Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-03-12 Minutes• • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on March 12, 2001, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED VA 01-3.00: Vacation (Bleaux Barnes, pp 250) Page 2 LSD 01-2.00: Large Scale Development (RSC Rentals, pp 286) Page 3 Report of Nominating Committee Page 12 MEMBERS PRESENT Nancy Allen Don Bunch Lorel Hoffman Sharon Hoover Conrad Odom Lee Ward Bob Estes STAFF PRESENT Dawn Warrick Ron Petrie Sheri Metheney Kit Williams ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved MEMBERS ABSENT Don Marr Loren Shackelford STAFF ABSENT Tim Conklin Planning Commission March 12, 2001 Page 2 Consent Agenda: Approval of minutes from the February 26, 2001 meeting. VA 01-03.00: Vacation (Bleaux Barnes, pp 250) was submitted by Bleaux Barnes for property located along the south side of Appleby Road and to the west of the Quail Creek Subdivision. The request is to vacate that portion of the existing Appleby Road right-of-way in excess of the Master Street Plan requirement. See the attached maps and legal descriptions for exact dimensions of the requested right-of-way vacation. Odom. Welcome to the March 12, 2001, meeting of the Planning Commission. The first item that we have on tonight's agenda is the consent agenda. Items will be approved without discussion unless a member of the audience or Planning Commissioner wishes to remove one of those items for discussion. We have two items on the consent. The first is the approval of the minutes of the February 26, 2001, meeting. The second is a Vacation 01-3.00 submitted by Bleaux Barnes for property located along the south side of Appleby Road and to the west of the Quail Creek Subdivision. The request is to vacate that portion of the existing Appleby Road right-of-way in excess of the Master Street Plan requirement. See the attached maps and legal descriptions for exact dimensions of the requested right-of-way vacation. Does any member of the audience or a member of the Planning Commission wish to remove either of those items from the consent agenda? Seeing none, we'll vote consent agenda. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call, the consent agenda is approved by a unanimous vote of 7-0-0. • • • • Planning Commission March 12, 2001 Page 3 New Business: LSD 01-2.00: Large Scale Development (RSC Rentals, pp 286) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of J.M. Hooker Construction for property located west of Shiloh Drive on Williams Ford Tractor property. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2 acres The request is to build a building for equipment rental (Use Unit 17). Odom. The first item under new business tonight is a Large Scale Development, LSD 01-2.00, submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of J.M. Hooker Construction for property located west of Shiloh Drive on Williams Ford Tractor property. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2 acres. The request is to build a building for equipment rental (Use Unit 17). The findings of staff is that this property is part of the Williams Ford Tractor property. A property line adjustment has been submitted and approved in order to create this tract as shown on the large scale development. The applicant is proposing to use SB2 as surfacing for the outdoor storage areas which will be located behind a six foot wood board fence. Staffs recommendation is for approval subject to nine conditions of approval. Staff, do we have any further conditions of approval? Warrick: There are no further conditions. We have received signed Conditions of Approval for this item. Odom: Thank you. Mr. Williams, do you want to go over with us what a large scale development is and particularly what the rights are under use unit seventeen? Williams: No, I'll let you go ahead and go forward with that Conrad. Your great experience on the Planning Commission will serve us all well. Odom: Thank you and welcome to the meeting Kit. 1 would ask the applicant to please come forward at this time. Jorgensen: My name is Dave Jorgensen and I'm representing RSC Properties on this project. We are here to obtain approval of the large scale development plan. We are in agreement with all of the nine conditions of approval. PUBLIC COMMENT: • • Planning Commission March 12, 2001 Page 4 Odom. Thank you Dave. Let me ask if there are any member of the audience that would like to address us on this large scale development? Please come forward at this time Sager: My name is Tom Sager. I live in the City of Fayetteville. I addressed the Subdivision Committee as they met on this. I believe that in your packet you have a letter from my wife and myself plus her brother addressing the issues on this. Basically we haven't changed any of our feelings as we addressed this to the Subdivision Committee meeting. One of the things that we would like for you all to consider very seriously about making this a little bit more stringent on our 1-540 around the City which lies inside the Overlay District. The 5 foot split lap fence, in our opinion, really is not enough to shield the property of what is being the use requested in here from any adjoining property of what future use could be on that. I realize, and this is not the place in which to discuss it, we have missed opportunities because of what is located next to us For this reason we would like to ask that it be shielded better from the public. If you have toured the ground out there, I'm sure that you understand why we are asking this to be done. Hopefully you have gone by other equipment rental places and noticed the conditions of the property which is around it. The other had to do with the drainage, in which I was speaking with Dave about, that we do not like the idea of this retention pond. Realizing we are talking about100 year maximum rain that we are talking about getting out of this which could happen tomorrow or maybe 100 years from now. It's discharging, at one point, on our property. There is no erosion on that property today and we don't want erosion on that property in the future either. I realize if there is erosion, that becomes the property owner's to our north problem to address. 1 would like to prevent that from being addressed in the future and address it right now to broaden this out on an east/west plain rather than a north/south plain in order to distribute this water in a better manner. I think there are other issues in which you all need to take up inside of this that was brought up in Subdivision Committee meeting that I hope you will address here again tonight. That has to do with the EPA, the car wash dispersal of how this is cleaned out, oil that can gather and what can be discharged by going to our property. I realize the pond that is directly to the south of their property, on our property, is fed from runoff in that direction, we don't want that pond polluted. Right now the land is leased and there are cattle being grown on there. I would appreciate your honest consideration along these lines. Thank you. Odom: Thank you Mr. Sager. Any other member of the audience like to address us on this large scale development issue? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: • • • Planning Commission March 12, 2001 Page 5 Odom: Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the applicant. Dave, do you want to make comment with regard to the comments that were made by Mr. Sager not only here tonight but at the Subdivision as well? Jorgensen: Concerning the screening, we do have a six foot tall privacy fence around the entire piece of property and as far as I know we are abiding by all the rules and regulations in the Design Overlay District. I don't know of anything else we can do except a 10 foot fence. I'm not even sure a 10 foot fence would hide the equipment that's going to be stored back there. I'm kind of open for suggestions here. Estes: Dave, the ordinance says that the purpose of the screening wall is to conceal the uses. Then with regard to the buffer strip required it says it can exist of both a landscaped area and a fence or a wall. The fence is to be not less than 6 feet. So, trying to be responsive to your question, I don't know what it's going to take to conceal this equipment. From my reading of the ordinance, we can use both landscaping and we can use fencing. Poplar trees and fences come to mind. I think we need something. Wait Just a moment, I'm getting note here from Commissioner Hoffman. Super pines, poplars and fencing. A 6 foot fence isn't going to accomplish much. The ordinance section that I'm looking at is 166.10 "Buffer Strips and Screening". It reads, "The purpose of the screening wall is to conceal uses." So, we are going to have to do something to conceal the use and I don't know that a 6 foot fence is going to accomplish anything. I'm trying to be responsive to your question. I would suggest you think about landscaping and fencing. The minimum fence requirement is not less than 6 feet high. You suggested a 10 foot fence. You get to a 12 or 15 foot fence and you are getting something that is just about as aesthetically unpleasing as the equipment itself'. Jorgensen: What about the idea of the super pine trees on the south line? Something like loblolly or white pines that are located along the south boundary line? That seems to be the big issue here. I don't know that would do the job. They grow up 30 or 40 feet tall and we can put them on 15 foot centers or something like that and have a pretty good screen along with the fence. Odom: Why are we talking about this here? This is Subdivision stuff here. Was this stuff discussed in Subdivision? Hoffman: We discussed the screening requirements and that the 6 foot fence met the ordinance requirements but we did not go into landscaping which is certainly an omission at Subdivision Committee level. • • Planning Commission March 12, 2001 Page 6 Odom: There are white pines on the map here. Hoffman: The question I have, I think the same architect is here that was here on another project in the Design Overlay District and it was mentioned that super pines were a fast growing affective screen from 1-540 and that other location. I bring that up now to try to see if there is a way to meet the screening requirements in a better way than just with a fence. Jorgensen. Right. Conrad, that was discussed at the meeting and we thought we were doing our job by putting the 6 foot privacy fence in. Odom: Is that why the white pines have been drawn in here since the Subdivision Committee? Jorgensen: I don't know that that was added since Subdivision but we can add that on the south boundary line in particular. We thought that the 8 and 10 foot would not screen any more effectively than the 6 foot. Like Bob mentioned, you start getting so tall right there that maybe the height of a privacy fence, 10 foot tall, is more of an eyesore than possibly the 6 foot with some pine trees. I didn't even think about the pine trees but that combination would do a good job of screening along that line right there. I offer that as a possible way of solving this problem. Hoffman: We discussed screening, we discussed building articulation and so forth and we started out with whether or not this was indeed a use by right. I think the screening discussion was lacking so I appreciate the applicant bringing it up. Did you propose those only along the south property line or would you be amendable to adding those to the view areas of 1-540 as well? Jorgensen: Along the interstate we show a fair amount of landscaping for the purpose of meeting the Design Overlay District guidelines and also the landscaping requirements. We think we are doing a pretty good job along the front right there. Then, of course, the property owner to the north is the same person that owns this project right here, we have a 6 foot privacy fence right there also and along the west boundary line which he owns also. On the south boundary line where Mr. Sager has concern, we can go ahead and put the white pine or the loblolly. The loblolly get taller and have branches up higher which might be better than the white pines. The white pines tend to bush out on the bottom. They will get tall though. Hoffman: I would like to propose that we add a condition of approval to those that state that the • applicant coordinate with Kim Hesse with regard to the species and type of plantings • • • Planning Commission March 12, 2001 Page 7 along the south and the spacing because I don't know the growth pattern and rates and so forth, along the south and west property lines. You also look at adding, on the north property line, the same trees and the spacing to be determined by Kim Hesse along the area that at least goes back as far the proposed building. That would just be as far as the building extends back from the front. As you are coming down the interstate you will be able to see the building and it would break up the equipment area with some visual greenery. That would be condition number 10. With regard to the condition about the equipment being not extended, the cherry pickers not being extended, the equipment being stored and placed at it's lowest possible setting, do you agree with that? Jorgensen: I don't know if we have a choice. Hoffman: I'm looking at the definition of a sign and it seems to me that if you have an extended cherry picker in any location on the site that it was going to count as a sign, as I read that definition. Jorgensen: That represents a sign for advertisement? Like I said, I don't know if we have a choice. I'm not sure that I agree with it but I suppose if we are going to get this large scale approved then we have to agree with it. It's debatable whether that... Ward: It's already agreed to. Hoffman: I thought the wording needed to be a little bit more clear. The applicant would Just need to agree. Odom: 1D reads "A condition of approval was proposed at Subdivision Committee to limit the stored equipment to be displayed as to not attract attention by limiting the manner in which equipment was stored and displayed. Staff is recommending that the equipment shall only be displayed at it's lowest possible height." Hoffman: I just think that whole paragraph should be worded to say that "The requirement is that the equipment shall only be displayed the lowest possible height." Take out the recommendation of the Subdivision Committee and put it in there as a condition of approval. Odom: The last sentence is enough though? Hoffman: Yes. • • • Planning Commission March 12, 2001 Page 8 Odom. Do you have any disagreement with either one of those recommendations by Commissioner Hoffman? Jorgensen: As I pointed out, we are in agreement with all of the conditions of staff. I have to admit that I think that is stretching it a little bit. I don't know that's something that could be settled without possibly going to court and I can't see any sense in that right there. As I initially stated, we are in agreement with these conditions. Odom: I have begun to try to phrase condition number 10. I have "Applicant needs to get the approval from Kim Hesse on the size, species and spacing of trees along the south, west and the easternmost part of the north property line to screen the building" Are you in agreement with that Dave? Jorgensen: Yes. Hoffman: I would like to point out again, it's not an attempt to be punitive to the development of this property. I believe that since this is a use by right and we have, not only Commercial Design Standards but the Overlay District to contend with, that we have some latitude in getting a little bit higher standard along this major artery. That's all I have. Odom: Commissioners, anything further? Bunch: Jorgensen: Bunch: Jorgensen: Bunch: Jorgensen: A couple questions Dave. How far does the property extend to the west beyond this? I know there is a church to the immediate west but this apparently does not go all the way back on the Agri business property? If you look at the vicinity map, I can't tell you what that scale is, but you can tell it's a long distance from the west side of this RSC property, this rental property to the church property. It's 500 or 600 feet. From the west side of this? From the west side of this to the church property. It's that far? Yes sir. You can see from the vicinity map there, it's a pretty good distance from there over to Deane Solomon. • • Planning Commission March 12, 2001 Page 9 Bunch: One question on the field line area, there is a note to not have heavy equipment over the field lines. We probably need to reflect that you should not have stored materials there either like pallets. A lot of times rental places have pallets of dry goods that would be fairly heavy. One of the concerns, I don't know if we can check with you or Ron on this, the depth of the 4 inch schedule 40 PVC drain lines, is that deep enough to not be impacted by heavy equipment driving over it? Jorgensen: That's why we don't want the heavy equipment driving over it. Bunch: What I'm saying is not just in the area of the vicinity of the field lines but where it comes from the covered wash bay and also the line coming from the septic system goes through this compacted gravel area. My question is, if we don't want heavy equipment driving over the field lines, does not the same situation apply to the drain line leading to that? Jorgensen: That line right there is a schedule 40 PVC, much stronger pipe than what the field lines are. The field lines are perforated and have a much thinner wall so we have enough depth right there. Bunch: One of the concerns with this wash bay in close proximity to the south border of the property to do what we could to insure that line does not get crushed and cause overflow onto the neighbor next door. Jorgensen: If that has to be, we may have to encase that in concrete. That's one thing we have to do is send this plan to the Health Department for their review and get approval of it, not only at county level but also at state level. Bunch: Another one is, you are showing the dumpster inside the fenced area and usually dumpster pick-ups are often times not during normal business hours. Have you checked with the schedule of trash pick-up to see if possibly the dumpster needs to be relocated and screened? Jorgensen: This was their recommended location. Cheryl Zotti recommended this location. That is true, if the gates are locked they can't come and pick it up so they will have to come during working hours. Bunch: Are there any provisions for screening? • Jorgensen: Around the dumpster? • • Planning Commission March 12, 2001 Page 10 Bunch: It's probably far enough away from anything else that it probably doesn't require anything. Dawn, do we need anything? Warrick: It's behind the 6 foot fence and that would be the requirement if it were out of the fenced area. Estes: Dave, with the field lines, will you apply for a no discharge water emission control permit for your subsurface disposal? Jorgensen: 1 have here the requirements for a land application of car wash solids and also the application from the state for no discharge permit for the Department of Pollution Control. We have done this before and this is the procedure. We will definitely do that. We have to do that. Estes: Petrie. Question for Mr. Petrie. At Subdivision there was some discussion regarding the minimum flow off of this property and the calculations either not being completed at the time or hadn't even begun at the time, where are we on that? The applicant's engineer has submitted detention calculations that show that the post - development flows will be equal to pre -development flows. We have added a condition of approval, number two states that requirement and it also states the requirement that the discharge velocities will also have to equal the pre -development velocities. Jorgensen: Concerning the last item right there Mr. Sager has mentioned something about his concems about erosion, we do have a very long what we call an outlet wier for detention of stormwater. In fact it's about 30 or 40 feet long if I remember right, Ron? What we are trying to do here is control all the way up to 100 year storm and we'll be putting some rip -rap on the downstream side of that to help control erosion. Odom: Commissioners, any further questions? Do we have any motions? MOTION: Hoffman: I'll move approval of LSD 01-2.00 subject to the revised conditions of approval. Ward: I'll second. • Odom. We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman, second by Commissioner Ward to Planning Commission March 12, 2001 Page 11 approve LSD 01-2.00 subject to the 10 conditions of approval. Do we have any further discussion? Bunch: Commissioner Hoffman, Ward and Estes, you were all at Subdivision, there was some concern about the height of the wainscoting on meeting the Commercial Design Standards and there were some comments made at agenda session about that, have all your concerns been met on that? Hoffman: It's in number 1 B. I can clarify that, "Staff is recommending that the dark gray split faced block wainscot be extended to a minimum of 4 feet on the north and south sides of the building." I understood that the applicant is in agreement with that condition as well. Bunch: That does satisfy the concerns from that meeting? Ward: Yes. Bunch: Okay. Thank you. Odom: Any further discussion? Will you call the roll? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call LSD 01-2.00 is approved by a unanimous vote of 7-0-0. • • • Planning Commission March 12, 2001 Page 12 Report of Nominating Committee Odom: Thank you. The next item that we have on tonight's agenda is the report from the Nominating Committee. Who is going to be making the report? Allen: Odom: I will. Chairman Odom, you will not be easily replaced and we will certainly miss you but the Committee has met and recommends that Bob Estes be Chair, Lorel Hoffman be the Vice -Chair and Lee Ward be Secretary. God help the Commission if Bob is going to be Chair but that's okay. Thank you very much for your report. We will be taking a vote next meeting, under our bylaws. Do we have anything further? Warrick: Nothing further. Odom: Then we are adjourned. • • • PC Mtg. 3-12-01 Consent Agenda: 2-2-01 Minutes; and VA 01-3.00 Bleaux Barnes, pp 250 LSD 01-2 00 RSC Rentals, pp 286 MOTION Hoffman SECOND Ward D. Bunch Y Y B. Estes Y Y • L. Hoffman Y Y S. Hoover y Y N. Allen Y Y D. Marr Absent Absent C. Odom Y Y Shackelford Absent Absent L. Ward Y y ACTION Approved Approved VOTE 7-0-0 7-0-0