Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-12-11 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on December 11, 2000 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED LSD 00-32.00: Large Scale Development (Park Apartments, pp 175) Page 3 LSD 00-34.00: Large Scale Development (Fazoli's, pp 213) Page 7 CU 00-28.00: Conditional Use (Hooker, 209) Page 12 LSD 00-35.00: Large Scale Development (Hooker, pp 209) Page 12 CU 00-31.00: Conditional Use (Electric Cowboy, pp 559) Page 32 • CU 00-32.00: Conditional Use (Brown, pp 209) Page 42 RZ 00-25.00: Rezoning (Caudle, pp 400) Page 46 • MEMBERS PRESENT Nancy Allen Don Bunch Lee Ward Lorel Hoffman Don Marr Sharon Hoover Loren Shackelford STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Sara Edwards Ron Petrie ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved MEMBERS ABSENT Conrad Odom Bob Estes STAFF ABSENT Sheri Metheney Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 2 Consent Agenda: Approval of minutes from the November 27, 2000 meeting. Hoffman: Welcome everyone to the December 11, 2000, meeting of the Planning Commission. The first item that we have on tonight's agenda is the approval of the minutes of the November 27, 2000, meeting. Do we have any comments or corrections? Seeing none, those will be approved as they are. • Planning Commission December 1 I, 2000 Page 3 LSD 00-32.00: Large Scale Development (Park Apartments, pp 175) was submitted by Chris Parton of Crafron, Tull & Associates, Inc. on behalf of J.E. Lindsey Family Ltd. for property located north of Joyce Blvd. & west of Park Apartments/east side of Park Oaks Drive. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 7.07 acres. The request is to build 60 dwelling units. Hoffman: The next item on the agenda is a Large Scale Development for Parks Apartments which was submitted by Chris Parton of Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. on behalf of J.E. Lindsey Family Ltd. for property located north of Joyce Blvd. & west of Park Apartments/east side of Park Oaks Drive. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 7.07 acres The request is to build 60 dwelling units. In conjunction with this item we have nine conditions of approval and I think that Chris is aware of all nine with the exception on item number five we have made a change during the agenda session. The last sentence in item number five would be that the driveway shall be inspected by the Engineering Division and be considered in good condition after construction of this project. Staff I would like you to address us on this. • Conklin: Condition number five was modified to make sure that after all the construction is done on the site that the easternmost drive, which is the private drive, is adequate to serve the apartments. • Parton: I guess at that time we will determine if some type of improvements will be required on that private drive then? Conklin: Friday, when I did take a look at it, it's a concrete drive that was cracked and some potholes have formed. It is our understanding that that drive will be repaired and that we won't see those potholes anymore after this project is complete. Is that acceptable? Parton: I voiced the City's concern Tim, to the owner and also to Lindsey Construction's construction manager that the City would like to see that cleaned up and they have taken that into consideration. Again, I do expect that to happen but there has been no guarantee on the owner's part that it will happen. I just do expect it to happen. Hoffman: Thank you. Staff, anything additional? Conklin: There is no additional items on this project. • • Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 4 Hoffman: So you are aware then of all of the Conditions of Approval? Parton: Yes. Hoffman: Do we have signed Conditions? Parton: I have not signed but I will sign them. Hoffman: You are willing to sign those? Parton: I do want to ask one question on number two. . - Hoffman: Can you say your name for the record please? Parton: Chris Parton with Crafton, Tull .& Associates. Hoffman: Thanks Chris. Parton: On condition number two with regards to the FEMA floodplain and floodway regulations, when I first read it on Thursday, it really reads like there is a floodway and floodplain in place right now. There is nothing there obviously, I just want to make sure when that floodplain and floodway is placed on Kitty Creek then that is when they will have to adhere to those floodplain and floodway regulations, not at this time. There is basically nothing to adhere to right now. Am I correct? Hoffman: We just dealt with another project up the street from this and I think Ron, if you could enlighten us on how we are handling the drainage for Kitty Creek area. Petrie: They are really two different issues. This issue has to deal with the FEMA regulations.; The other project did not deal with FEMA regulations. Hoffman: It was just the runoff. Petrie: That's correct. They weren't actually doing any work in the floodplain or floodway, any potential floodplain or floodway. This situation is, if the floodplain and floodway become established in between now and when the City issues building permits, they would have to use those regulations. • Parton: I just wanted to make that clear. Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 5 Petrie: Right. That is the situation that we do not have those regulations and floodplain boundaries at this time but there is the potential that they will come into affect between now and building permits. Parton: Okay. Hoffman: So you don't see that as being a problem toward completing the drainage and grading plan? Petrie: No. As long as they are aware of that possibility, there should be no problem. This happened once before for the hospital. Crafton & Tull was involved with that situation so they are familiar with those requirements. - Conklin: We are just trying to make sure we are putting everybody on notice that the Corps of Engineers is doing a flood hazard study in Fayetteville. They've done about 60% of the City, 40% of the City is left and in ongoing. That's the number one priority of this area right now and there will be a floodplain/floodway established on this site. Depending on timing, if you come in for your permit or if you want to build your culvert over to that parking lot, and there is a floodway there, you will have to do your engineering analysis to show you are not going to raise the base flood elevation, no rise. Hoffman: Thank you staff. Chris, did you have anything else you would like to add? Parton: That's it. PUBLIC COMMENT: Hoffman: I'll take public comment on this project. Is anybody here that wishes to address us on this item? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Hoffman: Seeing none, I'll go ahead and bring it back to the Planning Commission for comments and discussion. Anybody? —MOTION: Marr: 1 would like to move for approval of LSD 00-32.00. • Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 6 Shackelford: I'll second. Hoffman: Any further discussion? Seeing none, go ahead and call the roll. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call LSD 00-32.00 is approved on a unanimous vote of 7-0-0. • • • Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 7 LSD 00-34.00: Large Scale Development (Fazoli's, pp 213) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of Geoffrey Brown for property located at 3035 North College. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 0.79 acres. The request is to build a Fazoli's restaurant. Hoffman: The next item on our agenda is a Large Scale Development, LSD 00-34.00 for Fazoli's Restaurant submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of Geoffrey Brown for property located at 3035 North College. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 0.79 acres. The request is to build a Fazoli's restaurant. There are thirteen Conditions of Approval and I want to make sure that you are aware of those. Would you go ahead and tell us who you are please? Brackett: I'm Chris Brackett with Jorgensen & Associates. Hoffman: Thanks Chris. We only have one item that's changed out of those thirteen and that is in number six, during agenda session, was clarified that the dome of the cupola shall not be internally nor externally lighted. Are you aware of that? Brackett: Yes ma'am. Hoffman: Do you have any questions about the Conditions of Approval? Brackett: No ma'am and we have no objections to any of them. Hoffman: Okay, thank you. Staff, do you want to give us some comment? Conklin: Sure. Madame Chair and members of the Commission, I do want to add one more thing that we did talk about at agenda session, that includes the free-standing sign. There was an issue of whether or not a sign should be allowed to be located at this site as a free-standing sign or monument sign. We did have a number that we talked about, eighteen feet tall, forty square feet. I'm not sure if there is a consensus on that by the Commission. That issue still needs to be resolved. Hoffman: Let's go ahead and discuss that now. Are you prepared to make a presentation at this time? Brackett: I don't have a presentation but I can answer any questions you might have. As far as • the sign, we have no objections to it being eighteen foot tall. I'm sure the owner would Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 8 prefer it to be the width required by the ordinance which is twenty-five but if you feel that is too tall, we wouldn't object to that. Hoffman: Have you discussed with the owner's, I think a large part of the agenda session was centered around whether or not the trees would grow up to eventually obscure that height of sign and whether or not a monument sign would be acceptable? Brackett. I have spoke with the owner and we have discussed it, he would prefer to have the pole sign. Hoffman: Do you want to make any more presentation? Brackett: No ma'am. Hoffman: Staff is there anything further before I take public comment? Conklin: 1 would just like to point out, this is a re -development on College Avenue; they are dedicating the fifty-five feet of right-of-way. They are providing the ten foot greenspace between the sidewalk and curb, the fifteen foot of landscaping between the sidewalk and parking lot and cross access to the north and south connecting to Goldie's and to future development to the south. They've done a good job at meeting our standards, providing the cross access, providing the six foot multi -use trail, providing the greenspace along the front of College Avenue and would lust like to bring that out at this time. Hoffman: That's absolutely correct. In Subdivision Committee we worked on the plan and there is no existing tree canopy and they are adding quite a bit of landscaping so we have albeit a small part, a good part of College Avenue to be re -developed and enhanced in appearance. PUBLIC COMMENT: Hoffman: I'll take public comment. Is there anybody that would wish to address this item at this time? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Hoffman: Seeing none, I'll go ahead and bring it back to the Commission for motions or further discussion. • • • Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 9 Bunch: Chris, did you ever do any checking to see, since that's an old service station, to see if there were tanks there. I would just like to get this entered into the record. Brackett. Yes sir. There has been a phase one and phase two done on this property and the tanks have been removed from the old service station. Hoffman: They were removed? Brackett. Yes ma'am. Hoffman: Okay. Anybody want to weigh on the sign issue? Man. I guess my first thought on it is, in a effort to someday continue our improvement of College Avenue, I personally would like to see a monument sign. I understand the . requirements here but was hoping a developer would consider that. That's the only comment I have. It sounds like it was presented and that was not something they were interested in doing. Brackett: Yes sir. It's mainly the deal that this owner does have another store operating in Rogers and he's trying to, it's working for him there, so he is trying to stick with what . he has done in the past and just feels that the pole sign would be seen better from the road and would look a lot like the surrounding developments. There are a lot of pole signs surrounding this property. Allen: I agree. I hope that sometime we will try to be consistent about this. I think the monument signs look a lot better. I'm sorry that you couldn't bring back a like feeling from your client. We even thought it might be more visible. Brackett: I brought that up to him too. I can't really speak for his reasoning but what he did explain to me that he would like to go with a pole sign. Hoffman: I'll just mention that in Subdivision Committee when we talked about pole signs versus monument signs, we have held several shopping centers in town to monument signs or single identification signs that would be at odds or at more restrictive requirements than the sign ordinance permits under the Commercial Design Standards. We are empowered to do that here if the majority of the Planning Commission wishes a monument sign, it's something that we could vote for under the Commercial Design Standards but not under the sign ordinance. With that being said, my personal opinion was that since there were already pole signs out there and this one was going to be held • • Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 10 Allen: to a eighteen foot tall height, I prefer a monument sign too but I didn't feel I could vote the project down just on the basis of the sign. I won't vote the project down on the basis of the sign but, just for the record, I think sometime we start doing everything right and not just because there are bunch there we think we'll put another one. Hoffman: It's a very good point to make. I appreciate it. Bunch: How tall is the signage on the cupola, how far from the ground is that? Brackett: I do not know that. I don't have the architectural drawings in front of me. Bunch: My question then becomes, is a pole sign redundant if the cupola is tall enough to be seen over the adjacent buildings, then a pole sign would be redundant and you would actually be better off with a monument sign. Brackett: I think what we looked at at Subdivision Committee was the fact that the cupola is located further back on the property and that would be obstructed by the Goldie's building whereas, the pole sign is quitea bit further up and you can see it between the Goldie's and what the landscaping that would be planted along College Street. That was the reason for the pole sign. I do believe the cupola is going to be blocked when you are coming from the south, by the Goldie's building. Bunch: You mean from the north? Brackett: I'm sorry, yes from the north. Hoffman: Headed towards town. Brackett: Yes. Hoffman: You come down and top the hill around Goldie's and then come down. Okay. Marr: The other comment I wanted to make because I'm not going to give up until my term ends on this thing, but I believe this parking request again is an example where with banks, restaurants and certain businesses we continue to waive the requirement and allow for more parking, I support that. I just wanted to make a note for the record that this actual requirement would have been within the guidelines of what we sent to the • • Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 11 Hoffman: MOTION: Ward: City Council. So, I'm in support of the additional parking. Duly noted. I think any motion needs to incorporate the specific variance. We are reviewing parking requests for additional parking spaces based on the 1 to 4 seats, on a case-by-case basis and we find in most cases that those are certainly warranted for restaurants. I think this will be a really nice development compared to what we have sitting out there, a vacant building. I'm going to go ahead and move approval for LSD 00-34.00 for Fazoli's with the idea that we do allow a variance for 49 parking spaces and also a maximum height on a pole sign for eighteen foot high. I think that's the only two main variances we have to deal with. It looks like a very nice looking building. I kind of like the monument signs personally but that whole area we have been allowing pole signs for everyone so I. can't say we can start just out of the blue, denying a pole sign. Shackelford: I'll second that. Hoffman: I'll say that we can sure entertain the idea of replacing it with a monument sign when the trees grow up. We have a motion and a second, is there any further discussion? Seeing none, go ahead and call the roll please. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call LSD 00-34.00 passes on a unanimous vote of 7-0-0. • • Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 12 CU 00-28.00: Conditional Use (Hooker, 209) was submitted by Neal Albright on behalf of J.M. Hooker Construction for property located Hwy 112 north. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.36 acres. The request is for a warehouse and wholesale (use unit 21) in a C-2 district. LSD 00-35.00: Large Scale Development (Hooker, pp 209) was submitted by Neal Albright, P E on behalf of J.M. Hooker Construction, Inc. for property located at Highway 112 North The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.36 acres. The request is to build 4,200 square foot structure for office, storage and work space. Hoffman: Our next item, if you are following our published agenda, we have swapped items 3 and 4. We will first hear the Conditional Use for Hooker Construction, CU 00-28.00. As a companion item. we will also hear item 4 00-35.00 a Large Scale Development for Hooker Construction. Again, I would like to caution the applicant that a Conditional Use permit takes a positive number of five votes and the only appeal available to you is not to City Council, it's to the District Court so if there is any question about your project tonight, if you wish to table you should let us know before we commence -discussion. If not, we will go ahead and get started on CU 00-28.00. Is there anyone here for the applicant? Hooker: I'm Morgan Hooker. Jim Key, the architect is on his way in. Hoffman: Have you had a chance to discuss this and know about the votes? We have 7 members here tonight and it would take 5 votes. I just wanted to be extremely clear on the voting criteria. Hooker: We haven't had a chance to talk about it. Hoffman: If you would like to take a couple minutes, we'll allow you to do that. Hooker: Okay. Hoffman: Just take maybe two minutes. I'll go ahead and just point out tonight that if anybody is here, I forgot to bring it up in the beginning, but if anybody is here to talk about the eastern bypass, that is not on our agenda tonight. Anybody here for that? If not, Tim can you tell us when that's going to be coming up and what meeting that will be? What date? 1111 Conklin: We did have a special meeting on December 7, 2000, a joint Planning • Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 13 Commission/City Council meeting. At that meeting, they did instruct the Planning Division to bring forward to the Planning Commission information with regard to the major investment study and other information related to the eastern bypass. I do plan on bringing that forward to you next year It will be most likely the second Planning Commission meeting. Hoffman: In January? Conklin: In January. I do have the names and addresses of the individuals who were interested in being notified and they will also be notified on that. That's the plan right now, to bring it forward to you at the second meeting in January. The Future Land Use Plan, Master Street Plan, General Plan 2020 text is going forward to City Council on December 19, 2000. That will remain a part of that plan and then the Planning Commission will take a closer look at that starting next year. Hoffman: You also had that ordinance you are bringing forward about the right-of-way dedications? • -Conklin: They also requested that I bring forward an ordinance to City Council that will change the requirement of requiring right-of-way as part of the eastern bypass line that is shown on the plan. Basically, that amendment will no longer make that a requirement of subdivision or lot split approval. That will be a change that will be coming forward to City Council also. One of the issues that has come up and has been difficult to work with is that route for the eastern bypass. There has not been environmental studies done on it. Based on those engineering route studies there is high probability that route would change from it's current location which is shown as a line on the map. Those are the changes that will be brought forward. Hoffman: So it sounds like it's going to be a rather long term discussion and nothing imminently to threaten that road. Conklin: For some of the Commissioners it may be the first time you've seen that information from the Regional Planning Commission with regard to the major investment study. You may have questions with regard to that study that was completed two or three years ago. Hoffman: Thank you very much. I'll go ahead and call the applicants for the Hooker Construction project back into the room please. Can they hear me out there? • Conklin: This is more for them than the Commission but if the Conditional Use is denied, they are • • Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 14 not allowed to bring that back to you for a period of one year That's important to know also. Hoffman: We'll go over all that. I want to go over the procedural requirements. Can the applicant step forward on this Conditional Use please so we can talk about it before we get started. Not only does it take the five positive votes but should you be denied and not choose to appeal through Circuit Court then it will be a year before you can come back for a project on the same site. Key: To clarify what you just said Laurel, it does require a positive vote of five for the Conditional Use to pass? - Hoffman: Yes for the Conditional Use. It does not for the Large Scale Development.: -It-only requires a simple majority. In the case of a tie, according to our bylaws... no there wouldn't be a tie. - Key: Let me verify with the owner any impact that we made on the decision tonight, we --weren-t sure on the -five -votes on -the -Conditional Use. We did think that was the case. It was my understanding that we would like to proceed in either event. Hoffman: That being the case, we'll have to take separate votes on this. Let's go ahead and discuss CU 00-28.00 but bearing in mind that it is tied to item four which is Large Scale Development 00-35.00. A Conditional Use is outlined in our ordinances and has to meet certain criteria. Staff, could you go ahead and enlighten us on those? Conklin: The Conditional Use, in order to approve that by the Commission you are required to make findings. Some of the findings that you have to make, that you do need to consider this evening is that one, you do have the authority to grant the Conditional Use. and you do have that authority under Use Unit 21, Warehousing within a C-2 zoning district also, that the Conditional Use will not adversely affect the public interests, that you've complied with out regulations with regard to trash pick-up, parking, signs and then overall general compatibility with adjacent properties in other property districts. Those are the findings that you have to make. We are basing this Conditional Use on the Large Scale Development, LSD 00-35.00 which is the next item on the agenda. Any condition that is not met, that development, we will have to place a condition that this Conditional Use be revoked. That's the Conditional Use portion. I think it's important to note that this is a C-2 zoned property, Thoroughfare Commercial. With regard to granting the Conditional Use, you are granting them the ability to have an office and warehousing and outdoor storage, therefore, when you do take a look at • Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 15 your screening requirements and your Commercial Design Standards, I think you need to pay close attention to those standards to make sure that you are meeting these findings as part of the Conditional Use. Hoffman: I wanted to clarify something. We swapped these intentionally on the agenda on Thursday because the Conditional Use normally predicates the approval of the Large Scale Development but you've just indicated that if any aspect of the Large Scale is not approved, the Conditional Use would be void. Why don't we hear the Large Scale first? Conklin: Yes. I think what you should do, my recommendation is to hear, we've opened the Conditional Use portion, open the Large Scale Development portion and then vote separately first for the Conditional Use and if you feel like you can't make those findings as required by the Conditional Use and you vote it down, then there is no reason to vote on the Large Scale Development portion. On these Conditional Uses, what I've done with the churches that we've recently seen, it's difficult to separate them because most of the time they will have a Large Scale Development plan where we talk about —the -parking, screening, trash pick-up so you kind of have to take • a -look at both of them together in order to make your decision on the appropriateness of the Conditional Use. Hoffman: With that being said, we do have three Conditions of Approval. Are you aware of those and do you agree with those? Key: One being that the Large Scale Development would have to be approved, two being _that the shall be turned off immediately and the facility shall not operate if any of the conditions are not met and three being the Conditional Use shall automatically revoked if any conditions are not met. We are fully aware of those. Hoffman:. You are ready to sign the agreement to that affect? Key: Yes. Hoffman: Okay. Thank you very much. Let's go ahead then and if the applicant would like to go ahead and give us a presentation on your Conditional Use and Large Scale Development. We'll go back and again, clarify, we are hearing both items at the same time but we will vote separately. Key: For the record, my name is James Key. I'm the architect for the applicant J.M. • Hooker Construction I'm here together tonight with Mr. Neal Albright who is the civil • Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 16 engineer that submitted the Large Scale Development, to assist with any questions regarding the Commercial Design Standards specifically and the Conditional Use application. As you are all probably aware with possibly a minor exception, I believe you were all seated as Councilman when this project was heard several months earlier this year for the same client on an adjacent site to the east located on VanAsche Avenue. At that time, a Conditional Use for a warehousing and storage facility was granted together with an approval on a Large Scale Development and the owners were going to proceed with the construction of their building, which had been purchased and delivered to the site, everything was proceeding to construct that facility that had been previously approved when an unfortunate turn of event occurred preventing that project from being completed. There was an undisclosed easement on that property that deemed it undevelopable as originally proposed and the sale was terminated on the contract for the sale of that property. Mr. Hooker and his partner had no alternative but to seek alternative sites for their facility at that point. They've got a growing business that's been located here in downtown Fayetteville for some time now. It is their desire to locate in this area. They found a opportunity on a piece of property that was adjacent to the Highway Transportation Department's field offices is getting ready to be constructed adjacent to the old Hush Puppy Restaurant formally known as the Port of Call and currently known as The Comer Grill. This is a C-2 site as was the former site located on VanAsche Avenue directly to it's east and under similar circumstances we are requesting this Conditional Use with the desire to locate this contractor's facility here. It's a small 4,200 square foot building with just under half of that square footage being allotted towards office area for half a dozen office personnel. The contractor has considerably larger staff that are usually in the field and out on job sites. A majority of them are out of state. We don't anticipate having a large clientele and large staff in this particular office location but for convenience and access to I-540 and to the surrounding communities, it's thought to be very desirable to locate in this area. The site seems suitable, the adjacent surroundings seems suitable and desirable to us. For that reason, we petition for a Conditional Use to allow this type of occupancy on this particular site. The Large Scale Development is pretty straight forward and has been discussed through the Plat Review and Subdivision Committee. You'll note a sample here on stage left of a cast concrete panel with a frame that has been added to it to create a grid shadow line. It is our desire to use a concrete product for the waynescoat of this building that would be typically five and a half feet above the floor. The areas between the windows, we've extended that to the top of the window pane at eight foot for an accent. The majority of the remaining materials would be wood columns and arches forming the entry canopy and metal brackets with wood arches for timber elements forming the shaded awnings over the windows and a galvanized metal siding material forming the upper half of the wall. The cast concrete panel, four weeks • Planning Commission December 1 I, 2000 Page 17 after it was cast would turn more of a gray color as it is the nature of finished pure concrete. Again, as directed and as discussed at the Subdivision Committee meeting, we have proposed to add tinting to that concrete so it is not a raw light gray concrete color but will be a darker charcoal color. We've also added an awning to the personnel door on the north side of the building similar to the awnings over the windows on the west side facing the street front. To try to soften the affect of the building, to articulate the facades, we are proposing large window openings for the office areas with steel windows that are operable and store front over the entry area into the office. Unless there is any other questions, I believe that's the extent of the overview of what we are proposing to do here today. We have taken into consideration the comments through the Subdivision Committee regarding screening specifically and have revised the Large Scale Development plan. We are proposing to add a row of super pines along the north property line staggered ten foot off of the initial row that was proposed so we have a ten foot center to center spacing in affect with the trees slightly staggered front to back to provide a more positive screening to the north parking lot and the adjacent property owner. Hoffman: -In-terms of the Large Scale Development, there are other than the determinations that the Planning Commission needs to make regarding the screening and the appropriateness of the design standards, there are ten Conditions of Approval. Do you have copies of those and do you agree with those? Key: I do and I have reviewed them briefly with the owner. I believe they are pretty much in compliance with what was in the initial report at Subdivision Committee. One being that the additional right-of-way be granted which we have prepared a warranty deed preparing that and once approved it will be executed and filed. The Conditional Use is understood in item two, item three - screening conditions, item four - Commercial Design Standards, item five is the right-of-way warranty deed. Hoffman: Combined with that I think you had a property line adjustment on the Conditional Use that you were working on, has that been resolved? Am I right Tim? Conklin: Pardon me? Hoffman: Do we have a property line adjustment on this one? Conklin: No. There was a property line adjustment that was approved in 1997 that required the shared access and condition number one discusses that. • • Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 18 Key: Item one, that was another point of contention that we had asked consideration for an additional driveway cut, not technically a curb cut since there is no curbs existing on this highway but a highway cut, which if granted we would proceed with the appropriate approvals through the State Highway Commission. It is our desire, due to the nature of the business and the adjacent property owner's desire, which was documented with information that was submitted together with the supplemental data to the Planning office that the adjacent property owner also desires that we consider or we ask the City to consider a separate entrance. We think it would be less of a conflict with their clientele and with ours. Hoffman: Tim, I believe we have a letter from Perry Franklin. Conklin: Yes, we do have a letter from Perry Franklin who did take a look at the traffic generation from this facility and in his opinion he thought that the additional curb -cut would not be detrimental to Highway 112. He's in support of allowing this curb -cut for this construction office. Hoffman: We were given that at agenda session I think. - Conklin: Yes. Key: I've read the remaining seven through ten conditions and we are aware and in agreement of all of them. Hoffman: You are in agreement with that then? Key: Yes. - Hoffman. Do you have any further presentation before I take public comment? Key: No ma'am. PUBLIC COMMENT: Hoffman: Is there anybody here that would wish to address us on this matter? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: • Hoffman: Seeing none, 111 bring it back to the Planning Commission for discussion and/or • • • Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 19 motions. Key: I have prepared copies of these for all the Planning Commissioners. This is a rendering, you can see a larger copy presented on the easel of what our vision of this building is. Conklin: I did go up to Springdale on Friday to the Resident Engineer's office for the Highway Department. I did make copies of the elevations for their new facility on Highway 112 adjacent to this site, south of this site. I have passed that out to each of the Commissioners. The first page shows the resident engineers office building. It's a one story building. It does contain brick veneer on all four sides and has a hipped roof with composition -shingles. I wanted to point that out to you. We have discussed during the Subdivision Committee about the Highway Department and that state agency not coming through this process and the type of buildings they have as one of the considerations with regard to this building design that's proposed this evening for this construction office. The second page that I handed out shows a site plan of the facility showing the location of this resident engineers building up in the northwest comer and then they do have a metal shop building kind of back in the southeast part of the --property, the middle -of the property. That's -shown -on -the last -page. - - Hoffman: So if you are going out on Highway 112, the shop is the first building you see on this? Conklin: The shop will be the first building you will come to and then you will come to the resident engineers office. Hoffman: - How much of this project Tim, is located in the Design Overlay District? Conklin: This project is probably about 25% of the back eastern part of this property is in the Overlay District. Hoffman: Since it is a state project being exempt from our ordinances, I feel fortunate to be able to be shown these plans but we don't have any idea of landscaping or screening they might be adding to screen this from the bypass? Conklin: No I don't. This is the information that I was able to receive. Once again, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I did want to make sure that if you do use the State Highway Department in any consideration for this building design and the use of this metal siding material up on at least half the walls, that you do know that the Highway Department does have at least one of the buildings which will be a brick veneer building on all four sides. There's some siding right in the center of the building facing Highway Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 20 112. That is the information that you did not have at agenda session. Hoffman: Anything else? Conklin: -.That's all I have. Hoffman: Does the applicant have a copy of this? Have you been shown this? Key: I did pick up a copy of it Friday at the City Planning office about 4:45 Friday afternoon. I understand Tim did pick up a copy of the resident engineers office. We also had a discussion about -a recently -submitted project for a multi -family residential development to the west and south of this development and had a discussion about the appropriateness of this building, the view and appearance of the resident engineers building and the compatibility with the future planned residential development. It is my belief and I adamantly feel this way, that this building is as compatible if not more so with commercial development and multi -family residential development than a commercial building that's made to look residential by using brick veneer and hipped oof to make -it -look more -residential in nature. I don't think it was the intent of the design standards to restrict or to try to tune a commercial development to look residential. That's not our desire. Obviously, we would like to have a building that's readily identifiable as a commercial facility and we do feel that this project will be an asset to the neighborhood and to the surroundings and will be compatible as is stated in the staff report on the Conditional Use and Large Scale Development that it would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and uses. Hoffman: Thank you. Commissioners? Marr: Explain to me what a super pine is. I guess what I'm trying to understand is how that provides adequate screening for the type of screening we are wanting on this avenue to not be too high. Key: The super pine specifically is a hybrid type of fast growing pine that grows to a tall canopy height relatively quickly similar to a traditional lob lolling pine. It was discussed specifically with the Landscape Administrator as being desirable due to the fact that the screening requirement here is to screen this facility from I-540 which is elevated 550 to 600 feet to our east and not necessarily from the adjacent property owners. It was thought that this would be a good compromise because when they are initially planted at a 2 to 3 inch caliper size or slightly smaller, they'll be 4 to 5 foot in height. A majority of the needle and dense canopy of the tree will be at a lower elevation which will hold • • • Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 21 true to 4 or 5 to 8 years as it grows to a point where the canopy is elevated above the view line. At that point you will have a view below the canopy from the adjacent parking lot or adjacent property into the site and that was reason for considering planting the trees at a denser spacing of ten foot staggered as opposed to twenty. So you have a denser spacing of trunk and lower branches even though the tree is specifically designed to kind of branch itself as it grows and spend a majority of it's efforts in it's upper structure and in trunk development. That was thought to be desirable at least for the 100 so odd feet of the east portion of the north property line that is in the Design Overlay District and also the east portion of the property line. I think specifically due to the fact that it was the parking lot and the adjacent property to our north, it was just the north that we discussed adding the staggered row of trees adjacent to the row we had proposed to give a denser trunk spacing from the lower line visual adjacent property. I know there were a lot of comments made at the Subdivision Committee meeting about hoping the super pines will live up to it's name etcetera etcetera. Obviously these trees are not being used a lot in -this environment. They are felt to be very compatible. They are developed for, as I said, rapid growth and harvesting but it is acknowledged that there are a lot of trees similar to that variety that -are not that particular-hybrid-that:have been planted -in this area, years past and are;still doing quite well 40, 50 years maturity in a denser application and felt that this tree will have a long life and will do well and thrive in this environment and ultimately provide a very nice screening from the elevated I-540 to our east. We were all agreeable that it would be a trial to consider and see and see in the future how these trees do mature and if they do provide the type of screening that is desirable from the interstate. Hoffman: _Thank you. If everybody is agreeable to this, what I would like to do, I think the major issue with this project was it's appearance and design standards and the use of the metal siding and concrete base. If we can focus our discussions now on that item. If there is anything that is of particular concern to anybody, please bring it up. I think that based on the Subdivision Committee meeting that we had and other things, the first thing we should discuss and get out of the way would be the Commercial Design Standards so I would appreciate all your input at this point. Allen: Key: Regarding the Commercial Design Standards, one of which is that the aluminum siding wouldn't dominate the building, I wondered how you could explain to me how that doesn't. The Design Standards state specifically that metal siding shall not dominate the main facade or the street facade of the building. It is our contention and our belief that in this particular case given the accouterments and the elements that we have added • Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 22 particularly the wooden portico entry with the arched awning and the sloped awnings on the windows themselves and the masonry base that those elements provide a stronger definition than the metal siding itself does and albeit the metal siding does not dominate the facade. Obviously, it's a matter of opinion but it is our contention that it does not dominate the facade and this is a desirable solution on our part. We've actually increased the size of some of the masonry portions of the wall, increased the size of the windows to decrease the percentage of wall surfaces covered by metal siding. Hoffman: I'll go ahead and, just for the record, read the five elements that we have in our Commercial Design Standards elements to get us focused. Those are the elements to avoid or minimize include: unpainted concrete precision block walls, square boxlike structures, metal siding which dominates the main facade, large blank unarticulated wall surfaces and large out -of -scale signs with flashy colors. Do you have any large out -of - scale signs with flashy colors? Key: • Hoffman: Key: • Not in my opinion. We had a brighter blue on this sign but we toned it down. It was our desire to have it match their business standard. It's just a wall sign? It's just a wall mounted sign. We have showed a provision on the Large Scale Development for a future monument mounted sign in the landscaped area. It is not our intent to install that sign at this point, we just wanted to make provisions for it in the event that if the company grows over the years and depending on the development adjacent to us, if the wall sign doesn't have the visibility, we would like to consider adding a monument sign at some future date. Hoffman: You would have to go back to some other board because if you are approved with just the wall sign at this time, it will not include any approval for a free-standing sign. That's never been discussed. Key: We added it after Plat Review specifically because of the discussion asked "Are you going to have a monument sign?" Yes we will show one for future use and we added it on our Large Scale Development plan and it was resubmitted before the Subdivision Committee. If we have to come back at some future date, we have no plans at this point in the foreseeable future, three or five years to put that sign in. If we need to come back at some future date, if the client decides that he would like to have a monument sign, we would be glad to do that. • • • Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 23 Hoffman: I'm going to, out of the five, speak up if you don't agree, I'm going to say that we don't have to discuss item E - Large Out -of -Scale Signs with Flashy Colors. Let's go back to A - Unpainted Concrete Precision Block Walls. Comments? Marr: Key: I said this in agenda session, I guess I'm trying to get comfortable with the fact that particularly when it's hard for me to envision something I don't have an example to see, if that is considered unpainted concrete. That is what we were proposing and that is very similar, identical I might add, to the cast concrete walls that are on the front of the old Goodyear building which is now By Request, U of A, Community Design Center. This is the exact type of construction we are proposing. Initially it was our desire that it be light gray, natural finish concrete. I stated we are willing to tint it because it was felt that it was unpainted concrete. The statement was broken down to not necessarily say anything but concrete precision block walls but unpainted concrete. We are willing to tint this but this is the desire for the aesthetic that we would like. Allen: --Can-you pass that down please? Key: These were the west facade of the old Goodyear building which is located at the corner of Meadow and East Street just north of the Hilton. Marr: Key: I understand your point and I'm not trying to be argumentative but I'm looking at five conditions that we are supposed to make a judgment on. When I read unpainted precision block walls, regardless of whether there is one that exists somewhere, I'm to determine whether this new facility does that. The same thing with the large blank unarticulated wall surfaces which I think you certainly met the requirement of not putting us in that situation. Boxlike structure, I think we've also met that. Metal siding which dominates the main facade, I think at least within this, one of our fellow Commissioners even brought us a book to educate us on corrugated metal so certainly I'm not opposed to it being used appropriately but to me that's what I'm looking at. I actually came into agenda session pretty opposed to it and after seeing this I'm more in support of it. I'm trying to get comfortable with when I'm going to make a finding that, in my opinion, is outside two of these criteria. A couple of comments, when we first planned this project months ago, in the first presentation we made to the Planning Commission, to the City staff, we were proposing an unpainted precision concrete block wall. It was our desire to use a stored natural concrete block wall that had an eight by eight pattern when it was laid but it was still a • • • Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 24 precision concrete block, it had coursing every eight inches adjoined every sixteen inches with a.score made it look like it joined every eight inches in both directions. Again, that was felt to be desirable on our part for the type of aesthetic that we desired. We made adjustments, we looked at split faced block, tinted charcoal, tinted beige, we ultimately decided on a brick veneer for the waynescoat of that particular building and we are using some green slate tile as accents. The canopies were not as substantial as this on the entry canopy due to the nature of several projects we have been working on together and that the client has worked on separately since early this year, it is desired to use a wood type structure, scale the front to the incoming clientele and to make it a little warmer so we got away from the green slate tile product to a natural wood product that would be stained -and as opposed to the unpainted concrete block or the tinted split faced concrete block, we kind of rethought what was being done in the community in the commercial market there is a lot of split faced block that is being used, it was felt that a cast concrete, given the nature of the aesthetic and using exposed form tie holes, small materials added to the inside of the form work to actually create a shadow line, a reveal, that would be more desirable than a precision concrete block construction and that's what Wt—propose. The sample that you see here is actually one ---half-the-height-ofour main-waynescoat. The waynescoat is proposed to be five and a half feet tall with two courses of this eighteen inch by eighteen inch square accented element: This would be repeated above and have three feet of this type of surface without the shadow line in it. Every eighteen inches on the center on both axis, across and up and down we have a form tie hole that will shadow on definition of how that product was assembled, constructed and what it is. Again, trying to be true to the nature of what materials we'll be using, we prefer that the concrete look like concrete -as opposed to being cast and polished and finished to look like polished marble or something to that nature. Hoffman: Just to interject, should this project be approved we ask for the tinting which I would still personally think would be necessary, would staff be able to work with getting samples of that before it's actually poured? Could you bring in small samples of the tints? Key: Yes. Hoffman: There are so many shades of gray. Conklin: I'm not sure exactly what tint you are looking for tan, green, red? Hoffman: In regard to the first element to avoid, unpainted concrete is just that and it seemed to Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 25 me that in order to more comply with the spirit of this ordinance that we should have it colored in some way and.1 was against painting it for maintenance reasons. Key: We'll bring in a sample of casting much smaller in size, I assure you, I've had some comments of concern. Hoffman: Key: I heard you guys had to get a crane in this building today to get this up here. We'll bring a small mixed sample of some color pallets that we can look at and decide upon. At Subdivision it wasn't discussed what colors would be desirable or acceptable -or preferable, obviously the intent being to avoid unpainted concrete. Hoffman: -Just to avoid the unpainted concrete. Key: It is our desire, at this point, to go towards a darker, deeper, richer gray. Hoffman: Thank you. Hoover: The way I read this, when.it says, concrete precision block walls, it's concrete block and these are not concrete block, this is poured in place concrete which is more difficult and more expensive and comes out with a whole different sense about it. I guess I get a little concerned when you start putting some tint limitations on the concrete. This might have had some type of slight tinting so it wasn't just white concrete but I'm just hoping that it's gray or something like that to go with the rest of the whole thing. Does everyone read this as this -being concrete block wall, I don't see this being the same as A. -Hoffman: I think originally we didn't want to have a CMU block square building but that when you do break it down, you have to realize that unpainted concrete is just that. In my mind, we want to avoid unpainted concrete buildings. Hoover: I don't read it that way at all. Hoffman: Of course. Key: I made that comment at Subdivision Committee -that I didn't feel that you could break these sentences down into parts and selectively apply them to block or to concrete. We are in agreement to tinting the concrete if that's what is desirable to avoid an issue of unfinished raw concrete. We feel it's desirable, we'll do whatever we have to to • • • Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 26 comply with the ordinance and to make this compatible so that everyone feels the same way that we do about it that it's an asset to the community and it's a positive development that's going to beautify this portion of Fayetteville. Hoffman: Thank you. Bunch: Jim, is this landscaping that's shown in the rendering that you gave us representative of what will be in place? Key: Fairly close. The professional that was hired to do this rendering was not the landscape architect. He was given a copy of our Large Scale Development plan and told him that it was our intent to put juniper shrubs along the front of the building, some shrubbery and some floral as well as some ground cover in the green space. The one thing that you probably see lacking here is a little bit of ground cover like some vinca and landscape gravel: as opposed to it all being sod or grass particularly in this island. Mulch would be more low maintenance to have the grass growing up between this. In essence this is our intent. Bunch: One thing would be the height of the shrubbery because one of the things you expressed is the differentiation in the patterns in the poured concrete wall. It looks as though the shrubbery is covering it up. Key: The shrubbery is covering it up. We had a conflict among the owner's. It's one desire to have the shrubs to be slightly higher to screen the windows, on the other hand we felt _that the lattice awning provided that sun shade. It was my initial intent to have a lower Tying ground hugging shrub, juniper shrub that would be lower to allow that concrete to be exposed. Upon discussions it is the belief that likely we are looking at somewhere in between with a shrub not above the window height but definitely obscuring part of the three feet of that base. Bunch: As a point of clarification, this is a galvanized siding material as opposed to a mill finished aluminum material? Key: The actual photo you see right here is what we cut for the sample. It is a galvanized metal wall pane and not a finished aluminum. Bunch: Also, on your fascia trim is that color what you plan on going with rather than maybe something that would pick up the colors in the framing for your windows? • • Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 27 Key: We had considered that. Our trim color for the windows and doors is intended to be black. We had considered that as a trim element for the rake, gutters and down -spouts and comer trim. We really felt it was too strong of an element and for that reason primarily we decided to remain with a palette comparable and complimentary to the original wall panel which is a smooth finished galvanized trim component. It would be an angle on the walls, it would be a formed gutter and rake trim that would be the same type of finish as the walls. Obviously, we would have a shadow line as reflected in the rendering where that projects out and faces the wall. It is our feeling that this was the best solution in terms of not trying to accentuate those corners with a dark trim. It almost made it too gingerbread looking. Bunch: So your walls panel themselves are apparently a textured section and then you are using a smooth on the trim elements? Key: Yes. The texture on these panels is the reinforcing element to keep it from oil pan. These intermediate rims just to stiffen it. Typically, a metal product due to the nature of it's thickness will weigh and give you an uneven oil pan you see a lot in metal roofs. For that reason these wall panels are stiffened with an intermediate rib that's roughly small profile and in essence it doesn't create a shadow line it just stiffens the panel. We've looked at variations in three or four different types of panels. Our original building proposal had included a high rib corrugated that was actually round like the old industrial steel you used to always see. I felt that wasn't as desirable as a vertical leg actually projecting away from the face of the wall or a hip or a high element as this panel does. Bunch: I was thinking more of the surface of the metal as opposed to the cross section of the strengthening elements. Key: The texture is actually smooth. The trim would be a similar material with the same type of finish. Hoffman: Could you come back to the podium so we could all hear you? Bunch: I think one of the things I was concerned with is whether or not the embossing was on the extension the embossing was it would cut down on glare for people coming around the comer. Key: That was the intent for the embossing, it is my understanding that it gives a multitude of • services so you don't have a large reflection. It almost looks like a collage of small • • Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 28 components all added together to form a surface. From a distance it's not even visible. If you get up closer to it, you can see that. Bunch: Even that same section in a mill finish aluminum creates a considerable amount of glare. Key: Right, it's not reflective like mill finish aluminum is. We originally had mill finish aluminum planned for our door and window finishes and we stuck black finish on top of it but this particular element here is a mill finish aluminum and it is highly polished quite different than the galvanized metal. Hoffman: At this time what I would like to do is to get the Planning Commission to weigh in on their opinion about the Commercial Design Standards and screening for this project and then I'm going to move back to the Conditional Use itself. I think, unless anybody has any other particular item they would like to discuss, I have to take separate votes. I would like to go ahead and just get an opinion. If you feel like you have stated your opinion well enough already, but for those of you that haven't, I would like to hear from you and then that will give you a sense of what might be in store for your Conditional Use. It's on a case by case basis. I want to make it quite clear that we have to make these findings in our Commercial Design Standards and that I think that you meet at least four out of the five. That being the preponderance of the number of standards to meet, I'll go ahead and voice my opinion on the affirmative for this. Anybody else? Shackelford: I agree with what you are saying. Basically, I look at this building and Commercial Design Standards, I keep coming back to two things, first of all there will be a metal building within site of this project with no landscaping, that is going to have an affect of how others are developed in this area. I also realize that there is a lot of I-1 zoning just to the south of this building. In my opinion, this building meets the Commercial Design Standards as well. I think they worked hard to break up and dress up the facade of the building. I think it's a good match for the surrounding buildings in the area and I think it's a building that will serve the owner well providing both office, storage and work space. I too will support this. Hoffman: Thank you. Anybody else? Hoover: I think you have a good point. I think location here and when we have Commercial Design Standards we have to weigh where the building is actually go at the site and what's surrounding it. I tend to agree, I wouldn't necessarily say this would be compatible with some other areas. I think that's what we have to consider on these also. • Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 29 Hoffman: I did take into consideration the use of the super pine, which I'm still looking forward to seeing shoot up. I hope it lives up to it's name. In general, I think that you've worked hard to try to make this building something that a construction office typically is not. Anybody else? Bunch: This is also again, pointing out on the location, just to the north the distance of the width of one lot and across the street is the City of Johnson industrial park and I think that in this particular location, this would help be a transition from one type of environment to another and I would not necessarily agree with this design scheme in another location but specifically on a case by case basis I think it fits this location well. Hoffman: One last chance. Allen: I will aqueous because of the location but I have a lot of problem with the Commercial Design Standard. I guess I'm kind of Just a stickler for rules the same way that I felt about the pole sign and the monument sign that sometime you start in doing things right and you go according to the rules or you change the rules. Perhaps the location is right. • Key: I question, do you feel the metal does dominate the facade, is that your main concern? Allen: I think there is no doubt. Saying that it doesn't look like metal doesn't make it not make it not look like metal to me. Key: It does look like metal and that's not an element necessarily unless we are talking about the Design Overlay District standards where metal cannot be used unless it looks like wood or masonry or some other natural occurring material. In the Commercial Design. standards that criteria doesn't hold. I feel like I'm in the Supreme Court arguing for Mr Bush or Mr. Gore. But in the Commercial Design Standards that argument doesn't hold, it's not the same standard that has to be met. Only that the metal should not dominate the main facade. Again, it's my belief and I wholeheartedly feel this way that this that the metal does not dominate the main facade in this application. Hoffman: It's close. Allen: It does in my view. I do think the windows and the awnings buffer that considerably. It still looks like aluminum siding to me. Marr. I'm actually in support of this development. I do believe that I concur completely with • most of you that I would not approve this in other places in the City of Fayetteville. I • • Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 30 want to make that clear for some future applicant that comes in front of us holding that as an example of something that we've approved. I think it's fitting and compatible to the area. I also believe that in rethinking and relooking at Commissioner Hoover's comment about the intent of the design standard probable being concrete block as we think of it not in this particular scenario also makes me feel more comfortable approving it. Hoffman: Thank you. Anyone else? MOTION: Ward: Basically I think everything has been said that I was going to emphasize. Most of the time in C-2 I'm more for brick and split faced block and those type of properties be used on these kind of buildings. In this particular area because of the concrete plant, the other type of metalbuildings already out there, asphalt companies out therewith a lot of equipment, the State Highway Department is out there with a lot of equipment and materials: I can see why, in my case, I wouldn't want to build a totally brick building out-there,-for-an-overkill—Most C-2 zonings I'm very much adamant that we stay with our normal brick and split faced block. I do think that some corrugated metal on commercial designs is fine, so I'm not against that at all. Also, some of theother corrugated metal buildings that we have, the Pauline Whitaker Equestrian Center out on. 112, I think is a very nice looking property commercially. We've got some homes in town that are made out of very similar type projects, I think are unique looking and different. We've approved -a very similar type of building construction out on 6th Street and -Collins for the Co-op Building. I'm not totally against using some corrugated metal. in our Commercial Design Standards. With that, I'll go ahead and move for approval of CU 00-28.00 for the Conditional Use. - - Marr: Second. Hoffman: I have a first by Commissioner Ward, second by Commissioner Marr. I would like to point out a Conditional Use runs with the land, if I'm correct. Tim, would you just clarify that the Conditional Use will run in perpetuity with the deed for the land for use as a construction office only. This use is the only one permitted by this action. Conklin: The way we have it worded right -now is, it's subject to that Large Scale Development, as long as it is a construction office. If it changes ownership, yes, they would only be able to use it as a construction office. • • Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 31 Hoffman: So it would be the same. It would not be able to be changed to purely a warehouse or a recycling center or whatever. Conklin: No. It is only for that construction office. Hoffman: Any further discussion or comment from anybody? Call the roll please. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call CU 00-28.00 is approved on a unanimous vote of 7-0-0. Hoffman: I'll bring it back to Large Scale Development 00-35.00 for discussion or additional • motions. MOTION: Shackelford: Based on comments and discussion previously findings of the Commercial Design Standards, subject to the ten Conditions of Approval, I'll make a motion to approve LSD 00-35.00 Bunch: Second. Hoffman: Any further discussion on this one? Please call the roll. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call LSD 00-35.00 is approved on a unanimous vote of 7-0-0. • Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 32 CU 00-31.00: Conditional Use (Electric Cowboy, pp 559) was submitted by M.L.T. Management Inc. on behalf of Marshall L. Till for property located at 2127 W. 6'h Street. The property is zoned C- 2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 4.37 acres. The request is for a dance hall in a C-2 district. Hoffman: We'll go on to item number five which is CU 00-31.00. This is a Conditional Use for the Electric Cowboy submitted by M.L.T. Management Inc. on behalf of Marshall L. Till for property located at 2127 W. 6th Street. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 4.37 acres. The request is for a dance hall in a C-2 district. There are eight Conditions of Approval. Again, let me make this perfectly clear, this approval is contingent upon five positive votes. Do you wish to go forward with your request? Till: Yes I do. Hoffman: Do you understand the appeal process should it be denied. • Till: Yes. Hoffman: Tim, can you go ahead and give us some background on this? Conklin: Sure, I would like to go over the conditions. We do have eight Conditions of Approval for this item. Condition number one, the applicant shall install a 6 foot tall wooden privacy fence above the existing concrete wall along the east side of the structure. Condition number two, all proposed changes to the exterior of the structure must be reviewed by the Planning staff for compliance with our Commercial Design Standards ordinance. Condition number three, signage shall comply with the City's sign ordinance as well as Commercial Design Standards. No new freestanding signs shall be added to this multi -tenant development. Number four, compliance with the City's noise ordinance. Number five, trash dumpsters shall be located behind the building and shall be screened on three sides with view obscuring materials (fence or vegetation). If necessary a heavy duty concrete pad will be installed as required by the Solid Waste Division for commercial dumpsters. Number six, this conditional use shall be brought back to the Planning Commission for review, further action or revocation should the City receive and complaints as a result of the establishment of the dance hall. Number seven, water shall be turned off immediately and the facility shall not operate if any of the conditions are not met. Number eight, this conditional use shall be automatically revoked if any condition is not met. Those are the eight conditions. Any time we do • bring up a conditional use for a dance hall forward, we do want to make sure that they Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 33 do comply with our noise ordinance. Typically the problems that we've had have been noise problems out in parking lots. We do want to make sure that when we do grant these that if there are any problems they will come back before the Planning Commission to possibly have their permit revoked. We do try to make sure the applicant's aware of that, the Commission is aware of that and the adjoining property or neighbors are aware of those conditions. One of the questions that was asked of Planning staff at agenda session was with regard to the ordinance that requires additional landscaping within the parking lots. I have made a copy of that ordinance and handed that out to you this evening, That's on the third page of Chapter 127. It talks about when a building permit is issued or granted to rehabilitate a structure on a property exceeding 50% of the current replacement cost of the structure, at such time 50% of the existing parking lot use area shall be required to be brought into compliance with the provisions of this ordinance then it's based on a graduated scale after that. At this time, it's impossible for me to determine whether or not the building permit that they'll bring forward to the City of Fayetteville will be 50% or more than the replacement cost of the current structure on this site. At that time I'll have to take a look at that. You can either make that as a Condition of Approval, I don't think you have to do that because it's the City ordinance: I do have to enforce that ordinance but I do need to make the applicant aware of that, that we do have that section of the ordinance that may require the parking lot to be brought up to standards of our current code. That's all I have at this time. If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them. Hoffman: Thank you. I don't see that would need to be added as a Condition of Approval but just as a condition of the building permit based on the building permit's valuation. Have you had a chance to review the Conditions of Approval and are you in agreement with those? Till: Yes I have. Hoffman: Ready to sign? Till: Yes. Hoffman: Do you have a presentation to make to us tonight? Till: Just a brief one. My name is Marshall L. Till. I'm the representative of MLT Management Company. I've been in the night club business for twenty-four years. It's our intentions in operating a business, we realize that we are scrutinized heavily by the Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 34 general public and also by people in your situation, we do try to operate hand-in-hand with local law agencies. We are a heavily regulated industry all the way from state to you. In agreeing with condition number eight, we are subject to cancellation at any time. If we do spend our money and open our business there, we are really putting our neck in the noose to operate within City ordinances and compliance or the money will be spent for nothing. We are now currently operating three businesses in the State of Arkansas. We have two in Texas and also two in Oklahoma. When we first come to an area we usually like to go to the Chief of Police and the noise ordinance is one of the main issues. We try to go to the Chief of Police and if he has no objection we employ uniformed off-duty police officers as security. Most of that is done outside where they are visible and also we can bring them inside to let our patrons be aware that we are security conscience. If the Chief of Police objects, we'll go to the County Sheriff and we'll go on down until we get to someone with some type of authority to control situations that would occur that would be detrimental to retaining our Conditional Use permit. Hoffman: Thank you. Anything else? Till: No. Hoffman: Tim, before we take public comment, I just want to add one thing. I assume that having the night club there is a use -by -right in C-2 zoning. Conklin: That requires a Conditional Use. Hoffman: The night club not the dancing? Conklin: I'm sorry, yes the bar is a use -by -right. Hoffman: So the issue before us is only whether to permit a dance hall, that a night club without dancing but with liquor sales would be permitted under this zoning. So the only reason you are here tonight is for us to hear the appropriateness of a dance hall. Conklin: That is correct and I'm glad you brought that up so the public and Commission is aware of that. What you are considering tonight is whether or not dancing is appropriate at this facility and that's the Conditional Use that you are granting. With regard to the actual bar going in there or tavem or night club, that is a use -by -right in C-2 zoning. When we take a look at it, if the Conditional Use was denied, the bar could still go in there, they just couldn't dance inside the facility. • • • Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 35 Hoffman: Which I know sounds like a silly distinction but you'll have to understand that came from a situation where we had a dance hall quite close to a neighborhood that created huge problems. This ordinance was created in response to that to protect the neighborhoods. Till: I understand and this Conditional Use is really just a way to regulate us period, whether we are going to be there or not be there because our facilities are so in tuned, we are a dancing facility... I don't think we would be able to exist there, in other words, if you took our dance permit away, I don't think we would still have a night club in this location. We would be out of business. PUBLIC COMMENT: Hoffman: I just wanted to make clear the ordinance requirements and what we have to look at before us tonight. I'll take public comment. Is anybody here to address us on this Conditional Use? COMMISSION -DISCUSSION: Hoffman: Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Planning Commission. Conklin: Madame Chair? Hoffman: Yes. Conklin: I did receive a letter on December 7, 2000, from Paul Schmidt & Associates and I'll just read that into the record. I think everybody has a copy of it. It's to the Fayetteville Planning Commission regarding this Conditional Use permit. "To Whom It May Concern. Please be advised that I have been retained by William Patrick Schmidt, the owner of residential property located at 907 Hollywood, to represent his interests with regard to the proposed Conditional Use Permit applied for by M.L.T. Management, Inc , dba Electric Cowboy. To allow this night club to be located so close to a residential district would not only devalue the property and other residential improvements in the area, but would raise safety issues with regard to the residents of the area My client would further request that this application be denied and that his residential neighborhood be kept clean and free of the crime and devaluation associated with this type of establishment. Please keep me informed as to your conclusion of this matter. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. Thank you for your kind assistance on this matter. Sincerely, Paul A. Schmidt & Associates." Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 36 Hoffman: Thank you Tim. I take it that no one from that firm or the neighborhood has come forward tonight? No public comment? Conklin: Apparently not. Typically I wouldn't read the letter into the record but I just wanted to make sure that you did have that and it was part of the record. Hoffman: Thank you. Once I close the public comment and bring itback to the Planning Commission, if you are here to speak or talk about this project, you won't have a chance again. Did you want to get up and say anything? If you would just please tell us your name. Watson: My name is Don Watson. I represent the owner of the building in question and the rest of that shopping center and also one of the residences on Hollywood Street. We built that shopping center in 1979. It's gone through several metamorphoses, of course, when the K Mart Center closed. When we first built the center, it was a neighborhood shopping center with a K Mart, Food For Less, Ash's Outlet, Volume Shoes, our own business which was called Triangle Builders Supply, operated in that building which was a 22,000 square foot building lumber and hardware stores and in the back lot which borders the residences was our storage lot and that's what we were using it for at that point. I feel this is probably not an unusual use in this neighborhood since less than a mile away there is two other businesses already involved in that kind of activity and they have given us assurances because we intend to be in the building with them. We are going to move our office there. We have other retail tenants in there as well. We've discussed it with all of them and they all seem appropriately cognizant of what's going to go on there. As far as their use of the building and our proposed tenant's use of the building, I think it will work out just fine. There is also the issue that was raised, I think earlier, about parking in the area of the Hollywood residences. Well most of the parking, 90% of it is going to be on the other side of the building and the 600 space parking that will be primarily used for patrons of this business. I don't think there is going to be any particular traffic increase on Hollywood Street nor do I think there is going to be any noise because it's going to be contained within the building. As I understand there is to be a six foot privacy fence added to the privacy fence that we built there already. We went through this before the Planning Commission twenty years ago and put a chain link fence with a vine covering on it. That's to be replaced, I understand, with a solid fence. That's all I have to say. Hoffman: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else here from the public that would like to speak on this matter? Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 37 COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Hoffman: If not, I'll bring it back to the applicant and to the Planning Commission for questions and discussion. Allen: Till: Ward: Watson: I wondered how far the residential property was from your building, approximately? From the back of our building the first house is located approximately 100 yards and the distance increases as the houses go down from there. How many square feet are in that whole complex? Do you know? We have 40,000 on that side, 85,000 K Mart store, 28,000 hardware store on the other side and three or four smaller buildings with the smallest 1,000 square feet, then 3,000 square feet. Ward: Tim, do we know how many homes are owner occupied on Hollywood? Most of thoseareduplexes and rental properties that I know of so there must be a couple of them that are owner occupied. Conklin: I'm not sure about the owner occupancy. Just on Hollywood, north of Parnell, I believe two or three single family homes, two or three duplexes. There's a mix of single family duplexes along Hollywood Avenue. Our Fire Station is also located, it's not showing up on the 5.14 map, just south of the McDonald's. Bunch: Tim and possibly for the applicant, Marshall, the vicinity map we show in our packet shows a shape that is not the same as what is shown for the building footprint and I believe that we were told that this is a 12,940 square feet facility. Till: Bunch: Yes sir. The question I have is, in granting a Conditional Use, just which specific area are we granting the use for? Would this allow someone expansion? Is it Just for what is noted on page 5.11 as site number 1, 2127 West 6111 Street or as it's shown on page 5.14, it appears to be a considerably larger area? It looks like it encompasses a parking lot, storage areas and that sort of thing. I think we need to be specific as to just which area we are looking at. • Till: They have individual addresses. I believe the 2127 West 6'h Street is the actual 12,000 Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 38 square foot. One of those drawings, I think, shows the entire building. Since Stone Mountain Carpet went in there, they did build a dividing wall to specify and make the 12,000 square foot that I'm currently applying for. Conklin: You are using just the area for the Stone Mountain Carpet Outlet. Till: Yes. That's all I'm proposing to lease. Conklin: The intent is to grant the Conditional Use for the use of that 12,000 square feet, that is correct. Bunch: This page 5.14 seems to indicate that it's parking lot and grounds and that sort of thing around it. Conklin: Yes, the 5.14, that's actually coming from the actual parcel. Once again, the shopping center how we did the ballroom dance club on Gregg and Township was to have it for that actual space in that facility. Bunch: What about parking, since this is a large parking lot, does there need to be any sort of paperwork to dedicate a certain number of parking spaces? Since it's the same owner of the whole system, in the future if parts of this thing were sold do we need a shared parking agreement? Conklin: There currently is shared parking when this shopping center was built and they have provided that information to us. I'm fairly confident that joint agreement for all the tenants in there will cover the 200 plus spaces that we are requiring for this use. Till: It's my understanding that's a perpetual agreement that you are speaking of for 600 spaces. MOTION: Marr: My consideration of this, I think, some of the things that we tend to see are parking and noise predominantly when we are approving dance halls and impact on neighborhood, having heard this tonight I believe that we have adequate parking, I believe that the condition that we put in of condition number six which allows us to have it come back to the Commission if we have complaints protects both us and the citizens from noise ordinances. I do believe that with the amount of commercial development around there that this is appropriate within this location. For that reason I'm going to move for • • • Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 39 approval of Conditional Use 00-31.00. Hoover: I'll second. Hoffman: I have a motion by Commissioner Marr and second by Commissioner Hoover. Yes, Commissioner Bunch. Bunch: I would like to check with the motioner and the seconder to see if we could possibly add a condition and that would be daily clean-up of the parking lot so that the other business owners in this area wouldn't have to contend with the normal trash that is generated by the occupation of this type and bottles that could possibly be broken and cause damage to people's cars and that sort of thing. Since this is a 2:00 a.m. closing, and it will probably take until 2:30 a.m. or 3:00 a.m. sometimes to get the parking lot cleared of vehicles that there would be a stipulation, an additional condition, condition number nine would be for nightly or daily clean-up and policing of the area. Till: Commissioner Bunch, we usually have a policy that a certain percentage of•the employees, usually the floor man or the door people gather up and go out into the - parking lot. We will have, since this issuch a Targe parking lot, a golf cart with.a couple of seat in it that we will retrieve people in and out of the parking lot and they will get out their and police the area. I realize the importance to have it done before, actually while it's still dark, before the morning and then the people drive by and see it. Bunch: Before the other businesses who are on a different schedule, before they open so they won't be adversely impacted by it. Till: Yes sir. I agree with that. We can put that in there. Bunch: Tim, can we use that as a condition? Is it within our jurisdiction to require that? Conklin: Sure. You can place any safeguards or conditions on this that you deem appropriate. The last one, the ballroom dancing, you said that they could only do ballroom dancing. Bunch: Commissioner Marr is that acceptable? Marr. Anything for you Commissioner Bunch. Hoffman: Commissioner Hoover? • Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 40 Hoover: I think that's a good point and I agree with it, number nine. Hoffman: Okay we'll call that condition number nine. Before we go ahead and vote on this, I have a couple of questions and observations. Your peak hours you estimate you might have 800 people and that would translate to 400 cars? Till: I would think so. Hoffman: Could you tell me, based on your experience with your existing night clubs, would you expect that probably only on Friday and Saturday nights? Till: Yes. I would like it to be other nights but obviously it's not. Your traditional nights will be probably on. Thursday is a moderate night and Friday a little bit better but then- r Saturday would be the peak night. Hoffman: The reason for my question is that Ramey Junior High School is across a very - dangerous intersection directly across the street from you and I am concerned about a couple of things, the interference of traffic from your night club with theirnightly activities, most of which do not occur on Friday and Saturday nights. • Till: Believe it or not most people say themore equipment you have the louder it will be, it's Just not true. Of course, it will be Just like having a race car, in other words, if somebody has a car that will go 150 miles an hour but you don't drive it 150 miles an hour. You put an adequate amount of equipment in there where you can fill the room with speakers and that way they can all be corning out at an average sound and it creates the atmosphere without having just four extremely large speakers in there turned up as loud as they will turn up and that would be much more detrimental as far as causing a noise problem. Hoffman: So it's going to be a D.J. and no live music? Till: A D.J. and no live music and that helps also. Most of the time when you have live acts, they are much more difficult to regulate. Hoffman: Do you plan on adding any sound insulation to the building? Till: It currently has a six inch layer of insulation over the entire building with the exception of on the south side of the building there are some panels there to let the sunlight in but it is obviously our intention to cover those up with at least the same amount of insulation as • • • Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 41 the rest of the building. We will be building interior walls in that will have some spacing over the current walls which will create an additional type of insulation also. Hoffman: The reason for my asking that is because we recently had a large dance club that was granted a conditional use near a neighborhood, granted not as large as a neighborhood as the one behind you but their conditional use was revoked for noise and other police problems. I think that we have not seen that problem with the smaller dance halls in the entertainment districts and so on but we have seen the problem where you join residential zoning and residential uses so be forewarned we do take these very seriously. Till: I understand that. I understand the conditions of it. This is just to keep me in line. I would like to point out also, our operations do not have a kitchen proposed which would preclude us from having anyone under 21 years of age. We don't do the 18 and up business. It's our intentions to never let anybody in the facility unless they are 21 years of age. By not having a food service then we are excluded from having anyone in there under 21 years of age. Your concerns about the Junior High and the traffic, I -understand those. Most of our business is not until the later hours. Mr. Pamell, our proposed landlord, entered our business on Saturday night in Fort Smith to take a look at how we operate and he arrived around 8:30 p.m. or so and it was a very sparse crowd. Most of our business is after 10:00 p.m. Hoffman: Okay. Well thank you very much. Usually I'll tend to vote against these things when they are adjacent to neighborhoods because of the last debacle that we had. Since that time we have added some pretty strong language to our conditional uses so I'll be in favor of this conditionally. We have a motion and a second, is there any further discussion? Would you call the roll please? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call CU 00-31.00 is approved on a unanimous vote of 7-0-0. • • • Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 42 CU 00-32.00: Conditional Use (Brown, pp 209) was submitted by Bob Hill of Nickle-Hill on behalf of Herman Brown for property located at 1481 Van Asche. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.67 acres. The request is for warehouse and wholesale (use unit 21) in a C-2 district. Hoffman: Item number six, we have a Conditional Use for Brown, which was submitted by Bob Hill of Nickle-Hill on behalf of Herman Brown for property located at 1481 Van Asche. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.67 acres. The request is for warehouse and wholesale (use unit 21) in a C-2 district. There are four Conditions of Approval. Staff is recommending approval of the Conditional Use subject to the four items of approval. Have you seen these conditions and do you agree with them? Hill: I have not seen those conditions. Hoffman: Okay then I will go ahead and read them to you. This conditional use shall apply to the -existing 2,000 square foot structure only. Any additional or modifications to this -request must be heard by the Planning Commission as a new conditional use request. Item two, any cosmetic or signage changes must be reviewed and approved by Planning staff for compliance with Commercial Design Standards compliance. Item three, water shall be turned off immediately and the facility shall not operate if any of the conditions are not met. Item four, this conditional use shall automatically be revoked if any condition is not met. Let me ask staff, I'm not as familiar with this one, should we hear these two? Conklin: Actually, it's just a conditional use on this one. There are no planned changes on the site. This was actually the site of the Morgan Hooker project. Hoffman: I'm sorry, I was confused. Conklin: The previous one we just looked at on Highway 112. Hoffman: This is the existing building on the site? Conklin: We have an existing site. It's adjacent to the east of Tomlinson Asphalt, across the street is the Johnson Industrial area with the concrete plant. The request is to use the property as it was historically used for building materials establishment. They are not changing the existing building. They just want to move it and use the property as is That requires a conditional use. Right now the property has been vacant over six Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 43 months and so it's non -conforming and so the only by use right I could allow there is something that would be allowed in a C-2 zoning. That's why they are before us. That's why the conditions are somewhat minimal because we are dealing with an existing site on VanAsche. Hoffman: Do you understand and agree to these conditions' Weigle: Yes. Hoffman: You would be willing to sign a paper as such? Weigle: Yes. PUBLIC COMMENT: Hoffman: At this time I will take public comment. Is there anybody here that wishes to speak on this item? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Hoffman: Seeing none, I'll go ahead and bring it back to the Commission for motions or discussion. MOTION: Marr: I would like to move for approval of Conditional Use 00-32.00. Allen: I'll second. Hoffman: Motion by Commission Marr, second by Commissioner Allen. Do we have any further discussion? Bunch: I have a few questions. This is in the Design Overlay District, am I correct? Conklin: That is correct. Bunch: The Conditional Use that we had for Hooker Construction did involve redevelopment. I think it involved moving this building. That's one of the things I just wanted to question you a little bit about before I make my mind up on this. The uses that are • • • Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 44 planned for this site, since it is within the Design Overlay District. Weigle: The client River City Material will be storing drywall inside the building for use at Washington Regional. As soon as Washington Regional is completed this business will cease to exist. Bunch: That was another one of my questions. It did say in the background information we. have, it specifically mentioned Washington Regional Medical Center and other construction projects. This would be a time limited conditional use? Weigle: They've signed a one-year lease and they are only here to supply that project. Bunch: I would like to add a conditional use to this if it's acceptable. Number five would be that the timing would run concurrent with the Washington Regional Medical Center project and it would expire whenever that project is completed. That conditional use is only for that project as stated for material storage. Marr: That's fine with the client? Hoffman: Is that acceptable to the movements? Marr: I guess my question is, is that necessary? Conklin: I would like to have that on there. We could have another building materials supply company come in. I would like to see the site redeveloped. If this company was coming in to permanently go in there I would say don't put that on there but since they are only going to be there as long as Washington Regional Medical Center is being constructed, you might as well limit it to that time period. Bunch: Since conditional uses normally go with the property then in order to facilitate future redevelopment of this site, I wouldn't want it to be encumbered with a materials storage location. Marr: I'm in agreement with that. I guess my thought on it was, if some other business came in we would require a different use other than what we are designating it to be today. Hoffman: If it's a change of use I think we could put landscaping or something like that. Marr: Anything that would encourage future redevelopment. • • • Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 45 Hoffman: Any other discussion? I'm sorry, T didn't ask you your name for the record, could you please tell us? Weigle: Mitch Weigle. Hoffman: Thank you. I'll go ahead and call the roll please. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call CU 00-32.00 is approved on a unanimous vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 46 RZ 00-25.00: Rezoning (Caudle, pp 400) was submitted by Dennis Caudle for property located at 1192 N. Rupple Road. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 0 52 acres. The request is to rezone to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Hoffman: The final item on our agenda is a Rezoning for Caudle submitted by Dennis Caudle for property located at 1192 N. Rupple Road The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 0.52 acres. The request is to rezone to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. I believe that we have seen this item before and Tim could you let us know. Before you get started, Mr. Caudle do you understand that you also need five positive votes to approve this rezoning. Appeal on a rezoning request goes to City Council not District Court. - Conklin: It's going to go City Council. That's correct. Hoffman: You still need five positive votes. Conklin: Yes. If you don't recommend it with five positive votes then they have to appeal to the —City Council. That's how they get before the City Council. Hoffman: I think I misstated it when I was talking earlier that everybody had to go to District Court, that's not the case with you. Conklin: On October 23, 2000, the Planning Commission heard a request for .52 acres along with adjacent property so they heard this request this evening of .52 acres with adjacent property. That total property was 1.5 acres. The request was from R-0 to C-2. Staff did not recommend that rezoning request. The Planning Commission voted unanimously 6-0-0 to deny the request. I do have those minutes attached. The applicant appealed the decision to City Council and on November 21, 2000, the City Council heard this appeal request at that time they addressed an amended request with the applicant that he did not want to rezone the entire 1.5 acres but a smaller portion, 52 acres. The City Council did request that this .52 acres be brought back to the Planning Commission for your consideration and recommendation to them. Keep in mind the applicant originally requested the C-2 in order to apply for a conditional use permit to build additional storage on this property. That is his same intent at this time. Staffs original recommendation still stands with regard to denial. We are bringing this back to you because the City Council would like for you to take a look at this rezoning. The main difference is it's a smaller area, it's 90 feet in width, 253.6 feet long rectangle that adjoins the west side mini storage facility located on Rupple Road. Just at the last Planning Commission meeting, when we did hear this item, there was concern about the • Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 47 Bill of Assurance and I just want to make sure the applicant didn't misunderstand what I said at the Planning Commission and that was I was going to go out there with out Landscape Administrator to make sure that there weren't any violations of that Bill of Assurance. We have gone out there. We counted the trees. There are substantial numbers of pine trees that are along the north/south and west/east property line. Based on those numbers and the size of those trees, that Bill of Assurance has not been violated. He's meeting that requirement to save those trees on that site. With regard to the access from Wedington Road, that access has been barricaded and is not being used for this facility. Those were the two things in the Bill of Assurance, tree preservation and the access from Wedington. Both of those, for me, are not being violated. Kim Hesse and I have taken a look at the trees and it's meeting that requirement. I just wanted to clarify any misunderstandings that the Commission may have had on that Bill of Assurance or the applicant or myself. Hoffman: Before we get to you, Tim I have a question about that. Are you referring to the entire site or just to the subject now up for us for rezoning? • Conklin: When I talked about the Bill of Assurance, the Bill of Assurance was for the -entire 5 acres. Hoffman: So we do have a good buffer between Wedington and the site? Conklin: With regard to trees, it's interesting, the Bill of Assurance reads 60% of the trees. He has pine trees that are spaced probably five feet apart, approximately 200 along the south, north and east property line. Overall, when you look at the total number of trees just because those pine trees are soldiered up along the property lines, he's meeting that ordinance. With regard to our current Tree Preservation Ordinance, that's something that Kim Hesse would have to take a look at with regard to the existing oak trees that are on this property that are remaining. Hoffman: Okay. Thank Tim. Do you have a presentation that you would like to make? Tell us your name please. Caudle: Can I give you a copy of that? Hoffman: Yes. You need to tell us who you are even though we know. Caudle: At the time that this came up the first time in Planning Commission meeting, the original • property that was rezoned ten years ago was originally 5.5 and they rezoned the back Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 48 Hoffman: Caudle: • portion and we built the storage facilities. At the time there was an indication that there was an need for them in the area and they were right, there has definitely been a need. There has been a lot of houses built out there over these last ten years What we find now, we came to the little piece there on the front that turns back towards the highway, kind of a backwards L, we built as many buildings as we were originally designed to do from the ten years ago plan. The thing that's come up is a need for storage in the area. The climate control is a big factor that we come up with is the fact that there is no climate control inside the City of Fayetteville. We thought we could build a building to supply the need for the people that need that type of service. Right now there are several people that have to go to Springdale: There was six people that we were renting the facility for the last several years that the FDA passed a new law that their stuff had to be in climate control, so they have all been forced to go to Springdale because there is hone in the City of Fayetteville. What I was proposing was to built a building that would provide the climate control type storage facility. The original request was to just simply rezone all the lot to C-2 because it was C-2 in the back. We brought in sewer several years ago to put storage buildings on all of it. First of all, storage buildings doesn't need sewer so that money will be wasted. The original -request-was to be able to have just enough area there to put in this one building. As far as being declined on the entire C-2 request well that was probably asking for too much. I should have probably done it like this in the first place because we did bring in the sewer, we didn't intend to build storage buildings out front anyway. To go back 90 feet toward the highway would allow us to build this one building which is right next to what's already there, that you see on the drawing there. There are twelve buildings that sit on the property now. This will be no different, as far as appearance, than what's there. There was some concern in the Planning Commission meeting from the 23rd as far as the appearance, whether or not they like them. The lot on the front of the drawing there, on the corner of Rupple, I think it's called Wedington Plaza, I talked with them the other day and apparently they are starting construction next month which will take up a Targe coverage of where we are at in the front there as far as exposure to Wedington. One thing I said in the City Council meeting was that we would be more than willing to put in a privacy fence, a nice one that has brick pillars and privacy in between them in front of this building which would separate it from Wedington and there is still plenty of room on the front of Wedington, approximately 177 feet. Is that to the building or to the line of the zoning demarcation, that 177 feet? The length of the property, back to where it's currently R-0, is 267 as is shown on the drawing there. To rezone 90 feet forward still leaves 177 feet before we reach the Wedington Highway. We brought in the sewer and paid for it several years ago. It is • Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 49 set up for an office environment and that's probably what would be built there in time. Like I said, we have no plans at this point to build anything out front. To be allowed the 90 feet in conjunction with what is already there, does allow us to build this building that there is no question there is a need for it because the people do not have an access to this type of service in this city. Hoffman: This 90 feet gives you access completely around the building and then have some room for the fence that faces Wedington? Caudle: The corner once you come along the bottom, the 373 corner, if you just gotten out of the line that is currently C-2 extends straight on across 253 feet at that comer, we are. proposing to turn south 90 feet and then go back 253 which would allow this building to gain right next to the 12 that's already there. Hoffman: Got it thanks. Caudle: Like I said, it's just a case that there is a need and it is inside the existing facility with the • - — _building_that'.s-fixed to be built and the privacy -fence.- One -of the people that had a concern about that, about allowing me to build this new building, that would be part of the concern that was stated as far as the visibility. That takes out a lot of visibility but it does make for a nice facility that offers a full service. • Hoffman: Anything else you want to say? Caudle: No. PUBLIC COMMENT: _ Hoffman: Is there any member from the public that would like to comment on this? I see one person back there. No? Thanks. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Hoffman: I'll bring it back to the Commission and the applicant for further discussion. Anybody? —Hoover: I have a question for staff. - Just because I didn't get to read the comprehensive plan before I got here but my understanding is that our future thought on this area is R-0 and that we are only putting C-2 at the nodes? Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 50 Conklin: That is correct and with regard to the Community Commercial designation on our Future Land Use Plan, I will recommend as we have for the past five years that it be C- 1 zoning which will not allow for the additional warehousing or storage facilities as a conditional use. Even if it was shown as that commercial, we would still be recommending for C-1 and not the C-2. Mr. Caudle, I do have one question, how many square feet will the storage building contain? Caudle: Approximately 10,000 in the new building. It is climate control. It's a different design than the other buildings, it does require a lot of different type of construction to accomplish the climate control facility. Marr: Where exactly is the access to this building proposed to be, is it off of Highway 16 or is it coming from this? Caudle: On the drawing you see the twelve buildings going down through there, on each end of that first building, originally there was access with a controlled computer type gate on the south side of that building. In the last year, we put in an access at the north end of —that -building for -an exit only gate. There is an -in and -an out basically onto Rupple from the facility. The building we are proposing, like I said, -if you just extend that 273 straight across, it picks up right on the border of what is now C-2 and R-0. It's dust enough to put in that building and you come right in the facility when you get down to that point, you look left at your buildings or you look right at this new building. All the access is off of Rupple and like I said we put in an extra gate, having this many buildings and this much people coming an going, we did open up the other gate and put in another computer access gate to help with the flow of the traffic. There are times on weekends, a pretty day, you will have several people out there so it did help the flow. Marr: Help me understand too, where exactly when you talk about a proposed brick privacy combination fence to screen this. Caudle: Again on my little drawing the building that I put on the drawing, the proposed building, it says 175 feet on it, move directly out in front of it approximately 20 feet. Marr: Would it go the whole distance of this or just the length of that building? Caudle: It would go in front of the building is the way it's proposed. There is drainage on the other area there. There is a designed drainage ditch where all the buildings are drained to a point, the water that comes off the buildings and between the alleys and that is a drainage ditch that was designed for that purpose. • • • Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 51 Marr: The reason for my questions are not to do approval of design here because I understand this is a rezoning but one of the things that would certainly make me consider it is the ability that when it did come through for design that it would be completely screened because I go back to Chairman Odom's comment when we heard this back on the 23rd that I certainly believe and agree with you that there is a need for this in the City of Fayetteville but I also believe that there are locations of commercial C-2 space to be able to do this within the city already. More importantly I want to stay consistent with the Land Use Plan of developing that into R-0. If we did this, what's important to me is the ability to take it out of sight. This is much more appealing to me, not to say I will vote for it still but much more appealing to me than what was originally presented. - - - - Ward: - I think I would be, instead of putting up a wood privacy fence,•1 think that south side of the building, in my case, I think it needs to be some type of, meet our Commercial Design Standards for articulation and using some type of split face block and some things like that instead of metal. I would be much more for it then than just putting up a metal -building out there. I'm talking about -strictly the south side of the building with -some-articulation and sometype of material that fits into our Commercial Design Standards like block, brick and other type of products. That way you wouldn't have to be worried about putting up fences and all that type of stuff. Caudle: I would be more than willing to look at, from the manufacturer's to what could be done as far as to brick that side of it or something to that affect. Again, your visibility right now when you drive down Wedington you look over there, this is what you see. You see those buildings as they are today. You are not going to be seeing anything different than what you are seeing today. If we did what you propose we can look into bricking that side of it, that would improve it. Whether it was a privacy fence, because there was a concern about it, the distance we set off the highway back in the trees alleviates that concern. This would be a whole lot better than what we are looking at right now as far as the concern of what's out there right now. Hoffman: Staff, I have a question. I'm concerned about design on a rezoning. I wish that there were a way. I understand because this lot is contiguous with your existing property, why you want to put it here and why you don't want to go find another site. Caudle: It was mentioned in the meeting on the 23r1, you've got economic assets that are already out there and you run a professional operation, you don't go out and buy property and build a building and expect to come out at all. • • • Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 52 Hoffman: The question I have for staff is that, given the discussion that we've had tonight concerning the screening of the building or the other appearance, I'm not really for Lee's idea because they are still going to have all those garage doors facing Wedington, I'm really more interested in screening the whole building. How many overhead doors will be facing Wedington in the new building? Caudle: Hoffman: Approximately 16. I don't know how you would meet the Commercial Design Standards. Given the fact that we've got a reasonable proposal for screening that's contiguous and has traffic flowing out to Rupple Road and not Wedington, is there any method that we can approve a rezoning subject to the statements, can the applicant offer Bills of Assurance for instance that would help us along the way? Conklin: Keep in mind, this will have to come back as a Conditional Use and may have to come back as a Large Scale Development if it's over 10,000 square feet so you will have another opportunity to place any condition on there that you feel is appropriate. Also, if you -rezone, it could be any C-2 use also that could go -in there from a used car lot to a night club. Hoffman: There is no way to bring the two through at the same time like we did our Conditional Use and Large Scale Developments? Conklin: Notatthis time. Caudle: Excuse me, has that not already been done 10 years ago? It was only 10 years ago. Conklin: If the applicant would like to voluntarily offer a Bill of Assurance he can offer that as you did, I believe, 10 years ago. Caudle: This 90 feet is for this building and that's the only plan I have whatsoever and I would definitely have no problem doing anything there. Like I said, it's just thisclassification does require C-2. Hoffman: If this use and idea would go forward. Caudle: It is there now and it is what is required to build a climate control building that is needed. Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 53 Hoffman: You don't mind making that a condition of this? TAPE TURNED: Caudle: It's a survey, I don't know if it's from the right-of-way, they are calling it 267 feet and they are calling it 507 down the east side of the property which would include the R-0 and the C-2. I don't know if that's where that point of beginning is. Conklin: With regard to that number, that is not something that we would use to map this area out. We require a legal description and we are working with Mr. Caudle to get a legal description that accurately describes that piece of property. It's clear to me that it's 90 feet south of the current C-2 zoning and that's something that we will be making sure that legal description describes, by the time we bring it forward to the City Council with an ordinance. It's 90 feet south of that existing C-2 property. Bunch: My major concern is questioning this was to see if the remaining piece of property that I -believe is currently R-0 to see if it was adequately sized to put in an R-0 development -complete-with-setbacks and utility -easements and that sort of thing. Caudle: It's going to be approximately 253 by 150 minimum up to 170 depending on where that starts. Bunch: That's what I was wondering. Conklin: It'sabout an acre. Bunch: I just want to make sure that it's adequately sized for a development as zoned. Caudle: Approximately 253 by 160 give or take a little. Hoffman: Anybody else? MOTION: Shackelford: I guess my take on this is, basically what we are looking at is an extension of an existing building by the same owner: We are only talking about a 90 foot strip of land with very limited access off of Rupple Road basically through the property that the applicant already owns. As long as the front property remains R-0 which has the Wedington frontage on it and is developed R-0 and I think we meet the intent of the 2020 plan, • • Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 54 with that being said and the applicant being willing to do a Bill of Assurance, I'm going to make a motion that we recommend approval of RZ 00-25.00. Ward: I'll second. Hoffman: I have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford and second by Commission Ward, anybody else? Any other further discussion on this item? Ward: This does have to come back no matter what happens? Hoffman: Is it of sufficient size that we have to see it again, Tim? Conklin: It depends on what size building he proposes on this property. If it's over 10,000 square feet, you'll see it as a Large Scale. You will see it as a Conditional Use. Hoffman: We could at that time follow up on the discussion tonight regarding the screening and -appearance and so forth. Conklin: Yes. If the Planning Commission makes a recommendation and the City Council rezones it, most likely the •conditional use recommendation is going to be for approval with Bills of Assurance. Hoffman: Just so we are all clear, can you work with the applicant with regard to the wording of the Bills of Assurance? Since they come from the applicant, I'm not sure how to get that. Conklin: Sure. For clarification, we are talking about use of this property for this climate controlled storage facility. Hoffman: With screening. Marr: Just one last question, did you investigate any other C-2 space for locating this facility other than this location? Caudle: I looked at a couple of lots for possibly a new facility because there is a need for a storage facility. I have not found anything suitable at this point. There is some C-2 property in several areas around the city. There are a lot of factors that go into it as far as access, location and need in the area. Right now there are people who come a considerable distance because of the availability of storage in the area. I have looked. • Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 55 Hoffman: Thank you. Anybody else have anything they would like to say before we call the roll? You all ready? Nancy? Allen: I'm not really clear of what we are requiring the applicant to do. Hoffman: In rezonings, Tim you can take this one if you want to. Conklin: Sure. The applicant has offered to give us a Bill of Assurance which is a legal document to tie to this rezoning that this 90 feet, with the property, will only be used for a climate controlled storage facility and will contain screening of some sort. Based on --that information you need to determine whether or -not you can make this recommendation to the City Council, if you feel that it's appropriate with this Bill of Assurance to rezone this to C-2. Does that clear that up? Bunch: If in the Bill of Assurance since we can't ask for it that the applicant offers, there was some statement about making sure that it went to the Large Scale Development process in addition the Conditional Use process.. I think there are some square footage limitationsifthe-applicant-offered-to-us-that -this-would come through that process, I would personally feel a little more at ease with it to make sure that we could look at it and see that it fit our standards. • Caudle: As far as the Large Scale, again I'm not familiar with all the rules as far as that's on projects over an acre, over 10,000 square feet. It has certain criteria. Conklin: An addition of 10,000 square feet or more. Since 10 years has passed, you do need to be aware that the fee has gone from $50 to $900 application fee. Caudle: Everything has gone up, I know. The only thing that I can think of that would require a Large Scale is the size of the building. What originally has been drawn out on paper could be just under it or just over it depending on whether you build it 175 foot long or 170 foot long. It's going to get that marginal there. We could keep it under the 10,000 square foot by simply taking 5 feet off the end of it. Conklin: You wouldn't be the first developer or applicant to do that either. What I'm saying is, people are aware of that regulation in Fayetteville and we do have projects, two or -three a year that come in dust below that criteria. -- -- - Caudle: I understand that. If you are talking about the difference between $50 and $900, I don't know what else is involved. • Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Page 56 Hoffman: Let me make sure that no matter what happens Tim, this is going to be coming back as a Conditional Use because of the zoning? Conklin: Yes. Hoffman: This zoning is the only one that will permit this use without going to industrial zoning or something like that. Conklin: That's correct. Hoffman: -That is -so similar to -Large Scale Development review that I would say that it would be not something that would be as important to me personally because in Conditional Uses we have a blank slate on'those really, in terms of requirements that we can place, in terms of lighting, screening, appearance, hours of operation, revocation and so on. In that case, I would just prefer to let the motions stand as they were and you with your Bill of Assurance as it is. Bunch: That's my main concern in brining that subject up was to make sure that we have adequate opportunity for the oversight on it. Shackelford: That was the intent of my motion knowing that we would get a chance to look at this and we could put those limitations on it in order to grant the Conditional Use. Hoffman: No more discussion I assume? Okay, if everybody is ready, I'm going to go ahead and call the roll. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call RZ 00-25.00 is approved on a 6-1-0 with Commissioner Marr voting no. Hoffman: Tim is there any other business this evening? Conklin: There is no other business. Hoffman: With that, we are adjourned. • • 12-11-00 Planning Comm. Mtg. Consent Agenda• Minutes of the 11- 27-00 Planning Commission Meeting LSD 00-32.00 Park Apartments, pp 175 LSD 00-34.00 Fazoli's, pp 213 MOTION Marr Marr Ward SECOND Shackelford Shackelford Shackelford D. Bunch Y Y Y B. Estes Absent Absent Absent L. Hoffman Y Y Y S. Hoover Y Y Y N. Allen Y Y Y D. Marr Y Y Y C. Odom Absent Absent Absent Shackelford Y Y Y L. Ward Absent Y Y ACTION Approved Approved Approved VOTE 6-0-0 7-0-0 7-0-0 • • 12-11-00 Planning Comm. Mtg. CU 00-28.00 Hooker, pp 209 LSD 00-35.00 Hooker, pp 209 CU 00-31.00 Electric Cowboy, pp 559 MOTION Ward Shackelford Marr SECOND Marr Bunch Hoover D. Bunch Y Y Y B. Estes Absent Absent Absent L. Hoffman Y Y Y S. Hoover Y Y Y N. Allen Y Y Y D. Marr Y Y Y C. Odom , Absent Absent Absent Shackelford Y Y Y L. Ward Y Y Y ACTION Approved Approved Approved VOTE 7-0-0 7-0-0 7-0-0 • • • 12-11-00 Planning Comm. Mtg. CU 00-32 00 Brown, pp 209 RZ 00-25.00 Caudle, pp 400 MOTION Marr Shackelford SECOND Allen Ward D. Bunch Y Y B. Estes Absent Absent L. Hoffman Y Y S. Hoover Y Y N. Allen Y Y D. Marr Y N C. Odom Absent Absent Shackelford Y Y L. Ward Y Y ACTION Approved Approved VOTE 7-0-0 6-1-0