Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-09-22 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on September 22, 2003 at 5:30 p.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN LSP 03-46.00 Lot Split (Copher, pp 396) Approved Page 2 PPL 03-14.00: Preliminary Plat (Newcastle Estates, pp 180) Page 4 Approved PPL 03-15.00: Preliminary Plat (Copper Ridge, pp 435) Approved Page 10 CUP 03-20.00: Conditional Use (Station on College, pp 445) Approved Page 14 CUP 03-21.00: Conditional Use (April Lee, pp 523) Approved Page 21 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Don Bunch Alan Ostner Jill Anthes Alice Church Sharon Hoover Bob Estes Christian Vaught Nancy Allen Loren Shackelford STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Dawn Warrick Suzanne Morgan Jeremy Pate Renee Thomas Matt Casey Planning Commission September 22, 2003 Page 2 LSP 03-46.00 Lot Split (Copher, pp 396) was submitted by Vance Copher for property located at 6460 Double Springs Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains .82 acres. The request is to split the lot into two tracts of 0.33 acres and 0.21 acres with 0.28 acres dedicated right-of-way. Hoover: Welcome to the September 22, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were eight Commissioners present with Commissioner Shackelford being absent. Hoover: Thank you. Is there a motion to approve the minutes of the September 8th meeting? Allen: I move for approval of the minutes. Bunch: Second. Hoover: There is a motion by Commissioner Allen and a second by Commissioner Bunch. Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the minutes was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Hoover: Thank you. Item number one under new business tonight is LSP 03-46.00 for property at 6460 Double Springs Road. Jeremy? Pate: Thank you Madam Chair. The first item on the agenda tonight is a Lot Split for Mr. Vance Copher for property located within the Planning Area. The request is to split the tract of .82 acres into two tracts of .33 acres and .21 acres. Currently a single-family residence is existing on the proposed tract B. This home is proposed to remain. The proposed tract A is currently vacant with a residential dwelling planned. The existing home currently has an individual septic system servicing the residence for the parent tract. This existing septic system has been reviewed and approved as adequate by the Washington County Health Department as required by ordinance. An additional septic system is proposed for the split for tract A as well and the applicant has submitted proper paperwork for that proposed septic system as well. Staff is recommending approval of this Lot Split with the following conditions: 1) Double Springs Road (County Rd 880) and John Miller Road (County Rd 4712) required right-of-way dedication shall occur with the filing of the plat. 2) The applicant shall provide the correct Certification and Dedication blocks on the plat in order to properly dedicate the required right-of-way. 3) Side setbacks shall be revised on the plat to reflect correct Planning Area setbacks of 10 feet. 4) Planning Commission September 22, 2003 Page 3 Hoover: Copher: Hoover: Bunch: Hoover: MOTION: Estes: Ostner: Hoover: Roll Call: Thomas: Washington County approval shall be obtained prior to filing of the lot split. 5) No portion of any structure shall be built over any public utility easement. 6) The existing septic system location shall be indicated on the plat. Item seven is a standard condition. Thanks. Would the applicant come forward? Would you just state your name for us? Do you have anything to add to the presentation? No Ma'am. I am Vance Copher. At this time I will open it up to public comment for LSP 03-46.00, is there anyone in the audience who would like to address the Lot Split? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commissioners. Can we have a report from Subdivision Committee? Did this go to Subdivision Committee? Yes it did. The applicant was unable to attend the Subdivision Committee meeting so we debated whether to return it to Subdivision or to forward it to the full Planning Commission. In order to save time for the applicant we moved it forward to have everybody listen to it. As we looked at it at the Subdivision Committee everything seemed to be in order. Thank you. Are there any other comments or questions? I would move for approval of LSP 03-46.00 subject to staff's conditions of approval. Second. I have a motion by Commissioner Estes and a second by Commissioner Ostner, is there anymore discussion? Renee? Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSP 03-46.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. The motion carries eight to zero. Planning Commission September 22, 2003 Page 4 PPL 03-14.00: Preliminary Plat (Newcastle Estates, pp 180) was submitted by Milholland Company Engineering and Surveying on behalf of BMP, Inc. for property located on Gulley Road east of Crossover Rd.. The property is located in the Planning Area and contains approximately 13.23 acres with 10 lots proposed. Hoover: Item number two is PPL 03-14.00 for New Castle Estates. Suzanne? Morgan: This request is for a 13.23 acre residential subdivision with ten lots ranging in size from 1.12 acres to 1.64 acres. Lots will be single-family residential in nature and the property is in the Planning Area and the surrounding land use is single-family residential. Water will be extended and each lot will have a septic system. A letter of approval from the Washington County Health Department is included in your packet. The northern portion of the property is bordered by Gulley Road which is a principal arterial at 110'. The applicant is indicating a 55' right of way which is compliant with the Master Street Plan. Gulley Road will be improved to Washington County standards. Butterfield Road, a planned street classified as a minor arterial, runs through the west of the property requiring 90' of right of way. In 2002 a parcel south of this lot dedicated a 45' right of way from centerline for Butterfield Road approximately 200' from where the Master Street Plan indicated it should be. The applicant for this proposal is also indicating a 45' right of way approximately 200' from where the Master Street Plan indicates so that it will potentially connect to the dedication to the south. Staff is in support of this request. The proposed Castle Rock Drive will be built to 28' with curb and gutter. Staff recommends approval of the proposed Preliminary Plat subject to the following conditions: All street names shall be approved by the 9-1-1 Coordinator. 2) Proposed right-of-way shall be dedicated with the Final Plat. 3) Access to lots 1, 6, 7, and 9 shall be restricted to interior streets. Items four and five are standard conditions of approval. Staff has received signed conditions of approval from the applicant. Hoover: Thank you. Could the applicant come forward please? Milholland: I am Melvin Milholland with Milholland Engineering representing the development. We did provide the city staff with a signed copy of the conditions totally agreeing with them. We had a meeting with the adjoining neighbor to the west, the Gaddys who are here and they are concerned because the house they have is so close to the property line. We wish to request that on the right of way dedication that shows 45' on the west side, to increase that to 70'. We would be willing to do that to accommodate them because of the location of their house. Hoover: I'm sorry, I didn't hear what you said, could you repeat that? Milholland: They call it Butterfield Road right of way, we show 45' dedication along the west side of lots 6, 7, and 8. Staff supported that because there was a Planning Commission September 22, 2003 Page 5 tract just south of this one that did the same thing. What we are requesting after discussion with our neighbor to the west and the vicinity to their home the concern they had to the property line we would be willing to make that instead of 45', make it 70' to accommodate them and they are in concurrence with this. That would assist them being comfortable with the location. Otherwise, we concur with all of the other conditions that were signed off on. Hoover: Thank you. Before we ask for public comment, could I just have staff confirmation, is the 70' right of way ok with staff? Warrick: Absolutely staff would agree with that. We are trying to achieve a total of 90' right of way and the right of way for this future minor arterial was shifted to the west slightly due to previous actions that the Planning Commission has seen a lot split that was south of this property, not immediately south but further south. Because the 90' right of way bisected the site, it was reasonable to shift that right of way slightly to the west so that it could span two property lines, which is a typical activity that we do see with Master Street Plan dealings. With that, that affected this property which is further north, the Butterfield Road right of way did bisect this project site. The applicant requested to, as was done with previous actions, shift that right of way to the western property line. There is a single-family home that is relatively close and it would be greatly affected by a 90' right of way dedication with 45' on the west side of that property line. This applicant has agreed to increase the dedication on the east side of the property line to accommodate that existing single- family home. Staff is very much in support of that. Hoover: Thank you. At this time I would like to open it up to public comment for this Preliminary Plat 03-14.00, Newcastle Estates. Is there any member of the audience that would like to address this Preliminary Plat? Please come forward. Phillips: My name is Robert Phillips and I live at 4542 E. Gulley Road. That is directly across Gulley on the north side from the proposed subdivision. I am familiar with BMP Development and they build fine houses and I don't have any objections to the people who are going to be building out there but I do have some concerns that I'm afraid are going to directly involve my property. I have right under five acres across the street from them. For you to get the picture my house is just east of Hungate Road. Hungate Road borders my property on the west side and it goes back from Gulley Road. My first concern is that I have about a 30 or 35 year old fishing pond sitting on the east side of my property that a lot of the kids in the neighborhood have used for years. There is a drainage pipe that comes right across Gulley Road. I don't know if any of you have been out three but if you get the picture, here's the property they want to build on and I Planning Commission September 22, 2003 Page 6 am below them. That whole mountain drains right through my field from Gulley Road into the pond and out to the north of my property and I guess down to Spring Creek or whatever creek runs out that way. I'm afraid that if we build ten houses across the street, right now that property is heavy brush and thickets and you can't even walk through it. That catches the water and the toxins that are over there. If we have 10 houses with paved roads I'm afraid that is going to pollute my pond. I am afraid that it is also going to put a lot more water on my property than there has been before, which is a problem. Sometimes of the year when it's wet I can't even mow that part of the field with a rider, I have to use a push mower or a weed eater. I am afraid of that. I am also, one of my main concerns is if you are coming down Gulley Road going east just after you pass the Gaddy's house there is a rise in the road. It is a sharp rise, you can't see over it. I don't know how they are going to come out on Gulley Road safely. I can't come out of my driveway safely. There is always a problem there. If we have got 10 families using that entrance with no kind of traffic control there is going to be a problem there. Another problem I have is using 10 septic systems right across the road from me where I've got drainage coming onto my property. I know that we're going to grow out there, we're already growing. Most almost all of the families that live out there have some kind of acreage, 2, 3, 4 acres and some of them 30 acres. I hate to see them build 10 houses across the street from me like that. I wouldn't object to 4 or 5. I think ten on that property is going to crowd the neighborhood. We all moved out there so we could be kind of out of town. I know we are not out of town anymore. We have been there 14 years and each year we get more houses. I think having a full subdivision across the street is going to be a detriment to the neighborhood. That's all I have. Thank you. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other member of the audience who would like to address this Preliminary Plat? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commissioners. Staff, can you review with us what we can require in the growth area as far as drainage and our subdivision regulations in the growth area because this is not in the City of Fayetteville? Warrick: The city has the ability to regulate division of property in the growth area with regard to the reasonable configuration of lots and access. Our grading and drainage ordinance does not have jurisdiction in the Planning Area, nor do our street standards. We do not require standard city streets on projects that are outside the city limits that do not adjoin the city limits immediately. The county does have jurisdiction over the street section, the street requirements as well as the drainage. Hoover: When does this go to the county for approval? Planning Commission September 22, 2003 Page 7 Warrick: It is required to be reviewed by the Planning Board after it has been heard by the Fayetteville Planning Commission. Hoover: Thank you. Estes: Dawn, because we are outside the city with regard to pre -development flows and post — development flows what are the regulations if any? Warrick: They are not standard city regulations. I do not know what the county requirements are but that type of technical detail has to be reviewed by the county for their standards to be applied. Estes: Mr. Phillips concerns would need to be addressed in a county venue and not here, we have no pre -development flow and post -development flow rules and regulations that would apply because it is outside the city limits? Is that correct? Warrick: That is correct. Estes: Mr. Bob Gaddy and Mr. Jeff Gaddy are in attendance may I ask if you are satisfied with the street dedication? Gaddy: Yes. Milholland: In regards to Mr. Philips' concerns, contours represented approximately '/2 of lot 9 and maybe 90% of lot 1 drains to Gulley Road which we will pick up with curb and gutter and drainage facilities on the south side of Gulley Road. It is not a large amount of land. We are doing everything we can to keep the flow down. Basically we have got all trees and we want to save as many trees as we can. We don't intend to knock out any more trees than we have to just to construct the water line and the street. We are having some restrictive covenants on this subdivision to make it a real nice one to be an asset to the neighborhood. Thank you. Hoover: Commissioners, are there any more questions or comments? Ostner: I am wondering about the traffic on Gulley Road and the sight lines. Dawn, is that any of our business? Is that the county's business also? Warrick: As far as the configuration of the improvements on Gulley Road, yes. That would have something to do with the elevation of improvements. We didn't have comments from our Transportation Division with regard to sight distances from this proposed intersection. That is about all I can tell you to address that. Planning Commission September 22, Page 8 Ostner: Warrick: Ostner: Hoover: Warrick: Hoover: Warrick: Hoover: MOTION: Estes: Hoover: Bunch: Hoover: 2003 Without any comments from traffic, if there is a rise to the west and this intersection is very close to it that could present a traffic problem. One I am concerned whether it is our jurisdiction or not or if the county is supposed to deal with that issue. Road construction and the requirements therein, are of the county's jurisdiction. Our statement with regard to roads is that it will be constructed to county standards. Street improvements Gulley Road improved to Washington County standards. That is really what we can require on a project that is in this location. Thank you. Staff, would you explain what jurisdiction we have in the growth area? In the growth area the city has jurisdiction over the subdivision of property. The reasonable configuration of lots and street connections and that is basically to ensure that we can meet the intent and fulfill the Master Street Plan and that lots aren't created in such a manner that they do not have access to an improved street or a public water supply. I assume that is so that if we ever did annex the property it would be in accordance with our ordinances. To some degree. Obviously this area will not fully be in compliance with city standards because there are certain things that we do not require. We do not require full subdivision regulations in the growth area. To you point, it is so that we look at the reasonable configuration of lots so that we are not annexing property that is really detrimentally out of the realm of compliance when it does come into the city. We do expect that the Planning Area is the area that will annex into the city limits of Fayetteville. Are there other questions or motions? I would move for approval of PPL 03-14.00 subject to the conditions of approval. Would you be adding a fourth condition that the right of way is 70' dedication? I have a motion by Commissioner Estes. Is there a second? Would that be in excess of condition number two for the right of way? Staff, how would you like that to be represented? Planning Commission September 22, 2003 Page 9 Warrick: It can be either way. It is probably more clear that it be a separate condition that the right of way for Butterfield Road be 70' along the western boundary. Bunch: I will second. Hoover: Is everyone clear on the motion ? Is there anymore discussion? Anthes: Was there any discussion, since we're increasing the right of way and there is a road quite close to the termination of the cul-de-sac within this proposed development, was there any discussion of connectivity or stub outs to provide future access? Warrick: What we did look at was the future condition of those lots along the western property line. Specifically 6, 7, and 8, excuse me, not 8 but 6 and 7, that those access the interior cul-de-sac and that they do not access the minor arterial in the future. The function of a minor arterial purpose is to move traffic and not to have many conflicts along the way, not to have intersections and driveways, but to make that as streamline flow of traffic as possible. We did not look at a proposed right of way connection for a future outlet on that. We have mainly tried to preserve the access route by limiting those lots to interior streets for their access points. Anthes: Thank you. Hoover: Is there anymore discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 03-14.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-1 with Commissioner Anthes voting no. Thomas: The motion carries seven to one. Planning Commission September 22, 2003 Page 10 PPL 03-15.00: Preliminary Plat (Copper Ridge, pp 435) was submitted by Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of Charles Sloan of Sloan Properties, Inc. for property located south of Wedington Drive on Double Springs Road, north of the Owl Creek Subdivision. The property is zoned R-0, Residential Office and contains approximately 4.32 acres. The proposal is for a residential subdivision containing 13 lots with 12 two family dwelling units (24 units total) proposed. Hoover: The next item on the agenda is a Preliminary Plat for Copper Ridge, it is PPL 03-15.00. Suzanne? Morgan: This request is to create a subdivision of 13 lots on approximately 4.32 acres. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office. The proposal is to have two family dwelling units built on each of the 12 lots ranging from .24 acres to .30 acres. The remaining lot is to function as a detention pond. Surrounding land uses are Thoroughfare Commercial, Single - Family Residential and Residential Agricultural. Water and sewer are to be extended to serve this property. 45' of right of way on Double Springs Road, which is a minor arterial, is to be dedicated. This road is also proposed to be improved 14' from centerline with curb, gutter and sidewalks. 50' of right of way for Copper Ridge Lane is being dedicated and will be built to 28' with sidewalk, curb and gutter. The tree preservation currently existing on the site is 1.82%. The required is also 1.82%. The applicant is proposing to preserve 1.02%, therefore mitigation is required into the city's tree escrow account. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed Preliminary Plat subject to the following conditions: 1) Planning Commission determination of a waiver request for a dead-end street greater than the maximum allowable 500 feet in length. The proposal is for an approximately 672' long dead end street. Staff is in support of this request. The street is planned to provide connectivity to adjacent properties with future development. 2) An assessment for the future extension of Copper Ridge Lane to the property line in the amount of $5,500 shall be paid prior to Final Plat. 3) Proper tree preservation measures shall be taken during construction of the subdivision to ensure the sustained health of the existing 36" Elm tree located at the end of the proposed street. 4) A payment of $1,575.00 will be required to be paid into the City's Tree Escrow account at the time of Final Plat for tree mitigation purposes. 5) Access to lots 1 and 8 shall be restricted to interior street. 6) Right-of-way for Double Springs Road (45' from centerline) and Copper Ridge Lane (50' total) shall be dedicated with the Final Plat. 7) All street names shall be approved by the 9-1-1 Coordinator. 8) The applicant shall install a barricade for safety purposes at the entrance of the detention pond prior to final plat. 9) Payment of Park fees shall be made in the amount of $9,432 before approval of the Final Plat. Items 10 through 13 are standard conditions of approval. Staff has received signed conditions of approval from the applicant. Planning Commission September 22, 2003 Page 11 Hoover: Thank you. Would the applicant come forward? Brackett: Good evening, my name is Chris Brackett, I'm with Jorgensen & Associates. We do have signed conditions of approval and we have no problems with those. I would be happy to answer any questions you have. Hoover: Thank you. At this time we will open it up to the public for comment on PPL 03-15.00 for Copper Ridge. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address this Preliminary Plat? Please come forward, state your name and sign the sign in sheet. Wrobel: My name is Allen Wrobel, I live at 876 N. Double Springs Road. My property is immediately next to this proposed Preliminary Plat. Considering the subdivisions that are currently being built on Double Springs Road, you know, being a very nice nature, we are just very concerned about the quality of the duplexes that are going to be put in to this subdivision as well as having a road immediately next to our property. Those were basically our concerns. Hutchins. My name is Robert Hutchins, I live at 917 Double Springs Road. They already have a strip mall going into the corner. It is going to be dangerous if you allow it. That's all there is to it, that's all I have to say. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other member of the audience that would like to address this Preliminary Plat? Hutchins: My name is Robert Hutchins, I live at 917 N. Double Springs Road. That road ain't going to handle anymore than what's on there already . They have been building there so much that you can't hardly get out on the road now. It is taking your life in your hands to get out there and they have already got a strip mall going up at the corner that has been approved already. It is going to be dangerous if you allow it. That is all there is to it. That's all I have to say. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other member of the audience that would like to address this Preliminary Plat for Copper Ridge? Wrobel, Tina: I basically would just like to second what he said. I leave in the morning for work at 7:30 and when I pull out onto the road, onto Double Springs from my driveway, it literally is taking my life into my hands because people are coming off of Wedington Drive at such a high rate of speed and my house is only a 100 yards at the very most from Wedington Drive so they are already gaining speed going down Double Springs and there is never a policeman to watch the traffic and see what is going on. I would just like to second what he said as far as something definitely will have to Planning Commission September 22, 2003 Page 12 be done to take care of the traffic issues we already have, especially if we are going to be adding to it. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other member of the audience that would like to address this Preliminary Plat? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission. Staff, would you give us a little more insight to the capacity of that road and traffic conditions there? Warrick: I think the neighbors could probably give you the best insight to the traffic conditions. Double Springs Road is classified as a minor arterial, it does carry traffic from Farmington to Fayetteville. Improvements have been made recently, a new bridge was built over Owl Creek and there are subdivisions that are being built south of this location. Adjacent to those locations street improvements are being required and have been required. The Owl Creek subdivision, which is immediately south of this development, did improve Double Springs Road with curb, gutter and storm drain. The proposed Large Scale Development for Mr. Tobin that is located north of the subject property, when it is developed there will be improvements installed. That was a requirement of the Planning Commission when that Large Scale was approved not too terribly long ago. Those improvements match the improvements proposed by this development, 14' street section from centerline with curb, gutter and sidewalk. These improvements come along as projects come through the process for review. Most of these properties in this area were in the county until recently but as these projects are developed in the city we require that city regulations be met and that street standards be installed on adjoining streets. In this situation, and in the last, it is important that access is limited to interior streets so that people don't have to pull out of driveways onto the minor arterial which hinders the capacity of that kind of street so we have made the condition on lots one and eight that they access the interior street only. Hoover: Can we get a report from Subdivision? Bunch: The only things that we touched on at Subdivision that have not been touched on today were questions about drainage on the east end and on the detention pond and Engineering and also Chris Brackett explained those to the people who were questioning drainage. There has been some work with the neighbors to modify some of the drainage techniques to make everything mutually satisfactory. I guess Chris can enlighten us a little more on that. Brackett: This property currently drains to the southeast corner. There are currently some drainage problems with that where the Owl Creek Subdivision discharges to the east and as part of this subdivision we will make improvements to the east to accommodate the adjoining property and the Planning Commission September 22, 2003 Page 13 owner to the east. Just as far as the quality of what we're putting in here or what is proposed, the owner proposes a 1,200 sq.ft. minimum per side of the duplex. It will have a master suite with two smaller bedrooms. It is not really geared towards College students which you think of mostly with duplexes in Fayetteville. It is more geared to a nicer clientele. It will look very nice. Hoover: Thank you. Commissioners? Ostner: I have a question for staff. As the build out slowly occurs along Double Springs how can these local residents look toward more solutions to the traffic? Warrick: I think we have to look at development on a case by case basis. In this particular situation this street is stubbed out to the east because there is one large tract to the east that has future development potential that we believe will develop. It is a matter of time to determine when that will happen but when it does the lots within this subdivision don't have to access Double Springs Road as their only outlet. There is an alternative in their future that there is connectivity proposed and with each development that we review we look for those opportunities for connectivity so we are not looking at one street carrying all of the traffic for everybody. Hoover: Are there any other comments or motions? MOTION: Ostner: I move that we approve PPL 03-15.00. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Ostner, is there a second? Church: I will second it. Hoover: There is a second by Commissioner Church, is there any other discussion? Renee? Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Hoover: Thank you. Planning Commission September 22, 2003 Page 14 CUP 03-20.00: Conditional Use (Station on College, pp 445) was submitted by Tony Davis of The Benham Co. on behalf of Kevin Kuehn for property located at 867 N. College Avenue. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 0.69 acres. The request is to remodel the existing, previously commercial structure to allow for 6 dwelling units on this property. Hoover: Item four on the agenda is CUP 03-20.00 for property at 867 N. College Avenue. Jeremy? Pate: Thank you Madam Chair. The property in question is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 0.69 acres. The request this evening is to remodel the existing commercial structure to allow for six dwelling units on this property. The site consists of three lots in this zoning district, all R -O. The existing structure on the property has been utilized in the past as Nick's Auto and Lube, a gas station and auto repair shop. Currently the structure and site is in disrepair and vacant. The two lots to the south of the property are an open, grassy treed hilltop with higher elevation and surrounding area. Surrounding uses are Thoroughfare Commercial along College Avenue and to the west, north and south are all residential in nature. College Avenue to the east is classified as a principal arterial requiring 55' right of way from centerline and the other two surrounding streets, Cleburn and Pollard are both local streets. The R -O, Residential Office zoning district allows Use Unit 26, Multi -Family dwellings as a Conditional Use, that is why we are hearing this as a Conditional Use tonight. The applicant is proposing to utilize the existing structure in an adaptive reuse for multi -family residential zonings and a detailed description from the applicant of the six unit complex is included and I believe he is going to make a presentation tonight as well so I will leave that to him. The existing open space to the south of the site is to remain as greenspace, existing trees are intended to be preserved and additional street trees added along the surrounding streets. The applicant is also proposing to install a fence for security and safety purposes parallel to the retaining wall that runs along College Avenue. Vehicular access to the site will be restricted from Pollard Avenue as opposed to currently it is accessing all three streets. Pedestrian access in the form of new 4' sidewalks on all streets are also proposed. The applicant has proposed to reutilize the existing sign pole with an improved sign of the same size and character as that which is existing. This would require Board of Sign Appeal approval for a non -conforming sign. I will go over a few findings that staff has made with regard to this Conditional Use. First, staff finds that granting the requested Conditional Use will not adversely affect the public interest. This change of use will bring the subject property more into compliance with current zoning regulations as well as provide more compatibility with surrounding properties. The previous use of the property for auto repair is not compatible with adjacent residential properties and the proposed improvements to the site will also be Planning Commission September 22, 2003 Page 15 beneficial to the neighborhood. Included as an addendum to your packets tonight is one item that references this and I believe it is two emails from the Wilson Park Neighborhood Association in support of this request. Another finding that is to be made concerns ingress and egress to the property particularly with reference to automotive and pedestrian safety. As I mentioned before, access will be restricted from College Avenue. Pedestrian access will be improved also along College Avenue. Currently it is basically a wide open curb cut. There are no curbs and there are no sidewalks that are very good to walk on. Again, the vehicular access will be from Pollard Street. Parking will be provided in the rear utilizing one way access. The parking will be screened from the street. The applicant is also proposing to utilize an enclosed dumpster pad with access not visible from the street. The proposal to convert this existing vacant automobile repair business into multi -family dwelling units will make this more compatible with adjacent properties. A reduction of paved surface, addition of street trees on College Avenue along with the other streets, and an adaptive reuse of this dilapidated structure will provide many benefits to the community. The applicant has indicated again that the Wilson Park Neighborhood Association has reviewed the proposal and is in full support. Staff is recommending approval of the Conditional Use subject to the following conditions: 1) Proposed sidewalks shall be constructed pursuant to City of Fayetteville standards prior to final Certificate of Occupancy issuance. Sidewalk location shall be coordinated with the Sidewalk Administrator. 2) Semi -permeable pavers for parking area shall meet City Ordinance and ADA requirements. 3) A landscape plan for parking lots with five or more spaces shall be submitted and approved by the Landscape Administrator. Street trees and supplemental screening to be planted shall be shown on said plan. Approval must be obtained prior to obtaining building permits. 4) Only trees determined to be in poor health by the Landscape Administrator shall be removed. 5) Any change in use in the future to the area designated as "Open Space" shall require Conditional Use approval by the Planning Commission. 6) The dumpster shall be screened and access not visible from the street. 7) Change in water meter size and sanitary sewer utilization shall be evaluated to determine compliance with impact fees. 8) Any proposed site lighting shall be shielded and directed downward away from adjacent properties, utilizing full cut-off fixtures. 9) Planning Commission determination of appropriate signage to be utilized for a site in the R -O (Residential -Office) zoning district. By right, the applicant is permitted a six-foot, four square feet in area freestanding sign, set back 15 feet from the right-of-way or , by substitution, a six-foot, 16 square feet in area monument sign set back 10 feet from the right-of-way. Currently a pole sign exists on-site, with the Nick's Auto Lube sign face to be removed. The applicant has indicated a desire to replace this sign with one of the same size, on the same pole, to carry through the "Station on College" concept. Approval of this option would require Board of Sign Appeal approval to utilize an existing non- Planning Commission September 22, 2003 Page 16 conforming sign. That's all I have. Thank you. Hoover: Thank you. Would the applicant come forward? Kuehn: Kevin Kuehn of Kuehn Enterprises. This is Tony Davis representing the Benham Group, my engineer. I am proud and pleased to present to you tonight the project for the renovation of Nick's Auto and Lube. Is it alright if I get up there and talk? Briefly I will go over the project. It has kind of been a dream project for me so far that I think I'm going to take something that is part of the existing city and renovate it, reuse it, and turn it into something that I think is going to be very positive for the neighbors. The setting of the site is perfect in that I can keep the parking in the rear. I am going to try to use grass street pavers that are real environmental friendly. The old cars will be over here on Cleburn. The access to College, we have cut that off so it is only pedestrian. We are going to add probably red maples along the streets. Red is my theme. I am going to take the existing building, paint it with red trim and add a lot of landscaping and irrigation. I believe landscaping can make a project. The grass street pavers and the open space that Jeremy talked about is really just a passive space for tenants that live there. I think it is a benefit. The floor plan is here. I have an assortment of units, six units total. There are 10 bedrooms, a 3 bedroom 2 bath studio, a studio, a studio, 2 bedroom 1 bath and a 2 bedroom 2 bath and a loft. That back bay area has got a 16' ceiling so I can get a loft in there. I think it is going to be a great place to live for young professionals, it is going to be kind of techno looking. I am going to go with a theme, stained concrete, steel joists. Light maple cabinetry so it is very simple but elegant. Again, the architecture is great. When I presented to the Wilson Park Association one of the ladies even said this is the best example of the gestalt architecture so they were very pleased with the project and it was fun presenting to them. I am here tonight to present to you and ask for your approval. Hoover: Thank you. Right now we will open this up to public comment, CUP 03- 20.00 for 867 N. College. Is there any member of the audience that would like to address this project? Kinion- I am Mark Kinion, I am the coordinator of the Wilson Park Neighborhood Association and the developers have been very open with the neighbors in the area. I sent out an email to our list serve on July 25th explaining the project and I received 14 replies either by phone or email and they were all in support of the activity. As you can see, we are taking an eye sore in our neighborhood and developing it into a residential project so it is in line with the mission of the Wilson Park Neighborhood Association also. It is my hope that you will approve this Conditional Use as it is presented with the comments from city staff. Thanks. Planning Commission September 22, 2003 Page 17 Hoover: MOTION: Allen: Anthes: Hoover: Bunch: Davis: Kuehn: Davis: Hoover: Anthes: Kuehn: Thank you. Is there any other member of the audience that would like to address this Conditional Use? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commissioners for comments. I think this project is almost too good to be true and with that I would like to move for approval of CUP 03-20.00 I will second. We have a motion by Commissioner Allen and a second by Commissioner Anthes. Is there anymore discussion besides applause? On the parking area are you going to do a cut and resloping of that because it is pretty much a hump? I think Commissioner Ostner is more familiar with those grass pavers that they can be used only on a reasonable slope. That is one of my concerns that that is properly graded to accommodate those. We've had some places in Fayetteville where they have been used and not very successfully. If they are environmentally friendly and are workable we would like them to have their best chance to work. Right here as far as that is concerned, it will be a 4:1 slope right here. It will be less than 4:1, we'll have a 33% slope here at the driveway sloping down so that there will be no problems getting in the vehicles like the SUV type vehicles. The parking spots are 10x20 that are shown here so there should not be a problem with the cars getting in and out. Actually, the slope is in concrete the parking area is the grass pavers. Right. The driving area is the concrete. Are there any other questions or comments? It looks like we need to make a finding about the signage. Do we need to do that before the motion? I can clarify that maybe a little bit. Nick wants to keep his sign for memorabilia, I'm proposing to reuse the gas station support and then place my sign in the exact spot that Nick's was on the existing post. Kinion- The neighbors that live in the area are aware of this problem and they felt like the pole was kind of a landmark. I don't know, to me it is a pole. Everyone knows it is Nick's Auto. I am not sure they knew the existing sign was leaving actually but the comment from the immediate neighbors Planning Commission September 22, 2003 Page 18 was that it was a landmark and people knew how to find it, so just a comment. Ostner: I understand that I can't see the staff but I'm going to ask you a question. I understand that if they simply pull the Nicks off and replace it they are out of compliance, how far out of compliance are they? Warrick: We have modified our sign ordinance. We do not have a provision to perpetuate non -conforming signs in our sign ordinance anymore. The sign does not meet the setback requirements or the size requirements for the Residential Office zoning district. Hoover: What are the requirements for the Residential Office zoning? Warrick: They are listed on page 4.2 of your report. The display surface area for a free standing sign is 4 sq.ft. with a setback of 15', no taller than 6'. If the applicant were to choose a monument sign in the R -O District it may be setback 10' from the street right of way. Vaught: I have a question. On the repairs and maintenance of non -conforming structures section that you guys also included it talked about if the cost of the repairs or modifications were less than 10% of the cost to replace it would not require a variance, am I reading that correctly? Warrick: Yes. Vaught: How does that relate in this case? Warrick: I believe that the amount of improvement that is going to go into this site it would benefit the applicant to have a variance to ensure compliance because if something were to happen to the structure after it were improved and it were damaged then it would not be able to be replaced without a variance being granted. Now is the time to ensure that by going through the variance process with the Board of Adjustment before the investment is placed into the property and then left somewhat at risk. That is why staff is recommending that they go through the variance procedure. I also believe that the amount of improvement that is going to go into this property probably exceeds that threshold. Vaught: So it is a total aggregate total improvement to the whole site, not just that one? Warrick: That is specific to structures, that section that you were referring to. Anthes: Because of the nature of the adaptive reuse of this project and the fact that the neighbors have no problem with the reuse of this sign, I personally Planning Commission September 22, 2003 Page 19 think that it adds to the character of the area to retain the sign and as the second to the motion I would hope that we could allow them to go forward to the Board of Sign Appeal to keep the remaining pole and replace the plastic face for the sign. Allen: That is acceptable with me. Anthes: I do have one question though. I noticed on the rendering of the building there are rather large numerals on the doors. Can you tell me about those? Koehn: Those are "SUPER GRAPHICS!" No, just kidding, that would be the address of the bay. You would live at the Station on College Bay 1 or Bay 6. Anthes: The reason I asked that is because those large numbers could also be indicated as signs and I wondered what other Commissioners would feel about that. Hoover: It wouldn't be our jurisdiction. Warrick: There is an allowance for addresses. It is not within the development regulations. I would have to check with our 911 Coordinator to find out if there is a maximum size for an address to be displayed on the structure. That would probably be the only provision that I would say we would need to accommodate in this particular situation. We do encourage people to put large address numbers so that structures can be easily found by emergency services. I just need to check with the 911 Coordinator and see if there are any problems with this proposal in that regard. Hoover: Are there any other comments? Bunch: If I read it correctly you are calling for a chain link fence along the greenspace or open space on the east side of the hill. Staff, what are our regulations on chain link fence in the R -O district? Warrick: There is not a restriction. This is not a commercial development. Commercial design standards where we do have specific restrictions on fencing and setback from being behind the main structure do not apply to this particular project. Fencing can be located on the property line. We have no height regulation on fencing. I think this proposal is compatible and in compliance with our ordinances. Bunch: That was my main question is to make sure we are consistent with what we have required of other developers. Planning Commission September 22, 2003 Page 20 Warrick: We do look more specifically at commercial projects because commercial design standards does specifically address fencing. Davis: This fence is not your typical 6' gray chain link fence. It will have grape vines, it will be red and it will curve too. It will not just be a blank, gray in -personable fence there. It will have some character to it. Bunch: Will it have the slats stuck in it that are red? Davis: No, the fence will not be straight either, it will be curved around the property line. Bunch: Is that an easy way to get out of good construction to say it is going to be curved? I'm teasing. Kuehn: Here is the site plan. The fence we have got is kind of meandering through right by the retaining wall. It is red chain link with grape vines. Bunch: Thank you. Hoover: Is there any other discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 03-20.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Planning Commission September 22, 2003 Page 21 CUP 03-21.00: Conditional Use (April Lee, pp 523) was submitted by April Lee for property located at 505 Prairie Street. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial and contains approximately 0.97 acres. The request is to remodel the existing 1 story metal building into a Single-family residence. Hoover: Item number five on the agenda is CUP for property located at 515 Prairie Street. Suzanne? Morgan: The subject property is located at the southeast comer of Prairie Street and Gregg Street. The site consists of approximately five lots with an I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial zoning. Surrounding uses consist of single-family, multi -family, and commercial units. For twelve years the property in question has been used as a skateboard park for local youth. This use was discontinued in July of 2003. Two metal buildings and a carport exist on the property. The applicant is currently using the smaller of the two buildings as a storage facility for frozen beverage dispensers. The second metal building is approximately 2,700 sq.ft. expanding from lot 22 through 24 and is being proposed as a single-family dwelling. A gravel drive from Prairie Street is used to access this structure. The applicant proposes to utilize the existing metal structure for a single- family residential dwelling. The existing 2700 sq.ft. building is proposed to undergo rehabilitation. The existing open space to the south of the site is to currently remain as open space. The applicant proposes to remove all debris and refuse from the property and replace the existing fence. The applicant's request is to allow the existing 2,700 sq.ft. metal structure to be utilized as a single-family dwelling in a Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial zoning district. The reason you are hearing this as a Conditional Use Permit is § 164.03 of the Development Code specifically says, "A detached residential dwelling unit may be permitted in the I-1 zoning district as a conditional use." This section is included in your packet. Staff is in support of converting the existing 2700 sq.ft. structure into a single-family dwelling unit. The result of this action will be that this property will be more in harmony with the surrounding single-family neighborhoods and newly remodeled Mill District. Debris and refuse will be removed from the property creating a cleaner and safer environment. New fencing will also provide protection and aesthetically enhance the neighborhood. There are several findings required for Conditional Use Permit and several of the pertinent ones that I felt needed to be addressed. The first is concerning any potential adverse affects to the public interest. Staff feels that Granting the requested conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest. This change of use will bring the subject property more into harmony with surrounding properties. The amount of traffic and noise proposed with this request will not significantly increase from the current and previous use of the property. Proposed improvements to the site will also be beneficial to the neighborhood. The second is concerning general compatibility with adjacent properties and Planning Commission September 22, 2003 Page 22 other property in the district. Staff has found that the adjacent properties consist of mixed-use, single-family residential dwelling units, and light- industrial/commercial uses. The proposal to convert this structure into a single-family dwelling will make this property more compatible with adjoining properties. The other findings have been addressed in the conditions of approval for this Conditional Use Permit for which staff is recommending approval. The conditions of approval are as follows: 1) Debris and refuse shall be removed from the site prior to issuance of a building permit. 2) Appearance of site shall be maintained as a residential lot in accordance with the City Code Chapter 95.01 (see attached). 3) Area along the interior and exterior fence shall be cleared of debris. 4) Current standing fence shall be replaced. 5) Complete building plans shall be submitted to the City to secure a building permit. 6) The owner shall either construct a sidewalk or pay money in lieu according to 171.12 to be determined by sidewalk coordinator. There is an addition that was handed out before the meeting. It is a memo from the Sidewalk Coordinator. In it, Mr. Rutherford has recommended money in lieu of the sidewalk due to other pedestrian trails and the condition of that area. Staff is in support of this recommendation and we recommend that the amount be for $630 for a single-family dwelling. 7) Any access in addition to the driveway on Prairie Road must me reviewed by staff prior to installation. 8) New concrete drive shall be 24 feet maximum in width and shall comply with all driveway specifications. 9) The improved drive will serve the industrial and single-family residential uses. 10) Applicant shall coordinate with the Solid Waste Division for appropriate solid waste disposal. Any solid waste container shall be shielded in accordance with the City Code. Hoover: Thanks, would the applicant come forward please? Lee: Hi there, my name is April Lee and I have nothing else to add. Hoover: Is there any member of the audience that would like to address this CUP 03-21.00? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commissioners and to the applicant. Bunch: Should we use the same lighting conditions that we had on the previous item about the full cut off lighting since we are talking about having lights at all four corners of the building and at entrances? Would that be appropriate? Warrick: Yes sir, that would be appropriate. We typically and require that all lighting be shielded and directed downward away from any residential areas and that they be full cutoff fixtures. Church: Do we have signed conditions of approval? Planning Commission September 22, 2003 Page 23 Morgan: No. Hoover: Can we ask the applicant, are you in agreement with all of the conditions of approval? Lee: Yes. Hoover: Are there any other comments? Ostner: It seems like a great project and improvement for the neighborhood. My question for the applicant is about the current standing fence should be replaced and in this semi -industrial area we're sometimes short on greenery and that fence is solid green. I am just wondering if that is something you all want to do or if the city told you to do? Lee: It was recommended. I like the fence myself and I would like to plant more vines to grow and cover the entire fence but I am willing to do whatever it takes to comply. Ostner: Thank you. My question with staff would that be would that seem ok? Warrick: If the commission thinks that that is appropriate and compatible that is your measure for a Conditional Use approval so we would be ok with that. MOTION: Ostner: I would like to make a motion that we approve CUP 03-21 and we eliminate condition number four. There is a fence that is currently operational and it is a down home fence, it looks like it has been there a long time, it is covered with vines and it promotes the character of the neighborhood. Anthes: I will second. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Ostner and a second by Commissioner Anthes. Is there anymore discussion? Bunch: A question of the motioner, number four is about tree removal, is that the on you want taken out? Williams: No, it is a current standing fence. Bunch: Oh, I'm sorry, I'm on the wrong one. Hoover: Four says current standing fence shall be replaced. Planning Commission September 22, 2003 Page 24 Bunch: Ok. Did you add the lighting? Ostner: Right, on the motion I was going to add a condition of approval that all the lighting should be fully cut off and shielded downward as city codes require. Lee: Not a problem. Hoover: That is an agreement with the second? Anthes: Yes. Hoover: Is there anymore discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 03-21.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Hoover: Dawn, can you tell us when the Dover Kohl presentation is because I would like to invite the Commissioners to that? Warrick: My understanding is that that will be in conjunction with agenda session next Tuesday afternoon, agenda session is at 4:30 in room 326. Hoover: The presentation is at 4:30? Warrick: I will get more information out to you. I wasn't able to get an exact time. My understanding is that it is in conjunction with agenda session because they will be discussing the contract. It will very likely follow it though, I don't have any information at this time. It will be sometime in the realm of 4:30 next Tuesday afternoon but I will contact each of you and let you know specifics. Hoover: Does everyone know what the Dover Kohl presentation is from the Commission? Bunch: The Downtown Master Plan. Hoover: Yes. We have an announcement by Commissioner Estes. Estes: Madam Chair, may I have the privilege of the floor? Hoover: Would you like this chair? Planning Commission September 22, 2003 Page 25 Estes: No, I've been there before. At the close of this meeting I will resign from the Fayetteville Planning Commission. The reason for my resignation is two weeks ago this past Saturday we put a for sale sign out in front of my house and within 30 minutes we were showing it and within several hours we had an offer. The closing date requires that we move fairly quickly and the only option we have is a rent house that we own in Bentonville and so we will be moving to Bentonville, Arkansas. I will tell you that this has been a very difficult decision for both myself and my family, for Patricia, John, Matthew and Sarah. I have served on this Commission under two mayortorial administrations. I have served on this commission under four chairs. I have served on every committee that this commission has ever constituted. I have served as your chair, I've served as your vice chair and I of course now serve as your senior member. It is my opinion that service on the Fayetteville Planning Commission is one of duty and is one of responsibility. Applicants come before this commission literally with their hopes, their dreams, their projects and their checkbooks. To affectively discharge the duties of a commissioner as we all know requires time, it requires due diligence, it requires attention and it requires an unselfish dedication of our resources. I encourage anyone who is interested an qualified to apply for my position. Clarence Darrell spent over half of his career representing clients without any compensation or recompense whatsoever because they were poor and they could not pay. They were poor and yet he realized that service to his community is a duty that we owe as a citizen in a free republic and that we owe time to our community if we are to preserve our community as we wish it to be constituted and as we wish it to continue Inherent in our republican form of government is the concept of the citizen volunteer. This applies to boards, it applies to commissions and it applies to elected offices. The thought is that a disposition to preserve an ability and an ability to improve is dependent upon a fresh view and upon new talent and this requires citizen participation. I would very much like to see an overwhelming number of people apply for my position. To you my colleagues say goodbye and best wishes. It has been an honor and it has been a privilege and I thank you. Hoover: Thank you. Have we got any comments? We really appreciate your service Commissioner Estes and I certainly have learned a lot over the years from serving with you and I am sure others have too. You have been a great role model. Ostner: You have shown me a lot on this Commission and I appreciate your service. You've been here a lot longer than I have and I get tired of it. I know it is a great sacrifice and I appreciate it. Allen: I echo the same opinion. Thank you and we will miss you. Planning Commission September 22, 2003 Page 26 Hoover: Are there any other announcements? Warrick: Two things real quick. First, Commissioner Estes, I'm disappointed to see you go but obviously it is the right thing for you and your family. Estes: And to Bentonville. Warrick: Will you be serving on their Commission? Estes: No. Warrick: We very much appreciate everything that you have done with this commission to help in forwarding the Planning activities for the City of Fayetteville. You have been a valuable resource to us and we very much appreciate your service. My other announcement, you have in front of you a flyer announcing an APA Audio Conference coming up on Wednesday, October lst at 3:00. That will be held here in room 219 and the topic of that audio conference is Context Sensitive Street Design. I will let you read a little bit more about that, it is a little bit vague but it does have to do with designing appropriate streets for your community. It looks like it will be an interesting audio conference. These are kind of interactive programs that we subscribe to and we encourage Planning Commissioners, Council members, and citizens to partake in it. It is a free one hour educational session and we all generally learn from it so we would appreciate your attendance if you're interested. Hoover: Thanks. I have one other announcement to remind everyone the hillside ordinance task force is meeting tomorrow at 10:30. Everyone is invited. We are on our next to the last meeting. If you want to have some in sight into it please join us tomorrow at 10:30 in room 326. Bunch: One other comment for Mr. Estes. I have had the honor of serving on several committees and on the commission with Commissioner Estes as well as having known him for many years from junior high and high school and college and whatever, we go way back. I have learned a lot from Commissioner Estes and I hope that we as fellow commissioners can pass those lessons onto newer commissioners because the information and the technology and techniques, methodology that we've learned from Commissioner Estes is very valuable and deserves to be passed on and remembered. Hoover: Thank you. We stand adjourned.