Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-09-13 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Monday, September 13, 2004 at 5:30 p.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN ADM 04-1229: (Ryan's/Fire Mountain) Approved Page 4 LSP 04-1171: (Quality Life Associates, Inc., 289) Approved Page 9 CUP 04-1177: (Quality Life Associates, 289) Approved Page 9 RZN 04-1167: Rezoning (McBryde, 478) Forwarded to City Council Page 23 RZN 04-1166: Rezoning (Sloan Properties, 477) Forwarded to City Council Page 19 CUP 04-1199: (Skate Station, 639/640) Approved Page 26 LSD 04-1198: (SKATE STATION, 639/640) Approved Page 26 CUP 04-1163: (Creekside Plaza Mini Storage, 566) Approved Page 29 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Alan Ostner Nancy Allen Loren Shackelford Jill Anthes Christine Myres Sean Trumbo Christian Vaught James Graves Candy Clark STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Jeremy Pate Dawn Warrick Matt Casey Kit Williams Suzanne Morgan Renee Thomas Planning Commission September 13, 2004 Page 2 Ostner: Welcome to the Planning Commission meeting of September 13, 2004. will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were eight Commissioners present with Commissioner Allen being absent. Ostner: The first item will be the approval of the minutes from the August 27`h meeting. Do I have a motion for approval? Shackelford: So moved. Graves: Second. Thomas: For the record, the minutes were the minutes of the August 23rd meeting. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the minutes of the August 23, 2004 meeting was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Ostner: The next item we have four items that have been tabled by the applicant. I will read those items. The first is C-PZD 04-1175, a Planned Zoning District for Rivendell. The second item is RZN 04-1164 for Clevenger Drive duplexes. The third item is RZN 04-1173 Rapido Rabbit Carwash. The fourth item is ADM 04-1200 from the Annexation Task Force. Those items have been tabled by the applicants but if anyone from the audience is here we could hear public comment. However, we are going to formally hear these again in public session. With no one interested in speaking, do I have a motion? Clark: I move that we table all items, one through four, indefinitely. Ostner: I have a motion. Trumbo: Second. Ostner: Is there discussion? Could you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table items one through four on the agenda was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of eight to zero. Ostner: On the consent agenda there are two items. The first is ADM 04-1201 for Spaine at 225 N. East Avenue and ADM 04-1202 for Combs Street Church of Christ. Do I have a motion to approve the consent agenda? Planning Commission September 13, 2004 Page 3 Shackelford: I will make a motion that we approve the consent agenda. Graves: Second. Ostner: There is a motion and a second. Would anyone in the audience like to remove these from the consent agenda? Seeing none, I will close that and act on the motion. Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the consent agenda was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of eight to zero. Planning Commission September 13, 2004 Page 4 ADM 04-1229: Administrative Item (RYAN'S/FIRE MOUNTAIN) was submitted by RYAN'S CORPORATION for property located at 3825 N SHILOH DRIVE. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL. The request is to replace the existing 3 wall signs and low profile pylon sign with 2 redesigned wall signs and a monument sign. Ostner: Under new business, item number seven is ADM 04-1229 for Ryan's Fire Mountain. I believe Suzanne has this item. Morgan: The property is located west of Shiloh Drive. It is Lot 2 of the Spring Park subdivision Phase IL The applicant requests three signs for Ryan's Fire Mountain located on this property. This property is also located within the Design Overlay District. There are currently two wall signs at the entrance of this building and a pylon sign along Shiloh Drive. Sign regulations within the Design Overlay District require that only one wall sign be allowed per business and a monument sign. There are additional regulations on illumination and that the content be limited to the name of the business. A second wall sign may be allowed if it is determined that this structure has more than one front facing a public right of way. This lot, however, has only one front onto Shiloh Drive and therefore, by right, may only have one wall sign. The applicant requests to place two wall signs on the structure stating Fire Mountain Hot Off The Grill. One sign will be located on the eastern wall of the structure facing Shiloh Drive and the second is proposed to be located on the entrance of the building to the north. The applicant, therefore, requests approval for the second wall sign for this business. This is being heard by the Planning Commission because variances for signage within the Design Overlay District must be considered by this board. Staff finds that the location of the property is located where Shiloh Drive dead ends and is screened considerably by vegetation to the south. Therefore, constituting a special condition and circumstance unique to this property. Additionally, permitting an additional wall sign for the subject property will not be contrary to public interest. Staff also finds that granting the requested variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Design Overlay District and that the signage will serve to identify the business and not be injurious to the scenic quality of the Design Overlay District. Staff, therefore, recommends approval of the requested additional wall sign within the Design Overlay District with four conditions. 1) All required permits shall be obtained for the proposed wall and monument signs. 2) The existing wall signs and pylon sign shalt be removed prior to sign permit approval for the new signs. 3) No additional signage may be permitted for this property more than that allowed by ordinance and specified herein without Planning Commission approval. 4) No sign may be constructed within a utility easement. Planning Commission September 13, 2004 Page S Ostner: Thank you Ms. Morgan. Is the applicant present? If you would please introduce yourself and give us your presentation. McMannus: My name is Stan McMannus, I'm the sign coordinator for the Ryan's Restaurant Group. I am here on behalf of Ryan's to plead our case. It is two fold, one, we are spending a lot of money to upgrade our restaurant from formerly called Ryan's to our new image called Fire Mountain. It is going to be a much nicer restaurant, more variety, more pleasing to the public and more competitive with our competition. The signage that is there now has been ample through the years. Under the new sign ordinances it has restricted us to one sign. If you are familiar with the restaurant, it has very, very bad visibility from the highway in any direction. The pylon that is there now is an 8'x16' with a 4'x7' marquee which we are giving up. We are giving up the 8'x16' and the 4'x7' marquee in favor of a monument sign, which is 6'x10'. The wall signs, we will have one at the entrance with our new name, "Fire Mountain Hot Off the Grill" and we are requesting one on the stack end facing Shiloh Drive. Not only is it for identification purposes but also identity for the building. I know that our competition through there, it may be non- conforming but they still have the signs. They have pylon signs. Dixie Cafe has three sets of letters on the front, side and back of their building. Red Lobster has two sets of letters on the front of their building and the pylon sign. We are requesting that one set was approved, another set on the stack end of the building facing Shiloh. I certainly would appreciate the monument sign with the utility easement there is absolutely a waste of time. You will not see it until you drive into the restaurant and you park beside it. There is one area behind the utility easement that you could put the sign. There is a berm there and if I could raise that sign 6' it would put it above the berm. 6' is the bottom of the sign and then it would be visible from Shiloh and also from College Avenue. Right now there is an 8x16 and 4x17 out there. Originally the road was supposed to go all the way through and have more traffic but right now it is a dead end and I'll be honest with you, when I went there today I couldn't hardly find the place myself and I knew what I was looking for. It is just a bad location for us at this time so we need all the exposure and identification we can get, especially the name change. We have invested a lot of money there and would like to stay but if we don't have any business we won't be able to. I think you all can see that it is definitely a need and any consideration we certainly would appreciate it. Ostner: At this point I will open it up to the public. If there is anyone who would like to speak to this issue, now is your chance. Seeing none, I will close it off to the public and bring it back to the Commission for comments. Planning Commission September 13, 2004 Page 6 MOTION: Clark: I think the gentleman spoke very adequately about the location that the restaurant currently has and the type of signs I think they are proposing are absolutely within good taste and nothing that would violate the ordinance. I would move that we approve ADM 04-1229. Trumbo: I will second. Warrick: For clarification, the applicant in his oral presentation, requested that the monument sign be a pole sign 6' above the berm. The application itself and the written information that you have in front of you is to approve a monument sign. The definition of a monument sign is flush with the ground. Just for clarification, I think that for staff and the applicant we need to know which one of those two, if it is as written in the staff report as recommended or as requested in your presentation this evening. Clark: My motion is as written in the staff report. Trumbo: As well as my second. Ostner: That is how I was interpreting it. I believe an extra 6' in height would be another request, different and on top of what is currently in front of us. Vaught: I don't see the location of the monument sign. Would it take the place of the current pole sign or where would it be on the site? McMannus: It would take the place. I have a site plan. Vaught: We have one, I just see where it says i.d. sign. McMannus: This is the existing sign, this is where I wanted it but it was in that utility easement so I talked to Suzanne and this area here, which is where that berm is. The only other place you can go is in this island here and you aren't going to see it at all coming this way and here is so low the only time you can see it is when you turn in. Vaught: Staff, how do we feel about monument signs in utility easements? Warrick: Monument signs are not permitted to be located within utility easements. Clark: That is one of the conditions of approval, that they can't be in the utility easement. Vaught: Is there a way to work, I'm sure you guys have talked to him about alternate locations for a monument sign. Were there any that were found? Planning Commission September 13, 2004 Page 7 If we approve a monument sign, if he can find an adequate location they can put it anywhere on the site, is that correct? Warrick: There is not a restriction in your recommendations that it be located at a certain spot so yes, we would be more than happy to work with the applicant to find a location that complies with the ordinance and would satisfy their needs. If that is possible we would certainly be glad to do it. Vaught: It looks like there is lots of room over there. You might have to reduce parking or even landscaping or something but it looks like it could be done. The name of the restaurant, the official name is "Fire Mountain Hot off the Grill"? McMannus: Yes. Ostner: That was a question I had because in part of your correspondence, I'm not sure if it was you, but it is simply referred to as Fire Mountain. McMannus: You know, certainly we have instances where "Hot Off The Grill" has not been used in a case where the sign or the wall and the pylon can both be seen at the same time, we can have it on one and not the other. We would like to have it on one location because that does differentiate us a little bit from competitors. Hot Off The Grill steaks and chicken and so forth. It is part of the marketing of Ryan's to do that. One question, in the utility easement, if Ryan's was to take full responsibility of it being in there, is there a possibility of putting it on that corner? That way there could be a monument sign. The utility superintendent for Ryan's even mentioned a chase where all your electrical and everything is at could be moved if you ever had to move the sign. I don't know if that is something you all would be amenable to. Ostner: No Sir, we need to keep things out of the easements. That is a standard rule. We don't let fences or buildings or anything in that. McMannus: If we could just raise it 6' then we have pretty much no problem. We are not increasing the size of the sign, we are just asking to get it up because it is so low. That is the only place, really that you could put it. I would've made that part of the variance if I would have realized that that location was that low from the highway grade. It just won't work unless we do raise it up some. Ostner: I would also wonder if the landscaping couldn't be altered. McMannus: I looked at that and you would have to take it all out and then pull that grade down and it is still going to be iffy. It would certainly help but it is Planning Commission September 13, 2004 Page 8 not going to be as well to just upgrade the plantings there and then get the sign up a little bit higher. Ostner: The height limit I believe is part of our ordinance that keeps it at 6' tall if I am understanding that. Warrick: That is part of the definition of a monument sign for Fayetteville. Anthes: I certainly can find in favor of the Fire Mountain sign on the two facades of the building facing Shiloh Drive and over the entrance. I do have a question though about the side facing Shiloh Drive with the "Hot Off The Grill" nomenclature. The reason why is I am thinking about other actions that this commission has taken. I'm specifically thinking of Focus Salon Hair and Nails where we were not able to find for the subtext on two sides of the building, but only one. I wondered whether we had a similar condition here. Warrick: We considered that as part of our findings in our consideration of this application. We found that it was a little bit different because the request for Focus Salon Hair and Nails was actually larger originally than the actual name of the business. They were really focusing on Hair and Nails verses the name of the business as the primary signage for that. I felt like the Planning Commission's compromise was fairly consistent with what else had been approved in the Overlay District that had small amounts of subtext to either continue the name of the business or to present some content other than the actual name. We felt that this was consistent with the Planning Commission's finding in that case. Although, it was a little bit different but also consistent with the other businesses in the overlay District with the manner in which they have been signed. Ostner: I believe we currently have a motion and a second. Is there further discussion? I am going to go ahead and call the roll. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve ADM 04-1229 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. McMannus: We can have the second set of letters but we can't raise the sign? Ostner: If it goes taller than 6' it would be another procedure to come forward and ask for a variance. Planning Commission September 13, 2004 Page 9 LSP 04-1171: Lot Split (QUALITY LIFE ASSOCIATES, INC., 289): Submitted by QUALITY LIFE ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at 2623 N GREGG AVENUE. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 6.43 acres. The request is to split the subject property into two tracts of 5.43 and 1.00 acres respectively. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is LSP 04-1171 for Quality Life Associates. I believe Ms. Morgan has this presentation. Morgan: The applicant requests approval of a Lot Split for the subject tract. It is a 6.43 acre tract which is located at 2623 N. Gregg Street south of Drake Street and west of Gregg. Right of way also for property owned by Arkansas Missouri railroad. The property is zoned RMF -24 and currently has a home located to the rear of the property. It is also located within floodway and floodplain, a portion of it is. The applicant requests to create a new one acre lot in order to build a single family home for supportive services residential house for women with disabilities. A Conditional Use has been submitted for this consideration and I believe that is the next item on the agenda. In 1999 the Subdivision Committee approved the second and third Lot Split on this tract. Additional right of way was dedicated in this action, was required to be dedicated in order to provide 60' of lot width for each tract. However, these Lot Splits were not recorded. Therefore, are void. The existing lot does not have frontage on Gregg Street but has a portion of frontage on Jocelyn Lane in the un - constructed right of way. Staff does recommend dedication of right of way to reflect the previous approved plat to meet a minimum lot width requirements. Additionally, the applicant requests an individual septic holding tank on this property until such time as sewer may be connected. Surrounding land use and zoning for this property include single family residence to the north on RMF -24 zoned property. To the south is located C-2 and I-1 zonings to include the old farmers daughter currently being renovated. Also, to the east are Lakeside Village Apartments and Sunbridge Center and to the west University Farms. Staff is recommending approval of this LSP 04-1171 at this level with eight conditions to include item one, Planning Commission determination of adequate access to each lot. Item two, adequate right of way shall be dedicated to provide required frontage for each lot reflecting the previously approved Lot Splits. Item three, development of the proposed tract shall be limited to one single family residence unless and until improved infrastructure is installed. I would like to mention item five. Planning Commission approval for a waiver of sanitary sewer system connection in lieu of public sewer main connection a conditional letter of approval from the Health Department for a septic system on the proposed lot must be obtained prior to Planning Commission approval. I would like to turn your attention to page 8.5 of the staff report which addresses that condition. Planning Commission September 13, 2004 Page 10 Ostner: Thank you. Is the applicant present? If you would please introduce yourself and give us a presentation if you would like. Alexander. I am Lynn Alexander. My husband and I formed a not for profit in the year 2000 for the purpose of serving brain injured individuals and other people with disabilities. We purchased the property in April, 2000 for the purpose of building on that property in the future. The City of Fayetteville, you are aware of this, because we were graciously given a block grant for architectural and engineering drawings at that time. The purpose of the Lot Split now is we do want to propose to build a single house that will in no way be identified as a house other than a dwelling. The purpose of it is to serve women with disabilities because research both by the University of Arkansas, the students, as well as our staff, indicated there is a need in Fayetteville for transitional housing to train women with disabilities to provide them with the services that they need to get them back out into the community to live in the community at large. There will be a staff person 24 hours. There will be a wake staff, not a sleeping staff, that will be there to assist them in anyway. We are very, very environmentally conscious. I would like to show you a picture that this is a view of the property before we cleared it where we were proposing. This is a picture of it cleared, all the undergrowth and the trash, etc. that was removed. This is a picture of the proposed house placed on the property. The angle of the house is not exactly the way it will go because I did not have the proper view of the trees to do so. We commit to the City of Fayetteville that we will do everything that we can to be good neighbors to you and the other individuals in the neighborhood. That we will do everything that we can to help you by giving you permission for the walking trail, permission to put the new sewer across our property and any other way that we can be of help. Are there any other questions? Ostner: We will come back to you if we need to ask you questions. If you could pass us those pictures that would be nice. At this point I will open it up to the public if there is anyone who would like to speak about this issue. Please introduce yourself and give us your comments. Beard: I am Marsha Beard and about a year and a half ago I purchased the adjoining property formerly known as the Farmers Daughter for the purpose of remodeling it for a single family residential home. I am now in the process of doing that and I have the current appraisal based on what it will be like when it is finished. It will be close to a million dollar property. Part of my concern, it is more the Conditional Use than the Lot Split, but it is also the Lot Split. Right now when you enter off of Gregg onto the Jocelyn Lane it is a real remote looking, country atmosphere that you get. That was part of what attracted me to this property. Here in the middle of town you were out in the country. You go down this little tree Planning Commission September 13, 2004 Page I1 covered lane, there are two exits at this point to go to the other two residences and then the lane dead ends at my house. The Lot Split and building the current property that they want to build, if they would build it off far enough that as soon as you pulled in that you could now see this building instead of this nice country lane I wouldn't have an objection to that. The main objection that I have is to the Conditional Use. They currently on the adjoining property have a facility that is for homeless veterans. It has been there not quite a year yet and there have already been six police incidents where they have had to come to the property for serving warrants, drunken behavior, fights, one of the tenants or residents or whatever, has actually come over to my property so drunk he could barely stand up. I am going to be forced to do some things to my property I wasn't planning on doing like putting in a gate that is lockable and a fence that goes across the property because the Conditional Use permit right now is for women with disabilities. I don't understand if they changed it later. All they are wanting is a Conditional Use for four people to be able to live there. I don't think it really restricts what it is used for but if they couldn't find enough women with disabilities or changed their minds later and made it more homeless veterans I would be real concerned about my safety and the property value of my property that I am spending hundreds of thousands of dollars remodeling. I have some pictures here that will show you. The first one shows the entrance when you first pull in off Gregg. The other one is the location of the proposed building. The entrance into my place. The front yard, kind of a before and after picture, although after isn't finished yet, but greatly improved on a couple of sides of the house and then an inside picture showing that I am totally gutting the place and redoing it. I have been divorced for about five years and I will be living there with my 18 year old son. I just have real concerns on not only what the Conditional Use would allow them to do, not necessarily right now but also in the future and then also they are proposing some big complex later built into this same area but we probably don't need to get into that now, which is more transient type people living there. I will pass these around. Here are the police reports. Here is the plan that shows to me as soon as you turn in here that's all you are going to be able to see. Those are my concerns. Mainly it is they are wanting to start another program where I feel like their existing program has not been totally successful and is not helping the area that I just moved into to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars. Thank you. Ostner: Thank you. Is there any further public comment? Cromwell: Good evening. My name is Crosby Cromwell. I'm the residential coordinator, I work with the veterans. I didn't want to disagree but I did want to refute. We have had one incident in the year that we've been there. Planning Commission September 13, 2004 Page 12 Ostner: Excuse me, are you part of the applicant? Cromwell: Yes, sort of. Ostner: If you would just wait. We are going to hear from the public and we can ask you all questions and you can provide further comment in the future. At this point we are just talking to the public. Does anyone else want to speak about this issue? I am going to close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission for questions and comments. If the applicant has something else they would like to say they can go ahead. Cromwell: 90% of our veterans right now are currently working. Only one is not working, that is because he is disabled and over 55. We have had a very low turn over rate. We have had a very successful program. We have only had one incident with the police coming out in the eleven months that our program has been running. The veteran was asked to leave immediately after that. The veteran was also someone that Mrs. Beard had hired to work on her property. That was why he was over there. He may have been drunk. That was the issue we asked him to leave on. I do believe that the program has been successful. I work with the men every day five days a week. I am currently in the home twice a week for group meetings. They are heavily supervised and doing well. Sasson: I'm also with the applicants. My name is John Sasson, I'm the COO of Quality Life Associates. I just wanted to talk a little about some of the issues with the specific property verses the general usage of the property. The group home we are proposing is a group home for disabled women. The Alexander family started this foundation with a long term goal of helping women with disabilities and other folks with disabilities, specifically brain injured people in the City of Fayetteville and Northwestern Arkansas. The long term goal for this home is to provide their daughter who has been injured 22 years with a brain injury and was confined to a wheelchair, long term residence and giving her a quality of life that she wouldn't get in an institution. Basically, the commitment to this house, this specific piece of property that we are asking you to consider tonight is going to be focused on how to help women with disabilities stay independent in the community. As you all are aware, the ADA gives people with disabilities a right to live anywhere in the community and have accessible lifestyles into the community. That is all that we are proposing. As far as having a person there 24 hours a day, that will give us the ability to provide the supervision and the structure that will prevent a lot of traffic coming and going out of the house. Our commitment is to provide a safe and communal dwelling for a person with a disability and other people that we can serve and a long term commitment to the Alexander family that their daughter can have a place to live and grow old and that they can get on with their lives and not have Planning Commission September 13, 2004 Page 13 to worry about whether their daughter is going to go to a nursing home or an institution. Ostner: Thank you. Commissioners? Vaught: I have one question for the applicant. How did you guys decide where to split this lot? My concern, especially with the Lot Split, is that the majority of it is in the floodplain right by the creek and bisected by utility easements so it doesn't give you a lot of room to work. How was that determined? Why wasn't it placed further back outside of the floodplain. Alexander: It is evident to me, we are just trying to get utilization of the full six acres. You could do only one acre or one and a half acre on the east side of Skull Creek. We are simply trying to utilize the property. If you can see what a mess it was before we got permission from the City of Fayetteville to do selective clearing there with anything less than 6" in diameter. What we are trying to do is to improve the property, build a house, and have something there that the City of Fayetteville would consider an asset more than a liability. As you can see from that very first picture there, it would be hard to put that in the asset column. In fact, in the dead of winter when I marked those trees the undergrowth was so dense that many times I had to crawl to the next tree. It is a place where unknown people continually dumped and did things to me were unseemly. We are just trying to make our property better while offering an opportunity for people to improve their lives. We are going to cycle people through this when they are able to enter the community and find a job. That is our goal there. Does that make sense? Why we selected the property on the east side of the creek to utilize in affect, it was of little value and un -earning asset and we are trying to turn it into an eaming asset with some use without devaluing any of the rest of the property of course. Is there anything further? Vaught: That's it for now. Ostner: Staff, on the minutes from October, 1999, here is my first question. Is this completely moot or is it relevant? Warrick: That information was provided to you for reference because it was important for staff to show you the Planning Commission, that in 1999 the same property was brought forward with requests for Lot Splits to create additional residential lots on this 6.43 acre tract of land. At that point in time, the Planning Commission and staff felt that it was appropriate for additional single family lots to be created in this location under certain conditions. That is why we provided that background information for you. We also encouraged the applicant to use that as a reference so that they would understand what bad been considered in the past and what conditions were placed on that with the understanding that they were Planning Commission September 13, 2004 Page 14 bringing forward a brand new request and that their request was to divide the property to create one new single family lot. It is slightly different in aspect but it is the same property and therefore, we felt that it was appropriate to bring you that background. Ostner: It is more reference, it doesn't actually apply. Warrick: This is a brand new request. Because the City Council passed an ordinance in 2003 that expired projects after a certain period of time if no action was taken this 1999 request had expired. This is a brand new action and they are requesting to create a one acre lot for the purpose of building a single family home. Ostner: That leads me to my second question. Since we have talked about the Conditional Use, we are not really on it yet, we are on a Lot Split but we are talking about a single family home yet we are really talking about four unrelated occupants living there. Warrick: In this zoning district anywhere in the city four unrelated occupants may reside in a single family home. Ostner: Thank you. That answers my question. We currently have a Lot Split. Graves: Could you just briefly remind us of the factors that we should be considering on a Lot Split? Warrick: With regard to a Lot Split what we are looking at is a subdivision of land. Typical considerations include access, provision of utilities and the ability for that lot to be a legal lot in the zoning district in which it is located. This particular tract of land and the request that you are hearing, does require Planning Commission approval of certain variances or waivers to the subdivision regulations with regard to connection to sewer as well as access. There is not an improved public street adjacent to this property. Gregg Street does not immediately adjoin the property. It is divided by railroad tracks. Therefore, there is access into the property by way of a small public right of way and in the past staff felt, and we do still believe, that access for a single family home is adequate. It would need to be improved but it can be easily made adequate by providing a 20' clear paved surface to the new structure. There are three homes that currently utilize the access off of Gregg Street into this site. This site provides an access easement to the home on the north, the home on the subject property, and the home to the south. Ostner: As a follow up, this second lot isn't really, we aren't requiring right of way to be built to it. Planning Commission September 13, 2004 Page 15 Warrick: Staffs recommendation is to require the dedication of sufficient right of way and part of the Conditional Use request, should that be approved, that paved 20' clear driveway be provided to the new single family home. The finding that the Planning Commission would need to make is that adequate access was available to the lot. Ostner: The access would be the 20' road instead of a public right of way. Warrick: There is public right of way. It would not be a fully built improved street. We are not talking about curb, gutter, storm drain, sidewalks, we are talking about access, adequate access for one single family home. We did note and made a condition of approval that the development of the proposed tract, which is the one acre that they propose to divide or to split off, be limited to one single family resident unless and until improved infrastructure is installed. We don't believe that this is an appropriate location for anything more than one single family home unless that public street is built. The applicant understands our position on that. They realize that there is some marginal access to the site. This property is zoned for multi -family development. This property is zoned for more than 150 residential units. There are certainly portions of this property that make that almost impossible. The fact that there is a lot of floodplain on it would really hinder the possibility of building out to that density. This is a property that is surrounded by commercial and agriculturally and multi- family zoned property and it is itself zoned for 24 units per acre. It is immediately adjacent to a railroad, an active rail tine and a major street. Vaught: What is the minimum lot size in the floodplain? Is it one acre? Warrick: There are two conditions in which you can create a lot within the floodplain. If the lot is 100% within the floodplain or close to that, you are required to have a minimum of 6,000 sq.ft. above the floodplain of buildable area or the lot itself is required to be one acre. That is why you see this tract being proposed as a one acre lot. Clark: Staff, I'm assuming, I'm understanding that sewer lines are not in that area yet but when they do cross into that area these two lots would be required to connect, will the other lots in that area be required to connect as well? Casey: The city ordinance requires that any structure within 300' of sanitary sewer be required to connect. The sewer line will be constructed in this area as part of our wastewater treatment plant project. This is the corridor along Skull Creek and there will be numerous access points along this proposed trunk line for future connections. Clark: What is the time table on that in general? Planning Commission September 13, 2004 Page 16 Casey: 2006 is when it is supposed to be available. That is the proposed time frame anyway. Shackelford: What about impact fees? Will they be collected at that time? Warrick: Yes. Clark: I will get the ball rolling. A lot of the comments we have heard so far really pertain to the Conditional Use which is next. I will go ahead and make the motion that we approve LSP 04-1171 with the conditions as stated. Myres: I will second. Ostner: Thank you. Is there further discussion? Would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSP 04-1171 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Ostner: The next item is CUP 04-1177 for Quality Life Associates. I believe we have already had the presentation. Would you like to present more? Warrick: Ms. Alexander has pretty much made the presentation for you just describing the Conditional Use. Suzanne can go over some of the conditions that are proposed if you would like that. Morgan: Staff does recommend approval of this Conditional Use to allow an assisted living center on the subject property. As previously discussed, it will entail a 24 hour staff for the single family home for four residents. Staff finds that granting the Conditional Use will not adversely affect the public in that the proposed structure that would be permitted is in harmony with the residential development on the adjacent properties. Staff does recommend five conditions of approval. Item one being that the application comply with all of the conditions of approval with the accompanying Lot Split. Item two, a 20' minimum paved access shall be provided from Gregg Avenue to the subject property to meet minimum International Fire Code requirements. Item three, all applicable building permits shall be obtained to begin construction of the proposed structure and the Certificate of Zoning is required to be issued. Item five, prior to the issuance of Certificate of Zoning the applicant shall coordinate with the Solid Waste Division should there be any specific requirements for Solid Waste pickup. Planning Commission September 13, 2004 Page 17 Ostner: Thank you. Does the applicant have anything further that they would like to add to this Conditional Use request? Seeing none, I will open it up to the public. We have already heard a little bit, but if you would like to speak again, please do. Beard: They made the statement that there was only one incident and as you can see from the police reports, there have been six. They obviously don't even know what is going on at the facility. If you will look through there one was for a warrant. People are living in their homeless veteran facilities that have warrants that the police are going there to serve, plus disturbances. There has been more than one disturbance during this period of time. You can see with what I gave you from 1999 to 2003 there was nothing and then from 2003 until now there was either six or seven that have occurred, not one. Thank you. Ostner: Is there further public comment? At this point I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Clark: I guess I have a question to staff. We are not talking about the existing structure with the veterans are we? We are talking about this new Conditional Use for an unoccupied lot that is going to house disabled females, correct? Warrick: That is correct. Clark: Thank you. I just needed a little clarification. Shackelford: You made the comment earlier that four unrelated people can live in a structure in this zoning district, which is RMF -24 and I understand that. We are looking for basically a Conditional Use for Use Unit 4 for assisted living facility. Help me understand what constitutes the legal definition of assisted living facility. Is that simply because they have somebody on location 24 hours? If you could just clarify that point for me. Warrick: That is exactly what staff's interpretation was. Because they were providing 24 hour on site assistance for the residents of the structure we felt that it didn't really meet the same understanding and application as your standard single family home occupied by four independent individuals. This is the same type of Conditional Use that has been applied for the assisted care facility for Butterfield Trail. That has a lot of different variations to assisted living to it however, it is in the same zoning district and they do provide the same types of services so we felt that it was appropriate for it to be treated in the same type of manner. Shackelford: I guess I would like to follow up with the applicant really quick if we could. What type of care, would it be medical care on this location? What Planning Commission September 13, 2004 Page 18 type of care is provided since that is basically what we are looking at here is allowing that. Sasson: It will be no basic medical care. It will be basically activity of daily living which is assisting in any type of transfer, supervision as far as cooking meals, any kind of laundry that has to be facilitated we will help with the laundry. As far as any type of medical emergency like you will see in a nursing home, no, we will not be providing that. Shackelford: Thank you very much. MOTION: Graves: I will move for approval of CUP 04-1171 with the stated conditions of approval. Clark: Second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Vaught: One question for staff real quick. Does the property adjoining with the veterans facility on it, have a Conditional Use? Warrick: It does not. They do not have on site care, 24 hour assistance in that facility. There are four individuals who independently live there. They are placed there through a program. However, that is not something that the city has the ability to discriminate against. Ostner: Is there any further discussion? Could you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 04-1171 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of eight to zero. Planning Commission September 13, 2004 Page 19 RZN 04-1166: Rezoning (SLOAN PROPERTIES, 477): Submitted by RAYMOND SMITH for property located at EAST OF BROYLES AVENUE AND SOUTH OF PERSIMMON STREET. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL - AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 22.94 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property from R -A, Residential Agricultural, to RSF-2, Residential Single-family, 2 units per acre. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is RZN 04-1166 for Sloan Properties. Morgan: The subject property contains approximately 22.94 acres and is located south of Persimmon Street west of Rupple Road. It is the northern portion of a 160 acre tract recently annexed into the City and zoned R -A. A large single family home and detention pond planned for Cross Keys Subdivision are located on this property. Persimmon Place, Cross Keys PZD as well as Rupple Road PZD are located north of the subject property. The applicant is requesting that this property be rezoned from R -A, Residential Agricultural to RSF-2, Residential Single Family, Two Dwelling Units per acre. Staff recommends approval of a rezoning to RSF-4 as previously recommended by staff for this property based on the findings included herein. Staff finds that the proposed zoning of two units per acre for single family residential is not consistent with the existing zoning and density to the north of the subject property zoned RSF-4 and approved for development of 2.65 units per acre. Cross Keys is an R-PZD approved for 2.81 units per acre and Rupple Road PZD approved for 6.2 units per acre. Rezoning the property to RSF-4 will increase the density allowing for more intense residential use of the property and allowing for development compatible with the surrounding residential subdivisions in this area. The higher density than what is requested, RSF-2, allows for development of a subdivision with density appropriate in the area as well as providing compatibility. The Police Department has determined that the rezoning will place an increased load on police services however, the rezoning will not create an appreciable increase in traffic danger and congestion in this area and will create some increase in traffic however and will not substantially alter the population density. As for fire response times, there is approximately a four minute response time to the property at this time assuming no access to Rupple Road with this development. Therefore, staff recommends rezoning this subject property to RSF-4 based on the previous findings for RZN 04-11.00, Greenwood/Sloan and those found herein. Also, the rezoning request, RZN 04-1161 for McBryde, staff is making the same recommendation with similar findings. Ostner: Thank you. Is the applicant present? Sloan: I'm Charlie Sloan, the owner and developer of this project. We were before you a few weeks ago with this project for annexation. We tabled the rezoning because we needed to bring back a PZD for the rest of the Planning Commission September 13, 2004 Page 20 property. I don't have a problem doing the PZD but right now we are pursuing building Persimmon Road and there are some utility easement constraints that we would like to go ahead and put in now. To do that I need to be able to know that I can build on this property and what I can build so the bank will lend me the money. We are trying to cost share with the city to run a new 12" water line on the south side of Persimmon, which will tear out the driveway, while we are at it, we are already tearing out the driveway to build the street, we would like to go ahead do the water lines, get everything set up and then also go ahead and plan right now to finish Persimmon on the west side of our property. We have to finish it so that once we finish this project in the next few months we are done. That is what we are trying to do so that I don't come back and tear something out that I've already built before. What we propose to do there along the side of the existing home, if you have seen the existing home, we would like to do an estate type lots, that's the reason we asked for RSF-2 zoning thinking that I get comments from councilmen that they want less zoning out there, not more zoning. We are trying to comply. We probably will be closer to an RSF-1. We are trying to get Persimmon built and over with and lots sold on Cross Keys Phase I by the end of November. We are just wanting, while we are there, tearing everything up trying to coordinate this thing and the best way for me to do it was to go to the bank and say I've already go a zoning that will allow me to build what I want to do and now I need to borrow so much more money to go ahead and put in some lines and stuff that we wouldn't be normally putting in until later. Ostner: Thank you Sir. At this point I will open it up to the public. Would anyone like to speak about this issue, RZN 04-1166? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. I have a question for staff. He is requesting RSF-2, staff believes that RSF-4 is more appropriate. If it was zoned RSF-4 do we have the power to force him to do a higher density? Warrick: No we don't. Ostner: I was looking at the lot widths and minimums and he could simply go beyond the minimum I suppose. Warrick: We will of course be looking later at a subdivision proposal and at that point in time we will be looking at street configuration and access issues as well as lot configuration and lot sizes but it would be permissible for his lots to exceed the minimums in the RSF-4 district. Anthes: I just want to talk through this. We initially looked at a 160 acre tract that came through for the rezoning. Basically, we are looking at 22.94 acres now for the rezoning and then the remaining approximately 137 acres Mr. Planning Commission September 13, 2004 Page 21 Sloan is stating will come through as a PZD. Is this the piece of property that you were talking about adjoining the golf course? Sloan: Yes, it is limited on the depth because they will back up to where the golf course is going to go. Some of the lots are not going to be 300' in depth so we may have to make them wider or do something to compensate to make everything work. We just took the property line that we showed you on the other plat originally and said everything north of here to Persimmon is what we are trying to annex in because it really doesn't attach to the southern part of the subdivision because of the creek and the golf course going through there and floodplain. Anthes: There is an existing structure on this property? Sloan: Yes, there is an existing home out there. I am just trying to hold the value of that home. This will probably have a 4,000 sq.ft. minimum on the lots or maybe even a little larger, just to try to keep the same value and same type of homes down the street there. There will probably be about 16 or 17 homes is what we will plot out of this 20 acres. Like I said, we are just trying to hold the value there and make things have the same setback, maybe a 100' setback and circular drives, just to match things up where it looks consistent. Anthes: So you are using that existing home as the precedent? Sloan: Yes, I'm trying to just compliment that is what we are trying to do. Across the street with Cross Keys Phase I we have a 2,200 sq.ft. minimum and then when we drop south of the golf course we would like to do probably a few more estate lots next to the golf course, which will be probably 3,000 sq.ft. and then drop down to a 2,500 sq.ft. minimum on the balance of the PZD. Anthes: I'm not allowed to ask this but on the rest of the PZD are we going to see a lot of variety? Sloan: Not your variety. Write me a check for that house and I will put apartments right next to it. Part of it is for aesthetics to try to make it look like what is there. We have a high density across the street with Rupple Row coming in and then we have a medium density with my 2.8 and then Carl Walker has probably closer to 3 or 3.2 so with different priced homes in the same area. I am looking at the whole area and each one's minimums is what I try to look at to decide and this is one area that there is not any of that provided out there so we wanted to go ahead and try to provide at least a few lots that way. Planning Commission September 13, 2004 Page 22 Clark: If we approve this as staff has recommended as an RSF-4 you can still do whatever you want to on it. Sloan: I don't have a problem with it. Clark: You don't care? Sloan: That is fine. We just requested a two and part of that became because that is what we originally told our councilmen of our ward, we gave them a preliminary drawing a long time ago and this was part of it so we are trying to stick to our word of what we were doing and which we asked the last time for the RSF-4 on the whole project. The reason we did that was because I didn't realize that the golf course had to be pulled out and zoned separately. In reality, we almost don't need the PZD because we could come back and say we would like to zone this block as the golf course and then everything else back to RSF-4. We will go ahead and do a PZD though. MOTION: Clark: With difference to your aldermen who will see this next, I will recommend that we approve RZN 04-1166 to RSF-4 as written. Shackelford: I will second that with the comment that in the six years that I've been doing this I've never seen us ask a developer to build something more dense. That was a watershed moment of my career. Ostner: I wasn't sure if I was reading it properly myself. The only comment I would like to make, I do want to support this. In the findings on page 10.4, I understand that Persimmon is going to be a collector, it talks about single family homes with individual access onto a collector may create a dangerous traffic situation. I believe it can be developed safely. I believe it can be developed dangerously. It is all about turning around and not backing out. It is very simple. If you are going to do a 100' frontage there is plenty of room for hammerheads or circular drive and I believe that is night and day safety and backing out onto a collector can be dangerous and I understand that this is not really part of the rezoning but I just wanted to bring that up. I believe if cars can head out onto a collector I believe it is perfectly safe. Our rules error on the side of caution. We don't want to create things dangerously. That is really just a comment for the Preliminary Plat. We have a motion and a second, is there further discussion? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 04-1166 by the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission September 13, 2004 Page 23 RZN 04-1167: Rezoning (MCBRYDE, 478): Submitted by RAYMOND SMITH for property located at THE END OF RUPPLE ROAD, S OF PERSIMMON. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 5.02 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property from R -A, Residential Agricultural, to RSF-2, Residential Single-family, 2 units per acre. Ostner: The next item is RZN 04-1167 for McBryde. If we could have the staff report please. Morgan: This property is currently vacant, it is directly adjoining and east of the property previously discussed. It contains approximately 5.01 acres located south of Persimmon Street. The applicant is requesting that the property be rezoned from R -A to RSF-2. Staff is recommending that the property be rezoned to RSF-4 based on previous findings. Staff finds that RSF-4 will be comparable and compliment the surrounding development in the area and additionally, other findings are similar to those previously made. Ostner: Thank you. Is the applicant present? Smith: My name is Ray Smith, I'm representing the applicant. I think Mr. Sloan probably explained the situation here on the McBryde property, which is just east of Mr. Sloan's property. We don't have any problem either if you feel that RSF-4 is proper then we can live with that on that particular piece of property. McBryde: I'm Bryan McBryde. Basically, Charlie is my developer and it is just an extension of the lots that he will be building on Persimmon also. It will all be done basically as one big development. Ostner: Thank you. Would anyone from the public like to address this rezoning? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Anthes: I just wanted to make a comment that I think that it is positive the way that they are talking about developing these properties along Persimmon will provide house frontage on Persimmon, which I think is positive for the development of that street. Warrick: I just wanted to state that we don't disagree with the applicant's desire with the type of development that they want to build. Our recommendation is consistent with what we have been recommending on this property since last year. We also felt that taking some cues from previous Planning Commission conversations, this is an area that is developing as a community node and there are amenities in this area that generally you would find higher densities located around like the Boys Planning Commission September 13, 2004 Page 24 and Girls Club, the possibility of a school, where you have walk -ability and the golf course proposal. We also do encourage a mixture of housing types to enhance neighborhoods so this is not necessarily anything that we oppose and like you have noted very appropriately, the applicant does have the ability to develop a project that he is contemplating and desiring to develop under the zoning that we are proposing. We were just trying to give a solid hint that this is an area that could merit higher density than what is being proposed but we don't disagree really from what they are proposing to do. Like you stated, there is a good way to do this if this is the style of development that will be proposed with regard to traffic safety and with regard to eyes on the street and having houses not backing up to our major arterials, or in this case, a collector street. I just wanted to make it clear that we are not in total disagreement with the applicant but that we just wanted to be consistent with our recommendations. Anthes: This is 5.02 acres of 80 acres right, so we would be looking at the additional 75? Warrick: We will be looking at the additional 55, a portion of this property will be the school property. Anthes: Thank you. Shackelford: Based on conversations we have heard with this and the previous item, I am going to make a motion that we recommend approval of RZN 04-1167 to an RSF-4 zoning. Clark: Second. Ostner: You touched on something that I did want to know. This is not the property that the school district has been looking at? Warrick: No this is not. Clark: Before we vote on this, I have asked repeatedly on all of these annexations and rezonings about impact to infrastructure and I actually noticed the police changed their report on this and I really do give them great kudos for that. It has to be in the record because I have been pushing for it forever and they make a good point. Ostner: We have a new chief. Clark: Whoever did it, I appreciate it. They make a very valid point that although this little bitty thing may not impact, eventually as we keep doing this it is going to have an impact and we are going to have to look for more Planning Commission September 13, 2004 Page 25 policemen, more fire people, etc. I appreciate it. Maybe the annexation taskforce has had an impact. Ostner: Is there further comment? Could you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 04-1167 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission September 13, 2004 Page 26 CUP 04-1199: Conditional Use (SKATE STATION, 639/640): Submitted by STEVE CLARK for property located at 2283 S SCHOOL AVENUE. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 2.46 acres. The request is for warehouse use in a C-2 district (Use Unit 21). LSD 04-1198: Large Scale Development (SKATE STATION, 639/640) was submitted by STEVE CLARK for property located at 2283 S SCHOOL AVENUE. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.46 acres with a 16,625 sq.ft. indoor skateboard park and a 5,000 sq.ft. warehouse proposed. Ostner: Our next item is CUP 04-1199 for Skate Station. If we could have the staff report please. Pate: This item and the following item are somewhat connected in that they are a Conditional Use and Large Scale Development for the same parcel of property. This property at 2283 S. School Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.46 acres. The Conditional Use request is for a warehouse use in the C-2 district. A Large Scale Development request then goes to the actual development plans for the skate park and the warehousing facility. As a little background, in April, 2003 the Planning Commission unanimously approved both a Conditional Use to allow warehousing and a Large Scale Development as it is currently submitted for the subject property. This proposal did expire on April 14, 2004 prior to issuance of building permits. In your packets you will note that the applicant has stated several reasons for the issuance of building permits not occurring before that one year date. As I mentioned, the property currently is under development with grading permits and floodplain development permits issued subsequent to their approved and now expired Large Scale Development plans. The site does contain several groupings of tree canopy, particularly the high priority canopy in the riparian corridor along the creek that flows west in front of the property. The applicant's request tonight is to reinstate the approvals granted by the Planning Commission for both the Conditional Use and the Large Scale Development for the skateboard park. The proposal is to develop a 16,625 sq.ft. indoor skateboard park and a 5,000 sq.ft. warehouse used for the storage of wooden ramps and jump boxes used by the skateboard park operators to create varying setups for the park users. The warehouse use is Use Unit 21 in the C-2 zoning district thereby requiring a Conditional Use request. Staff is recommending approval of both of these requests for the Conditional Use. There are six conditions. Obviously, the applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for the Large Scale Development should it be approved. Warehousing in this facility shall be limited to materials and equipment related to the commercial venture on this site. Warehouse space within this building shall not be leased out by other users. The Planning Commission September 13, 2004 Page 27 loading dock serving the warehouse shall be located as shown on the most current site plan for the associated Large Scale Development near the parking lot and away from the rear of the structure which adjoins single family residences to the north. Item number four deals with parking lot lighting and item number six, a minimum 6' privacy fence installed adjacent to residential land use to the north and west. Items number one through four were the conditions of approval from the previously approved Conditional Use permit. Item number five, we picked out of the minutes as it was stated by the Planning Commission as a desired condition of approval but never made clear in the motion. For the Large Scale Development staff is also recommending approval, obviously, subject to the approval of the Conditional Use Permit for Planning Commission determination of commercial design standards. Right of way dedication and sidewalk fees are to be paid in the amount of $1,854 in lieu of construction, as well as the four additional conditions of approval. Ostner: Thank you. Is the applicant here? If you could introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Clark: My name is Steve Clark. I was the engineer on the project and represent the owner. This is one that the owner is doing the construction himself. He has the dirt work mostly completed and was prepared to get his building permit and his building back in April. With the rise in steel prices the building supplier backed out on him and that kind of put him in a lurch and subsequent to that he has been trying to get new pricing on a building and subsequent to that, found out that the Large Scale had expired. That is where we are today. There were several drainage issues that have all pretty much been resolved. He has a detention pond in place, has built the 6' privacy fence with one exception, there is a piece that he has left out because he uses that gap to access the benchmark on site. Prior to finalizing his buildings he will get that piece put in. Ostner: Thank you. At this point I will open it up to the public. Would anyone like to speak to this issue? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Anthes: We saw this at the last Subdivision Committee meeting, reviewed it, and didn't see any reason to find contrary to the previous Planning Commission approval. Therefore, I will move for approval of CUP 04- 1199. Graves: Second. Ostner: First I have a question for staff. I need to make sure that there are only five conditions of approval on this Conditional Use. Planning Commission September 13, 2004 Page 28 Pate: That is correct. Ostner: Ok, is there further discussion? Would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 04-1199 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of eight to zero. Ostner: Thank you. The associated item is LSD 04-1198 for the Skate Station. I believe Mr. Pate has already presented the staff report. Would the applicant like to add any comments? Clark: No Sir, I'm prepared to answer any questions that you may have. Ostner: I am going to open it up to the public. Would anyone like to speak about this Large Scale Development? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Clark, C.: This south elevation I didn't look at the south elevation when I saw the site, is it fairly well screened and not visible to the public? Clark, S.: That is correct. There is Campbell Electric to the south of us and you should not be able to see it from the highway. There is also probably 200' or 300' of trees that we have left that would buffer us from the highway also. I don't think you will see any of it realistically. Ostner: I was going to ask for any further Subdivision comments. Anthes: Basically, we talked about the different permitting and the fact that the grading permit was reissued and that staff was comfortable with how those things had been dealt with. That was our major concern. MOTION: Shackelford: As I did a year ago on this, I am going to make a motion that we approve LSD 04-1198. Clark: Second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Would you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 04-1198 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission September 13, 2004 Page 29 CUP 04-1163: Conditional Use (CREEKSIDE PLAZA MINI STORAGE, 566): Submitted by GRANVILLE HARPER for property located at NE CORNER OF HWY 16E AND HWY 265 (HUNTSVILLE & CROSSOVER). The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 2.72 acres. The request is to approve the development of a mini -storage facility on the subject property. Ostner: Our last item is CUP 04-1163 for Creekside Plaza Mini Storage. I believe Mr. Pate has this presentation. Pate: This item is also involving property that has been before the Planning Commission, although it was back in 1996 so I don't believe anyone was here at that time. This is a different submittal as well. This property is located at the northeast corner of Hwy. 16 and Hwy. 265, Huntsville and Crossover. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.72 acres. The applicant is requesting to approve the use of a mini -storage facility in a C-2 zoning district. The property actually wraps around the existing Phillips 66 gas station there fronting onto both Crossover and Huntsville Road. As I mentioned, back in June, 1996 the Planning Commission did approve a Large Scale Development proposal. Obviously, that has expired as of now rendering all approvals null and void. A new Large Scale Development will need to be processed and approved in order to begin construction on that property. The western portion of this site is encompassed by floodplain and floodway associated with the drainage channel constructed along the eastern side of the existing service station. The site is devoid of major tree canopy with the exception of perimeter trees which do provide a screen to surrounding properties and currently there is no development on this site. To the north of the property is a vacant parcel which is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. To the south is the Phillips 66 and the shopping center which is across Huntsville. To the east are single family homes, although, the one that is directly east is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and to the west is Crossover Road and some single family structures. The applicant is proposing to process eventually, a new Large Scale Development for the subject property with the combination of office and commercial uses fronting onto Huntsville and Crossover, with the mini storage, which is the subject of tonight's request located behind those structures. The development would be designed to meet all applicable development and zoning ordinances and is required to receive approval from the Planning Commission. I won't go into the proposal, the applicant may be able to do that a little better. Essentially, the applicant is proposing to screen this mini storage use, which mini storage within any zoning district in the city must be screened from public rights of way and any residential zoning districts or land uses. Therefore, both Crossover and Huntsville qualifies as the public right of way and the property directly to the east, which is a residential land use as currently existing single family home, must be screened. The applicant is proposing two Planning Commission September 13, 2004 Page 30 office buildings in front of these mini storage units to facilitate that screen from the public rights of way, as well as a portion of the site, which is not actually fronting on the public right of way, but staff feels is very visible through the gas station property, they are proposing a vegetative screen and wrought iron fence in that location. Staff is recommending approval of this Conditional Use as you may note with our findings, finding in favor of this use and granting the Conditional Use will not adversely affect the public interest in this location with these required provisions for screening from the public right of way and adjacent residential land uses, along with the knowledge that this development shall meet or exceed all applicable zoning and development ordinances through the Large Scale Development process. Additionally, the applicant is required to screen the proposed use from the adjacent residential use to the east, which is not shown on your conceptual site plans as submitted. That is a condition of approval that staff is recommending be added to this request. Finally, finding that this use is generally compatible with the adjacent commercial uses and has provided screening to mitigate the impact on nearby residences as well as view from the public right of way. Staff is recommending approval of this Conditional Use with seven conditions of approval. We do have signed conditions. I will go over a couple of those for you. Approval of this Conditional Use Permit obviously, does not constitute the approval of the development. Upon submittal for the Large Scale Development approval the proposal shall be reviewed for general compliance with the conceptual site plan and architectural elevations as submitted with this request. Keep in mind, these are conceptual in nature and we expect some changes to occur. I did mention specifically though, that the mini storage unit shall be screened from view with the two office buildings as indicated on the site plan and utilize common design elements, such as brick, a roof pitch, color, etc., as approved by the Planning Commission tonight. Item number five, I would like to change this condition of approval slightly, it reads freestanding signage in this location shall be limited to a monument sign type to provide compatibility and transition between adjoining developments, a pylon sign shall not be permitted in this location. All signage proposed shall be permitted in accordance with the sign ordinance regulations at the time of submittal. I would like to add to that that a joint identification sign would also be permissible in this area allowing for several of the businesses to potentially utilize that same sign. There is a joint identification sign across Huntsville Road. Also, the Conditional Use permit shall be valid for a period of one year unless a Large Scale Development plan for the project is approved by the Planning Commission. At such time, the Conditional Use shall be automatically renewed to track essentially, with the Large Scale Development. Ostner: Is the applicant present? If you would introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Planning Commission September 13, 2004 Page 31 McGowan: My name is Pat McGowan, my partner Granville Harper and I are the developers of the property. I think Jeremy has pretty well sized up what we are trying to do, which is a combination of commercial with some mini storage in an appropriate zoning but the Conditional Use Permit is required to go in any zoning. It sounds like we are going to be in the screening business before it is all said and done. We realized we had all of this to contend with when we started this project but we feel like a combination of commercial and mini storage in this location will be appropriate. We have investigated the market for mini storages in town and it appears to be sufficient to justify our proposal. I don't think I've got anything else to add other than what Jeremy has told you unless there are some questions of me. Ostner: Thank you Mr. McGowan. At this point I will open it up to the public. Would anyone like to speak to this Conditional Use for Creekside Plaza? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission for comments. Vaught: Staff, the screening, which side from the residential is it? Is it north and east or just east? Pate: Just to the east. Vaught: To the north there is no required screening or is that something that we will look at at Large Scale? Warrick: We will look at that at Large Scale. There is required screening on all sides of a mini storage development regardless of the adjacent land use or zoning. However, we are going to look more specifically at those areas that adjoin residential. The property to the north, there is a narrow strip of property that is zoned commercially, I believe it is currently vacant but like you said, that is something that we will look more specifically at the time of Large Scale Development. Vaught: Jeremy had mentioned it so I wanted to make sure that was clear. That's it. MOTION: Shackelford: As I look at this request, I think this is a logical place in town for this type of development. I like the concept of mixing the different uses in this location. I am going to go ahead and make a motion that we approve CUP 04-1163 with the addition to condition of approval number five at the end a sentence shall be added that states "A joint identification sign will be permissible in this location limited in size and location by current City of Fayetteville sign ordinance." Planning Commission September 13, 2004 Page 32 Vaught: Second. Ostner: Is there any further discussion? Clark: I've heard it said many times on this Commission that everything is ok until it is in your backyard. The sad news is this is in my backyard so I have a couple more questions before we approve it. First of all, I would like to ask Mr. McGowan what is the time table between the time the mini storage would go up and the commercial screening would go up? Between the time you finish the mini storage and the two buildings go up? In other words Mr. McGowan, I'm very concerned that the mini storage is going to sit on my corner for a very long time without the adequate screening that is required in here. McGowan: You are asking when the mini storage would be built in relation to the two office buildings? The whole thing is going to be built at the same time. Clark: Ok. McGowan: We are going to develop the whole piece of property. It is just 2.7 acres. Clark: The way I had read the information was that the mini storages were going up first and it is contingent upon the eventual completion of the commercial buildings. Warrick: The way that staff would intend this project to be installed and we believe that we tried to make it clear in the Conditional Use, is that those commercial structures provide the required screening for the mini storage, therefore, we would not issue a Certificate of Occupancy for the mini storage without all the necessary screening being in place thereby having those commercial structures in place on site prior to occupancy for the mini storage. Clark: We will talk about the screening more in Large Scale Development? I am very concerned that I have heard the east side mentioned but there is still a gap between when you turn the corner on Hwy. 265 between the gas station. There is a line of sight there that if it is not carefully screened you are going to be looking straight into mini storage and although, it might be appropriate for some corners I'm not really enthused about it there. In terms of the lights, I have another question as well. When we are talking about the condition of approval that full cut off sodium lighting fixtures, which way are those going to be directed? Pate: Downward and away from adjacent properties. Planning Commission September 13, 2004 Page 33 Clark: Directly out towards Huntsville and Crossover? Warrick: Downward towards the development and away from adjacent properties. We require that that is the direction of all lighting that is provided internally within the development. We would not desire them to be placed so that they were lighting small portions of the street or that they would have a glare on people driving down those two highways. Pate: These are the types of lights that are permitted within the Design Overlay District for parking lot lighting. Clark: Will the lights be on all the time in the mini storage? McGowan: I have to have the lights on for security somewhat at night. Clark: I will just point out to my fellow commissioners that there is a lot of construction going on in that whole end of town, especially to the north. We have a R-PZD, we have all types of development on top of Stonebridge Road, which is where I live so I'm very concerned about that type of a mini storage facility. The commercial buildings I'm absolutely enthused about. I think we need more commercial development on our end of town but the Conditional Use for the mini -storage I have some real reservations about simply by the nature of the beast and the residential developments going on in that whole area so I'm going to have to probably vote against this Conditional Use. Anthes: I don't have my UDC with me, would you clarify again what zoning districts mini storages are allowed by right? Warrick: The initial question, the mini storage use is permitted by right in two zoning districts, the two industrial districts. It is permitted in a C-2 zoning district by Conditional Use, which is how we got to the point that we are at here. With regard to buffers, strips and screening, on page 14.5, with regard to mini storage. That statement is "At the expense of the owner of the property all storage units and storage yards for mini storage created under Use Unit 21 shall be required to be screened by view obscuring vegetation when the storage yards or the storage units have common property lines with any residential zone or use and when they have frontage on any public street. Those are the three conditions in which the screening will be required. Vegetation used for screening purposes shall be planted at a density sufficient to become view obscuring within two years from the date of planting and it shall be the responsibility of the property owner to maintain the screening throughout the life of the use of the property as a mini storage. A view obscuring height would be a minimum of 6'. This has to be a very densely planted area with fast growing vegetation in order to achieve that two year time limit. Planning Commission September 13, 2004 Page 34 Anthes: This has always been something that confused me in commercial zoning in our C-2 zoning. That is because we very specifically state that vegetative screening does not qualify as a way to get around commercial design standards for any other building that we build in this zoning and yet for mini storage we somehow allow vegetative screening to count and I've never quite understood that. I have seen inside facilities in other places around the country that you could probably make the argument that meet the commercial design standards. We are talking about Crossover Road here and I'm trying to think of what the City Council's intent is for the build out of that street, we have been hearing that that might be our sort of eastern bypass route. Warrick: We have two indications on the Master Street Plan with regard to, one indication with regard to an eastern bypasss and we do have Crossover Road, which is designated a principal arterial and the southern end of course, has been widened in recent years. It is not the designation of the designated eastern bypass. That is the further swap of property that actually is just a large band of property that circles the eastern side of town that is the exact designation on the Regional Planning Commission's 25 year plan with regard to transportation developments. It is not a funded project. It is not an engineered project by any means. It does indicate that Crossover Road will not be necessarily that eastern bypass unless that policy document is changed. Anthes: Remind me, has there been some conversation about improvements to Crossover Road? Warrick: North of Mission there have been conversations about that. It is becoming a priority. I can't tell you where it is in the list of funded verses non- funded sort of projects but it has been under discussion and it is recognized as a need. Anthes: I guess why I'm asking this question is that I am thinking about major intersections and what we would like to see in those kinds of nodes. We are looking at Hwy. 16 which carries all of the traffic headed east out of town in that direction and Hwy. 265 which is heavily traveled. I guess I have to question on that king of major intersection as we are looking into the future whether mini storage is really a proper thing to approve a Conditional Use for. I do believe the applicant has done a good job by putting those commercial buildings on the street. I think that does a lot to mitigate this use. Yet, we are being asked to approve a Conditional Use on a piece of property that other uses are allowed by right. I'm kind of struggling with this because of the commercial design issues on what is potentially going to be a very major and busy intersection in the next ten years in Fayetteville. Planning Commission September 13, 2004 Page 35 Ostner: I would have to concur. McGowan: Were you all provided the drawings that shows the buildings and the screenings that we are proposing? Ostner: Yes Sir. That is what I was about to say. Anthes: This Conditional Use though is not tied to this development plan. He can change his mind tomorrow and we would've approved this Conditional Use, correct? Vaught: You would also have to have a Large Scale Development come in though. Ostner: If this was zoned so that it did not require a Conditional Use this is the greatest mini storage I've ever seen but my concerns are similar to Ms. Anthes and Ms. Clark that this is one of our few intersections in town that is not completely developed and there are terrific opportunities for commercial. This proposal doesn't utilize most of the acreage for retail. McGowan: If you utilize it all for retail you would have to put an "L" shaped building back in the corner behind a ditch behind a service station and that would not be very desirable in my opinion. Ostner: In my opinion an "L" shaped development with a little larger of a parking lot could still get around the, it works over at Harps. They have got a huge ditch so I'm concerned that this is one of our few commercial nodes that we have left that is not developed yet. Vaught: I don't mind this kind of development. I like how it has the commercial pushed up against the street. I think that developments like Harps, as great as it is, are things that we are trying to get away from with the large parking lots up front and the buildings pushed to the back. It seems like we are contradicting a lot of comments and thoughts that we have made. The conceptual plat, that is what it is, nothing we can even take into consideration, would be extremely nice for mini storage units. What I really like is the fact that it is screened from the rights of way by the commercial nodes utilizing that commercial space. I don't think I would support a mini storage unit that came up to the road on either of these two roads. I think this can put a front on a commercial and utilize that space. Behind that ditch is just more problematic. That is just my opinion. I do like how it pushes the commercial to the street though and we don't have a parking lot expanse on the other side of that ditch. There is a chance you can save some of those trees or some of that area back there, which is a beautiful area, and make this a nice looking development. Planning Commission September 13, 2004 Page 36 Ostner: The parallel to Harps was of course not suggesting that we do huge parking lots. It was suggesting that developments behind large drainage areas work. This could be switched, which by the way these buildings aren't pushed up to the street, they are simply in front of mini storage. This is the standard parking and the street going right behind it. Vaught: What you are suggesting is an "L" shape and therefore, if you did an "L" shape with the buildings pushed towards the back you would have, obviously, parking in the front. I think it would be hard to do it any other way. Ostner: I'm just saying that this is very valuable property and I don't believe mini storage is a high value for planning. Clark: Just to follow up on that, I'm reminded of the mini storage on 15`h Street when you turn off of College onto 15`h Street there is a major mini storage facility on the south side. There are no houses around that, there is a park across the street but it is not a residential area and I think that is absolutely appropriate. Commercial is absolutely appropriate, I really want commercial to come into that side of town. It is the mini storage use that I'm having difficulty with fitting into a neighborhood setting like we are talking about. That is exactly what is developing out in that whole area of town. I am not a developer, I can't tell you what will work and what will not work, I just have real reservations about the mini storage aspect of it in an area that is becoming increasingly residential multi -family. That is my concern. Shackelford: Have you calculated the percentage of this property that will be dedicated to mini storage verses the percentage towards commercial? McGowan: The two commercial buildings are about 7,000 sq.ft. each, the mini storage is about 18,000 sq.ft. of floor space. I might add that's probably 30% as big as the average mini storage project. In fact, when the question came up about when each segment would be built, this size mini storage is not feasible to build by itself. You couldn't afford to pay a manager to stay there for 18,000 sq.11. of mini storage. I would guess that the average mini storage that you see with the newer ones are closer to 70,000 or 80,000 sq.ft. It is just not feasible to build it by itself and let it stand out there where you could see it. I have looked both ways at developing this thing into a "L" shape commercial building and have even talked to tenants but when you've got that ditch right there that wraps around, and it is a severe ditch, and you've got a service station in front of it, you can't do very much with it, if you've got a service station and a ditch basically, you don't have anything screening your "L" shaped building and that service station is not going to look very good trying to look at a commercial facility. What we are trying to do is to come up with two smaller Planning Commission September 13, 2004 Page 37 commercial deals, one being on Crossover and one being on Huntsville Road and basically hiding the mini storages in the back. The truth of the matter is these mini storage buildings are pretty darn good looking and if you will look at a facility on Gregg Avenue that is a fairly good looking mini storage, it is exposed right out on Gregg and it is not a bad looking deal. In fact, I have an apartment complex right there across the street from it that I don't mind having a mini storage deal over there. I'm not arguing your point that you don't want a good intersection trashed up with some bad looking mini storages is the only way to put it. I really feel that what we have laid out here is a fairly appropriate alternative that would look good and be a good service and still have a significant amount of commercial space like you are talking about to rent out to cleaners or whatever. That is probably my opinion verses someone else's but that is the way I see it. I think it is a more feasible way to try to develop that piece of property. Shackelford: Back to my original comments. I concur with a lot of what the applicant said. As I look at this project from the conceptual plan, I agree that this is a conceptual plan and things change, but this is a conceptual plan and the Commission will have the ability to review that at the time of a Large Scale Development. I like the multi -use facility of this, I think it is a very unique piece of property given the fact that there is an existing gas station, a little car wash in front of it, there is very significant drainage issues that interfere with ingress and egress and sight visibility on this piece of property. I like this design because I think it does keep with the influence of the area and push the commercial up front and kind of give some connectivity to the property. It still allows the developer not to use the space in the back of the property that would be more difficult to develop. Given the fact that it comes back forward in the Large Scale Development as we anticipate that it will from the drawings, I think that it can be a situation where the mini storage could be very understated with this property. Obviously, when we look at this at that level screening and all of those other comments will be addressed. I will stand by my original comments, I think this is a good use given the differences in this property and the differences in this design trying to allow some mini storage in this area but not make it the focal point. Ostner: Thank you. Is there further discussion? Williams: I would like to just mention two things. One to the applicant, it takes five affirmative votes in order to pass a Conditional Use and secondly, if there are anymore comments please refer to what the Planning Division has given you on pages 14.4 and 14.6 about the things you are looking at, especially, a couple that I've heard discussed here is one whether it will adversely affect the public interest and that of compatibility. Those are a Planning Commission September 13, 2004 Page 38 couple of things that whether you are voting for or against this you might want to comment upon about why you are doing it. Clark: I thought that is kind of what I did. Ostner: Others of us might not have. Since we are about to vote, I am going to vote against this because of the compatibility issue on the Conditional Use. Is there further discussion? Vaught: I seconded this and am going to stand by my second. I do think it is compatible with the area and with surrounding uses. You see mini storage units like this in other areas of town that are similar I think, especially with the commercial fronting the road and helping to screen off the mini storage. I also would like to say that this isn't necessarily a blank check. They can't go throw up mini storage units tomorrow. If we don't feel like it meets commercial design standards when it comes back through then it is something that we can look at at that time and make adjustments to. Ostner: I'm not sure mini storage has to comply with commercial design standards. I guess I should ask staff. Warrick: We will be reviewing this as a full commercial large scale when it is brought back for Large Scale Development approval. Do keep in mind that there are five criteria with regard to looking at commercial design standards and the main issue is the appearance of the development from the public right of way. Ostner: If mini storage is a part of that development it falls under the Large Scale? Warrick: If it is visible from the public right of way. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 04-1163 was approved by a vote of 6-2-0 with Commissioners Ostner and Clark voting no. Thomas: The motion carries. Announcements Meeting adjourned: 7:25 p.m.