Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-01-26 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Monday, January 26, 2004 at 5:30 p.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN CUP 04-03.00: Conditional Use (Miss Cherrie's Playhouse, pp 562) Approved Page 2 CUP 04-05.00: Conditional Use (Brian Turley, pp 398) Approved Page 5 CUP 04-01.00: Conditional Use (Wal-Mart/Mall Ave., pp 173) Tabled Page 8 CUP 04-02.00: Conditional Use (Wal-Mart/Hwy. 62, pp 557) Tabled Page 8 RZN 04-01.00: Rezoning (Parnell, pp 595) Denied Page 22 ADM 04-03.00: Administrative (Focus Salon, pp 558) Approved Sign appeal in Design Overlay District Page 38 ADM 04-04.00: Administrative (Design Overlay District Signage) Forwarded to City Council Page 45 ADM 04-05.00: Administrative (Parkland Zoning Exemption) Page 51 MEMBERS PRESENT James Graves Alan Ostner Loren Shackelford Jill Anthes Alice Church Sharon Hoover Christian Vaught Nancy Allen STAFF PRESENT Dawn Warrick Suzanne Morgan Jeremy Pate Renee Thomas Kit Williams Forwarded to City Council MEMBERS ABSENT Don Bunch STAFF ABSENT Matt Casey Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 2 Hoover: We are ready to begin the January 26`h Planning Commission meeting. Could we have roll call? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were eight Commissioners present with Commissioner Bunch being absent. Hoover: Thank you Renee. We won't have any minutes to approve this time. We will approve the last meeting's minutes at the next meeting. On to item number one of our business, CUP 04-03.00 for Miss Cherrie's Playhouse. Suzanne? CUP 04-03.00: Conditional Use (Miss Cherrie's Playhouse, pp 562) was submitted by David and Cherrie Frazee for property located at 425 W. 11`h Street. The property is zoned RMF -24, Residential Multi -family, 24 units per acre. The request is to allow a child care facility in a residential zoning district. Morgan: The subject property is located along 11`h Street east of West Street and the property is zoned RMF -24 containing approximately '/4 of an acre. There is an alley access along the east side of the property which contains one single family dwelling. The applicant has operated a childcare facility from this location for approximately 3 V2 years. The Department of Health and Services has licensed this operation for 16 children and 10 children currently attend on a full time basis ranging in ages from three to six. There is currently one part time employee during the school year and full time during the summer months. The dimensions for this facility provides the required amount of outdoor play area and minimum lot area required for a childcare facility. The request is for a Conditional Use permit approval to allow a childcare facility within a residential district and the reason that you are hearing this as a Conditional Use is because there is an employee and it is considered a Conditional Use for a childcare facility instead of a home occupation. Staff is recommending approval of the request for a childcare facility on the subject property. Adequate area is being provided and parking requirements are satisfied with the existing drive and parking area. Planning staff has heard from the Coordinator of the Neighborhood Association, Aubrey Shepherd, and he did call to say that the neighbors have talked with the applicant and agree that a childcare facility would be a good fit in their neighborhood and asked us to convey that to the Planning Commission. As for findings, water and easements and trash services have been met. Staff is recommending approval with four conditions. The first of which is payment of $630 in lieu of sidewalk construction. Staff feels that sufficient time of six months be given to allow for payment of this and an additional three other conditions of approval. Hoover: Thank you. Would the applicant come forward? Do you have any more presentation to give or want to explain anymore than what Suzanne told us? Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 3 Johnson: No, I have letters from some of the people in the neighborhood. I have my fire approval from the Fire Marshall. The thing from the Safety and Business, they came and inspected the building and gave me a paper for that. I am just trying to be a good neighbor. Hoover: Great, thank you. At this time we will open it up to public comment. Is there any member of the audience that would like to address this Conditional Use for a childcare facility? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission and the applicant. Shackelford: I have two questions of staff. First of all, do we have signed conditions of approval on this? Morgan: We do not. Shackelford: The second question, regarding the payment of the sidewalk construction fee and the payment period that we talked about. I was trying to remember, what did we do on the last one that we looked at on the home childcare facility out on Mission Blvd? What was the resolution to that, is this somewhat similar to what we did in that situation? Warrick: I believe that on that one we considered, they had a very long amount of frontage, it was at the corner of Mission and Greenpoint Drive and we had calculated the amount necessary. There was an appeal based on that. We calculated it at $3.00 per square foot of the linear frontage of the lot. Like I said, it was a large lot with corner conditions. The applicant appealed that, brought that back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration and it was reduced to the amount that would be owed I believe for a duplex under the ordinance, which was $720 that was assessed for that project. Shackelford: A question for the applicant. It was mentioned that there was not a signed condition of approval. Do you have any issues with the conditions of approval that have been stated in this presentation? Johnson: I have a question on the sidewalk. You are telling me kind of what I needed to know that other home daycares also have to pay the sidewalk fee because I had never heard of that before but that is my question. Shackelford: That is one of the conditions of approval that they are recommending is the $630 fee that you will be required to pay within six months. Johnson: I would appreciate the six months. Thank you. Hoover: Are there any other comments? Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 4 MOTION: Shackelford: I will go ahead and make a motion that we approve CUP 04-03.00 subject to all four conditions of approval. Allen: I will second. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford and a second by Commissioner Allen, is there anymore discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 04-03.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of eight to zero. Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 5 CUP 04-05.00: Conditional Use (Brian Turley, pp 398) was submitted by Alan Reid on behalf of Brian Turley for property located on 5151 Street, north of Wedington Drive. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre, and contains approximately 0.86 acres. The request is to allow for construction of a duplex in an RSF- 4 zoning district. Hoover: On to item number two, CUP 04-05.00 for property at 51" Street north of Wedington Drive. Suzanne? Morgan: The subject property is located at 51 s` Street north of Wedington Drive and Zion Christian Union Church. It is zoned RSF-4 and the property contains approximately .86 acres with a lot width of 118 feet. The required lot width for a single family dwelling is 70 and 80 for a two family dwelling. The property was originally part of Lot 6 Pond Addition and there was a Conditional Use for a tandem lot approved which split the original 2.09 acre tract and resulted in a 1.23 acre tract with a single family home and this. 86 acre tract. The applicant is requesting to build a 3,000 sq.ft. duplex on this property. The reason that this is coming before you as a Conditional Use is that duplexes are only allowed in a single family zoning with a Conditional Use permit and staff is recommending approval of the request to allow a duplex within this zoning district. The total density of the lot is to be less than 4 units per acre and is an appropriate use between the church to the south and the surrounding single family dwellings. Within staff findings we have addressed that trash and utilities as well as sewer and water lines will be all extended and the appropriate trash services will be applied to this area. We also have found that the adjacent properties consisting of the single family residential dwellings, agricultural facilities, this will be placed in an appropriate spot between these two as a transition. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the requested Conditional Use with three conditions. Regarding the building plans as well as Solid Waste pickup and a payment of $720 in lieu of a sidewalk. Hoover: Thank you. Would the applicant come forward? Turley: Hello, I'm Brian Turley. Hoover: Do you have anything to add to the presentation? Turley: I just wondered if I could get a little bit of time to pay that sidewalk payment. I was kind of curious, it is in lieu of sidewalk because there is a drainage ditch on each side of the road right now and I understand it would be a free standing sidewalk but if I pay the $720 in lieu then whenever the city goes back and changes it around then do they put a sidewalk in, is that how that works? Hoover: Staff, do you want to go ahead and address his question? Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 6 Warrick: The $720 was determined by the City Council to be an appropriate fee for a duplex development for fee in lieu of a sidewalk construction. That fee will be due at the time of Certificate of Occupancy. You have some lead way with regard to time frame. You have the amount of time that it takes you to construct the duplex. Before you get your Certificate of Occupancy the ordinance requires that the fee be paid. That money, the $720 will be placed into an escrow account for that quadrant of the city and it would be applied to projects where sidewalks are appropriate and can be constructed. There are typically priority areas identified near schools or in orders that you typically have pedestrian activity. If there is a sidewalk project that is constructed in your particular area, then those funds could go towards the development of that sidewalk. Turley: Fair enough. Hoover: At this time we will open it up to public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address CUP 04-05.00 for property at 5151 Street north of Wedington Drive? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission and to the applicant. Shackelford: One quick question of staff just so I can learn something here. If this is zoned RSF-4 which allows four units per acre and it is .86 acres it looks like under current zoning there could be three units on this piece of property. Why are we having to do a Conditional Use to let him put two units in the form of a duplex on this property? Warrick: The uses that are permitted in an RSF-4 zoning district are solely single family detached dwelling units. That is why we are looking at the duplex. Now, if this property had adequate frontage and land area to be carved out into three individual lots that all met the minimum lot requirements, we could issue building permits for three stand alone single family homes. In this particular case there is not adequate frontage for two lots to be created. There is not 140' of frontage in order for this lot to accommodate two single family detached homes so the applicant is requesting a duplex. Hoover: Are there other comments? Ostner: This is a question for staff again. When I look at the little map of the surrounding zoning it is pretty much all RSF-4 except for the church and there is a little bit of R -A a lot or two away. I guess I'm not understanding the rational between duplexes being a buffer between churches. I thought churches were appropriate for neighborhoods. I am not sure. Warrick: Churches are appropriate for neighborhoods because services and things like churches accommodate neighbors typically. We felt like this was a good transition, not necessarily a buffer, but a good transition between Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 7 these two uses and we have also got a policy directive through our General Plan that encourages a mix of residential dwelling types within residential areas. We feel that incorporating duplexes in appropriate locations like this can meet that policy directive. Allen: I see nothing problematic about this Conditional Use so I will move for approval of CUP 04-05.00 subject to the three conditions of approval. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Allen. Shackelford: I will second. Hoover: A second by Commissioner Shackelford. Is there anymore discussion? Renee, call the roll please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 04-05.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 8 CUP 04-01.00: Conditional Use (Wal-Mart/Mall Ave., pp 173) was submitted by CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. on behalf of Wal-Mart Stores for property located at Mall Avenue and Joyce Blvd. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 24.9 acres more or less. The request is to allow the use of 45, 40' long trailers for outdoor storage/warehousing during the holiday season with 10 trailers retained for year round usage proposed. CUP 04-02.00: Conditional Use (Wal-Mart/Hwy. 62, pp 557) was submitted by CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. on behalf of Wal-Mart Stores for property located on U.S. Hwy 62, west of I-540. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 28.70 acres. The request is to allow the use of 60, 40' long trailer for outdoor storage/warehousing during the holiday season with 10 trailers retained for year round usage proposed. Hoover: Item number three on the agenda is CUP 04-01.00 for Wal-Mart located on Mall Avenue and Joyce Blvd. Suzanne? Morgan: Items number three and four are approximately similar requests with the exception of location and location of the requested storage trailers on the property. This particular request, the applicant is requesting to use a portion of the subject property for outdoor storage on a seasonal and a year around basis. There will be a total of 45 trailers on this site, which is located at Mall Avenue and Joyce Blvd. There will be 45 trailers from October 15`h to January 15`h with 10 trailers to remain for year around storage. The applicant is proposing a 9' tall 800' long masonry wall along the western property line as well as 64 trees, proposing the installation of 64 new trees. The request is to allow for a warehousing use within a commercial zone for the purpose of these storage trailers for both seasonal and year around use. Staff is recommending denial of the request to allow outdoor storage classified as warehousing on the subject property. Staff finds that the storage containers are not in harmony with the surrounding development and do not meet the criteria for Commercial Design Standards. Staff finds that warehousing and storage facilities are not generally with the surrounding commercial development and the use of the proposed temporary structures in a Thoroughfare Commercial. Staff also finds that the number and proximity of the proposed trailers pose a risk for ingress and egress access as well as a potential fire hazard. The adjacent properties are consisting of commercial businesses with the proposal to utilize a portion of the subject property for outdoor storage and warehousing use. The storage containers do not meet the Commercial Design Standards and will not enhance or be compatible with adjacent properties. Staff is recommending denial of this request. Would you like me to read information for item number four as well? Hoover: Yes, I'm thinking why don't you go ahead and do that. Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 9 Morgan: Ok, thank you. This is CUP 04-02.00 submitted by CEI Engineering on behalf of Wal-Mart Stores for property located at Hwy. 62 west of I-540. This property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 28 acres. The request is to allow the use of sixty 40' trailers for outdoor storage and warehousing during the holiday season with ten trailers retained for year around usage. This applicant has proposed a 10' tall 60' long wood fence for screening as well as trees and shrubbery. Staff is also recommending denial of this request for outdoor storage with the same findings as the previous request. Hoover: Thank you. Would the applicant come forward and do you have a presentation? Jacobs: Good evening, my name is Todd Jacobs, I'm with CEI Engineering, I represent Wal-Mart. I would just like to go over a few things and why both stores are asking for Conditional Uses for trailers. Wal-Mart is one of the few remaining retailers that allow lay away. Most other big box or retailers do no longer have a lay away plan. Most of the trailers that are being used at both stores, almost 80% of it is used for layaways for the customer. This is not Wal-Mart adding extra merchandise but for the customer's benefit of having their layaways on hand at the store verses being kept off the property. I know the city and the staff are worried about setting a precedent here with the use of container units for a store but I'm sure some retailers would like to have trailer units as well. With that in mind, I would like to address the Joyce Mall store first. What they proposed was a masonry wall in the back of the store to screen not only the trailer units but it would also screen the day to day operations of what goes on at the store. I'm sure on your trip you realized in the back there are lots of utilities, fire doors, transformers, gas meters, pallets, there is also a trash compactor. With that wall and the future development that is going to go into Steele Crossing, that would be screened. You would not see it regardless of if the trailer units are going to be there. With that in the rear the future development going in there would not see the day to day activity and it would also enhance what is potentially going in that area commercially. Also, on the sides of that Wal-Mart are trailer loading areas. What we are proposing is also a masonry wall, 9' tall that would screen the units that would be there and also would screen the truck wells, the docks that are visibly seen from Joyce Blvd. and the parking lot. With that they would be screened and the additional landscaping that we are proposing, we know this is a sticking issue, would also try to help that area and enhance it. The trees that we have called out for are much larger size than what the city's typical specs are. Also, the amount of trailers, we tried to strip it from the seasonal use, October 16`h to January 15`h. I know there have been some issues with the Fire Department but after taking the measurements up there, the working drawings, there is ample room for a fire truck, even the larger size to get in and out for service. That is always an issue that we look at from the engineering point of view is the safety of Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 10 not only our applicant but the community as well. There is room for the fire truck. There are also some questions about the containers themselves. They are still containers enclosed. The likelihood of a fire in one, it would not be likely with the lack of oxygen it is hard for it to set fire. With that, we had looked at possibly adding onto the store but it was only applicable for only those two and a half months a year. The big reason for Wal-Mart for both stores is the use of layaway for their customers. Otherwise, they will be forced to look outside of their property or outside the city for places to house someone's layaways. Therefore, when someone comes for Christmas to pickup their layaway there would be a time frame lag of asking for your item and having it on hand verses going off site to get it. On both stores we have attempted to add trees and shrubs, not only to screen but add something back to Fayetteville to help beautify. With that said, I will answer any questions that you may have. Hoover: Thank you. At this time I will open it up to the public if anyone would like to comment on this CUP 04-01.00 or CUP 04-02.00, both of them for the Wal-Mart stores. Seeing no one from the audience, I will bring it back to the Commission. Graves: My law firm and I represent Wal-Mart, not on this particular matter, I'm not sure the procedure for this but they are one of our clients so I wanted to disclose that up front. Hoover: Does that mean that you want to recuse? Graves: I'm not looking for an opinion, I would be happy to recuse. Hoover: Thank you, I appreciate it. I have a question for staff and I don't know if you know the answer to this. It seems like these trailers are needed for layaway items and I'm wondering how other stores like Target, I'm sure Target has layaway, what they do with theirs? Are you aware? Warrick: I'm really not certain which other retailers do provide a layaway program. We do not, to my knowledge, have any other large retailers that have this type of facility on site. If they by chance do have a trailer or two they are not there by approval because this is something that requires Planning Commission approval. It is a Conditional Use because it is warehousing in a commercial district. I'm not aware of any other facilities. Vaught: I have a question, how tall are the trailers? Jacobs: The trailers are 8' wide, 40' long and 8 Yz' tall. Sitting on the ground, asphalt so you would have the trailer, a 6" curb and then a 9' tall wall so you would be screening at least 9'/z' which covers almost 3/0 of the back of the Joyce Mall and the sides of the 6th Street Wal-Mart. Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 11 Vaught: If they are for layaway and primarily seasonal why are you asking for some year around trailers? Jacobs: Some of that is for seasonal use. For spring when garden season starts up it is pretty much for spring and winter. The ten that they keep year around is basically just for seasonal items. There is flexibility in our proposal for how many we keep on site. If ten is not allowed we are very flexible in not having ten year around. We will just keep the 45 from the dates that we pick and that would be it. If Wal-Mart did not keep their agreement then a fine should be set and they should be penalized. Vaught: What would the repercussion be if we found they weren't in compliance? Warrick: If the Planning Commissioner were to approve a Conditional Use with conditions and for some reason one of those conditions was not being complied with we would need to bring that back to the Planning Commission to revoke the Conditional Use, that would be staff's recommendation unless you chose to add conditions or somehow modify your approval. If the Conditional Use were withdrawn and the activity continued we would forward this to the city prosecutor's office for further action. Williams: Another option would also be taking some sort of mandatory injunction procedure if they were refusing to comply with the Conditional Use that they agreed to. Vaught: One of my main concerns on especially the Mall one are the trailers located right by Joyce. They are just not going to be screened from Joyce. Those are my main concerns. I understand the need for extra storage. What other options are there to say Wal-Mart, is the only other option to build onto the store to create a storage area or what are the other options that code would allow? Warrick: The code would certainly permit this user to rent or own or develop warehouse space in an alternate location that is in the proper zoning district. That is an option that is currently available to this applicant. I think that the applicant's representative has done an admirable job of showing that they can provide adequate screening, or attempt to provide adequate screening. I think that both of these sites would benefit from the screening regardless of whether or not the storage was allowed. What I think is very important to look at though is regardless of whether or not the storage units are visible or somewhat visible, the land use is very key. That is the reason that this is not a use that is permitted by right in this zoning district. It is conditional and only conditional by the fact that the Planning Commission can find a way to ensure compatibility through screening or some other type of mitigating circumstance it can be approved as a Conditional Use. Staff is very concerned that that is not the Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 12 best way to approach this because we are talking about wholesale warehousing on a site that is zoned for Thoroughfare Commercial use for retail operations. What they are proposing is a large amount of warehousing. We have sites in the city that are properly zoned for warehousing and even though this is a temporary annual type application it is something that affects the site year around. It affects all of the adjoining sites and it affects the way that we deal with all of the commercial users within the city. Primary concerns are the facts that we are looking at a use that is not compliant in any way with Commercial Design Standards. This use is being established on a commercial site. I think that is very important that we are able to address that and typically when we talk about Commercial Design Standards screening is not a mechanism to comply with architectural design standards. It does mitigate but it does not make something a non-metal wall. It does not make something articulated. It just hides it. Jacobs: Can I address that question as well? It is a mitigation. We cannot hide the trailers, they are metal, that is just the fact of it. With this screening you are getting a dual benefit. Wal-Mart is getting to keep their trailers for lay away and you are screening the back of a building that quite frankly will be seen further down Joyce as commercial development continues. It is a tradeoff for Wal-Mart to pay for the masonry wall and to get to keep the trailers. I took a really close look at that on Monday and the measurements. I had a hard time myself being convinced, I live in Fayetteville, should we have trailers? I went back to the store and took a close look at it. It is an option up to you. In my opinion for allowing Wal- Mart to keep their trailers you do get screening for the back of the building, you get additional landscaping that will also cut down on not visibly seeing the building but what's along Joyce, the trailers on Joyce will be difficult to see once the trees are in. Landscaping is not an instant impact, we all know that. We have called out some bigger trees that would grow in that area. Loblolly pines are, as we all know, are very fast growing, we've called out 10'. They grow quick. That would screen the comer of that building. We have also called out bald cypress there on the Joyce side. Where they are planted is a very wet area. We know that bald cypress is a very tall, very fast growing tree. We know this is a precedent. We really want to try to work with the city and staff on the number of trailers and the dates and the amount of landscaping. We are very willing to add more landscaping and some more walls for this. Like I said, it is for layaway, it is for a customer's benefit. It is for Wal-Mart because it is their customer but basically those trailers are used for the customer's layaway. Vaught: How did you guys come up with 45 and 60? That is a large number of trailers. Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 13 Jacobs: It is a large number of trailers. Basically, the short story of the thing is both Wal-Mart stores have always had trailers but we've never noticed or no one has ever brought it to the forefront. I asked the store managers to count the numbers they have had over the past couple of years. Two years ago they had 70 unit trailers at the Joyce store and probably the same amount at 6`h Street. They have that number down from 70 two years ago to 55 this year during peak Christmas. Both stores were roughly the same numbers. They have had them before in the last two or three years, I think it is probably just slipped by everybody, Planning Commission, staff, everybody and it has probably just come to the forefront now that we see them around. Forty five is what I asked the store managers for kind of a number realistically they could probably do with minimum. They have told me tonight that they are willing to go lower if there is a possibility of trying to work things out. Forty five was back at Christmas and the peak time and customers everywhere is how they came up with that number. Shackelford: As I look at this project I don't think I concur with staff that this is substantial warehousing in commercial zoning. It is kind of a shock to think about this number of trailers but the core of this is you still have a 210,000 sq.ft. building of retail space in a commercial zoning. If you look relatively speaking the amount of warehousing they are requesting is not that big of a percentage of the overall square footage of the footprint. With that being said, I think the screening and landscaping are very key to this. I also had some concerns about the views from Joyce Street. As I drove it today I noticed that there is a pretty good that the existing landscaping, the terrain of the property and the berm, that side of the building is not that visible from Joyce Street. My opinion coming into this meeting was that it might be a fair tradeoff for the City of Fayetteville to allow them to do this just so that we can get the screening and landscaping that they propose that might make the overall project more beneficial or at least look better to the overall community. One thing that the applicant has said that I find very interesting is that they have been doing this in the past and nobody has noticed so that says something about the impact that this has on the location. Nobody, including ourselves, noticed it through the holiday seasons when we have driven by these properties and had any concerns in the past. I'm not sure at this point that we wouldn't be better off trying to figure out something that we could agree to to allow the applicant to have their way and to get the screening and landscaping that might be better off for the whole city. That's my opinion. Vaught: I would agree. The only trailers I would worry about on this site would be those up next to Joyce. Limiting the year around trailers maybe to the location by the Tire and Lube Center. I don't know of anywhere in the city that you can see that side of the building unless you drive back there. I agree with Commissioner Shackelford, 45 is a large number, if people want to reduce that I would understand that as well but I don't think, especially for the seasonal use, that it really changes the nature of the Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 14 entire site. Like I said, if there is anything that I would have a problem with it would be the ones right next to Joyce. I think driving by on a daily basis people probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference between these trailers and the normal trailer activity with deliveries and things pulling in and out. Church: I guess I would say being in retail I can certainly understand being out of space and needing additional storage space. I guess I see something on a temporary basis. I guess if you are looking at something more year around I think that might require a more permanent fix and I think that's where staff is probably coming from. I guess the only other comment I would make, I think it has been announced in the paper recently the stadium seated theater project, which I believe is due to go in behind Wal-Mart. If we are putting a premier project in I think we certainly need to take a hard look at what kind of screening that is going to be done adjacent to a project like that that is going to be getting so much traffic on a day in and day out basis. Hoover: Thank you. I would like to make one point when Commissioner Shackelford referenced the number of trailers, that comes up to 14,400 sq.ft. so the square footage is actually the size of a building, just to put that in perspective for everybody. I agree with Commissioner Church, I appreciate that. Ostner: My issue with this is that it is a precedent. This can happen all over town tomorrow. It can happen at Lowe's. I don't know why the mall wouldn't want to. Any commercial business could petition us for 40, 50, 60 or 100 trailers and suddenly we are swamped with drawings of a wall here, a screening there, how tall when in fact it is a shortcut. It is a temporary warehouse that is prefab, you bring it in and set if off on a crane, which is fine, but it is in the wrong place. §163.02C(3)b reads, it questions "The granting of this Conditional Use will not adversely affect the public interest." The finding that the staff has generated, which I concur with, "Granting this requested Conditional Use is not in the best interest of the public. Warehousing and storage facilities are not compatible with the surrounding commercial development and the use of the proposed temporary structures and the thoroughfare commercial zoning district is not consistent with the design standards." Which goes back to what Ms. Warrick touched on is these are buildings. Just because they come in on a crane and go off on a crane doesn't mean they are not structures. I think we are going to be really sorry as a Commission if we open a flood of temporary buildings throughout our city in the wrong zone. The safety concerns me, if we are installing temporary buildings there is no sprinkler system. Here is another finding, § 163.02C.3.2.a talking about ingress and egress. "Ingress and egress and structures thereon with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and traffic flow." I understand that there is access, there is room for a fire truck. However, Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 15 the number and proximity of proposed trailers to each other pose a risk to the ingress and egress of the site if a fire or other disaster were to occur within one or more storage units. These are all things that would be looked through very carefully if this were a building, if this were a 14,000 sq.ft. building. Being temporary little pieces of buildings placed everywhere makes it very difficult to coordinate. Those are my comments. I don't think this is in the betterment of the community. Jacobs: You are right, they are metal buildings. There is a chance of fire. They are self contained so the likelihood of a fire is very little. The tradeoff for the city is you are right, every retailer could come to you next week and try to get trailer storage. What we have tried to do is make a tradeoff of Wal-Mart lining that verses trying to hide a 200,000 sq.ft. retail building. It is the largest commercial retail in town, we all know that so we've done our best to try to screen it so that the city gets something besides trailers and the next applicant that comes before you, here is the precedent we set, we spent $60,000 or $70,000 on screening and landscaping not only to hide trailers but to better the building, to try to hide what you can of it. I still believe that the wall in the back and the future commercial development is going to occur in the rear, whether it be the mall or the theatre or whatever will come, aesthetically it will not see the day to day activities for the back of this store. I know there is a precedent of other retailers coming to you. We have tried to add the masonry wall to match the building and extra landscaping. If the applicant comes to you and they are willing to do the same amount and it does improve the community some then they should have that opportunity but if not, then they should be denied. We have done our best to hide the trailers and the building as well. Anthes: I appreciate the work that the applicant has gone through in terms of the extra trees and the wall. However, I'm looking at this and seeing 14,000 sq.ft. of use which I would be happy to see come to this Commission as an addition to this building that met Commercial Design Standards. We look at projects every single day in commercial areas and they have to meet a set of criteria in order to build them. We modify facades every time we have one of these projects come through which is very frequently, and we talk about articulation and all the different things about materials. Indeference to all those applicants that have met those conditions in the past I find it very hard to approve this now. Vaught: On Commercial Design Standards don't they primarily pertain to walls that are visible or are you talking about all sides? Hoover: No. Vaught: Typically, we harp on the visible sides the most and we give some lead way on sides that are not visible. Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 16 Hoover: If it is totally never going to be seen but what we seem to find most of the time is that almost always all four sides are going to be seen. Rarely is there a case. Vaught: On this project, the reason why I'm saying that is if they do build a masonry wall and line it with those trailers you are going to see the 8' end of those trailers. Those I don't necessarily on the Commercial Design Standards have an issue with. The twelve trailers in the back behind the garden center, the tire and lube center it is very hard to see that. Like I said, the ones that I would have the hardest time with are the 16 up near Joyce because those will be visible and I understand it on that one. If we made them all temporary it is even better. Knowing the needs of business it is not going to make sense I don't think for them to go out and build a new structure for two months out of the year. In my opinion it is a way of working with businesses that do provide a lot to our community and in a way that they want to better this site. You can see a lot of the back of that building right now driving on Joyce and you always will be able to. If the screening could be put into place to hide some of that I think that would be great. I don't know if you could put a roof over those trailers if that is possible, something to hide them over the top but that is a question that is not for me. Providing more screening of them. For 2 '/z months out of the year I guess I understand the applicant's point better. The number of trailers is the one thing and then the location on Joyce are the two issues that I do have. I guess I'm more sympathetic to the applicant's desires. Hoover: I guess maybe we need clarification because now that you brought up 2 '/2 months out of the year I wasn't clear, is there anything in here that says how many months each what number will be used? Jacobs: On the plan by the general notes it has the number of units and the dates and the size of the units. The applicant, Wal-Mart, there will be no change of trailer size. Hoover: Thank you. Allen: I appreciate the applicant's efforts to suggest the screening and wish that Wal-Mart would just gift us with that screening regardless. I am very concerned with the precedent that this would establish for Fayetteville. As staff told us, screening doesn't make this comply. I just don't think this is the right place for such buildings. Shackelford: A question of staff. How did this come to the city's attention? Warrick: Through citizen complaints. Shackelford: How many citizen complaints were logged on this issue? Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 17 Warrick: I don't know for sure. Shackelford: Can you ballpark it for us? Warrick: I know that we received at least two last year at the end of the season and then this year prior to all of the trailers being on the sites I believe we probably received one or two additional complaints. Shackelford: Thank you very much. Anthes: In looking at this, it says October 15`h through January 15`h, which is 3 months of the year which is 25%, '/4 of the time, which is substantial, it is not insubstantial and then also that the ten would be year around. I find it hard pressed to say that we would allow that kind of a permanent presence on a site that didn't meet the standards for the district. Jacobs: The trailers in the max number is usually two weeks before Thanksgiving and then of course, a week and a half after Christmas. Before that there are usually just the ten or twelve that you see. There are ten at one store right now and I think 11 or 12 at the other one. We are willing definitely to cut the dates down and to rule out the trailers that would be there full time. That is something that we are willing to do and the tradeoff of the masonry wall, which would be a split faced block that would match the colors of the existing Wal-Mart. Anthes: I appreciate that but we are still dealing with an incompatible use in an area that doesn't meet design standards that we require of all other applicants. That being said, I would like to move to deny CUP 04-01.00. Ostner: Second. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Anthes and a second by Commissioner Ostner to deny this Conditional Use, is there more discussion? Shackelford: I will be obviously voting against the motion. One thing I really hate is the slippery slope argument. If you follow that line of thinking every Conditional Use could be considered a precedence to be set. I think one of the reasons that Conditional Uses are allowed is to give the Planning Commission the ability to hear basically an appeal process and look on a case by case basis uses and needs that are outside of what this standard language is. In this particular case I would support the Conditional Use. I don't know that there is an adverse affect to the public interest. I think that it has operated this way in the past without a whole lot of adverse affect. If anything, I think you can see a betterment to the city with some Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 18 sort of compromise with future development behind the property. With that being said, I will be voting against this motion. Williams: Normally when there is a Conditional Use to be voted on the Chairman informs the applicant that it requires five votes in order to pass even though there are only eight Commissioners here and normally we will give the applicant an opportunity to postpone the vote until the full Commission is here, especially when I've heard the applicant say "I'll do this or I'll do that. I will make these other changes in order to try to make it more palpable to the Planning Commission." I thought maybe you would want to give him that option before it was voted on. Hoover: Ok. Did you understand that? Jacobs: Yes. We would before the vote, like the opportunity to work as many details out with the staff as possible. The store managers have given me some lead way in adding more landscaping and walls, lessen the number of trailers and the time frame. With that, I would like to wait until the next Commission to vote and try to work out some more details with the staff and address some of the concerns that we have heard tonight. Hoover: Technically are we withdrawing or do we need to table? Williams: It would be a motion to table. Hoover: So you would like us to table it? Jacobs: Yes. Hoover: Ok, thank you. We have a motion on the table right now. Williams: You would actually be tabling that motion. Hoover: Ok, so we need a motion to table. Williams: I would suggest when you come back though that the motion ought to be approved even if you want to deny it because it requires five votes to pass it but I don't know how many votes it takes to pass your motion to deny it if you understand what I mean. Next time it would probably be better for someone who would be in favor of this to vote to approve it. Hoover: I have found that to work better in the past we've had that same situation. Right now do we have a motion to table this? Vaught: I do have an additional comment or question for staff. I hate tabling things and asking staff to work things out with the developer and not giving staff any direction because I think that puts them in the same spot, Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 19 we are going to get the same thing back in two or three weeks with minor changes. In my opinion additional screening would be great on the Mall Avenue site, reduce the number of trailers, get rid of the trailers along Joyce. I am not opposed to having ten year around if they are limited to the ones on the tire and lube side. I don't think it is a precedent setting issue along with Commissioner Shackelford I think every case is a case by case basis. Most of the people that would just run in here with applications wouldn't propose the level of improvements I think that they are here and if they are significant enough I do think it can offset the affect, especially if that is the way it is going currently. There hasn't been a large public outcry against this practice in this area of town so it makes me feel like it is not the most incompatible use currently there. That is my direction to staff on this site. The same with the other Wal-Mart site. I think 60 is what was proposed there and that is just a huge number and most of them are along Finger Road which causes me concern because that is a larger road that ties into other developments so maybe a way to hide those trailers better behind the building or in other areas would be my direction to the staff. Shackelford: I would concur with that and maybe even carry it a step further. I think I would like to see the applicant go above and beyond and propose screening. I am generally in favor of it, the thing that I am struggling getting over are the year around trailers. I think that it needs to be a seasonal thing only. I would like to see that side of the request gone completely and the number of trailers requested reduced beyond just what we are taking out for the year around trailers. That would be suggestions that I would make to staff. Hoover: Are there any other comments for direction to staff? Is there a motion to table? MOTION: Shackelford: I will make a motion to table. Hoover: There is a motion by Commissioner Shackelford to table, is there a second? Vaught: I will second. Hoover: Is there anymore discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table CUP 04-01.00 was approved by a vote of 6-2-0 with Commissioners Ostner and Anthes voting no. Williams: Was that on both actions? Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 20 Hoover Williams: Hoover: Thomas: Hoover: Jacobs: Hoover: MOTION: I was just going to do them one at a time. I'm sorry, I wasn't very clear on that. That was the first one then? Yes. CUP 04-01.00 is tabled by a vote of five to two. Can I ask the applicant, on your second Conditional Use, 04-02.00 are you requesting the same for that? Yes, table that one as well. Do we have a motion for that one? Shackelford: I make a motion that we table CUP 04-02.00. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford, is there a second? Vaught: I will second. Hoover: Is there anymore discussion? Ostner: In this issue the reason that I am going to vote against tabling is that I believe that it is clear tonight that the warehousing is not appropriate for this zone. If no citizens complained I think it would make no difference at all. It is not the citizen's responsibility to uphold our ordinances. They have voted their representatives to come to this chamber to do the nitty gritty to build our ordinances and it is our job as a city administration, as a volunteer commission to uphold those for the citizens of this town. It really concerns me that we get into a discussion of how many people complained. I wish no one had complained because it is our responsibility to uphold our ordinances as they are written. Maybe this Conditional Use would be past, that is almost a separate issue, but whose responsibility is it to bring it forward. I think that is important, zoning is not a popularity issue. The citizens of this town are not versed in how their town is built. We have a little bit more information and they look to us for that leadership, I think that is important so I will be voting against tabling this. Vaught: In this, obviously, it is a Conditional Use for commercial so it is not like this use is incompatible in all commercial district. I think that the average person's view of compatibility if it is distracting, bothering them, if it is ugly. They are not versed and it is our responsibility but even on our end Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 21 compatibility is a judgment call and it is an opinion educated or uneducated in the public that don't know the codes like we do. In my opinion it is not incompatible to have seasonal trailers on a large retail site as this one is. Shackelford: I don't want to get into an argument but I don't care who the applicant is, it is not a popularity contest and that is not the way I'm viewing it. I still argue with that it may be clear in some people's mind that this is a dead issue. In my mind that is exactly the reason we have Conditional Uses. Under the philosophy of that is the ordinance, take it or leave it, we don't need Conditional Uses anymore. We are never going to vote for them, we don't need them, they are not ever going to come into action again. I find that difficult to understand that we can't do this, we don't need to approve it under Conditional Use, it is by the ordinance as it is written when I know that we have all voted in favor of Conditional Uses in the past. I take issue with the comment that it is a popularity contest or that some of the comments that it was an ordinance put in place, take it or leave it. I think that is exactly what Conditional Uses were put in place for so that in these situations that it can be viewed on a case by case basis. There is never going to be any ordinance that is written in black and white that there is no gray area that is open for interpretation. I think this is one of those areas. Hoover: is three any more discussion about whether to table this or not? Seeing none, Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table CUP 04-02.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-2 with Commissioners Ostner and Anthes voting no. Thomas: The motion carries five to two. Hoover: Thank you and good luck. Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 22 RZN 04-01.00: Rezoning (Parnell, pp 595) was submitted by Eric Johnson of Triangle Builders Supply for property located south of Hwy. 62 and west of Hanshew Road. The property is currently zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural, and contains approximately 17.00 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RMF -12, Residential Multi- family, 12 units per acre to allow the development of townhouse lots. Hoover: Onto item number five is RZN 04-01.00 for property south of Hwy. 62 and west of Hanshew Road. Jeremy? Pate: As you may or may not remember, this is the third time we've heard this item in a couple of different forms. The request was first submitted for review at the October 13, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. At that time the item was tabled to allow the applicant and staff time to review the proposal further. It was for the same rezoning from the current zoned R- A, Residential Agricultural to the RMF -12. The second time that the Planning Commission reviewed this request was in November, 2003 at which time a Bill of Assurance was introduced by the applicant. That Bill of Assurance limited the proposed density to nine dwelling units per acre and also provided a 55' access easement north of 6"' Street to be dedicated to the city to alleviate some of the concerns that both the Fire Department and Police Department mentioned as far as access to this site for emergency purposes. At that time, the November meeting, the applicant withdrew the rezoning request to pursue the possibility of processing a Planned Zoning District. The Planned Zoning District is something that the staff has spoken to the applicant about as did the Planning Commission, if you will note in your minutes that I've included. The applicant has indicated to staff the proposal prepared to process a Planned Zoning District exceeds the amount that the applicant is willing to pursue at this time. The current rezoning request before the Planning Commission has not changed from that review November 24`h, it was simply resubmitted with the same Bill of Assurance. Therefore, staff's recommendation, because it is the same findings remains consistent for denial. I have added a few things to the staff report. We did some traffic generation numbers with the nine units per acre, I included the 12 units per acre, which is what the applicant is requesting. If you will find on page 5.4 from 1,195 vehicle trips per day at 204 town homes on this site limited to 9 dwelling units per acre it would go down to approximately 897 vehicle trips per day. Additionally, the access proposed within access easements would be beneficial to any development on this property regardless of the zoning because Hanshew Road is simply substandard, substandard access, substandard water and sewer connections. There are findings with regard to engineering, fire and police in your reports. Staff's recommendation remains the same for denial for this proposed rezoning for the purposes of compatibility with adjoining properties. Surrounding property is primarily agricultural and single family residential in nature on large lots or vacant. The proposed density would heavily increase the population in this area. I also handed out prior to the meeting two letters Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 23 from property owners adjoining this property. One is an owner and one is someone who leases property or rents property in this area, both of which I believe are against this rezoning request. I will take questions if you have them. Hoover: Thank you. Will the applicant come forward? I guess you might be specific as to what is different from this request than your last one. Anderson: Yes, my name is Mike Anderson with Engineering Design Associates. Eric Johnson is also who you talked to the last time. As you remember, the rezoning was previously tabled to allow the developer time to explore the Planned Zoning District option. It was determined too great of a financial risk given the current PZD process. Detailed plans and engineering would have to be prepared without some sort of conceptual approval. The PZD process could after great expense lead to a project that is not feasible. Basically, we have come with the same RMF -12 zoning request with the same Bill of Assurances reducing it to nine units per acre. It is the developer's intention to build an affordable townhouse development with homes for individual ownership. There would be a property owner' association to take care of maintenance of all common properties and open space. This type of town home development will present a good alternative to large multi -family developments and a traditional single family lots. All greenspace requirements will be met within the proposed development. If I might approach you I would like to give you some additional information. I am handing out a site analysis that we did of the site. Most everybody is probably familiar with where the site is but the property is located west on 6`h Street, Hwy. 62 approximately 500' from the 62 Auto Salvage and 500' south on 6th Street so we are back on 6`h Street just a little bit. Across 6th Street is Magnolia Crossing subdivision. The property is bounded on the east and south by Hanshew Road, a deadend street. The site contains approximately 17 acres. The surrounding lands are for the most part undeveloped. This area along 6`h Street has remained undeveloped partially because of the stigma of the salvage yard, the night clubs, the lack of utilities and access. The north side of 6`h Street is an area mostly within a FEMA regulated floodway and is undevelopable. The area just to the east is undergoing some rapid change and development with the addition of Wal-Mart Supercenter and the Lowe's complex, hotels, and restaurants. All of these new developments are on the same side of 6th Street and within easy walking distance from this proposed development. I think it is about probably 4,000 feet from this site to the Supercenter. We have completed a preliminary site analysis of the property to look at tree canopy coverage and species, soil types and slopes. Approximately 70% of the site is currently under canopy cover. The majority of the canopy is made up of trees less than 6" at breast height. We did note three trees meeting the significant status near the original home site. The majority of the species are typical for what you would expect to find in old field succession, Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 24 hackberries, cedars and honey locusts. Most of the trees are tangled up with vines making it seem more densely treed because you cannot see very far into the site during the leaf on. The slopes on the site range from 2% to something over 15%. The slopes are not excessive to development nor are the soil types. Several places in the staff report state that the proposed zoning is consistent with the land use plan. Staff s recommendation for denial seems to be based on compatibility with surrounding properties. The land use plan designates this area as residential. Adjacent property to the north along Sixth Street is designated as mixed use. While it is rue that the highest residential zone adjacent to the property is RSF-4, there is RMF -24 zoned properties on three sides within 1,500' of the property. The property to the east across Hanshew towards the salvage yard is zoned C-2. The remaining properties are zoned R -A. As I noted, this area has remained undeveloped partially because of the stigma of the salvage yard, the night club, the lack of utilities and access. The area that I now occupied by Wal-Mart and Lowe's are very similar to this before development. It is just a matter of time before the remaining areas along 6`h Street will be developed. We feel very strongly that this development will make a good buffer between development along the highway corridor and the potential lower density development to the south. Typically, single family next to mixed use is not desirable and most Planners will suggest multi -family residential as a buffer from single family lots. Our requested zone would provide that buffer. The R -A districts are designated to protect agricultural land until an orderly transition to urban development has been accomplished. To prevent wasteful scattering of development in rural areas. This is really not a rural area. Our rezoning request for RMF -12 is accompanied with a Bill of Assurance that would run with the sell of the property limiting the total number of units provided to no more than 9 units per acre. The Bill of Assurance also provides as a condition of development, a proposed street connection from this property through adjacent property to the north to line up with Camellia Lane. Access to the proposed development would be via this new road. Access to Hanshew would be limited to emergency vehicles only. There would be no appreciable increase to traffic danger and congestion. The proposed street connection to 6th Street will not impact residents along Hanshew Road nor Hanshew Road will be impacted by our development. While it is true that the speed limit along this portion of 6th Street is 55 miles per hour today as development occurs along the corridor the speed limit will be reduced, most likely to what it is in front of Lowe's and Wal-Mart. Site visibility along this portion of 6`h Street is good. The speed limit is reduced just to the west as you enter Farmington. As with most developments, infrastructure will have to be approved on or adjacent to the property to meet city standards. Water and sewer are available adjacent to the site but may need improving. There is little opportunity for the infrastructure in this area to be improved by city resources since a small percent of the population is affected. The best chance for improvements come from the developer. For all the above reasons, we feel that the Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 25 requested nine units per acre is consistent with the land use and compatible with the rapidly growing surrounding area. With that, I would be happy to answer any questions. Allen: I guess that I didn't understand your answer to Commissioner Hoover's question about what was different about this proposal. Anderson: It is the same rezoning request, RMF -12. Shackelford: Let's go ahead and proceed if we may until our chair person has an opportunity to join us. Let's go ahead and ask for public comment at this point and then we will bring it back to the Planning Commission for questions of the applicant and city staff. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak regarding RZN 04-01.00? Please come forward. Beard: Do I need to sign in? Shackelford: No, just if you would for the record tell us your name. Beard: My name is Warren Beard, I own 12 acres on the south side of Hanshew and my daughter owns an additional 12 acres on the west side of me so we own 24 acres up there above the area that they are talking about developing. What seems strange to me is the fact that they want to go up there and impact our lives and at the same time they don't want to take the responsibility of making any improvements to our road which would be adjacent to their subdivision. They don't want to assume any of those responsibilities. We don't even have a fire hydrant up there by our house because the water line is so small. We don't have sewer. We don't have anything up there except what we provided for ourselves when we built our home. I don't understand why they want to come in three and rezone this to RMF -12 and put 9 units per acre. The traffic getting out in the morning now is impossible. People, it is just not a good place to put something like this in my opinion. If it was a regular subdivision, R-1, I wouldn't have a problem with it. You are talking about putting a fairly high density subdivision in there with all the units in there and they brought it out themselves, the water line down there is falling apart as we speak. That water line on Oh Street falls apart, they just fixed it again the other night. The water line, I talked with the Water Department about it, there are all kinds of problems out there that are not being addressed by these people. This is going to impact my wife and I and my daughter and her husband who are building a nice home up there. This is the first time we saw this. They didn't even care to show this to us previous to this meeting. That just goes to show you that they don't care about the people that live there, what are we? We've got my home, my daughter's home, I've not another rental home up there and there is another neighbor to the other side of me and then the piece of property to the east side of me has been granted to a wildlife conservatory and there are no plans for her ever Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 26 doing anything with it and I think there are approximately 14 acres on the east side of me there. For someone coming in here and not even discussing this with the home owners tells me that they don't have my interest at heart. My wife and I and everybody involved up there understand that yeah, there are problems with the bars and the nightclubs but you know, those things have been there for years. Eventually something will happen to that property just like something happened to the property west of Wal-Mart. Sooner or later we know that something is going to transpire there and we have come to terms to accept that but we just don't feel that this is the right thing and this is the third trip we have made up here to express our concerns. We didn't write a letter, we came up here because we wanted to express our concerns. Your engineers know the problems up there, they have drove up there, they've looked, they know our road is substandard, you can't even drive two cars on it. One person goes in the ditch if you have two people coming down the road. It is all substandard and you are talking about trying to pull a piece of fire equipment or something of that nature off a substandard road in through an emergency entrance, which is the silliest thing I've ever heard because you keep a gate locked there and if you've got a fire or an emergency or something that you are going to unlock the gate and use that substandard road for the emergency equipment. Those are just some of our concerns. Thank you for your time. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other member of the audience that would like to address this rezoning? Seeing none, I wilt bring it back to the Commission. Allen: It was mentioned at the November 24`h meeting that it would be a good idea to meet with the neighbors, I wondered if that took place. Johnson: Yes Ma'am it has. Warren and I have spoken several times. He has a copy of the plat. This thing that we prepared today, the site analysis, was just finished this afternoon. That is why he hasn't got a copy of that. The two people that replied by mail we have spoken with extensively. They have a copy of all of the information that we have. The last conversation that I had with her she didn't disagree with our idea but she didn't want it going next to her property. She was very cordial. She was delighted with the fact that we approached her with all the information that we had. I sent her a packet of probably five pages of stuff that we developed. She was very happy with that. I encourage you to call her if you think that we haven't worked with the neighbors. Mr. Beard and I have met on the road a couple of times, we spoke. We never had any confrontations. I was a little astounded when he said that we haven't tried to contact them. I have contacted them I believe every time before we have come to a meeting to tell them that we were going to be here and what we were presenting. He has the only information that we had prepared prior to this meeting. We tried to address all of the neighbor's issues. We have been in contact with Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 27 everybody that surrounded the property and we have only had these three people complain. One of the properties is rented to the renter and the owner of the property are the two that sent the letters. It is just two property owners and one renter. I hope that answers your question. Vaught: I have a question on the road, this access easement, you guys are planning on building that road out, is that correct? Johnson: Yes. Vaught: It just says access easement to be granted, it didn't say street would be built. Anderson: It would be a city street. Vaught: Ok. Right now you guys aren't planning on improvements to Hanshew Road at all? Anderson: We are not making any statement about that. We are talking about rezoning. When we go with our Preliminary Plat and engineering that would probably be required of us at that time, we are not saying one way or the other at this point in time. Vaught: Is that something that we could consider at this time if we were to grant this easement? Could we put or direct that direction or is it out of our control to direct improvements? Warrick: The applicant has offered an access easement to provide another route to access Hwy. 62. That is not something that the staff has required, it is not something that the city has the ability to request or require. What you are asked at this point is whether or not the requested zoning is appropriate in this location. This is a rezoning request, it is not a Planned Zoning District. Therefore, we cannot and will not be looking at development requirements with this proposal. Vaught: I think that is why we keep having trouble with this. I don't necessarily see this as a bad use for this site. It is just the sensitivity of the area and the blank check we would give you on not being required the things at this time. That is why we keep requesting a PZD out of that. I don't know if you guys understand that process because it is still new. Hoover: I agree with your comments, I believe that we recommended a PZD because I don't know that I'm necessarily for or against this but I don't have enough information to be for it so I'm not in favor of it. Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 28 Ostner: On those same lines it seems procedurally or process wise that in order for me to have enough information in my mind you would be half way down the road on a PZD process. I understand it is expensive but this $50,000 price tag is ready for permits. That is a risk but you don't go draw it up and then just show up cold. There are lots of meetings with professionals where they guide you and they say look, we think you are going down the wrong road, we think this way is going to work better with our Code of Ordinances. That is where the PZD is such a great tool for doing two things at once, the rezoning and the Large Scale Development. I would still be in favor of that process. Anderson: Might I respond for one second? One, I don't see this much differently than any zoning that would come before the city. You may get into the stance where from now on we don't do traditional zoning, we want everything to be a Planned Zoning district. I think that as a Commission you probably can make those kinds of decisions to rezone a piece of property without a bunch of additional information. The other thing when we investigated the PZD process, from what we understand it is basically kind of all or nothing. We bring total engineering plans to you and we are voted up or down. There is not a stepped approval process where the developer has some sort of assurance that he is moving in the right direction. We may get directed by the staff to do something and we come before the Commission and the Commission may have a whole other take on that. Without some sort of procedure or process in the PZD to allow us some stepped approvals so that we know that we are approved and going down the right line because a normal zoning when we have ordinances for a subdivision in RMF -12, we have ordinances and we know what we have to do. The PZD is very open ended. We don't really know where we are going to end up when we come to the end. A developer I think especially on a small tract like this is pretty hesitant to do that time and expense and really not know if he is hading in the right direction. If we had some kind of stepped process, it probably wouldn't be $50,000 to get to the first step to know that we were headed in the right direction. Hoover: Let me respond to this. First of all, it is a stepped process. Staff, would you explain? It goes through a series of steps and builds, the other thing I'm curious about, have we turned down any PZD that has come through here? Warrick: Staff has worked extensively with different Planned Zoning District applicants and upon initial submittal staff has recommended that applicants go back and reconsider certain things basically stating we won't be able to support this particular plan. That happens typically before we get to the Plat Review stage in the process. A Planned Zoning District follows the same review cycle as a Preliminary Plat or Large Scale Development. It is submitted, it is reviewed by staff, it is taken before a Technical Plat Review Committee where it is looked at for utilities and Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 29 other various staff comments from divisions, it is then taken to the Subdivision Committee and the Subdivision Committee is reviewing the project for both the recommendation on land use as well as the development proposal itself and then it is forwarded to the full Planning Commission. Once the Planning Commission has made a recommendation on the project if that recommendation is in favor of the project it is forwarded to the City Council for final action. The City Council is required to act on these items because it is a land use decision. It is a combination of development and a zoning. Hoover: Have we turned down any PZD? I can't think of one that we have denied. Warrick: There have not been any PZDs denied. There are two pending council approval right now, I think they are on their third readings. Hoover: Thank you Dawn. The other thing that I would like to comment on is we are not singling you out, this site has problems. That is when we find that a PZD really works well for a site. You have kind of a difficult access, you also have some very steep slopes so all of those factors come into it where we are finding that the PZD answers a lot of those questions that are lingering in the back of our mind and we might be more flexible about than if you go for a straight rezoning. I see the PZD as being a wonderful, flexible tool for the developer whereas you are seeing it as negative. Anderson: It has been a while back, maybe a month or so, we contacted the staff because we were looking at another project. The question we posed was can we bring a concept to the Planning Commission and we were basically told no that that was not the process. That is what we would want to do if we went that road we would want somehow to get some kind of vote and assurance that we were headed in the right direction. That is all we are saying. Working with staff is one thing. I think that you know that obviously things come from the staff and you guys may disagree. Without the benefit of the Planning Commissioners in some sort of concept and them buying into it I think it is a big chance. Hoover: Have you followed some of them that have come through? Anderson: Not real close. We have just seen that a couple of them are going back and forth and have been several months in approval and they may be more complicated than what this would be. Vaught: I guess if we don't do a PZD basically what we are doing is rezoning this to an RT -12 with a Bill of Assurance and it might be up to the City Attorney to tell us how binding that Bill of Assurance is on future land owners and then you come through with an LSD and we can't agree on offsite improvements and other issues that make it too expensive for you to develop this site, we are stuck with this RT -12 with a Bill of Assurance Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 30 on it, RMF -12 with a Bill of Assurance on it, how does the Bill of Assurance work for a site if we rezone? Williams: A Bill of Assurance can only be offered to us, we can't request one and they have offered one in this case. As you pointed out earlier though they have not offered a street. They offered an easement that would be dedicated as a street but there is nothing in the Bill of Assurance saying that they are going to build the street. Of course a city street is very expensive to build. That is a big weakness I see in that. They have offered to limit it to nine units per acre but if I look at their little drawing and counted out the lots about right there are about 60 or 70 here, not 153 which is 9x17 which is the way I add things up. The other thing that you would look at of course when you are considering zoning, they certainly have the right to request zoning and not go through the PZD. I think that I've sent my memo out to most of you about what you can consider, the 2020 Plan objectives, public opposition that is logical and reasonable, traffic and certainly they don't have a situation right now where traffic has been resolved. They haven't even eluded to the fact whether they own or have the right to buy any easement that would take them directly to 6`h Street. There is a very substandard road next to it so that certainly is something for you to consider. Safety and fire protection, again, there are some more problems there. If they want to be considered as a rezoning, which they have every right to then you should look at the compatibility also with the neighbors, the spot zoning sort of situation, is this a different kind of zoning placed in amongst an established other zoning district. Those are all factors you could consider in zoning. They would also need to be considered in a Planned Zoning District. Just because someone has a Planned Zoning District proposal you still need to look at the neighbors. It would not be good for an applicant to spend $50,000 wanting to get a very dense development if in the Planning Commission's consideration and the City Council's consideration that that would be inappropriately too dense zoning in this particular area. Sometimes it is better to do as the petitioner is doing and ask for more of a concept without doing a lot of this engineering work which would be extremely expensive. Hoover: Would you pass that down? Commissioner Ostner and I don't have that. Williams: I will get you another copy of it. Vaught: I guess in my concerns aren't necessarily with the density of this, I think it might be a good project for the site. It is all the other things that go along with it. Things that we can't require right now, things that we would like to see in a Bill of Assurance or we would see in a PD together as far as off site improvements. I don't think necessarily nine units per acre is a bad idea here considering the area and the growth and the buffer between the commercial on Hwy. 62 and the residential that will possibly take place Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 31 behind. There are considerable issues as far as off site improvements and other things to go along with it. The rezoning is a piece of that. Johnson: Right, could those issues be addressed at the Large Scale Development process? Vaught: They could but right now you are asking us to rezone this to RT -12, RMF - 12 without those things so it is just basically you could sell this property to someone else, you could have access easement here and they could have no intention of doing that and of course, we probably wouldn't approve it unless they agreed to build that street so we would have a spot zone to me, RMF -12 land locked by bad roads. I guess I just wanted to see it more with a development plan at the same time so we could understand it better. I think it is a matter of understanding the whole picture. Johnson: We would definitely address those concerns. We would like to address them in a Large Scale Development process if they need to be addressed in the Bill of Assurance I think we can work that in. The easement I believe runs with the land so no matter how, if we turned around and sold it tomorrow, the easement would still be there if they were to develop the property they would be required to build that road. We will commit to build that road if we can get our project through Large Scale Development. Vaught: In a Large Scale Development process don't they have to do all the engineering and bring all the same things they would during a PZD before us? Warrick: This would be a Preliminary Plat if lots are going to be divided out for sale. Yes, preliminary engineering plans are required to be submitted for a Preliminary Plat going through the review process. Vaught: It would be about the same expense wise as they would if they just went with the PZD. Warrick: They would be done with the understanding that the use and the density was allowed by right as opposed to a request that has not been granted through a Planned Zoning District. I think that one thing that is somewhat important in this particular case, as Mr. Williams stated, the applicant has the right to request a rezoning. The Planned Zoning District is an option, it is not a requirement and we have talked for three months with this applicant about what they have the opportunity to request. We brought it to the Planning Commission, this is the third time now. They have chosen to request a rezoning. I think it is important that we consider their request and if it is an appropriate land use with appropriate density that the zoning is compatible and it meets the criteria of the General Plan then it should be approved or at least recommended. This is not a decision of the Planning Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 32 Commission, it is a Council decision, it is a land use. If it is something that the Planning Commission is not comfortable with, does not feel that it meets those criteria your recommendation could be to deny it and the applicant would have the ability to then appeal that to Council if they chose to do so. The last time that we heard this back in November the Planning Commission encouraged the applicant to pursue a Planned Zoning District and they in good faith did that. They chose to bring this back to you as a request for RMF -12 zoning. Anthes: I would like to bring the discussion back to the rezoning at hand. My question is this. It appears that this is the same request for rezoning that we saw on October 13`". You stated that you wanted some direction and some sort of stepped approval process. In the minutes of the meeting from October 13`h there was a lot of direction given about the fact that this might be too dense of zoning for this area. There are notes from Ms. Warrick that says "but just a zoning of multi -family, 12 units per acre, doesn't ensure that the features of the site can be preserved appropriately and that the amount of density can be handled appropriately through infrastructure. There were just too many uncertainties with that number..." There is a note from Commissioner Shackelford, "I'm not sure is a good fit with your surrounding area." There was considerable other discussion that I believe that the Commission has already given you direction that RMF -12 is something that we think is too dense for this piece of property and yet you are back in front of us with the same request. Johnson: We added the Bill of Assurance since then and then pursued the R-PZD process at your direction and found that to be too risky for us to proceed with so now we are back here with you. That's the only reason we've returned with this request. Anthes: I think we still have a RMF -12 zoning sitting in front of us that we have talked about before with being too dense so I guess we need to continue discussing that. Shackelford: I agree with a lot of what has been said here. Commissioner Vaught talked about whether he had a concern with the density. You made the comment that there were some issues with this property, I agree with that. As I view it, it came in as RMF -12 the first time. You are offering a Bill of Assurance that takes it to 9 units per acre which basically takes 51 units off the table from what you requested last time. I am still struggling with if we are looking strictly at a rezoning, which I believe is the direction that you are asking us to go I am still struggling with the capacity of 153 units on this property. I still think that is an awful dense population given the roads that I drove to go look at this property, the infrastructure that is there and that sort of thing. While I would like to figure out a way to make this work I think that we are kind of in between a rock and a hard place. We are not given the opportunity to look at the details as far as improvement Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 33 of infrastructure, traffic, ingress, egress and that sort of thing. We are getting direction from staff that by your request for a rezoning only we have to look at the potential of this dense project being able to be serviced by the infrastructure that is at hand. I don't know that any of us can make that call in good conscious without knowing the details. Typically development pays for infrastructure and I've been a very big advocate of that. I like to see development in areas that need infrastructure improvements because I know that's how they happen. In this situation we are rezoning this property without having any knowledge or ability to have any knowledge of those infrastructure improvements as they go forward. If you walk out there today and look at this piece of property and try to envision 153 units on it it is hard to argue that that is not going to overstress the existing infrastructure that is in place. That is the struggle that I'm having as well as most of us are having in this situation. Johnson: Right, that is why we added that city street easement which we would build a city street in which would run with the land if it was sold it would pretty much guarantee that there will be a street there. We are also willing to look at improving other means of access but we would like to do that at a Large Scale Development phase instead of here at the rezoning. Anderson: Those all could be conditions of the Large Scale approval. It is no different than anytime that you have a large Scale Development come before you or a subdivision. You may require offsite improvements as a part of the condition of approval. I don't think it is any different. It is the timing issue of seeing it now or seeing it later. I think you would still have the same opportunities to require those improvements, upgrading of water lines, sewer lines, streets, whatever it was. Shackelford: It would be a lot easier decision if we had that information. I understand what you are saying. Unfortunately, we can't go back an downzone it if we can't come to terms on the improvements that we think are necessary for Large Scale Development. Once the zoning is in place it is going to run with the land forever and ever amen. It is kind of a unique situation that we are in. It is just a situation that the growth around this property is happening so quickly it is just hard to envision what is going to need to be done to make this compatible, at least for me, and I'm only one opinion of eight here tonight. I was one of the ones that was more vocal and actually, I think I made the last motion to table this to try to figure out a way we could make this work. I still think it is a great piece of property that needs to be developed and I know it will develop at some point and some day. I am just struggling with going out there, looking at the existing infrastructure and envisioning 153 units on that property. Graves: I agree with what Commissioner Shackelford just said. The issue is if you view this in a vacuum I don't have a problem with the density necessarily considering the surrounding land uses on the one mile map. What Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 34 concerns me is that we can't view it in a vacuum. We have to view the impact of how you get in and out of the property. The Bill of Assurance does not make any kind of assurance about what kind of improvements are going to be made. It provides an assurance that there would be an easement but not that there would ever be a street actually built there or that there would be improvements made to the streets that are already there. With those concerns in mind I have a real problem with it as well. Johnson: Are those things that we could include in the Bill of Assurance? Williams: Certainly you can offer in the Bill of Assurance actually that you will construct a street to street standards, local street standards or whatever you want to do, use the Master Street Plan definitions. That is not in here as correctly noted by Commissioner Graves and others. Right now it is just an easement. Of course the big expansion normally is the actual construction of the street. Johnson: So the answer was yes? Williams: Yes. Ostner: Since we are weighing in on the issue of whether this should be a Preliminary Plat or not. I do take issue with the density. I understand we can get this map and find very dense things within a quarter mile area but the surrounding land use is either agricultural or single family, RSF-4. RSF-4 is maximum mathematical if you will. On the ground it is rarely built, there are rarely four units per acre in an RSF-4 zoning. RSF-4 is generally built out at two or three units per acre. I think this is a severe jump from that density. The other thing I wanted to talk about is since we are seeing a rezoning pure and simple, we are not talking about a Preliminary Plat. One of the legal reasons to deny a rezoning request is listed as spot zoning and I think this qualifies. Spot zoning by definition is invalid because it amounts to an arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable treatment of a limited area within a particular district. As such, it departs from the comprehensive treatment for privileges not in harmony with the other use classifications in the area and without any apparent circumstances which call for different treatment. I would like to see this develop and I think this could be developed and I think that we have given a lot of opinion on that. I don't think nine units per acre is appropriate for the area. Hoover: Is there anymore discussion or a motion? I think everyone has weighed in perhaps. Shackelford: One more. The drawing that was provided on page 5.27 is some sort of estimated possible subdivision layout shows 79 lots on this property. Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 35 Johnson: They are duplex lots. These are townhouses that would be connected in a duplex fashion so if you multiply 79x2 that was how many we were looking at putting in there on that plan. Vaught: I have one more thing as well. You guys provided us with this preliminary drawing which is just you don't have to follow it all but even with it in a PZD process I would have issues because I don't like the idea of cutting off all the other roads for emergency only. There is no access when we look at future use. You are saying you are going to build a large street but then it dead ends. Why wouldn't that connect on the back and deadend behind for future development possibilities. There are just a lot of questions when we are looking at accessibility to the site. Weighing in with the zoning process as well. I agree with what the other Commissioners have said. I don't necessarily think 9 units per acre is too dense, it could be a good buffer if done correctly. Johnson: That was just a concept drawing we were presenting to show what we could do to buffer the property from the surrounding areas and to show how we would save a significant amount of greenspace and common area. Those lot lines might not lend itself to that. You are correct, that is not how it necessarily would work out in the end but that was just something we were showing for a concept. Anderson: A requirement for a road connection to the south would be something that could happen at the Large Scale Development or Preliminary Plat. I don't think it is any different when you get to see it. Johnson: As far as the easement goes, we would build the street there. We should've worded that differently in our Bill of Assurance but if there was a street easement there we would build a street to connect to our development. Ostner: I appreciate all the agreements and the Bill of Assurance to attempt to get this project hammered out if you will. Part of the reason we enacted a Planned Zoning District ordinance is to relieve our staff of keeping up with these Bills of Assurances. They were getting spread out all over the city and they had a different Bill of Assurance for who knows how many developments and it was their responsibility to enforce it because the drawing did not speak for itself. There was all of this documentation that they were saddled with keeping up with. That is not easy on staff time, that is not easy to develop. The PZD process rolls it all into one. The rules are on the page. The drawing is law. The drawing is what the City Council approves. I would encourage you to take these offerings, these things you all have offered in the Bill of Assurance and put them in a PZD. Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 36 Vaught: In the PZD process there is a preliminary approval of sorts as you are working with staff. You are right, it is not stamped by us but they know the codes, they know what works and that is what we are bound by as well so they can direct you in the right direction. I would like to reiterate it, if you listen to their desires and their wants what is going to come before us isn't going to be something that we are going to turn down more than likely. We might have alterations or ideas on it but they are a very good gauge of what the Commission will listen to in that process. You are right, it is not a stamp but it helps us to understand. As Commissioner Shackelford said, if you walk out there today and envision these units on this site with this access it is very hard to see the compatibility. Anthes: Obviously, a lot of us are struggling with the density on this and we are going to go to a vote. However, there is another option that I want to ask about to a PZD process since that keeps coming up in our discussions. Is it possible for the applicant to bring the rezoning request and a Preliminary Plat together back to back items on our agenda so we can see them together? Warrick: No. We cannot process a Preliminary Plat for a piece of property that is not zoned for the proposal that they are showing on that plat. Anthes: Ok, thanks. The surrounding land uses, the conditions to look at including the neighbors comments, and other issues, I just have to bite the bullet here and move to deny RZN 04-01.00. Hoover: We have a motion to deny by Commissioner Anthes, is there a second? Ostner: I will second. Hoover: A second by Commissioner Ostner, is there anymore discussion? Shackelford: If we vote to deny a rezoning request can the applicant proceed further with a PZD or how would that work if they decided to go a different route? Williams: They would have at least two options, one is to appeal your denial to City Council. One way or the other the City Council makes the final decision on a rezoning whether you recommend approval or denial. Secondly, they could come back with another rezoning request if it is not identical and of course, a PZD is not identical so they would be able to come back with a PZD. Shackelford: Or a lower density? Williams: That is correct, they just couldn't come back with a RMF -12. Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 37 Warrick: I would like to say in one of the previous meetings when we heard this item and another rezoning request that had similar outcomes, staff offered to roll the previous application into a PZD. I can't do that again. We have posted in the newspaper six times for this item. I sent staff out to the site three times to post public notice. We have notified adjoining property owners three times and we've drafted four staff reports. We can't roll the same fees into another application. Should the applicant choose to make a new application or make a different request of this particular site it will require a new submittal. Hoover: Thank you. Just to reiterate, the motion is to deny this RZN 04-01.00. Renee, call the roll please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll all the motion to deny RZN 04-01.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 38 ADM 04-03.00: Administrative (Focus Salon, pp 558) Sign appeal in Design Overlay District for property located at the northwest corner of Hwy 62 W and I-540. Hoover: Onto item number six which is ADM 04-03.00 for Focus Salon. Morgan: The applicant for this request applied for a sign permit on December 15, 2003 for two neon wall signs for Focus Salon which is located at 2518 W. 6`h Street, which is the intersection of Shiloh Drive and 6`h Street. It lies within the Design Overlay District and sign regulations within the Design Overlay District requires that the signs be illuminated by only indirect light and that the content be limited to the name of the business. The applicant has requested to place an 80 sq.ft. red neon wall sign stating "Hair and Nails" on the fagade facing Shiloh Drive and the second sign is a 78 sq.ft. red neon wall sign stating "Focus Salon" on the building fagade facing 6`h Street. Because the requirements for the Design Overlay District staff felt were not being met with this proposal the applicant requested a variance and a variance request within the Design Overlay District can only be granted by the Planning Commission. The Unified Development Code defines direct illumination as illumination so arranged so that the light is reflected from the sign to the eyes of the viewer and indirect illumination which is so arranged so that the light is directed into the eyes of the view from the light source. Based on these definitions staff felt that the proposed neon lighting was classified as direct lighting. The surrounding commercial businesses however, have lighting which is similar to that which is being proposed. Staff finds that the proposed lighting will not adversely affect the character of the commercial shopping areas surrounding this site. Staff finds that a sign with a content other than the name of the business establishment however, not in character with the existing signage within the Design Overlay District and the signage of the surrounding businesses. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the requested lighting for the proposed signs in the Design Overlay District and staff recommends denial of the request to install signage with content other than the name of the establishment. Hoover: Is the applicant for this present? Stanford: I'm Richard Stanford with Ken's Signs. We manufactured the signs for Focus Salon. On the lighting they are neon signs with a face on the front of it, we feel that that is indirect lighting. In the past I've worked with the City of Fayetteville and any time in this area or down in the Target, Sports Clips, Kathryn's Big Sizes, I've gotten all those permits and they said that exposed neon is what they considered direct lighting. All the other, like Suzanne said, the areas right in that location are all either LED lit or neon signs. Also down near Target that's neon or LED signs. On the deal about Focus Salon on the south side of the building that faces 6`h Street it does say Focus Salon and on the east side it says Hair and Nails and the owner is willing to put Focus Salon, not in as large of lettering, on the east Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 39 side and then put hair and nails on the south side if that is required or just leave Focus Salon on the south side and then put Focus Salon Hair and Nails on the east side of the building. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any member of the audience that would like to address this administrative item? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission. Staff, I'm a little confused. We could say Focus Salon on this one elevation but now he is offering Focus Salon slash hair and nail. I'm assuming that that is content other than the name of the establishment, is that true? Warrick: It is. However, it is not completely unheard of If you look in your packet on page 6.8 you see Card Heaven, Cards, Gifts and D6cor. This is an Overlay District issue. The reason you are hearing this at all and acting as the Board of Sign Appeals is because this project is located in the Design Overlay District and there are additional regulations on signage in that area. With regard to sign content, the statement in the ordinance is that content of monument and wall signs shall be limited to the name of the business. Advertising shall not be permitted on the structure, wall sign or monument. The Planning Commission has the ability to approve a variance to that and I believe that having hair and nails under the name or alone, either way, is content other than the name of the business and it would require you to hear and approve some sort of a variation of that. Initially, the main issue was the lighting and I believe that we've come to a point where we need to look at our definitions in the Overlay District and in our definitions chapter with regard to the lighting and the next item in the agenda is where we can get to that and discuss that a little bit more fully because Mr. Stanford is right, we've been applying this ordinance since 1994 when the Overlay District was adopted. The administrative duties of the sign ordinance have shifted between three different divisions in the past year and a half. There are areas where interpretation has been different and I think that the adjustments to the definitions of direct and indirect illumination that we are proposing in the next administrative item will help to alleviate some of that. Because the current interpretation of indirect lighting is not consistent with what is being proposed we ask that this item come before the Planning Commission for consideration. You've got two issues. The first is the lighting and the second is the content. Hoover: Is Card Heaven in the Overlay District? Warrick: Yes it is. Hoover: Ok, so we've already approved one with other than the establishment's name? Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 40 Warrick: Yes, that goes back to the administrative duties and different interpretations in administering the sign ordinance. Shackelford: They have a sign that is 78 sq.ft., getting close to within 160 sq.ft. of sign, is that within the guidelines of the Design Overlay District? Warrick: The sizes are no problem. The sizes that are proposed are consistent and compliant, we are only talking about lighting and content. Shackelford: What is the maximum allowable in that area? Warrick: The size of the wall sign cannot exceed 20% of the wall area or 200 sq.ft., whichever is less. Ostner: The issue is lighting and content, if they were not neon, if they were something else and if it said the name of the business on both sides they would be compliant, I'm just trying to understand. Warrick: That is correct. If the content were solely Focus Salon in each of the two proposed signs it would meet the ordinance requirements for content. The lighting, staff is in agreement with what is proposed. It is a neon tube that is behind a plastic cabinet. The definition in the ordinance today is not specific to include that as indirect lighting. However, the definition that we are proposing would include it as indirect lighting. Traditional interpretation, very strict interpretation of indirect lighting would be a situation where you have a sign and you have a can light and it is pointing towards the sign, you don't have light shining out from the sign. That is a very strict and traditional interpretation of indirect lighting. I believe that it is not consistent with the way that it has been applied in the Overlay District and I also think that expanding the definition of indirect lighting to something that is more consistent with industry terminology is appropriate. Therefore, we are recommending the lighting that is being proposed however, we are not recommending the content. That is a Planning Commission determination and if you feel that the content should include hair and nails then we just need to know that so we know how to permit the sign that is being proposed. Stanford: On the lighting, it is not just neon with faces. You have a monument sign most generally those are lit by fluorescent bulbs not just neon. With their interpretation now that would be not allowed either. Warrick: Today that is correct. Stanford: I just wanted to let you know that it is not just neon, it is any kind of lighting that would shine through a plastic face. Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 41 Ostner: For me I understand the lighting issue, staff is allowing the lighting you all want so set that aside. For me, here is a question for staff. We have the south side of the building and the east side that they are wanting signs. If Focus Salon Hair and Nails were on both, one sign repeated twice you are saying by the Overlay District that's not allowed because hair and nails isn't really part of their name. Warrick: It is not part of the name. Therefore, under the ordinance it requires Planning Commission approval of a variance. Ostner: I would be willing as a point of discussion, to vary from our rule to allow them to do what they want if they were to repeat the same sign twice to avoid the appearance of us allowing advertising. Focus Salon Hair and Nails twice. I'm not sure if that is anything you all are interested in. I would like to put that out there, you still have to comply with size so it has to shrink a little to comply with the percentage. Stanford: I'm saying like on the east side we could put Focus Salon in smaller letters, it wouldn't have to be as big as Hair and Nails. Ostner: Personally, if it were the exact same sign twice which you are allowed, for me, I'm not speaking for the Commission, it was just an idea, I would be willing to vary from the Overlay District pretty much to look over at this one, Card Heaven Cards, Gifts and Home Decor. Warrick: Staff feels that it is important that the name of the business is the primary sign. Because the intent is to show the intent of the business that is what we would recommend. Hoover: Commissioner Ostner, I guess you are suggesting that in the spirit of this Card Heaven that it would be similar to this that the name would be the most prominent part? Ostner: Yes. Hoover: Is there any other discussion? Graves: I just have a question. I'm not trying to be flip about it but I am just trying to understand what would keep businesses from just being a d/b/a and saying we are Focus Salon doing business as Focus Salon Hair and Nails? Warrick: I don't think there is anything keeping them from doing that. MOTION: Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 42 Ostner: I would like to craft a motion. I'm not sure which issue we are even looking at anymore. I would propose that we pass ADM 04-03.00 approving the requested lighting and creating a new sign that they would repeat twice on the south and east side that would say Focus Salon in larger letters and Hair and Nails in smaller letters below it with Card Heaven being the template complying with the maximum size that is already in our ordinance. Hoover: There is a motion by Commissioner Ostner, very well done, is there a second? Shackelford: The one question that I have, you said maximum area, is that limited to the 158 feet that they are requesting now or the 200 sq.ft. that the ordinance allows? Ostner: I did reference the ordinance. Shackelford: I will second the motion. Hoover: Is there any more discussion? Anthes: Just a clarification about what is proportionate sizing. You are saying that it would be that same sort of proportion that the underscore would be like at Card Heaven? Ostner: Yes, roughly two to one or maybe even three to one. Hoover: He put it in the motion that this would be the template. Win: Could it just be on one side of the building because the way the building is cut out? It costs a lot of money to go back and redo the whole thing because Ken's Signs is the one who did Dollar Tree and everybody out there so we hired him for his experience and spent a lot of money. The signs are already made. I just go with the flow. The whole neighborhood is just like that. The way we are the building is long so it could be one name, it could be Focus Salon Hair and Nails but if I were to put it all on one side of the building it is going to be too much. Hoover: First of all, who are you? Win: I'm sorry. I'm the owner of the salon. Hoover: Would you state your name for the record? Win: I'm Kim Win. Hoover: I'm not clear, this is not what you want to do? Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 43 Shackelford: He's made the sign. Win: Yes and it costs a lot of money. Hoover: Do you have both signs already made? If you have them made do you have a photograph of them? Vaught: Madam Chair, while he is getting that, for the motioners would you be willing to accept putting the Focus Salon Hair and Nails with smaller on only one side of the building and having Focus Salon on the other wall so we are just changing one of them? Ostner: I would be amenable to that. You can use one of your signs and the other needs to be replaced. Vaught: I would think that the larger Focus Salon needs to be on 6`h Street since that is the bigger wall and the other one on the smaller wall because it would appear smaller with the smaller scale of letters to fit in there. Ostner: I would let that be up to the applicant. We are modifying the motion. Hoover: Who was the second, is that ok? Shackelford: If you can figure out how to do it I will second. Ostner: Actually this motion is letting one of the signs say Focus Salon, as is currently proposed, and the other sign needs to be modified as our previous motion. Hoover: The second agrees? Shackelford: Absolutely. Hoover: Thank you. Is there anymore discussion? We're all clear, we've compromised. Win: What are you saying? Hoover: That you are going to be able to use the one that says Focus Salon and the one that you need to remake is the Hair and Nails. Stanford: He could use the Hair and Nails under the Focus Salon right? Hoover: We are still saying that this is a template that the establishment name is larger and more prominent than what's being sold. This Card Heaven is still the template. Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 44 Vaught: I don't think you could fit in your area, it is 200 sq.ft. or 20% of the wall and I don't think you could fit all that on one wall. Warrick: We can crunch the numbers. We believe that one of the signs approximates about 12% of the wall surface that it is on and the other is about 10% but it depends on which one is which and the wall sizes are a little bit different. If the Planning Commission is comfortable with a sign on each side that if there is a sign that contains the words Hair and Nails it also must contain the words Focus Salon and those two words must be larger than hair and nails, is that what I'm understanding that we are trying to get to? Anthes: If it is in the same relative proportion as this. I'm not comfortable personally saying that they can reuse any of those Hair and Nails letters that they've already built. I hate that you've already done it and gone through the expense but we have regulations for a reason. Hoover: Are we all clear? Stanford: You are saying that Hair and Nails can't be the same size as Focus Salon? Warrick: Right, it basically means that we are going to be redoing one of the two signs. We can take it from there if you are comfortable with that. Hoover: Have we completed the discussion? Ostner: If city staff is satisfied. Hoover: Are you satisfied? Warrick: Yes. Hoover: Renee, would you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve ADM 04-03.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 45 ADM 04-04.00: Administrative (Design Overlay District Signage) An ordinance amending Chapter 151: Definitions of the Unified Development Code to update definitions of illumination with regard to application of signage requirements of the Design Overlay District. Hoover: Item number seven is an administrative item about signage in the Overlay District, it is ADM 04-04.00. Warrick: Now so we may not have to revisit the lighting issue in the future, the reason that we are proposing to amend the definitions of indirect illumination and direct illumination basically described in the background of your staff report. What we want to do is ensure that there is a consistent interpretation and application of the sign regulations for the Design Overlay District. In order to do that, we are proposing to amend these two definitions. The definition for direct illumination would now read illumination resulting from light emitted directly from a lamp, luminary or reflector and is not light diffused through translucent signs or reflected from other surfaces such as the ground or building faces. Indirect illumination would now be defined as lighting not directed at the object or areas to be illuminated but rather deflected as off the ceiling of diffused. The key to that is diffused. It would be diffused through a plastic panel or some other source such as a light cabinet where there is a fluorescent bulb or neon bulb or some other type of lighting source that is diffused through something that is not clear that would then provide light to the sign. Internally lit would not qualify under the definition of indirect illumination. That has been kind of the hitch in trying to categorize and apply the definitions that are currently in our Unified Development Code. I believe that these new definitions are more consistent with the way that the ordinance has been applied in practice since 1994 when we adopted the Overlay District. It would not require changes to those existing signs that are out there. If someone were to come before us today or tomorrow, assuming that these new definitions were in affect and make the request that Mr. Stanford just made on behalf of his client we would not come before you and request a waiver or a variance to the signage and lighting requirements to the Design Overlay District. What they requested in that particular instance is a good example, because what they requested is consistent with what other businesses have installed and what people expect to see along the bypass. That's what most of those lit signs appear to be. If you read the strict definition of the Unified Development Code for indirect lighting I do not believe that most of those meet that definition. That is why we are asking that these definitions are updated. Hoover: Thank you. Do we need to have discussion? Ostner: This seems like a point of progress. Could you give an example of each so I can understand it a little better? Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 46 Warrick: I think Mr. Stanford actually gave an example of direct illumination as being exposed neon that doesn't shine through a cabinet of some type in a light. We've seen neon and we do see neon in the Overlay District and typically that is looked at through the Planning Commission by Commercial Design Standard applications because all commercial developments in the Overlay District are required to come before you as a Large Scale. Ostner: Neon behind a plastic box could become an indirect? Warrick: Because it is diffused. Shackelford: In the same line of thought, there have been three, I can only think of two right now, the Red Robin and the Olive Garden, which is an internally lighted monument sign. We always have conversations about that in LSDs in Steele Crossing. This would address basically what we've been approving in the past, is that correct? Warrick: I believe it is consistent with what we've been approving. The Olive Garden is an interesting example because it has examples of just about any kind of sign illumination you can think of. Shackelford: I remember with Red Robin and one other in that area we told to go look at Olive Garden and see what they did so that will address that, thank you. Anthes: I'm confused that we are, I mean concerned, that we are substituting confusing language for confusing language. It is clearer than it was but I would almost like to see as an addition to the wording clear examples of each so that somebody says I have neon, where does that go and we've called it out so that there are examples of each under each category by means of definition. Also, I would like to know when they wrote the Overlay District requirements, was the intention truly for indirect that would not glow through plastic faces and now we are just accepting them and changing the intent of that? Warrick: I don't believe so. The reason that I included in your packet a lot of the background on the Overlay District is because there was not a lot of discussion with regard to lighting at all when they were talking about the Overlay District and signage. In the materials that you have in your packets on page 7.17 those are the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting May 9, 1994 when the Overlay District was presented to the Planning Commission and then forwarded onto the City Council. There is a paragraph in the first page, 7.17, where it states that only internal and direct lighting, which should read indirect I'm sure after reading this, should be allowed for illumination of all signs and for commercial developments with multiple tenants. That was staff explaining the sign illumination section to the Planning Commission at that time back in May, Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 47 1994. Further back in your materials I included the minutes of the two meetings that the City Council had June 10`h and June 18`h of 1994. The June 281h is when they passed the ordinance. The reason that I included the June 201h meeting is because in the content of that meeting in the discussion, there was a motion made with no discussion whatsoever, with regard to sign illumination. The motion was to remove the words internal or from the illumination section. Because there was no discussion at this level and because I did find some discussion at the previous level I made some interpretations and kind of made a departure maybe but determined that we have not seen inconsistent application of what people understood to be appropriate in the Overlay District with regard to sign illumination. What I wanted to do was basically provide for my staff and for the Planning Commission and for citizens reading the ordinance a better understanding of what is out there and what it means. That is what I found with regard to history. I can't find any discussion beyond what's there. Anthes: To me it almost seems like there are three categories. There is "direct illumination:, there is "internally lit direct illumination" and then there is "indirect". Warrick: I found definitions from all sorts of locations. There are even definitions for indirect/direct. It just kind of depends on how much you want to get into it. Anthes: That's why I question we are kind of perpetuating these names that are inheritently confusing. Is there some other way that we can write this that would use nomenclature other than "illumination direct" and "illumination indirect" that would be more user friendly for the public coming and reading this and trying to figure out what kind of sign they have and where it fits? Warrick: What I also tried to do is use industry terminology that sign contractors have used in defining what it is they are proposing to us when they are requesting permits. What I have heard from various sign contractors in addition to Mr. Stanford who was here before you, was that signs that are internally lit in the industry we define those as indirect lighting. I'm just trying to find a way to make this a little more understandable. I am not married to the words that are on the page. If you as a Commission wish to propose something different or send me back to the drawing board I will be glad to do that. I am just hoping to better define these types of illumination so that it is more clear. Anthes: I agree that it does need redefined. We talked about it on Red Robin and Smokey Bones. I think that because this Commission has had as much trouble with the definitions as we have I can't imagine what it is like for people who are coming to you with the first time to read it. I don't know Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 48 that the way it is rewritten, while better, is really taking care of that confusion. I would really like to see this expanded to make it more clear. Warrick: How would we do that? I am more than happy to do that. I need some direction. Anthes: Examples are good, interpretive things like such as XYZ type of signs equals this. Warrick: Ok, that is fine. I will be more than happy to do that. I am a little bit hesitant because when people see examples they feel like it has to be one of these things. Anthes: How about may include but not limited to XYZ. Also, the fact of the matter is that there is kind of a level of sign that by losing the indirect category and allowing a plastic faced sign to be used as indirect, there are places out there that don't allow plastic faces on signs. The indirect is like a metal letter with the light behind it that floods on a building or whatever, it doesn't have to be a light out in the landscape. We are losing that category altogether by changing its definition but I don't know if that is something we want to retain. Warrick: What I think is really important is that we don't change the application of the way that this ordinance has been enforced. Since 1994 projects within the Overlay District have been granted approvals through various divisions within the city for signs that have plastic covers on them that qualify under the definition of indirect. And, if we change that definition to the extent that it removes that from the way that it is interpreted then we have hundreds of signs in the Overlay District that are now illegal signs or non -conforming signs. It would require some content changes to the ordinance as well I believe to ensure that that is addressed. Anthes: On Page 7.17 where Tim Conklin was addressing the Planning Commission, he stated that internal, and we are assuming he meant indirect lighting, would be allowed for commercial development. That sounded like they intended for those two categories to be allowed so I guess what I'm saying is that couldn't illumination indirect have those two categories spelled out in case there was a time when we didn't want to combine those? Warrick: Just another sentence at the end of that proposed new definition that stated internal lighting is considered indirect lighting or something to that regard? Anthes: I just want to preserve the option to get a different sign in here. There would actually be three definitions and two of those would be allowed in our current ordinance for the Overlay District. Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 49 Warrick: The way that the Overlay District was adopted does not say internal and indirect. This was the staff's original proposal. The way that the ordinance was adopted was indirect lighting. That is where I have a problem with trying to fit them all into a nice little box that would make it easy. We are making a proposal to amend the ordinance. It doesn't mean that amending the definitions is the only option that we have. Under Subsection C in the signage requirements for the Overlay District it states illumination: Only indirect lighting may be used for illumination of all signs. If the Planning Commission wants to see something different as far as an option, only indirect and internal illumination, that was the way that it was originally proposed in 1994. It was modified by the Council before it was adopted. Williams: I was sitting on that radical council that adopted the Overlay District and of course, former chairman Odom of this Commission, was then an alderman and made a motion himself to remove the internally lighted signs. We did discuss that do some extent. That wasn't a real big item of discussion. Much more it was focused on open space and whether that would be landscaped or not. Certainly I think times sometimes change and if we have been applying the sign ordinance in such a way we need to try to make it as compliant as possible with what we've been doing. I will be happy to get with Dawn and work with trying to clarify the definition, maybe put in some examples as you suggested, if that is what you would like. If you all either want to hear it again or want to say generally you approve of this and we will just work on it and take it to the City Council, whichever you prefer, or if you don't want it you can tell us that too. Whatever you prefer on that. Hoover: Thank you. With that, are there any motions? MOTION: Shackelford: I like this idea going forward. I kind of liken this to the restaurant parking that we finally addressed after Commissioner Marr finally complained long enough. I think this is something that we do in our normal work here at this Commission. I think that we're basically trying to realign an ordinance to match everyday operations that we see in our approval process. With that being said, I understand your comments and I agree, there can always be improvements made to anything. I have full confidence in our city staff and our city attorney that they can take your comments and your suggestions and build those into the proposed ordinance between now and the time that it goes to the City Council. Based on that, I am going to make a motion that we approve ADM 04- 04.00 and recommend approval to the City Council. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford, is there a second? Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 50 Graves: I will second it. Hoover: Is there any more discussion? Anthes: Does that mean that your recommendation is for them to work on the language? Shackelford: My recommendation is for them to take your comments and make those changes prior to the meeting when it goes to City Council. Hoover: Thank you, can we call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward ADM 04-04.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 51 ADM 04-05.00: Administrative (Parkland Zoning Exemption) Ordinance amending the Unified Development Code (UDC), Ch. 166: Development, to exempt lots dedicated as park land from the bulk/area requirements of the zoning ordinance. Hoover: Next is ADM 04-05.00, Parkland Zoning Exemption. Warrick: We have an ordinance that whenever a new residential lot or unit is approved we apply with regard to land dedication or money in lieu of that dedication for parkland. Whenever someone dedicates land we are trying our hardest to ensure that we are getting the best property with the most value for the parks system and for the properties and people who will be living around that. The problem that we've had is also ensuring that those lots that are created within these new subdivisions for parkland dedication comply with the zoning district that they are located in. For instance, in a single family residential district every lot is required to have 70' of frontage on a city street and 8,000 sq.ft. of land area. When we required the dedication of parkland in areas along a stream for instance, or in areas deemed appropriate for recreational or trail use, whatever the purpose may be, they are not always adjacent to a new street and they are not always normally configured the way that you would have a 70'x110' lot. This proposal is to allow those lots that are dedicated as parkland exemption from the minimum lot requirements under the zoning district in which they are located. That is the purpose of this, we request recommendation for this to go forward to the City Council for approval. Hoover: Seeing no member of the audience here, let's continue discussion here. I would like to thank staff for clearing up these issues we are having. That is good housekeeping. Are there any comments about this or can we make a motion? MOTION: Anthes: I will move to approve ADM 04-05.00 and forward it to the City Council with a recommendation to adopt. Allen: Second. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Anthes and a second by Commissioner Allen, is there any further discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward ADM 04-05.00 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Announcements Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 52 Meeting adjourned: 8:03 p.m.