the attached memo from the Engineering Division and the attached cost estimate from the applicant's Engineer. Number five, Planning Commission recommendation to City Council to approve a cost share to bring Starr Drive up to city standards. Number six, Planning Commission determination of a requested variance from the maximum 24 foot parking lot aisle and driveway widths allowed by code. Applicant is proposing two 26 foot driveways connecting to 26 foot aisles. Number seven, Planning Planning Commission September 11, 2000 Page 11 Commission determination of right-of-way dedication for the continuation of Arapaho Drive. Staff is not recommending any right-of-way be dedicated at this time. Number eight, parking lot lighting as a part of this Targe scale development shall be provided through the use of five poles not to exceed 20' in height as shown on the site plan. Number nine, site plan shall be amended to include the following: a) a 6' wood privacy fence shall be constructed around the service drive and parking area at the southeast side of the site in order to provide a visual screen for these facilities; b) additionally, two of the fourteen parking spaces will be removed allowing for the installation of two landscaped islands which will each contain one evergreen tree; and c) no chain Link fencing shall be visible from the public right of way (Starr Drive). All fencing shall be compatible in appearance and materials with the approved buildings and site furnishings. All railing erected for safety purposes along retaining walls that are visible from the public right-of- way shall be decorative and made of brick, wood or decorative metal. Number ten, all utilities shall be placed underground. All ground and roof mounted utility equipment and dumpsters must be screened from the public view. Number eleven, Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives. Number twelve, staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. Number thirteen, sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum ten foot green space with a minimum six foot sidewalk along Starr Road. Number fourteen, Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. Number fourteen, prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required• a) grading and drainage permits; b) separate easement plat for this project; and c) completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by §158.01 "Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements" to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Staff, are there any further Conditions of Approval? Staff, did you listen to a word I said? Are there any further Conditions of Approval? Petrie: No sir, there is nothing additional. Odom: Would you like me to read those again? Tom, state your name for the record. Planning Commission September 11, 2000 Page 12 Hennelly: Tom Hennelly with St. Joseph's Church. There are just a couple of things I wanted to bring to your attention about the site that were a point of concern when we initially proposed this project. Several of the concerns of the Starr Drive residents centered around what our intentions were for the site and our intentions are for nothing more than as required by a Conditional Use of a grade going no higher than eighth grade. We do intend on building a church on the property which would be a phase two, which we understand needs to come back through the City. There was a considerable concern about how our attempt to get this project to blend in with that area and whether we did a good enough job doing that. There were some changes that we agreed to make which include, let me just show you on the plat. You can see there is a large expanse of parking which is one of our major concerns and is the reason why we undertook this project in the first place. The size of our church has outgrown the size of our parking lot. It's incredibly outrageous. We wanted to make sure that we don't have a single car sitting out on Starr Drive during a school function or a church function. That's the reason for the increase in the parking lot size above what is recommended by the City. In addition to doing that, we did eliminate fifty spaces which are better shown right here. We had an additional row of parking that came down the parking lot here that we eliminated and expanded that green space to 86 feet and put a 3 foot bean running the length of the parking lot to help screen it. We took some of that additional room that we gained and put in a ten foot island median that runs the length of the parking lot that will have plantings in it as well. That island won't be bermed but will have deciduous trees planted in it to help screen both the view of the school from anyone coming south on Starr Drive as well as the future church. Hopefully, the trees won't be too big by the time we build the church. We would like to have the room to build there. Before I forget, the model you are looking at here was done quite a while ago, during the initial planning stages. There is a difference, you will notice, between the roof line in the drawing than the one on the model. The only difference is, over the southern portion of the building, we show a peaked roof. That's been changed to a flat roof that slopes off to the back rather than the peak. You can see that in the profile of the building there. I just wanted to bring that to your attention so you weren't expecting to see this. The colors here have also been submitted to Planning and they are similar to this but this model does not reflect that. I didn't want you to expect to see a green roof out there when we get done. It won't be a bright red one or anything. Gray is the color that was submitted. I believe that's the only presentation I have nght now. PUBLIC COMMENT • • Planning Commission September 11, 2000 Page 13 Odom: Thank you, Tom. Let me ask now, is there any other member of the audience that would like to address us on this issue to come forward at this time. I'm assuming that all of those that were in favor of the Conditional Use are in favor of the Large Scale Development. I heard a uh huh out there so. There we go. Anybody else like to address us on this issue? COMMISSION DISCUSSION Odom: MOTION Hoffman: Shackelford: Odom: Bunch: Hennelly: Bunch: Hennelly: Bunch: • Hennelly: Seeing none I will close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the Planning Commission for questions and comments of the applicant. Tom, if you can come back to the podium please. For reasons previously stated, I'll move approval of LSD 00-22.00 with the addition of the decorative metal fencing, subject to all staff comments. I'll second. We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman, second by Commissioner Shackelford to approve LSD 00-22.00. Do we have any further discussion? Tom, on the single story building, is that going to limit you, it may not be quite well described, is it the western two-thirds of the building are single story and then the eastem third would be the single story? The western? I mean the western. Right. The western portion of the building is single story and the eastern portion because of the slope of the property is a two story structure. The model there is pretty representative of the topography out there in that the building on the west side has been dropped down and on the east side it appears to be a single story structure all the way around. What about the southem part? I assume that's like the auditorium. I just didn't want the language to limit you. Also, what progress has been made to secure the right-of-way to the north for the road expansion? Paul Warren has been working on that. • Planning Commission September 11, 2000 Page 14 Warren: My name is Paul Warren. I'm the Parish Coordinator for St. Joseph's Church. We bought this property from the owner who is to the north, his name is Dr. Ernest Stanbury and his wife Carol. We have had a recent meeting with them discussing the right-of-way through a county use which is what St. Joseph's has committed to upgrading the road to. I don't know if it's fair to also say that we have approached him on the possibility of annexing his property into the City so that at that time it could be improved to city standards. I feel Dr. Stanbury and his wife Carol understand the issue and are considering it at this point in time for the city annexation so that city specs can be put in on this property. If they decide not to want to have the annexation, then we will pursue the full county right-of-way which I think is a given. Odom: Commissioner Bunch, are you finished? Bunch: Yes. Odom: Commissioner Allen? • Allen: In reading through the literature, I noticed that one of the concerns of the neighbors seemed to be the lighting and I wondered what the reasoning was for the lights to be on until ten every evening. • Hennelly: Yes ma'am. Let me start by saying that the Starr Drive residents, we worked with them extensively on not only the Conditional Use but also the Large Scale Development and they did propose some good ideas. Of course they know that neighborhood better than anybody else. I think that the suggestions that we were able to work into the site will make this a much more appealing site, visually. What we did, currently at our site, we have a lighting problem. It's pitch black outside. As you can imagine, being like every other Catholic church we have bridge club and youth groups that meet and that type of thing. The lights will be manually controlled. To say that they will be on until 10 o'clock every night is probably untrue There will be other nights where they will be shut off. 10 o'clock was the latest time that we could anticipate a daily use with the exception of Easter Vigil Mass or Midnight Mass, something like that. We also have what we call Nocturnal Adoration that goes on the first Friday of every month which is a twenty-four hour prayer vigil. We don't intend on lighting every light in the parking lot. We have to pay that electnc bill. We don't want to do that. We would like to provide a safe amount of lighting dunng those times for the people that are present which are usually no more than five or ten at any given hour. That was the reason why the 10 o'clock time limit was given. Primarily because during the school year the CYM meets. Our youth group. Sometimes that can go Planning Commission September 11, 2000 Page 15 on until 10 o'clock or so. Allen: Okay. Thank you. Hoffman: I think I made an improper motion that I'm going to need to break my motion for approval into two separate motions. I'm going to strike my previous motion. Odom: Just keep your motion and move to amend. AMENDED MOTION Hoffman: Let me move to amend the previous motion to include that we are not recommending any right-of-way, in number seven, to be dedicated at this time pending further negotiations with the annexation in the county and so on. Item number two that I find there is a need for the one hundred and thirteen additional spaces. I will find a direct need for those spaces pending the construction of the church. Shackelford: I'll accept that. I'll second also. Odom: Ladies and gentlemen, what we have before us procedurally we must vote first on the amendment before we vote on the underlying motion to approve the Large Scale Development. So the amended motion we have by Commissioner Hoffman, second by Commissioner Shackelford is to approve the additional one hundred thirteen parking spaces and to not require a right-of-way dedication for the continuation of Arapaho Drive. Is there any further discussion on that issue? Call the roll. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call the amended motion to approve the additional one hundred thirteen parking spaces and to not require a right-of-way dedication for the continuation of Arapaho Drive, passes on a vote of 9-0-0. Odom: Now we have the underlying motion for approval of LSD 00-22.00. Do we have any further discussion? Staff, any further comments? Conklin: No additional comments. Odom: Will you call the roll? • • • Planning Commission September 11, 2000 Page 16 ROLL CALL: Upon roll call LSD 00-22.00 passes on a vote of 9-0-0. • Planning Commission September 11, 2000 Page 17 CU 00-20.00: Conditional Use (Coffey, pp 565) was submitted by Margaret Coffey for property located at 1906 E. Huntsville Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 0.61 acres. The request is for a duplex in R-1 district. Odom: The next item that we have on tonight's agenda is Conditional Use 00-20.00 submitted by Margaret Coffey for property located at 1906 E. Huntsville Road. The property is zoned R -I, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 0.61 acres. The request is for a duplex in R-1 district. Staff's recommendation is for approval of the Conditional Use subject to three Conditions of Approval. I would ask if the applicant is here to please come forward at this time if you can make your way through the crowd. Are you Margaret? Coffey: I am. Odom: Okay. Margaret there are three Conditions of Approval Have you had the opportunity to review those? Coffey: No. • Odom: Let me read those at this time and listen carefully. The first condition of approval is that access to this duplex shall be restricted to Ray Ave. No additional curb cuts to Huntsville Ave.(Hwy 16E) will be allowed. Can you hear me? Coffey: I heard that. Yes. • Odom: Okay. The next condition of approval is that all new construction must comply with required setbacks for the R-1 zoning distract. Variances granted by the Board of Adjustment (9/5/00) only apply to the existing rock house. Are you still with us Margaret? There you are. Coffey: The existing building is a six feet too far so any addition has to be past that? Is that what you are saying? Odom: That's what that means. Is that what that means staff? Conklin: That is what that means. Odom: The third condition of approval is that any addition to the existing structure shall be of the same or similar extenor materials and shall be compatible with the rock house in size, scale and character. Do you understand that? • • Planning Commission September 11, 2000 Page 18 Coffey: The rock house I have now is about 1,100 feet so I was wanting to make it maybe a little bit bigger than that. Is that alright? Odom: I think what this is addressing is the materials on the outside. Any addition that you have needs to be of the same or similar exterior material. Okay? Coffey: Alright. Odom. Those are the three Conditions of Approval. Do you have any problem with those three Conditions of Approval? Coffey: No. Odom: Staff, do you have any further Conditions of Approval? Conklin: There are no additional conditions. We did hand out some additional information and Dawn can go over that. Warrick: The additional information that is in front of you tonight consists of two drawings that Ms. Coffey submitted and they basically lay out the way that she would like to extend this existing single-family residence to make it into a duplex. You will see that on the front drawing which is kind of a site plan, it shows another access to Highway 16 and staff is recommending that it not be approved. That access be off of Ray Avenue. These drawings were done prior to the staff compiling its report and making those conditions. Odom: Dawn, is that your only problem with the drawing is that access? Warrick: Without having any more detail, yes. Odom: Do you understand that her only problem with your drawing, without any more detail, is that it has access to the highway and we are only allowing access to Ray Avenue. Coffey: Could I possibly make another? I have an access in the front. Could I make a circular in the back? There's a lot of property there in back and that way I could have maybe two accesses on Ray. Warrick: I don't think that would be a problem. We will be glad to look at a more detailed • plan. We Just didn't want an additional access down to Highway 16 for traffic congestion purposes and for safety purposes. We will be glad to work with you Planning Commission September 11, 2000 Page 19 on additional access points if you need them along Ray. Coffey: Okay. Odom: Okay. Do have anything else you want to talk about before we ask for public comment? Coffey: I just have a question. I don't know if you can answer it or not. I was wondering, when do you think that Huntsville Road or Highway 16 will be expanded? Do you have a time format on that? Conklin: With regard to Huntsville Road, at this time, there aren't any current plans for widening that. Currently, we have Highway 265 widening project going on and we really don't have any other highway projects in the works at this time. Coffey: Okay. That's probably why you don't want the access. Maybe they will be expanding that later? Conklin: Yes. It's classified as a principal arterial designed to be four lanes. Typically, we try, when you can have access off a local street that you already currently have, we like to limit and restrict the number of curb -cuts onto those type of streets. That's the reason for the recommendation. Coffey: Okay. I understand that. PUBLIC COMMENT Odom: Let me ask, is there any member of the audience that would like to address us on this item, the duplex before us? COMMISSION DISCUSSION Odom: Seeing none, I will close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the Planning Commission for questions, comments or motions. Estes: Tim, the curb -cut that is Ray Avenue that is contiguous to Highway 16, is that an existing curb -cut? Conklin: That is an existing curb -cut. Estes: I have no other questions. • • • Planning Commission September 11, 2000 Page 20 Odom: Anybody else? Someone fathom a motion. MOTION Marr: I move for approval of Conditional Use 00-20.00. Bunch: I second. Odom: Motion by Commissioner Marr, second by Commissioner Bunch to approve Conditional Use 00-20.00. Any further discussion. Will you call the roll? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call Conditional Use 00-20.00 passes on a vote of 9-0-0. • Planning Commission September 11, 2000 Page 21 CU 00-23.00: Conditional Use (Lake Hills Church, pp 255) was submitted by Jon Allen on behalf of Lake Hills Church for property located at 2800 N. Crossover The property is zoned A- 1, Agricultural and contains approximately 3 acres. The request is for a Child Care Center/Nursery School (use unit 4) in an A-1 district. Odom: The next item that we have on tonight's agenda is Conditional Use 00-23.00, Lake Hills Church, submitted by Jon Allen on behalf of Lake Hills Church for property located at 2800 N. Crossover. The property is zoned A-1, Agncultural and contains approximately 3 acres. The request is for a Child Care Center/Nursery School (use unit 4) in an A-1 district. Staff recommendation is for approval of the Conditional Use subject to the following Conditions of Approval. Number one, the proposed child care center/nursery school shall be an accessory function of a church. This use shall not be expanded throughout the entire building nor shall the site be converted to a child care/nursery school only without separate Planning Commission action. Number two, the childcare center shall enroll a maximum of 30 children as proposed by the applicant. Number three, screening of the outdoor play area to the north with a view -obscuring fence or view -obscuring vegetation, or a combination of the two, where the property abuts an R -O district, shall be provided as required by §163.11. Item number four, the outdoor play area (1200s.f.) shall be used by no more than 15 children at one time as provided by §163.11. Staff are there any further Conditions of Approval. Conklin: There are no additional conditions. Odom: I would ask that the applicant please come forward at this time. Allen: My name is Jon Allen. I'm still the Pastor of Lake Hills Church. I kind of resent this saying "new business" I've been here so long. I want one of these name plates is actually what I want. We are coming here in response to your request because we had our Large Scale Development approved a month or so ago and at that time you thought best to apply for a Conditional Use permit for the child care that was separate from the approval for the church. There is two things here that we ought to address on the conditions. First one is fine. The second one, it says "childcare center shall enroll a maximum of 30 children..." The building was designed to enroll fifty children. I explained last time and I think it's in here too that at this point, we don't foresee having more than 30 children because we would need about 20 of those spaces for Just the different activities of our church during the course of the week. We would hate to be limited to that because a year or five years down the road things could change. There might be more efficient use to have 40 children or something. I went back and read all of our applications and it says we propose to have 30 and maybe I should have said at this time. We Planning Commission September 11, 2000 Page 22 went to great lengths to explain that the building was designed for fifty children and in fact the traffic study that was done was done on the basis of 60 children which is even more than we would ever want. I would really like to see that changed to either 50 children, which I can understand because there was some concern that we would turn the whole building into a childcare building. Then also, item number three says the "Screening of the outdoor play area to the north with a view -obscuring fence or view -obscuring vegetation..." The fence that we proposed is based on the Division of Child Care and Early Development Education, a part of Arkansas Department of Human Services. We submitted our building plans to them. One of their recommendations was for a painted wrought iron fence with vertical rails rather than chain link or wood or something. Little kids feet can climb right up a chain link fence. We had planned on doing that. Also, they discouraged walls that would prevent play areas from being visible. The reality is in the world we live in, bad people do bad things and the more secret hiding places you have the better off you are. That fence you are talking about is actually about forty feet from the property line which is an R-0 zoning. This is based on fifty feet to an R-0 zoning but also there is a buffer strip. Part of that R-0 zoning is a buffer strip. The actual distance from this fence to the parking lot which is the closest thing in the William Dance Center to our children's area is about 90 feet. The spirit of the law, I understand, but we really don't want to obscure the view to that play area on the north for some of the reasons we just discussed. Other than that the conditions look acceptable to us. Odom: Thank you. Staff, do you want to go over number three? Conklin: Sure. That's an ordinance requirement and if the Commission would like, they can vote to waive that requirement. It just does require that a screening fence be provided between this use and any R-0 zoning district which is to the north. Odom: Just to the north though? Conklin: Yes Just to the north. To the south is zoned A-1 so we are just looking to the north. It is an ordinance requirement but staff is not opposed to elimmattng condition number three if you want to approve it. I Just wanted to point out that there is a requirement for that. With condition number two, we were looking at their maximum number that they have in their letter and just trying to put a number in there to make sure the neighbors and the Commission are aware of how many children are going to be there. Odom: Are you comfortable with 50? • • Planning Commission September 11, 2000 Page 23 Conklin: Yes. If you decide 50, that's fine. I don't have a problem with that either. Ward: You are looking at the fence here right? They are talking about a wrought iron fence or something like that? Allen: Yes, sir. In fact, there is even guidelines about how close the bars have to be together so that children don't get their heads stuck and things like that. It also calls for seven foot fence and I think this ordinance says six because you don't want bad people to come over the fence. Bunch: Is this on the northwest comer of the building? Allen: Actually the fence will be on the west side of the playground and the north side. The other two sides are the building. Bunch: I thought I remembered from the Large Scale Development. Basically, it would be screening from the road and also from the gymnastic center and dance studio to the north? Allen: Actually, this only calls for screening, the part of the fence that would be between the playground and the gymnastics center. Which would also be between the playground and the driveway. Ward: I really think that was designed to protect residential areas from... Conklin: I think so too. Odom: .. having to look at children play. I'm sorry, I kind of Jumped ahead of myself. I'm actually supposed to ask for public comment first before we begin this questioning session that we are doing. PUBLIC COMMENT Odom: Would any member of the audience like to address us on this issue? I would assume that if you are here in favor, please raise your hand. Okay. Let the record reflect, we have twenty plus people here speaking in favor. Not as much as the Catholics but good enough. Anybody here like to address us on this issue in opposition or has any questions or concerns with regard to the Conditions of Approval? Please come forward at this time if you are going to speak. • Rimbey: My name is James Rimbey. I live at 2870 Crossover Road. I don't have much in • • Planning Commission September 11, 2000 Page 24 the way of comment other than to say that we do not object to the child care associated with the church on the scale that's been proposed. As far as we are concerned condition number one is crucial for our support and that being the condition that the thing be an accessory function of the church that the use not be expanded throughout the entire building and that the building not be converted into a child care center. As to point number three, whether the number is 30 or 50, I think I can understand how the 30 came about because that's what the church proposed. That is what was in their filing. If, over time, it grew to be larger than that, I think I can understand but I would not like to see it expanded. If you do the arithmetic here and you do the 5,000 and 15,000, that's three times 50 which is 150 children. If you do the arithmetic on the square footage of the lot, it becomes over 600 children I want to make sure we are all in agreement that this is an accessory function to the church and on that basis we would say go ahead with it. Odom. You don't have a problem with the 50? That's a limit. Rimbey: I think so long as that is a limit. The expression is that they can't imagine doing more than 30 and I can understand that. I can see where it could grow to 50 but what I guess I'm saying is I would prefer not to see advertising to boost the thing to 50 the first day. In other words, if this is to be part of a ministry, I have no objection. Any questions? Odom: Anybody have any questions? Thank you very much. Anybody else like to address us on this issue? COMMISSION DISCUSSION Odom: Seeing none I will close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the Planning Commission for any further questions, comments or motions. MOTION Marr: I would like to move for approval of Conditional Use 00-23.00. I do believe that it is a appropriate use for the church. I would like to amend the condition number two "The childcare center shall enroll a maximum of 50 children..." and to eliminate condition number three Ward: I'll second. • Odom: We have a motion by Commissioner Marr, second by Commissioner Ward. Do we have any further discussion? Will you call the roll? Planning Commission September 11, 2000 Page 25 ROLL CALL: Upon roll call Conditional Use 00-23.00 passes on a vote of 9-0-0. Allen: Can I say something to the Commission before you resign here tonight? Odom. Briefly. Allen: I will be brief. There was some suggestion made that we had somehow been less than forthcoming with something. I think the comment was made that nobody could ever find out what we were going to do on this property. I don't want to embarrass... If I had made a mistake, that's fine but I don't want to embarrass the Lord, I don't want to embarrass our church. I want you to know that we considered childcare from the very beginning. We always thought it was part of our church and it never occurred to us that we had to ask for a different thing. The authority for this comes out of that Unit 4 and because the church and daycare is listed separately the discussion was it required two separate Conditional Use permits. I understand your thinking. It also lists a library which we are going to have and also lists a playground which we are going to have. We were told we didn't need Conditional Use permits for those. My point is, this is very confusing to a guy like me. I'm Just a preacher, okay? I've never built a building before and I pray that I never build another one. The form that we had to fill out, we filled it out many times, it said on there "If you are a business, fill this out." We weren't a business so we didn't fill it out. Then we were called and asked about hours of operation and so forth. We were told at that discussion that the concern was about how much parking we needed and what the largest crowd was That's why we filled out that form. It had mostly to do with our Sunday morning impact rather than the other things that go on during the course of the week. As the people from St. Joseph's said a minute ago, things go on there all the time so it's really hard to do that. It might be in order for the appropriate people to rethink that form because I notice it was amended when you added cell phone towers and things. Churches are kind of an odd deal. I called every childcare facility that's listed in the phone book that's associated with a church. I called eighteen of them. I didn't just speak to the person answering the phone but I got to the administrator or pastor or somebody. Not a single one of those had a Conditional Use permit for their childcare. It seems to me like some thinking ought to be done that if churches are going to have childcare, it ought to be considered a part of the thing. You ought to have some boxes, you are going to have this, you are going to have that. That would be included as a part of that. I don't want anybody to think that we tried to hide this or obscure this because this has been our plan from the beginning. I apologize if we seem like we weren't up front but it has always been • • • Planning Commission September 11, 2000 Page 26 a part of this. It was not until the Subcommittee meeting before the last Planning Commission that I was ever even asked that question. I was just as dumbfounded as if they had said you can't have a baptistry or something. It just seemed like a part of our church. Otherwise, I thank you for your time here. Odom: Thank you very much Mr. Allen and good luck to all of you in your worship out there. Staff do we have any further items on tonight's agenda? Conklin: There is no additional business. I did hand out a conference coming up in Fayetteville for the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program. Next meeting, we do have our General Plan 2020 Update coming forward. The drafts that were reviewed August 24, 2000, are available in our office. I intend to get out a final draft, next Monday and hand that out to everybody and get it out on our web page. That's coming up. Odom: Any further business? We are adjourned. 1 P.C. Mtg. 9-11-00 Consent Agenda Approval of 8-28-00 minutes VA 00-8.00 Starmer, pp 600 CU 00-18.00 St Joseph Catholic Church, pp 373 MOTION �pp,,-C�t�'f SECOND c�SY �C,I�.,J,�,i�J Q i -Cr rd D. Bunch �l 7 \I B. Estes rV Y L. Hoffman y y '7 S. Hoover '1 y Y N. Allen Y Y y D. Marr ' 1 C. Odom Shackelford ! Y L. Ward y y / ACTION r p S��l, .�I,S�C A VOTE i% q -Do G -b -o • • • P.C. Mtg. 9-11-00 LSD 00-22.00 St. Joseph Catholic Church, pp 373 CU 00-20.00 Coffey, pp 565 CU 00-23.00 Lake Hills Church, pp 255 MOTION r Nib"' C r SECOND QyaC gUn� warV D. Bunch Y Y B. Estes 7 Y � - /y L. Hoffman Y S. Hoover Y Y 1 N. Allen / y D. Marr / C. Odom 1 Y y Shackelford Y / y L. Ward i Y ACTION 1)7 Thaci Approve see aocci VOTE Cl. ,0-0 9-0-0 t'd d 2 ActIranCILKM LSO 0 CO-Z2.c roue..%vS 01J2. Walk. ,. ay '.Q4- out MOTION .00)CrYYn SECOND i71 met D. Bunch B. Estes L. Hoffman \I Y S. Hoover Y N. Allen D. Marr C. Odom Shackelford Ji / L. Ward Y ACTION pcment VOTE ! -0 - 0