Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-11-25 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, November 25, 2002 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN VAC 02-15.00: Vacation (Mallioux, pp 332) Page 3 CUP 02-27.00: Conditional Use (Stout, pp 365) Page 4 LSP 02-46.00 (1002): Lot Split (Stout, pp 365 & 404) Page 7 ADM 02-37.00: Administrative Item (Skyler Subdivision Bill of Assurance) Page 8 PPL 02-17.00 (1028): Preliminary Plat (Skyler Subdivision, pp 403) Page 13 LSD 02-27.00 (1006): Large Scale Development (PJT Development, pp 435) Page 20 CUP 02-26.10: Conditional Use (Childs, pp 566) Page 27 CUP 02-31.00: Conditional Use (L & E Equity, pp 177) Page 29 RZN 02-39.00: Rezoning (Eldridge, pp 484) Page 33 RZN 02-40.00: Rezoning (Slone, pp 252) Page 35 Forwarded to City Council Approved Approved Forwarded to City Council Approved Approved Approved Approved Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council Planning Commission November 25, 2002 Page 2 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Nancy Allen Loren Shackelford Bob Estes Lee Ward Alan Ostner Sharon Hoover Lorel Aviles Donald Bunch Alice Church STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT David Whitaker Dawn Warrick Renee Thomas Matt Casey Sara Edwards Kit Williams Tim Conklin Shelli Rushing Planning Commission November 25, 2002 Page 3 Aviles: Roll Call: Aviles: Shackelford: Allen: Aviles: Roll Call: Welcome to the November 25, 2002 meeting of your Fayetteville Planning Commission. The first item of business is to call the roll. Renee, would you call the roll please? Upon the completion of roll call there were eight Commissioners present with Commissioner Ostner arriving at 5:40 p.m. The next item of business is approval of the minutes for the November 12, 2002 meeting. Do I hear a motion? So moved. Second. Renee, would you call the roll please? Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the minutes of the November 12, 2002 meeting was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. VAC 02-15.00: Vacation (Mallioux, pp 332) was submitted by Ross Mallioux for property located at 2309 Golden Oaks Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.30 acres. The request is to vacate part of a utility easement (75.7 sq.ft.). Aviles: Shackelford: Aviles: Roll Call: Aviles: The next item on the agenda is the consent agenda for VAC 02-15.00 which was submitted by Ross Mallioux for property located at 2309 Golden Oaks Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately .30 acres. The request is to vacate a part of the utility easement which is 75.7 sq.ft. Is there any member of the Planning Commission that would wish to remove this from the consent agenda or any member of the audience? Seeing none, I will go ahead and move for approval of the consent agenda, do I have a second? I will second. Renee, would you call the roll please? Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of VAC 02- 15.00 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thanks Renee. Planning Commission November 25, 2002 Page 4 CUP 02-27.00: Conditional Use (Stout, pp 365) was submitted by A -Line Surveying, Inc. on behalf of Greg Stout for property located at 1541 Deane Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.59 acres. The request is for a Tandem lot. Aviles: On our regular order of business items numbers 2 and 3 are companion items. They are conditional use and a lot split. CUP 02-27.00 was submitted by A Line Surveying on behalf of Greg Stout for property located at 1541 Deane Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately .59 acres. The request is for a tandem lot. Number three is LSP 02-46.00. It was submitted by Greg Stout for property located at 1541 Deane Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately .92 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of .59 acres and .33 acres. Sara? Edwards: In order to allow for a lot split in which the required street frontage is not provided a conditional use for a tandem lot is required so that is what you are seeing here. The proposal on that lot is a 1,200 sq.ft. home. We are recommending approval subject to some standard conditions for a tandem lot. You do need to make two separate motions. One for the lot split and one for the Conditional Use. Aviles: Sara, we have nine conditions. Do we have signed conditions of approval? Edwards: We do not. Aviles: Ok, I will go ahead and read the conditions. These would accompany the lot split is that correct, not the conditional use? Edwards: Both. Aviles: Ok, so these nine conditions will accompany both items. 1) Construct a 30 -foot by 40 -foot hard surface vehicular turnaround equivalent to SB -2 base or better at the end of the private drive and execute a written agreement granting the City permission to enter upon the private drive and turn around with sanitation vehicles; or construct a masonry garbage can holder, with screening, for each garbage can to be used, which garbage can holder shall be constructed alongside the street onto which the private drive leads. 2) No vehicles shall be parked at any time on that portion of a tandem lot utilized as a private drive or on the vehicular turnaround required by condition one. The dwelling structure on a tandem lot shall not be located more than 200 feet from the end of the private drive nearest the structure. 3) A minimum building setback requirement of 20 feet from all property lines and 25 feet from all street right-of-way lines. 4) Property owner shall construct a 25' private drive and shall be paved 25' from the intersection of Deane Street. 5) Only one single-family house shall be constructed and the existing shed shall not be enlarged. 6) The single family house shall be located within required yards as shown on the submitted site plan. 7) The private drive shall be no closer than 5' to the side property lines. 8) At the time the Tandem Lot is developed, a cash Planning Commission November 25, 2002 Page 5 contribution of $630 in lieu of sidewalk construction is required. Is the applicant present? Do you have a presentation that you would like to make to us or would you like to answer questions after I've taken public comment? Stout: That would be fine. Aviles: Thanks. Is there any member of the public that would wish to address the Planning Commission on either items on the agenda 2 and 3? I will go ahead and bring discussion back to the applicant and to the Commissioners. Shackelford: I was just going to ask the question from the applicant, we don't have signed conditions of approval, are there any of these conditions that you have an issue with? Stout: No. Aviles: Sir, would you mind stepping forward just a little bit and tell us your name for the record? Stout: Greg Stout. Aviles: Seeing that we would have signed conditions are there any motions or further discussion Commissioners? Bunch: There seems to be an option in here on either the turn around, 30'x40' hard surface turn around or installing a garbage can holder up close to the road, which option is being chosen? Stout: I have already put SB2 all the way back, I have already conformed with that so there is already a drive in turnaround in place. Bunch: Ok, so the full driveway from the 25'x25' paved slab all the way back to the turn around is SB2 also? Stout: Yes. It is not paved but I don't think that is until I get a building permit. Shackelford: That is my question as well, number four "the property owner shall construct a 25' drive that shall be paved 25' from the intersection at Deane Street. Are we requiring the paving? I was confused on how that played in with condition one with the SB2. Aviles: Sara, can you help us with that? Planning Commission November 25, 2002 Page 6 Edwards: What we will do is he is aware of these conditions we would go ahead and permit and sign the lot split but we would not issue a certificate of occupancy until such time that those improvements were installed. Aviles: Ok, do you agree with that? Stout: Yes. MOTION: Ward: If there are no other questions, I will go ahead and make a motion that we approve the CUP 02-27.00 for Mr. Stout. I guess we need to vote on that one first and then I will make a companion motion. Aviles: Ok, we will make this subject to the nine conditions that are listed. Ward: Yes, the nine conditions of approval. Bunch: I will second. Aviles: I have a second by Commissioner Bunch. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 02-27.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Aviles: Thanks Renee, that motion carries unanimously. Let the record reflect that Commissioner Ostner has just arrived. Planning Commission November 25, 2002 Page 7 LSP 02-46.00 (1002): Lot Split (Stout, pp 365 & 404) was submitted by Greg Stout for property located at 1541 Deane Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.92 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 0.59 acres and 0.33 acres. MOTION: Ward: Since this is the companion item, I will go ahead and make a motion that we approve LSP 02-46.00 which also comes with the same nine conditions. Aviles: Do I have a second? Bunch: I will second. Aviles: There is a second by Commissioner Bunch. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSP 02-46.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-1 with Commissioner Ostner abstaining. Aviles: Thank you. Planning Commission November 25, 2002 Page 8 ADM 02-37.00: Administrative Item: An administrative item to consider amending the Bill of Assurance associated with RZN 02-17 (Mathias/Barnes) for property located south of Deane Street, west of Sang Avenue and east of Porter Road. The amendment would alter the number of single-family homes, duplexes, and four-plexes allowed in the proposed Skyler Place Subdivision. Aviles: Item four on our agenda is an administrative item, this is a companion item with number five, which is a Preliminary Plat. We will hear both items separately. ADM 02-37.00 is an item to consider amending the Bill of Assurance associated with RZN 02-17.00 for property located south of Deane Street, west of Sang Avenue, and east of Porter Road. The amendment would alter the number of single-family homes, duplexes, and four plexes allowed in the Skyler Place subdivision. Sara, would you give us the staff report for this please? Edwards: Yes. As part of the rezoning, the applicant, on the Bill of Assurance, listed the types and numbers of units to be constructed. As requested at agenda session, we did get you the original staff report with the proposed plan at the time of rezoning. When this development came for Preliminary Plat approval we discovered that a larger area was going to be needed for detention than they originally planned on which basically caused a four lot reduction. In an effort to recover those units, they are requesting that the Bill of Assurance be revised. That is to change lots one and ten from single-family residential to a four plex and lots 56 and 57 from five units to seven units. Because the Planning Commission originally considered this Bill of Assurance in a recommendation of the rezoning, we wanted to give you a chance to make a recommendation with regard to the change. Also, since agenda session I have distributed emails from the neighborhood association regarding their feelings on that requested change and you should've got a memo from the City Attorney as well. Aviles: Thank you very much. Is the applicant present? Jorgensen: My name is Dave Jorgensen and I am here on behalf of the owner/developer, Bleaux Barnes and Sam Mathias on this project. I am here to try to answer questions and explain the reason for the revised Bill of Assurance. I think Sara did a pretty good job on that basically but we are here to try to answer questions. Aviles: Do you have anything to add at this point or should we take public comment first? Jorgensen: No I don't. Aviles: Ok, thanks Dave. Is there any member of the audience that would like to address us on this matter? Maynard: My name is Richard Maynard, I am president of the Asbell Neighborhood Association. I understand that this is kind of an unusual situation with you amending the bill. Mr. Barnes and Mr. Mathias met with us, as you know, last May Planning Commission November 25, 2002 Page 9 to talk about this project. In the past it was a pretty contentious piece of property. I do want to remind the Commission that at that time these six houses were not part of the discussion. They were not even offered as part of that. Those got added on later as they got more into their development and realized they had these lots vacant. I think it was Mr. Conklin that suggested that they put single-family units there. We certainly would not object to that, it sounded like a good idea. As Ms. Edwards explained, because of the detention pond they had to lose these units. Mr. Jorgensen called me and asked me what I thought of this and what I thought the neighborhood would think of it and I said I don't really see a big problem here because what we agreed to was really density, the type of duplexes, what we agreed to at that May 23`d meeting were just duplexes and the condos by themselves. This was kind of added as a bonus. I think it is unfortunate that it had to change but one or two houses taken away is not going to make a big deal to us. I suppose I could stand up here and say "Sorry folks, you agreed to those six houses on that Bill of Assurance." Personally though, I think it would be a real big breach of trust on us as an association and as a neighborhood to hold them to that because they have dealt with us with nothing but good faith and we want to do the same. Had this been in the original agreement that we made on May 23`d I think it might be a little trickier. If that would have been a selling point of yes we will give up our last big area of R-1 zoning, we do regard it certainly as ours, if that was a big selling point, then it might be kind of tough, but again, it wasn't. It was something that was added on later to try to improve upon this development. I don't know a lot about development but I am learning and I know you can only plan so far and so well and cover all your basis. I think this is something that was unforeseen. When I read in the paper on Friday that we might have to start all over from scratch it really kind of worried me. I do want to tell you from a neighborhood point of view, we have one other neighborhood member here and I would like him to weigh in on this too. We have a real investment in this thing going through. We want it to go through right absolutely. You all know that land has been out there and it has been sitting out there for three years. I think if you ask anybody in the neighborhood probably 100% of them, including me, if you ask them what you would rather have out there they would probably say nothing, leave it alone but we know that is not an option and is R-1 an option? I don't think so because nobody has made an offer on that in three years. I would think that after what happened three years ago somebody would have at least tested the waters. We are looking at a big area in the middle of our neighborhood that we know is going to get filled in. Opposed to what happened three years ago, at least here if their marketing plan works, we have a better than even chance for a lot of home ownership. We feel that this is the best development for that neighborhood that we are going to get. I can't say that for sure. I know we have already discussed that but I am only saying this in that I hope that you will approve this because we don't want to start from scratch or have to start all over with somebody else on something that maybe will be better, whatever that means, but it could certainly be a lot worse. In short, we have no problem with this change for the reason I said at the very beginning. The houses were not part of the mix when they first approached us about this. It was something added on and now they Planning Commission November 25, 2002 Page 10 Aviles: Scarbrough: Aviles: Whitaker: have had to take a couple of them away. I think she said that she gave you the emails. They originally asked if we wanted to have a meeting on this and I said no, out of respect for the neighbors time I am not going to do that. I don't know if you have copies of all of the emails, I think I sent you everything that I have. I have them here, of the people that responded, and I only went by households by the way. There were sixteen that said that they have no problem with this, only two objected and the Asbell Neighborhood Association board was eight to zero in favor of these changes. If somebody said "I have no problem." I didn't write them back and say "How did your spouse feel?" if they said it was aye it was one vote. Unless you have any questions I guess that is all I have to say. Thank you very much Mr. Maynard. Is there any other member of the audience that would like to address us? My name is Dale Scarbrough and I am with Richard here. I think that they have dealt with us in good faith and I don't think that changing because they need a larger detention pond is a problem. I understand the economics of the situation, trying to recover those units so I don't see a problem with it. In the sense that the way they are marketing these units is to own them, not to rent them. I think for me that is an important point. If it was rental property I would have a problem maybe with that but so far they have done a good job and I agree with the change. I don't think it is a problem. Ok, thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this? Seeing no one, I will go ahead and bring discussion back to the applicant and to the Commission. Before we get started on that we do have a memo from our City Attorney's office and I wonder David, if you would give us a short synopsis of that please. Just very briefly, what I was asked at the Thursday meeting to look at was whether the change in the language of the Bill of Assurance would require that the applicant return to square one as it were in the entire request for rezoning process or in short what was the affect of that change on this process. The memo briefly goes through the statute regarding rezoning and some of the language from that. I guess the jest of it is that the Bill of Assurance has more of a characteristic of say a contract or agreement that the City Council has approved. The rezoning itself does not change no matter what as far as the facts here. The language has significantly changed after reading through it and comparing the two documents, they are a significant change from each other in several areas that I have outlined in the memo. What that is going to require is that the City Council by resolution approve a contract amendment is basically what it procedurally will look most like. It will simply be an item where the Council will consider and by simple majority vote may approve the changes to the language of the Bill of Assurance. The good news for the applicant is that there is no need to seek rezoning. Obviously, the RMF -6 I believe it is, is still going to be RMF -6 no matter what happens as far as that subsidiary Planning Commission November 25, 2002 Page 11 question is concerned. Yes or no that remains the zoning. All I really need is to get the Council's approval on that. After some discussion with the folks in Planning it looks as though there certainly would be no problem with a conditional approval, if you chose to, of the Preliminary Plat forwarding the admin item onto Council for their consideration. The final step would be just getting the underlying approval for the Bill of Assurance from the Council. Aviles: I have a question about one other thing in your memo I think you recommended some rewording of that. Whitaker: I would like to see the second one have some of the stuff that the first one had in it and I think that is a stylistic thing but I think in the end it has a lot of import for property owners ten years out who pull it and don't really need to know about the detention pond but they really do need phrases like "reasonably relied upon" a reference to the township and range description of the property, things like that. I think that is a format thing that we can work on and it is not a big deal. There was one thing in item number four where suddenly in the new version there is specific talk about the garages, single and two car garages. While I am certainly not going to comment on the wisdom one way or the other of the language being in there it wasn't in the original one so therefore, that lead to our conclusion that the document had changed considerably from the first one. Specifically, the introductory paragraphs, if that earlier language could be reinstated and we could drop out any of the justification for the change. That is more appropriate in a memo describing why the Bill of Assurance needs to be changed, not on the Bill of Assurance itself. Aviles: You would have time to work with the applicant regarding the redrafting of that before it would go to Council? Whitaker: Absolutely. The earliest thing at the Council at this point is the 1711'. The 3"' is already overbooked to the extreme. I think anybody that takes a look at the December 3"d City Council agenda would agree that it probably is one of the longest ever seen. Aviles: Thank you very much. Dave, do you want to respond? Jorgensen: I don't know that I have got a lot to add to this whole deal other than what was already mentioned. The bottom line net result is this is exactly the same amount of units that we originally bad on the Bill of Assurance. The other thing is the fact that we offered this Bill of Assurance in good faith and I guess maybe we got too detailed in all the various things and maybe we should've just said 126 units, RMF - 6 and some of the very basics but it just so happened that we even actually spelled out the amount of single-family units and four plexes and duplexes and on and then we get into the situation about the detention pond. At any rate, we feel like we can work out the verbiage with the city on it and move along, we are hoping anyway. Planning Commission November 25, 2002 Page 12 Aviles: Ok, thank you very much. Estes: Because a Bill of Assurance may not be a condition preceding to granting a rezoning at agenda I asked our City Attorney to opine whether it was permissible that we hear this administrative item. He has done so and he has summarized his opinion for us in a memo. In that memo citing applicable statute and case law he concludes that the new document must be reconsidered by the City Council before the Planning process may proceed. It is for that reason that I would move that we forward ADM 02-37.00 to the City Council without recommendation for it's consideration. Aviles: Thank you Commissioner Estes. Do I have a second? Bunch: Second. Aviles: There is a second by Commissioner Bunch. I think that this when looked at in conjunction with the upcoming Preliminary Plat which I will be recommending that we approve subject to Council's approval of this administrative item, I think that this is the proper procedure to take so I will be voting for the motion. Is there any additional discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward ADM 02-37.00 to the City Council with no recommendation was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Aviles: The motion carries unanimously. Planning Commission November 25, 2002 Page 13 PPL 02-17.00 (1028): Preliminary Plat (Skyler Subdivision, pp 403) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Sam Mathias for property located south of Deane and between Sang & Porter. The property is zoned RMF -6, Low Density Multi -Family Residential and contains approximately 21.03 acres with 57 lots proposed. Aviles: Item number five is the Preliminary Plat submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Sam Mathias for property located south of Deane and between Sang and Porter. The property is zoned RMF -6, Low Density, Multi -Family Residential and contains approximately 21.03 acres with 57 lots proposed. We have 17 conditions of approval, numbers 12 through 17 are standard conditions. Sara, do we have signed conditions on this? Edwards: We do not. I would like to point out that I did revise the staff report that should be before you and it does have 21 conditions. Aviles: Which of those are standard? Edwards: Standard are 16 through 21. Aviles: Can you give us a summary please? Edwards: Yes. This is a 57 lot subdivision as we discussed, it is a mixture of four plexes, three plexes, duplexes, and single-family homes. It is subject to a Bill of Assurance. That is the first condition. Approval shall be subject to amending that Bill of Assurance before City Council. We have revised our staff report. We were recommending that a 36' wide street be constructed in order to facilitate on street parking. We have revised that to recommend a 28' street due to new drawings submitted by the applicant which illustrates how they will be able to park vehicles on the site. With that, we are recommending some covenants be established for the subdivision. That is that no more than two cars be allowed to be parked outside the garage per unit on any lot numbered one through ten. No parking will be allowed in the front setback area or right of way area beyond the street except in approved and constructed driveways. Driveways shall be limited to a maximum of 18' in width and no additional surfacing of yards will be permitted. No parking will be allowed over sidewalks. Parking will only be allowed on one side of the street and that side shall be the opposite side of the one where the mail boxes are placed. No parking will be allowed on common areas. We will, as a city, be placing signs indicating no parking on one side of the street. Also, we are requiring that access be limited. Lot 19 only will access Willow Brook. Lots 20 and 21 only will access Evening Shade and that is to allow for more room for on street parking. Also, approval of this Preliminary Plat shall not constitute approval of the individual site plan that was submitted for the condominiums. That will be further reviewed at the time of building permit. Just a little bit on why we are changing our recommendation, based on the pictures distributed, that development had a 24' wide street. This one will have 4' wider of a street as well as that development was Planning Commission November 25, 2002 Page 14 three bedroom town homes and this is two bedrooms so we feel that facilitating for a one car garage and two cars to park on the site should be adequate parking. Aviles: Thank you very much Sara. I am going to go ahead and read the conditions of approval for the record before we hear from the applicant. 1) Approval shall be subject to the associated Bill of Assurance being amended to coincide with the proposed preliminary plat. The Bill of Assurance may only be amended by the City Council. 2) Planning Commission determination of required street widths within the development. Staff is recommending that a minimum of a 36 foot street be constructed in order to allow on street parking while ensuring adequate access for fire and sanitation vehicles. The standard requirement for a local street is 28 feet. Please see attached recommendation.Amended:Staff is recommending all streets within the development be constructed to the 28 foot standard. With this recommendation the following conditions shall be added: 3) Covenants shall be established for the subdivision which state: Only two cars will be allowed to be parked outside of the garage per unit on any lot numbered 1 through 10; No parking will be allowed in front setback area or right-of-way area beyond the street except in approved and constructed driveways; Driveways shall be limited to a maximum of 18 feet in width and no additional surfacing of yards will be permitted; No parking will be allowed over sidewalks; Parking will only be allowed on one side of the street. This side shall be opposite the side upon which mailboxes are placed; No parking shall be allowed on common areas. 4) Signs will be placed indicating no parking on one side of the street. 5) Access will be limited. Lot 19 will only be allowed to access Willowbrook. Lots 20 and 21 will only be allowed to access Evening Shade. 6) Approval of this preliminary plat shall not constitute approval of the individual site plan for the condominiums. This will be reviewed at the time of building permit. 7) Payment of $27,225 for 121 trees at $225 each or the amount of an approved bid which includes materials and installation in order to meet the tree mitigation requirement. 8) A detailed study is required for the Zone A floodplain pursuant to the Flood Damage Prevention Code of the City of Fayetteville prior to final plat submittal. This study shall encompass the area from Sang to Porter. FEMA acceptance of the study will be required prior to filing the final plat. 9) All lots will be required to have 6,000 square feet outside of the floodplain. Compliance will be determined at the time of final plat submittal. 10) All trees, hedges and fences as required by the Bill of Assurance shall be required to be installed along the property lines prior to final plat approval. 11) Planning Commission determination of required offsite street improvements. Staff is recommending that Deane Street, Sang and Porter be widened 14 feet from centerline to include curb, gutter, and storm drainage. 12) Planning Commission determination of required offsite drainage improvements. Staff is recommending that the existing culvert immediately downstream of the development be upgraded to accommodate the 100 -year storm without flooding the properties along Linda Jo Place. The channel flowing to this culvert shall be improved to the downstream property line of the existing subdivision. The developer can request that the City cost -share for these offsite improvements. This request needs to be made to the City Council. If the City is unable to contribute its share of the offsite costs, the Planning Commission November 25, 2002 Page 15 developer shall have the option of a) building the offsite improvements at his own expense, b) providing retention so as to match downstream capacities, or c) delaying the project until the City is able to share in the offsite costs. See attached memo from Engineering. 13) Access for lots 1, 10, 12, 22, and 34 will be limited to interior streets only. 14) Access to Deane shall be limited to a single driveway for each lot not to exceed 24 feet in width. 15) All driveways are limited to 24 feet in width. Amended.: Each unit is limited to a maximum 18 foot drive. Shared drives will be allowed to be 36 feet wide. Single drives will be limited to 18 feet wide. This is order to allow for on-site parking of two cars outside of the garage, while limiting the amount of impervious surface. 16) Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives. 17) 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. 18) Payment of parks fees in the amount of $47,725 (5 @ $470 and 121 @ $375). 19) Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum six foot sidewalk with a ten foot greenspace along Porter and Deane and a minimum six foot sidewalk with a minimum five foot greenspace along Sang, Skyler Drive, Evening Shade, and Willow Brook Drive if streets are constructed to be 28 feet wide. If a street is constructed to 36 feet wide, a five foot sidewalk with a one foot greenspace is required. 20) Preliminary Plat shall be valid for one calendar year. 21) Prior to signing the final plat the following is required: a. Project Disk with all final revisions b. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by .158.01 SGuarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements. to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Final layer of pavement and sidewalks are the only items which may be guaranteed. All completed improvements will be verified by the City Engineering office and shall include monuments, lot stakes, curbs and gutters, storm drainage, culverts and bridges, water supply, sanitary sewer system, and street lights. Pursuant to §166.03.E Sidewalks must be installed prior to final plat approval. Sidewalks will be allowed to be guaranteed by money in a city escrow account only and with a contract that will require total installation by the time that one half of the lots have received permits. c. Payment of parks fees and or receipt of signed deed. One original signed deed shall be provided to the Parks Division and one original shall be recorded by the developer with the final plat. When the deed is filed a file marked copy shall be provided to the Parks Division. d. All street lights are required to be installed prior to signing the final plat. Proof of payment by certified check to the electric company for installation and materials with a receipt is required if not installed. e. Payment for tree mitigation. Dave, do you have a presentation or would you like to respond to this? Planning Commission November 25, 2002 Page 16 Jorgensen: Well, as Sara mentioned, we have not signed the conditions. Because this was an eleventh hour type of thing we were trying to work out the details right up to 4:00 this afternoon or 3:30 or something like that. I would like the owners to comment if they have any questions or anything like that. As far as I know, I think that we have got most of this worked out. Jim Crouch is here to represent the owners. Crouch: The one thing that I guess we would like to visit with you about is the offsite drainage situation. The position of the developer is that the problem, if there is one, which is in this area down here on the left side of the plat was created by two things. One is that whoever developed that, and I believe it is multi -family residential, didn't properly engineer it so there is apparently a drainage issue there now. There is also some floor levels that are below the proper flood level. Those issues were created by someone other than the developer. Dave can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the position of the engineers and the developer is that what we have planned in the way of drainage for this subdivision will not have a negative impact on those downstream neighbors. Granted, it is not going to improve their situation but we don't feel like we should have the burden of having to correct their situation which we didn't create. If it doesn't have a negative impact then we just don't feel like we ought to have to do much. There have been some discussions about sharing that. That sort of leaves so much uncertainty that we would like for you to consider not making the developer have to pay for offsite improvements which are the drainage issues. Aviles: You are referring to item 12 and saying that your client is not willing to contribute at all to the offsite? Crouch: I am saying that we would like to have some give and take on that. Aviles: What disturbs me at this point is this is what amounts to committee work and I don't know that the Planning Commission is capable at this eleventh hour, as you say, of deciding something like this without either denying the Preliminary Plat or tabling it or just requiring it and sending it on up the ladder. Commissioners, you are welcome to weigh in on this with me. Estes: Casey: As I study Mr. Casey's memo and perhaps Engineering can correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to clearly state that this proposed subdivision is going to have an adverse impact on the downstream property and that is the reason for condition number 12. Am I mistaken? Did I misread the memo? No, you are correct. That is what I was stating in the memo. The developer is proposing detention and what that does is limit the peak flow of the onsite water. Normally that is good enough but we have got a problem directly down stream of this. What it does not limit is the quantity of water that is going through and also Planning Commission November 25, 2002 Page 17 Ward: Jorgensen: Ward: Crouch: Jorgensen: Aviles: Crouch: Aviles: Estes: Whitaker: MOTION: Estes: the frequency of the flooding and that is the reason that we have requested that these offsite improvements be made. I don't know if Dave can handle it or Matt, what kind of cost are you talking about as far as this offsite improvement? Do you have any idea at all? I did a real rough estimate. We don't know exactly what it is going to take to make these improvements. It is going to take a lot of hydraulic studying but I think $20,000 to $25,000. We are talking about at the very least a concrete shell at the bottom of an improved Swale/ditch leaving from our project over to the cul-de-sac and then improved drainage under the cul-de-sac which means soft cut and install new bigger pipes and repair of that and then the same thing on the west side of the cul-de-sac. I did a quick estimate on that and it could be maybe only $15,000 to $18,000, I would say a maximum $25,000 or something like that. If we approve this here you still have the option of taking it to the City Council and requesting a contribution. We would like that option. I understand that there is maybe not just one place but maybe even further downstream past this neighborhood that there potentially could be a problem and I guess that we just need to know that there is an end to it somewhere. I don't know if your study addresses that or not. We just went up to Porter Road. Thanks. Do you have anything else to add before I take public comment? I would add that we would like to have your vote tonight and not have it tabled. I think that is understood. Is there any member of the public that would wish to address us on this Preliminary Plat? Seeing none, I will go ahead and bring it to the applicants and the Commission for further discussion and motions. Would our City Attorney please comment on condition of approval one being that we forwarded the companion administrative item. The way I have marked that condition of approval one it should read "Approval shall be subject to the associated Bill of Assurance being amended by the City Council." That would probably be the best way to do it, just plain and simply like that. Your motion and the affirmative vote was to forward without recommendation. With that said, I would move for approval of PPL 02-17.00 subject to all conditions of approval with condition of approval number one being amended to read approval Planning Commission November 25, 2002 Page 18 shall be subject to the associated Bill of Assurance being amended by the City Council. Aviles: Thank you. I have a motion for approval by Commissioner Estes, do I hear a second? Ward: Second. Aviles: Is there further discussion? Allen: Commissioner Estes, does that include condition number 12 as stated? Estes: That would include condition number 12 as written and we have a supplement that has been provided to us this evening and I am working off of that. I am not working off of what was given to us at agenda, I am working off the supplement that was presented to us this evening. Aviles: I would like to comment on condition number 12. I am usually uncomfortable with approving something that is not really nailed down but as I read the wording in this it looks to me that in any case that this would have to go to the City Council and I can assume that these items could be worked out before you have the City Council meeting on the administrative change to the Bill of Assurance. Dave, can you address that? Jorgensen: Probably not. We have got a lot of drainage calculations to do and I don't think that we will have time to determine what will be necessary. We will try to. Aviles: Bearing in mind that this is a Preliminary Plat, I guess that is the other thing that would give me reason to say I could rely on your expertise to go ahead and get it solved before we get to the next major step in the road I guess is what I am trying to say. Jorgensen: Naturally we have to do all of the construction plans, calculations, complete finalized drainage report, submit it to Engineering for review and at that time we will know exactly what needs to be done and approach the City Council at that time for cost sharing if we go in that direction. Aviles: Thank you very much. Commissioners, is there any further discussion? Shackelford: The motion is off of the new conditions as presented so that picks up the amendments for the street widths, parking lots, and all of that without any further statements correct? Estes: That is correct. Planning Commission November 25, 2002 Page 19 Aviles: Is there anyone else? I have a motion and a second. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 02-17.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Aviles: Thank you Renee. The motion carries unanimously. Planning Commission November 25, 2002 Page 20 LSD 02-27.00 (1006): Large Scale Development (PJT Development, pp 435) was submitted by Glenn Carter of Carter Consulting on behalf of Bobby Hatfield of PJT Development for property located at the southeast corner of Wedington Drive and Double Springs Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 5.51 acres with four retail buildings proposed. Aviles: Item six on our agenda this evening is a Large Scale Development which was submitted by Glenn Carter of Carter Consulting on behalf of Bobby Hatfield and PJT Development for property located at the southeast corner of Wedington Drive and Double Springs Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 5.51 acres with four retail buildings proposed. There are eleven conditions of approval. Conditions seven through eleven are standard. Sara, do we have signed conditions? Edwards: We do not. Aviles: Thanks. Would you give us the staff report please? Edwards: The proposal is for four retail buildings with 121 parking spaces. There is right of way being dedicated and street improvements along Double Springs proposed. I would like to draw your attention to condition number one, that is Planning Commission approval of Commercial Design Standards. We are recommending that the proposed metal walls be altered to match the other walls on the building. You should have elevations in your packet as well. Condition three is that the aisle width between building with one and two be 24' with landscaping added along the buildings. Aviles: I am going to go ahead and read the conditions of approval for the record. 1) Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards. The applicant is proposing split -face block, dryvit and metal walls with a metal roof. Staff recommends that the elevations be revised to replace the metal walls with dryvit and split -face block and to add articulation with windows along the north and east side of building one and the west side of building two. 2) Planning Commission determination of required off-site improvements. Staff is recommending that Double Springs road be widened to 14 feet from centerline with curb, gutter, and storm drainage adjacent to the site. 3) The plat shall be amended to reduce the 30 foot drive aisle between buildings 1 and 2 to 24 feet and add 3 feet of landscaping between the paved aisle and each building. 4) Commercial Design Standards for buildings 3 and 4 must be approved by the Planning Commission. At such time Phase II is developed, elevations must be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. 5) All utility equipment shall be screened. 6) All public improvements shall be constructed with Phase I. No temporary or final occupancy will be issued until improvements are completed. 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) Planning Commission November 25, 2002 Page 21 Carter: 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 -is current requirements. 9) Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum six foot sidewalk and ten foot greenspace along Wedington and Double Springs Road. 10) Large scale development shall be valid for one calendar year. Second phase must be permitted within one year. Permit will be valid for three months only if construction ceases. 11) Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits; b. Separate easement plat for this project that shall include the tree preservation area; 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 • Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; e. Parks fees paid and/or deed recorded and copy received. Is the applicant present? I am Glenn Carter with Carter Consulting and we agree to most of the conditions of approval. Sara asked me to redraw the plan and show the 24' aisle between buildings one and two with some landscaping so that is what you just got passed out to you there. We certainly don't have any problem with that at all. We felt that the additional landscaping would help to screen the metal walls there that we have. Of course, she is asking for dryvit on those interior walls. We don't feel that that is necessary because we feel like that it wouldn't be in view from any side. It is between two buildings but we will certainly listen to your comments on that and will work with you any way we can. We do intend to complete the grading for the entire site and all of the drainage improvements for the entire site with this Phase I development so that the drainage will be fully functional at the end of Phase I and it wouldn't be waiting around for a long time to become functional. Other than that, we know that we have some offsite improvements for sewer and street improvements for Double Springs and are willing to do that and I would be glad to answer any questions about that. Aviles: Ok, thank you very much Mr. Carter. Is there any member of the audience that would like to address us on this Large Scale Development? Seeing no one, I will go ahead and return discussion to the applicant and to the Commissioners. Hoover: Can the applicant label which buildings these are on the elevations? Carter: Ok. Building "A" is the building at the northwest corner of the site. Hoover: That is which number? Carter: 1 is "A" and 2 is "B". Planning Commission November 25, 2002 Page 22 Hoover: Are these repeats? Edwards: They revised elevations so please use the later date. Hoover: What is 3? Carter: These are future development and we don't have any elevations for that. Aviles: Those are coming to us later as Phase II. Carter: Does that make better sense? Hoover: Yes. Ward: Glenn, why don't you go ahead and go over building "A" and building "B". Give us an idea of colors, types of materials, etc. I think the main thing is the commercial design standards. Carter: Building "A" on your drawing is building one. We intend to use this beige material here that is a dryvit material. Then, we plan to have these little gables. I don't know if that is a dryvit or not but it is a different color and it is not a metal. The metal on the roof is green and that is this metal here. The metal on the two interior sides that we were wanting to use is the same metal with a beige color here and that can be seen here between these doors. We have overhead doors on building "B" or building two in your plan there for delivery use or whatever use the occupant might want. There will be a driveway between the two buildings with a 24' asphalt driveway between there. We will have some split faced block along the bottom edge of this with some columns to try to articulate that and to try to break that pattern up a little bit. Ward: Is there a big difference in cost between the dryvit and metal for that side? Carter: I think there is. I don't have numbers for you now. It will be placed on top of the metal, it will be in addition to the metal. Ward: Ok, thanks. Aviles: Have you considered of possibly adding a band of either split faced block or dryvit along the bottom of the metal facades to split the difference sort of deal? It is not something I could require but possibly suggest. Carter: Sure. I don't think that the developer would have a problem with that. Planning Commission November 25, 2002 Page 23 Ward: Carter: This property is not in the Overlay District so it is quite a ways further out west. I think with all of the additional landscaping most of it will be hid so I don't think we want the metal to be seen by the public driving by and if you could break that up a little bit with some different materials or colors or something that would be real helpful. Ok. We did come back on each side of this building some. We will do some additional landscaping that you don't see here. I will get with him to see what we can do to try to break that up some more. Aviles: That is something that you can coordinate with staff members following Planning Commission? Carter: Sure. We will submit some revisions and we will take your comments. Edwards: I just want to be clear if you are recommending that the metal be allowed to stay with some additional elements added or if you are recommending that the metal be removed and just dryvit added. Aviles: I think my comments had to do with allowing the metal to remain but with a band along the bottom but with a band that is not metal, it is like split faced block or dryvit, one or the other. Commissioner Bunch? Bunch: Could you give us a proposed rundown of the proposed landscaping along the driveway between buildings one and two? Carter: What we propose, the space is not very large and I don't really think it will support very large trees so we have shrubs planted along there. Our plans are to plant shrubs between these doors on each side and between the doors here just to try to do something with that green space there to add a little green to it. I don't have a species yet. Bunch: Another question is what type of density we are looking at and height and that sort of thing. Carter: We could do a continuous planting. Although, I think a continuous planting would be almost like a solid band of paint or something. I think maybe we can break it up and try to find some different species and mix the species and come up with an arrangement between each of these that would look better than just a straight continuous planting of one type, one size, one color. Bunch: A suggestion was made earlier about using split faced block for a border around that and my question about the landscaping was to see if we are putting you in double jeopardy with spending the money to put the split faced block in and then putting landscaping in that would actually hide it. Planning Commission November 25, 2002 Page 24 Carter: That is true. If we do a continuous planting we will hide the split faced block there. Bunch: What is the clear span between the buildings? On the drawing it looks like it is about 35' scaling off between the buildings and what I was looking at is the east side of building one and the west side of building two. There is a return, so to speak, of the theme from the front that extends a certain way down the side and I am trying to look at the angles to see if the line of sight, if that would more or less be the extent of the line of sight to someone driving by. Carter: That was kind of our thought that it would do that and that is why we wrapped that around for that distance. It was thought by the owner that participated in the design that that would be all that would be seen. I understand the concern about bare metal and we are willing to address that. I do think if we put a row of shrubs and a row of split faced block that would just kind of defeat the purpose here. I think we should do one or the other, not necessarily both. Bunch: Can you tell us how far back that wrap around extends? Carter: I don't know. I just don't have dimensions on that right now. Ostner: If we are doubling up the lower half with these long sight lines a few small trees at the front would not cover the new brick and would be visually higher, like red buds or any other kind of small tree, would be 6' to however tall you want to let them. Two or three up near the front would probably cut those sight lines as Commissioner Bunch was talking about on both sides because it is so narrow. Bunch: Would you want evergreens? Ostner: Probably if that is what is going on. Shackelford: Of course then you are going to hide the wrap around from the front of the building and you are kind of defeating the purpose of the wrap around on the building by doing that. Aviles: I don't think that would defeat that purpose. Carter: Are you saying maybe an island? Ostner: I am talking about inside this area, basically right up at the front as close as you could get them. I am not sure about these elevations but right where the first two or three shrubs are on either side at the end of the wrap around. Not in front of the wrap around but right where these are because they are placed where they ought to be. It is just an idea, I don't know how that would interfere with trucks, I don't think it would. Planning Commission November 25, 2002 Page 25 Carter: I don't think it would. I think that is a good idea. Aviles: Let me remind the applicant and the Commissioners that the Commercial Design Standards are only minimum requirements that we are trying to address and anything that you do to exceed those is greatly appreciated. Carter: We want to make it look good. If you guys have any suggestions we will take them. We are going to be paying for some landscaping and we want it to look good anyway. Aviles: Does anybody want to turn these comments into a motion? MOTION: Ward: I will go ahead and recommend that we approve LSD 02-27.00 for property out on the southeast corner of Wedington Drive and Double Springs Road. We have eleven conditions of approval and with that we would allow the metal on the back of the two buildings with, to be honest about it, I am going to go along with the idea of block or some other material to try to break that up. I think it needs to be something like that along the back of both of those buildings and I think Alan's idea of putting landscape in there is very good if you can work it in without a whole lot of cost. There is nothing wrong with having beautiful real estate and it makes everyone's property values better and rents go higher and everything else. I think that takes in all of the conditions that we have to approve with all eleven conditions but allowing the metal with some addition of some split faced block. Aviles: Do you want to just say that the applicant is to work out some landscaping to be small trees? Ward: I think that the developer and the city staff can come up with something. I think Kim Hesse would have more expertise on that than I would or anyone on the Commission so I would rather have our Landscape Administrator work something out as far as hiding some of that unless you all have a better idea. Shackelford: A clarification on the motion. You are saying that you are wanting to require a split faced block on the east side of building one and the west side of building two as well as additional landscaping, is that correct? Ward: That is correct. Shackelford: I will second the motion. Aviles: I have a second by Commissioner Shackelford, is there additional discussion? Planning Commission November 25, 2002 Page 26 Bunch: A question for the motioner. That does more or less direct the applicant to work with the staff to basically come up with a design that reflects the tenor of the comments that were made tonight? Ward: Yes. Aviles: Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 02-27.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Aviles: Thank you Renee. The motion carries unanimously. Thank you Mr. Carter. Planning Commission November 25, 2002 Page 27 CUP 02-26.10: Conditional Use (Childs, pp 566) was submitted by Mac Childs for property located at 2220 E. Huntsville Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.93 acres. The request is to rehear the sidewalk conditions. Aviles: The seventh item on our agenda is CUP 02-26.00 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, which is a Use Unit 2, city wide uses by Conditional Use permit in a R-1 District. There are eight conditions of approval. Sara, do we have signed conditions? Edwards: We do not. Aviles: Ok, thanks. Could you give us a staff report please? Edwards: This is for a plant nursery. You heard this Conditional Use back in September. After further review the applicant has requested that we rehear this Conditional Use in order to amend condition number four and not to require a sidewalk at this time. Based on the Master Street Plan where the sidewalk would be required it would run through an existing parking lot and the improvements that they are proposing would not require a parking lot upgrade at this time so the end result would be people parking on the sidewalk and we didn't think that would be beneficial. Chuck Rutherford, our Sidewalk Administrator is here if you have any questions. Aviles: Thank you very much. I will go ahead and read in the conditions of approval and then we will hear from the applicant. 1) A sign permit is required 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 north, east, and west property lines. 4) Install a Portland Cement Concrete driveway approaching the 6' wide sidewalk prior to occupancy. 5) Sidewalks shall be continuous through driveway approach. This was an amended condition the waiver of condition number four until such time that the property redevelops in a manner that will require parking lot improvements. 6) Dumpsters located on the property shall be properly screened in a location to be reviewed by Planning and Solid Waste. 7) Compliance with Building Safety and Fire Department inspection requirements. 8) Conditional Use shall expire one year from approval date if no action has been taken to implement the Conditional Use. 9) Landscaping between the parking area and single-family residents to the west to be approved by the Landscape Administrator. Mr. Rutherford, do you want to add anything to this about item four on the sidewalks? Rutherford: Sara did a very good job of explaining what is going on out there. After this Conditional Use was finalized and completely approved basically there were no improvements required for this project. The building is existing and the setbacks and yard requirements are legally non -conforming and the applicant is not Planning Commission November 25, 2002 Page 28 Aviles: Rutherford: Aviles: MOTION: Estes: Bunch: Aviles: proposing expansion or addition to the structure at this time. Therefore, if the sidewalk is built to the right of way lines to match the Master Street Plan it will be within 20' of the front of the building and that is where the parking is now. The parking would happen on the sidewalk. At some point in time I think that this property will develop, they will do improvements and it is required in the Conditional Use that they go back to the Planning Division for any improvements so we will have the opportunity then to ask for sidewalks when the development happens. Just to clarify, since this is a Conditional Use we do not need to require the money in lieu of the sidewalk at this time until it is redeveloped? That is correct. Is the applicant present? Ok, is there any member of the public that would like to address us on this Conditional Use? Seeing none, I will go ahead and bring it back to the Commission for discussion and motions. Based upon staff's report I would move for approval of CUP 02-26.00. Second. There is a motion by Commissioner Estes and a second by Commissioner Bunch. Is there any additional discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 02-26.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission November 25, 2002 Page 29 CUP 02-31.00: Conditional Use (L & E Equity, pp 177) was submitted by Dale Carlton on behalf of L & E Equity LLC for property located at 27 E. Millennium Dr. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 0.97 acres. The request is for 10 additional parking spaces. Aviles: The eighth item on our agenda this evening is also a Conditional Use submitted by Dale Carlton on behalf of L&E Equity for property located at 2744 E. Millennium Drive. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 0.97 acres. The request is for ten additional parking spaces. There are three conditions of approval. Dawn, do we have signed conditions? Warrick: I do not. Aviles: I will go ahead and read those. 1) The dumpsters shall be screened. 2) Provide two bike racks as required by § 172.03. 3) Install a landscape island with one tree along the eastern perimeter of the parking lot to break up the expanse of parking spaces. The landscape island shall be compliant with §172.01(f) parking lot landscaping requirements. Dawn, do you have the staff report for us? Warrick: Sure. This property is located in the Millennium Subdivision, which is a commercial subdivision on Joyce Blvd. at Crossover. The building permit for this development was issued September 18th so it is under construction. It is in the process of erecting the 9,206 sq.ft. building. The site plan that was approved with the building permit allocated 37 parking spaces for this project and according to the calculations under the parking lot ordinance the maximum number of spaces permitted would be 40 and the applicant is proposing an addition of 10 spaces which does require a Conditional Use because it is greater than the 30% which is permitted by the applicant to go over the minimum. Staff is recommending in favor of this request because the proposed new parking spaces will not result in additional pavement. The way that this project was laid out with the original building permit provides for enough area for part of the parking area to be re -striped, originally proposed parallel spaces will be striped to be 90° spaces and that change accommodates the additional parking that is being requested under this Conditional Use. This also will not change the circulation pattern. The required 24' drive aisle will be retained and the proposed parking will be standard by our parking lot ordinance. One change to the information that you have from the agenda session is a memo that was distributed this evening from Kim Hesse, the City's Landscape Administrator. That is with regard to condition number three on this Conditional Use report. This memo from Ms. Hesse states that she has worked with the applicants with regard to the installation of a landscaped island which was originally staff's recommendation for item number three, to remove some of the existing pavement to provide a landscaped island to break up some of those new proposed parking spaces. A waiver has been requested to that and Ms. Hesse has reviewed it and she states in her memo that to compensate for that variance for the parking lot landscape requirements she would recommend that five additional trees Planning Commission November 25, 2002 Page 30 be required within the right of way of Millennium Drive and that those trees, as well as the species of trees placed on 30' intervals adjacent to the property would need to be approved by her. The trees would need to be a hardwood species with broad, mature canopy. The additional five trees are to be placed in the 6' green space that exists between the curb and the sidewalk and those would have to be approved by her. Her intent in making this recommendation is that the reason for breaking up the parking areas with landscaped islands is of course to break up the pavement and to provide a space to allow for trees to shade the parking areas. Her memo states that this could be accomplished with this solution as opposed to actually breaking out some existing pavement. Aviles: Dawn, thank you. Is the applicant present? Carlton: Thank you very much. I just want to make two or three comments, one for clarification for me as much as each of you. We are asking for twelve additional parking spaces to what was actually submitted in Large Scale but it is only 10 more than what is allowed. I think the wording is a little confusing because I want to make sure you understand that we are asking for 12 more than what we requested in Large Scale but it is 10 more than what is allowed. Aviles: It is a total of 50 though? Carlton: Yes. The only thing that is notable, the reason we are doing this is because the whole area of Millennium has an abundance of parking space and we are trying to avoid the on street parking that we are scared is fixing to happen with the fill out of the whole area. We are going to make these extra parking spaces common area parking spaces within the subdivision so that they can be used by anybody to avoid that extra overflow of parking and also keep flow because we are noticing that there is some flow through between Crossover to Joyce when the stop light is backed up and we are trying to keep the streets clear there. I think a lot of people are using that as a cut through. The other thing is mainly that we are not changing anything but the way we are striping. We did have five parallel parking spaces and we are just 90° angling them. Ms. Hesse said she would come out and show us where to plant the trees. We are going to let her do all of that and show us right where to put them so we are not changing anything other than the way we are striping the parking lot and then adding trees so that it will help shade the parking lot a little bit more. Nothing else has really been changed. I would be glad to answer any other questions you might have. Aviles: Can you tell us your name please? Carlton: Dale Carlton. Planning Commission November 25, 2002 Page 31 Aviles: Thank you. Is there any member of the public that would like to address us on this Conditional Use? Seeing no one, I will go ahead and bring it back to the applicant and to the Commissioners for discussion or motions. MOTION: Shackelford: Based on staff comments and the memo from Kim Hesse, I will make a motion that we approve CUP 02-31.00 with the items one and two conditions of approval to be left in and item three omitted. Aviles: Does your motion include the addition of the Landscape Administrator's memo as condition number three? Shackelford: Yes, the agreement as outlined by Kim Hesse. Aviles: Thanks Commissioner Shackelford. Ostner: Has an architect or an engineer looked at this? Carlton: Yes, it was designed by an architect and an engineer. We have actually had a number of engineers look at it because we ended up having to put a floodwall up and some other things too. Ostner: Has the engineer or someone looked at the re -striping situation? Carlton: Yes. If you will look at the back two pages of your packet, one of them shows it with it and one shows without it. The original one, the one with the additional 12 spaces was the original design by the engineers but because of Large Scale Development requirements we reduced it down to make it an administrative issue as far as adding the spaces. The original plan was with the full spaces. That is the reason why those parallel spaces show they are 30' parallel spaces. Obviously, they wouldn't be in 30' increments, there is 150' across there and we allowed for five 30' spots. Warrick: In measuring those off there was more than sufficient width for more than a parallel space as well, which is why there is enough depth for it to be a 90° stall without adding pavement. Ostner: Just from visually, without measuring, it looked like you were going to get in trouble. Carlton: It throws you off. Warrick: If you measure it out there is adequate pavement to change it. Planning Commission November 25, 2002 Page 32 Hoover: When you measure it out at the site because adding the numbers it doesn't add up. Warrick: That is because the lines don't meet. The 13' is not measured at the same point as the 24' coming from the other side. Hoover: Originally where the parallel parking is had how much space? Warrick: About 17 IA'. Hoover: Ok. Warrick: Which is the depth of a parking stall with 2' of overhang, which is permitted, 17'. Aviles: The next time we probably ought to get a better site plan but I think I understand. Carlton: The confusion came from the change before we sent it through Large Scale. Our first permit, we just changed it in the eleventh hour basically and added those five parallel spots and that shows the confusion. If you would've seen it originally with the parking spaces you wouldn't have the confusion. Bunch: I will second. Aviles: We have a second by Commissioner Bunch. I would like to do a little clarification. Does the motion and the second include item number three which is the substance of Kim Hesse's memo? Shackelford: If that is the way we need to do it, yes. Item number three would state the substance of the memo in exchange for eliminating the requirement for the landscaped island. Aviles: Thank you Commissioner. Is there any additional discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 02-31.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Aviles: Thanks Renee. The motion carries unanimously. Planning Commission November 25, 2002 Page 33 RZN 02-39.00: Rezoning (Eldridge, pp 484) was submitted by Tim deNoble on behalf of John Eldridge, III for property located at 210 N. East Avenue. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 0.70 acres. The request is to rezone to C-3, Central Commercial. Aviles: Item nine on our agenda is RZN 02-39.00, which is a rezoning submitted by Tim DeNoble on behalf of John Eldridge, III for property located at 210 N. East Avenue. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 0.70 acres. The request is to rezone to C-3, Central Commercial. Dawn, can you give us a staff report? Hoover: Madam Chair, I need to recuse from this. Aviles: Thanks Commissioner Hoover. Warrick: This project site is located at 210 N. East Avenue. It is the site of an existing 6,984 sq.ft. office building. The surrounding area is a mixture of residential and commercial uses. Surrounding zoning includes Commercial as well as Residential Office. Some other rezonings in the immediate area that have been considered within the past 10 years we have rezoned from R -O to C-3 projects located at both 323 W. Spring and 509 W. Spring. That is the same type request that we are looking at now, a rezoning from Residential Office to C-3, Central Commercial. Staff is recommending approval of the requested rezoning. It is appropriate that it be rezoned in a similar fashion to surrounding zonings which are predominantly Commercial or C-3. It is also consistent with the General Plan Future Land Use Plan, which designates this area as Historic Commercial. Aviles: Thank you Dawn. Is the applicant present? DeNoble: I am Tim DeNoble, I am John Eldridge's representative. Aviles: Do you have a presentation that you would like to make? DeNoble: I think I will just answer questions. At this point we are merely in the planning phase of ultimately changing this from a commercial building to townhouses downtown. Aviles: Thank you Mr. DeNoble. Is there any member of the audience that would like to address us on this rezoning? I will bring it back to the applicant and to the Commission for discussion. MOTION: Estes: The proposed rezoning is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan, in addition it would provide a mixed use in the Historic Downtown Commercial District which is Planning Commission November 25, 2002 Page 34 consistent with our Land Use Plan. Based upon those comments and staff's report I would move that we approve RZN 02-39.00 and forward it to the City Council for Council's consideration. Aviles: Thank you Commissioner Estes. I have a motion, do I hear a second? Shackelford: I will second. Aviles: There is a second by Commissioner Shackelford. Is there any additional discussion? Bunch: I have a question for the applicant. Tim, are you looking at having a lot split in the future for the lower portion that is now the gravel lot? What is your preliminary plan on this? DeNoble: The rezoning is probably more about that lot in the future which is currently part of the same property. Ultimately we would like to do townhouses at that point as well and a 5' setback is much more conducive to that. At the point we would have to come and ask for a Variance under the R -O so we could build the townhouses closer to the street so that is why we are requesting this rezoning now. Bunch: You are looking at converting the existing building into townhouses and probably utilizing 15 parking spaces on the asphalt area of the upper elevation from East Avenue? DeNoble: Correct, I believe if I am not mistaken there are more than 15, we are closer to 20 spaces there now. Bunch: 15 off street but you are looking at potential future development of the lower gravel lot? DeNoble: Right. Parking for those would be on that lot as well. In fact, the number of units on that lot is limited by the amount of parking you would be able to get on it. It would probably be somewhere in the neighborhood of 40. Aviles: Thank you. Is there any additional discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval by the City Council of RZN 02-39.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Aviles: The motion carries unanimously. Planning Commission November 25, 2002 Page 35 RZN 02-40.00: Rezoning (Slone, pp 252) was submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull, and Associates on behalf of David Slone for property located behind 3195 N. College. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural, C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 8.84 acres. The request is to rezone to RMF -18, Medium Density Multi - Family Residential. Aviles: The last item on our agenda this evening is RZN 02-40.00 which is a rezoning submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of David Slone for property located behind 3195 N. College. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural, C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 8.84 acres. The request is to rezone to RMF -18, Medium Density Multi -Family Residential. Dawn, do you have the staff report? Warrick: Yes Ma'am. The subject property is vacant land. It is located behind the Fazoli's Restaurant and Mitsubishi dealership on the west side of College Avenue. The applicant is proposing a multi -family development with a maximum of 156 units. In order to implement this proposal the property would need to be zoned to permit approximately 18 units per acre. The request is to rezone the existing property which is a mixture of A-1, R-1, and C-2 districts to the RMF -18 zoning district to permit a proposed multi -family development. The rezoning is not necessarily consistent with the Future Land Use Plan because the area is designated to be Community Commercial for this area. However, the proposal does meet many of the policies for residential areas, which is the zoning that is being requested. It uses existing infrastructure to serve the development, it is accessible to a major thoroughfare, it is near community amenities and goods and services, and it serves as a transition use between existing commercial the east and residential to the west. Additionally, it may be impractical for any uses under its current designation. Since the C-2 portion is not located directly on the major thoroughfare it may not be desirable for commercial businesses. Agriculture and Single -Family residential uses are not appropriate at the location based on existing surrounding land uses, which are commercial and predominantly car dealerships. Staff is recommending in favor of the requested rezoning. Aviles: Thanks. Dawn, I wonder if you could address us about the memo that Shelli put together. At agenda session we had asked for additional information concerning the amount of commercial zoning available for use as a tax base to the city and where we are with relation to that and the 2020 Plan. Warrick: The bulk of the memo describes some recent actions with regard to rezonings going from residential to commercial and vice versa. That is the table on the front page that basically describes that in 2001 and 2002 to date, basically the last two years, the Planning Commission has recommended and Council has rezoned approximately 73 acres from Commercial to Residential Districts. Going from Residential to Commercial we have looked at rezoning approximately 53 acres so there is a net gain of about 20 acres of Residential in those types of actions that Planning Commission November 25, 2002 Page 36 have been seen by the Planning Commission and Council in the last two years. Beyond that, there is some information taken directly out of the General Plan that describes the Future Land Use Map, the calculations and existing developed areas. Those figures that are reflected for developed areas are based on the 1995 figures because we have not done a land use land cover study since then to get you very accurate specifics, square footages or ratios with regard to the breakouts and different types of land uses. Aviles: Let me make sure that I am interpreting this correctly, just to make sure that we are not eroding our Commercial zoning. Basically our 1995 information has placed 35% of the land to be zoned Commercial by the year 2020? Warrick: Right. Aviles: Thank you very much. Is the applicant present? Would you please come forward and tell us your name? Kelso: Jerry Kelso with Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of the owner of the property, David Slone. I would like to give a brief presentation if I may. I have put together a map here of the local area and the existing zonings that are currently there. Here is North College, here is Longview and Plainview. Our property that we are looking at rezoning is what you see in the heavy dashed line right there. As you can see, most of the property right now is zoned R-1, a little bit of A-1 and a little bit of C-2 down here at the bottom. What we are asking for is to zone this to Multi -Family, RMF -18. What that would allow would be a good transition from a C-2 back to the R-1 that is existing right now. It would be impractical, in our opinion, that a C-2, Commercial venture go back here because of the fact that the existing businesses are established along North College at this time with Fazoli's, Mitsubishi. Therefore, this property does not have direct frontage to College so it would be tough for a commercial venture to go in there. Along with that, typically you don't have commercial right next to residential, and this area is residential. Vice versa, keeping it all residential in this particular area, you are right next to Commercial. Therefore, with the transition, with a good mixed use in this area we would ask that we get your recommendation for approval of this project to the City Council. Aviles: Thank you very much. Is there any member of the public that would like to address us on this rezoning? Armstrong: I am Mike Armstrong. We have adjoining property on the west and the north, where are your exits and outlets going to be? Kelso: What we plan on is having one access to North College. David Slone does own the Mitsubishi dealership and owns that property so we will have an access to North College. We will also have an access to Plainview which will of course direct access from that to Millsap so we will have two access points. Planning Commission November 25, 2002 Page 37 Armstrong: Kelso: Armstrong: Aviles: MOTION: Ward: Aviles: Shackelford: Aviles: Estes: Aviles: Roll Call: Aviles: You are aware that Plainview is basically a non-existent road down there right now and you will have to make several improvements on that? Sure. Those are some things that typically we work out at Large Scale. Thank you. Are there any other questions? Is there anybody else from the audience that would like to address us on this rezoning? Seeing no one, I will go ahead and bring it back to the applicant and to the Commission for discussions and/or motions. I think this is an appropriate use for this particular piece of property. Some of that C-2 land is kind of hid back in there, it is not really appropriate for C-2 anymore. I think the applicant was just parking a lot of cars out there if I remember right so it is probably not appropriate for that either. I move for approval of RZN 02-40.00 for the rezoning and this will be to rezone this to RMF -18, which is a little bit less than R-2. Thank you. I have a motion by Commissioner Ward. I will second. A second by Commissioner Shackelford. Is there additional discussion? I share Mr. Armstrong's concerns but this is a rezoning request, the appropriate time to discuss those concerns will be with the Preliminary Plat and the review process leading up to the approval of the Preliminary Plat but I do share your concerns. I will vote for the motion. Thank you Commissioner Estes. Is there any further discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 02- 40.00 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thanks Renee, the motion carries unanimously. Thank you Mr. Kelso. Is there any additional business before we adjourn? Ok, we will stand adjourned. Meeting adjourned: 7:15 p.m.