Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-03-08 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Monday, March 8, 2004 at 5:30 p.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN ANX 03-05.00: (Rankin/Rankin/Bowen, pp 400) Forwarded to City Council Page 4 RZN 03-33.00: (Rankin/Rankin/Bowen, pp 400) Forwarded to City Council Page 4 ANX 03-06.00: (Schlegel, pp 207/246) Forwarded to City Council Page 8 RZN 03-34.00: (Schlegel, pp 207/246) Forwarded to City Council Page 8 LSD 04-05.00: (Clary Development/Harps, pp 401) Approved Page 15 CUP 04-08.00: (Logan's Roadhouse, pp 173) Approved Page 26 LSD 04-08.00: (Logan's Roadhouse, pp 173) Approved Page 26 CUP 04-10.00: (Westside Storage, pp 400) Denied/Amended/Approved Page 29 CUP 04-09.00: (Travis Woods, pp 137/176) Approved Page 55 RZN 04-03.00: (McCord/Fitzgerald, pp 398) Forwarded to City Council Page 63 RZN 04-02.00: (Chance & Tuggle, pp 436) Forwarded to City Council Page 65 Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 2 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT James Graves Alan Ostner Don Bunch Loren Shackelford (5:38 p.m.) Jill Anthes Alice Church Sharon Hoover Christian Vaught Nancy Allen STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Dawn Warrick Matt Casey Suzanne Morgan Jeremy Pate Renee Thomas Kit Williams Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 3 Hoover: Welcome to the Monday, March 8, 2004 meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were eight Commissioners present with Commissioner Shackelford arriving at 5:35 p.m. Hoover: The next item of business is the election of officers for the 2004-2005 year. Renee will pass out the secret ballots? Officer Election: Upon the completion of the election procedure the following officers were unanimously selected: Chair: Alan Ostner Vice -Chair: Loren Shackelford Secretary: Nancy Allen Hoover: The next item of business is approval of the minutes from the February 23rd meeting, do we have a motion? Bunch: So moved. Allen: Second. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Bunch and a second by Commissioner Allen. Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the minutes from the February 23, 2004 meeting was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 4 ANX 03-05.00: Annexation (Rankin/RankinBowen, pp 400) was submitted by James McCord on behalf of Wilbur Maurice Rankin, Mary Ellen Rankin, Raymond Rankin and Susan Bowen for property located on Rupple Road north of Wedington Drive. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 17.19 acres. The request is to annex the property into the City of Fayetteville. RZN 03-33.00: Rezoning (Rankin/RankinBowen, pp 400) was submitted by James McCord on behalf of Wilbur Maurice Rankin, Mary Ellen Rankin, Raymond Rankin and Susan Bowen for property located on Rupple Road north of Wedington Drive. The request is to rezone the property RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre Hoover: Item number one on the agenda is ANX 03-05.00 for property located on Rupple Road half a mile north of Wedington Drive. Suzanne? Morgan: The subject property is 17.19 acres. It is a vacant piece of land located west of Rupple Road, a minor arterial, and north of Wedington Drive which is a principal arterial. Single family residences are located at all cardinal directions from this property with the city limits along the western boundary of this tract of land where it abuts Willow Springs subdivision. This subdivision is zoned RT -12 in the city. This Annexation request was heard by the Planning Commission on November 24, 2003 at which time it was tabled pending results from a Waste Water Capacity Analysis. This report has been submitted and shows that there is adequate capacity in the basins which will serve this area for existing and proposed future development. That result has been attached with the staff report. There is currently access to water lines on Rupple as well as Patrick Street as well as two water mains. Staff finds that the Annexation will create a peninsula, however, the property is located within an island of the county property and the city has adopted policy for annexation which identifies areas within current islands to be desirable for annexation. Additionally, this annexation and all annexations, are automatically rezoned R -A, Residential Agricultural and the applicant is requesting a rezone to RSF-4, Residential Single Family, Four units per acre. This zoning designation is compatible with the residential classification within the area on the city's adopted Future Land Use Plan. Police reports that rezoning this property to RSF-4 will not adversely affect the population density in a negative manner. As such, staff is in support and recommends approval of the requested Annexation and RZN 03-33.00 for Rankin, Rankin Bowen. Hoover: We are going to look at the Annexation and Rezoning together? Morgan: If that's ok with you. Hoover: I just wanted to make sure. Would the applicant come forward? Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page S McCord: Yes, Madam Chair and members of the Commission, I'm Jim McCord representing the applicants. The applicants respectfully appreciate the staff's recommendation and request the Planning Commission to follow it. I concur that it is an appropriate Annexation because it is within an island and the annexation policies of the city do provide for annexation within an island surrounded by corporate limits. The waste water capacity study did indicate that there is sufficient capacity for future growth in this area and as indicated in the staff report there is a traffic signal proposed for the intersection of Rupple Road and Wedington Drive that has been proposed by the city and approved by the Arkansas Hwy. Department, which is presently in the process of being installed. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any member of the audience that would like to address this ANX 03-05.00 or RZN 03-33.00 for this property? Yes Sir, come to the podium please and give us your name. Atwood: I'm Dr. Dan Atwood, I just want to make a comment for the Commission, thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm a land owner that lives across the road from this property and I have 20 acres with a home on that 20 acres and of course, Rupple Road, as you know, is a very narrow road at the moment. My concern is that the density of housing that is requested is going to put a big strain on that road as it is. With the other houses that are along that road most are located on several acres and I think that density, again, is a little high for fitting in with what we already have existing along that road. My concern is with what it would do for the property values for the others of us that live in that area. Those are my comments. Does anyone have any questions for me regarding that situation? Hoover: No, we will go ahead and take more public comment. Is there any other member of the public that would like to address this Annexation and Rezoning? Staff, could you answer those questions about the road? I see we have down here road improvements and density, both of those issues. Warrick: Improvements to infrastructure are not addressed or placed on Annexation and Rezoning requests. We do look at that at the time of development proposals and we expect that in the future, probably the near future, we will be looking at a request for a Preliminary Plat approval on this property should it be annexed and zoned according to the applicant's requests. We do have concerns with regard to Rupple Road. This section of Rupple Road is in the county, it is not a city street and therefore, we have little control over what happens to Rupple Road. Each piece of property that we are able to annex into the city limits adjoining Rupple Road will improve the prospect and our ability to make improvements to that infrastructure. That's what we can do. If you will remember, we had a similar situation on Starr Drive on the northeast side of town a couple of Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 6 years ago and it was difficult to determine what types of improvements in what areas to apply when we were looking at a development proposal along that street because it was not in the control of the city. In this particular case this is a donut hold surrounded by corporate city limits. It is targeted in the city's adopted annexation policy as an area that is appropriate and prime for annexation because of these jurisdictional issues. We have police cars, fire and ambulance emergency response vehicles that travel this road everyday. We serve this area but we don't have the ability to make a whole lot of change with regard to the infrastructure unless it's within the city limits. This gets us one step closer to being able to make significant improvements. Those improvements are typically a requirement of development when it is proposed adjoining those streets. Hoover: Would you address the traffic signal? Warrick: My understanding is that there is a traffic signal that is being installed at the intersection of Rupple and Wedington. Hoover: Also, the density and why staff thinks this is the right density for this area. Warrick: Staff believes this is an appropriate density, four units per acre is the standard zoning district for single family subdivisions. It is consistent with the majority of developed property within the city limits in this area. The property immediately adjoining it to the west is actually zoned for a higher density so the resulting development, should this be rezoned to RSF-4, would likely garner a lesser density than what is existing on the ground to the west of the subject property. Hoover: Thank you. Commissioners, are there any comments? Anthes: Consistent with city policy to annex islands I would move to recommend approval of ANX 03-05.00 and forward to the City Council. Shackelford: I will second. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Anthes for the Annexation and a second by Commissioner Shackelford, is there more discussion? Seeing none, Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of ANX 03-05.00 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries nine to zero. Hoover: Onto the Rezoning. Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 7 Bunch: On the Rezoning and the traffic, it looks like Patrick Street is stubbed out to be able to serve this area which would give an alternate traffic pattern to Wedington Drive in addition to Rupple Road and also, I think there have been or have been approved, may not be completed yet, some alterations to Rupple Road at it's intersection with Mt. Comfort Road. I know it is not infrastructure that we need at this point in time but they are steps in the right direction. That being said, I will move for approval of RZN 03- 33.00 recommending to the City Council our positive response to it. Shackelford: I will second. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Bunch and a second by Commissioner Shackelford, is there more discussion on RZN 03-33.00? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend for approval to the City Council RZN 03-33.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries nine to zero. Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 8 ANX 03-06.00: Annexation (Schlegel, pp 207/246) was submitted by Milholland Company on behalf of Tracy Hoskins for property located north of the proposed Crystal Springs Phase III subdivision, west of Deane Solomon Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 72.5 acres. The request is to annex the property into the City of Fayetteville. RZN 03-34.00: Rezoning (Schlegel, pp 207/246) was submitted by Milholland Company on behalf of Tracy Hoskins for property located north of the proposed Crystal Springs Phase III subdivision, west of Deane Solomon Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 72.5 acres. The request is to rezone the property RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre. Hoover: Item number three on the agenda is ANX 03-06.00 and RZN 03-34.00 for Crystal Springs Phase III subdivision west of Deane Solomon Road. Jeremy? Pate: Thank you Madam Chair. The subject property is 73.50 acres of vacant property located west of Deane Solomon Road south of Salem Road. Salem Road to the north of this location is a gravel road and does not meet city standards, nor does Deane Solomon. Single family residences are located north of the subject property along Salem Road and areas to the west and south are vacant, although, Crystal Springs Subdivision Phase III, as you mentioned, is proposed south of the subject property. Gypsum Drive, a collector street, is also shown on the Master Street Plan as an east/west connection to the subject property. Any development to be consistent with the Master Street Plan would most likely look at developing that street as part of it's circulation patterns. A portion of Gypsum Drive also was constructed with the Crystal Springs Phase I. As with the last two items, an Annexation and Rezoning request was previously petitioned and tabled in December, 2002. The two primary concerns for this site included fire response times and the waste water capacity study as mentioned. Again, the waste water capacity study has identified this area as an area that does have sufficient capacity for development. Additionally, fire station number seven which is a closer fire station than the ones that currently exist to serve this site has been approved and awaits construction plans. Staffs findings with regard to water and sewer, extension of water and sewer mains will be required although, they are available in the nearby vicinity. The proposed annexation and potential rezoning could result in 290 single family units as a maximum. Again, that has been identified as being within the capacity of the lift stations based on the waste water capacity study. With regard to the rezoning, this proposed rezoning is justified in order to ensure orderly and consistent development patterns making use of existing infrastructure. The rezoning is needed for the development of a single family residential subdivision as proposed by the applicant. Projects existing in this area already of course, do receive police services and the Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 9 rezoning will not substantially alter the population density. Again, I mentioned the fire department findings as well. Surrounding properties are similarly developed and zoned appropriately for this request and staff is recommending approval of both requested ANX 03-06.00 and RZN 03- 34.00. Hoover: Thank you. Would the applicant come forward? Jefcoat: I'm Tom Jefcoat with Milholland Company. Hoover: Do you have anything to add? Jefcoat: We appreciate your consideration of this Annexation and Rezoning. We are aware of the street conditions, the infrastructure, water and sewer and those issues will be addressed during the planning and design development stage. Thank you. Hoover: At this time we will open up this Annexation and Rezoning to public comment. This is for the Crystal Springs Phase III subdivision. ANX 03- 06.00 and RZN 03-34.00. Is there any member of the public that would like to address these? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission. Bunch: I have a question for the applicant. I know this is a little premature because the Preliminary Plat is not before us but one of the concerns in this area has been traffic and access. What provisions do you think will be made on securing the right of way to extend Gypsum to Deane Solomon Road? Have you looked at that yet? Jefcoat: Yes we have. We are aware that that road will be improved to the city limits. Excuse me, I was thinking about Salem Road. Gypsum Road we did not know what would occur to the west of us, nor to the east of us but during the design development we will provide connectivity to the east and west. Bunch: Then also go ahead and tell us about Salem Road. Jefcoat: We understand that staff is recommending that that be improved to the city limits from wherever we have access on Salem Road to the city limits. Bunch: Where is the city limits, is that at Deane Solomon? Jefcoat Yes it is. Bunch: You are aware that that would be part of the development process would be to extend Salem Road to city standards to Deane Solomon? Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 10 Jefcoat: Yes, that's what is in the recommendation, yes. Bunch: A question for staff I guess. On Gypsum Road our packet does not show ownership of Gypsum. What process would there be as this comes forward for development to provide a second access on Gypsum that would be south of the "S" curve on Deane Solomon that would help avoid, from a traffic standpoint, avoid that bad spot on Deane Solomon. Warrick: That is part of the springwoods project. That is one of the lots within the springwoods PZD east of this tract between this tract and Deane Solomon Road. We expect that property to come through the development process relatively soon as we have had the Final Plat for that subdivision submitted to our office this last week. With regard to when this comes through the development process, the subject property, we will be of course, looking for connectivity which is a policy of the city to require developments to have stub outs and/or to connect to existing stub outs. We will have to wait until we see what is on the ground existing compared to what the proposal is and how we can ensure that those existing stub outs match up to any new infrastructure and that if they don't if there is nothing to match up that new stub outs are in the proper location so that streets can be connected affectively. Allen: I noticed that there were a number of letters in our packet from neighbors that are concerned, I wondered whether or not you have met with those neighbors and felt that problems had been resolved in some manner. Jefcoat: Resolved in some manner, yes. I would say in some manner. We have talked with the adjoining neighbors over the past two and a half years in the process of developing this and we have some rapore with those people. When we do a development plan and begin to have a conceptual plan then the more detailed meeting process will occur with those residences. Allen: Have you met with them since the last time this came before us? Jefcoat: We have talked to some of them by phone, yes. Allen: But not like a neighborhood association type meeting? Jefcoat No, we don't have a plan concept with which to talk to them about yet as far as layout. That's what they are most concerned about is how the layout adjoins their property. When we get to that point we will have a neighborhood association meeting. Warrick: If I could just add, there are a few letters in this packet and we included everything that we had with regard to this property. The original request for this project came in November or December of 2002. At that time the Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page I1 request for rezoning was to a more dense zoning district with smaller lots. The RSF-7 district now. Some of these comments are reflective of that as the proposal. The proposal now is for an RSF-4, Single Family four units per acre zoning district. While the substance hasn't really changed, it is a request to annex and zone. The density has changed that this applicant is requesting. Allen: Thank you. Shackelford: We looked at this previously if my memory is correct. The main two concerns we had at that point was based on fire coverage and sewer capacity, it seems like at this point those issues have been addressed. I think staff has done a good job on recommending approval of this project so based on this I am going to recommend we approve ANX 03-6.00 as presented. Vaught: I will second. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford and a second by Commissioner Vaught, is there any other discussion? Ostner: This is just a question for staff. I understand that the improvements to Deane Solomon aren't really relative at this point because it is just an annexation and rezoning. When it does come time to develop I'm noticing that this property does not adjoin Deane Solomon. Are we still talking about requesting the developer help improve Deane Solomon? Warrick: Offsite improvements are at the discretion of the Planning Commission. We do not have a development plan to assess in order to determine whether or not there is a demand placed by that development that would cause a need for improvements on Deane Solomon. We are working with a different developer right now on the "S" curve in Deane Solomon and trying to establish a reasonable way of straightening that out some. We are progressing in making improvements on Deane Solomon and additional development is most likely going to be occurring in that general area in the near future so we will have to take it as it comes and determine those types of assessments or improvements based on the development plans when they are submitted. Ostner: Thank you. Hoover: Is there any other discussion? Renee, would you call the roll on the annexation? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve ANX 03-06.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 12 Thomas: The motion carries nine to zero. Hoover: The rezoning of this? Shackelford: Based on the comments that I made earlier and the findings and the fact that I think this is consistent with surrounding use I will go ahead and make a motion that we recommend approval to the City Council of RZN 03-34.00. Vaught: I will second. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford and a second by Commissioner Vaught for the rezoning, is there any discussion? Anthes: I'm a little torn on this one. From what I'm reading here there seems to be quite an amount of wetlands in this area, is that true staff? Warrick: We've not seen a development proposal, I believe that there is potential for some but we've not gotten to that point yet for analysis of that. Anthes: Looking here where it adjoins the more dense zoning districts along the eastern boundary but as it goes north and west, I'm kind of surprised we haven't heard from more residents based on the numbers of letters that were in our packet. That is a beautiful open valley with a certain character to it. I'm just questioning if the density of RSF-4 might be a little high in that area based on what I think might be wetlands and geology and the view shed and then the surrounding property owner's letters. Hoover: Staff, you might repeat why you thought the RSF-4 was appropriate perhaps. Warrick: Based on the General Plan which calls this area out to be residential we felt that the RSF-4 district was appropriate with regard to the existing surrounding developments and the proposed developments to the south and to the east. Anthes: It just seems like RSF-4 seems to be our default position on single family but we do have other district designations, an RSF .5, an RSF-1, an RSF-2 zonings available to us. The site, because it's got this differentiation where it adjoins a more dense zoning and then drops way in that valley, to me it is difficult to look at it as one piece because it might develop in such a way that development might be clustered more towards the front than another piece of property but without seeing that, it is hard for me to get behind a basic overall density of RSF-4 on that site. Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 13 Shackelford: This is presented as Phase III of an existing subdivision, Phase I and Phase II, are they RSF-4 as well? Warrick: This is not Phase III of Crystal Springs. This is north of the proposed Crystal Springs Phase III. Phase III is zoned RSF-4, it is located immediately south of this and it has already been through the Preliminary Plat process. The Planning Commission has already approved the layout. Shackelford: The property just south of this proposal will be RSF-4 as well? Warrick: That's correct. Thomas: If I could just add, I spoke with Mary Bassett earlier and she asked me to write you a letter but I didn't get to that. She is asking for larger lots as it goes up the hill and she will be here at the time of Preliminary Plat to talk to you about that. Hoover: Thank you. Vaught: I think she's the one in her letter that said they were against seven but they would be in support of four. I saw that in at least one or maybe two of the letters. I do think RSF-4 is a good fit for this area. It is still very close to I-540, it is an area that is rapidly developing and changing with a lot of RSF-4 around it. We have a lot of things coming before us in this area and a lot of them are RSF-4. Between that and it is a buffer I think between those larger homes to the west and things like Wilson springs where you even have a strip of RMF -24 abutting the property. I do think it is a good density. Just because it is zoned that doesn't necessarily mean they are going to do that. Like was said, Mary Bassett wished they would get larger as they would go up the hill. I believe she was here at the last meeting and said that exact same thing. I know the developer will have lots of comments with the neighbors through the development process. Bunch: A question for staff and possibly the applicant, the property immediately to the south zoned RSF-4 is part of Crystal Springs Phase III? Warrick: Yes. Bunch: That is a piece of property that I know we have had a Preliminary Plat come through on that and there will be access to Deane Solomon on that but I cannot remember if there was access to the north. I think the same applicant had the same project, Tom, can you shed a little light on that? Jefcoat: Yes we do have the same project and we do have a stub from Crystal Springs north into this property. I also may mention that yes, to our east there is RSF-4 zoning where we are talking about connectivity also, which Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 14 is Gypsum. It is our proposal and we have had communication with Mary Bassett and we talked earlier today also. Bunch: We are looking at two potential connections to the east, one on Gypsum Drive and the other one on the extension of Crystal Springs? Jefcoat: At least one through to the south on Crystal Springs. One to the north on Salem and at least one both directions east and west. Bunch: With the Master Street Plan there is Gypsum Drive so that would give a minimum of three accesses east? Jefcoat: A minimum of four, minimum. Vaught: Gypsum Drive to the east of Deane Solomon has been vacated with the Wilson Springs PZD correct? Warrick: Yes. It has been removed from the Master Street Plan as a collector. It doesn't mean that there couldn't still be some connectivity there. It is no longer classified as a collector street. Hoover: Is there any other discussion? I believe we had a motion and a second. Renee, would you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 03-34.00 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-1-0 with Commissioner Anthes voting no. Thomas: The motion carries eight to one. Hoover: Thank you. Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 15 LSD 04-05.00: Large Scale Development (Clary Development/Harps, pp 401) was submitted by Brian Moore of Engineering Services, Inc. on behalf of Clary Development Corporation for property located at Lot 8 of Wedington Place Addition. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 4.61 acres. The request is to approve the development of a 31,118 sq.ft. commercial building with 163 parking spaces proposed. Hoover: Item number five on the agenda is a Large Scale Development. Vaught: I am going to recuse from this item. Graves: I also have to recuse. Hoover: Thank you. This is LSD 04-05.00, Suzanne? Morgan: This development application was submitted by Brian Moore on behalf of Clary Development Corporation for Property Located on Lot 8 of Wedington Place Subdivision Phase IL The applicant is proposing to construct a 31,118 sq.ft. Harps grocery store on Lot 8 located north of Wedington Drive and east of Colorado Drive. The property is currently vacant and there are no existing trees on the property. It is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and currently the applicant has submitted a request to the Board of Adjustment for a zero rear lot line, a Variance of 20' in order for future development to occur on the lot to the east. The applicant will be requesting a Vacation for existing easements on the property which were platted with the Final Plat of this subdivision. Surrounding land use includes Sonic to the south as well as some vacant property to the north zoned RMF -24 and to the east and west, the east is vacant with the Arvest Bank and single family as well as duplexes to the west. Adequate right of way currently exists. The Design Overlay boundary does not encompass any portion of Lot 8 however, it does overlay a portion of the subdivision and when the Final Plat was filed it did state that any signage for all lots shall conform to the Design Overlay District standards for a monument sign. At this time no freestanding signage has been proposed. A waiver has been submitted for the tree preservation plan and approved. Staff is recommending approval of LSD 04-5.00 with 24 conditions. Of which, Planning Commission determination and approval of Commercial Design Standards. The applicant has proposed an alternate eastern elevation should an adjacent structure not be installed within the parameters of condition two, which reads "If at the time of building permit approval the property to the east has not submitted a complete Large Scale Development application showing an adjoining structure to Harps the developer of Lot 8 shall construct an eastern fagade that complies with Commercial Design Standards." Staff has received signed conditions of approval. Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 16 Hoover: Thank you. Would the applicant come forward and I guess would you explain the materials while you're up here. Moore: I'm Brian Moore with Engineering Services and I've got with me Jay Max Vanhoose from Harp's Foods as well as Jeff Maxwell of Clary Development. I think Jay Max will come up and show you the materials board if that's the desire. Vanhoose: Thanks Commissioners. The board indicates that there is about three primary materials. It is skirted and has some columns of the brick material that you see there. There are to E.LF.S. materials. E.I.F.S. number one on the board is the primary store front material that is the whiter of the colors. E.I.F.S. number two is primarily on the sidewalls. The texture on the sample there is probably not completely indicative, it is a little more textured than that. The facility is trimmed with some metal roofing material, it is a hunter green material and then the storefront has some typical bronze doorways and aluminum framing. I'm not sure if that answers your questions. Hoover: Thank you. Now we will open this Large Scale Development up to public comment. Is there anyone who would like to address this Harps on Lot 8 of Wedington Place Addition? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission and the applicant. I have a question for staff. What is our requirement for landscaped area between the street and the parking lot? Warrick: There is a 15' landscape strip required there with trees, one every 30 linear feet. Hoover: Is there an area on here that gets smaller than 15'? Warrick: It looks like there is an area to the immediate west of the structure that is reduced slightly. Our Landscape Administrator has reviewed that and is comfortable with that proposal. It looks like in that area they have also increased the landscaping to include a continuous row of shrubs as opposed to just the one tree every 30 linear feet. Hoover: Can we get a report from Subdivision? I'm curious if concerns have been met. Anthes: There were several items that were brought up at Subdivision, items that needed to be marked on the plans such as the Vacation of the utility easement, the grading at the new building, some drainage issues and the addition of a monument sign that may or may not be built on this piece of property. The applicant has addressed all of those. In addition, they have labeled the materials on their elevations and provided an alternate east elevation at Subdivision's request. The one thing that I don't know if it Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 17 has been resolved is the number of signs with the pharmacy and the gas station. Warrick: The applicant has spoken with us about that and is in agreement to continue working with staff to ensure that the number of signs is appropriate. These new elevations were presented this evening, we may still need to do some counting and ensure that we're still at the right number but I feel sure that we will be able to do that. Allen: At the Subdivision meeting we did discuss the Commercial Design Standards at some length and I wondered if there had been any other modifications made to the design other than the ones to the east. I'm unable to ascertain any differences. Vanhoose: I think if I remember right, correct me if I'm wrong. There were concerns on the Commercial Design Standards on the east elevation and we have essentially emulated the east and west elevations to match what is also seen on the south as an alternate and then the other concern was on the proposed south elevation, which was the rear of the store, and we brought that same theme around the back. I don't have a sample of the split faced block material that would encompass the area around the trash compactor but we brought the brick around as well. Anthes: We also had a question about a concrete pad for the loading area by the compactor, I believe that has been added as well, is that correct? Vanhoose: Correct. Ostner: I'm trying to ascertain whether that is the elevation of a gas station? It is basically just canopy and poles? Vanhoose: I think we show the second drawing down on the right hand side of the sheet is the gas station and then we also in your packet provide an east elevation with the gas station on it as well. It is not on this drawing, it was added to your individual packets. This is the store that this proposal emulates in Springdale and you can see in one of the photos on your blue sheet that you can see the gas station that will be there. Allen: I just wanted some help from my fellow Commissioners as to how one would not see this as a large, boxlike, unarticulated structure? Vanhoose: On which elevation? Allen: Well, all of them except the south. Hoover: Who is willing to take on that challenge? Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 18 Bunch: From what we saw at Subdivision it has some banding on it. Ostner: I think I would have to agree, at least with the north elevation. It is pretty unarticulated. I was looking at the site plan and I was considering that there is a C-2 zoning to the north so another commercial development would be, maybe someday on that lot. Hoover: Is that in reference to thinking you're not going to be able to see the north? There will be a detention pond. I believe you will be able to see at least a fourth of that pretty easily from the road. Commissioner Allen, did anyone answer that question? Allen: No. Hoover: Maybe the applicant should respond to that. Vanhoose: The question is? Allen: The question was one of our findings is for the Commercial Design Standards that this not be a large, boxlike, unarticulated structure and I'm having trouble not receiving it as that. Vanhoose: I think that has always been a challenge. I've been challenged with that too to try to satisfy everybody's desires that it be a nice facility and I assume you are just not wanting a blank, unarticulated wall. There are some things back there you can't really see on the elevation in terms of just the structure changes depth, it is a loading dock area and receiving area. We have tried to spruce it up a little bit with some different materials and colors and there is an awning over the back door. I think we are trying to do the best we can in terms of trying to please people. I went and drove around town and just tried to look at some new stores and try to see what the themes were. I guess we are still open to suggestions but we've tried to work in that direction of satisfying that Commercial Design Standard. Ostner: The south elevation is great. I think we could agree on that. I'm just wishing the west looked as nice because it faces a street with a lot of residential traffic getting into the subdivision. The west elevation is really built like a side that wouldn't really be seen. In a lot of ways this is a corner site because the view from Wedington is important and that is your big marketing tool. The view from Colorado is also important. I would tend to agree with Commissioner Allen. Shackelford: I'm not struggling as bad on Commercial Design Standards. I think that you talk about unarticulated walls, I don't see this as an unarticulated wall. Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 19 I think the brick veneer and the brick columns are going to make a nice break up of that wall changing colors and changing height will help as well. One thing on the west elevation, and it is kind of hard and we struggle with this looking at two dimensional pictures and trying to think about what it is going to look like in three dimensional reality. That gas station will add some depth. There is going to be an additional building that is going to block part of that and break up that fapade because there is going to be the roofline there and there will be cars and activity in front of that or on the side of that building too. The east elevation, as it was originally drawn, I can understand the concerns about Commercial Design Standards. I think we've come a long ways as far as the amount of work that we've put into trying to dress this building up. It is a very big building. The fact that it is facilitates some of those problems but we've addressed this in the past with the brick veneer and the brick columns and changing the colors and that sort of thing. Other than the east elevation as it was originally drawn, I'm not struggling as bad with Commercial Design Standards. Vanhoose: Just to follow up on that just a little bit, I know you don't really use it in your evaluation. There will be some landscaping on that wall and the elevation I think is broken up a little bit with the gas station there and those are just a couple of the thoughts that I would add to that. Hoover: Can I ask one question too? On this north elevation which looks like there is not a parapet on the north elevation, I'm assuming we are going to see all that mechanical equipment on the roof? Where is the mechanical equipment going, is it hidden? Vanhoose: Actually, we discussed that at Subdivision briefly. I think I mentioned to Dawn that on that probably in this area right here there would be some rooftop condensers that would have to be shielded and probably matched with the metal roof material, the hunter green material. I apologize for not showing that on the elevation. We are aware that the rooftop materials don't need to be seen and will be shielded. Anthes: Jay, while you're here, at Subdivision we asked if you would take the same treatment you have on the south and west and wrap the building and I see that you have introduced the brick veneer pilasters in but have stopped short of extending the banding around the building. Would you be willing to do that? Vanhoose: Yes Commissioner Anthes. Actually, that wasn't a conscious decision not to do that. Actually, as I'm looking at it I should've recognized it before it was submitted. That was a direction I had given to the individual putting the drawing together and wasn't adhered to in terms of the brick skirt on the south elevation is that what you're talking about? Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 20 Anthes: The brick skirt and then also the banding of the different colors of E.LF.S. as they move around. Vanhoose: The banding is not an issue either. We could easily wrap that around the south elevation. Anthes: What I am hearing is that we can imagine on the north elevation the brick skirt, the banding and then shielding to match the roof material around the mechanical units that would be on the roof. Vanhoose: That is correct. Hoover: Commissioner Allen, does that help you on the north elevation? Allen: I think that would help. Bunch: A question for staff, what classification is Colorado Drive? Warrick: Colorado Drive is a local street. Hoover: Can I ask the applicant, this whole area next to the gas station, the greenspace is reduced to 10' instead of 15' and staff said that you were doing extra landscaping and I'm trying to see the landscaping along that strip doesn't look any different than the area that has more greenspace. Maybe I'm not reading these correctly. Warrick: The reason that that appears to be extra is that the shrubs are not required where there is not parking adjacent to the right of way. Hoover: So you are saying the shrubs would be extra? Warrick: Right. Where there is parking, which is most of the rest of that property line, that continuous row of shrubs is an ordinance requirement where there is not parking which is similar to the location that we're looking at. The shrubs are not an ordinance requirement but the applicant has chosen to show them. Hoover: I guess would you explain what they are though? Would you tell me what the landscaping is along there? Moore: To be honest with you, I'm really not sure. We turned in a landscaping plan that Craig looked at. I actually didn't do it, somebody else in my office did so I'm not really sure what those type of plants are. Hoover: Do you know if there are any trees along this area right here? Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 21 Moore: I think there is still the requirement of one tree per every 30'. Hoover: But not any additional trees? Moore: We could I'm sure throw in a couple of additional trees to make it one per 25' or one per 20', I don't think that would be a big issue. Anthes: Is there a real need to reduce this to 10' here or can we meet the regulation by increasing that to 15'? Vanhoose: We were just looking at it real quickly. It appears that there is some room there for some flexibility, we may have to soften that entry curb. We just want to make sure that traffic can access the pumps there. There is apparently between the fascia of the canopy to the curb line now, almost 40'. I think that we can take space out of the 40'. I'm not sure the requirement, is it 10'? Warrick: You need 15' so you are shy 5' at the north and just under 5' at the south of that area. Vanhoose: I don't see that as a problem right now. Hoover: Did we finish on Commercial Design guidelines? Allen: I think I would like to say that I appreciate that we are getting there and some concessions and some changes are being made but in the long run as a Planning Commissioner I think I need to know a little bit about how many boxes or bricks or striped bands we need in order to make a box not a box. Hoover: Who are you directing that question to? Allen: Anyone who will answer it. I really struggle with that repeatedly. It comes up very frequently. Ostner: I don't know if this is helpful but I'm looking at these photos here and this middle one with the gas station I'm trying to picture it like the bottom because the bottom has the brick wainscote and the pilaster columns. I'm trying to picture that behind the gas station, which is basically what our west elevation is going to look like. I know this is not accustomed of commercial projects but like Commissioner Allen, I in my mind, keep trying to add stuff to break the box. There is only so much you can add. I just wondered if the sidewalk that abuts the building could be pulled away 3' or 4' and a landscape strip right up against the building. That would mitigate this wall terrifically. I know commercial buildings don't Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 22 generally do that but I think the west elevation is still severely lacking. I don't think it really passes Commercial Design Standards. I don't think adding a gas station in front of it helps at all, I think it hurts it. I'm not necessarily requesting that, I'm just trying to follow the discussion with an idea. Hoover: I will make a comment. In the past, perhaps what Commissioner Allen is thinking of, when we have buildings that have many fronts to them as this one does that we ask that all the fronts look similar. On this one the south elevation has a lot of canopy, roof canopy and obviously, I would think if the west elevation had a lot of roof canopy that would right there do it because then we would look just like the very front door. Allen: I think that is an excellent idea and that would certainly eliminate the look of a box. Hoover: Is the applicant willing to add anymore canopy? Vanhoose: What was the specific question? I was addressing Commissioner Ostner's question on the landscaping a little bit. What was your question? Hoover: The next option that was thrown out was in the past when we have a building that has as many fronts as this has, I would consider this having two distinct fronts to it since this one, which you want to call the side, is actually facing a street. We usually call that a front also. We usually ask the applicant that anything that faces a street look like a front and so the idea was if you continued the canopy that is on the south elevation all the way along the west elevation just like you've done on the south that that would make it seem much more articulated and less boxlike to some of the Commissioners. Vanhoose: I guess I would feel uncomfortable in this environment committing to that amount of structural change. I know in past projects that we have done that canopy is not the cheapest part of the project and whether that would continue to make the project economically feasible for us I would be unable to commit tonight. Shackelford: I struggle when we get into these situations. I don't think it is the position of the Planning Commission to re-engineer a proposal that is brought to us. I think our challenge is to see if it meets the ordinances set forth by the city. I have two things. First of all, I keep going back to articulated verses unarticulated. I think they have done a very good job with articulation on this property by changing different colors, different contrasts to do what they can to do that. We have a challenge anytime you are going to build however many thousand square feet of warehouse type retail space. You are going to start with a boxlike structure and have to try to dress it out to Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 23 meet the ordinances. I think that they've done a good job and that this, as proposed, meets our ordinances. The other thing, my thought was we're talking about fronts and I know we got into that on the CMN project a little bit. I look at this a little bit differently. We had buildings there facing collector streets and major arterials. This front is more toward a local street. I know a street is a street and vision is vision but it is not, in my opinion, the same level of a front as it would be if it was facing I-540 or one of the major thoroughfares through CMN Business Park. I don't really want to sit here and try to redesign this project. I don't know that that is really our challenge as a Planning Commission. I think we need to focus more on whether or not as presented it meets the ordinances as they are on the books now. Warrick: If I might, there has been some discussion with regard to the front south verses the west which is facing a street. In your Design Overlay District ordinance there is a requirement that any fagade facing a street is treated as a front. This property is not within the Design Overlay District. Therefore, Commercial Design Standards with the five elements to reduce or minimize are the five elements to apply with regard to evaluation of this project. In looking at that, it is not just one thing. It is five elements to avoid or minimize is the way that the ordinance states. Unpainted concrete precision block walls; Square "boxlike" structures; Metal Siding which dominates the main fagade; Large, blank, unarticulated wall surfaces; Large out of scale signs with flashy colors. Those are your five criteria under Commercial Design Standards with which to evaluate one of these Commercial projects. I just thought I would mention that there is a difference between standard Commercial Design Standards anywhere within the city limits and those standards that are applied to the Design Overlay District when a project is on a corner condition. Shackelford: I guess I would like to follow that up with another statement. As I look at the Harps location in Fayetteville, the others in our region as I drive by these I don't look at those buildings and think that they are large, boxlike structures. I think again, that they have done very well in changing colors and contrasts that they need to to break up that fagade. Hoover: Are there other comments? Shackelford: If we're done with that, if we're not done with it we can go back to it. I do have a question on one other condition. Condition number six a Variance for a rear lot line setback of zero. When you are saying rear lot line I'm confused now we're talking about fronts. Warrick: The east is the rear and the reason is when we look at the property on the ground the front is what we have to consider for setbacks, anything that faces or is adjacent to a street right of way. The west is the front with Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 24 setback considerations, the east is the rear, north and south are sides. The applicant in this case has chosen to orient the building south so that itis consistent with the rest of the development, the rest of the subdivision but when it comes to determining setbacks a front is the setback that is taken from a property line adjoining a street right of way. Ostner: That confuses me terrifically. We are counting, is it Colorado Place as their frontage and they setback their front setback against Colorado Drive and their rear setback is on the east side. They have chosen to direct their building to the south but our rules or our methodology is still calling the west a front? Warrick: Commercial Design Standards address the main fagade of a structure in the ordinance. They require a submittal of an elevation of the main fagade be submitted. The applicant has chosen the south to be the main fagade. Hoover: Suggestions? Ostner: I think at the very least the west elevation is lacking. There are so many things about this project that I like. I think it is a good project, it is in the right place, we need a grocery store there. I just wish the elevations looked a little different. That's the only thing holding me up basically from voting yes on this. Bunch: While we're at a bit of impasse on the western side I think a motion and a proper vote will clarify that. We have not really discussed the east elevation and we're showing one east elevation as a large, blank, unarticulated wall because this is where the proposed development to the east will connect. We have no idea how much of the building will be covered up by that east connection. We have been offered an alternative eastern elevation should the development to the east not come through at the time building permits are issued. One addition that I would like to have considered on that and ask the applicant is if that building to the east does not totally cover the east wall that the banding shown on the alternate east elevation be wrapped onto that east elevation. Say the building to the east only covers 50% of that wall then we do have blank, unarticulated surfaces sticking out and my question is can we include in the proposal that if the building to the east does not fully cover the east elevation that that design element be wrapped to meet the proposed building to the east? Vanhoose: I think we understand the spirit of number two and the conditions to address as the adjoining structure that there needs to be some sort of process in place for the adjoining structure that just because there is an adjoining structure that is 10' wide or 100' wide doesn't prevail that all of the sudden there is a large wall that is unarticulated and that the spirit of Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 25 the second option would be taken to any wall structure that's exposed for the retail part that attaches to it. Bunch: I would like to at this time commend the staff and the applicant for working together on having this flexibility of allowing the proposal for the east to come in and having options approved so that at the time the building permit comes in I think that is one of the things that would make Fayetteville a little more developer friendly. Sometimes we get caught up on the rigidity of our ordinances and I think this is a good way of being user friendly and it is a good concept and I would like to commend staff for bringing it forward. Allen: I think this is really a good and needed project. I still am struggling with this Commercial Design thing and I wondered if other Commissioners could weigh in and help me on that and if not, maybe we could even consider that as an item that we put on a workshop agenda for the Planning Commission in the future. This continues to be problematic and really difficult to ascertain whether something complies and we don't want to be the designers and yet we want to follow the rules. Bunch: I will try to make a motion. I move that we approve LSD 04-05.00 subject to the conditions of approval as stated with the additional conditions that the mechanical equipment shall be shielded with an additional fagade on the roofline on the north, extend the banding as represented on the west elevation around the north fagade and modifying the landscaping on the west along Colorado Place as described. Also, to offer on the spirit of the banding on the east elevation should the proposal to the east not cover the entire east wall. Shackelford: I will second. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Bunch and a second by Commissioner Shackelford, is there more discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 04-05.00 was approved by a vote of 4-3-2 with Commissioner Ostner, Hoover and Anthes voting no and Commissioners Graves and Vaught recusing. Allen: Before we totally leave the subject I do want on record that we pursue this as a Commission to get clarification. Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 26 CUP 04-08.00: Conditional Use (Logan's Roadhouse, pp 173) was submitted by Tennessee Design and Engineering, PC on behalf of Logan's Roadhouse Restaurant for property located at Lot 16 of Steele Crossing. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and is in the Design Overlay District. The request is to allow more parking spaces than allowed by ordinance. LSD 04-08.00: Large Scale Development (Logan's Roadhouse, pp 173) was submitted by Tennessee Design and Engineering on behalf of Logan's Roadhouse for property located in Lot 16 of CMN Business Park II. The property is zoned C-2, Commercial Thoroughfare, located in the Design Overlay District, and contains 2.43 acres. The request is to approve the development of an 8,060 sq. ft. restaurant with 144 parking spaces proposed. Hoover: Item number six on the agenda is a CUP 04-08.00 for Logan's Roadhouse. I am assuming we are also going to hear LSD 04-08.00 for Logan's Roadhouse at the same time. Jeremy? Pate: Thank you Madam Chair. These two items are for a Conditional Use and a Large Scale Development for Logan's Roadhouse. The request is for a restaurant, 8,060 sq.ft. Elevations have been submitted for all four sides of the structure as has a material sample board which is going around. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and is within the Design Overlay District. The subject Lot Split has been processed on Lot 16 to create the subject tract within the Steele Crossing CMN Business Park II subdivision. The property has frontage onto both Shiloh and Mall Avenue. The Conditional Use request is for excess parking than allowed by ordinance. On page 6.2 I have included a parking chart comparison and included other restaurants that have been approved by the Planning Commission with a Conditional Use request along with a percentage of overage allotted. Logan's Roadhouse is requesting 144 parking spaces. 106 are allowed by ordinance. Therefore, there is a 36% overage requested. That is in keeping with many of the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use requests for parking spaces. I have signed conditions on both the Conditional Use and the Large Scale Development. All items for the Design Overlay District requirements have been met and staff is recommending approval of both CUP 04-08.00 and LSD 04-08.00. The latter of which has ten conditions. Hoover: Would the applicant come forward? Holcomb: Good evening. I am Roberta Holcomb with Logan's, I will be the construction project manager on this job site. I would like to thank the staff and Commission for the time and effort they have put in on this project and we look forward to becoming a part of the community as soon as possible. Thank you. Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 27 Hoover: Is there any member of the audience that would like to address this Conditional Use or Large Scale Development for Logan's Roadhouse? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission. I guess if we could start with the Conditional Use. In the past we have had these parking Conditional Uses on restaurants. Is there anyone that would not be in favor of granting this Conditional Use? I think we should discuss it now. Is there anyone that would like to speak to that? Ostner: No Madam Chair, I do not have a problem. We give 30% overage and they are only requesting 36% overage, that is very acceptable to me. Bunch: That is 36% over the overage allowed. Ostner: Merely doubling the overage is acceptable instead of tripling the overage. Hoover: If it is not objectionable could we move on to the discussion about the Large Scale Development? May I start by saying I can't figure out which is the front to this building so obviously, I will be in favor of this Large Scale Development based on Commercial Design guidelines. I have no issues. Are there other comments? Anthes: When Ms. Holcomb presented this at Subdivision it was received very favorably. We had one major issue that was with the access drive and we discussed it and she has changed the drawing so that it now aligns with the access to the Olive Garden restaurant to allow for clarity of traffic movement. That is viewed as a positive change. We asked for the table regarding parking. They have added the condition about the environmental specialist that Matt Casey requested and complied with the other drawing and labeling requests that we had so I don't think there were any other outstanding problems that we saw at Subdivision. Hoover: Commissioner Allen? MOTION: Allen: I will move for approval of CUP 04-08.00. Anthes: I will second. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Allen and a second by Commissioner Anthes for the Conditional Use. Is there anymore discussion on the Conditional Use? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 04-08.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 28 Thomas: The motion carries nine to zero. MOTION: Anthes: I will move to approve LSD 04-08.00. Allen: I will second. Hoover: Is there more discussion? Seeing none, Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 04-08.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries nine to zero. Bunch: Before we leave this subject I would like to comment again on the quandary that you were having with not being able to determine which one was the front. I think that we can possibly in the future use this as an example of not having a minimalist attitude towards having facades look like fronts. There are some other projects in this same area, some of which have been rather minimalist, some of which have exceeded our expectations and this is one that has exceeded and I think we can use it as an example in the future and I would like to thank the applicant for bringing this forward. Allen: I too, would like to give kudos to the applicant. Hoover: I think we all would. I guess she knows from the previous project. Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 29 CUP 04-10.00: Conditional Use (Westside Storage, pp 400) was submitted by Dennis Caudle for property located at 1192 N. Rupple Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 5.05 acres. The request is to allow an additional climate controlled storage building. Hoover: Item number eight on the agenda is a Conditional Use for Westside Storage. Pate: Thank you Madam Chair. Conditional Use request the applicant is requesting on the subject 5.0 acre site which is located east of Rupple Road north of Wedington an extension of the existing storage units. The existing development includes the Westside Storage facility bordered on the west and a portion of the south by an existing strip shopping center. This is the location of the Perk and several different businesses in that shopping center. This site has a lot of history so I am going to go through it pretty quickly but just to give you a little background. On page 8.9 the site is outlined there in sort of an "L" shape. The larger portion to the east of Rupple, the larger C-2 portion is the existing storage units. That was zoned in 1990 with the rest of the property . The C-2 portion is just to the south of that and in 2001 was zoned C-2 for an additional storage unit as well. That is what is being processed at this time. The remaining R -O portion was not rezoned. It was originally requested to be rezoned to C-2 as well. It got to City Council and they recommended that it come back with just the back portion. Both of these rezoning requests have Bills of Assurance attached to them. I have kind of outlined some of those in your packets some that deal with 60% tree canopy preservation requirement on the site. Also, access is to be limited to Rupple Road and prohibited from Wedington Drive for the mini storage operation. Additionally, the 2001 Bill of Assurance that zoned the smaller portion to C-2 limited that use to a climate controlled storage facility and/or mini storage facility. Basically, based on that Bill of Assurance that's really the only use that is allowed from that Bill of Assurance in this location. It also, however, designated appropriate screening to be determined by the Planning Commission at the time of the Conditional Use request. That has been listed as one of the conditions of approval. The applicant is proposing to construct a 160'x60' climate controlled storage unit within the C-2 zoning district which does require a Conditional Use approval. It will be subject to both of those Bills of Assurance which are in perpetuity of the land. Staff is recommending approval of the storage units with the Conditional Use for those units. The proposed use for the mini storage facility is an extension of the existing facility in the C-2 zoning district. Therefore, we find that it will not adversely affect the public interest. As I mentioned, an appropriate method of screening does need to be determined by the Planning Commission tonight to affectively buffer the intended use from surrounding properties. Adjacent properties include commercial uses on the south and west sides with the exception of the vacant R -O property Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 30 directly south of the proposed storage unit. If you will look at your conditions of approval, staff is recommending approval of the Conditional Use with a number of conditions. Briefly, the proposed use shall be limited to that portion of the C-2 tract only. It cannot be extended into that R -O portion. Item number two, Planning Commission determination of appropriate screening. Staff is recommending a combination of fencing, native evergreen shrubs and trees based on recommendations from our Landscape Administrator, to adequately screen the proposed building. The screening shall be located directly south within 20' of the proposed building as opposed to near the street which is where their current proposal shows screening. We feel it is appropriate there based on a number of reasons. One being that the 60% tree canopy that has to remain. We don't have a tree preservation plan in front of us as of yet, that will come with the building permit. Potentially a lot of the trees that are to be preserved are on the R -O portion of the site which would then render screening. There may never be a building there and staff is recommending that screening be placed closer to the actual structure. Additionally, I have listed some pages of minutes in the rezonings of where the applicant offered to place that at least 20' from the structure. Item three, Planning Commission determination of applicability of Commercial Design Standards for this proposed mini storage building. Typically we don't see this. This is usually regarded as an industrial use. That's why it is a Conditional Use in the C-2 zoning district. However, there was discussion both at Planning Commission and City Council level with the rezoning request about Commercial Design Standards and we are really putting it in the Commission's lap to determine if those design standards do need to be applied to this unit. There have been some elevations submitted. Hopefully they made it to your packet, it is sort of a sketch and a photograph. On page 8.14 you can see an existing view with the structures in the background and then sort of a drawing on the bottom there of the view of the new building without the screening toward Wedington Drive. Some of the other conditions are access to the proposed storage unit shall be limited to the existing Rupple Road entrance. That is also pursuant to the associated Bill of Assurance. Number five, a detailed tree preservation plan shall be submitted in compliance with our current ordinance requirement. Number six, 60% of the existing canopy on the undeveloped south portion of the subject tract shall be preserved in accordance with the Bill of Assurance. Seven, trash enclosures shall be screened on three sides with access not visible to the street. Hoover: Thank you. Would the applicant come forward? Caudle: I'm Dennis Caudle who submitted the application. I would just like to say he covered everything quite well for the history and the request and the conditions. I would like to address some of the conditions that he brought forward as far as the history. The City Council, there was a need for the Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 31 additional units at the time that it was submitted there was no climate control in the entire city. Since then there has been one facility that does have climate control now but there is still a need for that in that area of the city. As far as the conditions, they recommended that the shrubbery, they were very concerned even at the City Council level, of the visibility. This building, I don't know if you all have seen the renderings before and after. The new building would be almost exactly what you're seeing today. There is no downgrade due to this new building, it is exactly what you're seeing. They were concerned about the visibility of the facility itself. In addressing that, they have come up with a couple ideas there of how to do it and they show 20'. I would like to bring up a couple of things. The lot on the front that is still R -O, we do have plans to develop that in the near future also, which is a separate item. As far as the screening, one thing that we would like to address is by moving the trees, shrubs and stuff that they would like to pretty it up to the forefront toward the highway your visibility if it is up close is improved in itself rather than putting it all the way back right in front of the buildings. With the height of trees and height of stuff on the highway it is a better screen than back in front of the buildings. At the same time we do have plans to develop the R -O. One thing that we would like for you all to consider is the fact that the building in R -O that we will be proposing and working on in the future will be a complete screen. It will totally cover the buildings where there is no visibility of any kind. To put the new trees and shrubs and stuff in front of the building where it is proposed basically there will be a building in that immediate area that becomes completely obsolete at that point to do it now with the building in the plans for coming in the immediate future. The building that will go there will need landscaping in the front to make it pretty and it will be an entirely different type building that is much more attractive and at the same time, it will be the screening for that facility. Hoover: Thank you. At this time we will open it up to public comment. Is there anyone who would like to discuss this Conditional Use for Westside Storage? Becker: It is not quite public since I represent Dennis Caudle. I had a couple of questions regarding a couple of items on the Conditional Use. Hoover: Could you hold on? Let me see if there is any public comment first before we bring it back to the applicant. Is there any public comment to this Conditional Use? I just wanted to make it clear so no one had doubts. You can come up now and address us. Please state your name. Becker: Dennis Becker. First of all, item six on the recommendation from the staff says 60% of the existing canopy seems a little severe from me. R -O from the landscape manual requires a minimum of 20% and here you are Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 32 requiring 60% of the existing canopy. Does that feel a little severe to anybody when your own landscape manual says 20% for R -O? Bunch: Since that is already in a Bill of Assurance that the applicant has offered can you explain to us why you are requesting a deviation from your Bill of Assurance that you've already filed with the city? Becker: Let's turn to the Bill of Assurance. Bunch: I think this is a result of previous actions that have gone through this Commission and through the City Council. Becker: Good. It seems to me something happened on the road. I'm looking at the quotation from the previous Bill of Assurance and it says "60% of the existing trees." I don't see the word canopy in there. Ostner: I'm not with you, 60% of the trees? Becker: 60% of the existing trees was in the original Bill of Assurance, not the word canopy. Warrick: Our condition should be modified to reflect that statement. Becker: There is a big difference between the number of trees and tree canopy. We have no problem meeting the original Bill of Assurance and 60% of the trees, we do have a problem with 60% of the canopy. Vaught: 60% of the trees with a caliper of 8" or more is that correct? Becker: Yes, you said this could be amended? Warrick: Yes, to read the way that the Bill of Assurance reflected on page 8.18 reads. Becker: Can I just pass these out real quick to the board? This is just a quickie drawing that indicates the proposed building and floor ground. I reiterate what Dennis said that I think it is much more affective to put your landscaping in as one of your requirements in your landscaping manual within 15' of the front property line adjacent to Hwy. 16 with a 4' landscaping tree and evergreen at that point because a leaf in the foreground is much more affective than a leaf far away. Since this border is highly aesthetically sensitive I know that they would agree with that approach. When is that building going to happen approximately? Caudle: With a year. Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 33 Becker: If we put the landscaping in as the staff suggests it will be virtually worthless within a year as we put the office complex in for that R -O property. I think that's all I had to say. Ostner: I have a question about this R -O parcel that is really not under consideration tonight. That's not held to any of the same rules we're talking about, about access onto Rupple is it? Warrick: No, we are not placing conditions on the R -O property. The Bill of Assurance addresses it so we made the statement with regard to the trees which should be corrected to reflect the wording in the Bill of Assurance. With regard to access and other development requirements on the R -O tract, we are not addressing those now because we are not looking at a proposal for development on the R -O tract. Ostner: I was just curious. Becker: The Bill of Assurance was meant so people would not come and go to their storage unit off of Wedington. Ostner: I was just wondering if that piece of land is going to be accessed off of Wedington and it probably will. Shackelford: The new building that you are proposing, will you access that building from the north side of the building? Caudle: It will be with the entrance off of Rupple just like it is now. Shackelford: The actual door to get in the unit will it be on the north side of the building or the south side of the building? Caudle: It will be on all four sides of the building, just like all the storage buildings are now. Shackelford: My concern is if you have access to a building that is a storage building and you have, as the conditions read, landscaping within 20', it is going to be difficult. I would assume most people use a trailer of some sort. It is going to be difficult to back a vehicle and a trailer into these entryways of these units if you have landscaping within 20' of a unit. I think we are setting ourselves up for a difficult situation there and tearing that landscaping up as people try to access those units. Caudle: The one thing that I will say also. Again, we do have it in the works for the R -O type building. If you are concerned about that as far as the time table, first this building here would be built and then that would follow almost immediately, the beginning of that. If you are concerned about Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 34 whether or not this building would ever be built, just like the council addressed in the initial meeting and left up to you all whenever it came before you for a Conditional Use was the fact that if the building is not built in that time frame to put up the fence that they recommended that you all would address at this time, a fence that blocks the visibility. Ostner: I think that is part of my issue with this. If you all want to wait and develop them at the same time or vice versa I think the issue of this landscape screen is basically solved. Right now we've only got this in front of us and all that to the south is basically irrelevant at this point. Caudle: It is irrelevant. I was only bringing it up for saying that to plant and do all the work that is proposed at the 20' marker is a waste of money and a waste of time if this, in fact, does develop. If, in fact, it doesn't develop within a certain time frame that is acceptable to you all then we will do the planting at that point and we will also do the fence at that point that the Council thought some pretty fence that would cover the screening area was the issue where they would not see the storage doors necessarily. I brought it up only for the fact that all that expense of doing it like it was originally possibly proposed if this building goes in it is all expense and unnecessary and all going to have to be taken out anyway. Ostner: I guess my point is it is only unnecessary on your time schedule. If you all want to redo your development time schedule to do these together then the issue takes care of itself. Caudle: They are two different proposals. One will be R -O and one C-2. Ostner: That is also my problem, that they are two different proposals. I'm only looking at this on. Caudle: I only bring it up to let you know that if this happens it is all unimportant because it is going to be tore up anyway. If it doesn't happen we will put in just what the City Council said that you all would probably want at the time that they approved the rezoning because they were concerned about looking at the storage doors. Again, the storage doors are no different than you are looking at today. I understand what they are saying and we are prepared to do several things to make it better. Ostner: My issue on moving the screen, I'm inclined to go with the staff's recommendation because when you move a screen away from the building the sight lines go around it. It is almost negated. It doesn't work unless it is close to a building. We are only looking at one project here. I guess that would be my take on the 20' landscape screen. Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 35 Vaught: How far is it, all we have is these drawings that you provided us, how far is the access aisle for the proposed storage unit? I assume you will have some type of fence there for security purposes anyway won't you? Caudle: There will be the corridor there between the building. Vaught: How wide is that access? Caudle: 20' is what is proposed. Vaught: That's what they typically are? Caudle: Bigger is better of course, turning radius and stuff like that, the bigger the better. We asked on our reapplication for 90' which would be adequate to put in the building that we proposed originally. They came back and said for the 90' that leaves the lot on the front that is still R -O. Vaught: On the screening I guess I'm inclined to want to be more flexible on this. The problem that is coming up is the time frame that we feel is adequate. If it is not done in six months or twelve months it is kind of ambiguous on our part not knowing when you will bring it forward. As far as the type of screening, I would like to see a fence there and not just trees. I think that is important so maybe reduce the number of trees in proportion to having a fence there. I do want to be flexible with the developer in saying that they do have six months or eight months to at least bring the project for the R - O forward or get it approved and start construction on it. I don't know what would be fair. Caudle: I appreciate a little bit of time here to save me the expense of a high dollar fence that you all would approve of and all the planting and all the shrubbery that is going to be not a factor if this building, in fact, is built. I appreciate the time to save me that expense. Vaught: What type of fence do you normally build around, just a chain link? Caudle: Generally if you look at most facilities and what is out there currently is chain link fence. As far as what was brought up is a fence that is more attractive and how that improves screening. I don't think they intended to put up a privacy fence that was so tall that you couldn't see anything. Just like the fence that was built on the new facility next to Meek's Lumber on Gregg Street. That was obviously approved in some way. That's an attractive fence that lends itself to being pretty instead of being something you don't want to look at maybe. Vaught: I do like the fence with the brick pilasters just to break up the fence because then you run into the fence being just a big, blank surface too. I Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 36 do understand your concerns on the timing because there will be unnecessary expense. Caudle: A fence like that is a high dollar fence. If that was acceptable for them then we could put up something that pretty. As far as to be given the lead way of a little bit of time to get the other one off the ground to save me that fence I would appreciate that gesture. If we are not off the ground then we will put up that pretty fence. Hoover: I would like to point out something that we need to be looking at item number three while we're talking about this fencing item. If we have a fence that is not opaque and we are seeing through it do we want these buildings to comply with Commercial Design Standards. If we have an opaque fence I think we are going to have to make a decision on that. If we have a transparent one then it would be different. Vaught: I personally would be for an opaque fence because storage buildings, it is hard to make the actual building really pretty. It is going to be a big metal building and I think a fence can be just as attractive and achieve the purpose on this site especially with the number of trees they already do have and the screening of the new trees they're putting in. I'm for just requiring the fence and not making the building subject to Commercial Design Standards. Bunch: A question for the applicant. In relation to this, what sort of time frame are you talking about as far as the building application or Certificate of Occupancy as to a cutoff time when if you do not have a development coming through for the R -O. If I'm not mistaken, this will not come back before this body, it will be an administrative item that will be handled by staff and we would need to give staff some direction on that. We need to put a time if we do give an extension on the time, we need to tie it down to something. Caudle: The time table that I'm hoping to work with nothing would be done until this summer whenever it dries up in time to do the dirt work and the hillside and all the dirt work type preparation. The building would probably be put up this fall, the storage climate control unit, hopefully by October and the next proposed building would be next Spring and early Summer. Bunch: That's a pretty big gap there. If you were able to bring your R -O proposal through before you completed the new building or your new facility, and before you got your Certificate of Occupancy on it, it you had something that was being presented, I think that would be a reasonable time period. Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 37 Caudle: We are talking from the time the storage would be completed in October until the other one would be under way in early Summer, six months roughly. Like I said, if, for the reason I stated, developed the idea of the fence also, if it is not through approved and ready to do the dirt work and get it underway we'll get underway with the fence right then. Bunch: Staff, would this building require a Certificate of Occupancy? Warrick: Either a Certificate of Occupancy or a Certificate of Completion, that would be determined by the Building Safety Division. Anthes: When I read through the notes from the Planning Commission meeting in 2000 and the City Council meeting, it seems pretty clear to me that there was a lot of discussion about screening and about the fence and the only thing that made this project ok for those people voting for the project at the time and allowing this use was that there was some assurance that this screening would be installed. I feel the same way and I feet that we should respect the decision that was made at the time that that be part of allowing this particular use on this site. If this building is not going to be subject to Commercial Design Standards then the fence, in my mind, is necessary whether or not there is a building that sits in front of it. You will be able to see this at oblique angles, you will be able to see it from the parking lot, you will be able to see it from the front road and so in my mind the screening and the fence must exist whether or not the building is developed on the R -O property and in the configuration and distance from the street that staff recommends. Vaught: Would you want both of them 20' from the building, the fencing and the screening to be right next to each other on the front line of the C-2, is that what you're saying? Anthes: What I would assume, you would have the building, you would have the drive aisle, you would have the fence and then you would have the landscape buffer in that sequence. Ostner: What type of fence? Anthes: What was discussed in these other meetings was a privacy fence, "a nice one that has brick pillars and privacy in between them" I think a similar sentiment was expressed several times during these meetings. Hoover: Would other Commissioners like to weigh in? Ostner: Since we are sort of having to juggle the screen and the design standards, I would like to support Commissioner Anthes that basically a board fence with brick columns. We see them all over town. I would be willing if it Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 38 were an opaque fence properly landscaped in front to not push the building to Commercial Design Standards. It seems fair, it seems like the purpose is achieved by the screen. Hoover: I want to say I agree. I think it is easier to design a fence that is going to look nice than try to make the warehouse itself look nice. Anthes: And cheaper than the building. What we haven't addressed here is the west and east sides of that facility. Was that part of staff's recommendation? Warrick: No, we didn't really address the east and west. We felt that the south was more in need of being addressed and that was what was primarily discussed through the historical information that we put together on the project. Caudle: To the west there is the back of the new Wedington Plaza building and to the east there is the wooded area. Anthes: We just had a very long discussion about Commercial Design Standards tonight where all four sides of the building were needing to be brought up to some sort of level or standard. Obviously, this building is not going to be to that level on any side and we are accepting the fence on the south side. I would like to know other Commissioners opinions about those other sides, particularly the east side. Shackelford: I would like to go one step farther and ask our City Attorney his opinion of whether or not Commercial Design Standards are applicable in this instance. Williams: I'm not sure. Of course, this is not a normal commercial building or else they wouldn't have to have a Conditional Use to be putting it in C-2. Being a storage facility it is it's own animal. Obviously, there has been a lot of concern about a mini storage and other storage buildings throughout town. Usually there have been efforts by the Planning Commission and the City Council before also to do something to try to ensure that they would be screened from the major thoroughfares. I remember when I was on the Council and we had some mini storage problems on Hwy. 265 and other places. I think that is one of the things that lead to the Commercial Design Standards and also more screening requirement making this a Conditional Use so you could take proper action to protect the views from the major streets. I think the screening by this fence which has been spoken about as far back as 2000 and the Planning Commission in 2001 City Council is certainly applicable when you are screening it from a major street like you're talking about. I think that that is quite appropriate. I don't think that the applicant here is being surprised because that is what Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 39 he has been told time and time again when he came and asked for a rezoning. MOTION: Bunch: I would direct the Commission's attention to a project that came through on Gregg Avenue where the county shops used to be. That was a storage facility and it was given Commercial Design Standards treatment. I think if the applicant is aware of that, the one near Upchurch Electric. I think by comparison being allowed to put in a fence and landscaping to screen is considerably different than meeting Commercial Design Standards. I think that we could beat this horse to death here talking about it over and over and over because it has been through many times. I think in fairness to the applicants that are coming through on projects subsequent to this on the agenda that we need to make strides here to move one way or the other on this and I am going to make a motion that we approve this Conditional Use with the screening as stated in condition two that there be fencing and native vegetation and that they not be subject to removal with development of the lot to the south with R -O and that we eliminate the Commercial Design Standards directing the staff to see that there is sufficient screening as described on condition number two where Commercial Design Standards will not be applicable and with condition six, that the word canopy be changed to the word trees as to reflect what is in the Bill of Assurance that is on file. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Bunch, is there a second? Shackelford: I will second. Hoover: Is there anymore discussion? Ostner: Did I hear you say something about no removal of this? Bunch: No removal of the fence and screen as the property develops. Since the applicant owns both pieces of property and they are zoned differently in order to get his 20' distance to have his driveway in and then put in his screening and his fencing I'm assuming that with an R -O development that he would still want to have his fencing for security purposes in order to best market his warehousing. Therefore, we would want to keep that fencing, he would want to keep the fencing in affect and I think that we would likewise want to have it in affect. If any of the screening is placed on the R -O property since the applicant owns both properties that that would not be endangered by a subsequent development on the R -O property so that we won't have to go through this long, drawn out thing again and again and again. That's my reasoning for saying that it would not be removed. Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 40 Ostner: It makes good sense. Anthes: I noticed Commissioner Hoffman had left some very specific notes in here that I wanted to ask staff about. It said when the Conditional Use came through that we not only were to discuss screening but also lighting, hours of operation and revocation. Can you speak to that? Are we supposed to address these issues? Warrick: Staff has included that information in the findings that are required for all Conditional Uses. That is addressed in your report. Anthes: We haven't discussed those items as a Commission right? Warrick: Trash enclosures are addressed on page 8.5, signage as well. Signage and lighting are addressed in the same finding. We are going to have to review some of this information at the time of a building permit application. The information that was submitted was enough for us to bring forward the Conditional Use request but it was not detailed and specific information that we will have an additional opportunity to review in detail when the building permit is requested. We will continue to review this project through the permitting process. Anthes: I have just never seen hours of operation and things like that be listed in any of our work before so that's what I was questioning. Is that something that is actually open to debate? Warrick: Many times in a Conditional Use that is something that we will look at. It is typically more appropriate when we are looking at inserting a childcare facility in a residential district where there may be disruptions of normal, everyday activities because of the Conditional Use. In this particular case we didn't specifically address it. We are looking at an industrial business but it is in a commercial area and that is not information that we expanded upon in this particular report. It is something that we do look at in Conditional Uses. Typically more in Conditional Uses that are in residential districts. Bunch: Staff, did the motion as presented give you proper direction to handle any subsequent development on this site or is there anything else that you need to be included in the motion? Warrick: I think the only additional information that would help us in permitting this project would be to understand what type of fencing is being expected, if it is an opaque fence or if it is a chain link fence or something in between. Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 41 Bunch: If the seconder wouldn't mind to accept it I will change the motion to include comments on the type of fencing that it would be an opaque fence with brick columns and wood intervening and could be of a shadowbox nature, not necessarily entirely opaque but basically something that blocks the view and depending on the height of the fence we would still need some vegetative screening and I think that I would leave that to our landscape and planning department to work with the applicant on what is affective coverage. If we have a 6' or 8' fence, I know for security fence you probably want an 8' fence. I don't know what the eave height of your building is because we don't have that before us at this time but I think that these are things that staff will be able to work with. Dawn, is that sufficient on the fencing to say that it be a combination wood and brick masonry fence? Masonry columns with wood fill in between and give the option that it could be a shadow box, not totally opaque fence. Warrick: Yes Sir, that is specific enough. Caudle: I have one thing I would like to say. When this began I said I wanted to address it as the Council voted on it and their concerns in the beginning. First off, you didn't require the facility on Gregg Street to put up a privacy fence and that was approved. Second, I asked a favor I guess, I came before you all. I do have plans to build a building and I ask that you all take that into consideration if possible and I assured you that I would put up the fence that you all wanted if, in fact, I hadn't got the other one underway. The new building will screen it. Instead of any consideration in that direction you come up with I've got to do all of this and I cannot touch it again, I cannot remove it so I have a problem with that. Bunch: I will make one more modification that the timing on this will be with a Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Completion if by that time there is a companion, or a development coming through the process for the R -O property immediately to the south that this can be modified at that time. That gives you not just until the building permit time, which is what we gave one of our previous projects tonight but to give to the Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Completion. In other words, until the time you get this thing completely built but before you can start renting out spaces in it you have up until that time to bring in another proposal for the property next to it otherwise the fence goes in. Caudle: That's what I asked for in the beginning. Bunch: I asked you if that was sufficient time and you told me no. Caudle: Maybe I misunderstood. Completion of the first building and the other one under way that would be acceptable. I'm just trying to avoid something. Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 42 Bunch: Basically, what we are trying to do is we have certain stopping points and certain controls. I personally have no problem with allowing that much time to make the decision before you are allowed to start utilizing your new building. Caudle: I can do that. Bunch: That is what we asked earlier and you said you couldn't and that's why I made my motion the way I made it. Caudle: I just said at the time period of building underway I had a bigger time period in there. As far as having one underway before we rent the first one in the new park? Bunch: If your second one comes through as a Large Scale Development that comes with an automatic one year life on it. If you bring your second proposal through, the one for the R -O property, if you bring it through before in the timing that we just discussed, that you bring that proposal through then it has a year's life if it is approved. You can do your planning up ahead but you can still wait on your financing and whatever. Staff, am I correct in describing it that way about the one year life? Warrick: Yes. Caudle: The way I understand it is I either have that done or I have the fence up one way or the other. Hoover: I have to ask for clarification, you were saying what is the time span that he has to have? Bunch: That he has to have either the fence up or a hard and fast proposal for the second property submitted to Planning for the R -O property to the south by the time of either Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Completion which is basically before that facility can go into use, before you can start renting units out. Caudle: I can do that. Warrick: I do have one question. How would you like us to treat this if the property to the south does not come through the Planning Commission as a Large Scale Development? Caudle: Would it be Large Scale if it is under an acre? Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 43 Warrick: The property as a whole, there is not a lot line at the zoning line. The property as a whole contains more than one acre. If it is divided it may not all come back as a Large Scale Development. There is a possibility that we would be looking at a building permit only. At which point, it would not come back to the Planning Commission. Bunch: I don't think that that would be problematic because the thing is to have a building on there to work as a shielding. I think that we could give staff direction. If it comes through as a building permit process does the Planning Department look at it at all? Warrick: We do but what you're looking at, the reason to have screening is a condition of the Conditional Use. It is this application that would impact a screening requirement because a Conditional Use is a use that is not approved by right in a zoning district. The mini storage that has been mentioned on Gregg Street is in an Industrial zoning district. It is by right. It is not in a Commercial District surrounded by other Commercial projects. There are Commercial projects in the area that are also in Industrial zoning districts by enlarge. This is a different situation. The reason that we are looking at it as a Conditional Use, the reason that it has been very much discussed for ten years is that the zoning is not there for a mini storage. The zoning is there for Thoroughfare Commercial and the Conditional Use is brought to the Planning Commission and you are given the opportunity to determine whether or not it is appropriate with conditions including things like screening and sometimes hours of operation or lighting or parking or other types of factors that may be adverse because of the type of use. It is brought to the Planning Commission to make those determinations. I think it is appropriate that the Planning Commission make those determinations and it becomes very difficult for staff to then modify those conditions and changes as this thing evolves. Bunch: Ok, then in that case would it be sufficient to say that if a development comes through on that R -O portion that the screening should be shifted up to the highway instead of 20' from the building that a combination of whatever building goes in on the R -O property and as the applicant had mentioned earlier, that the screening could be closer to the highway, would that be a sufficient direction? Warrick: There will be a landscaping requirement adjacent to the highway regardless. There will be a requirement for a 15' landscape buffer with one tree every 30 linear feet plus shrubs if it is adjacent to parking adjacent to the street right of way. I think that it would not be the screening for the mini storage units, it would be the landscaping requirements for the new development that would be located adjacent to Wedington Drive. Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 44 Caudle: The building itself will be the screening. Warrick: There would then be no screening between the Residential Office development and the Industrial use to the north. Caudle: But I own both. Hoover: I was with you up until making a proposal submitting for the R -O property that the screening might not need to go in but I think what you need to add to that is this R -O comes back to the Planning Commission and that will make it easier for staff and I think then it could be looked at again and where the screening ought to be. I think the screening issue is going to come up again. Bunch: Particularly on the east border of that R -O property. I think that is a good suggestion and that would save a lot of problems just to say that any development on the R -O portion of this same property has to come back to the Planning Commission. Warrick: As a Large Scale Development or for review with regard to screening? Shackelford: For review only. Warrick: Obviously, if it is a tract of land over an acre in size it will come back to you as a Large Scale Development but if that situation changes is your requirement that it come back to the Planning Commission for review? Bunch: This particular one isn't coming through as a Large Scale Development and it's on the same piece of property. Warrick: It's an addition to an existing development that is less than 10,000 sq.ft. in size and does not require 25 parking spaces. It meets the threshold for exemption from Large Scale. Bunch: Rather than complicate the process, a quick poll of fellow Commissioners. Would you want to see it come back as just a review of screening or as a Large Scale? Ostner: I think it needs to be looked at overall. We are throwing out so many things that were important a year or two ago. I think it completely needs to be reviewed as a Large Scale and screening. Bunch: I will entertain someone presenting that as an amendment and we can vote on the amendment separate from the motion. Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 45 Hoover: Are you sure you don't want to include it in your motion? Vaught: The applicant said something about parking spaces, the development will have over 25 parking spaces? Becker: It will have to come back as a Large Scale because there will be more than 25 parking spaces. Vaught: It might not and you can change your mind and that's why we are going to add the requirement. Bunch: That will be part of my motion. Shackelford: Now we have a problem because I only wanted it to come back as a review instead of a Large Scale. I hate to see that happen but it sounds like the applicant is fine with it coming back as a Large Scale. As long as he doesn't have to repeat the motion to us I'm going to accept it. Caudle: I'm going to do what we agree on here or what you're telling me I'm required to do. I appreciate the fact that you sound like you are giving me the opportunity to maybe not build it and tear it down and build to give me just a little bit of flexibility here where I can do this. Vaught: It is my understanding that at the time of inspection for Certificate of Completion or Occupancy if there is no proposal in the works they have to build a fence and they won't get their certificate until the fence is built. If there is something in the works it is not required? Bunch: Correct. Ostner: My concern with that caveat that Commissioner Vaught just mentioned is that many things get in the works and fall out of the works, probably more than things that pass, I'm not sure. Lots of things get in the works and don't go anywhere. I believe we are putting undue stress on staff. Poor Jeremy or someone is going to have to be the Certificate of Completion fence cop. Wait a minute, what is the day? I have to go out there. Are they done? I don't think that's fair. Hoover: Staff, would you respond to that? Don't you usually have to check off a checklist on Certificate of Occupancy? Warrick: Yes. Ostner: Juggling that with another proposal is a lot to keep up with and it is not straight procedure for one project to not be complete because another one might be in the works. Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 46 Caudle: I will go one step further if it helps. Before the Certificate of Occupancy is issued we have gone through the numbers there and at that point we will either be pouring a slab for the new building or we will be putting up a fence. Ostner: How about a building permit? Caudle: That's fine and acceptable. Ostner: If a permit is in the works, all the approvals are in place. We are defining in the works. Hoover: First, let's ask staff if they have a problem with the motion as it was made. Warrick: We will do what we need to do to ensure that your motion is enforced. Whether it is a Certificate of Occupancy or Completion or whether it is a building permit stage, we just need to know. We just need to know what it is that you expect time wise and what you expect to see. I think I understand what is expected to be installed should the landscaping and screening need to be installed. I have got that. Timing has not been determined and I just need to know whether or not we issue a building permit or hold it until there is another plan in process or ensure that the landscaping and screening shown on the plans and a requirement of the building permit or we transfer that requirement to the time of Certificate of Occupancy. Ostner: What I meant by the time of building permit is a permit has been pulled on the R -O property. The next project is not just being talked about but it has actually been permitted and is about to be built. Hoover: How is that going to be any different? I am not understanding how you are trying to help staff. Frankly, I think they will stand up for themselves if they have a problem. Shackelford: It also is a Conditional Use so down the road if we feel the applicant wasn't doing what they were supposed to as a Conditional Use we can force it back in front of the Planning Commission under that pretense. Ostner: We are agreeing to some things tonight that are the agreement. Shackelford: If staff makes the call that in their opinion that the second project is in the works and that falls through somewhere down the road we can, since it is a Conditional Use, call this back into question to the Planning Commission and force it at that time. Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 47 Williams: I would like to see something in there where after the second project has been built, not in the works, not a building permit or anything like that. This whole thing be reviewed at the Planning Commission level after the second project has been built to see whether additional screening is required to meet the statements that were made by the applicant before the City Council and before the Planning Commission in the past talking about that he would be happy to build this sort of fence screening. It may be the new project will block it off. It might be that there will be parking lots around it and when you go out and look you'll say that's not met. If you just bring it back after his project is done. I think that it should be reviewed at that time. Until that time we are all just talking about the air, we don't know, we can't see. Shackelford: Can I second his motion too? Allen: I liked that. I wondered if we could withdraw the motion. Bunch: That would be an added condition to the existing motion. It would just be one more layer on it. I will happily add that to the motion. Hoover: And does the seconder agree? Shackelford: Sure, why not. Vaught: Just for clarification, we are saying that we want to see it back as an LSD and then even though we are going to review all of those things at LSD for the front project, we still want to see it back for review after that? Are those things that we can accomplish at the LSD of the second project? Williams: No, you would be reviewing the granting of the Conditional Use you are doing tonight, you would be reviewing that after the other project is finished. You would be able to take a tour, go out and say has this accomplished the screening we thought it did? Anthes: I was coming around on Commissioner Bunch's initial motion but we are still looking, I'm looking at four years of notes, Dawn says ten years of approval here that the reason they allowed, these former Commissioners and City Councilmen, allowed this industrial use in a Commercial zone was with the assurance that there would be a masonry and board fence around it for screening. Unless that is there I'm not going to support this project. Frankly, I would like to see it on the west and east as well as the south. Hoover: Are there any other comments before we call the roll? Ostner: I would like to agree with Commissioner Anthes. Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 48 Allen: I would agree also. Ostner: There is already a great deal of negotiation that has already gone on and I feel like we have started down the road to continue that even more when we're only talking about one fence. Since it is a use that is not allowed in this zone but it is allowed with a Conditional Use I'm not sure why this fence doesn't need to wrap around to the east side. That is zoned A-1, it is probably going to be rezoned. It could be a parking lot. It could be houses abutting this. It needs to be screened on the east also. Hoover: May I ask how many positive votes does it take to approve a Conditional Use? Williams: It requires five affirmative votes. Caudle: When the project was originally built in 1990 C-2 was adequate for storage buildings and of course, Conditional Uses have come in since then. Shackelford: A fence wasn't required with the original approval on those two sides. Anthes: No but it was on the south. Hoover: Shall we call the roll? Does anyone have anything left to add? I think we call the roll. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 04-10.00 was denied by a vote of 3-6-0 with Commissioners Graves, Ostner, Hoover, Church, Anthes and Allen voting no. Thomas: The motion fails by a vote of six to three. Hoover: Thank you. Hoover: We will move onto item number nine. It is a Conditional Use for property located south of 3868 Sunbest Court. Jeremy? Pate: Thank you Madam Chair. This property is located north of Joyce Street on Sunbest Court. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre. The applicant is requesting a tandem lot. This lot is to be created with a Property Line Adjustment which is an administrative process that staff reviews. That Property Line Adjustment request is in the process currently. The larger parcel is being adjusted to allow for construction of an additional single family home. Access from the existing curb and guttered private drive. The applicant is proposing this Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 49 lot without adequate frontage onto a public right of way. Therefore, a Conditional Use for a tandem lot is required. The applicant plans to build a single family home on the smaller tandem lot and proposes to utilize the existing 15' curb and gutter driveway to access the two lots. Staff is recommending approval of this Conditional Use with a number of conditions. Hoover: Excuse me Jeremy, I'm sorry to interrupt. Bunch: Point of Order. Hoover: I guess would you like to pose a question? Bunch: I would like to ask a question of the City Attorney. Just because the motion failed that does not mean that we have completed that subject. Would not the negative side be able to present a motion that describes their wishes? Williams: That is correct. It depends on how you structured your motion. One of the six that voted against this could state that the screening that had been suggested by the three failed was inadequate and did not cover what had previously been agreed to which was of course, the fence and what staff had recommended, vegetation, and a motion could be made to approve it as staff recommended as opposed to as it had been modified. Shackelford: Or they could craft their own motion. It seems to me we went from arguing a condition of approval to not approving it at all in a very short matter. Graves: I agree. The main issue I have is with this fence. They had plenty of warning about it for three years. They are not surprised by the fact that that would be a condition and the very fact that we had so much trouble trying to word a motion to buy them time to put that fence in or not put that fence in is indicative of how problematic it would be for the staff in trying to put that together. I think with the fence in and the canopy that they knew was coming I don't have a problem with it. Williams: Basically, the whole motion went to condition number two of the Conditional Use request which is Planning Commission determination of appropriate screening. Obviously, on a six to three vote the Planning Commission did not feel that was the appropriate screening. That doesn't mean that has now been the determination that there is no possible screening and so the Planning Commission could, one of the six that voted against this, suggest what the appropriate screening would be and see if that would pass, only after you make that determination should you vote on the entire Conditional Use itself. Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page SO Shackelford: I feel that our disagreement on the amount of screening necessary on this project just disallowed an applicant to build a building. I'm not sure that we did the applicant justice in that area. If you disagree with my screening that is one thing. Let's strike down that motion and let's hear what you would support to give him due process instead of we just eliminated him for the calendar year. What's the time frame in which he could bring it back? Williams: Is it a year requirement? Warrick: The way that the ordinance reads with regard to a Conditional Use, no application for a Conditional Use will be considered by the Planning Commission within 12 months of final disapproval of a proposed Conditional Use unless there is evidence of changed conditions or new circumstances which justify reconsideration submitted to the Planning Commission. There is some lead way for discretion but it would need to be a changed circumstance. The issue of screening is not a changed circumstance. They were proposing screening and we were recommending screening so it is a matter of timing more than anything else. I don't think that that is a changed circumstance that would merit a reconsideration because that is not a change. Hoover: The issue is do we have one of the six that would like to make a motion for the Conditional Use with some type of conditions? Anthes: I will propose that we follow the intent of previous Council and Planning Commission determinations by requiring a masonry and wood privacy fence located 20' from the southern and eastern boundaries of the proposed building with the proper vegetative screening as recommended by the Landscape Administrator and in compliance with Don Bunch's original motion which said that that screening would remain in place regardless of the development of the R -O property. Vaught: Two things. If the fence is found to be adequate would you also leave it up to the discretion of staff to determine if the fence and vegetation is needed or are you requiring both? Anthes: Both. That was the original recommendation. We can talk about the height of the fence too if you would like. Vaught: No. I was going to leave that to staff s discretion. Williams: It would probably be better for you to make some sort of determination on that rather than leave it to staff s discretion. Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 51 Anthes: Minimum 6'. Vaught: With vegetation included? Anthes: Yes. Vaught: Two, you also added a condition for the east side. Anthes: I did, wasn't that exciting. Vaught: Would you do that masonry and wood fence for the entire length of the property just for the new building portion or could they use just a wood fence on that side? Williams: You can only go 90'. Anthes: The 90', whatever that is. Vaught: You want wood and masonry or just the wood? Anthes: Frankly, any other building in this commercial district would be required to meet Commercial Design Standards. This fence is a lot less expensive than bringing that building up to meet Commercial Design Standards. Saying that, I think that it is adequate to say that the masonry and wood would extend because that is the substitution for Commercial Design Standards. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Anthes, is there a second? Shackelford: Commissioner Anthes, are you saying in respect to all the other changes Commissioner Bunch as far as the language on condition number six regarding the trees. There were two very long amendments that he did. Anthes: Right, you mean to the canopy verses tree issue? Yes, I just want to remove any indication that this requirement would be altered based on subsequent development to the south. Ostner: I will second that motion. Hoover: There is a second by Commissioner Ostner. Can we clarify it one more time since the applicant is back in the room? Warrick: In addition to the change in condition number six to reflect the wording in the Bill of Assurance the screening requirement would be a masonry and wood privacy fence 20' from the south and east property lines to extend 90' on the east, which is the expanse of the subject property, with Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 52 vegetative screen to be approved by the Landscape Administrator. Screening to remain in place regardless of any future R -O developments. The screening fence shall be a minimum of 20' tall. Anthes: I think it was 20' from the building rather than the property line because we don't have a property line. Warrick: Thank you, from the building. Hoover: Is that correct for the motioner and the second? Anthes: Yes. Ostner: Yes. Hoover: Is there more discussion? Shackelford: Would you give the applicant a chance to respond? Hoover: Yes, do you have a comment? Caudle: I understand what she said is similar to what Don was saying with the addition of extending the fence around to the east side? Shackelford: It's required to be built regardless. Caudle: Built regardless and has to stay there regardless? Shackelford: Yes. Hoover: Is there anymore discussion? Ostner: Part of the reason I'm supporting this is that fences do things that buildings don't. I understand a building to the south would help screen this. The building could be 1,000 sq.ft., the building could be 20' wide and 30' long and there is an entire lot left staring at this situation that we are either dealing with or not dealing with. The neat thing about fences is that they wrap completely and then they're done. That's why they call them screens. That's why I think it needs to be in place and I think it needs to wrap around the east side. There is undeveloped area. It is only logical if we are protecting a view from the south which goes back 10 years in all these minutes that that same view or that same collision of zones should be dealt with on the east side and vacant unzoned, undeveloped area. It is a short span and I don't think it puts an undue burden on the applicant to meet the Conditional Use. Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 53 Hoover: Are there other comments? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the revised motion to approve CUP 04- 10.00 was approved by a vote of 5-4-0 with Commissioners Shackelford, Vaught, Bunch and Church voting no. Hoover: I think we're done now thank you. Back to item number nine. Vaught: I tried to catch you before we voted but on the east property line we said 20' from the building, it is 30' to his property line and I was wanting that changed before we voted but I didn't catch it. I don't know what we need to do. That bothers me. Hoover: Staff, what do you think we need to do for that? Warrick: The motion was specific to 20'. An amendment to the motion could take it to the east property line. Vaught: We just took 10' away so I would just like to propose an amendment to the last item, CUP 04-10.00 to amend the original approval from 20' on the east side of the building to the property line, 30'. Hoover: Is there a second? Ostner: Point of order, I'm not sure we can amend something we already passed. Williams: You would probably have to do a motion to reconsider. Mr. Vaught, you wouldn't be able to make that motion, it would have to be somebody in the majority to make that motion. MOTION: Ostner: I voted in the majority. I will make a motion that we reconsider and once again, go back to the Conditional Use of Westside Storage, CUP 04-10.00. Hoover: We have a motion to reconsider, is there a second? Anthes: Sure. Hoover: Is there any discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to reconsider CUP 04-10.00 was approved by a vote of 8-1-0 with Commissioner Bunch voting no. Thomas: The motion carries eight to one. Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 54 MOTION: Vaught: I would like to make an amendment to the conditions of approval for CUP 04-10.00 to amend the originally passed Conditional Use for the east side fence to be at the property line, not 20' from the building. Anthes: Second. Hoover: There is a motion by Commissioner Vaught and a second by Commissioner Anthes with the amended motion as stated. Is there discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to amend the originally approved motion was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries nine to zero. Hoover: Is that Conditional Use done? Everybody agrees upon it now? Ok. Jeremy? Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 55 CUP 04-09.00: Conditional Use (Travis Woods, pp 137/176) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Travis Woods for property located south of 3868 Sunbest Court. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre. The request is to allow development of a tandem lot. Pate: Thank you Madam Chair. This Conditional Use is for a tandem lot located off of Sunbest Court north of Joyce Blvd. The lot is being created with a Property Line Adjustment which is an administrative process reviewed by staff that is in process. The larger parcel is being adjusted to allow for the construction of an additional single-family home access from the existing 15' curb and gutter private drive. The proposed lot with the lot line adjustment, realignment of the lot, does not have adequate frontage onto a right of way. Thus, the request for a Conditional Use for a tandem lot. There are specific findings and requirements for the applicant. Those have been met. The Conditional Use should not adversely affect the public interest. The existing property is a large tract of land, approximately 14 acres and is currently developed with one single family residence. The frontage for the existing lot is along the cul-de-sac of Sunbest Court which does not allow for a maximum developed potential of another lot in that area without constructing another public street. The lot does meet all zoning requirements with the exception of frontage which is why we are here and the applicant is requesting that tandem lot to have access to the public street from the existing 15' private drive with a 30' access easement. This is a waiver request from the minimum 25' width. I did speak with the Fire Department today. Because it is a private drive located within a private access easement he feels that is adequate for this location to serve both of these homes and he is not recommending that that be widened at all. I believe that is the primary major findings. I know there are most likely some members of the public here to comment on this item. Specifically, property owners to the west. Staff is recommending approval of the Conditional Use subject to six conditions. One of which references the access to a public street and the others are basically requirements for a Conditional Use for a tandem lot. Hoover: Thank you Jeremy. Would the applicant come forward? Jorgensen: Yes, my name is Dave Jorgensen and I'm here on behalf of Travis Wood representing this Conditional Use request. We are here to answer questions and take comments. Jeremy put it very well. This is a little over 14 acres and we are talking about two houses on this 14 acres. This new house naturally will fit in with the rest of the neighborhood. I would be glad to answer questions. Hoover: Thank you. We will now open the Conditional Use up to public comment, the CUP for property located south of 3868 Sunbest Ct. Is there any member of the audience that would like to address this Conditional Use? Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 56 Smith: My name is Harvey Smith and I live just south of where this house is being proposed to be built. I don't have a problem with a house being built and I know the gentleman, Mr. Woods, who is going to build the house and I know he is going to do everything in his power to keep any problems from occurring. The house is being built on a hillside and it is a drainage that is silt soil and about 6" down below there is clay. All of the runoff comes down into my pond I have there. Down below I drain into a wetlands area which is owned by the Ozark Regional Land Trust. We just have some concern, not with Mr. Woods, because I know that he wants to do everything in his power to keep any problems from occurring. I, myself, just want assurances from the City Engineer and the city that everything that can be done will be done to prevent any silt runoff from this starting from day one of the construction. Again, the owner has no control over some guy that pulls up with a bulldozer and he does something incorrectly and then it rains 2" that night and then we've got a big problem. It is not just about my nice pond, it is about this wetland area which we're concerned about. Hoover: Thank you. Smith: I don't know how this can be handled but if there is an assurance from the city that they guarantee as a condition of approval that what needs to be done will be done then I have no problem with it. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other member of the audience who would like to address this Conditional Use? Galbrech: I am Greg Galbrech and I represent Ozark Regional Land Trust. We own the property directly to the left of the tract that is under consideration. To the west if you have your directions oriented here. Our property is approximately four acres, it is a conservation area. It is associated to the property of Dr. Hudson who is also here in the audience and who also has a pond on his property, a really nice large pond. The situation is that our land which is dedicated to conservation and associated with about 12 acres of Dr. Hudson's property is planned for greenspace and a nature center as a future plan after Dr. Hudson's death. I think that there are some possibilities, I've talked with Travis Wood about the compatibility of that house in relationship to our property. It is adjacent to and in view of our property. I think that there is a possibility of working out things that are compatible here. When I talked to Travis one of the things that came forth was his expression to me was we've got the cart before the horse. What he meant there was we are launching into getting approval, I'm not sure and he wasn't entirely sure, what that means or how it impacts the neighbors. The last I talked with him he was under the impression that this application was going to be postponed into April so we were just Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 57 beginning some dialogues about this whole situation. I think it is important to proceed with those dialogues before I feel comfortable with this development, even though it is just one house happening. There is a number of reasons. One is there have been, in this particular location, the intention of several landowners to dedicate the area to low density development. They have made substantial investments, both in their own properties and into purchasing property to direct this area in that that direction. Without doubt, outside this core area there is a lot of development, commercial development along Joyce Blvd. and so on. That doesn't necessarily affect what we're trying to do in this particular location. I think what we are trying to do is keep the integrity of that area. Since there is already a long term commitment to conservation I think that should be taken into consideration. Is it possible to request a tabling of this kind of application? Hoover: Staff? Warrick: The Planning Commission could vote to take action on one of those actions that is within your discretion if to table it. Galbrech: There are a number of reasons I would suggest tabling the action. For one reason I believe that this was going to be postponed anyway so it cuts off the dialogue that has begun, which is a friendly dialogue, to try to make this project workable. Secondly, the owner of the main piece of property, David Sloan, is interested in discussing with us some assurances of limiting development in the future that is dedicating additional land to open space. That discussion has just begun. Doing this lot split, it I uncertain to me exactly what the implications are. If you look at the property that is involved, there is a strip of land that is going not even from Joyce Blvd., but starting some portion back from Joyce Blvd. and follows the driveway north and goes to the main piece of property. It is currently zoned for Residential, four units per acre. I would like to sit down with Planning and talk about what kind of development the landowners want to see in this area before you make decisions that are to me kind of hodgepodge. You are putting a house here in the middle of this thing that sort of to me doesn't seem to fit how you would use the rest of the land unless it was dedicated to natural area. I would like to see the landowners really discuss that and the Planning Department so that the efforts have been made in the past. All of this property around Harvey Smith's land was once going to be a subdivision and through efforts of purchasing coming before the Council before it has gone in a different direction from becoming a subdivision. The previous owner, Mr. Latta, was also dedicated to keeping a large, open space. I think that there is continuity here that really should be thought about. I think that maybe the zoning should be looked at for some specific parcels here as well as what type of roads, infrastructure, and so on would be needed or not needed if Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 58 some of his land was dedicated to conservation. There is also the runoff from the property, which has already been acknowledged as a potential problem for the pond on Dr. Harvey Smith's property and that also drains into our property and into Dr. Hudson's property who also maintains a really nice pond to be addressed. I think that can be addressed but I would like it to be addressed by the landowners prior to it coming here for the application so that this discussion wouldn't have to happen. More or less, I would like to come here and say I approve and affirm this whole project given the time to sit down and work it out with the architect and the engineers and so on. In fact, a letter from Rob Sharp, the architect for the applicant, said that it was his recommendation that he finds it to help if you can talk to the neighbors informally before the public hearing if you haven't already. It really, that really hasn't happened. The discussions have sort of began at the I I 1 hour. It was really us contacting Travis Woods. He is basically open to further discussions, he was just ignorant to realizing that building a house here really has a domino affect or really impacts so many other people in so many other ways. That is the various reasons I would like to see this, I am not looking for this project to be voted down or to specific conditions at this time but I'd rather see it tabled so that it can be worked out. Thank you. Hoover: Is there any other member of the public that would like to address this Conditional Use? Hudson: I'm Dr. Lloyd Hudson, I have the property downstream from this. This is a situation that seems to be angled, I think it can be worked out very well but it could be a catastrophe if it is not done right. What we have is a Corp. of Engineer wetland and a wild foul feeding station and we are feeding a lot of wild foul at this time and this is going to be a permanent thing. We have worked with this ten years. It could easily destroy the whole thing if it is done poorly. He has got plenty of land there to build a house on but he just has to put it in the right place so the runoff will not impact anything else. I think what we are doing is we are just getting a little bit early here. We can step back, talk it over with the neighbors with your designer and your architect and put the house where it won't bother anybody else. You can easily do that, there is plenty of land there. My suggestion is to confirm what you just heard that it could potentially do a great deal of harm but if it is done right it should work out very well. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other member of the public? We will bring it back to the Commission. Matt, would you address the runoff issues? Casey: Yes Ma'am. When Mr. Jorgensen submits the construction plans for the water and sewer extension that are required for this Lot Split to occur we will require that he shows on those plans the minimum erosion control requirements that he is proposing to limit the sediment runoff to leave the Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 59 site. That is something that we can require on any construction plans and we will be looking for it on this in detail. Also, the construction of the home itself, while it does not require a grading permit and a formal grading plan to be submitted, it does have to meet our minimum erosion control requirements. At the time of building permit application they are required to sign a paper that has the list of all those and acknowledge the fact that they do have to meet those. The City Engineer's office does have the authority to enforce those and issue a stop work order if things are not complied with and also direct our Transportation Division to go out and actually cleanup items that are not addressed if the applicant or the person that holds the permit does not do that and then we will charge them for the work that is done. There are several items that we have in place that we can ensure the construction of either the water and sewer line or the home not impact the neighbors. Hoover: Thank you. Comments? Bunch: Matt, as a clarification on what you just described, since this is a Conditional Use, we can require the next level up of erosion control. Normally in RSF-4 there are minimal measures that are taken but since this is a Conditional Use if we were to require a grading permit how would we state it to take it up to the next level of assurance with silt fence and bails and that sort of thing. What would be required for us to state a condition describing that? Casey: The minimum erosion control requirements would be the same regardless of whether we have a permit issued or not for a grading permit. Those are just a part of the checklist that we have established for issuing a permit. That would be in place regardless for the construction of the water and sewer line we will require that on their construction plans as well. If it pleases the condition you can add a condition of approval that a formal grading permit and grading plan be submitted for construction of that single family home. Normally it is exempt because it is not located within a 100 -year floodplain and it is not located on a slope of 15% or more. Bunch: Thank you. Jorgensen: May I add something? Regarding the request, I think it would be without any problem proper to ask for this erosion control. In fact, that's my recommendation to the owner, Travis Wood and he agrees that it is a real good idea. If for any reason other than just being neighborly. My recommendation, and I did talk to Harvey Smith about this, is to put in a sedimentation pond, several rows of silt fence below the pond and above the pond in addition to several rows of hay bails. In other words, a real thorough and complete erosion control plan to help minimize any problems that occur downstream at all. I think it is one of those things that Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 60 would be very proper to have this in place prior to this house construction taking place. Travis has gone to great lengths to talk to Mr. Smith and also the Ozark Regional Land Trust. Naturally we are real happy that the Trust has that property over there and perpetual greenspace. It is fantastic, very nice space. We sure don't want to do any damage to it. We are in keeping with low density plans right here. This is two houses per 14 acres I would say that's low density. Mr. Slone has been contacted and he is not interested in additional contributions to this land trust so I guess that kind of clears up that little issue right there. Smith: Not just where his house is but there is another side of drainage that the city is requiring them to, how far from the road is that house? Jorgensen: That would be probably 500' or 600'. Smith: There are utilities running up to the house and when they put those in there was a runoff problem from that which is totally on another side that can be a problem. When they did that, there was a minimum of 12 big oak trees that were killed. I am wondering if there is any way that they can utilize the existing sewer line so that all that doesn't have to cause another disturbance too. There is water and sewer running up there and if they could utilize what's there instead of having to run all those other lines. Hoover: Matt, can you respond to that? Casey: One of the items that we look at with Lot Splits is that each lot has access to public water and sewer and that is what the applicant has proposed in this case to extend both the water and sewer to be able to serve this tract 1 with a new house. As far as utilizing the existing line, the existing line is a service line and two structures cannot be hooked to the same service line, it has to go directly to a main. Jorgensen: I would think we could run parallel to the existing service line with the new sewer and avoid knocking down any new trees. The damage is done there so we might as well go ahead and utilize that same route so we can minimize the removal of any trees. Ostner: This is a question for staff. We don't often see a Conditional Use for someone just to build a house except for the frontage issue it seems like in my mind I'm just trying to picture if they decided we don't want to do a Conditional Use, we want to extend the road so both houses have frontage then we wouldn't be seeing this issue, is that a fair statement? Warrick: That is correct. Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 61 Ostner: Basically, the only reason we're seeing this is they would like to keep that private drive the way it is and not extend public right of way? Warrick: They would have the option and the ability to build a city street to provide a lot that has a minimum of 70' of frontage, 8,000 sq.ft. of land area. Then, you are correct, it would not be a Conditional Use, it would be a use permitted by right in the zoning district. Anthes: I want to thank the applicant for offering the thorough and complete erosion control plan with sediment pond, hay bails and silt fence in order to be a good neighbor to the Ozark Regional Land Trust and to Dr. Smith. I have a question, do we feel like the grading permit is something that is necessary with those protections being offered from the applicant? Casey: Ostner: Church: Casey: MOTION: If we could change that requirement from a grading plan to a storm water pollution prevention plan. I was going to make a motion but I'm not sure I can phrase it with the added provisos. Don Bunch? Is the storm water pollution prevention plan the same as the erosion control plan or are those different? They are basically the same. Church: I will make a motion to approve CUP 04-09.00 with the six conditions of approval and the additional seventh one to require a storm water pollution prevention plan. Shackelford: I will second. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Church and a second by Commissioner Shackelford, is there anymore discussion? Anthes: Can we ask the motioner to add that the water and sewer lines would run parallel to the existing lines without disturbing additional trees and land? Church: Sure. Shackelford: That's fine. Hoover: Is there anymore discussion? Renee? Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 62 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 04-09.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries nine to zero. Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 63 RZN 04-03.00: Rezoning (McCord/Fitzgerald, pp 398) was submitted by James McCord, Attorney, on behalf of Donald and Frances Fitzgerald for property located at the northwest comer of Wedington Drive and 51" Avenue. The property is currently zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural, and contains 1.51 acres. The request is to rezone the property to RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre. Hoover: Item number ten on the agenda is RZN 04-03.00 for property at the northwest corner of Wedington Drive and 51s` Avenue. Morgan: This property, is as you mentioned, located on 51s` Street, a local street and Wedington Drive, a principal arterial and contains approximately 1.50 acres. Surrounding properties contain single family homes with a church located to the east of the site across 51 s` Street. The property is currently zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural and the applicant is requesting to rezone this property to RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre. In recent actions the Planning Commission has approved the rezoning request for the two properties immediately north of this tract, rezoning from R -A to RSF-4. The applicant is proposing to divide the subject property to provide for three single family lots with future action. Staff finds that the proposed zoning is compatible with the land use planning objectives in accordance with the General Plan 2020 and this area is currently developed with single family dwellings and this request is consistent with the recent rezonings and development approvals in this area. In order to develop this property a different zoning designation is necessary. In an R -A zoning district only one single family home is permitted on a minimum of two acres. This lot is less than two acres. It is also the opinion that this rezoning will not substantially alter the population density and therefore, be undesirable for traffic congestion and emergency service vehicles. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the requested rezoning. Hoover: Would the applicant come forward? McCord: I am Jim McCord, representing the applicants. As staff pointed out, the requested rezoning is consistent with the city's Future Land Use Plan, it is consistent with land use in the area and it is consistent with rezonings that the Planning Commission and City Council have approved in the area. For those reasons the applicants respectfully request approve of the rezoning. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any member of the audience who would like to address this RZN 04-03.00? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission. Bunch: Seeing that the proposed RZN 04-03.00 is consistent with previous actions that have been taken and the various documents in the City of Fayetteville, Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 64 I move that we recommend to the City Council for approval RZN 04- 03.00. Ostner: I will second. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Bunch and a second by Commissioner Ostner, is there anymore discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 04-03.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries nine to zero. Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 65 RZN 04-02.00: Rezoning (Chance & Tuggle, pp 436) was submitted by Geoffrey Bates of Keystone Consultants, Inc. on behalf of David Chance and John Tuggle for property located at W. Tackett and Genevieve Avenue. The property is zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural, and contains approximately 7.94 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property from R -A, Residential Agricultural, to RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre. Hoover: Item number eleven is RZN 04-02.00 for property located at West Tackett and Genevieve Avenue. Pate: The Commissioners may recognize this property has been before us several times in a couple of different requests. The current request is to rezone the subject 7.94 acres from R -A to RSF-4, Single Family Residential, four units per acre. Just as a reminder, the property is located in west Fayetteville. It is currently vacant. Surrounding neighborhood varies from one to two acre lots to larger with the exception of a couple of different zonings within the vicinity that is a little more dense, RMF -6 and RMF -12 north of Wedington Drive. The applicant has indicated the intent to develop a single family residential subdivision on the subject property. Again, the request is to rezone the property to RSF-4. The first request in November, 2003 was to rezone the property to RT -12. The second request was an R-PZD allowing for 50 units. Based on comments at Subdivision Committee at that time the applicant withdrew that request and has now submitted the current request. Access to the site is provided by 54`h Avenue and Tackett Drive and Genevieve Avenue are surrounding streets. Both of which are substandard and will likely be recommended for improvements at the time of development of the subject parcel. Staff is recommending approval of this rezoning request. It is consistent with the land use plan in this area as a residential use and it is also more consistent with the existing surrounding land uses. Hoover: Thank you Jeremy. Would the applicant come forward? Bates: Good evening Commissioners, I'm Geoff Bates, an engineer with Keystone Consultants. As Jeremy pointed out, we have been before you about three times now. The first time was RT -12 and we still wanted 50 units, it would've been 25 duplex lots but RT -12 allowed for 90 and that made everybody uncomfortable. We went back with a PZD for 25 duplex lots which would've been 50 units and staff thought that was too much and none of the adjoining property owners wanted duplexes anywhere near them so we scrapped the duplex idea, we cut the project in half to 25 single family lots and hopefully we can move forward this time. We have met with staff, showed them our concept plan, we've met with adjoining property owners, showed them our concept plan and talked with them and here we are. If you have any questions I would be more than happy to answer them. Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 66 Hoover: Thank you. At this time we will open up this rezoning to public comment. Is there anyone who would like to address this one? Wonnacott: Hi, my name is Melissa Wonnacott, I live at 655 Genevieve. Jeremy had said that 54`h Street, Genevieve and Tackett would be improved. Do you know the time schedule on that? Right now one of my fellow neighbors went and measured the road and 54`h Street is only 16', the narrowest spot is 16' so I was just curious as to when that might be upgraded. That is my biggest concern because right now people's kids come around on 54`h Street to Tackett, they are only required to do their frontage which would no address the stop sign. There have been times when I've almost hit little children coming around the stop sign because it is kind of blind and it is all covered with canopy. I have no problems with single family homes, it is much better than their initial idea but until the city has a grand scheme of widening 54`h Street I don't understand how anyone could see that it would be safe to do this. I don't have a problem with the subdivision as a whole but you're not looking at the whole scheme. You can't require them to fix 54"' Street. Hoover: Jeremy, can you respond to that? Pate: At the time of development Engineering staff and Planning staff make a recommendation to the Planning Commission. Most likely we'll see a Preliminary Plat for a subdivision in this area. At that time offsite improvements are recommended to the Planning Commission who will ultimately make that determination. The person who just spoke is right. Typically those offsite improvements are adjacent to the property to allow for access. I believe the Engineering staff, with this rezoning we don't make recommendations for street improvements. However, there are basic requirements that we look at to ensure that there is access to the site. I believe there has been a recommendation that for instance we would look at an asphalt overlay or some type of improvement to get to 54`h. Beyond that, I don't believe we've looked at anything else. Hoover: Is there any other member of the public? Hisell: I'm Don Hisell, I own two parcels of land that adjoins all of this development. If any of you all would like to see these pictures. That is the picture of the 54t" that we see from Tackett Road right there looking north and we're trying to get out on the road. It is 16' at the narrowest part. If you get down to the bridge it is 30' wide and then it goes back to 18' all the way up to Hwy. 16. I've been there somewhere close to 15 years or better and my wife has been involved in two accidents on 54`h. Both times she was hit. Cars cannot pull out on 54`h from a side street and get on their side of the road but drivers seem to think they can. I don't Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 67 have too much problem at all with expanding. I, myself see that that is the coming future. I would also like to go to New York in a big limo rather than ride on a motorcycle. We've got acre to two acre lots. All the people that are living there have wide open spaces and it seems like we are kind of jammed up if we have this expansion done. The main thing I have in my mind is what's going to come in the future if we do this. I've got one picture that I'd like for you to look at and I don't think you really want to see it from too close up. It brings tears to my eyes. This is my son who was killed in 1992 hit by a car. This is the main thing we need to keep in mind. I've got an 11 year old boy. He rides his bicycle down that street. I have rode my bicycle down that street. You do not want to be caught in the middle between that bridge and Tackett Road. It puts you in harm's way. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other member of the public that would like to address this rezoning? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission. Ostner: Staff, I understand we're not requiring certain improvements at this time but on page 11.2 the staff report says "At the time of development on this site both Tackett and Genevieve would need to be improved to city standards." Is that the entire length of Genevieve or just the adjoining? Warrick: That's not been determined. Again, we talk a lot about what will happen when a property develops when we are talking about zoning because we know that typically that is going to be the follow up request. That is what we are going to consider if the Council decides to change the land use available on a piece of property. What we also have to consider is that there are certain deficiencies existing in our community right now that we can't rely on one or two particular developments to cure. The Planning Commission is charged with placing the requirement for improvements on and off site for development projects but those improvements have to bear some sort of nexus or rough proportionality with the amount of impact that is being caused by that development. That is the balance that we always have to try and strike when we are dealing with new development verses existing conditions. Improvements upon existing conditions very well may be necessary and required because of additional development and additional impact but it has to bear a rational nexus to the amount of impact that's being caused by a particular development. We will review that. We do look at that very seriously when projects come into the development review cycle and we bring forward to you, the Planning Commission, our best recommendations for what we feel is appropriate for infrastructure improvements. Ostner: Thank you. Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 68 Hoover: Are there other comments? Bunch: This reminds me of a development that we saw not too long ago on Mt. Comfort Road where one of the conditions of approval for the development was the widening of several streets off site to bring them up to a minimum width. I think it had to do with Rupple, Mt. Comfort intersection and considerable length of Mt. Comfort that I believe at that time it was bringing it up to a minimum 18' width. I know on this particular project we saw it before as a PZD so we had a greater amount of plans in front of us. This is just a rezoning. I will just remind the Commissioners that as this does come back we have in the recent past seen plans for considerable off site work that may have been quite a few linear feet but may not have been that much asphalt because we are looking at changing something from 16' to guaranteeing a minimum of 18'. That is the observation I wanted to bring forward at this time. Hoover: Are there other comments? Ostner: Madam Chair, the first time I saw this project the baby wasn't even here yet. I am ready to approve it. I would like to make a motion that we forward RZN 04-02.00 with a recommendation of approval to the City Council. Bunch: Second. Hoover: There is a motion by Commissioner Ostner and a second by Commissioner Bunch, is there more discussion? I guess I just want to make one comment just so the neighbors understand that when the Preliminary Plat comes through that's when they are going to discuss these improvements and we hope that you are involved then because you've made some good points. Right now we are just looking at density in general. Are there any other comments? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 04-02.00 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries nine to zero. Hoover: Thank you. We have an announcement. Church: As of Friday I will be moving out of the city limits of Fayetteville so I will have to resign my position a couple of weeks early because of that. Hoover: Thank you for your service. Announcements Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 69