Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-09-23 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, September 23, 2002 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN ADM 02-29.00: Administrative Item (Large Scale Development Ordinance/Expiration) Page 2 LSD 02-23.00: Large Scale Development (Hampton Inn, pp 558) Page 8 RZN 02-28.00: Rezoning (Provence, pp 602) Page 16 CUP 02-26.00: Conditional Use (Childs, pp 566) Page 19 MEMBERS PRESENT Nancy Allen Alan Ostner Lorel Aviles Donald Bunch Bob Estes Lee Ward Alice Church Forwarded to City Council Approved Forwarded to City Council Approved MEMBERSABSENT Loren Shackelford Sharon Hoover STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Kit Williams Renee Thomas Matt Casey Tim Conklin Dawn Warrick Planning Commission September 23, 2002 Page 2 Aviles: I would like to welcome everybody to the Monday, September 23`d meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were seven Commissioners present with Commissioners Shackelford and Hoover being absent. Aviles: We have seven Commissioners present tonight. Thank you Renee. The next item will be the approval of the minutes from the September 9th meeting. Do I have a motion for that? Motion: Allen: 1 move for approval of the minutes. Ward: Second. Aviles: I have a motion and a second for the approval of the minutes from the last meeting. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to approve the minutes was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Aviles: Thanks Renee. We have four items on the agenda tonight. The first item is really number four, it is old business, it is ADM 02-29.00, which is an administrative item to amend the Unified Development Ordinance to require the development of any lots in a previously approved and recorded subdivision where required infrastructure such as sewer, sidewalks, streets, street lighting, or water is lacking or incomplete or in the judgment of the City Planner is otherwise inadequate to serve the proposed development shall be processed in accordance with requirements for a Large Scale Development regardless of the size or number of lots. Also, to amend the Unified Development Ordinance to require all approved undeveloped or discontinued Large Scale Developments, Planned Unit Developments, Conditional Uses, and Lot Splits that have not received all required permits to begin construction, have not begun construction, have not been established or recorded to meet all current Unified Development Ordinances and thirdly, to amend the Unified Development Ordinance to set time limits for application, plan and project approvals by staff, Planning Commission and City Council. Tim, would you like to bring us to speed on this one? Conklin: Sure. The ordinance that we are considering tonight is the expiration of previously approved plans and permits and then setting time limits for our different types of applications. Then setting a time limit for the expiration of the permit if they start construction and then they expire or they start but don't finish their project within a three year time period. Basically, after this Planning Commission September 23, 2002 Page 3 ordinance is passed by the City Council they will have 90 days to use their current permits that have been issued by the City of Fayetteville Planning Commission and go ahead and construct their project. We have some projects out in the community that have been approved as far back as nine or ten years ago that don't comply with our Commercial Design Standards or Landscaping Standards in parking lots. Basically, if they want those project approvals to stand they need to go ahead and get their projects underway. After 90 days they need to meet our current city ordinances. That is the first part and then it sets up a one year time limit with conditions for approvals. Once the Planning Commission approves a project or staff, that any building permits for a renovation or new construction that has a one year time limit. For a lot split that has a one year time limit. They need to go ahead and meet the conditions of approval for the lot split and go get that filed. We have a situation, I just had one last week where a lot split was approved a couple of years ago. The sewer line was not extended. There was a private line crossing the property line issue with the buyer and the person that split the property. We have these things that are just sitting out there that if you are going to go ahead and get approval you need to at least get your infrastructure complete within that year. They need to receive a Certificate of Zoning Compliance. Those are issued at the time of building to permit and make sure the use is allowed and receive all permits and approvals required by the city, state, and federal regulations to start the construction. If the applicant has a good cause of why he can't achieve those conditions he can come back to the Planning Commission to request a one year time extension for the approval. That is part of the ordinance also. Basically, we are just trying to set up a time limit that once you get approval, go ahead and get your permits in hand, and start construction of your project. You may see in the future if this ordinance is passed, that applicants would come back before you asking for an additional one year time extension. Then, basically Part C of the ordinance is a three year time limit. Once you start your project you have three years to complete it. We also added in the Conditional Use section that all the previously approved Conditional Uses that are currently out there in our community, if they are discontinued for more than one year that they become void and they would have to reapply for a Conditional Use. Currently, we issue Conditional Uses and there are Conditional Uses out there that don't have the one year time limit that five years ago there was a child care facility established and they came into our office and there was a Conditional Use that was approved by the Planning Commission we would have to allow them to go ahead and reestablish that childcare without this ordinance. We are trying to clean up those also. That is all I have on this ordinance. If you have any questions I would be more than happy to answer them. Bunch: Tim, a question on the timing on page 4.3 in paragraph 166.18 where it says approved prior to July 1n. Do we not have quite a number of projects out that have a one year time limit on it and it would not take away that one year time limit from those and establish a 90 day time limit? Planning Commission September 23, 2002 Page 4 Conklin- I think I understand your question. By passing this ordinance with that time limit would that give them 90 days to complete. Bunch: Right. Some that already have a one year sunset clause and if I understand properly the purpose of this is to bring in those that have no time limit on them. What affect would this particular language have on projects that have come through currently, meet our current conditions and have a one year time limit but predated July 1, 2002? Conklin- That is a good question. The intent of the ordinance is any projects approved recently should have a year to go ahead and get their permits in hand. Williams: The 90 days was added to actually give anyone that had a very old permit 90 days from the passage of this ordinance by the City Council to go ahead and go forward with their project so they are not bound by this one year limitation which they will be if they don't begin their project. I can get with Tim and as it goes up the line to the City Council we will look at trying to clear that wording up to make sure that we are not restricting anyone to less than one year, which is what this provides. Bunch: We have people that have recently gone through the process that have done everything that they should and there is no sense in penalizing them because of other conditions. Williams: That is not the intent of that. We will look at that language again and make it clear exactly what it is we are trying to get to with that. The 90 days was simply a window that was being provided to anyone, even if they have a very, very old project, to go forward so that they don't have to comply with this particular ordinance. They can go ahead and begin their project even if their permits are very, very old. Bunch: I understand the 90 day deal but my question is is the 90 days in conjunction with July 1, 2002? Conklin: We can take a look at that. Once again, I want to make sure that I can work with the City Attorney and have some language in there that the intent is to not penalize anybody that has an approval less than a year, take that away from them. Whatever language we can put in there between now and Council we will put in there. It is to catch the very old ones that I am having to deal with currently. Williams: In fact, we can just move that date back I would think because for the last couple of years you have been putting as conditions of approval a time limit on Planning Commission September 23, 2002 Page 5 virtually everything that goes forward have you not Tim as a part of the Planning process? Conklin: I want to say yes but can't guarantee 100% so it kind of worries me to push it back too far. Let me do some research and I will work with the City Attorney's office and we will have language in there to cover all bases. I don't want something in between the date and the passage of the ordinance that falls through. Basically, I want to put everybody on the same playing field. Aviles: Thanks Tim. Estes: I have a question for Mr. Conklin. Tim, in the introductory material that we have on page 4.1 at the end of the first paragraph is the phrase "shall be processed in accordance with the requirements for a Large Scale Development regardless of the size or number of lots." Is there a portion of the draft ordinance that has inclusionary language? I see that there is exclusionary language over in subsection "G", what is excluded. Is there language in the draft that contains the inclusion that is in our introductory material for a Large Scale Development regardless of the size or number of lots? Conklin: That was actually the staff report that went to the first Planning Commission. It was not updated and it is separate from what we are discussing this evening. I apologize for not taking that out of the staff report. Aviles: So we are just going to strike the first paragraph since it is not under consideration tonight? Conklin: Yes. Aviles: What is the status on that Tim? Is the Planning Commission going to be hearing that when you have had enough time to draft it I assume? Conklin: I talked with Commissioners that were at agenda session and they seemed to favor just bringing one ordinance at a time to you. I have a list of ordinances so as we get ready we will bring them to you. Does that answer your question? Aviles: It does. Conklin: I don't have the dates in my head right now that I can give to you. Aviles: Is there any further discussion on the proposed ordinance that is in front of us? Is there any member of the public here that wishes to address us on this item? Seeing none, I will close public discussion and bring it back to the Commission for further discussion or motions. Planning Commission September 23, 2002 Page 6 Ward: I feel like this particular ordinance is an excellent ordinance. It is something that should have been done a long time ago. I am a little amidst that all of the sudden we are just putting a 90 day time frame in there. I think that is too short of time. If we don't do this ordinance a lot of these things can last for another twenty years. I don't think 90 days is an appropriate time to allow for some of these old developments and so on to come through. I think maybe one year would be a time frame that would be closer to what I would feel was acceptable. Also, Tim are we going to notify all the present owners by Certified Mail what is going to be happening to their properties and how this will affect it? I think that needs to be done for sure. Even on the Conditional Uses, we need to notify all those people. Conklin: I don't have that capability or staff to do that at this time. I am always surprised when they bring in their projects to me and they say they got this approved in 1990, here is the Large Scale Development, we want our permits. Ward: I just feel like we are trying to push too much. Conklin: I have thousands of files and approvals I would have to go through. I don't have that staff time. I would not have the staff time this year, I will not have the staff time next year to do that unless we wanted to hire someone to help out. Unfortunately, that is the reality. There are some very old approvals and every year I get one or two of them that come up that all staff, Engineering, Planning, Tree and Landscape are unaware of. Ward: I think it is a very well needed ordinance but I think we are trying to push the time frames way to quick. Things that have been on the books for a long time, by doing the ordinance I think it is a way of doing it but I don't think 90 days is appropriate at all, and unless we do notify them by certified mail. Estes: Commissioner Ward, do I understand that you are suggesting §166.18 that within 90 days be changed to within one year? Ward: Yes, I'm not holding that as some kind of terrific date or anything, I just think 90 days is way too short of time for something that we are not even notifying about. Estes: That would satisfy Commissioner Bunch's concerns I believe and should Commissioner Ward make such a motion I would certainly second it. Aviles: I will support it too because I think that it is more in line with standards for extensions granted to Large Scale Development projects. This can be treated almost like that. Planning Commission September 23, 2002 Page 7 Motion: Ward: Estes: With that, I will go ahead and make a motion to approve ADM 02-29.00, which is the administrative item for the Large Scale Development Ordinance Expiration and with the one change from 90 days to 12 months time frame. For the reasons that have been articulated by Mr. Conklin, the recommendation of staff, and the recommendation of our City Attorney's office that passage of this ordinance be made and with the change from 90 days to one year I will second the motion. Aviles: Thank you Commissioner Estes. I have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Tim, before we vote on this, could you let us know, this now goes to the Ordinance Review Committee? Conklin: It is up to the City Council. Typically we put it on the City Council agenda and if they have questions they refer it to the Ordinance Review Committee. Aviles: I think that this goes as a recommendation in either case to the City Council and I think it is one that is well advised because it would give property owners a chance to secure financing and so forth. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to forward ADM 02-29.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Aviles: Thank you. The motion carries unanimously. Planning Commission September 23, 2002 Page 8 LSD 02-23.00: Large Scale Development (Hampton Inn, pp 558) was submitted by Erin Rushing on behalf of Narry Krushiker for property located at 2614 W. 6th Street. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 3.54 acres with a 4 story, 94 room hotel proposed. Aviles: Under new business our first item is LSD 02-23.00, which is a Large Scale Development for the Hampton Inn. It was submitted by Erin Rushing on behalf of Narry Krushiker for property located at 2614 W. 6`h Street. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 3.54 acres with a 4 story, 94 room hotel proposed. There are eleven conditions of approval. Tim, do we have signed conditions? Conklin: We do have signed conditions. Aviles: Ok, thanks. I am going to go ahead and read those in for the public record. 1) The additional right-of-way for Highway 62 (55 feet from centerline) will be required to be dedicated by separate warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit. 2) Developer cooperation in cost share to replace the existing 6" water line along the east property line of the development. This condition is contingent upon City Council approval of the proposed cost share agreement. The developer is proposing installation of a new 8" water main crossing the site to connect two existing water lines and creating a loop in this area. Recent maintenance has shown that the existing 6" water line on the east side of this development is in very poor condition and needs to be replaced. Staff is recommending that the City cost share with the developer to have their contractor replace this line during construction of this development. 3) All improvements on-site and off-site, except for landscaping that is guaranteed, shall be complete prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the hotel. 4) Planning Commission approval of the waiver of the increased parking lot aisle widths. 5) One monument sign shall be allowed at Shiloh Drive and one monument sign shall be allowed at Highway 62. The applicant is responsible to provide sign area on each monument sign for the businesses that locate within this two lot development. 6) Planning Commission determination of compliance of Commercial Design Standards. 7) Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives. 8) 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 Cityss current requirements. 9) Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards. 10) Large scale development shall be valid for one calendar year. 11) Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: Grading and drainage permits; Separate easement plat for this project that shall include the tree preservation area; Project Disk with all Planning Commission September 23, 2002 Page 9 final revisions, Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by .158.01 to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Tim, can you give us your staff report please? Conklin: This is a 94 room hotel, four stories, 104 parking spaces, that is based on 94 rooms at one space per room plus one space per employee with ten employees. The surrounding land use includes to the east, University Square Shopping Center. To the west is a mini -storage, to the north is currently vacant and to the south is retail. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions that are listed below that you just read into the record. Staff has worked with the applicant and has looked at how to provide signage on this site. They will be placing two monument signs, they are showing area on the monument signs for the additional out parcel that is shown on the site plan. They have also incorporated some landscaping to help screen the back of what is the University Square Shopping Center. Kim Hesse is here this evening to discuss with you the tree preservation plan requirements and the offsite mitigation. You should have received a letter from Kim describing the tree preservation, offsite mitigation and I will let her go over that with you. At this time I don't have any additional information. Thank you. Aviles: Thank you Tim. Is the applicant present? Rushing: I am Erin Rushing with CEI Engineering representing Narry Krushiker of Krushiker Hospitality Group of Springdale. Aviles: Do you have a presentation or would you like to reserve that for the end? Rushing: Actually, what I was going to say just got said. Pretty much it is a four story hotel with 94 rooms. We are proposing 560' of 27' wide private drive. I have worked with Kim on the mitigation for the trees and that is basically about it. Aviles: Ok, thank you very much. We will get back to you after we have heard from Kim and have taken public comment. Kim, I wonder if you could come up and give us your report. Hesse: As I stated on the plans, what is existing out on the site, the site is covered with 40% coverage of canopy. Most of that canopy, as I mentioned at agenda session, is of lower quality or low priority canopy. There is a lot of cedar, hackberry, elm, thorny locus and strangely enough, a large number of Bradford pears that appear to be growing wild out there. There are a lot of vines. It is kind of pretty much an unmaintained site. Based off of what is existing and what is proposed we felt that it is going to be best for the community to actually Planning Commission September 23, 2002 Page 10 recommend the mitigation canopy. The site is pretty well developed and based off the new ordinance, they have to mitigate with 52 2" caliper trees based on that 40% coverage. Basically we have found room for at least 27 trees on the site leaving 25 left over. The developer has offered to plant those on adjacent properties that he owns. The map that I provided to you shows the Hampton Inn site. It is probably pretty hard to read but the Hampton Inn site is this open field with some canopy on it. This is the existing Hampton Inn, which is actually in front of this site between Shiloh and the Hampton Inn site and then there is the University Square south of that. There is room along Shiloh to place trees. Unfortunately, most of that room is taken up in utility easements. We are proposing, through my communication with the Highway Depatturent, to plant 25 trees in the highway right of way. I think that would provide a good mitigation option by shading and providing aesthetical benefits to the street side. Once again, until we get approval from the Highway Depaitment we can't state for sure that those trees will be placed there so what I am asking is that you approve this based on the pretense that we can get those trees along the right of way. If we can not we will request this be in a tree fund and the city will try to do some additional plantings along Hwy. 62. Aviles: Thank you Kim. Does anybody have any questions for Kim at this time? Ok, I appreciate it. I will take public comment now. Is there anybody here that would wish to address us on this Large Scale Development? Ok, seeing nobody I will go ahead and bring it back to the applicant and the Commission for discussion or motions. Estes: I have a question of the applicant. With regard to the commercial design standards in the Overlay District, what type of parking lot lighting have you designed? Rushing: Actually the parking lot lighting is a 30' tall shielded fixture, high pressure sodium, a shoe box type light. Estes: Mr. Conklin, will this require a variance of any type? What I am thinking about is in our material with regard to lighting the staff finding is that they will require a variance. Could you edify us on that one? Conklin: I am not sure, I will have to take a closer look at the plan. I thought there might have been metal haloid. Rushing: At one time it was metal haloid and I talked to the owner and they prefer high pressure sodium. Conklin: Ok. Estes: So Mr. Conklin we are ok? Planning Commission September 23, 2002 Page 11 Conklin- We are ok if it is sodium that is correct Thank you for pointing that out. The building is an E.F.I.S. building. I did look at the Marriott that was approved by the Commission on Plainview Street over within CMN Business Park Phase I. That also had E.F.I.S. as a material that was used. I couldn't verify the Fairfield Inn or Sleep Inn and I didn't have a chance to look at the Holiday Inn Express, but I think those are E.F.I.S. type materials also so we have allowed E.F.I.S. to be used on our buildings. That was a question that came up during Subdivision Committee and I just wanted to let you have that information. Overall staff is in support of the commercial design of the building. One thing to point out, the north elevation is the same as the south elevation and the west elevation is the same as the east elevation. They are mirror images. Aviles: Thank you. Ward: I still have some concerns personally with the idea that you are using totally one material. I know out there in the Overlay District in the past we have kind of required a combination of other materials like combination of bricks, split faced block or other types of materials to go along with the E.F.LS. I am going to support it because it is going to be a nice looking structure but in the past we have required the use of other materials besides just the one material. I think especially in the Overlay District, I am not sure that is the direction we really want to go toward as far as commercial design standards are concerned. Also, Erin, you might give us a little briefing about the cross connectivity from the hotel to the shopping, whatever you have got laid out for that. Rushing: Right. We are proposing a 5' sidewalk from the north side of the old Marvin's IGA building to the hotel. It will actually have to traverse through a series of islands to get to the front of the hotel. Also, there will be a future connection from the southeast corner of the hotel site down along to Sixth Street on lot one of University Square. Ward: Ok. We will expect that to connect all the way to Sixth Street when it comes through. Rushing: That is correct. We are providing a stub through our site that will connect to that lot one. Allen: The brick colored E.F.I.S. on our drawing looks kind of brick like in lining. Is that the case? Rushing: Actually it is just a darker colored material. It is not proposed to be brick. Allen: I wondered how difficult it would be to make it have that brick affect with just adding the lines in there, that might break it up a little bit. Planning Commission September 23, 2002 Page 12 Rushing: That is certainly something I can talk to the owner about. Estes: I subscribe to Commissioner Ward's comments. When I looked at the elevations I presumed that we were being shown some split faced block. What is going on here? Is this all E.F.I.S.? Rushing: That is right. Estes: Well, I subscribed to Commissioner Ward's comments and also that I can't think of one project in the Overlay District that we have approved that is of a single construction material. Can you Mr. Conklin? Conklin- If you exclude the Marriott, because they were excluded as a part of the Design Overlay District, with regard to just E.F.I.S., no. With regard to one material I think the Olive Garden is all stone just based on what I have seen out there and what I can remember being approved. The Country Inn and Suites I think had some brick or split faced block on the bottom first floor and then I'm not sure if it is E.F.I.S. or some other type of material up above. Estes: I did not attend agenda session. I was in Washington, D.C. When I looked over my material over the weekend, simply stated, a plain spoken analysis of this shows that it is two different types of material. If I am mistaken in that regard I stand to be corrected but I am not going to vote for it if this is not what we are going to have out there I am not going to vote for it. If we have been shown something in the elevations that is not what we are going to see out there I am not going to vote for it. Aviles: I think we can craft a motion that would include some flexibility for staff to work with the design team with regard to getting a brick material that is acceptable based on your experience with what the Commission has approved in the past. Would that be something you would be willing to do? Conklin: As long as you are clear. If you say no E.F.I.S. on the first floor, brick and split faced block, that type of material, that is fine, I can deal with that. Aviles: Thanks Tim. Conklin: The same similar color as shown in the elevations. Aviles: Before we get to that point, I did have a question about the necessity for the wider driving aisles. Could you enlighten us on the need for those? Planning Commission September 23, 2002 Page 13 Rushing: What that is on the south side of the building they need adequate turn around area for their delivery trucks. If we simply provide a 24' lane width turn around area they can't turn a 35' truck around in that space provided. Aviles: Was there any thought given to just providing a loading area, just a loading dock? Rushing: Actually that is the loading area within that space. There is a striped loading area I believe approximately 20x20. Aviles: It is on the south side? Rushing: It is on the south side of the building. Aviles: Thank you. Bunch: In our effort to improve the looks of the building and also to maybe sway some of the concerns of the different Commissioners, Erin, could you tell us if these elevations that we have honestly depict a scoring of the E.F.I.S. material to where when it is setup it would look very similar to the scoring of a split faced block? How accurate is the architect's elevation here? Rushing: You know I am not an architect. I was just given these drawings and told this is what it is going to look like. Whether or not we can score the dryvit, I am not that knowledgeable in that area. Bunch: I guess then the question is for Commissioners Estes and Ward. If this were a scored dryvit to where it simulated a split faced block facade would that be acceptable to where you have the appearance of different materials? Ward: I am going to vote for the project either way but I think by doing something similar to what Commissioner Bunch is talking about and the way it looks on the drawing it is already that way. It looks like a split faced block on our drawings. If anybody else would look at it in the audience they would say it is split faced block or some type of brick and so if it is going to look like what the architect has rendered, I think you are going to have to do something to make it look like that. Just a flat coat of paint won't work. Aviles: Anybody else? Do we have any motions? Motion: Ward: I will go ahead and make a motion that we approve LSD 02-23.00 for the Hampton Inn with all 11 conditions of approval with the added motion that the bottom floor have some kind of a different pattern as far as the way it is built or Planning Commission September 23, 2002 Page 14 put on there. I think it can be scored where it will look very similar to split faced block or brick. Aviles: Do you want to say different pattern and color? Ward: Yes. Aviles: Does that include the waiver? Ward: That also includes the waiver for the width of the driveway. Is that the only other waiver we have? Aviles: Tim, is this monument sign approval a waiver or just a stipulation? Conklin: That is just a stipulation. The ordinance does allow that. I looked at the Design Overlay District regulations and it does allow a combination of lots into one development and to use monument signs. Aviles: I have a motion by Commissioner Ward to incorporate a contrasting pattern and color on the ground floor with the acceptance of the waiver on the driving aisles. Is there a second? Bunch: Since we received the Landscape Administrator's report subsequent to the time that the staff report was written, Mr. Ward, does your motion include the disposition of the 13 trees that may or may not be on the Highway Department? Ward: Yes, the mitigation of those trees. Bunch: There were some that were offsite that were questionable. Some of the trees the applicant has control over because he owns the property but the other 13 trees are proposed to be on Highway Department property and may or may not be accepted by the Highway Department, in which case it would go into the tree fund. Does your motion include that? Ward: My motion includes that also. Bunch: In that case, I will second. Aviles: Thank you Commissioners Ward and Bunch. I have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Allen: I just would want some sort of assurance that we come up with something that looks like the architect's drawing. Planning Commission September 23, 2002 Page 15 Aviles: I would assume Tim if we don't meet the spirit of this motion and subsequent approval that you would bring it back to the Planning Commission. Conklin: Yes, if it doesn't look like the architect's drawings it is coming back. Aviles: Ok. Is that understood by the applicant as well? Rushing: Yes. Aviles: Is there any further discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 02-23.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Aviles: Thank you. The motion carries unanimously. Rushing: Thank you. Planning Commission September 23, 2002 Page 16 RZN 02-28.00 (Provence, pp 602) was submitted by Glenn Carter on behalf of Dwayne Provence for property located at 1509 Morningside Drive. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 3.34 acres. The request is to rezone to I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial. Aviles: Item two on our agenda is a rezoning, RZN 02-28.00 which was submitted by Glenn Carter on behalf of Dwayne Provence for property located at 1509 Morningside Drive. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 3.34 acres. The request is to rezone to I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial. Tim, do you have a staff report before we hear from the applicant? Conklin: This is a request to rezone 3.34 acres from R-2 to I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial. Staff is recommending approval of the rezoning. It is located at 1509 Morningside Drive. The actual parcel to be rezoned actually faces 15`h Street. It is on the south side of 15th Street. The applicant currently owns the parcel zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and others zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. There is currently a trucking company on the I-1 parcel. The applicant is requesting to expand the business on the parcel to be rezoned. R-2 does not allow for an office building or for the trucking business on the site. Surrounding land uses include to the north, office and industrial, to the south vacant, to the east industrial and to the west residential. At agenda session it was brought up that there was an enforcement action taken on this property adjacent to the east, it is currently zoned I-1. I did provide you information on Friday in your packet in 1996 the City of Fayetteville started the process to prosecute Mr. Provence with regard to requiring him to pave the lot where the trucks were parking. That case was settled by our City Prosecutor and that was settled back in 1996. The settlement included that the lot would be paved and that two parking spaces would be provided to the employees. At this time since the city did settle that case with Mr. Provence, it is my understanding that everything is in compliance. I did go out there. The parking lot is paved and the employee lot is paved. I would just advise that when the applicant does come forward to further develop the property, staff will look at the property with regard to our current commercial design standards and other standards with regard to landscaping and screening and look at the conditions of approval with regard to storing vehicles that are unlicensed on the property. That is just to give you information with regard to that action. What I am going to pass out is the actual District Court Summary from that. At the very bottom of it, it talks about how the case was resolved. It is just one sentence and you can take a look at that. That is all the information I have at this time with regard to this rezoning. Thank you. Carter: I am Glenn Carter with Carter Consulting. I am here to represent Mr. and Mrs. Provence. We have a situation where Mr. Provence has property in a mixed use area and he is just wanting to expand his business. The zoning of the property Planning Commission September 23, 2002 Page 17 adjacent to his current business doesn't support that. It is not the proper zoning for this type of business so he simply wants to do that. In regard to the past action that Mr. Conklin mentioned a moment ago, the client has expressed his desire to comply with every ordinance and every condition of any approval for any project that we submit and we do plan to submit a Large Scale Development application and a set of construction plans and grading and drainage plans that will comply with the ordinances of the City of Fayetteville and building standards and design standards. If you have any questions I would be glad to answer them. Aviles: Thank you Mr. Carter. Is there any member of the audience that would like to address us on this rezoning? Seeing none, I will go ahead and bring it back to the applicant and the Commission for discussion and/or motions. Motion: Ward: I will go ahead and recommend approval of RZN 02-28.00. I feel like the I-1 zoning is more in character with what is already down there with the Hiland Dairy, the Hanna's Potpourri, the Superior Wheel, all close to the Industrial Park area. I recommend that we approve this particular rezoning from R-2 to I- 1. Aviles: Thank you Commissioner Ward. Do I have a second? Ostner: I will second. Aviles: I have a second by Commissioner Ostner. Is there any further discussion? Allen: I wondered if any of the neighbors had voiced any concern because there is some residential property near this area and I also wondered why the applicant didn't comply so promptly. Conklin: I can answer your first question. I have not heard any complaints from any of the adjoining residents. You will have to ask the applicant what happened back in 1996 and prior to that. Thank you. Allen: I would like to do that. Aviles: Mr. Carter, could you come back up and address that please? Carter: Could you rephrase your question? Allen: Yes. I wondered why the applicant was so remiss in complying with the conditions when the property was previously through the Planning Commission? Planning Commission September 23, 2002 Page 18 Carter: Allen: Carter: Provence: Ok. I am not very knowledgeable about everything that happened in 1996 but in my discussions with the applicant, he came here, he was not aware of the city's ordinances and he just got his building permit and began to build his building. If there was a time factor from the time he was notified until the time he complied, I don't know what that was all about. I can't answer that question. He is not here this evening? Yes, he is here. To answer the question about the time, we took the top soil off and put in the red dirt to make a hard driveway for dropping loaded trailers, the company that did my paving was Tomlinson Asphalt and they seemed to think there needed to be a time element for all the red dirt to get settled good before we put the pavement on to keep it from cracking and stuff so we just got into a time problem. Aviles: For the record, are you Mr. Provence? Provence: Yes I am. Aviles: Thank you. Allen: Thank you. Aviles: Are there any other questions or comments? We have a motion and a second on the floor. Is there any further discussion on this rezoning? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward RZN 02-28.00 was approved by a vote of 6-1-0 with Commissioner Allen voting no. Aviles: Thank you. The recommendation of the rezoning carries on a vote of six to one. Planning Commission September 23, 2002 Page 19 CUP 02-26.00, Conditional Use Permit (Childs, pp 566) was submitted by Mac Childs for property located at 2178 E. Huntsville Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.93 acres. The request is for a plant nursery, Use Unit 2, City Wide Uses by Conditional Use Permit in the R-1 District. Aviles: The final item on our agenda tonight is a conditional use, CUP 02-26.00 which was submitted by Matt Childs for property located at 2178 E. Huntsville Road. This property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately .93 acres. The request is for a plant nursery, Use Unit 2, City Wide Uses by Conditional Use Permit in the R-1 District. Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use subject to eight conditions. Tim, do we have signed conditions? Conklin. Yes. Aviles: Ok, thanks. I am going to go ahead and read those. 1) A sign permit for all proposed signs. 2) Outdoor lighting shall be fully shielded and pointed downward and approved by the City Planner. 3) A view obscuring fence or view obscuring vegetation or the combination of the two along the northeast and west property lines. 4) Install a Portland Cement Concrete driveway approach and a 6' wide sidewalk prior to occupancy. The sidewalk shall be continuous through the driveway approach. 5) Dumpsters located on the property shall be properly screened and the location is to be reviewed by Planning and Solid Waste. 6) Compliance with Building Safety and Fire Department inspection requirements. 7) The Conditional Use shall expire one year from the approval date if no action has been taken to implement the Conditional Use. 8) Landscaping between the parking area and single-family residence to the west is to be approved by the Landscape Administrator. Tim, is there a staff report? Conklin: Sure. This is the site of the old Mhoon Beef building. It was rezoned just recently this year from I-1 back to R-1. Back in 1993 it was rezoned to the I-1 zoning district to allow Mhoon Beef to expand. That never did occur. The current owner, Mr. Sweetser, has a tenant that would like to establish a plant nursery at this location. There is an existing parking lot at this site. There is also an existing parking lot area that is gravel. They intend to provide 15 off street parking spaces. Hours of operation would be 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., approximately 30 people per day would be the estimate of traffic coming to the site. Once again, this is a Conditional Use. Use Unit 2 allows plant nurseries as a Conditional Use in all zoning districts. Here is an opportunity to reuse an existing building that has sat vacant for some time. Staff is in support and has recommended approval. Aviles: Thank you Tim. Is the applicant present? Childs: My name is Mac Childs. Planning Commission September 23, 2002 Page 20 Aviles: Do you have a presentation for us or do you want to wait until we have finished talking and you can answer questions. Childs: I will wait for you all. Aviles: Is there any member of the public that would like to address us on this Conditional Use? Not seeing anyone, I will go ahead and bring the discussion back to the Planning Commission and the applicant. Motion: Allen: I think this is an excellent use of what has become kind of an eye sorer. With that said, I would like to move for approval of CUP 02-26.00. Aviles: I have a motion by Commissioner Allen. Ostner: I will second. Aviles: Is there any further discussion? Bunch: In our background information, though not in the recommendation or the conditions, it mentions 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. operation, is this when it will be open to the public or would this be when there are employees on site that would be moving material around, stocking merchandise say with fork trucks or something like that that could possibly affect the neighbors? Childs: It would be open from the time someone showed up, it would actually be from 7:00 to 7:00 operational hours. Bunch: By operational hours you are saying all operations on site as opposed to operational for open for business hours so you wouldn't have people doing night moving of stocking merchandise? Childs: Yes. Aviles: I have a question for you if you don't mind coming back up to the podium. What type of outdoor storage do you plan on having besides plants? Do you plan on having display areas or non -plant stuff stored outside? Childs: The storage would be arranged in landscape fashion so banks of plants in buckets inside flowerbeds basically. Aviles: Ok, thanks. That answered my question, is there anybody else? Renee, would you call the roll please? Planning Commission September 23, 2002 Page 21 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 02-26.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Aviles: Thank you. The motion carries unanimously. Tim, do we have any further business or announcements? Conklin- There is no additional business. You should have received in the mail a brochure for the Four State American Planning Association conference. I think it should be an excellent conference. It is in Fort Smith, Arkansas this year and I hope to see some of you there. Thank you. Aviles: I see that you are making a presentation on Commercial Design Standards. Conklin: Yes, I was going to show some of the successes and some of the failures of our Commercial Design Standards. I would like to present that to the Commission too eventually. Since I haven't completed putting the presentation together I can't show it to you any sooner. Aviles: We will be eagerly anticipating that presentation. Conklin: I think from there we did want to take a look at our Commercial Design Standards and I think this will be a good evaluation of how our ordinance is currently working. Aviles: That's great Thanks Tim, we are adjourned.