Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-07-14 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on July 14, 2003 at 5:30 p.min room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED PPL 03-11.00: Preliminary Plat (The Estates at Salem Hills, pp 205/206) Page 2 LSP 03-43.00: Lot Split (Hoskins/Brookhaven, pp 214) Page 12 LSD 03-17.00: Large Scale Development (Landers Auto Park, pp 248) Page 17 RZN 03-22.00: Rezoning (Pope, pp 136) Page 33 CUP 03-16.00: (Shackelford, pp 558) Page 37 MEMBERS PRESENT Don Bunch Alice Church Alan Ostner Bob Estes Christian Vaught Loren Shackelford Nancy Allen ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved Approved Tabled Approved MEMBERS ABSENT Jill Anthes Sharon Hoover STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Dawn Warrick Matt Casey Jeremy Pate Renee Thomas Planning Commission July 14, 2003 Page 2 PPL 03-11.00: Preliminary Plat (The Estates at Salem Hills, pp 205/206) was submitted by Tomlinson Asphalt Civil Engineering Division on behalf of TTM -LLC (Bud Tomlinson, Gerald Tomlinson and Mark Mahaffey) for property located north of West Salem Road, west of Salem Road and south of the west end of the Howard Nickell R/W on the Master Street Plan. The property is in the county and contains approximately 40.14 acres. The request is for a residential subdivision with 23 lots ranging in size from 1.02 acres to 2.46 acres. Estes: Good evening, welcome to the Monday evening, July 14, 2003 meeting of your Fayetteville Planning Commission. The first item of business is the roll call. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were seven commissioners present with Commissioner Hoover and Commissioner Anthes being absent. Estes: The next order of business would be approval of the minutes. Renee, I do not see the approval of the minutes on the agenda, is there a reason for that? Thomas: None that I'm aware of. Estes: Oh, I see, we have it under the consent agenda, I apologize. The next item of business is the consent agenda, the approval of the minutes from the June 23, 2003 meeting. Are there any changes, modifications, additions or corrections to the minutes? Seeing none, they will be approved. The first item of business is a Preliminary Plat, it is PPL 03-11.00, the Estates at Salem Hills. Jeremy, is this your item? Pate: Yes Sir it is. Estes: Tell us what we need to know about this particular item please. Pate: This proposal is for a Preliminary Plat for an item that is located in the Planning area. It is on West Salem Road, north of West Salem Road, west of Salem Road and south of the west end of Howard Nickell Road. The request is for a residential subdivision with 23 lots ranging in size from 1.02 acres to 2.46 acres. Proposed are individual septic systems for all lots. For those lots with an area of less than one and a half acre county approval is required for those septic systems prior to Planning Commission approval. The right of way being dedicated is Howard Nickell Road which requires 110' of right of way and Salem Road which requires 70' of right of way. The applicant is requesting to amend the Master Street Plan, vacate the existing right of way and dedicate 90' of right of way along Howard Nickell Road through the entire proposed development in a different alignment as indicated on your site plan. Staff Planning Commission July 14, 2003 Page 3 Estes: is in support of this request. The applicant is indicating 60' of right of way for West Salem Road to the south of the site which is compliant with the Master Street Plan. Street improvements proposed along Howard Nickell Road will be to Washington County standards to include a 28' wide street with curb and gutter. All interior streets will likewise be 28' in width and West Salem Road is being paved along the length of the property frontage to the south. Staff is recommending Planning Commission approval at this level. There are nine conditions. I will read over those for you. 1) Prior to Planning Commission approval of the Preliminary Plat a conditional letter of approval for individual septic systems on those lots less than one and one half acre shall be obtained from the county and submitted to the Planning Division for review. That letter is included in your packets and we have reviewed that. 2) Prior to Final Plat approval septic system approvals shall be obtained from the county for those lots having a gross area of less than one and one half acres. A permit for individual septic systems must be granted by the Arkansas Department of Health for each proposed lot in this size category. 3) The lot split decreeing that portion of the property to the west of Howard Nickell Road shall be filed with the county prior to Final Plat approval. 4) Planning Commission consideration and City Council approval for an amendment to the Master Street Plan must be obtained for the proposed Howard Nickell Road alignment. 5) The request for vacation of right of way for the current Howard Nickell Road alignment shall be considered by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council. 6) Access to Howard Nickell Road shall be limited to those lots without frontage onto interior streets. A provision for shared access shall be indicated on the Final Plat for a maximum of five curb cuts onto Howard Nickell Road. 7) The required right of way dedication for Howard Nickell Road, which is 90' and West Salem Road, 30' from centerline shall occur with the Final Plat. 8) Access from Howard Nickell Road shall be provided at the developer's expense to replace the drives of the homes of Dr. Bailey and the home of Dr. Coker. That is all I have, thank you. Thank you Jeremy. Is the applicant or the applicant's representative present? If so, would you come forward please and if you have a presentation please provide us with the benefit of your presentation. Hennelly: Yes Sir, I am Tom Hennelly with Tomlinson Asphalt Company, a Project Engineer. We don't really have a problem with any of the conditions with the exception of some of the wording in condition six. Access to Howard Nickell Road shall be limited to those lots without frontage onto interior streets. We don't really have a problem with that. That would, however, allow for eight curb cuts rather than five and we think that with the size of the lots being an acre and a half with frontage, most of them over 200' and Planning Commission July 14, 2003 Page 4 some of them nearing 300' that for 2,400 feet of road eight curb cuts doesn't seem to be excessive. Everything else we are in compliance with. Estes: Thank you very much. Hennelly: Yes Sir. Estes: Is there any member of the audience who would like to provide us with their comments regarding the requested PPL 03-11.00? Yes Ma'am, if you would please come forward, say your name and provide us with the benefit of your comments. Bell: My name is Kris Bell and I am a resident of the Salem community. I live directly across the street from the proposed subdivision. I want to say that Mr. Tomlinson is a very good neighbor and I am not opposing the subdivision. I am a member of the Fayetteville School Board and I have great concerns with the traffic situation that this proposed plat, in addition to 750 other houses being built within a two mile radius of Holt Middle School and Holcomb Elementary School. It is almost impossible now to access in and off of Mount Comfort to Salem, before you even start building these. We are really concerned about the traffic issues and the safety of our children. I just wish that the Planning Commission and the city would address the infrastructure before they allow more subdivisions because it cannot handle it now. That is my major comment, we need to look at safety. We have no other roads right now for these children to access on. We also have no sidewalks so they cannot get to most of the schools unless they are driven or by a school bus and these are very narrow roads. We have had accidents before with school buses turning over and parents get very anxious, children are saying "I'm going to be late, I'm going to be late, I'm going to be late." They can't get on the streets, they cannot get on Mount Comfort now. I just don't see, unless we build some roads, and I know they are in the plan, but they are in the plan five years out. These schools are almost near capacity now before you even add additional students and they are going to have to be bussed somewhere because they cannot go to Holcomb School pretty soon. Even with the addition that we are putting on two years or three years that school is going to be full and I understand there is another subdivision going with 65 more houses off of Mount Comfort so I don't know where we are going with this. It is fine that we build but we have to do something about the infrastructure first. I don't know if this is the forum for it but it just needs to be addressed. I don't know if you can make comments when you pass this on but it is just impossible. My road right now is dangerous. It is a dirt road, I know it will be paved, but people speed up and down Salem Road and unless there is a four way stop put there somebody is going to get hurt there, it could be a school bus, it could be my child, it could be me, it could be my neighbor. There needs to be Planning Commission July 14, 2003 Page 5 stop lights or a stop sign, a three way stop put at Mount Comfort or at the Holt entrance, somewhere. I talked to a lady from Goosebury and she said I don't know what I'm going to do. I can't get off of Goosebury now before they put the 750 houses because that is 3,000 cars on narrow roads. It is my understanding that Salem Road is considered a minor artery and that Howard Nickell is considered the major. That is crazy. You should see the traffic on that road. I don't know again, if this is the forum, but I want that concern to be brought up when you pass it on. Thank you. Estes: Thank you Kris. Yes Sir, if you would please come forward. Mason: My name is Mike Mason and I am principal of Holt Middle School and I just want to reemphasize what Kris Bell just said. Our concern at Holt of course is not with the subdivisions going in or even with the students, we will handle that as we need to add on or build new buildings. This year I became increasingly concerned with the traffic flow on Mount Comfort and a few mornings I was arriving at school between 7:30 and 8:00, usually I get there at 7:00. I didn't realize what a problem there was between 7:30 and 8:00. There are times where Mount Comfort is backed up for as far as I can see and I don't know how much further beyond the curve or over the hill it goes. That is a problem in that there is so much traffic and we are concerned with all the new houses going in that that is going to continue to get worse. A second concern we have is we have a lot of kids that live in walking distance or biking distance but because there is no shoulder or no sidewalks in that area it is really dangerous and we try to prohibit them from doing that but of course if their parents allow it they can. We are afraid that somebody is going to get hurt and so once again I am kind of like Kris, I don't know if this is the proper forum but we do have a serious concern about our student's safety issues and we would just like to see that addressed. If we can do anything to help you in that we will invite you out or give you what information you need to let you see that we think it is a really dangerous situation that is obviously going to get worse. Thank you. Estes: Thank you Mike. Is there anyone else who would like to provide comment on this requested Preliminary Plat? Goodman: Yes, my name is Debbie Goodman and I own property on Howard Nickell and Hutchinson Lane, which is right close to this development. My concern is the same thing, the traffic. My parents own a place on Howard Nickell and they can't hardly get out of their drive because of all the traffic. The roads out there just won't handle it. All of my life I've lived out there off and on and I've always walked. Now I can't even hardly walk because of the traffic. You get run off the road and everything else. The concern is the traffic. Planning Commission July 14, 2003 Page 6 Estes: Thank you Debbie. Is there anyone else? Let me bring the item back to the applicant and if you would please address some of the concerns that Ms. Bell and Mr. Mason and of course Debbie have raised it would be appreciated. Hennelly: Yes Sir. The only thing I can add to that is that sure enough these twenty three lots will increase the traffic count in that part of town. There is just no denying it. We are however, and I guess it has been the philosophy of the city, that because of the amount of growth that has gone on it is tough for you all to keep up with doing capital improvements to help maintain the situation but also in addition to that because of the growth you also have had hundreds of developers come in that have built millions of dollars worth of infrastructure that they have turned over to the city to help alleviate this problem. I know that the Master Street Plan calls for Howard Nickell Road, at some point when that area is annexed into the city to be a minor arterial, as well as Rupple Road's continuation all the way down to Mount Comfort, which will alleviate a lot of the problem at Salem Road and it will take it right in front of the new middle school that is out there. That property is constantly under development from Mount Comfort Road north up to this project and really with our improvements that we are proposing I think it is Clabber Creek subdivision is improving along there as well and it is just a matter of time before Rupple Road is connected all the way through. That is really the only thing that I can add. This property, as we propose it, creates a much lesser impact on traffic than what could have been proposed with smaller lots and meeting the minimum requirements of residential subdivisions. These are all acre and a half lots, which I guess if it had to be developed, this would be the best case scenario. Estes: Thank you. Let me bring the item back to the Commission for discussion, comments and motions. Commissioner Bunch, if we could begin with you. Could you give us a brief report of Subdivision? Bunch: We had some very good public comment. Some of the same people who spoke at Subdivision spoke tonight and shared their concerns with us. Another thing we were concerned with were the two lots that were less than an acre and half and that has been taken care of with the situation on the septic systems but most of the comments were just getting a grasp and understanding how the roads would be vacated, how the easements would be laid out, what roads would be paved, which ones would be new roads and the new application for the Master Street Plan, which of course will have to go to the City Council. That was basically the jest of the Subdivision Committee for this project. Estes: Thank you Commissioner Bunch. Commissioners, is there any discussion? Planning Commission July 14, 2003 Page 7 Shackelford: Condition number six discusses the curb cuts along Howard Nickell Road. The applicant has obviously expressed a desire for eight curb cuts instead of five, can you expand a little bit on the justification and the thought process for the limitation of five please? Warrick: Howard Nickell Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial street. It is to carry large volumes of traffic. Access management on those higher level streets is critical in order to maintain capacity and levels of service once those streets are developed and staffs intent in this recommendation is to minimize the number of conflicts that may occur on that street by combining some of the potential curb cuts. Shackelford: What do our ordinances say as far as requirements for frontage, distance between curb cuts and that sort of thing? Warrick: With regard to this property, it is located outside of the city limits. We do have some areas of town, such as the Overlay District, where we more strictly regulate the distances for curb cuts. In this particular situation if it were inside the city limits there would be minimal distances between curb cuts required. You will see in front of you you have a draft transportation study that is a work in progress that the city has contracted for and part of that does include more attention to access management, especially on our higher level streets. This is something that staff felt was appropriate to go ahead and look at in this particular situation because we are dealing with one of our Master Street Plan streets and a major point of connectivity for the city. Shackelford: If this was inside the city limits would it apply? How would those minimum distances work? What are those standards? Warrick: Between residential driveways you would be looking at a minimum of 10', 5' from the property line on either side for a curb cut for a driveway. Shackelford: Thank you. Estes: Is there any other discussion? Vaught: Yes. Specifically which lots were you looking at because the way they have it drawn the two roads kind of curve together. The five curb cuts, they are off Howard Nickell Road, do you know which lots you are talking about? Warrick: It looks like it would affect a single curb cut access to lot number three, a combined access between lots one and two, a combined between lots 15 Planning Commission July 14, 2003 Page 8 Estes: Ostner: Estes: MOTION: Ostner: Estes: Shackelford: Bunch: Warrick: Shackelford: Warrick: Shackelford: and 16, a combined access to serve lots 19 and 20 and a single access for lot number eight. Are there any other comments? Are there any motions? I am in favor of the request by the applicant. Limiting curb cuts does help however, we are just pushing them together and I don't see how that really, in this case it is one 28' curb cut instead of two 14's that are side by side. I would be ok with making it 8. I don't know how the other Commissioners feel. Is that a motion? I will make a motion that we approve PPL 03-11.00 changing condition six to read a provision for shared access shall be indicated on the Final Plat for a maximum of eight curb cuts onto Howard Nickell Road. We have a motion by Commissioner Ostner to approve PPL 03-11.00 to be forwarded with the one change that in condition number six that five curb cuts be changed to eight curb cuts, is there a second? I will second. A question to the motioner. If we move to eight curb cuts instead of five is there any requirement for shared access, could that part be stricken from the motion? If you allow the eight curb cuts you can eliminate item number six. Eight curb cuts would provide one access point for each lot that could access. One thing that is important is that there are corner lots that we would encourage that they access off of the side streets and not off Howard Nickell when they have that option. Dawn, by limiting that that is kind of my thought process of why I wanted to leave the verbiage of limiting it to eight curb cuts to allow obviously the developer is going to use those opportunities to access those lots that don't have any other access. I think if we leave the verbiage of eight curb cuts maximum that it is going to force them to use the interior streets on those corner lots. I think that is important. I didn't make the motion but that was the intent of where I was going with my conversation. Planning Commission July 14, 2003 Page 9 Estes: Dawn, is it staffs request that if we change five to eight that we eliminate condition of approval six? Warrick: I think that it can stay if we change it to eight. It doesn't address a shared situation anymore but it does address limiting access to Howard Nickell Road then to eight curb cuts, which would provide one individual curb cut for any of those lots that only access Howard Nickell Road. Yes, I think it can stay. Shackelford: Why don't we change the word shared to limited access indicated on the Final Plat for a maximum of eight, is that acceptable? Ostner: I would accept that as a motion. Shackelford: As will I as a second. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ostner and a second by Commissioner Shackelford to approve PPL 03-11.00, is there any discussion? Church: I guess staff would probably be the ones to comment on this. The neighbors have been so kind as to show up here tonight to talk about the traffic concerns and maybe this body is not the one to address that but I guess I would just like to have a comment about when that will be addressed because I think it is a very real problem. If it is five years from now I think we need to know that but I guess I would just like to hear a comment on the traffic situation. Estes: Matthew, Dawn, Jeremy, who is going to take that one? Warrick: I will start. Connectivity in the City of Fayetteville is generally realized through development. When developers propose a project the streets and infrastructure that is necessary to serve that project and to connect it to the city's infrastructure systems are required of that developer at that time. In this case we are looking at a connection that will complete part of our Master Street Plan and provide additional connectivity between Salem Road and Howard Nickell Road. We are, as I mentioned, in the process of a quarter million dollar transportation study that is city wide, that is addressing our Master Street Plan. We have had public hearings on this, in fact, we had one on June 26`h. We encourage people to contact our Engineering Division to provide public comment and to attend these transportation meetings. This transportation plan will be brought to the Planning Commission and to the City Council. Therefore, there will be additional public hearings to address it. Public input is critical in order for these plans to reflect the current condition and to project into the future the Planning Commission July 14, 2003 Page 10 needs of the community. As I mentioned, it is addressing and it will be addressing, what infrastructure needs we have with regard to transportation not only vehicular transportation but alternate modes of transportation such as trail systems and bikeways. We are encouraging as much public input as possible in that process and we plan to provide you, through our consultant, a project plan that will identify priories in the city that then the City Council will need to review and determine what needs to occur with regard to funding and time frame on those projects. Estes: Thank you Dawn. Commissioner Church, is that responsive? Church: Yes, thank you. Estes: I share the concerns that Kris, you articulated and Mike, that you brought to our attention and that you Debbie spoke about. The pragmatic fact is that our infrastructure is dependent upon development. The funding mechanism for our infrastructure is development and it would be wonderful if we could have the infrastructure and then have the development but there is no funding mechanism for that. The funding mechanism comes from private development so we see private development and then we see the connectivity that Dawn has described and we see the infrastructure being built. To do it otherwise would be prohibitively expensive, we couldn't afford it. We depend on private developers to do it and that is why we see the development and then we see the infrastructure, we see the streets, we see the curbs, we see the sewer go in. If we don't approve the development we are not going to see the infrastructure. I suppose that just the opposite of that is true if we don't approve the development then there is no need for the infrastructure. I enjoy living in Fayetteville. I have lived here for 35 years and I have seen it grow and I hope that it continues to grow. It is for that reason that I will vote in favor of the motion. Is there any other discussion? Bunch: At the last meeting of the study for the traffic survey for the City of Fayetteville we did have some representatives from the Planning Department of the State Highway Department here, and I know in the past we have beat up on the State Highway Depaituient for not always being responsive to the needs of our community but I would like to compliment the Arkansas State Highway Department for sending personnel up to be a part of our process and also I would encourage the school system to be very much a part of the process because it is one of the largest traffic generators we have in our community. It is an even greater safety situation with schools than say for factories or something like that where you have large traffic generation but it is mostly adults who are aware of the rules of the road. As we go with this traffic study I would encourage the school board and the school administration to give us the benefit of their information and that is one of the proper avenues to get that Planning Commission July 14, 2003 Page 11 information into the system. I would encourage their participation in that. I will echo comments previously stated, I will also be in support of this project. Estes: Is there any other discussion or any further comments? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 03-11.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Estes: The motion passes by a unanimous vote of seven to zero. Thank you everyone for attending and for providing us with your comments. Planning Commission July 14, 2003 Page 12 LSP 03-43.00: Lot Split (Hoskins/Brookhaven, pp 214) was submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Company Engineering & Surveying on behalf of Tracy Hoskins for property located at Lot 32, Brookhaven Estates. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential (RSF-4), and contains approximately 1.09 acres. The request is to split the tract into two tracts of 0.31 acres and 0.78 acres. Estes: Pate: The next item on the agenda is a Lot Split, it is LSP 03-43.00 submitted by Mr. Melvin Milholland of Milholland Company Engineering & Surveying. Jeremy, is this your item? Yes Sir it is. This lot split is zoned R-1, single family residential, or RSF- 4, as we are all trying to get accustomed to. It does contain 1.09 acres being split into two tracts of .31 acres and .78 acres. There is currently a two story single-family residence at the corner of Belshire and Sussex Drive on lot 32A. This home is proposed to remain and comply with all required setbacks and lot area regulations for the RSF-4 zoning district. The proposed lot 32B, which is the larger lot, is currently vacant with a residential dwelling planned for that lot. An individual septic system is proposed for lot 32B due to difficulties in topography, the applicant has submitted septic system approval from Washington County pursuant to city requirements. City staff and Engineering have researched the use of individual lift stations for this lot. The applicant has performed an analysis on the possibility of connection to public sewer at the request of the Subdivision Committee at our last meeting. Right of way exists along Sussex and Belshire Drive both requiring 50' of right of way, 25' from centerline. A waiver for the required extension of Sussex Drive to serve lot 32B has been requested by the applicant until a design grade for the extension of Sussex Drive is determined by future development and construction. Staff has reviewed that proposal and concurs due to potential extensive grading and possible construction of a bridge in that location. The required sidewalk requirements have been agreed upon by the Sidewalk Administrator for a cash in lieu fee of $630 for a single- family residential lot. Staff is recommending approval of this project subject to the following conditions and there are seven. 1) Planning Commission approval of construction of a single-family home without frontage onto a city street and Planning Commission finding on a safe and adequate means of access to the proposed lot. Staff finds that the proposed drive from the Sussex Drive stub out is a safe and adequate means of access to the proposed lot 32B. Future design and engineering for the extension of Sussex Drive will determine the best means by which the extension may take place. The Fire Department has expressed a desire for a turn around. However, it also notes that the proposed drive meets International Fire Code as it is proposed. Solid Waste and Recycling had no comment about this project. 2) Should this lot be split connection to the city sewer system shall be required. If the applicant is unwilling to connect to public sewer the lot split shall not be approved. 3) Connection Planning Commission July 14, 2003 Page 13 to city water service to serve the new single family residence shall be at the owner's expense prior to issuance of a building permit. 4) Sidewalk cash in lieu fee of $630 for a single family residential house shall be paid prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 5) Parks fees in the amount of $555 for an additional single-family lot are due prior to the issuance of a building permit. 6) All residential driveways shall have a maximum width of 24' measured at the right of way line. Condition number seven is a standard condition of approval. Thank you. Estes: Thank you Jeremy. Is the applicant or the applicant's representative present? Milholland: I am Mel Milholland with Milholland Engineering representing the applicant. I couldn't hear all that he said up here but the applicant has signed the conditions of approval and Dawn has that so we concur to those and we respectively request that you approve it. He did initially come to the city and did ask because it was downhill could he put a septic system in and I understand, the city staff can speak for themselves and my client also if he wants. He went through the trouble of getting a septic tank design from a licensed person to do that. The State Health Department has approved it and that is what he thought he was going to do. Of course, he still prefers to do that but the condition left him very little alternative. Estes: Thank you Mr. Milholland. Is there any member of the audience who would like to provide comment on this requested Lot Split? Yes Sir, would you come forward please, give us your name and provide us with the benefit of your comments? Dunn: Paul Dunn and I live right next door. Is number two that you are proposing not to have the septic system? Warrick: That is correct. Dunn: We are not in favor of it, me or the gentleman on the other side of him of having the lot split because when we bought our lots we were planning on no one being behind us except for way back there years down the road. If you do approve this provide some type of screening so we won't see the house. We really don't want the lot but if you can put some type of screening of cane or something that will prevent us seeing, that way we can enjoy our beauty back there. Thank you. Estes: Thank you Mr. Dunn. Is there any other member of the audience who would like to provide comment on this requested lot split? Waller: Good evening, my name is Mike Waller, I am the neighbor on the other side of Tracy. I just want to kind of mirror what Paul mentioned. That is Planning Commission July 14, 2003 Page 14 Estes: ideally splitting the lot would not be our first vote primarily because all the lots along that particular area, we bought those lots because of the size of the lot and the view in behind. That does somewhat obstruct and change that view to a degree. I think the biggest issue was that septic issue and tying into the city. I think I've heard all the comments, was one of the provisions that the lot is tied into the city sewer? Condition number two is that should this lot be split connection to the city sewer system shall be required. Mr. Milholland has told us that we have signed conditions of approval. Waller: Terrific, that is the main issue at hand. Then if we could get some sort of screening again just to give us kind of a little better view back there that would be great. I just wanted to reiterate those particular points and appreciate your time. Estes: Thank you Mike. Does anyone else wish to provide comment? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the applicant for comment and rebuttal. Milholland: Mr. Chairman, what I heard was a couple of neighbors not in favor of the split. I don't know of any restrictions that would keep an applicant from doing this. I think I heard the word screen, this would be a regular home facing a public street, I don't think there will be a need for a screen for that if I understood the statement properly. We take exception to that. It is just another home on a public street. Once that street goes through there in the future it would be another house on a public street. Estes: Thank you Mel. I will bring the item back now to the Commission for discussion, comments and motions. Dawn, are there any provisions for screening between residential properties? Warrick: Not typically. Our ordinances do address screening between residential and other land uses but between two residential developments we don't typically require a screen. There is not an ordinance requirement for that. Estes: Commissioners, is there any discussion, comments or motions? Shackelford: Two questions if I could. First of all to kind of throw Commissioner Bunch under a bus a little bit, if you could update us a little bit on the Subdivision conversation on this lot. In particularly, the regards to the sewer requirement how we got from a septic system to a requirement that it is tied into the city? Bunch: Basically at the Subdivision Committee we asked the same questions that you are asking and since that time Engineering has provided some information on access and you will have to ask Matt for the answer to that. Planning Commission July 14, 2003 Page 15 Estes: Casey: Estes: Casey: Estes: Casey: Warrick: Matthew, can you respond? You wanted information about the access, is that correct? I think that Commissioner Shackelford's question was how did we get from the septic tank to the condition of approval that should the lot be split connection to city sewer system shall be required? Just this morning we received information from Mr. Milholland. His survey crew went out and provided us with some actual field data that the gravity sewer line could be extended to this property line. The condition that we had placed for approval can be obtained. There was some question about that before whether it could actually be done without a lift station being installed, a public lift station being installed, which Engineering wouldn't recommend for a single house. The gravity main can be extended to the house. The house will have to have an individual grinder pump which will be privately owned and maintained and it will pump up to the manhole at the property line. Has there been any discussion that because this subdivision is relatively recent that had the developer desired an additional lot that sewer would've been required just as to any other lot? I have not participated in any of that but I believe our Planning Division has. The Planning office has reviewed that and ideally this would've been a lot created with the Brookhaven subdivision when it was originally developed. The access issue may have been part of the reason that the lot wasn't created, there is really no telling at this point in time. The Preliminary Plat for Brookhaven went through the process ten years ago. We didn't feel that it would be appropriate for this lot, if it is able to be created and access to be provided to it, that it should be treated differently with regard to septic verses sewer provisions. It is within the city limits of Fayetteville. The lots within the Brookhaven subdivision are connected to the city's sewer system and another lot created within that development really should also in order to provide consistency within the development. Estes: Commissioner Shackelford, is that responsive? Shackelford: That is, thank you. One other question, I know this isn't within our privy but I have to ask it. Are there not any neighborhood covenants restricting dividing any lots in this subdivision? Planning Commission July 14, 2003 Page 16 Pate: We asked for that from the applicant and he indicated that there are no covenants for this subdivision. Shackelford: Thank you. Estes: MOTION: Ostner: Estes: Is there any other discussion or motions? Commissioner Ostner? I will make a motion that we approve LSP 03-43.00. We have a motion by Commissioner Ostner to approve LSP 03-43.00, is there a second? Vaught: I will second. Estes: We have a second by Commissioner Vaught. Is there any further discussion? Shackelford: Just for clarification purposes for the folks that made comments, the adjoining land owners. I understand your desire for screening, we really don't have any direction from ordinances for screening between residential properties so that was heard and is understood but we have very little jurisdiction in that area so I wanted to put that in for the record. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ostner to approve LSP 03-43.00 and a second by Commissioner Vaught, is there any other discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSP 03-43.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Estes: The motion passes by a unanimous vote of seven to zero. Thank you. Planning Commission July 14, 2003 Page 17 LSD 03-17.00: Large Scale Development (Landers Auto Park, pp 248) was submitted by Matt Crafton, P.E. of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Don Nelms, General Partner for Nelms, L.L.C. for property located at 1352 W Showroom Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and R -A, Residential Agricultural and contains approximately 42.82 acres. The request is for a 3,200 s.f. Hummer dealership in the seven acres of parking area approved in November 2002, a 17,000 s.f. expansion of the Auto Body Shop with 55 additional parking spaces west of the Auto Body Shop, construction of a 5,600 s.f. Detail Building and additional parking for the display area. Estes: Pate: The next item on our agenda is item number three, it is a Large Scale Development for Landers Auto Park submitted by Matt Crafton of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Don Nelms Jeremy, is this your item? Yes Mr. Chair it is. This request is for a 3,200 sq.ft. Hummer dealership on the previously approved seven acres of parking area. Also involved is a 17,000 sq.ft. expansion of the auto body shop currently existing with the addition of 55 parking spaces west of the auto body shop. Construction of a 5,600 sq.ft. detail building and additional parking for the display area. 120 linear feet of additional sidewalk along Hwy. 112 is being constructed pursuant to the requirements of the Sidewalk Administrator. The adjacent Master Street Plan streets are Hwy. 112, which is a principal arterial and that requires 55' of right of way dedication and that is indicated on your site plans. Tree preservation, existing canopy is 25.1%, preserved canopy is 16.8%, therefore, they meet the requirement required in a C-2 zoning district. For a little background, the Large Scale Development was approved for portions of the site by City Council on November 5, 2002. That resolution is attached in your packets. This project was reviewed at the June 18, 2003 Technical Plat Review and July 3`d Subdivision Committee meeting. Discussion at the Subdivision Committee meeting included parking lot landscape requirements, the Hummer test track and commercial design standards. Subdivision Committee did forward the Large Scale Development to the full Commission. Staff is recommending approval of the Large Scale Development subject to the following conditions: 1) Planning Commission determination and approval of compliance with commercial design standards. 2) Setbacks from the property line may not contain any structure 30" or greater above the ground level according to our ordinance. 3) No part of any new building, building addition or parking lot expansion may be permitted within the regulatory floodway. 4) A letter of map amendment or conditional letter of map revision shall be submitted to clarify or correct the regulatory floodway prior to the city issuing a floodplain development permit for those structures and proposed parking expansions located within a floodplain and floodway. 5) No construction will be authorized without a floodplain development permit where required. 6) Finished floor elevation of any proposed building shall be 2' above the regulatory base Planning Commission July 14, 2003 Page 18 flood elevation. 7) A final grading plan, storm water plan and floodplain development permit shall not be approved and issued by the City of Fayetteville until the U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers concurs with the wetland delineation and issues any and all required permits for work and improvements within the delineated wetland area and waters of the United States. 8) Planning Commission determination of a waiver to allow the use of metal halide lighting fixtures throughout the Landers Auto Park site. All lighting shall meet the IESNA standards for illumination of automobile display areas and shall be shielded and directed downward. Staff is in support of this waiver request finding that it is consistent with approved lighting for the remainder of this site. In November, 2002 the City Council approved metal halide lighting fixtures for the seven acre parking expansion. At the request of staff the applicant will make a statement regarding specifics to those lighting fixtures. 9) Landscaping shall meet the Design Overlay District requirements where applicable for spacing of trees within the required 25' landscaped greenspace along the highway frontage. This condition has been accommodated and should be included in your package as an addendum landscape plan. 10) Planning Commission determination of all wall signage requirements in the Design Overlay District. The Hummer dealership is permitted two wall signs for the structures two frontages in accordance with Design Overlay District requirements. 150 sq.ft. sign is proposed for the south elevation at a maximum of 20% of the wall surface area. Currently two signs are proposed for the north elevation, which is in violation of the Overlay District regulations. 11) One monument sign shall be allowed for the Hummer dealership not to exceed 6' in height and 50 sq.ft. in total surface area. Staff recommends this request as it is in keeping with the overall design theme of the development as established by compliance with the commercial design standards and design overlay district ordinance. This request must be considered by the Board of Sign Appeals since it is a variance from the sign ordinance. 12) Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 6' sidewalk and 10' greenspace along Hwy. 112 for 120 linear feet as indicated. Conditions 13, 14, 15 and 16 are standard conditions of approval. Thank you. Estes: Thank you Jeremy. Is the applicant or the applicant's representative present and if so, do you have a presentation that you would like to make? Crafton: Good evening, my name is Matt Crafton, I am an engineer with Crafton, Tull & Associates. With me this evening is Mr. Brian Black. I am the engineer for this project and Brian is the project architect. Brian is with the firm of Black, Corley & Owens out of Little Rock. We do appreciate staff's help with this project as we worked our way through it. As Jeremy did describe, this is an expansion of what the city approved last November, 2002. What the city approved was an additional seven acres of Planning Commission July 14, 2003 Page 19 Estes: parking on the east side of the Landers site. As Jeremy described, we are now requesting several additions to that including a Hummer dealership along the Fulbright Expressway and Interstate 540 down in the southeast comer of the site. That is a 3,200 sq.ft. building. Up in the north central part an expansion of the auto body shop and an addition of an auto detail shop. Parking just to the west of the auto body shop and then up in the northeast corner some additional parking area for display area. All of these are requests for approval this evening. As Jeremy mentioned, there were several things that came up during Subdivision Committee and we are prepared to discuss those with you tonight and work with you in whatever way we need to meet your approval. I would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you Mr. Crafton. Is there any member of the audience who would like to provide comment on this requested Large Scale Development? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for discussions and comments. Commissioners? Commissioner Bunch, can you give us a brief report of Subdivision and what your concerns were and what issues we need to address at this time? Bunch: I could be fictitious and say that we don't have any record of it because we had a power outage but some of the Subdivision Committee minutes were in your packet. We primarily talked about commercial design standards. One of the things we requested to see here and I think it was also requested at Tech Plat was a breakdown of the various reasons for the different parking display verses customer parking verses staff parking and that sort of thing so that we could see which parking required landscaping. We also talked considerably about the signage and about the test track. Estes: Black: Estes: With regard to the test track, I requested elevations at agenda session, are those available for us to look at? What are we talking about when we talk about a test track? Sir, we will probably have to request that the test track be struck from this Large Scale plan. We have submitted our plans to General Motors for approval of a lower test track and one that does not use the metal rollers and the steel pens and the different things that are usually associated with Hummer test tracks. We have not gotten any comments back from them so I don't have anything to show you on that. We know what we want to do, we just don't have anything approved from General Motors. If it would be possible to bring that to you at some future time we could certainly do that. Dawn, what is the propriety of that? We have a Large Scale Development request before us, can we consider the Large Scale Development and then come back with a test track? Planning Commission July 14, 2003 Page 20 Warrick: Technically because this project is within the Overlay District what you approve under this Large Scale today, they would have the ability to permit and construct. Any future additions, modifications, including the test track, would require Planning Commission approval of a new Large Scale Development. The Overlay District is very specific in that new development of any type including additions or alterations requires Large Scale approval. Estes: If we approve without the test track and the applicant wants to come back with the test track that will be an additional Large Scale Development, is that your understanding? Black: Yes Sir it is. Allen: I thought it might be difficult for people who might be watching this at home to tell on this map, and maybe you could point for us and show what is existing and what you're proposing and the location of the signage. Black: Sure. This area over to this hatched area here represents a creek which currently separates the existing auto park from the 7 acres which was approved last November for Large Scale Development. This Large Scale of course added a dealership and an additional three acres of parking. This orange area here and this white area of parking here is what we are proposing to add for parking. The Hummer dealership is additional. Other than that, this area has remained the same. We are proposing additional parking to the west of the existing body shop. We are also proposing some 60 or 65 additional parking spaces within this area to the northeast of the used car building. We have parking expansions here, here, here and here. Allen: Which ones of those are display areas and which are personnel? Black: Everything that you see in yellow is display. The orange section designates employee parking, this white section of the parking here which shows about 100 cars indicates inventory parking where transport trucks will come in, turn around, drop their vehicles off and they will stay there to be washed and to be put on display. This area to the west of the body shop will be for additional body shop vehicles. Vehicles that are either being worked on or have been worked on will be here. There are several different types of parking. Display, employee, inventory and service parking. Estes: Commissioner Allen, does that satisfy you? Allen: Yes, thank you very much. Planning Commission July 14, 2003 Page 21 Shackelford: Before you get away from the map Sir, although it has been taken off of the table just for bearing purposes, can you show us where the proposed Hummer test track will be located? Black: Yes Sir, it will be here. It is intended to be if you will, a sign for the Hummer dealership for a couple of reasons. One is part of the Hummer requirements, they do require a test track for every Hummer dealership. We are planning to landscape it very nicely. This will not be a dirty element. It will not have mud and gravel and things like that. We are thinking large fixed stones that the drivers will crawl over instead of a mud pit that they will go tearing off into and splash everywhere. Landers is really concerned about a test track also. They don't want their lot getting dirty so their requirements are for a future test track to be something that is fixed and doesn't create a lot of dirt. Warrick: Mr. Chair, we are getting some new information with this that in the past we've not been provided with a break out of where employee parking verses display and storage areas are on the site. There will be some requirements with regard to landscaping in those areas that are not specifically identified as display. I would add a condition to this that all parking areas of the site which are not identified and used solely for the purpose of providing areas for display and storage of motor vehicles for sale, lease or rental, that those other areas must meet the landscaping requirements provided under Unified Development Code Chapter 172, Parking and Loading. Black: That includes employee parking? Warrick: It does. Estes: One of the findings that we must make is compliance with Commercial Design Standards. Do we have a material board available? Black: Sir, we have in these renderings materials are shown as accurately as possible in the color renderings there. Estes: Because we must make an affirmative finding of compliance with Commercial Design Standards, could you talk to us about the Commercial Design Standards and why you feel that this complies and particularly direct your attention to the unarticulated wall surface on the south elevation of the body shop and on the south elevation of the Hummer display building and tell us what this is. Without a material board we've got a problem. Planning Commission July 14, 2003 Page 22 Black: Estes: Black: On the south elevation of the existing body shop what we are trying to do is completely match the existing construction of the building. With the exception of the entrance at the existing body shop the rest of the building, without exception, looks like this on the other three sides. I do have some pictures of the existing building showing the entrance. We are not doing anything to the entrance of this building. We chose to just match in materials, height, everything, colors what is there. What we have added is whereas before this building was two shades of gray, we have added a dark gray band all the way around the building at the bottom to at least try to break up what has been described as the monotonous facade. The design of this building is not what we would prefer to pursue if we were building a new body shop from the ground up. However, in the circumstances and what we have to work with we felt like it would be a much better thing to match what is there, also cost wise, than to tear the facade off and to rebuild the exterior of the building. The existing body shop is currently built of an E.F.I.S., exterior finish installation system, dryvit, that is what the upper portion of the building is. The rest of the building is composed of center scored concrete blocks and they were just painted. The existing garage doors of the building are just standard white baked on finish garage doors. We are replacing all the garage doors on the building and installing nice new garage doors like you would find on a fire department. They would be all glass. In every way we are trying to upgrade the building. I will warn you that it is a large, non-descript facade. It certainly will be better off when the addition is complete than it is now. As for the Hummer dealership, we have tried to make this building everything but non-descript. I think this building is going to look very interesting. We have toned down the Hummer image program a little bit from what it was. The standard Hummer image program has a huge Hummer sign stuck on the roof. Our roof would say Hummer on it and we have complied with the signage regulations for square footage of signage. I am interested in the south elevation that is going to face 1-540. Again, not having a material board, what is that? It appears to be an unarticulated wall surface. Yes Sir, the dominate surface of this building will be a natural metal finish metal roof. You can see the profile from the side. Even though this elevation does appear to be flat it will not be. The remainder of the building, whereas on the body shop we are trying to articulate the surface of the body shop with a paint scheme and trying to do the best with what we have there, with the Hummer dealership we will have a more articulated facade. Down from the north we will have a dryvit stucco theme that runs along the windows and also dominates the sides of the building with scoring patterns. The base of the dealership, the base of the Hummer building will be surrounded with a split faced concrete block Planning Commission July 14, 2003 Page 23 wains cote with a cap separating it from the dryvit. The front of the Hummer dealership will be dominated by this large steel plate H that is required in the Hummer image program. Like it or hate it, that is one thing that General Motors does require us to put on the building. It is not a stand alone sign, it will be a part of the building. It will signify the main entrance to the building and it is also the reason why we did not put Hummer on the front side of the building. We chose instead to put Landers because everybody would know what the H means. The front of the building will be dominated by a material made by PPG, it is called ageria but it is very nice, it looks good from a distance and it looks really nice close up. The windows will be clear finished with an aluminum glazing system. The colors that you see there are basically what it will be. Hummer dealerships are not very colorful, they are pretty straight forward and the prototypes are even brown for the most part. We have tried to match the colors of the existing buildings for the auto park and we have lightened it up considerably instead of going with military brown we have gone with light grays and dark grays. That is about it. Estes: Commissioners, are there any questions regarding commercial design standards? Ostner: Yes Sir. What is the glazing system? Is that glass? Black: Yes, it is just an aluminum store front is what it is. Estes: Is there a reason we don't have a material board? Black: I'm afraid that I misunderstood the material board as being these boards here with the colors called out and I do apologize for that. When I brought these up here I did think I was bringing the material boards with me so I apologize. Allen: I have a couple of questions. One I wondered about how the additional lighting might impact the existing drive in. Black: The new lighting should not have a significant impact on the existing drive in because there is still going to be between where this parking lot ends and the drive in begins we still have a six acre permanent landscape buffer that is going to be there. It is covered with very large trees and vegetation. I don't think it is going to present much of a problem at all, especially since this area is not going to be nearly as well lit as the sales area is. All of your high intensity lighting which matches what is currently there will be everywhere that you see the yellow. Most of it will be to the south of Showroom Drive, which runs east and west. I don't anticipate that there will be any problems at all with the type of lighting that we are putting Planning Commission July 14, 2003 Page 24 back there. Especially considering the buffer that you are going to have there. Allen: Does the lighting have timers? Black: Yes it does actually and I do have a letter from the Landers Auto Park stating what their intentions are with the lighting and what has already been done to try to tone the lighting down. The lighting for this auto park was an issue last November when we were here. Last November Landers made a commitment to put all of the lighting on separate timers whenever this project was built. We have not even started building the seven and a quarter acres yet that we got last November and they have already put all of the lights on two separate timers. They are operational and Landers is agreeing to turn off half of all the lights on the lot after 9:00 every night. I don't know if that meets what would be considered an acceptable solution but that is one that they are proposing. Allen: I have a couple more questions. I am not Hummer savvy so I wondered if you could explain to me more about this Hummer test track, what goes on there and why it would need to be abutting I-540 and what kind of landscaping there would be. Estes: Commissioner Allen, that portion of the application has been withdrawn, do you understand that? Allen: Yes. Black: The Hummer dealership is very small compared to the other dealerships that are on the site. It is only 3,200 sq.ft. We are trying to confine the Hummer activity to a very small portion of the site. Since there are not going to be too many Hummers on display we are wanting to put as much Hummer stuff as we can get up near the highway because we are afraid that it is not going to be noticed if we move it further back. We did, at one time early on in the project, consider putting the Hummer dealership to the north of Showroom Drive up here and we did some site studies from I-540 and found that we weren't going to get the impact that the other stores have on the traffic passing by. These are high dollar vehicles. Landers definitely wants people to know that they are there and that is why we moved everything else as far as we could. We had considered putting the test track further back on the lot but that is going to be separating it from the main dealership. Putting the test track right here is going to put it right where the salesmen can keep up with who is on it, what is happening with the vehicles. That is really the reason why it is on there. It is not going to be a place where any of the other vehicles on the lot are test driven. You are not going to buy a Toyota four wheel drive and go test drive it on the Planning Commission July 14, 2003 Page 25 Hummer track. It is low speed. It will be fixed in place and it will be done under the direct supervision of a sales person. A sales person will actually be riding with you and coaching you when you go on the test track which is what you would expect with a $100,000 vehicle. Ostner: I have a few more questions about the test track. I understand you are withdrawing it tonight. What concerns me is if we approve this LSD the location of it is in essence dedicated because you build everything else except that. My issue with the location is that I am concerned it will become a nice place to park Hummers while no one is test driving them. Black: We are aware that there is no parking allowed in the easement where that is shown. If we were to park Hummers out there until the test track is approved they would be parking them in a landscaped area, which is not in following with the rules either. I am not going to say that I can control how well Landers follows the rules but I believe that they have done a pretty fair job so far. They have got a whole lot of property that is available to them to park vehicles in. Landscaped area that is available to park vehicles in such as the area around the flagpole here. They have this entire three acres here that they control and I visit the auto park once a week and I have never seen a vehicle parked in one of those areas. I don't think it would be a concern. Ostner: I don't know if I phrased my issue properly. I am guessing you all will get some sort of test track worked out in the future. Black: Hopefully soon. I was hoping before tonight. Osmer: Right, I know that you have been working on it. This plan dedicates this spot, not another spot that would be outside the right of way. Black: Right and we would still love to have that spot for our test track. Ostner: Excuse me, I said right of way but I meant building setback. I understand they don't like to display cars in their landscaped areas. Who does? They have a beautiful car lot. This won't be a landscaped area when it is built. It will be a nice hard surfaced track. I am concerned that the hard surface track will be too tempting and will be a display area and I don't think that is right. It is extremely close, it is extremely high visibility. I am hesitant to approve this without that being dealt with. If it is dealt with tonight everything sort of hinges on it. If you move it back outside of the building right of way later down the line next week or six months from now when you come back I feel like we have an honest decision to make. If we approve you tonight leaving this hole when you come back I feel we won't have much choice. That is why the location concerns me. I wish it were outside the building right of way. Planning Commission July 14, 2003 Page 26 Black: In the end whatever we build there will have to be approved by the Planning Commission. We won't be able to do anything without your approval. Even if I came to you with a complete set of plans for the test track tonight and showed them to you I guess what I am trying to argue here is that if we started building this test track two weeks from now with approved plans there is still no guarantee that somebody would not try to park cars on them. I think we need to look at the past track record and how this company keeps up their lot. I have a lot of faith that that will not happen. I am not the owner, I can't promise that. Ostner: That is fine. When the Hummer test track comes I will be sure to ask for no display. Black: I am sure Landers would agree with that too. Shackelford: That was the point that I was going to make too Commissioner Ostner, that this will be back before us as an additional Large Scale Development and can be considered as a condition of approval at that point. Estes: I have a question regarding the signs on the north elevation. Our written materials tell us that two signs are proposed for the north elevation and as I look at the north elevation I only see one sign and it is a wall sign. What is going on? Black: Actually in our last meeting I was asked to take one of the signs off of the Hummer dealership and that is what we have done. Estes: So the north elevation that we have now with the one wall sign what we see is what we get, is that right? Black: That is correct. Allen: I wanted to ask the Subdivision Committee their feelings about whether or not these plans complied with our commercial design standards? Church: I guess I would've liked to have the sample board. I know you have done a good job of giving the pictures to us but it is still hard to tell what we are actually seeing so I think that would've helped a lot. I know you are trying to match this with what is existing and that has been your goal. I don't know if that answers the question or not, maybe Commissioner Bunch can add something to that. Black: Not only match it but also make as many minor improvements as are economically feasible with this type of addition. It is just body shops are Planning Commission July 14, 2003 Page 27 Estes: typically not the nicest buildings in the world but we have tried to take what we had and improve upon it. I share what I think is Commissioner Church's concerns. I have never voted in the affirmative for a Large Scale Development in the Overlay District without a material board. I don't know what I'm voting for. Warrick: I just want to add, I've been reviewing the requirements for submittals for commercial design standards and overlay projects. There is not a requirement for a materials sample board. It is very helpful, we encourage applicants to provide that but there is not an ordinance requirement that that be submitted with the project for review. Estes: I understand that but it sure is helpful. It is hard to vote in the affirmative for compliance with commercial design standards when you don't have materials to look at. Commissioner Bunch, was a material board requested or was it discussed? Bunch: I can't recall, it may have been discussed. Black: It has been. The material board has been requested of me. What I am presenting tonight is what I thought constituted a materials board, a color rendered elevation with materials noted and rendered as accurately as possible on there. Estes: Is there any other discussion? Bunch: Mr. Black, could you again show us since some of the concerns are with the different facades of the body shop which is a continuation of a pre approved theme with materials, could you again show us where these faces are on your site plan? I think some of the concerns may not be that visible from public right of way. Black: This south side elevation that you are looking at here, here is the main entrance for the existing building. This is our south elevation. This entire face right here is what you would be seeing. From the road we are not changing. The main elevation I assume you would be concerned with is the one we are leaving alone. That is the west elevation and this is an existing face of the building. The area shown in the dark gray hatch here is the existing building and we are not doing anything to that. The only changes that we are making to it are to put the dark gray band around the bottom of it. Bunch: Could you also delineate the detail building, just kind of show the faces on the lower rendering and compare them with the site plan? Planning Commission July 14, 2003 Page 28 Black: Bunch: Black: Bunch: Black: Ostner: Black: Ostner: Black: Ostner: Black: Ostner: Black: Ostner: Black: The south elevation of the detail building is shown right here. Although this elevation is not going to be very visible from the road, it is actually several hundred feet from Hwy. 112. The west elevation will be somewhat visible. This portion of the west elevation is what is going to be most visible from Hwy. 112, this area right here. What about from I-540? From I-540 would be the south elevation, that is not it's prettiest face for sure but if you have ever driven along I-540 and looked back at the existing body shop it is nothing that you would ever notice from I-540. You are hundreds and hundreds of feet away. Also from the exit ramp where you are going to clear the trees for the additional seven acres of parking? Yes Sir, again, you are about a quarter of a mile away from the building. The entire site is about a half a mile from one corner to the other. On the point of landscaping, your orange areas as I understand it are going to have to meet our landscaping requirements. These here and here that we are adding, yes sir. You all are prepared to do the interior islands of trees the way our ordinance requires? Yes Sir we are if we are required to do so. Blue too, anything that is not for sale so blue and orange. I would like to make sure that everyone knows that the only blue spaces that we are adding are these 41 right here, all the other blue ones exist. Yes, we are prepared to put interior islands in there. My last question is on the metal halide lights. As our rules currently stands as our ordinances are that requires a waiver because in the Overlay District sodium is required. You have offered sort of a give and take to dim them down at 9:00, I believe it says half of them will be turned off. That is correct. Which half? Every light pole out there has at least two bulbs. Most of the poles are either two bulb or four bulb poles. There are two circuits running to every Planning Commission July 14, 2003 Page 29 light pole that is out there. It is possible to turn half of the lights off on every light pole. We would not be proposing to turn half of the light poles off and leave the other half running, you would be turning half of the light bulbs off on every pole. Ostner: In essence, the entire site would dim down evenly not one half staying bright and one half dark? Black: That is correct. The lighting is more intense towards the front than it is the back so everything when it dims down evenly even though the whole site will dim down at the same rate the front will still be more intense than the back is. Half of the light bulbs will be turned off on every pole. Estes: Commissioner Ostner, does that address your concerns? Ostner: Somewhat. I am wondering how many car sales happen between 7:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. and how much affective advertising that wouldn't be affective with a little bit dimmer lights. Black: Quite a few. Ostner: All the way to 9:00 seems really late. Black: At this time of the year the bright lights won't help sales at all but of course they won't affect people driving by either. You won't even notice that they are on if they are on. When you get into the winter months those lights absolutely do help you make sales after 7:00 at night. If you have a dealership that stays open until 8:30 it is a very strong sales tool to have your parking lot glowing with your product. Shackelford: Commissioner Ostner brought up something that raised a question in my mind. Staff, we talked about the parking landscape islands in the service areas of the new service parking, was that a requirement of the service parking area in the original Large Scale Development? Warrick: I would have to go back and check. It is an ordinance requirement. In the original Large Scale Development I don't know that the various parking areas were identified as to the use of what they were intended and what they were developed to be. Shackelford: I can't remember from reviewing the site, is there this landscaping in the existing spaces that are designated on this map as service parking? Warrick: 1 don't believe that there is adequate interior landscaping on the site currently. Planning Commission July 14, 2003 Page 30 Black: However the existing landscaping on the site is very lopsided. It is distributed unevenly on the site. It is definitely biased towards I-540. You have got a much larger concentration of landscaping in islands and areas towards the highway. Much more than is needed. I am just assuming that they were allowed to go a little bit more sparse on the back lot. Shackelford: Ok, thank you. Estes: Dawn, there are no landscape drawings in our packet, do we just leave that up to the Landscape Administrator? Warrick: You should have a complete set of landscape drawings. Black: You should have landscape plans for the eastern part of the site as well as the parking lot just west of the auto body shop. Warrick: We do have a separate submittal sheet that identifies landscaping. Estes: Shackelford: Warrick: Shackelford: Estes: Ok, I see page seven is the landscape plan for the Hummer dealership. Commissioners, are there any other questions, comments or motions? I guess I would like to start with my response to Commissioner Allen's question about overlay and design standards. I agree with what Commissioner Bunch said with regard to the body shop and other things. That is an extension of a pre existing approval so I find in favor of commercial design standards there. As for the new development, I have seen this building in other markets outside of our area. It is not as one dimensional on the south elevation due to the shape and design of the roof. Although, I do feel we are somewhat at a handicap for not having a materials board I feel that we have enough information to find in favor of commercial design standards in that area. Based on that, I am going to make a motion that we approve LSD 03-13.00 subject to all conditions of approval. Staff, I need your help on number eight. Since they dropped one sign from that elevation do we need condition number eight still in the conditions of approval? It is actually item number ten that has been complied with. Ok, so we will drop item number ten. Item number eight I had notated for the specific finding for the waiver in favor of the lighting as requested. Commissioner Shackelford, if I may ask Dawn on item number ten does the first sentence need to remain Planning Commission determination of wall signage requirements in the Design Overlay District? Planning Commission July 14, 2003 Page 31 Warrick: Ostner: Warrick: Estes: Shackelford: Warrick: Shackelford: Ostner: Estes: Shackelford: Estes: Shackelford: Estes: Ostner: Bunch: Shackelford: Yes Sir. A question for staff, Dawn, did you mention with the incomplete landscape parking that we needed to add that to our conditions of approval? Staff would request an added condition to address those parking areas that require interior landscaping. Also, it would probably be appropriate to note that the test track will not be considered a part of this Large Scale but will require Large Scale approval at a later date should it be desired to be installed. Commissioner Shackelford, do you want to address that? Unfortunately, Dawn was speaking very quickly and I had a hard time getting that down. All parking not designated as display, storage or sales space including lease and rental, Dawn, I need help from there. This is subsequent to Code Section 172.07(C)(3). What she said. I will second the motion. With regard to the test track the motion includes a provision that the test track is not to be included in this LSD? With the specific finding that the test track is not to be included in this LSD and a separate LSD will be required. With regard to the landscaping in the parking what does the motion provide? All parking not designated as display, storage, sales to include lease or rent vehicles, shall be required to meet interior and perimeter landscaping requirements as set forth by Code Section 172.03 (C)(3). Does the second accept that? Accepted. Would that be for a review to come back to us? For administrative review is my intent. Planning Commission July 14, 2003 Page 32 Estes: Dawn, is that correct the landscaping issue will be done by staff and/or our Landscape Administrator? Warrick: Estes: That is correct. We have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford and a second by Commissioner Ostner to approve LSD 03-13.00 as amended, is there any discussion? Are there any comments? I am going to vote for the motion but guys, I don't like voting to approve commercial design standards when I don't have a materials board and don't have any clue about what it is going to look like when it is done. Are there any other comments? Allen: I echo your concerns. Estes: Renee, will you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 03-13.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Estes: The motion passes by a unanimous vote of seven to zero. Thank you. Planning Commission July 14, 2003 Page 33 RZN 03-22.00: Rezoning (Pope, pp 136) was submitted by Ronny and Karen Pope for property located at 1750 E Zion Road. The property is zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural and contains approximately 2.0 acres. The request is to rezone the property R -O (Residential Office). Estes: The next item on our agenda is RZN 03-22.00 submitted by Ronnie and Karen Pope for property located at 1750 E. Zion Road. Dawn, is this yours? Warrick: Yes Sir. The subject property is located at 1750 E. Zion Road. There is a three bedroom single-family home on this two acre tract currently. Surrounding properties include undeveloped property to the north, top soil excavation operation to the east, a single-family home to the west and to the south across Zion Road multi -family dwellings. While there is a mixture of land uses located on the south side of Zion Road the north side has remained primarily residential and it is proposed to be residential in the city's General Plan Future Land Use map. The applicant proposes to use the existing structure on the property and convert it to an accountant's office. The outward appearance of the structure would remain the same with some possible improvements to the driveway and access point on Zion Road. The applicant's request in order to do this is to rezone the subject property from R -A, Residential Agricultural to R -O, Residential Office. Staff is recommending denial on this particular request. With that recommendation I feel it is appropriate to go through some our findings specifically as well as the infrastructure in the area and some research. Access to the subject property is from Zion Road, which runs along the south property line. Zion is designated a collector on the city's Master Street Plan. In this location it is not constructed to collector standards. There is no curb, gutter or storm drain. There are ditches on either side of the street which are fairly steep. On the north side there is overgrown vegetation on the sides of the access drive for the subject property. With regard to findings, as I mentioned, this area is designated to be residential on the city's General Plan Future Land Use map. The requested rezoning is not consistent with the adopted General Plan. This area is designated as residential. The Residential Office district has been used as a transition zone in other residentially designated areas. However, the subject property is not located within a transitional area between single-family residential and other higher density or commercial type developments. With regard to whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time it is being requested, the proposed zoning is not needed in that there are other properties within this general area that are already zoned or identified by the General Land Use map to be developed for office use. With regard to traffic, the proposed rezoning could possibly create a traffic danger or increase congestion in this area. With this, staff had to consider not necessarily the proposal to convert one single-family home to a CPA Planning Commission July 14, 2003 Page 34 office but the proposal to zone two acres of land for Residential Office use. The proposed zoning will not necessarily alter population density under the R -O designation the applicants or future owners would have the option of requesting a Conditional Use for multi -family dwellings. However, that is not contemplated in this particular instance and we don't see it very frequently in the R -O district. At that time staff and the Planning Commission would relook at this item and review it. In researching this particular request, I pulled out more files today than I have ever looked at with regard to this particular strip of property on Zion Road. Coincidentally, I did find that 17 years ago to this date on July 14, 1986 this exact request was before the Planning Commission with a previous property owner on this exact two acres of land. The request was made to rezone the property from A-1, at the time Agricultural to R -O, Residential Office. Planning staff at that time recommended denial for the same reasons that I am discussing tonight, the same findings that staff has made this evening, and the Planning Commission at that time voted eight to zero to deny the request. It was not pursued further to the City Council at that time. Estes: Thank you Dawn. Is the applicant present? Would you like to come forward and make a presentation? Pope: I am Ronnie Pope, this is my wife Karen. We are the applicants. We really do not have a presentation for you. John Sullivan, the listing agent would like to make a statement. Estes: Mr. Sullivan, if you would come forward and identify yourself and speak on behalf of the applicants. Sullivan: Thank you Commissioners. I am not real versed in this so please forgive my ignorance. I spoke to the owner today and the owner is an 80 year old woman that is in California. What we ask is that this be tabled at this time if possible. The reason being that we did not find out that staff was going to give a disfavorable request until this morning. The owner of the property, these are the buyers of the property, just wanted to have adequate time to prepare a presentation for you all on the Commission. This property has sat out there. It has been for sale for a couple of years. It won't sell as a residential home. It is a 3,000 plus square foot home with basically a strip mine on one side of it and on the other side of it is a construction home that has a Conditional Use as a construction office. It is on Zion Road. Anybody that has been on Zion Road knows that certainly it is not a residential road. I think right now we are just not prepared and would ask that this be tabled to the next meeting and we would be prepared. Planning Commission July 14, 2003 Page 35 Estes: It is the Commission's prerogative to table, it is your prerogative to pull it from the agenda. Sullivan: Again, I'm not sure if pulling it means waiting months at end. The buyers of the property want to obviously be able to move on and if it takes months pulling it we don't want to do that but if we could table it to the next meeting that would give us some time. Estes: Dawn, if the item is pulled from the agenda when is it permissible to bring it back? Warrick: If the item is withdrawn it will not be able to be reheard for one calendar year. If it is tabled at the Commission's determination then it could be tabled to a date specific or indefinitely, however you choose. Estes: Let me ask if there is any public comment since it was noticed and is on the agenda. Is there any member of the public that would like to provide comment on this requested rezoning? Seeing none, I am going to bring it back to the Commission. You have heard the applicant's request to table, is there a motion? Vaught: I did receive a phone call from a property owner today who is concerned with the rezoning to R -O that is much like staff. It was Mr. Jamey Jones who is out of town at the time, he said that he has talked to some people around him and they would be more apt to support a Conditional use rather than a rezoning with their fears being it be rezoned to Residential Office and then sold for whatever purpose they want. Maybe that is something to consider too instead of coming back with a rezoning. Sullivan: One of the things I was told today is that is not allowed. Warrick: In the Residential Agricultural zoning district there is not the ability for the Planning Commission to hear a Conditional Use for a professional office. If the property were located within a residential district then there are options for Conditional Uses. The limited neighborhood commercial use within a residential district is a tool that was previously utilized by people who wanted to have small office buildings for instance, within a residential district. That Conditional Use option was repealed with the adoption of the Planned Zoning District ordinance in December, 2002. MOTION: Estes: The applicant has requested that this rezoning request be tabled and it is for that reason that I will make a motion that RZN 03-22.00 be tabled to a future time and date. Planning Commission July 14, 2003 Page 36 Bunch: Second. Estes: We have a second by Commissioner Bunch. Is there any discussion? Allen: I was just interested in why the applicant wasn't privy to the findings of staff until yesterday since we knew Thursday? Warrick: The applicant was provided a staff report as soon as it was finalized Thursday afternoon. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Estes and a second by Commissioner Bunch to table RZN 03-22.00, is there any further discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table RZN 03-22.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Estes: The motion carries by a unanimous vote of seven to zero. Thank you. Planning Commission July 14, 2003 Page 37 CUP 03-16.00: Conditional Use (Shackelford, pp 558) was submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Company on behalf of Tom O. Shackelford for property located at 2921 Old Farmington Road. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single- family, 4 units per acre and contains approximately 0.63 acres. The request is to allow the construction of a single story duplex on Tract B containing 6 bedrooms total with 6 parking spaces planned. A two story duplex on Tract A containing 4 bedrooms total with 4 parking spaces is planned for construction at a later date. Estes: Milholland: Estes: Warrick: The next, and final item on our agenda is a Conditional Use request submitted by Mr. Mel Milholland of Milholland Company on behalf of Tom Shackelford for property located at 2921 Old Farmington Road. Mr. Milholland a Conditional Use request requires five affirmative votes and you have seven Commissioners so I just wanted to give you a heads up on that one. I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. A Conditional Use requires five affirmative votes. You are missing two Commissioners, you have seven, I just wanted to bring that to your attention. Dawn, is this your item? Yes Sir. This Conditional Use project site is located at 2921 Old Farmington Road. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre and contains approximately 0.63 acres. The original request was to construct a single story duplex and then later in a second phase was to construct a second duplex on the site. The subject property was rezoned from Residential Agricultural to the current zoning designation, RSF-4 in late 2002 and it was divided just after that date by means of a lot split which was approved in January, 2003. The original tract, which is to the west of the subject property, contains a single family home with a detached garage. The subject property is vacant. Adjoining uses to the site are primarily single-family homes. There is a small cemetery to the east. Across the street there is a lot that is zoned Agricultural which contains a metal building and not much other development. When the property was rezoned and the split occurred. There was discussion with regard to development of this tract. At the time the request was for the development of a single-family dwelling. The applicant at this point in time does propose to build two duplexes on the subject property and the request in order to do that is for Conditional Use approval. Staff's recommendation is not in favor of the request as it has been presented. The Unified Development Code does not permit more than one duplex on a lot within the residential single family four units per acre district and then only by Conditional Use approval from the Planning Commission. The property does appear to be suitable for one duplex and that is what staff is recommending with some conditions. Recommended conditions found on the first page of your report include 1) Only one Planning Commission July 14, 2003 Page 38 duplex be constructed on the subject property. 2) Access to the duplex shall be provided by one curb cut on Old Farmington Road which shall not exceed 24' in width at the right of way line. 3) Construction of a sidewalk in accordance with city standards on the subject property at the time of development. 4) Payment of parks fees in the amount of $786, that is for two units charged at $393 per unit prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5) Cart service for the residential development be coordinated with the Solid Waste and Recycling Division. I mentioned the variety of different surrounding land uses. In your packet there are also some photographs that show the surrounding of the site. I believe that there are also some floor plans included. Those were supplied by the applicant as well as the site plan and a written description of the request. I did include in your background information the staff report for the rezoning that was requested as well as the applicant's written request on that rezoning. Those are on pages 5.7 through 5.11 I guess. I believe that covers my comments. I do have signed conditions of approval from the applicant on this item. Estes: Dawn, condition of approval number four is payment of Parks fees for two units at $393, if we are just allowing one duplex what are the two units? Warrick: It is each side of the duplex is considered on residential unit. Estes: Is the applicant or the applicant's representative present and if so, would you like to come forward and make a presentation? Milholland: Mr. Chairman, I am Mel Milholland with Milholland Engineering representing the applicant. Again, I couldn't hear what she was saying but my client did sign the conditions that staff recommended for one duplex. I would like to say that across the street, although it is A-1 there is a metal building there that has been for some time used as a repair shop. He called me personally and said he has no objection. My client has talked to Mike Price and Mr. Parnell and the one to the west and my client is here tonight. They have no objection to one. We respectfully request approval for this. Warrick: Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, I forgot to mention the reason I handed out the information in the beginning that is a letter from a nearby property owner who has concerns with regard to this request and was not able to attend and asked that I pass those to you. I didn't receive those until the meeting began so I haven't had an opportunity to really read through that. Estes: Thank you Dawn. Is there any member of the audience who would like to provide comment on this Conditional Use request 03-16.00? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for comments, discussion and questions of the applicant. Commissioners? Planning Commission July 14, 2003 Page 39 Ostner: Warrick: Shackelford: Warrick: Shackelford: Estes: Bunch: Milholland: Bunch: A question for staff. Let me get this straight, the drawings we have request two duplexes but the conditions of approval, which Mr. Milholland agrees to, only is to build one which does comply with staff's request? If Planning Commission approves a Conditional Use for one duplex on this lot that is all that will be permitted. That answered my question. The follow up obviously is staff is in support of one duplex as a Conditional Use? Yes, as stated in our recommendation we would support one duplex. Thank you. Is there any other discussion? Any comments or any motions? A question of applicant and staff. In a previous submittal the sizes of the units were delineated, can you give us any information on what you are planning to build since it is limited to one duplex? Size, number of bedrooms and which floor plan? Two three bedrooms. I think we can get one story on there and approximately 1,400 to 1,600 sq.ft. That would be the larger of the plans that was submitted previously as Phase I? Milholland: Yes. Estes: MOTION: Is there any other discussion or any comments or motions? Shackelford: I will make a motion that we approve CUP 03-16.00 and for the record the applicant is in no way related to me. Estes: Ostner: Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford to approve CUP 03- 16.00, is there a second? I will second. We have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford and a second by Commissioner Ostner to approve CUP 03-16.00, is there any discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Planning Commission July 14, 2003 Page 40 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 03-16.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Estes: Warrick: The motion passes by a unanimous vote of seven to zero. Thank you Mel. That concludes our stated agenda, are there any announcements? I would just add that I spoke with Chairman Hoover with regard to the findings and the report from the Bylaw Committee and she asked that that be presented at your next regular meeting so we have a full board so we will add that to your agenda for the next meeting. Estes: Commissioners, is there any other business? We will stand adjourned to our next regularly scheduled meeting. Meeting adjourned: 7:30 p.m.