Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-04-08 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, April 8, 2002 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN LSP 02-11.00: Lot Split (Faulkner, pp 761) Approved Page 2 LSD 02-9.00: Large Scale Development (Williams Ford Tractor, pp 286) Page 6 LSD 02-10.00: Large Scale Development (University Square, pp 558) Page 22 VAC 02-2.00: Vacation (Brockman, pp 600) Page 27 MEMBERS PRESENT Lee Ward Nancy Allen Donald Bunch Sharon Hoover Lorel Hoffman Alice Church Approved Approved Forwarded to City Council MEMBERSABSENT STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Kit Williams Tim Conklin Dawn Warrick Hugh Earnest Renee Thomas Ron Petrie Planning Commission April 8, 2002 Page 2 Hoffman: Welcome everybody to the April 8, 2002 regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. Tonight we are a little short handed and so the first thing I would like to say is that one item has been removed from the agenda, that was a rezoning on College. If you are here to speak to that that item will not be heard and you can contact the Planning Division staff for its rescheduling. First, Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were six Commissioners present Hoffman: Ok, there are six people present. The first item of business was to be our officer elections. Due to the lack of appointed Commissioners we will need a motion to table that item. Do I hear a motion? Motion: Allen: Hoffman: Church: Hoffman: I move to table. A second anyone? I will second. Ok, we have a motion by Commissioner Commissioner Church to table the officer ele call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Hoffman: That motion carries on a unanimous vote. Allen and a second by ctions. Renee, would you table officer elections was Planning Commission April 8, 2002 Page 3 LSP 02-11.00: Lot Split (Faulkner, pp 761) was submitted by Glenn Carter of Carter Consulting, PA on behalf of Ivan Faulkner for property located off County Road 3105. The property is in the Growth Area and contains approximately 44.09 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 27.09 acres and 17.00 acres. Hoffman: The first item of new business tonight is LSP 02-11.00, which is a lot split which was submitted by Glenn Carter of Carter Consulting on behalf of Ivan Faulkner for property located off county road 3105. The property is in the growth area and contains approximately 44.09 acres. This request is to split into two tracts of 27.09 and 17 acres. Before we get started with this item, I forgot one thing. We need an approval of the last Planning Commission meeting minutes. Are there any additions or corrections to those minutes? Hearing none, they are approved. Thank you. Tim, on this we have six conditions of approval, do we have signed conditions? Conklin. Yes. Hoffman: Ok, is the applicant present and do you care to make a presentation? Carter: Yes, I am Glenn Carter with Carter Consulting. I am here representing Mr. Faulkner who is here tonight. Basically what we have before you is a lot split request. Mr. Faulkner is simply wanting to split this property so that his son can live beside him. They both plan to build their homes there to live there. They have no plans for any development ever. They are quite against that. They have no plans to allow any future development in the area. I understand there is some discussion about access and the access road. They feel like the access is sufficient. They have an agreement to maintain that access themselves with the owners of the property which the access goes across. I would be glad to answer any questions you might have. Hoffman: Ok, thank you. We have signed conditions of approval. I will go ahead and read those into the minutes and then we will accept public comment on this item. The conditions of approval are item 1) Planning Commission determination of the requested waiver of the suburban subdivision regulations that require a minimum of 75 feet of frontage on an improved public street. This property was created prior to 1980 and has no street frontage. 2)It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to prove that additional lots are allowed to use the access easement not just a specific person or number of homes. 3) The boundaries of the floodplain and the floodway shall be shown on the survey. 4) No administrative approvals shall be granted for further lot splits of this property. All further requests will be heard by the full Planning Commission after all property owners adjacent to the access easement are notified. 5) Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives) 6) Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process Planning Commission April 8, 2002 Page 4 Ward: was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with Cityis current requirements. Is there anybody here that would wish to address the Planning Commission on this item? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the applicant and to the Planning Commission for comments, motions and so forth. I remember when this thing came through Subdivision and a couple of the things we talked about of course is that there is a 15' easement only, ingress and egress through private property to get to this property Tim? Conklin- That is correct. There is a 15' easement off of Black Oak Road to access this subject property. This will have to be approved by the Washington County Planning Board. That is my understanding, due to the fact that there is only a 15' access easement back into this property. Ward: Ok, another thing that we had some concerns about was the availability of city water, rural water. What is the situation on that? Petrie: It is going to take some further studying. I think the applicant is aware that there is a possibility that they will have to use well water or extend the public water at their expense. At this time it is uncertain. Our records do not show to have water available to these lots. Some of the adjacent neighbors feel like they may have it available. We just haven't nailed that down yet. Ward: If this property was ever split again or what not would you think that we would require a 60' right of way easement for ingress and egress, for any more? Would that be something that we would pretty much require? Conklin: I would think we would require that. I went out there today to look at the property. I drove down this dirt and rock path. After all of this rain, it was difficult, I couldn't even make it through the property because there is a creek that overruns the road. I am not sure how often that creek is up like that but this is on the most desirable situation that we have. I hope in the future that we can better plan in our planning area. That was the original reason why it was denied by staff at the administrative level when they presented it to our office. It is very difficult to deal with. Hoffman: The fact that it took a waiver for street frontage is why it is here before us tonight. Conklin: That is correct. Hoffman: If it receives the approval of the Washington County Planning Board then at least the city/county documents will be in concert and should any other lot splits occur or any other requests for lot splits, would just have to come back to both authorities. Planning Commission April 8, 2002 Page 5 Conklin. Yes. Hoffman: Ok, I wanted to make sure that the applicant is aware of that. Carter: Yes. Hoffman: Is there any further discussion or motions? Staff, do you have any further comment on this? Conklin: I have no additional comment. Motion: Ward: I will make a motion that we do approve LSP 02-11.00 for Mr. Faulkner and I know it is a beautiful piece of property and it will be a great place to build a home for your son. Bunch: I'll second. Hoffman. I have motion by Commissioner Ward and a second by Commissioner Bunch. Renee, would you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSP 02-11.00 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Hoffman: We have a unanimous approval. Thank you very much. Planning Commission April 8, 2002 Page 6 LSD 02-9.00: Large Scale Development (Williams Ford Tractor, pp 286) was submitted by Tom Hennelly of Jorgensen & Associates Consulting Engineers on behalf of Williams Ford Tractor for property located at 2501 N. Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 11.81 acres with a 15,000 sq.ft. building proposed. Hoffman: The second item on our agenda tonight is LSD 02-9.00 which is a large scale development for Williams Ford Tractor and was submitted by Tom Hennelly of Jorgensen & Associates Consulting Engineers on behalf of Williams Ford Tractor for property located at 2501 N. Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 11.81 acres with a 15,000 sq.ft. building proposed. There are seventeen conditions of approval. Tim, have these been signed? Conklin: We do not have signed conditions. Hoffman: Right. Some of them look like they need to be ironed out tonight. I will go ahead and read these and then we will ask for the applicant to give us a presentation. 1) A wood board fence shall be installed along Moore Lane to screen outdoor storage. This shall be south of the 25 foot required greenspace. The developer is proposing a 30 foot berm to screen the outdoor storage area. Staff has requested additional information and will make an evaluation prior to Planning Commission. All approved screening shall screen all outdoor storage along Moore Lane. There is outdoor storage outside the boundary of this large scale which is storage for the Williams Ford Tractor business. 2) Planning Commission determination of requested waiver from the Design Overlay District regulations §161.21.D.10 which prohibits the use of metal siding. The applicant is proposing a 15, 000 square foot metal building to be placed in the rear of the existing structure. The applicant would like to place a brick facade on the existing structure along Shiloh Drive in place of on the new structure. 3) Planning Commission determination of compliance with Design Overlay District Regulations and Commercial Design Standards. 4) Planning Commission determination of the request to group trees in the 25 foot required greenspace along Shiloh Drive. The applicant is requesting to group these trees in the areas north and south of the proposed parking lot in order to allow for visibility of display areas from I-540. See letter from applicant. 5) If a new dumpster is required or an existing dumpster is on site, these shall be screened. 6) Planning Commission determination as to whether the existing pole sign should remain or should be required to be replaced with a monument sign. Plat shall be revised to remove one sign depending on the outcome. 7) Planning Commission determination of the request to allow existing chain-link fence to remain. The applicant is proposing to replace the existing chain link along the east side of the property facing Shiloh Drive with a wrought iron fence with brick columns. The applicant is also requesting to add additional chain link fencing west of the detention pond. 8) Planning Commission determination of the requested waiver to not provide bicycle parking racks as required by ordinance. The requirement is for 2 bicycle racks. 9) Planning Commission April 8, 2002 Page 7 Approval from the Arkansas Health Department for the proposed septic system. 10) Overhead electric on the site shall be placed underground. 11) Wall sign shall be removed from south building elevation. 12) No display or storage shall be permitted in the 25 foot required greenspace. 13) Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives. 14) Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City.s current requirements. 15) Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum six foot sidewalk with a minimum ten foot greenspace along Shiloh Drive and a cash contribution in lieu of construction along Moore Lane in the amount of $4,987.44 (227.19 linear feet x 6 feet wide @ $3.00 per square foot). 16) Large scale development shall be valid for one calendar year. 17) Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. Separate easement plat for this project c. Project Disk with all final revisions d. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by .158.01. Would the applicant please step forward and introduce yourself'? Hennelly: I am Tom Hennelly with Jorgensen & Associates. Hoffman: How do you want to make your presentation? Do you want to go through these one by one? Hennelly: Yes Ma'am, we may as well go one by one. 1 know that this seems like a number of waivers associated with this project but it is a little bit unusual in that it is an existing structure that they are just wanting to build an additional shop space onto so there are quite a bit of existing facilities there and rather than scrapping all of it and starting over we would like to see what we would be allowed to use along with the landscaping requirements and that type of thing. The first item on the conditions of approval was primarily the only one that was in dispute. At the Subdivision Committee meeting we had talked about the need for the 25' greenspace because it was adjacent to Moore Lane, which we had not shown on the original submittal and we have done that along with the required trees every 30' which are in that portion of the right-of-way planted on 30' intervals unlike the additional waiver along Shiloh Drive where we are wanting to group them because that area is not used as much for drive by display as I-540 is. The board fence is really what we had the issue with. The fact that it is a wooden fence which would meet up with a chain-link fence and the nature of the business being heavy equipment Planning Commission April 8, 2002 Page 8 being moved around. Those board fences look great for about 4, 5, or 6 months and then they start to deteriorate and require a significant amount of maintenance on top of the security issue, which I know that is what you guys are trying to accomplish is screening the property. They are easier to access through than a chain-link fence is an we feel that with the use of a berm and landscaping we can hide a chain-link fence and accomplish both things in screening and providing security by hiding that chain-link fence. In addition to that, this berm and landscaping will also screen the new structure which will not have the all brick on it which is related to the other waiver for the use of metal siding in the Overlay District. There is one correction to that approval, it is not a 30' berm that we are proposing, it is really only a 3' berm. The topography will actually bring the top of the berm up about 6' above Moore Lane, which as you can see on the section view that Tim handed out before the meeting. That was kind of our best shot at giving you an idea of the elevation difference between Moore Lane and the property after we put the berm. We had to put the berm there anyway for the detention pond and so the landscaping on top of it we feel would be sufficient to screen the property from anybody driving down Moore Lane and the technology park across the street. The rest of the conditions we really don't have a problem with. Hoffman: Do you want to address the signage issue? I saw some correspondence in the file. Hennelly: Yes Ma'am. There is an existing New Holland pole sign that is on the property and this relates to some franchising requirements between the Williams and New Holland that they require. They also have flag poles out there as well that fly the flags of the brands they carry and they would like to keep that sign. I think Jim Key can probably address that because there is some tradeoff between the pole sign and the signs on the building if you would allow us to use that pole sign. Key: I am the architect for the applicant. These drawings here are things you have in your packets. We initially were proposing two wall mounted signs, one on the south side of the facade and one on the east side of the facade. Upon our Plat Review meeting when the discussions entailed the initial conversations regarding the commercial design and site design standards it was discussed the possibility of leaving that pole sign and removing one of the signs we were proposing from the building or submitting a waiver asking for approval for two wall mounted signs and removing the pole mounted sign. The owners intent had been to try to leave that pole sign if at all possible and directed us to show only one sign on the building facing east, facing the I-540 facade and remove the sign on the south of the building which is their current main entrance. In rehabilitating this facility, adding new parking to the east of the building and a second access drive to try to make the public utilize the east facade of the building and keep them off of one end we are actually relocating the main entrance from the south side of the building to the east side. There was an initial indication and concern that perhaps we should provide for Planning Commission April 8, 2002 Page 9 signage at the old primary entrance, as well as the new primary entrance. A decision had been made to try to eliminate the second wall sign if we were allowed to leave the pole sign in tact. That is what we've asked to be done if at all possible. I realize by Overlay District commercial design standards within the Overlay District that pole signs are not allowed. However, since this was an existing sign it was our desire to leave it at all possible. Hoffman: Ok, thank you. Do you want to address anything else on the conditions? Hennelly: Yes Ma'am. One of the conditions, the waiver for the bicycle racks is not too terribly critical. We just felt it was tractor repair and farm equipment sales is not a generally high bicycle traffic area. If it is deemed that it would be good to have those there for the mechanics or whoever else may show up then we can certainly put them out there. Hoffman. Ok, is there anything else? Hennelly: No Ma'am. Hoffman: I would like Mr. Conklin to address the fencing issue if you could before we take public comment. Conklin: What I would like to propose is that their proposal for the berm and the landscaping be allowed and place a condition that the final determination of the additional landscaping or the fence shall be made after installation of the berm. I am not sure if we have done that in the past but I am a little concerned about how this is actually going to look out there and what you will be able to see. I think it will be a lot easier to see the metal shop building and the berm and your landscaping installed to make a final decision. I am a little concerned about not requiring a fence at this time but I don't want them to put the fence up if the berm and landscaping is going to accomplish what we are trying to accomplish. Hennelly: We will need the fence anyway. The question is whether we need a fence that will screen or whether we need screening to hide the fence is I guess the issue. We don't have a problem with that. I would however, like to put in a stipulation that these trees will probably be maybe 4' high when they are planted and they are planted on 30' centers and so there will be a period of time, and it will probably be able to be determined by seeing it after it is constructed whether or not these would grow together. There are shrubs planted between them as well and whether this would or would not grow into what would be considered sufficient screening. Conklin: Just one more bit of information with regard to discussion of this berm and landscaping. There is an additional outdoor storage that is not shown on this plan and the intent of that condition number one is to also screen that outdoor storage along Moore Lane. Planning Commission April 8, 2002 Page 10 Hennelly: Hoffman: Allen: Ward: Allen: Ward: Allen: Hoffman: Allen: Hoffman: Conklin: We probably need to clarify that because there is a significant amount of property that is not included in the large scale that is used for equipment storage and roughly 700' along Moore Lane that is owned by the Williams. I realize that this is not the most aesthetically pleasing thing to look at but it is farm equipment and they don't have a facility to display a large bailer or that type of thing indoors and they used this property basically as their display when somebody is looking for a piece of equipment they drive them back there in the back and show it to them. It is not a high volume sales obviously so they sit out there for a while. I would agree that there is some maintenance that can be done and some cleaning up and that type of thing in an attempt to make this more presentable. Particularly on that back property. Ok, that being said I will go ahead and open up the floor to public comment. Is there anyone here that would like to address us on this project? Seeing none, I will go ahead and bring it back to the Planning Commission for discussion and motions. I wondered if we consider the existing pole sign in any different manner than we would if it weren't there at all and it was just proposed to be built. We wouldn't approve it. I know, but I mean since it is there. That is grandfathered in. Do we grandfather in those sorts of things or are they given different kinds of consideration? I think, I will let Commissioner Bunch talk here in a second, I think that we need to look at the overall proposal that they have got before us in making our decision about the extra pole sign and the fencing because they are doing quite a bit of brick work and so forth along the front to improve the appearance on I-540. I agree with that. From our trip out there you could see that lots and lots of efforts were being made. I was just interested in if there was a different way that we looked at the pole sign with it being grandfathered in or whether we still... Maybe that is a question for Mr. Conklin. Tim, do you have an opinion on the grandfathering of an existing sign with an addition of 15,000 sq.ft.? I think you have to look at it on a case by case basis and the only other one I can think of right now is the Exxon station and they do have an existing pole sign. They took one down that was taller, closer to the bypass, and they have a shorter one that they were allowed to have. Planning Commission April 8, 2002 Page 11 Hoffman. Which one? Conklin: The one on Highway 62 and Futrall. Hoffman: Ok. Commissioner Bunch? Bunch: Tom, what is the eave height of the proposed building? Key: The eave height would be 16'. However, we are lowering the floor elevations. The floor elevation of the new addition will be 2'2" below the existing building. The eave height will be the same as the existing building it is just going to be down 2' lower, it will in effect be 14' above the existing floor line or 2' below the existing eave height. The roof ridge will be lower. Bunch: The reason I was asking that is the elevation on Moore Lane and then if you have the berm 6' higher than that that is still lower than the finished floor elevation of the proposed new building. Hennelly: That is true. I can understand Tim's suggestion to actually build it and see. I am not sure if the intent of the berm and the board fence is to screen...I know an associated benefit of that would be to screen the building which you are considering a waiver for or whether it is for the equipment that is stored out there. Is it a joint purpose? Conklin: It is a joint purpose. Our Commercial Design Standards require that every building facing a street meet the design standards with regard to no metal siding facing the street. Using landscaping and screening we can allow a shop building with overhead doors which I understand is needed for a tractor dealership and also screen some outdoor storage within the overlay district. Hennelly: I think even with a wooden fence, depending on where you are on Moore Lane, we would have to re-ammend that condition to be a 30' berm to hide the building. The way the street comes from the north you would be facing directly at the building. The distance you would be away from that, you would see the building. I don't think whether it is a wooden fence or maybe, after those pines grow to maturity that might be the only time that it would suffice to screen the building itself. As far as screening storage, I think you could accomplish that with either of the two methods. The building would be a different matter. Conklin: When we went out there on the trolley we looked out and the existing chain-link fence is there and it has a lot of vegetation grown in the chain- link fence. In the trolley, looking at the chain-link fence, there were some containers, tractor trailers back there that you could barely see. I am not sure if it has to be 30' tall to screen it because with a 6' fence sitting on a trolley from Moore Lane, even the existing chain-link fence with some vegetation was screening. That is why I made that recommendation this Planning Commission April 8, 2002 Page 12 evening because I think that there are some options here that we can look at to help screen the outdoor storage and help screen a metal building in the overlay district. Hennelly: Right. That would take me back to the cross section that the elevation difference between Moore Lane and the proposed top of the berm is 6' and then you would have all of the vegetation on top of that. If that was the case then the berm itself being 6' above the road would almost do the trick and then you put the landscaping and trees on top of it then I imagine that it would suffice. Hoffman: The question for Tim and Mr. Hennelly both, do you think it would be feasible to get vines to grow along that chain-link fence given the industrial nature of the property. I know there is probably no water supply to the fence but that might be a way to utilize the existing fence and get some screening too if we could make it grow, I don't know. Conklin: The Overlay District requires a 25' landscaped area in front of the property, which requires that the fence be located and then we also deal with the issue of no chain-link fences are allowed in the Overlay District. We are trying to accomplish the landscape intent of the Overlay District also. I guess this has a three prong purpose here, outdoor storage, metal building, and landscaping along Moore Lane. Hennelly: It is a complicated issue. This fence we are considering here is outside of what we have requested the waiver for the north and south boundaries of the property. Conklin: The other thing that concerns me a little, we did not have a chance to have our Landscape Administrator take a look at this screening option and I don't want to delay this project, but I think if we can go forward and make the final determination if you think a berm is going to achieve what we are looking for, the building will be up, we will build the berm and we will be able to determine what you can see and if it is adequate enough. We could even take the entire Planning Commission on the trolley out there. Hennelly: I don't have a problem with the recommendation to do that. I would again, if we had to plant a higher density of trees then that would be something that we could possibly look at as well. If you weren't of a mind to consider a five year growth height of what these trees may grow to. They tend to grow pretty fast. Right after it is constructed it is not going to provide the amount of screening that it would five or ten years from now. Bunch: We have several trade offs here. We are getting a very improved facade on an existing building that is not required but we still have to justify being able to allow metal siding in the overlay and the fence and that sort of thing. I think this is possibly a very good way to approach it if we can leave it with a certain amount of flexibility built in so the screening issue Planning Commission April 8, 2002 Page 13 is addressed after the building is erected and after certain attempts have been made with a berm and then make another evaluation. Let me ask our City Attorney, can we legitimately put that type of clause into our decision? Williams: I don't know. I think you either have to approve the LSD or not. I think that probably, since there is a pretty good understanding here and we are only talking about whether or not the landscape is going to work or whether or not a fence is going to be required. The only way I think you could possibly leave it in here you would have to get the discretion with either our Landscape Administrator or our City Planner on that. When you approve it I think it is going to be approved. It might be subject to the City Planner's final determination on proper screening and I think you could probably do that and that would be he only way I can see that you might be able to condition it beyond what you might do tonight because you don't want to delay the project. If he can't build it you won't be able to see it unless you go ahead and approve it. Hoffman: Thank you Mr. Williams. Ward: Petrie: This is a question for Ron. On buildings that are now along the interstate that have no sewer, probably in the near future we are going to have sewer out in that area, what kind of money are we talking about to get these places all on sewer? I have looked at this particular site and not necessarily every bit of property. This site is basically on top of the hill, it is the furthest away from the sewer. It looks like it is about 700' closest to the nearest sewer, which is the sewer that is constructed in the business and technology park. Just a rough estimate it is about $25,000 to get it to this facility. Ward: I think the property there on the south of it is going to develop real soon. Would that be the way they come in for sewer if that was developed? Petrie: More than likely that is how that would occur. If they go ahead and do the septic, all that land is for sell and so that is what is anticipated. Our ordinances would require that they connect when it becomes available. Ward: Ordinance requires that? Petrie: Yes, if it is available to you, you have to hook up to it. Key: For the lot split for the property to the south, the Guisinger farm, the lot split was for Farm Credit Services at the extreme southeast corner of that property, just where Shiloh hits Porter. There is sewer being extended to that site presently from the intersection of Deane Soloman and Mount Comfort if I am not mistaken and there was an easement that was required to be extended from that property all the way to the north to our south property line. There is an easement there for future sewer at the time that Planning Commission April 8, 2002 Page 14 the property develops. We have talked with the owners on that property over the last year and a half and we understand that they are working very diligently to try to get their project to a reality, it is just that it wasn't going to happen in the time frame. In the future if it becomes available we will attach to that if they are interested in doing that. Hoffman: I was surprised when I heard there wasn't sewer to the property. Key: There's not a whole lot of sewer built on that side of the interstate. Hoffman: Yes, it is just catching up. Are there any other comments or motions? Bunch: I will attempt one. Hoffman: Ok, you need to cover all of this stuff that is kind of left out. Bunch: I move that we approve LSD 02-9.00 with the landscaping berm and fencing issue adjacent to Moore Lane to be at the discretion, or to be subject to the approval of the combined efforts of the Planning Division and the Landscape Administrator and that we approve the requested waiver from the Design Overlay District regulations for the use of metal siding on the new shop building. Also that we approve the request for the grouping for landscaping along Shiloh Drive. Hoffman: That is in item number four? Bunch: Yes, item number four. Let me take a little break here in the motion, Tom, is there anything else in here in these conditions of approval that we need to address specifically from your standpoint? Hennelly: Other than the pole sign, allowing it to remain and I am not sure whether or not your motion included the chain-link fence on the north and south boundary. Hoffman: You need to look at number six and number seven and the bike racks. Bunch: Why don't I hold the motion off since we have not had really that much discussion on the pole sign verses a monument sign and whether or not we do either/or or both. Why don't we hold off on the motion until we look at those. Hoffman: Ok, keep that thought on items one through four. Can I ask you to reiterate what the applicant's wish was on the signage? I think I was confused because I heard a New Holland sign needed to be on the premises but I don't know whether it wanted to be on a pole sign or a new wall sign. Key: The existing pole sign that is there is a fairly discreet New Holland sign. It is square, about 3 %Z x 3 '/2 somewhere in that nature. Our request is to Planning Commission April 8, 2002 Page 15 allow that sign to remain and to have one wall mounted sign be installed on the east side of the building that will say Williams Tractor and the case logo and New Holland on that as well. Hoffman: Ok, so just one pole sign would be on the property and then one wall sign. Key: The pole signage that is there would remain and then one sign would be added to the east face of the building which is basically where there is an existing wall mounted sign on the building now that will say Williams Tractor. Hoffman. Ok, for some reason I got the idea that there were two pole signs on the property but there are not. Ok. Does that help everybody? Is there anymore discussion on that? Can I take a straw poll and say we are alright with one pole sign and one wall sign on number six? Ok. Allen: Do we want to say anything about the bike rack? Hoffman: Feel free. Ward: My feeling is that I don't see anybody riding their bicycle out there and buying a tractor and riding off but I do feel like there probably will be sometime in the future a few of the people working there maybe riding their bikes so I am going to support the bike racks being there. It is an ordinance that we have been requiring. I don't think it is a big money wise deal one way or the other. I may be wrong, maybe this whole bike thing is a bad deal but so far we haven't really tested it far enough to see. Hoffman: Are you going to be in agreement with adding that? Hennelly: Yes Ma'am, that is not going to be a problem. We will put two bike racks up. Hoffman: We appreciate that. We do have more bicyclists in Fayetteville than might be readily apparent at a tractor dealership. Ok, the only other thing we need to do is talk about number seven then I believe having to do with the additional chain-link fence facing west of the detention pond. Isn't that covered in number one? So we will want to delete seven. Hennelly: That was my point when I was talking to Commissioner Bunch about his motion. If you will look at the large scale plat itself, we were talking about chain-link fence that needs to be removed and relocated along Moore Lane and we would like to remove the existing chain-link fence and replace it with chain-link fence. The other waiver is for the north and south boundary lines, which are part of the large scale, we would leave the existing chain-link so there would be the use of chain-link fence in the Overlay District but we wouldn't be tearing it down and putting it up with new chain-link. The reason being that along there they would end up having to take that out and having to replace it with wrought iron, it would Planning Commission April 8, 2002 Page 16 be particularly expensive to do that and we think that with the amount of equipment at ABC Block and the tractors, I'm not even sure you would know it was there. Hoffman: Commissioners, any thoughts? Anybody? Tim, do you want to give us the benefit of your opinion? Conklin: I think the chain-link fence, if it is relocated and there is a berm along Moore Lane, it needs to be on the toe of the berm at the bottom of the berm so it is screened also. I talked with Tom just right before the meeting and I think there is enough distance between the top of the berm and the fence so people can't get up on top of the berm and jump the fence. Hennelly: That was my only concern was somebody climbing up on a berm and jumping the fence and I think we could make accommodations for that not to happen. Conklin: I think the intent of the Overlay District is met at that location along Moore Lane where it is going to be screened. Hoffman: I guess the rest of it as we go further up on the site is at issue. Do we want to talk about the additional storage and chain-link at that point? Conklin: As staff we are trying to work with Williams Ford Tractor, they have been out there thirty years. We adopted our Overlay District in 1994. They have gone a long way, I hope the public watching and the people in the audience understand that they are doing a tremendous job at improving this site, paving their parking lot, taking the chain-link fence down along Shiloh Drive, landscaping in the front along Shiloh Drive, bricking the east facade, the north and south facade of the existing building, which is currently a metal building. They are doing quite a bit. I am not opposed to the chain-link fence on the south side remaining, it is already there. It almost penalizes an existing business when they already paid for the fence once and they would have to buy an entirely new fence to redo that. With regard to additional outdoor storage on Moore Lane, just scaling off this aerial photograph we have, I don't believe it is the entire 700' of frontage that there is equipment along Moore Lane and the Overlay District boundary extends about 150'. Hennelly: That is true, I didn't take into account the Overlay District boundary, I was looking at the entire frontage. Conklin- Back in that direction that talks about the chain-link fencing. I do want to have the screening included for what Williams Ford Tractor owns and has outdoor storage and I think if we do that along Moore Lane it can remain chain-link as long as it is behind the berm like we talked about on the site plan. Planning Commission April 8, 2002 Page 17 Hoffman. Hennelly: Conklin: Hennelly: Conklin: Hennelly: Conklin: Hennelly: Conklin: Hennelly: Hoffman: Hennelly: Conklin: Is that acceptable to you? We are talking about like trees and vegetation screening or are you talking about a board fence down through there? Could you not extend the berm further to the west to continue that on? Is it not included in this large scale because it is a separate parcel even though it is the same type of business? Right. That is exactly right. It is used for the storage of the farm equipment but it is not actually part of the property owned by Williams Ford Tractor. It is in association with some others. That is the reason why it is not included in the large scale. So it is a separate property owner? It is a separate property owner, right. Which is not the property owner for Williams Ford Tractor? Williams Ford is a partial owner. Ok. I think we all understand what we are trying to do here. We are trying to make this into an area adjacent to our business and research technology park along a public street meet our Overlay District Requirements. I guess when you go out there it is hard to tell the difference of where Williams Ford Tractor ends and begins on this other parcel with this outdoor storage. Yes, but, to answer your question about the berm, my only concern about that, and Ron might be able to make a comment on this is that if we put that berm there we will be intercepting an amount of runoff that was running onto Moore Lane in a sheet flow manner and directing it either direction and discharging it at a point location. That would be the only issue I could see for a problem that we would have with putting a berm there. If we could get past that then we wouldn't have a problem doing it. I wonder if staff would be amendable to combining number seven and number one with regard to that entire Moore Lane frontage and working with the applicant and if you come across a stumbling block then it could come back to the Subdivision Committee if you feel like it is something that needs to be worked out further but to work with each other during construction. We are talking about screening the length of Moore Lane within the Overlay District boundary and to the satisfaction of you and Kim Hesse. Within the Overlay District boundary and we do have a screening requirement just in our regular code with regard to outdoor storage. Is it Planning Commission April 8, 2002 Page 18 truly 700' that is being used for outdoor storage? Hennelly: I would have to check. The property is pretty deep and there is equipment stored out there. Conklin: If you turn to page 2.9 we have included an aerial photograph in your agenda. This is a 2000 photograph and it just doesn't appear that the entire 700', the portion of the site that is adjacent to Moore Lane that is shown on the black boundary, the portion that is adjacent is 227' to give you an idea of the length of the northern boundary line adjacent to Moore Lane. It looks more like 250' or 300'. Hennelly: The entire 700' would be the length of the boundary and Jim just reminded me and I remember the last time I was out there that part of that northwest corner of that property is in a draw and it does have several trees on it and some wooded area. We could go to the length of the extent of what is being stored outside. Conklin: I think it is very close to the Overlay District boundary. Just based on this aerial photograph. Hoffman: I have a question. What is the business to the rear of this? There is another business on Moore Lane and it is the buildings that are shown on page 2.9. Hennelly: King Electric. Hoffman- Ok, if you go east of that there is a swale or a ditch, I am just trying to guess where the property line is and then you see the outdoor storage. This is a really large site so my question is in working together I realize that there is a cost associated with earth work, could it not be worked out where some of the storage could be relocated more towards the center of the property in some way and cleaned up and not have to go to the expense of the extra berming and still accomplish the same thing. Would that be something that you could look at? Hennelly: We wouldn't be opposed to that. Basically you are talking about cleaning the place up. Hoffman: Kind of. Hennelly: That is no problem. Hoffman- I realize that there are large pieces of equipment. Hennelly: That would be subject to a post construction assessment of whether or not we have gone to adequate length to do that to the satisfaction of the Planning and Landscape Departments, am I understanding this correctly? Planning Commission April 8, 2002 Page 19 Hoffman- I don't want to leave it too nebulous for either one of you because I don't want to create a problem when you are asking for a certificate of occupancy and there is a difference in opinion but it looks to me like there is a large enough area where you could allow for circulation room between the equipment I am assuming and if that is the case then would the Commission and staff be amendable to putting language like that in the motion? Conklin- Yes, we can work it out. Hoffman: Are there any further comments or do we want to keep on following item number four in our motion? Motion: Bunch: Let me start over then. I move that we approve LSD 02-9.00 subject to the conditions of approval as amended below. Condition one the chain- link fence along Moore Lane shall be relocated to the south toe of the newly installed berm and be subject to determination by the Landscape Administrator and the Planning Department as to the effectiveness of the screening. The height of the berm shall not be listed as 30' but shall be approved as deemed adequate by the Planning Department and the Landscape Administrator. We should allow the waiver discussed under item number two for the Design Overlay District prohibition of metal siding so that we can allow the shop building to be built as shown on the plans and on item four, to allow the grouping of the trees in the front along Shiloh Drive. Item six, to allow the existing pole sign and to allow the replacement of the existing sign on the east facade of the building with a new sign as described by the architect. I still don't know what to do about number seven. We are talking about replacing, should we leave this up to the determination of the Planning and Landscape Depai linents, combine it with condition one and say that the screening should be extended along Moore Lane so that it adequately screens, or actually just extend along Moore Lane to the boundary of the Design Overlay District. Does that adequately describe it? Conklin: How about to the extent of the outdoor storage area? Bunch: Ok, even though the outdoor storage area extends past the Design Overlay District boundary? Conklin: We still have screening requirements for outdoor storage. Bunch: Ok, extend the screening and fencing and berm, whichever method is determined to be the final one, to extend it to the western most extent of the storage area. Does that cover it? Hoffman: Does that cover it with you too? Planning Commission April 8, 2002 Page 20 Hennelly: Hoffman: Bunch: Hoffman: Ward: Hoffman: Bunch: Hennelly: Hoffman: Ward: Hoffman: Allen: Hoffman: Roll Call: Hoffman: Yes Ma'am. Alright. Number eight we need to talk about. To not grant the request for the waiver for the bicycle racks, go ahead and install the bicycle racks. I have a motion by Commissioner Bunch, do I have a second to that motion? I will go ahead and second it. This came through subdivision and this is a metal building out on our interstate, this is going to be a tremendous improvement. Like I said then, it was kind of a win/win situation for everybody that all these improvements are going to be done to it as far as the wrought iron fence, all the brick. It is really going to be a nice looking facility when this is finished and I don't see any problem giving waivers for a shop building that is going to be sitting back behind the existing buildings and so on and so I think it is a really good project taking something that is old and making it look so much better. It is really going to be a dramatic improvement out there on the interstate for us. Ok, I have a motion and I have a second. Is there any further discussion before we call the roll? Is everybody happy with the way we worded items one and seven? I think we are leaving number seven in there but tying it to item one. I just want to make that clear and that that will be a negotiated item between the developer and the city as construction progresses. I guess I could add that should the developer and the city disagree it could be appealed through Subdivision up to Planning Commission. Will you accept that? That is acceptable. 1 have an amendment to the motion to include that appeal process. I will second. Ok, I have a second to that. I would like to commend the motion. Renee, would you call the roll please? Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 02-9.00 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. The motion carries unanimously. Thank you all for your work. Planning Commission April 8, 2002 Page 21 Hennelly: Thank you. LSD 02-10.00: Large Scale Development (University Square, pp 558) was submitted by Erin Rushing of CEI Engineering on behalf of Narendra Krushiker for property located at 2614 W. 6th Street. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 4.42 acres. Hoffman. The third item on our agenda is LSD 02-10.00 which is a large scale development for University Square. It was submitted by Erin Rushing of CEI Engineering on behalf of Narendra Krushiker for property located at 2614 W. 6th Street. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 4.42 acres. There are six conditions of approval. Tim, do we have signed conditions? Conklin: No we do not. Hoffman: Ok, I will go ahead and by the way, is the applicant present? Thanks. I am going to go ahead and read these conditions of approval and then we will go ahead and hear your presentation. 1) Planning Commission determination of a waiver request from the required 25 feet of greenspace along the Shiloh Drive right-of-way. This is requested in order to provide cross access to the north. See letter from applicant. Staff is in support of this waiver. 2) Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives) 3) Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with Cityis current requirements. 4) Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum six foot sidewalk with a minimum ten foot greenspace along Shiloh Drive. 5) Large scale development shall be valid for one calendar year. 6) Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. Separate easement plat for this project c. Project Disk with all final revisions d. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City )letter of credit, bond or escrow) as required by §158.01 Hoffman: Could you tell us who you are and give us your presentation? Rushing: Erin Rushing with CEI Engineering Associates. I am representing Narendra Krushiker of Springdale. Before you tonight is a large scale development plan for the renovation of the current Westgate Shopping Center. It is where the old Marvin's IGA used to be at the northwest corner of I540 and Hwy. 62. The property is currently zoned C-2, Planning Commission April 8, 2002 Page 22 Commercial and is approximately 4.42 acres in size. Some of the improvements include the renovation of the building facade. Right now there are some red bubble looking awnings. Our plans are to remove those, add in a brick stucco and native stone exterior finish on that, we will be adding a parking lot to the north. Right now the building where the Marvin's IGA was is only accessed from the front, which would be the south facing wall. We are proposing to open that up to both sides. That would give us a retail access to the north and to the south so we are adding in a 33 stall parking lot on the north side. We will be restriping the existing parking lot. I think we are removing about 35 spaces. Right now it is really tight. It is very bad circulation. We are going to widen that up, align the drive aisles with the curb cuts that are out on Hwy. 62. We are going to add several planting islands in that parking lot. Right now there is really no landscaping to speak of. I believe we are cutting in five islands. The existing bank that is there we are going to add an island around the bank. We are actually going to put the bank in an island. Right now it is asphalt all the way around the bank. We are dedicating a small amount of right-of-way along Hwy. 62 to meet the current standards for the Master Street Plan and we are currently working with the Fire Department on the location of a fire hydrant, an additional fire hydrant on the south side of the property. We are asking for a waiver for greespace. We are trying to add an access to the existing hotel that is to the north of this site. Where the drive cut is for the hotel we are unable to maintain that 25' of greenspace and still tie onto that curb cut extension of that road. That is our waiver. Hoffman: Thank you very much. Is there any member of the public that wishes to speak on this development? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Planning Commission and staff for comments. Hoover: I have a question for the applicant. On the plans here it says wooded structure. What is that? Rushing: Right now there is a wooden structure out there that I believe used to be a hair stylist. I am not sure if that is what is really in there or not. Plans are for that to remain currently. I think the long term goal is to remove that. Right now it is to remain. Hoover: Ok, I would like to ask staff a question. On the total number of parking spaces, I understand we are adding parking spaces, is that the only addition to this site? Conklin: That is the only addition for this site, these additional spaces and they actually have removed spaces along Hwy. 62 and within the parking lot to put the landscaping in. Hoover: Then when you count these number of spaces verses the retail square footage, does that come out to meet our requirement? Planning Commission April 8, 2002 Page 23 Conklin - Rushing: Hoffman: Conklin: Hoover: Rushing: Hoover: Erin, do you know the answer to that? Yes. It is actually on a chart at the bottom of the sheet and it is well within it. That is a 1:250 ratio is what is required in our ordinance? That is one space per two hundred fifty sq.ft. They have 39,642 sq.ft. The number of existing spaces was 183, the number of spaces required is anywhere from 162 to 194 and the number of spaces that are provided are 172. They are within that range. This chart is with the additional parking that you added. Yes. Ok, so you actually end up with less parking total than without the small area. Conklin- Yes. The landscaping along Hwy. 62 eliminated quite a few spaces and then the landscaping in the parking lot eliminated spaces. Motion: Allen: Hoffman: Allen: Hoover: Hoffman: Ward: Rushing: Ward: I think this is a huge improvement to the area and I commend you for your efforts and with that I would like to move for approval of LSD 02-10.00 subject to the six conditions of approval. Does that include the waiver requested in item one? Yes. I will second. Ok, I have a motion by Commissioner Allen and a second by Commissioner Hoover, do I have any additional comments or questions? Commissioner Ward? Erin, on the little beauty shop building out there, what are the plans on that? Are you going to remodel it also from the outside if you keep it? Are you going to bring it into conformity like this or is it going to be taken down? Actually, it is going to stay as it is currently I think future plans are for it to go away but they are not going to address it at this time. Will the property to the west be developed during the same phase as all of this is being done? Planning Commission April 8, 2002 Page 24 Rushing: Hoffman: Ward: Conklin: Ward: I really don't know. Is it vacant land to the west? 1 think it is owned by the same people. Haven't we looked at this before? Yes. There was a rezoning to the west. I don't believe it is owned by the same individuals. It was like for a hotel or motel wasn't it? Conklin- It is currently developed with a couple of houses and there was talk about combining these properties together and redeveloping the site. They still might be working on those details but we haven't seen anything with regard to development to the west. Hoffman - Bunch: Rushing: Bunch: Petrie: Rushing: Ok. I too would like to commend the efforts of this developer on this project. We've got two developments along I-540 now that are going to be dramatically improved in appearance. This also shows what could be done to the rear of a building to enhance the usability and the aesthetics of the rear of the building so I will heartily go along with these motions. Does anyone else want to say anything great about this project? One of the things that was so surprising when this project came through is that we have had a considerable fight you might say with some of the newer developments going in from the standpoint of a minimalist approach to our design standards. This is a redevelopment of an existing one that is grandfathered in and exceeds our requirements, the City of Fayetteville's requirements to a great degree and they are to be commended for that. Thank you. Just one question. On the issue Ron that came up, and Erin, in Subdivision Committee concerning the rip rap and the detention pond approach and exit from the detention pond, has that been resolved? No. My memory is I requested it be resolved before I see the construction plans. I think there are a lot of options that they can use and it may be the case that we don't need some of the rip rap in some of the places shown. That is something that will have to be worked out before the construction plans and the drainage permit is issued. I would like to add that I am also working with the Highway Department right now on improvements that are out there in the right-of-way so I have had conversations with them today as a matter of fact. Hoffman: Ok, is there anybody else? Renee, would you call the roll please? Planning Commission April 8, 2002 Page 25 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 02-10.00 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Hoffman: Thank you. The motion approves unanimously. Thank you very much. Planning Commission April 8, 2002 Page 26 VAC 02-2.00: Vacation (Brockman, pp 600) was submitted by Greg Brockman for property located south of 156 Street on Price Avenue. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 0.15 acres. The request is to vacate east half of Price Avenue south of 15th Street. Hoffman: The last item on our agenda tonight is a Vacation request, VAC 02-2.00 for Greg Brockman, which was submitted by Mr. Brockman for property located south of 15th Street on Price Avenue. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 0.15 acres. The request is to vacate east half of Price Avenue south of 156 Street. See the attached maps and legal descriptions for exact alley location. There were no objections from adjacent property owners submitted to the city. Is the applicant here? It looks like we have one condition of approval. Conklin: There is one condition of approval. We did not receive the Arkansas Western Gas approval form. However, we are recommending approving the vacation at this time subject to them getting that approval. One other bit of information, we did vacate the other half of this right-of-way in 2000 adjacent back to the west. Half of the right-of-way was already vacated. Hoffman: That was done by the City? Conklin: Yes, by the City of Fayetteville. Hoffman: Should this vacation be approved at this level I believe it also goes to City Council? Conklin: That is correct. Hoffman: Yes, are you Mr. Brockman? Brockman: Yes, I am here to answer any questions. Hoffman: Is there any public comment concerning this vacation? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for comments or motions. Motion: Ward: I will go ahead and move that we approve 02-02 for Greg Brockman. Hoffman: I have a motion by Commissioner Ward. Church: I will second it. Hoffman: I have a second by Commissioner Church, are there any further comments? Planning Commission April 8, 2002 Page 27 Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to approve VAC 02-02 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Hoffman: The motion approves unanimously. Thank you very much. That concludes our agenda for this evening. Tim, do we have any announcements? Conklin- I just want to make sure everybody understands why we only have six members on the Commission this evening. The terms did expire for three of our members. City Council tabled the nominations at the Council and therefore, their terms were expired and you only have six official members on the Commission. Hopefully at the next City Council meeting they will make their decision on the terms of the next three members of the Planning Commission. We are having an Impact Fee Stakeholders Committee meeting tomorrow from 1:00 to 4:00 in room 326. We are meeting with the Mill District Neighborhood for the zoning study Wednesday at 7:00 in room 111. We are planning a development review process workshop on April 25th at Genesis from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. to talk about the development review process in Fayetteville and will be inviting architects, engineers, surveyors, and other interested parties to talk about the development review process and go over our revised development manual and have a question and answer session. Also, this Friday Tree and Trails Task Force will be meeting and we are getting very close to making recommendations with regard to open space acquisition of land. The last thing is the Dandy/Schmitt Large Scale Development was appealed to City Council. At this time it is scheduled for the April 16th City Council meeting, it may be asked to be postponed until the May 7th City Council meeting but at this time it is on the Council for the 16`h. That is all that I have. Hoffman: I have a question about our schedule and I assume this is posted on the website. You just went through lots of meetings so I just want to make sure everybody, are these posted on the city's website or can they call the Planning Division people? Conklin: It is posted on the meetings of the week and that information is available at the City. With regard to impact fees, we have placed the final study on our website, accessfayetteville.org. That study can be downloaded. In the future, as we further develop our website more information will be available. Hoffman: Thanks Tim. Is there any other business before us? Seeing none, we are adjourned, thank you. Meeting adjourned: 6:46 p.m.