Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-09-27 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Monday, September 27, 2004 at 5:30 p.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN ADM 04-1230:(Conditional Use Permit Review for 304 W. Meadow) Tabled Page 3 PPL 04-1176: (CLABBER CREEK PHASES 3,4 & 5,283) Approved Page 21 PPL 04-1187: (LOT 1 OF SPRBJGWOODS PZD, 247) Approved Page 29 LSD 04-1182: (STEAK `N SHAKE, 135): Approved Page 33 LSD 04-1183: (BRANDON/HASH MALL SOUTH, 135): Approved Page 43 CUP 04-1158: (THETA TAU HOUSE, 443): Approved Page 47 LSD 04-1128: (THETA TAU HOUSE, 443): Approved Page 47 CUP 04-1179: (FAIR PARK CENTER, 287): Approved Page 55 LSD 04-1174: (FAIR PARK CENTER, 287): Approved Page 60 CUP 04-1186: (NOODLES, 173/174): Approved Page 62 LSD 04-1185: (NOODLES, 173/174): Approved Page 64 RZN 04-1164: (CLEVENGER DR. DUPLEXES, 436,437): Forwarded to City Council Page 74 RZN 04-1188: (GENE HOUSLEY, 172/211) Forwarded to City Council Page 77 RZN 04-1189: (JACKSONMUMPHRIES, 717) Forwarded to City Council Page 81 VAC 04-1178: (RIVENDELL, 483) Forwarded to City Council Page 83 C-PZD 04-1175: (RIVENDELL, 522) Forwarded to City Council Page 86 R-PZD 04-1181: (WALNUT CROSSING SUBDIVISION, 594/595): Forwarded to City Council Page 88 Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 2 Alan Ostner Nancy Allen Loren Shackelford Jill Anthes Christine Myres Christian Vaught James Graves Candy Clark STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Matt Casey Kit Williams Suzanne Morgan Renee Thomas Tim Conklin MEMBERS ABSENT Sean Trumbo STAFF ABSENT Dawn Warrick Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 3 Ostner: Welcome to the Monday, September 27`h meeting of your Fayetteville Planning Commission. Can we call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were eight commissioners present with Commissioner Trumbo being absent. Ostner: The first item is the approval of the minutes from the September 13`h meeting. Do I have a motion for approval? Clark: So moved. Ostner: I have a motion, is there a second? Myres: Second. Ostner: Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the minutes from the September 13`h meeting was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. ADM 04-1230: Administrative Item (Conditional Use Permit Review for 304 W. Meadow): Submitted by Flint Richter, an adjoining property owner. The request is for the Planning Commission to review the conditional use permit issued in 1985 to allow the operation of an antique shop at 304 W. Meadow Street. Ostner: The first item on our agenda under new business is ADM 04-1230, a Conditional Use Permit review for 304 W. Meadow. If we could have the staff report please. Conklin: My name is Tim Conklin, Community Planning and Engineering Services Director. This item is a Conditional Use review of an approved Conditional Use back in 1985 for 304 W. Meadow. This past summer we received a complaint with regard to the use of the structure and the Conditional Use that was approved in 1985 for this location. Over 30 years ago in 1974 the Stiles, Bill and Sharon, purchased property at this location and started an antique store and refinishing shop. In 1985 the Board of Directors amended the Fayetteville zoning code and allowed antique stores as a Conditional Use in all zoning districts. That same year in 1985 the Stiles did apply for a Conditional Use which was approved. Those minutes start on page 1.25 in your packet. Also, during that time there was a Board of Adjustment action and those minutes are on page 1.27. This is somewhat of a difficult complaint to look at with regard to the Conditional Use. The staff report does not provide any information with regard to what conditions were placed on this property. Also, the Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 4 minutes back in 1985 basically talk about the Conditional Use as a means of legalizing this operation at this location. Staff has brought this forward. Once again, it is based on a complaint that the Conditional Use that was approved about 19 years ago has substantially changed from what it is today. Staff is recommending that you first hear from the adjoining neighbor that lives to the north of this approved Conditional Use and then allow the Stiles to present their information with regard to activities at their business in this location for the past 30 years. The City Attorney has provided a memo with regard to what the Planning Commission should consider with regard to a Conditional Use and you have that in front of you. Also, the Stiles have provided additional information from the Fayetteville Fire Department, Hazmert and the petition of adjoining property owners that was handed out this evening which was not included in your packet. At this time I will let the neighbor who has filed a complaint address the Commission. Thank you. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Conklin. Clark: I have a point of information before we hear from the plaintiff. This is a question for Mr. Williams and I understand what we look at when we grant a Conditional Use. Where I'm struggling is where in the code does it give us as Planning Commissioners the right jurisdictionally to overturn a Conditional Use or modify a Conditional Use. I found where we can look at it if it hasn't been used in a year and it is null and void, I have also gone back and looked at the code that was used when the Conditional Use was granted, they used the same criteria as we have today. I'm asking where we have jurisdictional authority to overturn or rescind or review. Williams: I think that you have jurisdictional authority to reconsider a Conditional Use. I think it is inherent by the nature of the Conditional Use itself that it is not like a zoning decision, which is a forever decision unless the City Council goes back and changes something. It is almost like an exception to zoning and it is an exception based upon particular conditions. I think the Planning Commission is always entitled to go back and see whether those conditions have been met and whether or not the Conditional Use is still compatible with the neighborhood and would meet the other criteria we have today. There is not a specific provision within the Unified Development Code that states that you can reconsider them but in fact, our history in the past has been that we have, on occasion, reconsidered Conditional Uses. Tim, I think that is correct that we have in the past. That is because the inherent nature of what a Conditional Use is. It is not a zoning decision. It is kind of an adjudicatory decision that you make up here to determine whether or not a condition should be allowed, a use should be allowed, and if the use is allowed, what conditions will you place on it to protect the neighborhood. Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page S Clark: Ok, as long as you say we are jurisdictionally right to do this. Williams: I think that it is proper for you to hear this reconsideration of this Conditional Use tonight. Clark: Thank you. Ostner: If you could please introduce yourself. Richter: Hello, I'm Flint Richter, I'm the land owner at 101 N. Locust. I'm here on behalf of my wife, Melissa Terry, and myself tonight. She had work items tonight that she is dealing with. I would like to just start with a brief history of my occupancy of the property at 101 N. Locust. I bought the property in November, 1994 so it will be the ten year anniversary this November. I lived in the property myself and have always rented the upstairs apartment. I lived in the downstairs portion for a few months when I first bought the property while I remodeled and then I moved upstairs and rented the downstairs for two years. After which, I moved to Huntsville with my wife, we both had jobs out there, and was gone for close to four years. During which time, our renters started complaining to us about the fumes coming from next door and the stench of the general atmosphere in the neighborhood. They went ahead and called ADEQ, the Fire Marshall and the EPA and really had no satisfaction. They were told that the Stiles were too small of an operation to be under their jurisdiction. This went on until about 1999 when I moved back into town myself, my wife and I. We talked to the Stiles from time to time across the fence and asked them about what they planned to do, what they were actually spraying over there. We let them know that it really bothered us. The general attitude was always hostile and they always thought that we were trying to put them out of business. Although, I really just wanted to come to a solution where I didn't have to breathe the vapors that they were using for their income. Meanwhile, I have been losing renters because they could not take the odor and had to move out, which is also my income. For the way I have seen it over the years, my income has been decreased because of what they are doing at their property. They have told me over the years that they have installed filtering systems, that they don't spray after a certain time of the day and they really seem to think that they have taken a lot of precautions to make us happier. The fact still is though that we can smell lacquer thinner, solvents and strippers on an average at least five days a week, if not six on some occasions and the weekends also. The reason I'm here is we have talked to the Stiles, we have talked to Bill on occasion, we tried to call Eric next door, he always tells me to talk to Bill. We took Bill to lunch, we tried to sit down in a public place and have a discussion where we thought it would be a less volatile situation to say the least. We also took this issue to our Dickson Street Neighborhood Association, where our then alderman, Cyrus Young, told us to come see Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 6 you with the matter. That was two years ago. Since then we have tried to bide our time hoping something would happen where we wouldn't have to come this far because I really wished we could've worked this out as neighbors but we are here. The reasons why I think this business is not fit for our neighborhood is because it is basically non -compatible. We have a Residential Office zoned neighborhood. My house and the Stiles house was built on the same lot at one time and our properties, my bedroom window is probably 15' from the window of their shop where they do their finishing. We are very close in this neighborhood and with the vegetation to keep the fumes down it doesn't allow a lot of air flow. I just feel that it is totally non -compatible with our residential neighborhood. If it was deemed to be compatible then some measures should be taken to protect us from loss of income, decreases in property value, and danger of explosion and/or health concerns. Solvents are known carcinogens to have nervous system damaging affects and can cause reproductive harm. I don't take any of those lightly. I have familiarized myself with all of the city codes, with the use units and really the only places I see that this type of business would fit would be in a heavy or light industrial area where there are facilities that omit odors and/or handle explosives. There was one mention in Use Unit 17 of furniture repair, which the Stiles actually advertise themselves as a furniture repair place, even though their Conditional Use is granted on the basis of an antique shop. This is not an easy difference to delineate but I do believe that their insurance company saw the difference when they forced the refinishing operation out of their garage which was attached to their house into a separate building because of the fire hazard. Now the fire hazard has moved closer to our house. Basically, again, I just wanted to say that this use is heavily non- compatible with an R -O zoned district. The offices, dentist office, residential and rental units are all nearby. I have some other property owners who came with me tonight to attest to the volume of odor in the air tonight and I would like for them to be heard also. I appreciate your consideration of this. Ostner: Thank you. We will go ahead and hear from the others. Donley: My name is Marcia Donley, I've owned the property next to the Stiles since 1986 and I lived there about 10 years. Part of that was before that time but most of it was after. Now I have tenants that live there. Most all the time there has been big clouds of sometimes visible chemicals floating over the fence. I like the Stiles. We have worked together on some important projects and that makes this difficult for me. Over the years as I have complained to them and other regulatory bureaus our relationship hasn't been quite so friendly as I would wish next door neighbors to be. Basically, the chemical cloud made it impossible to keep the doors or windows open on the east side of my house. My house is at 320 E. Meadow. I tried putting up baffles myself and encouraging them to put up Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 7 baffles with fans to blow the fumes south towards Meadow Street, but they were uncooperative and even threatening. I'm glad Flint is bringing this to your attention. Despite the obvious health hazard, I too, worry about the extreme fire hazard that these highly volatile and flammable strippers and finishes pose. It is my understanding also, that their insurance agent wouldn't insure unless the refinishing shed was far from the house and now it is like 20' from my house. I feel I have a responsibility to my tenants for their health and safety. I too, don't want to put the Stiles out of business. I'm not trying to put the Stiles out of business but I think that we should enforce the laws of this community. Thank you very much. Ostner: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wants to speak to this issue? At this point I'm going to close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. The Stiles need to speak as well. Stiles: I'm Sharon Stiles, I live at 117 W. Rock Street here in Fayetteville where we have our bed and breakfast. The property in question is 304 W. Meadow where we have the antique shop. We have been located there for 30 years. I hope I can convey to you how important this issue is for us this evening. If you have any questions I'll be happy to answer them. I have included in my packet the Hazmert report which is very favorable and I think should clay all of your concerns and the neighbor's concerns. We have signatures from adjacent property owners that say that they do not have a problem with our antique shop and refinishing shop being located there and continuing. We have had numerous fire inspections and we requested one as recently as last Friday. They did make some suggestions of things that can improve our situation. Anytime we have had a complaint we have always tried to do something to make the situation better for us and our neighbors. I have a list of that and if you have questions I would be happy to answer that. I think the Hazmert gentleman is here to answer any of your questions could also alleviate lots of concerns there. I feel that when the original commission approved our Conditional Use they knew full well what we were doing. We were not just granted an antique shop. They knew we had a refinishing shop and had had for numerous years. It doesn't reflect that in the minutes and that is unfortunate. I also was able to speak with a former city employee who worked with the Planning office between 1980 and 1988. She remembers that we did have the refinishing shop when the Conditional Use was granted so I think that should be an important point for you to take into consideration. When we moved to our house on Meadow thirty years ago this was kind of a blighted area. It wasn't the favorite place in town to live and we took a chance, bought a house and fixed it up and raised our children there and had a mixed use, which I think we were before our time. We raised our children there and now our grandchildren are being raised in the same place. We like Fayetteville. We have bought and Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 8 restored three homes in the downtown area. I wouldn't do anything that would harm myself, my family nor my neighbors. When we did ask for the second building for chemicals we built an extremely safe building. My husband can tell you the extra efforts we had to go through to make it be beyond city code. Everything in it is fire proof and we have fire proof containers that hold all of our chemicals inside the building. The heat and air system that we installed keeps all of those chemicals inside the building until they dissipate. I think the Hazmert gentleman can answer those questions better than I can. I don't know at what point you ask me questions, if you ask me now or if I need to give more information. Ostner: We will get back with you for questions. Stiles: At this point I would like to introduce Shannon Weathers from Hazmert. Weathers: Basically, the things to point out, we did do the measurements. I have looked at the Material Safety Data Sheets on the materials that we saw. Everything that they are doing, the type of monitoring device that we utilize, it did show that it was way, way under anything that is what OSHA calls permissible exposure limit. Permissible exposure limit, our meter goes down to five parts per million. The meter did not register anything indicating that it was below that threshold. Keep in mind, that is still higher than what they call odor threshold. The human nose can smell organics at two parts or three parts per million. That is under what actually starts becoming hazardous. I wanted to bring that to your attention. We have looked over all of the material safety data sheets, everything is below the permissible exposure limits that OSHA or the American Conference of Industrial Hygienists post. We did look at they are using a material that they actually mix to lower the odor threshold and they are using that. I have a material safety data sheet on that as well. Are there any questions on our report? Ostner: We will get back to you. At this point, I am going to close it to the public and bring it to the Commission for discussion. Vaught: I do have questions for our Hazmert representative. On your report there is a number of items where you say they could do some additional work to reduce these odors even further, specifically the last paragraph. Weathers: When we stuck the meter we physically stuck it up to these ducts that are on the north side of the facility. There were some odors there because we could smell it and we stuck the meter right up to there but it is below any hazardous threshold. Mr. Stiles did seal up two of those and it was suggested on the third one he would probably have to go up in the attic and re -divert that one over to the other side. The other part is that there are some filtration ideas that can be utilized, filters with charcoal in them, Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 9 going to a negative pressure rather than a positive pressure system. Of course, he spent a lot of money on a positive pressure, which does work. It is a positive pressure and any crack in that you are going to force it out. Where a negative pressure, you would have to filter it and it would have to go outside. What Mr. Stiles has done is to keep it from going anywhere outside to let it dissipate inside. It would probably be a pretty good expense to do the negative pressure side. That is why we suggested the use of the charcoal air filters. Charcoal will actually take the smell out. Vaught: Reinforcing the duct work as well? Weathers: Yes, reinforcing the duct work. A lot of times in the duct work if it is put together with duct tape the duct tape gets old in three or four years and it will allow leaks and that is why we suggested going and making sure and re -taping that with the aluminum type tape. Vaught: Just for my knowledge, what kind of expense would it be to reinforce the duct work, add a charcoal filter and reroute that third vent to the south side, is it a significant expense? Weathers: I don't think so. He has already done it. Vaught: He has added the charcoal filter? Stiles: It will be here tomorrow, it had to be ordered. Vaught: You have closed off all the vents on the north side and taken them to the south side? Stiles,B: There are no vents on the north side. Vaught: Have you reinforced the duct work? Stiles, B: Yes. Allen: I was over this afternoon to visit and have a few questions. I would like to know when the first complaint was made by neighbors, how long ago. Donley: I have been complaining for twelve years at least, maybe more. Allen: Then I wanted to know from the Stiles and from neighbors what sort of interaction there has been since the first complaints were initiated. What kind of meetings and activities with the neighbors? Donley: Like Flint said, our interactions haven't been very pleasant or productive. Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 10 Allen: So there have been no meetings? Donley: I have been over there a few times, maybe four. It is an exercise of futility or it has been until now. Allen: That would be the same opinion of the Stiles family? Stiles, B: There have been several complaints from the neighbors at different times. Every time they came and complained we would try to do something to make it better. We used to spray outside, we quit spraying outside. We went from a high pressure spray system to a high volume low spray system, which removes almost of the particles out of the air. We have moved the operation inside. We have tried not spraying any other time besides between 10:00 and 5:00. We tried not spraying on Saturdays but they say we are unreasonable and we have the same feeling about them. We have tried to do a lot of things and every time we tell them we are going to do something they come back and say that's not good enough. We ask them what is good enough and their answer to that is to move. I don't want to move. I believe I have tried to do everything possible. I have asked for a volunteer from the Fire Department to come in and they came and took a look, I called Hazmert. I told them if you will prove to me that I'm doing something hazardous, I will quit. I will stop tomorrow, I will go out of business. They wouldn't even call Hazmert to have them come down and take a look so I called him and I paid for him to come down and look at my building. Allen: You feel there has been a good faith effort on your part to meet with the neighbors? Stiles, B: I'm not telling you I'm not an environmentalist, but I'm living next to two of the strongest environmentalists in the state of Arkansas. Melissa Terry and Mrs. Donley. If you don't believe me, all of them are on the Environmental Concerns and everything else. If I had to choose the worst neighbors in the whole state of Arkansas these people moved in next to me. It is like moving in next to the freeway and start complaining about the traffic. Marsha and I, our relationship is strained and she came up here and spoke against me tonight, but we have gotten along for a long, long time. She comes over and gets onto me and I try to do something and I don't think it has been that negative. I have talked to Melissa Terry on a number of occasions and they can't say we haven't done anything. We have tried to alleviate the problem, and I think we have. If you have been down there I think you called today and said you wanted to come down there. He had been spraying today, was there a strong odor that you smelled when you came up? Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page I1 Ostner: I'm going to interject here. I've got a question and then I'm going to let Commissioner Shackelford... Allen: Can I ask one more question? Ostner: We will get right back with you, I promise. Shackelford: I just have a point of order question for you Tim. Staff's recommendation on this was that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing. From my recollection in the past as Planning Commission, we have heard these types of issues. Is this what you consider a public hearing or were you asking for us to make a definition tonight whether there was enough information to have a meeting specifically to address this Conditional Use? Conklin: In the past we have had staff reports and a record that clearly showed when there was compliance or out of compliance with a Conditional Use. Due to the fact that this record is so thin with regard to conditions or what was actually approved, staff wanted to provide an opportunity for the Stiles and the neighbor to the north to present information to you. Talking with the Stiles they would like a decision made this evening with regard to whether or not the Conditional Use that was approved in 1985 by the Fayetteville Planning Commission is the same type of use that is occurring today and therefore, nothing has changed and the conditions are not being violated. Once again, that is how staff has looked at this. Whether or not something that was approved in 1985 as a Conditional Use, whether or not something has changed and therefore, that Conditional Use needs to be modified or revoked. Staff was unable to determine that just based on the information in the record and therefore, wanted to have this opportunity for both sides to present information to the Commission. For staff too, because there is information tonight that this is the first time that we received information with regard to Hazmert and other information from the neighbors. Shackelford: That is my concern at this point. We have two very differing opinions. We have two very differing directions that we are looking at here. There is a lot of new information. I think there are a lot of people we need to hear from. I think there is a lot of information that we need to take into consideration. I think this group, as a Commission, ought to review the property. I am not sure that this is the time or place to have this public hearing. My understanding as I read the agenda was that this was basically to see if there was ample reason to proceed into this process of possibly revoking the Conditional Use and that that was what our goal was tonight to see if we needed to schedule some sort of special meeting for this public hearing. That's where I'm confused. I am not sure that we have the information, have had the ability to review the information. A lot Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 12 of this is information that we got on our desk tonight. I'm not sure that we've had time to do what is necessary to make a valid judgment on this at this time in my opinion. Williams: You certainly don't need to make any decision tonight if you don't feel like you've had enough time to study it and want to look at more information. However, I do think that what you are hearing right now is the definition of a public hearing. This is a public hearing you are having. You don't have to conclude it tonight. You can certainly table this if that is the desire of the Commission and get more information. Shackelford: Thank you. Clark: I have another point of information. Like Loren, I'm struggling with this. Tim, you just told us that you want us to evaluate the conditions under which this Conditional Use was first issued and compare them to what is going on currently. Conklin: That is what staff has attempted to do with this. When someone complains about a Conditional Use we go back and look at the staff report, see what conditions were placed on that item and if there is a condition that is not being complied with then we would bring that back forward to the Commission. Clark: But in this instance, we have such poor record keeping from 1985 we don't know what all of the discussion entailed and we don't know what conditions were put on this Conditional Use. In other words, you are asking us to compare today verses 1985 and we have absolutely little or no clue other than it was an antique shop. That's what I am struggling with. I don't know how we compare what the intent of the Planning Commission was in 1985. When I look at the Code the Code reads in part, we are to look at economic, glare or odor affects of the special exception on the adjoining properties and properties generally in the district. Now, if the Planning Commission looked at that and offered the Conditional Use with that in front of them, but we have no proof of that correct? Other than they offered it. Conklin: That is correct. That is why the Stiles are presenting information to you from past employees and customers. Clark: This is why I didn't go to law school. I don't want to adjudicate something that I'm still not certain we have the jurisdiction to adjudicate. I'm sorry, I don't. I am not comfortable with this at all and I would really like to table this until we get some clarification from Kit and from staff and I guess get more information that we really have time to look at and sift through. Our desks are full of stuff that we just got tonight. This Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 13 happened to be number one on the agenda. I'm not comfortable with it. If I am in order, I would like to make a motion that we table this. Shackelford: Just indefinitely, or until the next meeting? Vaught: I definitely think that we have jurisdiction to review all Conditional Uses, that is part of what they are, they are Conditional Uses. Clark: Show it to me. It says if it is not used in a year then it is null and void, that is the only instance I can find. Vaught: I do agree with Mr. Williams' memo from the start of the night saying we do have the right to review them. I do think we can review them, I think that is the whole purpose of a Conditional Use to see if they remain compliant. My questions are on the improvements that are currently being made. I would like to see the affect of those. If a charcoal filter is about to be installed, I would like to know if that helps alleviate the odor problem. This went through several times and in several different cases it has been looked at. In 1981 they built the workshop structure and at that time this was looked at as far as refinishing as well. Stiles, B: It was built for the shop and they gave me certain guidelines that I had to build the shop to to build it to fire code specifications. It is built with timbers, it is fire proof. The walls are 10" or 12", they have masonry exterior, they have fire proof shingles, it was built because they knew what I did. Vaught: My questions are I would like to see how the current improvements are going to affect our decision. If they help alleviate the odor then I think it takes care of most of the complaints. Allen: Mr. Chair? Ostner: One minute. Commissioner Clark, I understand you don't feel able to make a decision. I would tend to believe with Commissioner Vaught. I want to bring your attention, and everyone's attention, to page 1.20, Assistant City Attorney Mr. Whitaker has given us a memo, which I think is very helpful, in addition to Mr. Williams' memo. He brings up basically three salient points. Number one, your actions, meaning the Planning Commission, will hinge on what activities can be reasonably included within the definition of "antique shop" because they have a conditional use to run an antique shop. Question number one, is the furniture refinishing taking place on the property reasonably included within the definition of an antique shop. This will have to be a judgment call inasmuch as the original Planning Commission record is devoid of any clue as to how the Commissioners understood the phrase. Question Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 14 number two, has the refinishing become the predominant use on the property, in other words, an industrial verses a retail measurement in our minds. I think we can answer these questions tonight. I agree, it is very murky. If it weren't murky staff could've answered it themselves. They don't give us every Conditional Use review. They are able to do most reviews themselves. That is why it is here tonight is because it is difficult. I want to give my two bits for going ahead and handling it with what we have in front of us tonight. Commissioner Allen? Allen: I was going to say that I'm not sure that I won't agree with Commissioner Clark about tabling this but this does seem the time to go ahead and get some questions asked and give ourselves as much data and then we can make a determination as to whether or not we should proceed or whether we should table and I have a few more questions to ask, but I can wait. Ostner: Mr. Stiles, I am going to hold off on you, at this point I'm just going to let questions be asked if you don't mind. Both sides want to talk back and forth a lot, if you can just hold on we will ask specific questions at this point and we are not going to let voluntary debates go on. Allen: My question is for Mr. Stiles. I would like to know if there is any significant change in usage of your shop since 1985. Stiles: From what we are doing right now? Actually, no there is not. There was a change further down the road, in 1985 I had a workshop where my workshop is right now, where I do my repair work. I didn't have a building to do repair and refinishing in. When we got a Conditional Use I built that building and then later on after 1985 I moved into that building. Since my neighbors have been complaining to me about all of this I have since moved back out of that building and gone back to what I was doing before I got the Conditional Use. My workshop is now in the back of what used to be a display area in my antique shop. I still have things for sale in the antique shop and I do sell things in the antique shop, I just don't have it displayed like an antique shop in the back part where I work. I did that because of all the complaints I was getting from the neighbors on the north side. Allen: Two more things. Is the predominant part of your business the selling of antiques or the refinishing of antiques? Stiles, B: The selling of antiques. Allen: My last question, as I understand it, I know that you have another shop on Hwy. 16, have you given any thought about having that location be the area where your refinishing of antiques takes place? Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 15 Stiles, B: It depends on how you make this decision tonight. If you make this decision that I can open up a refinishing shop in any of my antique locations 1 would consider it. But, why would I when I have already spent all the money putting in all the different air filtration systems and everything in the location that I have now. I don't want to move out there, I prefer to stay where I've been for 30 years. Allen: I will relinquish the floor after finally getting it. Anthes: I would like to echo some sentiments from other Commissioners that I don't feel qualified as either an Environmental Air Quality Assessment Agent or a Code Enforcement Agent nor an attorney, but I understand that we need to hear this. Therefore, what I need to go back to is what we look at as any kind of use in the code and that makes me have some questions for staff. Antique shops are allowed in what use units? Conklin: It is allowed under Use Unit 2 as a Conditional Use in all zoning districts. Anthes: Solvents, odor, refinishing and that sort of business is allowed in what use unit? Conklin: With regard to refinishing? Anthes: Yes. Conklin: A few years ago the City of Fayetteville city council did pass an ordinance on facilities that emit odors and did create specific use units for those types of facilities. It would need to be a determination whether or not it would be classified as a facility that emits odor. If not, it would go under one of our manufacturing type use units if it was strictly furniture refinishing. Anthes: If we found that this was not an odor emitting business then it would be allowed by conditional use in Use Unit 2 and if we did find that it was an odor and hazardous, terminology, that would be a manufacturing or industrial use unit. Conklin: That is correct. With regard to the ordinance that was passed several years ago, this use, which is alleged to have been there for the last 30 years, would not come under the new ordinance for facilities that emit odor. If it is deemed that this use has existed and been there for the last 30 years. To respond to a statement that you made, with regard to you are not en environmental engineer, neither is the planning staff. The way that we have handled that ordinance passed by the City Council is to in the case of the candle manufacturer, was to have them comply with ADEQ standards. We don't have any odor meters that we can go out and measure in a Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 16 quantifiable way of does it smell strong or mild or minimal or whatever, so odors are very difficult for the city to regulate in my opinion because I think we all have a different opinion on when something smells strong or bad or good in this community. Anthes: What are the required setbacks on the use units that permit odor emitting business? Conklin: I don't believe there are any additional setback standards in that ordinance. Anthes: What are the actual setbacks of the Stiles' property? Conklin: I don't have that site plan in front of me. It is zoned R -O so it would be 30' from the front property line and I believe 10' on the sides, possibly 15'. Anthes: I read something in the minutes that said something about a 2' setback and something was denied but I wasn't quite sure where we ended up with the building. Conklin: I'm not sure exactly what the Board of Adjustment granted back in 1985 on that setback. With regard to the property line, I have heard from the Stiles that a fence may not be the property line so I'm not quite clear on where the property line is on this property. Anthes: In these notes there was something that was called an evaporation area and that was bow a lot of the chemicals were disposed of by allowing them to somehow dissipate. Can somebody describe that to me? Conklin: I will let the Stiles respond to that question. Stiles, B: You will have to ask the fellow that made the complaint because I don't have any such area. We do not have anything that we have to dispose of, we use it all. Ostner: Would you like Mr. Richter to talk about that? Anthes: Do you have anything to add to the evaporation area? Richter: The evaporation smell, we do smell a low level smell for hours and hours, probably six to eight hours at a time, and that is what has lead us to believe that there is a low rate of evaporation occurring on the property. There is no spraying going on at this time but we smell a tow level of lacquer thinners or whatever it is, but it is a low level smell. There must be some type of evaporation going on in order for the smell to happen. Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 17 Anthes: I guess I was confused. The way it read it sounded like there was some holding tank that allowed things to evaporate. Richter: There was a large tray that we had seen but by talking with the Stiles they assured us that there was none of that going on. I would like to add something if I could. Ostner: Mr. Richter, we are going to wait, we are going to ask you questions. We've got a lot of stuff right here already. Anthes: We have to go back to what we see and what I see is a 1985 Conditional Use that approves an antique store. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence or there is some evidence, that may or may not relate to the fact that there was refinishing at that time or that it was implied or not implied. I know that I used to go in this store and it was set up like a shop and looked like a shop but when we were in there the other day it looked like maybe a storage area for a refinishing business, but Mr. Stiles claims that he does sell antiques out of there and that is some kind of legal judgment about what kind of work is actually happening there if we could see receipts that showed a percentage of work of sold verses refinished, maybe we would have a clue to that but we don't have any of that information. We need to look at what the Conditional use was, whether we feel like the use has changed and whether the compatibility is there and whether we have an operation that adversely affects the public interest. I would like personally, like Commissioner Clark, more time to evaluate this decision, or evaluate the information that we received tonight and maybe get some more information and clarification from other experts in order to know what to do. Ostner: We do have a motion on the floor. Vaught: I've got a couple of questions real quick. This goes to the use of the property. The 2' setback you are referring to in 1981 when he wanted to build the workshop and asked for the variance of the setback at that time on page 1.27, it says Long Ago Antiques was building a structure for insurance purposes. It goes on to state that he had been doing it for seven years at that point. We know that they were refinishing then. In that paragraph it states that later on page 1.28, they required whether refinishing was allowed at that time in an R -O district. They said they had been there for seven years and stated it is a non conforming use. Staff, what happened between the 1981 meeting and the 1985 meeting? Am I reading that right that it was not allowed by right in 1981 in the R -O District? Conklin: Yes, with regard to the antique store the Board of Directors passed an ordinance allowing antique stores as a Conditional Use. After the Board Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 18 of Directors passed that ordinance the Stiles applied for a Conditional Use to, as it states in the minutes in 1985, on page 1.25. I will read the motion in here. It is a motion by Stockdale seconded by Jacks. "Move for approval of the petition followed by discussion. Stockdale commented that Mr. Stiles had for sometime to find some means of legalizing his antique operation and she felt he should have fees for his petition refunded to him and she amended her motion to refund the fees." Between 1981 and 1985 we ended up at Planning Commission with a Conditional Use for an antique operation according to this paragraph. Vaught: To me that shows in 1985 they knew there was some refinishing going on there. To me, the question now is it primary activity or secondary activity? To me, they knew there was refinishing going on there. We talked about this and they did this before and I'm sure they continued the same operation. Allen: Ideally we need to hire someone on as a nose for the City of Fayetteville to go out and smell out some of these issues because one man's perfume is another man's skunk. With that said, I feel like I need more time also and I would like to second the motion to table. Ostner: We have a motion to table and a second, is there further discussion? Vaught: One question for staff. On the new changes being implemented is there anyway in two weeks that we will know the impact of those changes? Would the applicant have to have Hazmert come back out and redo a study of the odors? That is a big issue to me and I want to know how we can resolve that. Stiles, B: We'll bring them back out. Conklin: I will let the applicant respond to that because two parts per million, three parts, or five parts per million, I'm not exactly sure what that actually means. Graves: I just wanted to state that I'm opposed to tabling this. I think that we have ample evidence to make a decision tonight. We have got the information concerning the fact that refinishing existed on the property in 1981 when they were before the Board of Adjustment. There is no evidence that has been presented at this hearing that anything has changed since 1981 or since 1985 and a decision is going to have to be made at some point and I don't see that any additional information will be provided between now and whenever we table it. Williams: A point of clarification, how long? Was the motion for the next meeting? Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 19 Clark: I did not clarify. Ostner: We need to. Clark: I will amend the motion to table until the next Planning Commission. Ostner: Does the seconder accept? Allen: Yes. Ostner: Is there further discussion on the tabling? Anthes: Mr. Williams, I don't know what we can and can't ask for on information on this and I agree with Commissioner Vaught and with the notes from Mr. Whitaker, that basically what we need to look at is has the refinishing become the predominant use on the property to substantiate whether there was a major change from a shop, an antique shop that was a retail operation with refinishing as a secondary use, and is the shop now primarily a refinishing shop. That, to me, would be a substantial use change that might affect the Conditional Use request. Is there a way to request receipts or something that showed what percentage of revenue is received from these things or some way that we can analyze this other than just walking in the building and looking around? Williams: I don't think that we can demand that kind of information from the owners. However, they certainly have heard some of your concerns and they might choose to present whatever evidence they feel they want to present to this Commission and you can base your vote not only on evidence that has been presented but if you feel like evidence should've been presented and wasn't, so you are unclear and think there is a contrary indication then you could certainly take that into account. I have to agree with Commissioner Graves to some extent that there is ample evidence that there was refinishing going on for a long time. I will say that one thing this Commission can do when you reconsider this, when you are considering this Conditional Use, is you can place the kinds of reasonable conditions upon this that maybe they have already began to take, in order to ensure that there is compatibility as much as possible with the neighborhood as part of the use conditions. It is a balancing test to some extent but I think that it is within the Commission's power to look at something like that. As well, as either just leave it like it is period or turn it down. You really have those three options before you. Vaught: Staff, this is the first time that I've seen a review of a Conditional Use since I've been on. What is the procedure if we were to uphold the Conditional Use and place some conditions on it such as implementing some of the Hazmert recommendations. What would be the adjacent Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 20 property owner's recourse? Would they go through the whole process again? What is the process for requesting the review of a Conditional Use? Conklin: There is an appeal section in our UDC with regard of Conditional Use. I believe it is two aldermen within the ward plus one additional one. Then it could go to City Council for their hearing and approval or denial. Williams: I should note for the record also that this is not the only option for the neighbors. They have always had the option to retain Council and seek to enjoin this operation as a nuisance if they so felt that it infringed upon their peaceful enjoyment of their home. One option is this Conditional Use that is being presented before you. Another option they have independently is bringing a nuisance action against the Stiles and asking the judge to enforce some sort of injunction about how they operate their business. Ostner: Is there further discussion on tabling this? Vaught: I guess I'm like Commissioner Graves where I'm a little adverse to tabling. We do have evidence on the table. My initial response to this was to try to uphold the Conditional Use with us outlining some specific items such as implementing the recommendations of Hazmert, which is the study the defendant paid for. I think we could possibly go that route and then we have a specific set of standards to hold them to. If they come back and there is still a problem we know what we go against. Right now we know in 1981 there was refinishing. In 1985 they approved the Conditional Use on the property and where we go from there I don't know but I am against tabling. I think it is something that we can vote on tonight. Ostner: Thank you. I'm going to call for a vote on the table. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table ADM 04-1230 was approved by a vote of 5-3 with Commissioners Ostner, Graves and Vaught voting no. Ostner: The motion carries so we will see this item at the next Planning Commission. Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 21 PPL 04-1176: Preliminary Plat (CLABBER CREEK PHASES 3, 4 & 5, 283): Submitted by GEOFFREY BATES for property located at W OF RUPPLE RD & SALEM VILLAGE & N OF CLABBER CREEK PH. 1 & 2. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 75.11 acres. The request is to approve a preliminary plat of the subject property with 256 lots and 252 single-family homes proposed. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is PPL 04-1176 for Clabber Creek Phases III, IV, and V. Clark: I will recuse from this. Morgan: The applicant requests approval for a Preliminary Plat for Phases III, IV, and V for Clabber Creek subdivision. The subject property contains approximately 75.11 acres located north of Clabber Creek and to the west of Salem Village and Salem Meadows and is zoned RSF-4. This project was heard by the Subdivision Committee at their meeting on September 17`h at which time it was tabled for further review of street configuration. The applicant has graciously worked with staff to modify the street design as it is shown before you with 50' and 42' rights of way. The Preliminary Plat was heard again at the Subdivision Committee at which time the Subdivision Committee deemed the revised street configuration appropriate and forwarded it to the full Planning Commission. The applicant is proposing dedication of additional right of way for Rupple Road, a minor arterial. The applicant proposes to construct Rupple Road adjacent to the property and across Clabber Creek by bridge in order to provide for a direct means of access to the minor arterial. Staff does recommend approval of PPL 04-1076 with twelve conditions. Of these, I will review three. Item number one, the approved Property Line Adjustment shall be filed with the county to remove approximately three acres north of Lot 1 from the subject property prior to consideration of construction plans. Condition two, the developer shall contribute $172,500 into the tree fund or submit an onsite mitigation plan with a minimum of 691 2" caliper trees to mitigate removal of 43,622 sq.ft. of high priority canopy and 214,158 sq.ft. of low level priority canopy prior to Final Plat. Also, the applicant shall submit a revised Preliminary Plat prior to the review of construction plans. We have received signed conditions of approval. Ostner: Thank you Ms. Morgan. Is the applicant present? Bates: Good evening, I'm Geoff Bates, I'm an engineer with Keystone Consultants representing the developers tonight. This is just an addition to Phase I and Phase II which has already been approved and they are building homes at this time. As she stated, we have worked very closely with staff and the commissioners at Subdivision level and have made Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 22 numerous changes in order to appease everyone. We have increased the lot sizes on the west property boundary to save a lot of trees. We have reconfigured the streets and street widths to save trees and slow the traffic. I believe everyone is happy with this now and we are happy with it and hope you will be. I will answer any design questions you may have. Ostner: At this point I am going to open it up to the public. If anyone would like to speak to this please come to the podium and introduce yourself and give us your comments. Scott: My name is Robert Scott. My wife and I have a contract on an adjoining property to the proposed subdivision in what is Salem Village. I would first like to request that this be tabled because there has been inadequate opportunity for public comment. Because the original Subdivision meeting was rescheduled and the Planning Commission meeting was rescheduled the neighbors never received any notification of when these meetings would be. It is only sort of by luck that I happen to know about it and be here today. I only found out a few hours ago that this was the day that the meeting was going to be held and I had requested staff to please notify me when it was going to be held. I haven't had a chance to talk to other neighbors although I have spoken to them previously and there were some concerns about Rupple Road going in there so I do not believe there has been adequate opportunity for public comment on this. Specifically public comment with respect to the adjoining subdivision and Rupple Road. There really is no public in the area where the plat is proposed at this point so there can't really be comment there. I don't think some of the implications of the road in the adjoining subdivision have been explored and I don't think the public has had an opportunity to comment. I would first request that this be tabled until the next Planning Commission and that the adjoining property owners and interested parties be re -notified of when that meeting is so there can be ample opportunity for public comment. I will stop there and if you don't table it then I have other comments since this would then be my only other opportunity. Ostner: This could be your only opportunity to speak so go ahead. Scott: Then I will proceed. I wanted to point out and I pointed this out at the Subdivision hearing, the Salem Village adjoining subdivision has only a 35' right of way for Rupple Road, which is designated to be a minor arterial. Some other examples of minor arterials I understand are Old Wire, Gregg, Mt. Comfort. These are extremely busy roads. I think that it is vitally important that there be appropriate space for these roads. This could theoretically be a four lane road at this point so there is a less than usual right of way dedicated for a minor arterial and I think that that is an issue that needs to be explored. I'm not sure if that has been explored in the plat, I know other issues have. At the Subdivision Committee staff Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 23 had indicated that that 35' right of way goes back to 1995 but I still think it is relevant to evaluate what the implications of that are for people who are already living in the area. My next point would be, if this is not tabled and other neighbors are not given the opportunity to comment on this I would like to ask for two items to mitigate this minor arterial running right by people's houses. Number one, I would ask that the developer put in a fence. The purpose of the fence would be to ensure safety. This will be a busy road near a middle school. If you go into the Salem Village subdivision right now there are little kids everywhere and there is an alley right behind people's houses. People can walk across the alley and will basically be hitting the sidewalk within like 10' or less it seems like. You have a free reign for children to end up at a minor arterial. I know none of us would want our children wondering onto Gregg or Old Wire. Second, would be some trees to be put in on the other side of the fence. The fence would preserve safety, trees would act as a noise barrier. This would preserve the property value and the quality of life of those people who already have homes in the area from what will one day certainly be a very busy street. Those would be the two actions that I would request the Planning Commission request the developer to do. Let me just reemphasize, I think the other neighbors in the area probably would like to be able to say something about this. The notification of these meetings was patchy and then it was confusing because the dates were moved. Thank you very much for your time. Ostner: Is there anyone else who would like to speak about this Preliminary Plat? ??: I just think there is some clarification on the second item, west of Rupple Road, they really mean west of Rupple Road development because I own the property there and there hasn't been any discussion of developing it. North Clabber Creek Phases I and II is fine. Other than that, it looks ok to me, it is just a matter of identifying it. You say west of Rupple Road but it is not because that would be on my property and there is not any road there. Ostner: I'm not understanding what you mean by west of Rupple Road. ??: They are going to run Rupple Road up through there eventually along the property line, which would basically be on my property and west of Salem Village and of course Clabber Creek would have to be south of it or in some of the swamp that is there now. It is just a matter of identifying it so we don't run into a lot of trouble of what the property is and who owns it and what they are going to do with it. I just think it needed some clarification. That's all I have to say. Ostner: Are there any other comments from the public? I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission for questions and comments. Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 24 Anthes: What is our obligation about the notification of the public and were those requirements met? Williams: I will refer to Mr. Conklin on that, the Planning Department notifies the public. Pate: Preliminary Plats in our notification requirements in Chapter 157 refer to notice of public hearing by the city. We do notify by mail the adjacent property owners. Also, a notice is published within a newspaper. We did receive today an affidavit of publication in the newspaper. I would just mention that this is at least the third public hearing that we have received public comment on this item. At the first Subdivision Committee meeting held on the P of September the item was tabled to come back at the next meeting. That item was heard again on the 17`h of September and the Subdivision Committee did vote at that time to forward this item onto the full Planning Commission. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Pate. Williams: I do have an affidavit of publication here that was provided by the newspaper showing that in fact, there has been publication that is legally required. Anthes: The letters if they have incorrect dates, I just want to make sure that we are doing what we need to be doing. Williams: I think that sometimes the items that are tabled are rescheduled and I don't think that there is a requirement to re -notify everyone every time a motion or something has been tabled. The thought is that interested parties will be at the meeting when the item is tabled and therefore they will certainly know. Often, also it is of course, reported in the newspapers when items are tabled. I think from a legal point of view we have done sufficient notification at this point in time. Vaught: I just wanted to make some comments about what was done at Subdivision. We did table this after the first meeting due to some concerns with the street layout design and also a large grove of trees on the west side of the property and some internal street widths. At that time the developer did go back and rework many of the streets to alleviate some of the concerns. These streets used to be long running the entire length of the property and they tried to break that up to make a safer condition inside the neighborhood as well as reducing some of the widths of some of the north/south streets that are the more heavily traveled streets to reduce speed and congestion, just from the public comment that we have received lately on the design of streets. We thought that was important to look at. Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 25 Also, the large grove of trees on the west, as was stated earlier, they enlarged those lots, reduced the street width there to save those trees because they are pretty substantial trees. I also have one question for staff or the attorney or whoever this should be addressed to. It was mentioned about putting a fence up on Rupple Road next to Salem Village, are there any conditions where we can set screen like that between residential districts or is that something that Salem Village needs to take up? Pate: Our requirements in our code do not require screening between residential uses. It does for non-residential adjacent to residential, industrial adjacent to residential however, this use would not require that. Vaught: We do have a street tree planting requirement is my understanding, is that correct? Pate: One of the conditions of approval for this project as mentioned by Ms. Morgan, condition number two, the developer shall contribute into the tree fund or submit an on site mitigation planting plan, discussions with the applicant. I believe that is what they are going to pursue is an on street mitigation plan. That is really to be determined prior to Final Plat. Either the funds will come in prior to Final Plat approval or the mitigation plan pursued. Vaught: Can they plant the mitigation trees in the public right of way? Pate: Yes. Vaught: We can ask that there be focus on that end of the property? Pate: I can work with the developer to make that happen. Ostner: I had a similar question of staff and maybe the applicant. The housing development on the other side, I'm on Salem just north of the school, the housing development has a thick landscape buffer in front of their fence. On the drawing I just noticed that these lots are backing right up to Rupple and I'm assuming people are going to build fences along their back property line to shield Rupple. Is there any provision for that or have we already covered that issue that a buffer between Rupple and the subdivision be fenced? Pate: We have looked at subdivisions in the past whereby we talked about specific materials, fencing and walls. You may remember a couple of PZDs where we looked at that. The Planning Commission does have discretion where that is involved in looking at screening and providing a more contiguous fence that is designed together. It is staff's opinion that Planning Commission doesn't have that jurisdiction in this location Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 26 because theoretically there is no use you are buffering against each other. There are compatible residential uses next to each other, both zoned RSF- 4. Salem Meadows to the east did come through as a PUD. That alley essentially backs up onto Rupple Road. They did stub out for future access which this developer is connecting to. Vaught: About the 35' right of way, because I know there was some discussion at Subdivision about that, I would like staff to talk to us about fitting a minor arterial in the reduced setback. There is some talk about off centering the road from the right of way and leaving it off centered from the right of way and reducing the greenspace. Have those designs been finalized yet through this plat and also, will it fit? Bates: It is an 80' right of way and 50' street so there is plenty of room. Casey: When Salem Village was platted they didn't dedicate the entire amount of street right of way that we would not require so there is a 10' difference between that and what is proposed. What is proposed with this plat is the reduction of greenspace between the back of curb and the sidewalk on that side of the roadway. The alignment will stay the same. On the west side we will have the 10' sidewalk or trail with the required greenspace and on the east side, I'm not sure the dimensions, but we will have a 6' sidewalk located at the right of way line. Anthes: At Subdivision Committee we did have a lot of questions which were addressed. One of which though I'm not seeing on the plans and that is the connectivity to the parkland. I believe we talked about a dedicated easement access from somewhere around Lot 246 and the detention pond where it touches and somewhere in the neighborhood between lots 150 and 151, but I don't see those on the plat. Bates: They will be there at the time of Final Plat but due to time restraints we didn't get them all on there. Vaught: I believe that is part of condition number eight. Anthes: Right, but I wanted to be sure that those parkland connectivity issues were going to be part of that Final Plat. Ostner: I believe we will have that review at Final Plat ourselves. Anthes: The other thing is that I understand what Mr. Scott is saying, Matt Casey just told us that we can get the street through and that it can maintain the same alignment but that it will actually be 10' closer to their property than normal on a minor arterial. If that is the case, is a minor offset in the road preferable for the terms of city standards or not? Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 27 Casey: The street section will be 50', the sidewalk will just be further away. The street is right where it has always been planned to be. It is just that the right of way is 10' closer to the center of the street. Anthes: I think Dawn Warrick had a very good explanation for how that would work at Subdivision Committee and I thought at the time that Mr. Scott and the other gentleman had heard that discussion but there still seems to be some confusion about what that means. Would you be willing to talk to them after this meeting and show them real clearly? Casey: Yes. Ostner: Someone mentioned Rupple is going to be a 50' road and an 80' right of way, did you mention that? Staff, is a 50' road four lanes? Bates: It is four lane. Ostner: Are we building that segment of four lane right now? Bates: It is still up for debate right now but Matt can probably answer that better. Casey: We are looking at the recommendation for a cost share to widen the street section for a minor arterial, which will actually be 52' from back of curb to back of curb with curb and gutter on each time. At this time the plat is showing a 36' wide street with two lanes of traffic and a center turn lane. Staff will be making a recommendation to city council for a cost share on this. Ostner: The 36' street section is for three lanes with a center turn lane, 12', 12', 12'. Bates: It will match what is there by the school already. Ostner: I was going to request a turn lane and ask and make sure that that was being put in because that area is growing. Are there any other questions? Anthes: It appears that the developer is anticipating submitting the onsite mitigation plan in lieu of contributing to the tree fund, because of the concerns on this road and to soften the impact to both of these subdivisions I would really like to see that planting happen rather than the trees paid and I would considered removing the words contribute $172,500 into the tree fund from condition of approval number two to make sure we get the on site mitigation. Can we do that? Shackelford: I think that they have that choice. Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 28 Anthes: I would like to state in the record that I have a preference for an on site mitigation planting to happen here. Ostner: The southern edge of this development appears to me to run close to a Master Street Plan corridor, is that correct? It almost seemed to be right on top of the southern edge of this development. Bates: It was actually in Phase I and Phase II and they left 70' right of way in Phases I and II for a future collector. Pate: Page 2.11 probably shows that collector. Ostner: I was concerned that we were having a developer very close to that and not planning for it so if it has already been allowed for then terrific. MOTION: Shackelford: While I understand that there was some confusion regarding when the public hearing was on this. Staff has made the comment earlier. This is the third public hearing on this. I serve on the Subdivision Committee and have seen this project a couple of times. First of all, I would like to commend the applicant and city staff for working together. I think that we have a very good product here in front of us. I think this is an example of where we have gone beyond the minimum qualifications for a subdivision and I appreciate that. This design saved some trees, there is some significant traffic calming over what was originally drawn and that was at the expense of a few lots in the overall scheme and we appreciate those sacrifices. I think that we have a good project here and that the conditions of approval will wrap these things up. You have heard our comments regarding the desire to have the tree mitigation instead of the money in lieu and some areas that we would like to see those trees. With that being said, I am going to go ahead and make a motion that we approve PPL 04- 1176. Vaught: I will second and I want to echo Commissioner Shackelford's comments. Ostner: Thank you. I have a motion and a second. Are there further comments? Would you call the roll Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 04-1176 was approved by a vote of 8-0-1 with Commissioner Clark abstaining. Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 29 PPL 04-1187: Preliminary Plat (LOT 1 OF SPRINGWOODS PZD, 247): Submitted by PATRICK HARGUS for property located at LOT 1 OF THE SPRINGWOODS C- PZD. The property is zoned C-PZD, COMM. PLANNED ZONING DIST. and contains approximately 41.176 acres. The request is to approve a preliminary plat for a commercial subdivision with 22 development lots proposed. Ostner: Next is PPL 04-1187, Lot 1 of springwoods PZD. Vaught: I will be recusing from this item. Pate: This item is a Preliminary Plat for a commercial subdivision. The subject tract is Lot 1 of the C-PZD approved as springwoods in October, 2003. As you know, this property was formerly zoned I-1 before being rezoned and designated for specific uses under the PZD regulations. Specifically, Lot 1 was designated in the rezoning process for Use Units 12 through 17 and 25 which are listed on the plat. Covenants have been filed with the PZD for springwoods and the development of property within all of these lots are subject to those restrictions set forth. A copy of those filed covenants are included as part of your staff report. The proposal tonight consists of approximately 47.176 acres, 34% of which is in tree canopy. The remaining area existing is grassland and wetland areas. The zoning of Lot 1, as I mentioned, is for primarily commercial land use subject to the PZD approval. The property is currently vacant and located west of Shiloh Drive and I-540 north of Moore Lane and bound on the north and west by Lot 8 which is the preservation area lot. As mentioned before in two other lots that have been approved in this subdivision a 404 Permit has been issued by the Corp. of Engineers for this property essentially laying out the criteria for the creation of new wetlands on the Lot 8 property. The applicant requests a Preliminary Plat approval for a commercial subdivision with 22 lots proposed. Lots 5 and 9 are retained as detention for this entire subdivision, with the exception of lot 22 which is identified for Audubon use. The remaining lots are proposed for commercial and office use subject to the restrictions and covenants of the Final Plat and the PZD. A draft of covenants for this particular development has also been submitted addressing proposed building materials, height, signage, lighting and landscaping as well as other architectural standards. All proposed development within this Lot shall meet the minimum standards set forth in the Unified Development Code for a commercial development. Photographs have also been submitted in your packets by the applicant as examples of how this subdivision is intended to develop or look in the form of existing developments. The proposal calls for one primary street through the subject property connecting Moore Lane and Shiloh Drive. Street improvements include improvements along the entire frontage of Shiloh Drive including that area fronted by Lot 8 per the Planning Commission and City Council approval of the original PZD. Also, improvements are required to be made along Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 30 Moore Lane. 6' sidewalks are proposed along both sides of the interior street and along Moore Lane. The applicant is actively working with the Parks and Recreation Department to construct a 12' wide trail along Shiloh Drive, which is part of our Master Trails Plan. Tree preservation for this site is listed at 37.76% present, preserved canopy is 29.55%. The applicant in this instance is going with an infrastructure only type of tree preservation plan in which all canopy removed on this property must be mitigated into the tree fund. The requirement by ordinance states that then each lot must come through in the future with a tree preservation plan. Staff is recommending approval of PPL 04-1187 with nineteen conditions. Planning Commission determination of offsite street improvements, which I did mention, along Moore Lane and Shiloh Drive. Item three, development of Lot 1 shall be subject to those regulations and covenants approved and recorded as part of the overall zoning and subdivision plat for the PZD. Item number six, all development within Lot 1 shall be subject to commercial design standards and design overlay district requirements in total. In addition, each individual lot shall process a Large Scale Development for Planning Commission approval prior to development. Item number ten, the developer shall contribute $92,750 into the city's tree fund to mitigate for tree canopy removed with the development of infrastructure for this subdivision. I believe that we have gone over most of the remaining conditions of approval. If you have any questions feel free to ask. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Pate. Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Haynes: My name is Collins Haynes, I'm represented by EGIS. I would be happy to answer any questions or have any further discussion on what we submitted. Ostner: Thank you Sir. We will get right back with you. At this point I will open it up to the public. Does anyone want to speak to this Preliminary Plat? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Shackelford: One thing that we are required to do is make a determination of off street improvements. Staff is recommending a set of improvements, have you seen what staff is recommending for this? Hargus: Yes, we have seen it and we will comply. Shackelford: Staff, there was a conversation at Subdivision Committee regarding the width of trails and some signage required that may be off the right of way, have those points been clarified to your knowledge? Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 31 Hargus: We have not coordinated with Parks yet. It is standing right now that we will coordinate with them. We understand what they want and we understand the grade of the trail system that they desire and we will comply with that. Shackelford: My understanding was that there was some signage that they wanted to include with the trail that may be located on some property that you owned and they wanted to clarify that at this point. Haynes: We will be more than happy to comply with Parks and Recreations. As a matter of fact, we had a meeting in concert with Trails and Audubon when once this is approved and Audubon comes into the loop as we determine a design aesthetic for what Audubon wants to do on their frontage, Audubon is going to help us and Parks come up with a trail system that meets city criteria as well as preserves the integrity of their site. Pate: That is included as condition of approval number nine. That is ongoing talks with the development of construction plans for this project. I would also mention that we do have signed conditions of approval. Ostner: Since you mentioned condition number nine, my question is that the 12' trail that the city is asking for along Shiloh, is that instead of the one along the creek or was there ever a creek trail? Pate: This is an entirely separate requirement. As part of our street improvements you typically see along a collector street a 6' sidewalk. In this location because of Fayetteville's Alternative Transportation and Trails Plan it is listed as a trail section here. We are hoping for an at grade trail in this location so this is an entirely separate issue from that. Ostner: An at grade trail close to a street seems to me like a sidewalk but it s not? Haynes: One of the original questions was between Audubon and the Parks and Recreation as far as traits went is that Audubon perceives the gifted site as pristine and doesn't want any vehicular or pedestrian or bicycle access through the site to preserve the integrity. What we suggested is that we do a peripheral trail system to maintain the integrity and that is what we are still working with them on today. Ostner: Thank you. That helps. MOTION: Clark: I would like to first of all commend the developers for their conceptual outline that they have given us. It gives me an idea of what to expect when the new development comes through as we continue to see this Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 32 progress through. Having said, that I will move that we approve PPL 04- 1187 with conditions as stipulated by staff. Haynes: One of the considerations of this development, which is very exciting to our firm, is the existing avian population on site and being able to do something with the design aesthetic that will allow them to co -exist and not for instance, hit our buildings in flight patterns and things like that. So, we have done an extraordinary amount of research in glazing systems so we are going to try something on this site with the approval of Audubon that may work out for us in future developments. This has been a test of aesthetic verses economics and I think it is going to work out. Clark: I think you are showing that they don't have to compete with one another, they can compliment one another and I think that is great. Shackelford: I will second the motion. Ostner: We have a motion and a second, is there further discussion? Williams: I think that it was clear that they have agreed with condition one as recommended by staff and that is your motion on this that you do accept staff recommendation. Clark: That is correct. Ostner: Renee, could you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 04-1187 was approved by a vote of 6-0-2 with Commissioner Vaught abstaining and Commissioner Allen away at the time of roll call. Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 33 LSD 04-1182: Large Scale Development (STEAK `N SHAKE, 135): Submitted by ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC for property located at LOT 1 OF THE CONCURRENT PLAT OF THE NORTHWEST ARKANSAS MALL. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 1.10 acres. The request is to approve a 4,180 sq.ft. restaurant with 51 parking spaces proposed. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is LSD 04-1182 for Steak and Shake. If we could have the staff report please. Morgan: The subject property is Lot 1 of the concurrent plat for the Northwest Arkansas Mall. This was approved in July by the Planning Commission. This property consists of 1.1 acres of property zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. It is located east of Mall Avenue and north of Georgetown Square Drive and McDonald's. There is an existing curb cut on Mall Avenue accessing this property that has been previously used as a gravel parking lot. The applicant proposes to construct an approximately 4,000 sq.ft. Steak and Shake restaurant with 51 parking spaces on this property. Mall Avenue and Georgetown Square Drive are private drives at this location. Dedication of a public access easement for the full width of Mall Avenue adjacent to the subject property will ensure permanent and unrestricted public access to this property. This proposal was heard at the September 17, 2004 Subdivision Committee meeting. Comments at this meeting concerned commercial design standards, construction of a 6' sidewalk and adequate access to the site. Staff has worked with the applicant to address these outstanding issues discussed at this meeting. Revised elevations for the structure have been submitted for Planning Commission review. Additionally, the site plan does indicate a 6' sidewalk to be constructed adjacent to the property as well as a proposed access to the site has been determined to be sufficient for Fire Department requirements. Staff does recommend approval of this Large Scale Development with 13 conditions. Item one does state Planning Commission determination of compliance with commercial design standards with specific regard to compatibility to surrounding developments with regard to building materials and color, proposed signage and lighting on projected corners and awnings. Staff does recommend compatibility with adjacent developments with a similar use of building materials as well as earth toned colors. Staff finds that the proposed black and white striped awning and red awning above the drive thru window are not compatible with surrounding commercial structures and the proposed awnings shall not have back lighting but may be illuminated from above. I do have a letter that I just received from Steak and Shake concerning discussions that we have had regarding awnings and commercial design standards. I will pass those out. Ostner: At this point I will ask the applicant to come forward and make his presentation. Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 34 Moore: I'm Brian Moore with Engineering Services representing Mike Stinnett who is here tonight. We read the conditions of approval. At Subdivision Committee, we changed our building colors to reflect, when we came through earlier it was more of a white building. We have changed those to be more earth tones as was asked by the Subdivision Committee. The only thing that we cannot do, due to Steak & Shake is change the awnings. That is something that is their trademark. That is something that they are pretty much telling us they won't change. Mike is here tonight to answer any questions, as well as his attorney who may actually want to come up too to discuss this issue. I would be happy to answer any other questions that you all may have. Ostner: Thank you. Hall: My name is Ken Hall. I'm an attorney with Ball and Morton here in town. I don't have much to add. I just wanted to come here and make sure you received the letter. We just got it this afternoon. Again, I don't have much to add. I think staff would tell you that Mike has been amenable to modifying the plans as much as he can. His view was pretty simple. He wanted to come to Fayetteville, he has even moved his family here prior to the time that he has even turned any dirt whatsoever. He has this issue with respect to the awning that he simply has no control over. I don't know how we address an issue like this or whether it has come before the commission before. You are going to have a number of corporations like Steak & Shake, McDonald's, Wal-Mart, all of these companies have spent millions and millions of dollars and decades developing a particular image and now they come to a particular area and the question is is that particular image that they have developed that they can't deviate from for a number of legal reasons, they have to treat their franchisees the same and those types of issues, what happens when you get to this point when they legally can't change the color of their awnings. If you have any questions I would be happy to try to answer them. Ostner: 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 for comments. Anthes: I guess we should talk a little bit about what happened at Subdivision Committee. Bill Matthews from McDonald's, which is the adjoining property owner did come and give a rather impassioned plea that we treat this project with the same hand that we treated his project when it came through with regard to commercial design standards. That Planning staff was adamant at that point that no bright red be used on that structure and McDonald's traditionally has that bright red roof and they worked with Mr. Conklin very heavily on that to change to a dark, rusty burgundy color Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 35 and more in keeping with the thematic elements of the CMN Business Park. We recommended that they work and try to come up with an earthtone color scheme and the same sort of restrictions that were placed on adjoining property owners which are also franchisees of major corporations with corporate identities. In speaking with Mr. Conklin after that meeting, I believe that it was the bright red color that they were most opposed to at that time. Could staff elaborate? Pate: I'm not as familiar with the project as Mr. Conklin, nor Mr. Matthews who gave public comment. It is my understanding it was a lot of the color as well as the shape of the roof. Some elements of signage as well for that particular project that staff at the time was not able to support because it was not as compatible in the transition between surrounding developments that were already in the area. Anthes: I can read this letter from corporate and yet, I also know a lot of indications like when corporate prototypes are drastically altered to go into historic districts and different places and I would submit that this is probably the first round but it is not necessarily the final word from corporate on what they can and cannot do just based on experience in looking at other properties with similar corporate structures. I feel like we need to be fair to Mr. Matthews and to the other property owners that we were very adamant with and treat his property the same way, just in order to be fair. I wasn't on the Commission at the time that McDonald's went through so I'm trying to understand exactly what we required and why. I wish Tim was still here so he could give us a little bit more insight into that. Other than that, the other questions that came up were about access. We determined at Planning Commission that connectivity to the south, there is too much topography and it is a little too steep to gain an access drive there. That the side to side road north of the building will work as a functional street and the curb cuts and fire department's ability to serve this building were adequate. And we have some questions about the general signage and I believe they have submitted with this application a monument sign information. Shackelford: I would like to add, although, I do concur with all the comments that Commissioner Anthes just made. I, too, was at the Subdivision Committee meeting. There have been significant changes to this building to try to comply over what we originally saw. The original drawings we saw were a stark white building with red and black accents. The applicant has gone back to the drawing board and come back with more of an earthtone with some brick and some rock to try to more closely match the surrounding properties. This is a significantly different project than we saw at Subdivision Committee and I did want to make note of that for those of you who didn't serve on Subdivision. There has been significant improvement to this since the first time we saw it. Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 36 Clark: I have a question for the applicant actually. In the letter that we just received it seems to me the black and white awnings we can negotiate, that red awning over the drive thru, does it have to be bright red or can it be a darker color of red? Stinnett: I am Mike Stinnet, I'm the applicant. The drive thru awning that is pretty standard throughout all of our restaurants that just over the drive thru section that is the only red on the awnings. It is a small section of the awnings. I don't know, I would have to check and see if we can maybe change it to all black and white, I do not know. Clark: It seems to me if we are talking about making McDonald's tone down their red roof to be a little darker and less red that perhaps we can get Steak and Shake to go that extra corporate mile to do the same. Stinnett: The problem I have with that awning is CC's Pizza right across the street from us has a section of red awnings that are back lit. There is also a back lit awning on Wal -Mart's building also over vending machines. This red stands out no more than that red color does on those other buildings. Clark: There is a possibility? Stinnett: I think I have gone as far as I can with Steak and Shake as far as the awnings go. Clark: Thank you. Allen: I was here when McDonald's came through along with Commissioner Shackelford and have bored many of my friends in Fayetteville by driving them by McDonald's to show them what a beautiful job we did with that particular building because they came a long ways with it I felt because they had a desire to be in Fayetteville. At first they didn't seem to have any sign other than the great big golden arches but finally they came up with a smaller one, a monument sign, they were able to meet the commercial design standards of that area by toning down their red and I think it is really a tribute to what we are trying to create in Fayetteville. It would be wrong for us I think to allow another building to come in and not abide by our same standards. I would like for us to see a Steak and Shake here, that would be great. I would like to go have one right now. I feel like we can't make those kinds of concessions and expect other businesses to comply. Clark: Staff, the applicant makes a good point with CC's Pizza and Wal-Mart, why is this project different than those? Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 37 Allen: I believe they came before we had design standards. Pate: I believe that is correct. Anthes: My concern is that we are treating applicants the same and we are applying the same standards as we go through on these developments. Mr. Williams, can you elaborate on how we need to do that? Williams: As I look at the code, it does say that a development should provide compatibility and transition between adjoining developments. Of course, that is what you have been requiring consistently now. I actually think Wal-Mart may have come after the commercial design standards. That is not just your basic, traditional Wal-Mart. That is when the commercial design standards had just been in force and the city was trying to feel it's way on trying to get everything done. Just for the record, I could note that the McDonald's that was nicely designed by the Planning Commission working with the applicant has often showed up as one of the top HMR tax payers in the city. That design has worked not only for the citizens aesthetically but also for the business. I would hope that Steak & Shake would attempt to do whatever is possible. Fayetteville is not alone throughout the nation in adding commercial design standards and having chains comply. Various resort areas, often times you will see unusual looking chain stores that also seem to be very affective. I think that you can look at this compatibility that is in the Unified Development Code under commercial design standards and attempt to enforce that fairly amongst the variance applicants that come before you. I do note that the block work is much different than the white building so they have come a long ways. I would like to go to Steak & Shake too so hopefully they will come the rest of the way. Allen: I would venture to say that I think if you are able to make some concessions here I just can't help but think that you will have the same success as the other buildings that have done the same. Vaught: Staff, is this building were in a different part of town would we be having the same discussion? Pate: If it zoned appropriately in the commercial development. Vaught: Would we be talking about the colors of the awnings like we are? Pate: It really depends on where it is. The surrounding development, we have to look at compatibility and transition between these. Vaught: To me the red on the signs isn't an issue. We have allowed Best Buy to put up big yellow signs next door as part of their brand image. As far as Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 38 where the awnings go on that argument I don't know. It is something that I understand why the franchisees handle that. Steak and Shake clings to that image because that is their brand. The red on the signs doesn't bother me, I understand the discussion on the awnings. Ostner: It was the awning that was the discussion, not the sign. Vaught: I just heard red mentioned. Moore: The next project that we are actually going to look at is for the Brandon Hash Mall project. It actually is going to have a red roof to it. I think it may go pretty well with that if we can tone down the red on that and make it look like the roof it is going to be adjacent to. Anthes: There is one other thing that I don't think we have discussed. That is these corner fins are supposed to be illuminated in some way and staff had some comments about that. Morgan: Staff wanted the Commission to be aware that they were going to be lit. I believe they will not be red, they will not be neon lit but we did want to make you aware that those will be lit corners when considering commercial design standards. Ostner: I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say lit corners. Morgan: I believe they will have L.E.D. lighting bulbs down the corners of each strip. Anthes: Do we know what colors those are? Morgan: I believe it is red. Vaught: On that, what do our lighting say about accent lighting on buildings? This is outside the design overlay district I know. Pate: It is outside the design overlay district and other than that, we have very limited lighting standards currently. Vaught: Except for parking lot lighting. Myres: This is lighting that is coming from the building, not shining out either. Vaught: We have talked a lot about the red, but how do people feel about the black and white awnings? That was another issue that staff brought up was the black and white awnings. Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 39 Clark: Staff, why are the black and white awnings a big flag? You make a good point, we have the Best Buy yellow over there and all kinds of stuff, why don't you like the black and white awnings? Pate: Staff recommends in this area we find to achieve compatibility the stark contrast here is different from the other developments in the adjoining area. That transition is not as well achieved. Obviously, it is the Planning Commission's duty to find if this meets commercial design standards or not. Clark: I wasn't here when we did this original Overlay District and started making decisions on the things that have come before Steak and Shake and I'm struggling as to why this really, I like it. The red, maybe the red, but the black and white awnings I don't have a problem with at all so if I'm missing something please tell me. Williams: It is your determination as the Planning Commission. Staff will give you some advice and things to think about but it is really your decision as the Planning Commission in applying the code to look at that and see whether or not you think it does comply with the Unified Development Code. Shackelford: I will share my two cents on the awning. I don't know that that black and white awning at that height at that angle would be something that I would say makes this building incompatible to surrounding developments. I don't know if the red awning would be something in that small amount of the building would make me say indefinitely that this is not compatible with surrounding. I think what I, as somebody who served on Subdivision Committee, was more concerned with was the whites to the earth tones, the lack of rock or brick and that sort of thing. I think we have come a long ways. When you talk about concessions that need to be made, I think we are looking beyond the fact that there have been significant concessions made by the applicant and the franchise to get to this point to where we are at now. Clark: The next building that we are going to consider is going to sit right above the Steak and Shake and the red drive thru awning is going to face that building. How much visibility is that drive thru window going to have to the general public because that other building is going to be right next to it. Moore: You have the trees along Mall Avenue there. If you are going south and you look to the west you would see that view. Other than that, unless you are in the other building or in the parking lots between the two buildings I don't know that you would see it other than that second view. Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 40 Anthes: I'm working on how to work on condition of approval number one. I think from what Commissioners are saying that we seem to be somewhat comfortable with the black and white awning. I would concur with staff's comments that the proposed awnings should not have back lighting but may be illuminated from up above. I think that does a lot more towards going through the intent than having a big illuminated awning going around the outside the building. Certainly, just in different to the hoops we have made other applicants go through I would like to ask that the applicant subtly darken the red canopy and the red lighting to be more in tone to the surrounding developments but that the building colors that they show today meet our design standards and are compatible with the surrounding developments, except if we could look at those corner lightings and that one awning and tone them down just a bit that we could find in favor of the project. Allen: I slightly disagree. I guess fair should be my middle name because I just don't think we make concessions for one and we require something different for one than another. This is very problematic for me. I think people are going to find the Steak and Shake if we have rust colored letters and rust colored awnings. I don't think it is right if we expect one thing from one and then allow another to do a different thing. That just seems wrong. Vaught: I guess as I'm thinking of this area I'm thinking of the McAllister's area and the building in back which has a lot of bright orange as well, and the development which is not necessarily an earthtone. I do see a big difference between one red awning that is really more on the back side of the building than an entire bright red McDonald's roof. I'm leaning more towards where Commissioner Shackelford is on this. They have come a long ways and my initial reaction was the stark white building. I'm just thinking of how much the red awning on that side of the building will stick out in this area, especially in light of some of the other developments in the area as I'm thinking through them. Definitely the buildings right beside it with Best Buy, McDonald's and Wal-Mart are not that bright but there are some in that area that will have some substantial color to them that aren't earth toned. Also, a question on Commissioner Anthes' proposed changes is how can we enforce that? Anthes: I think staff has been able to interpret our intentions on a lot of commercial design issues and could do so here. Vaught: I guess my concern is if we approve it with a condition that reads something like that and staff doesn't think they tone it down enough, that is what I'm worried about. We are not setting a definite color. Ostner: Can you name that color? Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 41 Myres: The roof on the building adjacent. Ostner: I would like to talk about these commercial design standards. I would tend to agree that these awnings are bold and somewhat excessive in the context of CMN. I would agree that businesses have been asked to make great concessions and they have thrived and I believe we can ask for what I believe is a small concession. I understand they have changed a lot and I appreciate that. I think there is a little more change left to do so I am not going to find in favor of the design standards with this right here. Clark: How do you want to change them? Are awnings in line with the design standards? Morgan: Awnings have been used with several. Staff believes that the white and black is a very big contrast and has worked with the applicant on possibly toning those colors down in some way. MOTION: Anthes: I will move for approval of LSD 04-1182 with the conditions of approval as stated except for number one, Planning Commission determination of compliance with commercial design standards approval of the basic compatibility with surrounding development, approval of building materials and with approval of the black and white striped awnings except that they shall not have back lighting but may be illuminated from above and for staff to work with the applicant to darken the red canopy and the red accent lighting to an earthtone color more in keeping with the adjacent properties. Shackelford: I will second. Ostner: There is a motion and a second with a change to condition number one. Vaught: I have a question for the applicant. In their response to those changes. Moore: I think those will be acceptable. We will do whatever we can with the red knowing that Steak and Shake may not bend on that item. He has said that they do not have to backlight it so we can definitely do that. If we send them a copy of the drawing of the adjacent building maybe we can get them to darken it to that type of red and it would go good together. Ostner: There is a motion and a second, is there further discussion? Could you call the roll please? Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 42 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 04-1182 was approved by a vote of 6-2-0 with Commissioners Allen and Ostner voting no. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 43 LSD 04-1183: Large Scale Development (BRANDON/HASH MALL SOUTH, 135): Submitted by ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC for property located at LOT 2 OF THE CONCURRENT PLAT OF THE NORTHWEST ARKANSAS MALL. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 1.02 acres. The request is to approve an 11,552 sq.ft. professional office building with 39 parking spaces proposed. Ostner: Our next item is LSD 04-1183 for Brandon Hash Mall South. Morgan: The subject property is located north of the property that we just heard. It is Lot 2 of the Concurrent Plat for the Northwest Arkansas Mall. This property is approximately 1.02 acres and is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The applicant proposes to construct approximately 11,500 sq.ft. two story professional office building on this property with 40 parking spaces. Access to the property is located from Mall Avenue by way of two cross access drives from Lot 1 Steak and Shake. A second floor walk way is also proposed to the north from the second floor of this structure. Dedication of public access for the width of Mall Avenue adjacent to the subject property shall also ensure a permanent access for the public. The applicant has revised drawings since the Subdivision Committee meeting of September 17`h to include a 6' sidewalk adjacent to the curb of the adjacent street. The proposed access to the site has been determined to be sufficient for the Fire Division requirements. At that time the fire division stated that the building should be sprinkled and a fire hydrant placed at the southeast corner of the property and FDC connection placed at the southeast corner of the site. The applicant has met with Chief Curry from the Fire Department regarding this requirement. In lieu of sprinkling the building the applicant has requested construction of an access drive from 4143 N. College, currently utilized as Hooters Restaurant to this property. A memo was handed out previously addressing this modification to this requirement. Staff does recommend approval of LSD 04-1183 with 15 conditions. I will go ahead and state the revised condition number one. The applicant shall provide a fire hydrant at the southeast corner of the subject property and a minimum 20' access drive with a minimum 30' turning radius from the subject property to an existing stub out at 4143 N. College Avenue. The access shall be certified to sustain 75,000 pounds and an access easement signed by owners of all affected properties shall be filed with the county prior to issuance of building permit. Condition number two also states Planning Commission determination of compliance with commercial design standards. Staff does recommend earthtone colors and building materials compatible with adjacent commercial structures. Ostner: Thank you Ms. Morgan. Would the applicant introduce himself and give us his presentation? Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 44 Moore: I am Brian Moore with ESI. Elliott Neal is here with the architect, he has got the materials sample board. Brett Hash is here, he is one of the owners of the building. We would be happy to answer anything that you may have. We did meet with Chief Curry on the fire hydrant issue and what Suzanne said is exactly right and we have agreed to do that and so we should be good to go. Ostner: Does anyone from the public want to talk about this issue, the Large Scale Development for Brandon/Hash Mall South. Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. Clark: Suzanne, go over condition number one again please. I'm looking on the map on page 5.11, I see the applicant's property, I don't know exactly where Hooters is according to this. Would that be directly to the east, is that where the access road is going to go? Morgan: Yes it is. If you look on page 5.11 you can see adjacent to Shiloh Drive and directly east of the subject property a smaller piece of property identified. The lot in between these two properties is Lot 3 of the Northwest Arkansas Mall Concurrent Plat. The applicant has proposed to construct an access drive from the subject property to an existing stub out in that location of the property to the east. Clark: That is ok with the Fire Chief? Morgan: Yes. Moore: I can probably address that a little better. When we met out there with him we were planning on going to the east and the south and I think we talked about that at Subdivision Committee about maybe tying onto Georgetown. Grade wise it is a lot easier, there is a current S132 pad that is built on most of the property except for one little portion of it on the far east side that we will connect to Hooters. Macerich owns all the property and Hooters too. We will have to construct very little. They just need a temporary access for a fire truck in case of an emergency until other accesses are proposed on the property for the development to the east. Clark: I know at Subdivision the access for emergency vehicles was a very critical issue and it sounds like that if that meets the Fire Chief's requirements it is a win/win situation. Shackelford: You mentioned the conversation on the owners of the mall on the right of way, can you update us on those conversations regarding sidewalks as well? Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 45 Moore: We have talked with them and they have agreed to allow us to construct the sidewalks. They own the property now, if they want us to buy it I guess we pretty much have to so that's the issue on that. Morgan: If I may add, Chief Curry did review the condition of approval that I read and said that that was satisfactory. MOTION: Shackelford: As I look at this building, I know we have had a lot of fun regarding the red roof but the section that was given to us I would call an earthtone. I think the building is in compliance with what has been built around it and don't have any trouble with commercial design standards. I am going to make a motion that we approve LSD 04-1183 with condition number one as stated by staff. Clark: I will second. Anthes: I believe that the revised elevations are much more accurately representing the colors of the actual colors that they sent and that looks good. I do have a question. A lot of signage appeared on the elevations that we didn't see at Subdivision. Has staff reviewed that signage and is this number of signs in compliance? Pate: Any sign permits that are submitted will have to meet commercial design standards as well as our sign ordinance. Anthes: By voting for this we are not saying that we approve this number of wall signs? Pate: Sign permits are required. Anthes: I just also wanted to state that I'm glad to see the pedestrian connection bridge is still showing up on the plans. That might be really nice for the occupants of this building. Ostner: That pedestrian connection in our packets is called out as an emergency exit, is that only going to be a fire door exit? It would be a great opportunity for shared parking and pedestrian access, etc. This is the upstairs cat walk. Has the developer made a decision on that? Moore: We are still iffy on it. If it feasibly comes in that we can have it we are going to have it for sure. It depends on the costs. If it is there at all it will be pedestrian, it won't be just emergency. There is a chance that we may take it completely off. Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 46 Ostner: Ok. If there is a door I want to promote that it be a regular entrance to the building and not just a fire emergency exit. There is a motion and a second. Myres: I have just a silly question but I need some clarification on the placement of those color samples. It appears that the butterscotch color is the top floor and the gray is the intermediate floor. Is the yellow the color of the stone? Neal: I'm Elliott Neal, the architect involved with this project. The cream yellow color that you see is just a trim color around the windows. The gray is supposed to be above the split faced concrete block and that apricot color is up on the high tier. Myres: Thank you for that clarification. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 04-1183 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 47 CUP 04-1158: Conditional Use (THETA TAU HOUSE, 443): Submitted by RON HOMEYER for property located at 1322 WEST CLEVELAND. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.93 acres. The request is to approve additional parking for the large scale development. LSD 04-1128: Large Scale Development (THETA TAU HOUSE, 443): Submitted by RON HOMEYER for property located at 1322 W. CLEVELAND AVENUE. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.93 acres. The request is to approve 6,000 sq.ft. fraternity house with 12 rooms and 26 parking spaces proposed. Ostner: Our next item is CUP 04-1158 for the Theta Tau House. If we can have the staff report please. Pate: I am going to discuss the next two items together if it pleases the Commission. The first item, as you mentioned is the Conditional Use for the Theta Tau house located at 1322 W. Cleveland. Item number seven is LSD 04-1128 also for the Theta Tau house at 1322 W. Cleveland. The property is zoned RMF -24 and contains approximately 1.93 acres. Currently it is the site of an existing wood frame house serving as the fraternity house for the house corporation of Theta Tau. The property is located on Cleveland Street surrounded by single family homes and University of Arkansas property as well as multi -family property to the east. As I mentioned, the property is zoned RMF -24 in which a fraternity house developed in this matter under Use Unit 26 multi -family dwellings is a use permitted by right. The applicant is proposing to construct a new 6,000 sq.ft. fraternity house comprised of 12 rooms and 26 parking spaces. Each room is intended to house two students for a total of 24 students on site. 26 parking spaces proposed number more than that which is allowed by ordinance and thus, the request for a Conditional Use for additional parking spaces. For 12 bedrooms a maximum of 16 spaces is allowed. With regard to the Large Scale Development, some additional information, the applicant is requesting this Conditional Use based on the demand expressed in their letter by the number of students living on site as well as the potential for future expansion, which is best noted on your landscaping and tree preservation plans. There is a dashed area that shows the potential for future expansion. We are not reviewing that as of tonight. With regard to findings on the Conditional Use, staff finds in favor of this Conditional Use request. Granting the Conditional Use with the provisions of screening from adjacent properties will not adversely affect the public interest, rather, it will improve a non -conforming situation as part of the Large Scale Development adding trees and shrubs in this area. Additionally, with 24 students living in the proposed facility and Cleveland Street not designed to allow for on street parking there is the potential that exists for disruption of the surrounding neighborhood without adequate parking for this parking. Additionally, staff Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 48 recommends screening along both sides of this parking lot to ameliorate the potential negative affects of the 26 space parking area on adjacent single family residences. You do have letters in your packet from at least one of those property owners who is very supportive of the project and has been in support of this use for a number of use as the Theta Tau property. However, this property owner is requesting additional screening for the additional parking. Staff is recommending a vegetative screen to be planted in that area as well as surrounding the property where adequate screening does not currently exist. Determination of that adequate screening shall meet the approval of the Landscape Administrator and a detailed plan submitted prior to building permit. Staff is recommending approval of the Conditional Use request for additional parking with five conditions. Number one, Planning Commission approval of the accompanying Large Scale Development plans with the conditions of approval as stated. Item number two deals with the Planning Commission determination of adequate screening of the parking area. I just went over the recommended screening there. Item number three also addresses screening surrounding the property where adequate screening does not exist. Items four and five deal with parking lot lighting and trash enclosures to be screened. With regard to the Large Scale Development that is a tandem item to this request, staff is also recommending approval of that item. The Parks and Recreation Board recommends accepting money in lieu in this area in the amount of $1,965 which is condition number four. Also, as shown on your tree preservation plans, the developer shall be required to protect existing trees directly north of the proposed development, those trees are listed as 202 through 206, until such time as removal of these trees is deemed necessary and unavoidable due to future expansion. Essentially, the plans show that those trees are to be removed and staff is requesting that they be protected and preserved until such time as there is an expansion. The applicant has indicated that that might not occur in the future, it is really just a matter of showing us where that could occur. Ostner: Is the applicant present? If you would introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Homeyer: I'm Ron Homeyer with Civil Engineering. I submitted this Conditional Use and Large Scale so I don't know if I can blend the two or if we need to be real specific on the Conditional Use here. Ostner: You can blend the two but we are going to vote on them separately. Homeyer: As he said, we are going to upgrade the facility by replacing the existing wood frame building with a new one with paved parking. This paved parking is an attempt to accommodate both existing and future needs as well as trying to comply with the zoning code and also have adequate Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 49 parking for the meetings and such that are held there. We had a little problem with the screening to protect the adjoining properties from the headlights of the vehicles that are going to park in the parking lot. I guess I will be open to any questions you all might have on that. Ostner: At this point I am going to open it up to the public if anyone would like to speak to this issue. We are going to hear the Conditional Use and the Large Scale all at once so if you have comments on either of those we can hear them now. Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. We can discuss these together but we are going to make motions and vote independently. Shackelford: Staff, do we have signed conditions of approval on either one or both of these? Pate: I have not received those as of yet. Shackelford: My question to the applicant then, have you had an opportunity to review the conditions of approval that staff is recommending on these two items? Homeyer: Yes we have reviewed the conditions. Shackelford: Are you in agreement with all of these conditions as they are stated? If not, which ones do you have issues with? Smith: My name is Richard Smith and I'm the president of the corporation for Theta Tau. I haven't really had a chance to look at the actual signage rules but I'm pretty certain that we won't have any problem complying with whatever you need. I know in the past we kind of stepped on some toes when we painted a bit Theta Tau on the roof and that didn't go down very well. That was mostly just ignorance on our part but now we know. I think any signage that we are going to put up we will go through the right channels and find out what can and can't be done so we don't have any problem complying. Shackelford: Do you have any trouble with the proposed screening? Smith: No, that is great. We want to do everything we can to make our neighbors feel confident and good about it. Anything we do is going to be way better than what is there right now. Vaught: Staff, this deals with the possible future expansion. Is that something that we will see back or is that something that they would have by right to be able to do? Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 50 Pate: The use is allowed by right if they meet their density requirements under 24 units per acre. I believe I mentioned in this that they are developing at 6.2 dwelling units per acre so they are well under their density. As far as the development regulations go, regardless of whether it comes back before the Planning Commission, they have to comply with the exact same requirements that we see. It really depends on how much expansion there is. Ostner: With that expansion, of course, they would need more parking and they would have to do more parking I'm assuming. I know we are not seeing an expansion tonight, I'm just wondering. Emanuelson: I'm Ken Emanuelson. I'm the project architect. We have submitted the plans for the whole project and again, I don't know whether or not we will ever build that. We just want to make everyone aware that we have done our tree planting and everything oriented around the fact that we may go ahead and expand the house. The future expansion calls for another twelve rooms which would give us 24 total rooms with 26 parking spaces. I think we will have a better feeling once they get moved in and everything, whether or not we will actually need some more parking other than this parking now. My sense is that we probably will and we have an idea of where that will go. Ostner: On the layout that I saw in our packet there is a big area at the north end of the parking lot that is not delineated, is that parking? Homeyer: No, that is a hammerhead turn around that was requested by the Fire Marshall. We actually moved the building closer to the south property line than initially planned to meet the setback requirements for a fire access. That area is reserved as a no parking zone, it is a fire lane so that fire vehicles can get in there and turn around to get back out. Anthes: You eluded a moment ago to the fact that you had some ideas where excess parking would go if the building was added onto, can you elaborate on that a little bit? Emanuelson: We would probably be parking along the east side of the property. We would have a parking lot there for whatever number of spaces we would need there. We are trying to keep a big greenspace in the back there for the fraternity. When they do that addition they may find that they don't have to have any more parking and that would be great. They could find out for instance, that the spaces that we built originally for the house would accommodate the future addition, at that point what we are doing would be for the entire house. That would be great. If not, we will have to add some spaces along the east. Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 51 Anthes: That is interesting because the thing that kind of frustrates me a little bit about this project is that the house is a vast improvement over what is there and I think the neighborhood is really going to be interested in seeing that. Cleveland, however, is this very uniform street of large houses. Even the apartment buildings that are there are set back a standard distance from the street and this deviates quite a bit from that by pushing the house way back and putting a parking lot in the front. Even the rendering that you guys have submitted doesn't show a parking lot in the front. It shows a curb line. Obviously, the parking lot does not contribute to the elevation of the building as well as you would like. I was hoping that this much of a Conditional Use request for quite a bit of percentage over what we would allow to me, if that parking was built on the east side where you are talking about the expansion parking and reducing that parking on the front of the building would actually be more compatible with the neighborhood. Have you explored that idea? Emanuelson: Not really because the fact that you are requesting that we do for instance, all of those houses that you are talking about are on very short lots. This has two acres that is a very deep lot. We are not building a house, we are building a pretty decent size structure. It is my job to utilize the property as efficiently as I can and if I didn't have to provide that additional parking on the east side I wouldn't do it. In my opinion, the fact that there is one house there and there isn't a house on the west so there isn't any streetscape there really. There is one house there, the fraternity house and an empty site so I don't think that really occurs. If we were, for instance, to put the house up near the front of the lot we would have to provide a service road back to the back of the property, there would be no way to expand the house. It is just not a viable alternative. It just really doesn't work at all. Anthes: That is not what I was asking you. I was asking if you had considered that the parking spaces that you are allowed by right would remain where they were and had you considered putting the excess that you are asking us to grant you a Conditional Use for in the overflow area that you have designated for the future in order to contribute more positively towards the street? Emanuelson: I think that we are going to contribute greatly positively to the street honestly. Anthes: Have you considered taking the excess parking that you are requesting... Emanuelson: I honestly have analyzed this thing until I'm green and this is a very efficient way to do this and it is the most attractive. Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 52 Vaught: Along those lines, I would prefer that it not go that way at all because there are several significant trees in that area that we would be losing. It looks like keeping the parking in the front we lose two significant trees where if they ever go east you've got several significant trees in that overflow parking area. That worries me and I would rather keep those for screening. Those are rather large trees. Emanuelson: What we have done is put the parking area almost on the footprint of the existing house so that it doesn't affect the trees that are there. There is a lot of thought that has been put into this. Ostner: I just wanted to add that I believe this Conditional Use is warranted. I read in here that the neighbors would actually appreciate the proper amount of parking instead of people parking out on the street and what not. I wanted to request that a berm be built just adding to the front landscape buffer along Cleveland, just adding a berm right under it 3' tall because many times the shrubbery and greenery can get really cut back and we are left with flat dirt and trees and I think that would benefit. I would be willing to grant the Conditional Use request if a berm were to be added along Cleveland Street. Anthes: I respectfully disagree with that. I believe that the berm is a suburban development landscape pattern and it is not an urban condition that you see on Cleveland. Ostner: So is 26 parking spaces in front of a house. Anthes: Not on a residential street. Emanuelson: Please consider the fact that across the street from this property there is like a 600 car parking lot there. The parking is not that objectionable. Anthes: I understand. It is also a University property that this Planning Commission does not review their development and has no jurisdiction over it. Emanuelson: It also needs to be there. I don't have any trouble with that and it is something that we can easily do. Ostner: Thank you. Clark: In the Large Scale Development packet there was a letter from the neighbor that talked about screening, which I'm very comfortable with but it also talked about drainage on the east. Matt, is this development going to affect this resident to the east with drainage? Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 53 Casey: Currently the site drains to the east and the proposed development is keeping the drainage the same. The site follows the retaining wall down, the proposal is to require the water not to increase and they are going to be discharging the water to the same point so they will not be increasing the water discharge. MOTION: Shackelford: As you stated earlier, I think this type of development calls for that sort of increase in parking so I am going to go ahead and make a motion that we approve CUP 04-1158 as stated. Allen: I will second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 04-1158 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Ostner: The next item is LSD 04-1128 for the Theta Tau house. We have already heard the staff report. Is there anyone from the public who wants to talk about this issue? Seeing none, I will close it to the public. Would the applicant like to add anything to their presentation? Homeyer: No. Shackelford: We have had a lot of conversation about future development and future parking lots and those sort of things but none of that is on the table before us tonight. I think that we owe it to the applicant to have a finding on the specific project as it was drawn and presented to us tonight. I am agreeing with staff on all of their findings of fact. I think that this project is a significant improvement to this neighborhood. Right or wrong there is a 600 car parking lot across the street and there is RMF -40 to the east. This is, in my mind, a buffer between the university and a very nice neighborhood. I think that the architect has done a good job in drawing it in a way that it is going to be a benefit to the neighbors. With those statements, I am going to make a motion that we approve LSD 04-1128. Allen: I will second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Myres: I just had a question about signed conditions of approval. Those will be in hand regardless of how we vote? Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 54 Pate: Yes Ma'am, by your approval those conditions are binding. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 04-1128 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 55 CUP 04-1179: Conditional Use (FAIR PARK CENTER, 287): Submitted by MEL MILHOLLAND for property located at MCCONNELL AVE, ADJACENT TO I-540. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 2.39 acres. The request is to approve a storage facility within a C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial zoning district. Ostner: The next item is CUP 04-1179 for Fairpark Center if we could have the staff report please. Pate: This item and item number nine are also located on the same site. The Planning Commission may remember this site. It is the former site of the collision repair center, a Large Scale Development that was approved in October, 2003. Subsequent to those approvals the developer did submit and obtain grading and drainage permits, dedicated all necessary rights of way, tree preservation easements and submitted all necessary guarantees for public improvements to obtain building permits. The current project is entirely different in nature although a lot of work that has been done does remain largely applicable. Due to the changes proposed however, a new Large Scale Development is required. That is what we are reviewing tonight. This property consists of 2.39 acres accessed from McConnell Avenue west of Garland and also fronts onto I-540. It is within the Design Overlay District and is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The applicant is requesting Large Scale Development approval to construct an approximately 27,500 sq.ft. retail outlet center envisioned for users that require limited display and retail area with storage and warehouse space for their product lines. 15 different leased units are proposed as shown on your site plans, each accessed from separate points both in the front and the rear. Due to the nature of the business proposed for this project a Conditional Use Permit is required to allow Use Unit 21 which is warehousing and wholesale within a C-2 zoning district. Storage for retail and commercial businesses is allowed by right as long as the area of storage is secondary to the principal use. Based on the applicant's description of this project there is a potential for the storage space in each of the proposed units to exceed the retail and commercial space. That is a situation where if this building were constructed Planning would not be allowed to issue a Certificate of Zoning Compliance unless each individual business went through a requested Conditional Use. Staff finds that it is more appropriate for the applicant to request a use of this nature at this time and that is why we are seeing a Conditional Use with this item. With regard to findings, staff finds in favor for the Conditional Use to allow this storage space in that it would not adversely affect the public interest with the conditions of approval as outlined in the Large Scale Development and with the Conditional Use staff report. These structures regardless of their use, are required to meet commercial design standards and design overlay district criteria thus, the exterior appearance of this development wilt not vary from a typical commercial development. Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 56 Additionally the proposal to construct a building for the multi -use flex space of storage, warehousing and retail commercial utilizes a design that is in harmony with the surrounding businesses and meets commercial design standards as well as the design overlay criteria. Staff is recommending approval of the Conditional Use with four conditions. Number one, the developer shall comply with all conditions of approval of the associated Large Scale Development. Item number two, each of the 15 units shall retain a minimum of 30% floor area to be utilized for retail, commercial display or other use permitted by right in the C-2 zoning district. If it pleases the commission I believe the applicant would like to modify this condition and staff is amenable to that based on proposals of potential tenants for that area. Both the minimum square foot area as well as each of the 15 units. For instance, if one business took up more than one or two units they would be able to utilize their office space in one area as opposed to the entire three units. That condition might need some work. Item number three, the refuse container shall be enclosed and all proposed signage shall comply with design overlay district criteria. For the Large Scale Development, as I mentioned, a tree preservation plan has been approved for this subject site and pursuant to that plan 34 mitigation trees shall be planted on site to meet mitigation requirements. Those are shown on your plans that have been submitted. Staff is recommending approval of this Large Scale Development as well with 14 conditions of approval including Planning Commission determination of street improvements. These are the same improvements that were required with the previous Large Scale. Planning Commission determination of a waiver request for the required 200' between curb cuts in the design overlay district. That waiver was also approved with the recent Planning Commission approval. Planning Commission determination and approval of the commercial design standards. Staff is of the opinion that this project does meet commercial design standards. All of the other conditions are self explanatory. Ostner: Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Jefcoat: I'm Tom Jefcoat with Milholland Company representing Tracy Hoskins the developer of this development. I do have signed conditions of approval for the Large Scale Development and we are in agreement with all conditions of approval for that. We have no objections to those. The one item on the Conditional Use that Jeremy eluded to was the percentage of retail space required for each of the units. What we would like to do is submit that a further look or additional investigation to the percentage set forth that 30% of the floor space be used for retail. There are several existing examples of warehouses in C-2 zoning that utilize 100% of the space for warehousing. We would submit to you that the type of structure that we are proposing, as you can see, the applicant feels that it would be Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 57 economically non -feasible to utilize a space of this for warehouse totally. Also, that you have got several different types of tenants. We have looked at the use of a wallpaper sales or a carpet sales that would utilize a larger space than the 30% but we also submit that an auto supply paint may have larger warehouse needs and utilize three of the units and only need a very small retail space because of the type of business and very little display area. We are unhappy with the 30% and feel that that should be adjusted down to a smaller percentage. We do not have a specific percentage in mind but we do feel that 30% is quite high for the type of use that we are looking for. If we could reach an agreement on that or some additional wording on how to make that acceptable we would be glad to sign the conditions of approval for that. Ostner: At this point I will open it up to the public. Would anyone like to speak to these issues, the Conditional Use and Large Scale Development for Fairpark Center? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Do we have ideas here? Shackelford: Staff, for my edification, if we have the store front look and we have commercial design standards, why is it a big concern what percentage is wholesale verses what percentage is retail? Pate: In reviewing this application specifically for this use, it originally came in without the Conditional Use and was delayed with reviewing with the applicant what the intended use was here it was recommended that this follow through with a Conditional Use for this type of storage use so it would not have to go through on a case by case basis looking at each individual tenant for individual Conditional Use requests. Speaking with the applicant, staff is amenable to changing that number. The methodology by which that number was reached at was based on other jurisdictions and states utilizing flex space. It is a little unique in this area, at least coined as that term in this area. The applicant is proposing a use in this area that is unique. The property to the north is almost entirely industrial in nature. The property to the south however, is residential in nature so this is a very transitional type of property. In discussions at Subdivision Committee, the Conditional Use did not go to Subdivision Committee but the Large Scale did. We did touch on this issue a bit. There were questions about whether there would be 18 wheeler trucks coming through here and staff's comments at the time were that the circulation patterns dictated by this site do not allow for an intense type of use. The reasoning behind putting a percentage at all is to retain a commercial nature on this property within the design overlay district. There is specific criteria within the design overlay district that the applicants are held to and that is in essence the basis of that requirement Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 58 Shackelford: My only response is that the commercial design flavor is held by the requirement to meet commercial design standards and the even more stringent requirements that are required in the design overlay district. Pate: Staff is in agreement with that as well. Ostner: This is just an idea. If instead of condition number two reading each of the units shall retain a minimum of 30% floor area, if we could add a second sentence if two units are combined they would only have to have 20% of their floor area, or even if three units are combined. Obviously, your square footage is increasing dramatically. Jefcoat: I think putting any percentage, you are being too, you are locking a user in too tightly with a percentage. What we would like to see is simply stated that there would be a retail area for retail use. As long as there is an area for retail use we have achieved the purpose, whether that be 2%, 10% and in some cases it might be 70%. I think as long as a portion of the facility is used for retail then we have accomplished what we wanted to do. That is what we would like to offer as a suggestion. Ostner: Is staff amenable to that? Pate: I think staff finds that amenable. We have seen at the last Planning Commission for instance, the same request, Use Unit 21 in a C-2 zoning district for a mini storage use and that is obviously typically 100% storage warehousing use with very small office space for that type of use. Again, the emphasis behind this condition is that there be retail space and that a portion be retained as a commercial nature. Ostner: It would seem to me if we would adapt condition number two to simply say there is no minimum percentage of retail we are simply promoting and hoping that retail would occur. It would seem to me that we are basically giving it all up to warehousing potentially and that worries me. That is where a basic percentage did seem to make sense to me as a Conditional Use. Hoskins: I'm Tracy Hoskins, the developer. By the nature of the design of the building I don't think that is going to be a problem. This is all basically store front glass. The issue that we ran into is we may potentially have a tenant that will need three cubicles for instance, if there is a particular percentage in each one of these cubicles, let's use his number, 30%, if each one of these cubicles had to have 30% office space then that means that if they took three cubicles the dimensions of their office would be 90'x18'. In other words, what they may do is somebody may take the three end stalls and have their office in one corner and in that particular section of the building it may be 50% or 70% and maybe 100%. We also Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 59 see a lot of these units being occupied as 100% for retail or office, etc. In other words, I believe the whole project overall once it is 100% occupied, you may be hitting closer to 20% or 30% as far as office or retail, etc. I don't envision it going 100% at all. The design of the building and the expense of the building doesn't lend itself to doing that. The building falls 100% in the design overlay district and it conforms to all the standards of the design overlay district so it wouldn't be cost affective to rent this property as 100% warehouse, it would not cash flow. Vaught: I have a proposal for the second amendment and this changes a little bit from what we have talked about, seeing that the tenants might take more than one stall, can we change that to say that each of the tenants must retain a floor area to be utilized for retail, commercial display and other uses permitted by right in a C-2. That way we are not necessarily dictating every unit. Ostner: That sounded like an offer for a motion. Vaught: I will make a motion to approve CUP 04-1179 with an amendment to change item number two to each of the tenants must retain a floor area to be utilized for retail commercial display or other permitted uses by right in the C-2 zoning district. Shackelford: I will second. Ostner: There is a motion by Commissioner Vaught and a second by Commissioner Shackelford. Is there further discussion? Anthes: I have a couple of questions. Jeremy, when you researched condition number two it sounds like you were looking at other jurisdictions and were trying to find something that made sense. What range did you see in those jurisdictions? Pate: Essentially every range. I believe the lowest we saw was 2% up to 40% and 50%. Obviously, those zoning districts have different sets of criteria by which they review Conditional Uses for those applications. Anthes: Mr. Hoskins, you touched on something that I was thinking about and that is the fact that this structure has a lot of shop front. If something is warehouse do you expect to see that those shop fronts will have paper taped up in them or something like that or how do they handle the warehousing behind a shop front? Hoskins: On the contrary. That is what I was eluding to a while ago. I personally believe that each and every one of these store front glasses will have some type of either retail or office behind it. That is what we are going to push Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 60 for as well because there will be no paper on any windows. It is our intention to use reflective or deep tinted glass. I don't believe that you are really going to see anything that is behind that glass anyway. Keep in mind, to the north of us is the Southwestern Bell building but I don't think they are going to care what they see in the windows. Allen: I just wanted to ask if there was a material missing from the sample board. What is the reddish color? Myres: It is face brick according to the drawing. Hoskins: I noticed when our staff architect was drawing this up that it didn't look the same. This brick, I don't know if you are familiar with Coolwater restaurant, I did that structure from 1999 to 2001. This is actually the same brick that is on that structure. When it is up in place and everything it has more of a gray tone than anything. Allen: It is an attractive unit. Ostner: There is a motion and a second. Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 04-1179 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 61 LSD 04-1174: Large Scale Development (FAIR PARK CENTER, 287): Submitted by MEL MILHOLLAND for property located at MCCONNELL AVE, EAST OF I-540 AND NORTH OF FAIR PARK APARTMENTS.. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 2.39 acres. The request is to approve a commercial development of 27,502 sq.ft. Ostner: Our next item is LSD 04-1174 for Fairpark Center. We have already had the staff report, would the applicant like to add anything to his presentation? Jefcoat: I am Tom Jefcoat with Milholland Engineering. We have signed conditions of approval. Ostner: Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak about this issue? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Shackelford: As I stated earlier, I think this is a pretty unique piece of property. You are in between an industrial building and a residential area. I personally find in favor of the commercial design standards and design overlay issues that this property has associated with it. In fact, as was mentioned briefly earlier, this is our second look at this and in my opinion, this property as it is designed now is a much better fit than what was originally approved so I am going to go ahead and make a motion that we approve LSD 04-1174 subject to all stated conditions of approval. Clark: Second. Williams: On condition of approval number one about the street improvements, you are accepting staff s recommendation for street improvements on that? Shackelford: I recommend that we accept the same on condition of approval number two and three as was part of the original approval on this property. Thank you. Ostner: I have a motion and a second, is there anymore discussion? Renee, can you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 04-1174 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 62 CUP 04-1186: Conditional Use (NOODLES, 173/174): Submitted by MEL MILHOLLAND for property located at LOT 18 OF CMN BUSINESS PARK II PHASE II. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 7.57 acres. The request is to approve a restaurant in an R -O, Residential Office zoning district. Ostner: Our next item is CUP 04-1186 for Noodles. Pate: Once again, this item I would like to request be heard in tandem with the Large Scale Development, LSD 04-1185 for Noodles. The subject property is located within the CMN II, Phase 11 subdivision. This lot, which is Lot 18 is north of the deed restricted wetland area along Mud Creek east of Mall Avenue. The city's Mud Creek trail adjoins this lot where it transitions from the south side of the creek to the north and crosses Mall Avenue in that location. The property contains a large area, approximately 53% of the site is preserved trees and wetlands which restricts the amount of buildable area on this lot. The property is zoned R - O, Residential Office and contains approximately 7.57 acres. Surrounding development includes development containing Old Navy and the Home Depot to the north, Mud Creek to the south, a vacant lot to the west and College Avenue, Hwy. 71B to the far eastern end of the lot. Because this subject property is within the R -O zoning district and is a request for a restaurant type use a Conditional Use is required. The applicant proposes to develop a new restaurant on the subject property. The proposed restaurant contains 8,734 sq.ft. with an attached 2,370 sq.ft. outdoor sitting area. The outdoor use area is adjacent to the trail corridor and preservation area on the south side of the property. The applicant proposes a connection to the trail to allow pedestrians or bicyclists direct access to this development without having to travel past the structure along the sidewalk to the entrance. One curb cut is proposed allowing access to the parking lot containing approximately 105 parking spaces. This is within the allowable range for a restaurant. Additionally, four bicycle racks will be provided on the property. Sidewalks do exist adjacent to the property along Mall Avenue. Any broken or damaged sidewalks shall be repaired and replaced to predevelopment conditions. With regard to findings, staff is recommending approval of this Conditional Use for this restaurant use in the R -O zoning district. Granting the Conditional Use will not adversely affect the public interest. Development in this area is primarily restaurant and retail in nature. This project will compliment the surrounding area and will provide access visually and physically to the city's trail system linking this commercial area to residential areas east and west of the site. The proposed use is generally compatible with adjacent properties and other property in the district. Furthermore, this type of use immediately adjacent to West Mud Creek trail is beneficial and provides a great amenity to the patrons of proposed restaurants as well as public trait users. With that, staff is recommending approval of the Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 63 Conditional Use request with one condition of approval, essentially, compliance with all conditions of approval for the accompanying Large Scale Development. As mentioned previously, staff is also recommending approval of this Large Scale Development with 14 conditions. Two of which really refer to Subdivision Committee meeting revisions but do need to be made and shown on this plat which I think have been satisfied. Item number three, remove the three parking spaces located at the southwest corner of the structure due to problems with this being an undesirable location due to the orientation. Four, Planning Commission determination of compliance with commercial design standards including signage and proposed foe ruins within the parking lot as shown on your elevations and site plan. This was discussed at some length during the Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff finds that the proposed elevations for the structure do comply with city ordinance requirements. While the foe ruins continue the theme of the restaurant from the structure into the parking area staff is concerned about the compatibility of this element of this project. Also, item number five, proposed signage shall comply with Chapter 174 Signs of the Unified Development Code. That section of the code is listed there for you for the requirements of a freestanding sign. Wall signage is limited to one wall sign with a maximum display surface area of 16 sq.ft. As noted there, any variance to these requirements must be approved by the Board of Sign Appeals. A recommendation from the Planning Commission with regard to commercial design standards is appropriate. I believe the rest of the conditions are conditions forwarded from Subdivision Committee. Ostner: Is the applicant present? Please introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Milholland: I'm Melvin Milholland with Milholland Engineering representing the restaurant, Noodles, owned by Kirby Walker who presently has a facility located on College. This new facility as proposed and as recommended for approval has been signed by the owner and presented to the city with a clarification on item number five. We respectfully request that the Planning Commission approve this LSD 04-1185 with those conditions of approval except item number five, and I would also like to request that the Planning Commission offer a positive recommendation to the Board of Sign Appeals to vary the size to support a waiver or variance. The reason for this is he wants to use his existing sign that is being used today on his facility and his business relocated on this building. That sign, I don't know if you all are familiar with it, I think it does exceed the square footage, but he would like to maintain that logo and the sign that he has got. We would have to take an appeal to the Sign Board and we respectfully request that the Planning Commission support the relocation of that sign. Thank you. Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 64 Ostner: Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak to this issue? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Anthes: As we have done for many of the sites within the CMN business park area, I would move for approval of CUP 04-1186. Clark: I will second. Ostner: There is a motion by Commissioner Anthes and a second by Commissioner Clark, is there further discussion? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 04-1186 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 65 LSD 04-1185: Large Scale Development (NOODLES, 173/174): Submitted by MEL MILHOLLAND for property located at LOT 18 IN CMN BUSINESS PARK II PHASE II. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 7.57 acres. The request is to approve an 8,734 sq.ft. restaurant. Ostner: The tandem item is LSD 04-1185 for Noodles. We have heard the staff report, would the applicant like to add anything to his presentation for the Large Scale Development? Milholland: Just to reiterate that once you approve it that my client, Kirby Walker, would also like to have your support for the relocation of the sign he has now. Ostner: Thank you. Would anyone from the public like to speak to this Large Scale Development? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Clark: Staff, when you were going through the conditions of approval on number four when we are talking about the foe ruins, did you say something about staff had determined that they conform with the standards? Pate: Staff is concerned about the compatibility as discussed at Subdivision Committee. We really have the same elevations as we had then. Compatibility of this element of the project in this area. Clark: I thought I heard something else, I thought I heard you found it to be compatible. Vaught: On that, doesn't CMN have an architectural review committee and what were their findings on the foe ruins? Jefcoat: Yes they do and that approval from the CMN architectural review committee was forwarded to you and you should have that in your packet. Clark: Do you have a copy of it Mr. Jefcoat? Jefcoat: I do not have a copy of it here. You did receive it. Vaught: I remember talking about it at the time of Subdivision. Jefcoat: At that time at Subdivision we had verbal approval from them but since then we had written approval and it was forwarded to the Planning Department at least a week ago. Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 66 Vaught: My second question on the signage, the restaurants approved in this subdivision that are closer to the highway, their zoning is C-2 is that correct? Pate: That is correct. Vaught: Which allows a larger sign so any waiver we can't grant but if we make a recommendation for a waiver I guess it would be reasonable to consider this the same as the rest of the restaurants in the area. Pate: I'm not sure what the proposed sign square footage they have currently. The biggest difference is that this is located in the R -O zoning district which allows a maximum of one wall sign 16 sq.ft. in size. In the commercial zoning districts wall signs outside the overlay district are allowed four wall signs and those can be 150 sq.ft. or 20% of the wall surface, whichever is greater, so there is a vast difference in those zoning districts. Vaught: What about inside the design overlay district? Is it one wall sign per frontage with a maximum size? Pate: I believe it is 200 sq.ft. or 20%, somewhere in that neighborhood. Jefcoat I might mention that their present sign is below that number. Clark: As we discussed in Subdivision, the foe ruins still concern me simply because of the scope and the scale of them. They are big. That is why I wanted to see the review from the architectural committee from CMN but again, I think that is more of an issue of insurance liability than Planning Commission interest. In terms of the sign, I am not really sure I'm comfortable making that recommendation for approval, although I don't know that I would object to it but I don't, Commissioner Anthes had to remind me what the sign looks like right now because it is not a place I'm very familiar with. I would think that the Board of Sign Appeals could certainly hear all the factual information and come up with their own decision regardless of our position on it. I think the facility that you are building is absolutely gorgeous. I think it will be an asset to the development. I think it will be a great Large Scale Development. Myres: Can I have some clarification from somebody that knows. From all the visual information that we've gotten I'm still not sure about the scale of the drawings. If you could tell me how tall the aqua duct is that is proposed for the parking lot. Denham: My name is Galen Denham with Denham Architects. It is about 22' tall and the scale is 1 to 8. Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 67 Myres: The basic parts of the building excluding the tower are about the same height? Denham: Correct. Myres: So generally 18' to 22' and the tower would be what? Denham: It is about 44' tall. Myres: Is there developed space within that tower? Denham: It is just a bell tower. The owner of the property did say that they liked the foe ruins and were excited to see it. It is intended to be more of a landscape element with possibly ivy growing up it or things like that. Vaught: Is it going to be lit in any way? Denham: We would like to have some up lighting on it. Anthes: I'm concerned about those foe ruins for a number of reasons and I will just outline them. I guess I'm trying to figure out what they are legally in terms of how we evaluate them. Are they an accessory structure? Are they a sign? Do we evaluate them as we would evaluate a fence? What does something like that do? In looking at how we evaluate other projects what is the equivalent type of structure that we evaluate? That way we would have some rules to go by when looking at that because I'm not sure. When I hear that this structure would have up lighting on it a couple of things come to mind. One is that I don't believe up lighting meets the intents of our lighting recommendations for shielded and directed downward and that sort of thing so I would be concerned about up lighting. Second, is that it seems to me that both the tower and the ruins of this kind of scale being lit are sort of a sign for the building. They are not a sign that has words but they would be something that would be very easily recognizable and could be construed as an identifying element which is sort of a sign, in this case it is a really large sign. Also, when we are looking at the fact that we just put McDonald's and then Steak and Shake through a pretty rigorous set of questions in terms of them keeping with commercial design standards and that was a striped awning or bright red verses soft red. When I look at this I'm finding it hard to find that seemingly degrading and deteriorating structures and a parking lot that are thematic really have any kind of tie to the theme of the rest of CMN Business Park. I'm trying to find something that we evaluate like signs, like accessory structures, like fencing or like whatever that we can use to look at these structures. Does staff or legal have any comment? Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 68 Jefcoat: I might address that just briefly and the architect may want to add some to it. We are looking at yes, it is an icon and it definitely identifies the building but so does the rest of the fagade on the building that is being proposed. Any of the decorations along the building does have the elements that the aqua ducts or the ruins propose. You are looking at it at a head on one dimensional view which does make it look rather large. From any other angle you see a lot less view of it. We view that structure as a hardscape element in the landscape and part of the landscape. You are not seeing the trees and the parking lot that provide some sort of screening and you are not seeing the additional landscape foliage that would be on this structure. That is the way that we are viewing this, as a hardscape element within the landscape itself. As far as the lighting goes, up lighting may be inappropriate but landscape lighting, this is not harsh, this is soft lighting. It could be directed down as well. That is something that we would have to work out during construction. We would restrict it from being glaring and down lighting for the parking lot lighting. Anthes: City Attorney, do you see any kind of parallels to these kind of structures that we normally evaluate? Williams: Thinking outside the box a little bit here, the only thing that is at all comparable is the Greek theater at the University, which of course, is outside our purview anyway. I think his explanation that it is kind of a part of a landscape element I think does make some sense to me. Obviously, this is a new concept but sometimes we just have to let you use your discretion when you think of something that nobody thought about before it was actually presented to you. I don't have any real good guidance for you on that. I don't think it is a sign because there won't be any lettering or anything like that allowed on it. However, I will just leave it to your judgment on whether or not you think it is appropriate in this location. Pate: I would just continue Mr. Williams' thought about the signage, as far as the appropriateness should the structure be constructed, the lighting, etc., what happens in the future for that if it does call attention to that specific element separate from the structure then we would be looking at some sort of does it comply with our signage requirements. That is all worked out in the permit process to see if that would occur. Obviously, construction plans have not been submitted and different types of landscape lighting. This particular property is outside of the overlay district with the exception of the far eastern side which is un -developable. Again, I mentioned that we really don't have a great precedence for this. Staff's real concern is basic compatibility with adjacent properties and the scale issue is something that we talked about at length at Subdivision Committee and reducing the scale of that to make it seem more like a landscape element as opposed to a separate and distinct structure. Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 69 Anthes: To follow up on my comments, if we are looking for compatibility, these elements, particularly the aqua duct element, makes much more of an impact than a red canopy over a drive thru lane. This is a really big thing and we went through a lot earlier this evening on something that is much more minor than this. I don't see that there is much compatible with it in the area and in fact, that we are talking about landscape screening for the item it must be really large. Jefcoat: It isn't screening, it is enhancements. Anthes: I'm just having a really hard time finding it to be compatible with adjacent developments. Ostner: You asked for some other things. If they wanted to build a gazebo in their parking lot I think it would fall under the same scrutiny. Anthes: Is that an accessory structure then? Ostner: I'm not sure, it is not really habitable but they still pull a permit on it and it is still a structure. There are pergolas over half our fast food restaurants and other restaurants. I don't think pergolas have actually passed design muster, yet they are an accessory. I'm not sure if park like elements are the same. Anthes: I don't have a UDC with me, what is the definition of an accessory structure? Pate: Essentially, a structure that is secondary to the principal use of the property in question. Anthes: Does that indicate habitability? Pate: Not necessarily. A structure can be many things, a sign, a wall. The Building Safety Division permits structures quite a bit that are not habitable. Clark: Mr. Jefcoat, on the plans that we have it is showing the foe ruins in three different locations. The big one that we are talking about, the 22' gargantuous one, and then some smaller ones. To me, that is an accent to the building and an accent to the design, the 22' aqua duct to me does not conform. I love 99% of this project. I think it will be wonderful but that big of 22' sucker there is the 1% I cannot find compatible. Shackelford: As I listen to this I have a little different opinion. I look at the foe ruin as a unique architectural design that enhances or compliments the building. I Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 70 don't see that it is a secondary structure or anything like that. I see it simply as a design element that tries to upscale the overall project. Obviously, if you want to get real technical with compatibility, anything that is unique is not going to be compatible. I think if you want to get technical you can go down and look at the Olive Garden. Nobody did exactly the rock, brick mix on four sides like the Olive Garden did. Logan's has some different structures. The new Smokey Bones has some tin or wrought iron look to it. I think there are some complementary things that are done to upscale locations. That is what I see these folks doing. I can think of two locations, one commercial and one residential, in Benton county properties that I've reviewed in the last four to six weeks that they are doing this foe ruin type look and I think it is a very upscale look for that development. I'm approaching this more as a complement to the overall architectural design. I don't look at it outside that. I think we are getting too detailed, too specific if we try to talk about compatibility to something that is a unique design for a building. I think what weighs heaviest with me is that the CMN design committee which is made up of property owners that are going to have to do business and look at this property on a day to day basis support it. I think that they view it as something that is upscale to development that is going to be located in their neighborhood. I think that that is the same weight we put on a neighborhood association. If a neighborhood association came before us and supported a building that was going to be in front of their neighborhood. I definitely don't think it is a sign. I definitely don't think it is a secondary structure. I think it is a compliment to the existing structure and although it is not compatible, unique designs are not going to be compatible. If we had everything be totally compatible we would have the same looking building throughout town. I think that is why we look at everything on a case by case basis. I don't struggle with the compatibility side of it as much. I don't struggle with the commercial design standards as much. My only question is as you mentioned, the scale. Is it too large for the building, I don't know. Ruins are supposed to be striky and it is supposed to add an upscale to this property. That is my two cents about it. Ostner: I would tend to agree. I like the ruins. I don't think it is incompatible with the building. On the point of scale, I think shrinking it too much, maybe it could shrink a couple of feet, I think shrinking it too much would be a big problem. I think it would not look right. I think it would look funny. I'm in favor of the commercial design standards as we have seen them presented. That's where I stand. Anthes: Accessory use or structure from our definitions in our code say "A use or structure on the same lot width and of a nature customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal use or structure." Myres: It is not subordinate. Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 71 Ostner: There is no structure, I guess the definition of structure. Anthes: I am just trying to figure out what it would be called. Commissioner Shackelford was saying he didn't find it was an accessory use. When I read that definition it seems like it is. It says accessory use or structure. Myres: My big concern I think is scale more than anything else but I'm also concerned, and I'm not concerned with any compatibility as such because I think the fagade of this building as it exists now and as it is proposed, is a wonderful visual treat that looks like a European cityscape. My big concern with a 22' tall aqua duct in the parking lot is that it is going to detract from that beautiful fagade and the only thing everybody will say is "Oh, have you seen the ruin?" No one is going to pay any attention to the building. That is going to be the draw, aside from the fact that I think it is way too large, way too large, for the middle of a parking lot. I don't think it is a subordinate structure as it says in the code, I think it is dominant in terms of it's size. I can't support this as it is proposed. If that structure was removed or replaced with things that were more in scale to the building then I would be happy to do it because I think as Commissioner Clark said, there is probably 90% that I'm wholly enthusiastic about and 10%, which is the aqua duct, for want of a better word, I just can't go with it. Vaught: I look at it a little different. To me what this does is break up a big, ugly parking lot. We complain about having broken up cityscapes, especially in the downtown area, but even in this area, you don't want to see a parking lot I don't think along this road and to me this structure, and it is a large scale but it is a large parking lot as well, could help serve the purpose to break up that parking lot. I know trees can help but trees take a long time to develop, a long time to grow. To me, I do like it. It is rather larger. I don't know if it could be reduced at all. That is something that was mentioned at Subdivision Committee. One of my questions was what is the finish on the aqua duct structure? Denham: It is a concrete structure and it will be gray stained concrete. Vaught: Is it going to look like blocks put together or flat concrete? Denham: It will have the appearance of being made out of stone but there won't be any sort of hand hold or anything like that for a kid to climb up. There shouldn't be any sort of a liability issue. Vaught: I agree with Commissioner Shackelford and the fact that to me it almost looks like an extension of the building that just carries it on through that parking lot. It is something that draws interest and you know, I like Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 72 unique projects and I think that is something that Fayetteville has is a lot f uniqueness in different areas. To me it is a unique idea that could be done really well. Jefcoat: We have shown you the massive front side of this and we did think about the height issue and the design and the overall affect of what we are trying to achieve with the aqua duct but if you were to look from the north looking south onto the building straight on as you are seeing the west fagade looking east, you would only see a very thin line of this aqua duct so you have got to sort of put things into perspective. Here is the aqua duct, at this angle you only see one line, you won't see this massive structure. While it may look massive in this elevation, if you were traveling up and down Mall Avenue you are going to see it from an angle. This is a representation of the massive part, any other angle will only see this one side, not the whole width. Denham: Also, the fact that this in relationship to the rest of the fagade is not really that large. The owners like the way it looks and they were excited about the possibility of seeing it built. Shackelford: Could you speak a little towards the scale? As far as the determination on how you decided how big to make that, how does it compare to the average height of the building? What is the length of it compared to the front of the building? Denham: It is about 40' long and I would say it is maybe a third of the building. Graves: I wanted to just state that I agree with the comments of Commissioner Shackelford and Commissioner Vaught that whether you term this as a complimentary structure, an accessory structure, or whatever you want to call it, it is certainly not attempting to be part of the primary part of the building. It is just a striking visual part of the design. The fact that it is striking or unique as far as what it is, a ruin, does not mean that it is not compatible with surrounding uses. I haven't heard anybody make a comment that the primary structure, the restaurant was somehow not compatible. I believe as you look at the entire design, including the ruins, that the ruins certainly fit with the restaurant, the primary building. As far as the whole package, if you believe that the restaurant building itself is compatible with the surrounding area, I don't view the ruins as being incompatible, in fact, I think they fit nicely with the design of the overall primary building, the restaurant building. The fact that it is a unique structure that maybe doesn't fit real squarely within our ordinances and that we don't have a foe ruin ordinance on the books doesn't mean hat it can't comply with our design standards. MOTION: Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 73 Shackelford: I think that is exactly what our challenge as a Planning Commission is. I don't think ordinances can be written for every possible opportunity. I think that is why we look at everything on a case by case basis and this is a very unique one to look at. I am going to go ahead and make a motion that we approve LSD 04-1185. I originally commented about scale, the fact that it is actually only about 1/3 the size of the overall building, the fact that it is not as tall as the normal height of the building, I think that I'm probably swayed back to where I'm comfortable with the scale of the building. I'm going to make a motion for approval subject to all fourteen standard conditions with the specific in fact positive of commercial design standards. I think that as has been stated by several of us here, this is a unique project but I don't want to discourage unique architecture in the City of Fayetteville just because it may not be compatible with what is next door. I think that this is a very architecturally pleasing design and I find in favor of that. In regards to condition number five about the proposed signage, I recommend that we have a positive recommendation from the Planning Commission with regard to commercial design standards of the sign issues as long as the proposed sign would be acceptable in a C-2 zoning. In other words, if this property was zoned C-2, the signs that you approve would have to meet those standards. All other terms and conditions as stated by staff. Vaught: I will second with a question. Would you amend the C-2 to include C-2 and Overlay District so it is compatible with what is surrounding it? Shackelford: That was my intention. C-2, as long as the sign is approved within the requirements of C-2 zoning in the Design Overlay District. Ostner: I have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford and a second by Mr. Vaught. Allen: I was just going to comment as one who had lobbied against some stripes a while ago that I do think that in many ways that this building is compatible with the area. The colors, the Hughes are compatible and I think it is a real creative and interesting building and I wouldn't want us in our efforts to get the colors right to take away from creativity. I have some reservations about it but overall, I think it is a very positive plan. Anthes: I just wanted to state that I believe that we actually are specifically charged, particularly in these areas, that we are specifically charged with making a finding about compatibility with what is next door. A structure is a scale 1/3 of the building, that is iconic, that does provide a defacto sign, whether or not it has letters on it. I just can't find it as being compatible. Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 74 Ostner: Is there further discussion? We have a motion and a second. Could you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 04-1185 was approved by a vote of 5-3-0 with Commissioners Anthes, Clark and Myres voting no. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 75 RZN 04-1164: Rezoning (CLEVENGER DR. DUPLEXES, 436,437): Submitted by MELISSA CURIEL for property located at CLEVENGER DRIVE, S OF WEDINGTON DRIVE AND EAST OF 54TH. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL - AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 4.93 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property from R -A, Residential Agricultural, to RMF -6, Residential Multi -family, 6 units per acre, with a Bill of Assurance. Ostner: The next item is RZN 04-1164 for Clevenger Drive duplexes. If we could have the staff report please. Pate: This property is located on Clevenger Drive south of Wedington Drive east of 54"' Street. The property is currently zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural, and contains approximately 4.93 acres. Surrounding properties are primarily zoned RSF-4 and R -A and are developed as single and two family residential homes and agricultural land. The 4.93 acre tract is fully developed with two family dwelling units. Development on this property pre -dates the annexation of this area into the City of Fayetteville in the 1980's. At that time, land was primarily zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural by default in this particular area as it was annexed. The 10 structures existing on the property house a total of 20 units, for a current density of four dwelling units per acre. However, two family dwelling units are allowed by right in the R -A zoning district, the density is limited to '/2 unit per acre with 200' of frontage per lot. This essentially, once it was brought into the city created non -conforming structures on this property. The subject property is developed all in one parcel of land with frontage onto Clevenger Drive, which is dedicated right of way and 54`h Avenue. The structures, as I mentioned, considered non -conforming structures and may not be replaced if destroyed except in compliance with zoning and development regulations. The applicant proposes a rezoning of the subject property to facilitate the reconstruction of one of the two family units lost to arson in the recent past. Upon application for a building permit for this unit the applicant was informed that the structures were non -conforming and could not be replaced. The intent, as stated by the applicant, in the request to replace the original structure with one that is similar in size and location. Originally the applicant submitted a rezoning request to go to RT -12, Residential two and three family 12 units per acre to change the zoning district to one that would allow rebuilding of these dwelling units. Staff was not in support of such a change in density in this area which with potential redevelopment of the property could increase the number of units to 59 on the subject property. The applicant has changed the rezoning request based on discussions with staff to RMF -6, the lowest multi -family zoning district for a lower density. Additionally, the applicant is offering a Bill of Assurance, I have a copy of which I will pass out in just a moment, stating that only two family or single family residences may be constructed on the subject property thereby eliminating the possibility of apartment style or Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 76 multi -family dwelling units in this area. With regard to findings, staff finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the land use plan objectives in this area. The General Plan calls this out as residential for future land use. Surrounding properties are residential and agricultural in nature including several two family units and single family units. The Bill of Assurance offered also limits the type of development on the property, both now and in the future, to single family and two family dwelling units which is compatible with surrounding areas. In the short term, obviously, the proposed zoning would allow for the reconstruction of the structure lost to arson. In the long term, as I mentioned, with the Bill of Assurance, multi -family units would be prohibited from being developed and it would be essentially limited to single family and two family types of dwelling units. The site is currently fully developed and with the review from public service providers they find that the proposed zoning would not create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion in the area. Response times are also included in your staff report. A maximum number of 29 units could be permitted, all single family and two family in nature on this site. With that, staff is recommending approval of the rezoning request to RMF -6. We did receive at least one letter and I will pass that out. Ostner: Is the applicant present? If you would like to come forward and introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Creole: I'm Melissa Creole, I'm here on behalf of my family. Our only goat is to rebuild the duplex that was burned down last year. We are losing about $900 a month in rent from the building that was burned down. Ostner: Thank you. At this point I am going to 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 for discussion. Clark: Jeremy, is the Bill of Assurance in our packet? Pate: No, I just passed it around. Allen: Just for general information, looking at this police report, how far is too far? How many miles away do fire departments consider too far away? Shackelford: It is based on the response time from what I remember. Allen: Right, how far is too far though? Vaught: If the average gets up into the eight to nine minute range I believe our ratings go down. Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 77 Ostner: The goal, I just read this in the paper, was to have 70% of our response times shorter than seven minutes. Some of them in our outlying areas are creeping up. They would like to lower that with more fire stations. Allen: Ok, I just wondered as I was reading it what the required amount of time was. Pate: Additionally, this area is within the city limits and there are areas further out to the west and to the south. We saw a project recently at Tackett and 54`h and that was some of the discussion there as well. MOTION: Shackelford: As I read this staff is in support of a RMF -6 zoning, which would allow six units per acre on this property. This is our lowest zoning for multi- family, which basically will satisfy the request of the applicant to allow them the proper zoning to match the use as it exists now. On top of that, we have a Bill of Assurance that says that any buildings on this that run with the land will be limited to a duplex or single family use so I anticipate that that density will actually be less than that in reality. Based on that, and based on staff's finding of facts, I am going to make a motion that we recommend approval of RZN 04-1164 to the City Council. Graves: Second. Ostner: There is a motion and a second, is there further discussion? Allen: I had a call from this woman who spent the email today and wondered if the applicant had an opportunity to talk with her or other concerned neighbors. Creole: No, I haven't talked with anyone who had any concerns. They have contacted me. Allen: Thank you. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 04-1164 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 78 RZN 04-1188: Rezoning (GENE HOUSLEY, 172/211): Submitted by GENE HOUSLEY for property located at 400 W APPLEBY ROAD. The property is zoned R- A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 9.46 acres. The request is approve rezoning of the subject property from R -A, Residential Agricultural, to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Ostner: Our next item is RZN 04-1188 for Gene Housley. I believe Ms. Morgan has this presentation. Morgan: The subject property is located east of Gregg Avenue, south of Futrall Drive and Hwy. 71B. The tract consists of 9.46 acres and is currently zoned R -A. Surrounding zonings and land use consist of R -O to the east, used as the location for Washington Regional Medical Center to the south is zoned RMF -24 and consists of apartments, as well as some single family homes to the southeast of the tract. To the west is zoned R -A and is currently vacant. The property is currently fully developed and there is currently a manufactured home park on the property consisting of 45 mobile homes. A majority of the site also lies within the floodway and floodplain, as well as the Design Overlay District as noted on colored maps which were passed out at the beginning of this meeting. Development will require compliance with all floodplain regulations at the time of any permitting. The applicant is currently requesting that the property be rezoned from R -A to C-1. The Future Land Use Plan designates the subject property as office. However, like professional office, neighborhood use is a use identified within the Future Land Use Plan. It's purpose is to not only enhance, but to regulate the appearance of neighborhood commercial areas within and adjacent to residential neighborhoods to provide commercial use and uses convenient and accessible for individuals living within the community and reducing the number of trips generated by residential development. By rezoning this subject property to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, it will allow for development of neighborhood retail and office space located in an area easily accessible to an existing surrounding residential neighborhood as well as potential development to the vacant land to the west and the general public by way of access to major thoroughfares. The Police Department did mention in the report concerns regarding access and ingress and egress to the property due to heavy traffic volumes and traffic congestion. Development will be reviewed for access management to avoid dangerous traffic congestion with the intersection of Appleby and Futrall with Gregg. Staff did receive public comment from one property owner on Cydnee Drive who expressed concern with allowable uses in the C-1 zoning district. Staff, however, does recommend approval of a rezoning of the subject property to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Ostner: Thank you Ms. Morgan. Is the applicant present? Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 79 Housley: My name is Gene Housley. I own the property at 400 W. Appleby Road. It is currently occupied as a mobile home park. I am requesting CA zoning. We don't have anything on the drawing board at this time, we are just requesting zoning. I believe that is the first step in the process in moving toward a development that would be compatible with the neighborhood. I feel like it is a great fit for that community. There is really nothing real close to that particular area, a drug store or a restaurant I think are the types of things that we would be looking at in that location. I would be glad to answer any of your questions. Ostner: Thank you. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak about this issue? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. The first step I've got for staff, is it problematic to rezone a mobile home park into non-compliance? Pate: Essentially it would create a non -conforming use on that property. Obviously, the applicant has stated the intent to move that use and those structures. Ostner: He is not in a non-compliance situation where he would have to approach us with some kind of a Conditional Use? Pate: Correct, it would be an existing non -conforming. Clark: Do we have a time line for moving the tenants living in the mobile home park now? Housley: This is basically just the first step in moving towards development. At this point we don't have anything on the drawing board. I have a couple of other mobile home parks. I've been personally involved with a lot of these people for a very long time and have given that a lot of thought. I know a lot of people personally and have personally invested in this having been involved in this property since the 1980's even, way before I owned it. We have two other parks which we are improving and getting in real good shape and we will be able to relocate some of these homes and also developing another piece of property on the other side of Springdale so there are possibly some lots there. We have several lots that would be available. There is no time line. All of the lease agreements that we have and have had for many years, are a month to month rental agreement. Having said that though, there are a lot of other options for relocating homes. I have spent a lot of time talking to a lot of the tenants about these things over the last few weeks. Clark: My question was to follow up on yours because if we rezone this it will be immediately non-compliant. Should we put a time line on that? Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 80 Williams: No. The rule is if it becomes a non -conforming use that could go on virtually indefinitely as long as it is continuous. If he stopped doing the use then he would be prevented from reestablishing it after six months. Clark: If he tried to sell it or whatever it would have to come into compliance? Williams: No. He could sell it and they could continue to operate the mobile home park. I don't think that is what he is going to do though. Vaught: I would like to point out that it already is a non -conforming use with 46 units on nine acres in R -A. Pate: I would also like to mention a similar scenario when the City Council recently annexed a lot of the islands in as RSF-1. A lot of them are agricultural uses in nature. Those are existing non -conforming uses. Clark: The last question is what did the citizen complain about? It mentions in our packet that we had public comment from a property owner but it doesn't say what their concerns were. Morgan: I did not receive that call. It was noted in the file that an adjoiner had called with concerns of the uses in a C-1 being at that location. Clark: Ok, so a random call, got it. Pate: I will mention that the uses are listed there in your packet and consist of office, studios and related services, eating places, neighborhood shopping, gasoline service stations, drive in restaurants and professional offices as a use by right. Allen: I too had concern about the time line and those folks not being immediately displaced but I also wondered about what percentage of this land you felt you could develop since so much of it is in the floodplain. Hensley: I started last January working with Crafton, Tull in Rogers. In 1999 the Corp. of Engineers changed the floodway map. At that time the floodway was kind of along the creek bank not too far away. Suddenly one day I discovered that that line had moved as was pointed out to me by someone else and it moved significantly. Last January I approached Crafton, Tull about taking a close look if possibly there were some errors in calculations. After several months of work on it by Crafton, Tull in fact, there were some, we re -shot some of their lines and got a very specific look at that and those lines were off a little bit. It appears, I won't speculate with the Corp. of Engineers, but it appears that we are moving in a direction, we have asked them to approve a new engineering drawing which moves it pretty much like it was back in 1999. We are confident Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 81 that most of our property is going to be recaptured. It may not necessarily all be out of the floodplain but almost all out of the floodway which is a struggle. Thomas: I can answer Ms. Clark's question. The caller that called was specifically concerned about Use Unit 18 gasoline service stations and drive in restaurants. Shackelford: As I look at this property, there is a lot of floodway and some pretty significant intersections on two sides of the property. It is not going to be a very easy property to develop I don't think but it is definitely something that has potential and I am in agreement with all the findings of fact of our city staff so I am going to make a motion that we recommend RZN 04- 1188 to the City Council for approval. Vaught: I will second. Ostner: There is a motion and a second. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 04-1188 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 82 RZN 04-1189: Rezoning (JACKSON/HUMPHRIES, 717): Submitted by NICK WILSON for property located at NW CORNER OF S SCHOOL AVE AND SUNRISE MOUNTAIN ROAD. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 7.91 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property from R -A, Residential Agricultural, and C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, to I-1, Heavy Commercial, Light Industrial. Ostner: Our next item is RZN 04-1189 for Jackson/Humphries. If we can have the staff report please. Morgan: The subject property is located north of Sunrise Mountain Road west of School Avenue, contains 7.91 acres and is currently vacant. It is zoned both C-2 and R -A. Surrounding zonings consist of both heavy commercial/light industrial, residential agricultural, residential single family, four units per acre, and C-2, thoroughfare commercial. The applicant is requesting that the property be rezoned from R -A and C-2 to I-1, Heavy Commercial, Light Industrial. The Future Land Use Plan designates the subject property as industrial. This plan identifies several large areas within the city for industrial use in order to minimize and concentrate both noise, visual and air and water pollution that are currently associated with the uses permitted in the industrial zones. The subject property is located west of School Avenue, a principal arterial, and east of the railroad line. Rezoning the subject property to I-1 is consistent with the land use planning objectives, surrounding uses, and will additionally minimize the impact of industrial uses within the city by concentrating them in specific identified areas as shown on the future land use map. Adjacent master street plan streets and improvements made to Sunrise Mountain Road at the time of development will additionally facilitate safe traffic movement. The Police Department has reviewed this area and their findings are included in your staff report. Staff, therefore, is recommending rezoning of the subject property to I-1, heavy commercial/light industrial. Ostner: I do not see an applicant present. Clark, S: I'm Steve Clark, Clark Consulting. I'm not specifically authorized to speak for the client in this case but I have been hired to do the Large Scale which will be coming in subsequently. I will try to answer any questions that you may have. Again, I haven't been authorized to act on his behalf but I may be able to answer some questions. Ostner: 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. Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 83 MOTION: Shackelford: As I read through this report the main thing that I went looking for was what the future land use map called for. It does designate this property as industrial. All the ingredients seem to be in place. Again, I'm in agreement with the findings of staff and I will make a motion that we recommend to the City Council approval of RZN 04-1181. Graves: Second. Ostner: There is a motion and a second, is there further discussion? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 04-1189 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 84 VAC 04-1178: Vacation (RIVENDELL, 483): Submitted by STEVE CLARK for property located at THE FORMER 100 FT. RAILROAD R/W ON THE WEST SIDE OF BLOCK 21 ORIGINAL TOWN PLAT. The property is zoned I-1, HEAVY COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUST and contains approximately 0.67 acres. The request is to vacate a portion of the Right -of -Way on Gregg Avenue. Ostner: The next item is VAC 04-1178 for Rivendell. Pate: This item and the following item, the C-PZD for Rivendell are probably best heard together although they do require separate votes and separate council actions. Essentially, in a nut shell the vacation request is for a portion of Gregg Avenue on which the following C-PZD is looking to develop. Staff is recommending this Vacation as part of the overall development plans. You can see on page 15.4 that area to the west of the subject property that is proposed for development. I would mention for the record at this point, if you could move condition number one from the Vacation request, that was erroneously put there. For the C-PZD this property, as well as the Vacation is located at the northeast corner of Center Street and South Gregg. It is actually bound on three streets, Gregg, Meadow and Center. The property is currently zoned 1-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 0.67 acres. The future land use plan in this area designates this site for mixed use. It is located within the downtown area. The applicant requests approval of a C-PZD on the 0.67 acres. The project currently consists of several buildings that are leased for music and band practices. The applicant is requesting a rezoning and large scale development approval for a mixed use redevelopment in the downtown area which entails constructing two multi -story buildings comprised of 4,675 sq.ft. of commercial retail area, along with 13 one bedroom dwelling units and 26 parking spaces. Associated development includes a tea room and provisions for the continuation for the Center Prairie trail through the subject property. The two buildings are proposed to access the trail at grade, utilizing the opportunity for pedestrian connections to the downtown, University, Mill District and Dickson Street areas with the continued construction of this trail network. The proposed density for this C-PZD mixed use is 19.4 dwelling units per acre. As I mentioned, the development is adjacent to public streets on three sides. For Gregg Avenue, the applicant is requesting a Master Street Plan amendment along with the Vacation that we just saw to enable adequate parking be located on site as well as access this property. The request is to reduce this portion of Gregg Avenue to an alley classification as opposed to it's currently classification as a local street. That does allow for pull in parking underneath the proposed building for an underneath parking garage. This particular section of Gregg Avenue does not currently carry a high level of traffic from Meadow to Center and staff is recommending approval of that Master Street Plan amendment which would be taken forward to City Council. Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 85 The buildings within the development have been designed to create a desirable pedestrian oriented front along the trail as evidenced by the site plan and the elevations, which we will put up for you in just a moment. The trail is to be installed by the City of Fayetteville Parks and Recreation Division. The developer intends to only build on the west side of the property also preserving the eastern hillside as natural woodland. A large grouping of trees is being preserved in this area as well. Architectural elevations have been submitted for the Planning Commission review of commercial design standards. Findings with regard to the PZD are included within your staff report. I will not go over all of those findings. However, staff is recommending approval based on our zoning and development guidelines for PZDs. There are 22 conditions of approval recommended. A couple of those are specific determinations, at least five. The first of which regards commercial design standards. Staff is in support of what has been submitted. Planning Commission determination of the requested Master Street Plan amendment. Staff is in support of this request as well. Planning Commission determination of the Vacation. Planning Commission determination of parkland dedication. The Parks and Recreation Board voted to recommend that the applicant pay money in lieu of land in the amount of $5,109 for 13 multi -family units. As I mentioned, the Trails Division of the Parks Department will build the extension of that trail. Planning Commission determination and recommendation to the City Council regarding both this rezoning and development request. All other conditions of approval are pretty self explanatory. I would mention though, that there are a couple of utility easements along Center Street that do need to be vacated prior to building permit, as well as number 13, which might require a little bit of explanation. Pursuant to ongoing discussions with the applicant and the neighboring property owner, there has been some discussion about where a property line lies. This is a private matter, however, because this property and the legal description is being rezoned, we felt it appropriate on advice from Mr. Williams to include that with approvals should this be approved through the City Council, and permits be issued, that any of those approvals for development or rezoning not infringe upon the zoning or development rights of that property owner should the line happen to shift in either way. Other conditions of approval, if you have any questions feel free to ask. Ostner: Thank you. Is the applicant present? Would you please introduce yourself and give us your presentation? Clark, S: My name is Steve Clark with Clark Consulting and I do represent this applicant. Basically, this is the old railroad spur right of way that falls between Center Street and Meadow Street just to the east of Gregg Avenue. The buildings that are sitting in there are old, there are a lot of bands that practice in there. Denelle Campbell has her piano tuning Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 86 business that operates out of there and she bought that property several years ago. She is trying to redevelop it, take the huts out and develop a project that will be economically viable and provide a support to the trail system that is being constructed right now to the south of Center Street. Residential apartments will be on the top two floors, commercial will be on the trail level and then there will be a parking garage for the vehicles on the Gregg Avenue side. It will be a very nice development. She is going to be very proud of it and I think it will be an asset to the City of Fayetteville. With that, I will be happy to answer any questions. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Clark. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak about this issue? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. MOTION: Anthes: Based on staff's comments and to facilitate this development plan, which I think is really positive for the City of Fayetteville, I would move to send a positive recommendation for approval to City Council of VAC 04-1178. Clark, C: Second. Ostner: There is a motion and a second. Shackelford: Jeremy, when we were talking about conditions of approval you said we were omitting condition of approval number one. Can you edify me very briefly on why we are giving up the 15' utility easement? Pate: I actually don't think there is a utility easement there now. The request is to vacate right of way. Utilities may be located within right of way as well and additionally, there is a utility easement that will be dedicated directly to the east of the project underneath the trail there is a water line to be constructed there. Utility companies did review this project as a part of the PZD and have seen the proposal here and will be able to service this project with the easements as shown. Shackelford: Thank you very much. Ostner: Is there further discussion on the Vacation? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of VAC 04-1178 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 87 C-PZD 04-1175: Planned Zoning District (RIVENDELL, 522): Submitted by DENELE CAMPBELL for property located at THE NE CORNER OF CENTER STREET AND S. GREGG AVENUE. The property is zoned I-1, HEAVY COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL and contains approximately 0.67 acres. The request is to approve a C-PZD, Commercial Planned Zoning District with 4,675 sq.11. commercial/retail area, 13 dwelling units and 26 parking spaces proposed. Ostner: The tandem item is C-PZD 04-1175 for Rivendell. We've heard the staff report, would the applicant like to share anything different? I can open it up to the public. Would anyone like to speak to this issue, Planned Zoning District for Rivendell? I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Clark, C: On page 16.3 it refers to an R-PZD, is that correct? Pate: It should be a C-PZD. Vaught: So over 51% of the floor area will be commercial? Pate: That is correct. This is a C-PZD. Williams: I thought there were two floors residential and one commercial. Clark: That is correct. Williams: Wouldn't that mean that more than half of it then would be residential? Clark, S: No, because the third floor, the top floor, is much smaller than the other ones and the residential doesn't extend for the entire length of the building. We have run the numbers and we are right there. Clark, C: Ok, so it is a C-PZD. Ostner: We have charges for determinations if anyone is interested in them. Allen: I was just curious to know if these are all rentals or if some of these will be condominiums or sold. Clark, C: The ownership will remain with Ms. Campbell and they will be rental units. Pate: Somehow we don't have the elevation board, and I apologize for that. Hopefully you have those in your packets but if you do not I have copies. Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 88 MOTION: Anthes: I think Ms. Campbell has worked very hard to work out a project here on a very difficult site in the center of Fayetteville. I believe that it does a lot towards revitalizing downtown and keeping with a lot of mixed use and other directives coming out of the downtown master plan. I think that we can find in favor of commercial design standards looking at this structure, that the master street plan amendment seems to make a lot of sense, as well as the vacation which we just voted on. The fact that this will front on the trail and contribute to the construction of that trail is also very positive. Therefore, I would move for approval with a positive recommendation to the City Council in C-PZD 04-1175. Allen: I will second. Ostner: There is a motion by Commissioner Anthes and a second by Commissioner Allen, is there further discussion? Myres: I just want to concur with Commissioner Anthes' comments. Ostner: Thank you. Would you call the roll Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of C- PZD 04-1175 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 89 R-PZD 04-1181: Planned Zoning District (WALNUT CROSSING SUBDIVISION, 594/595): Submitted by ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC for property located at THE NORTH SIDE OF HWY 62W, EAST OF LAYNE STREET. The property contains approximately 52.98 acres in total. A total of 43.30 is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL - AGRICULTURAL; the remaining 9.68 acres lies within the City of Farmington. The request is to approve a Residential Planned Zoning District with 137 single family lots and 6.47 acres of "cluster homes" on the subject property. Ostner: Our next item is R-PZD 04-1181 for Walnut Crossing subdivision. Pate: This is a Residential Planned Zoning District consisting entirely of residential use. The property is sited in sort of a unique situation and consists of a total of 52.9 acres located in west Fayetteville and east Farmington north of Hwy. 62. The subject property has been created recently with lot line adjustments and a lot split. Of the 52.9 acres in review for development only 43.3 acres actually exists within the City of Fayetteville. The remainder lies within the City of Farmington. Two legal descriptions, therefore, accompany this proposal. One is for the rezoning from R -A to the R-PZD zoning district and a second for the Preliminary Plat being processed simultaneously subdividing the property in both jurisdictions. The City of Farmington has been notified and is currently in the process of reviewing this development. The property does consist primarily of agricultural land with several significant trees and areas of high priority canopy falling along property boundaries of old fence lines and the proposed park land. You might notice on your site plans presented that there is a large 5.02 acre park that the applicant has worked diligently with the Parks Division to find an appropriate location for this park in the middle of the newly proposed neighborhood. There are several changes based on conversations with the applicant in the staff report that I need to just kind of go over. The proposed use of the site is for single family and cluster home development consisting of 136 single family lots and 59 cluster homes. There has been a bit of a misunderstanding about what these cluster homes actually are. We will see these as Large Scale Developments in the future, both of the lots that are proposed are along the north. However, as noted on the plat currently and in the staff report, it says two family dwelling units. The applicant would like to retain the flexibility to utilize combinations of two family, three family and four family type units. Therefore, that would add Use Units 9, 10 and 26 to the project. As itemized on page 17.2 the proposed land use is for both single family and a combination of cluster homes, a city park with five acres and numerous tree preservation areas along with the creek side preservation of numerous trees both in the City of Fayetteville and Farmington. The total proposed dwelling units on the 43 acre site is actually 195 as opposed to what is listed in your staff report of 254. That is based on discussions with the applicant today regarding the number of homes verses units. That was just a bit of a misunderstanding as on the plats. The density is actually Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 90 going down to 4.50 dwelling units per acre on the overall site. The developer is proposing a mixture of lot sizes and types with different arrangements of access. Some are rear loaded, some are front loaded, some are cluster homes, some front onto the park as well as public streets and we will see all the typical public street improvements along with this development. I believe the applicant has probably a better presentation than I can make tonight so I will let them go with that. Staff is recommending approval based on our findings on both the development and the rezoning required findings for this project. That is with 19 conditions of approval. We do have signed conditions. A couple of the things that I would ask you to make a determination of tonight, Planning Commission determination of a master street plan amendment. Essentially, the project does complete the intent of the master street plan, it just moves it north about 600' outside of the floodplain and the floodway. Also, Planning Commission determination of parkland dedication. Obviously, staff is in support of this park being located in this area. Planning Commission determination of residential lot access management. This is something that we discussed at the Subdivision Committee level and a couple of different options are shown here. Basically, our recommendation is those lots that aren't fronted by alleys are a lot smaller than our typical lots. They are about 55' in width. If you put a standard 24' drive on those lots front loading you would have a street of driveways. Staff is recommending that there be a combination of two different options. One is utilize shared drives located on the property line a maximum of 24'. Another option is to allow the developer flexibility, to allow for smaller 12' lanes or driveways when they are not sharing a drive. Essentially, you would have a maximum of 24' when shared, a maximum of 12' when not shared. All of the other conditions of approval are pretty self explanatory. Ostner: Can the applicant introduce yourself and give us your presentation? Hesse: I'm Kim Hesse, I'm the Director of land development of Rausch Coleman. I just want to give a correction on this graphic, our illustrator thought it would look better if we had a retention pond but we are really proposing a detention pond. There will not be a water feature at the front of this development. Rausch Coleman is primarily a home building company. They have partners building homes in Ft. Smith, Northwest Arkansas, Tulsa and Oklahoma City. We typically stay in the affordable housing market and we don't just build a home or develop a subdivision, we try to create a neighborhood and a community. That is reflected on our mission statement. Location, I think it is pretty clear on your staff notes, but this is on the far west side the city limits. The orange line is the Farmington city limit sign. There is Washington County to the north there. We are north of Hwy. 62 bordering Farmington Branch Creek. We basically took the site s our cue on how to design this development. We utilized the open spaces to Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 91 cluster the housing. We tried to preserve the sensitive area in the floodplain and canopy areas as open space so we utilized that concept of cluster development densifying the lots, reducing the yards and providing large areas of common space verses individual yard space. There is a five acre park dedicated in a central location. Connectivity wise, we have an east/west connector street, as well as a north/south stubbing out in all directions. This street will be in the Farmington city limit line crossing into Fayetteville as it enters the subdivision. I will go into these individual areas, we will start out with the park side lots. All of those lots have garages that front the street but they also have a fapade on the park side, the floodplain side, to kind of help create a relationship between the pedestrian and the park and the pedestrian and the open space. The houses are going to all be craftsman style throughout this whole development. The elevations will have craftsman style twists on them. There are actually two elevations on the park side homes that will be the garage front elevations but we will mainly concentrate on the park elevations as being the main front door of this development. Definitely it relates much more to the park. This is an example from one of those houses looking out. Their back porches really act as a front porch. There are very small yards as you can see, but you are directly opened up to the parkland. This will be the same on the floodplain side. One of the things that park staff has asked us to do is to eliminate any privacy fencing. That is certainly within the bounds of what we want to do here. One thing Rausch Coleman does is we will develop this property and we will build all of the homes in this property. We maintain the P.O.A. until we have sold about 90% of the homes. That way we can control how the P.O.A. is running. People get an idea of meeting those standards and in this situation we will build every fence so we are proposing a 4' tall open rail fence all the way along the parkland. That provides the delineation for the park boundary. The patio homes are basically your alley access lots. All of the garages will be along the alleys. The alleys are private, one way 12' drives within a 20' easement. Their rear setback will be 20' which gives you enough room to park outside of the garages. In doing so, we have really taken those homes close to the street, the front setback is 15'. Again, we have a craftsman style look, we will have single and double story homes. The other thing, square footage is from 1200 to 1600, we will go down to 1100 sq.ft. homes in some situations up to 1600. This is the street character we are trying to get. Again, our illustrator doesn't know we have a large green space between the curb and the sidewalk, but the idea is captured here in that your homes are close to the street, you do not have driveways, you do not have garages fronting the street. This is an example of an alley. It is very similar to what Harbor Meadows has. They have 12' wide alleys with a minimum green space. We will actually be providing a larger rear setback so that there is more room for parking on the actual driveways. Town home lots I'm not going to talk about too much on this other than we do want the additional use units for triplexes and four Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 92 plexes. This is an example of a four plex. We are going to design those again, craftsman style, but try to within a four plex make it look like one larger home. We will be coming back with a Large Scale Development on these two. There are actually two lots that we will probably bring through together for these town home developments, but what we are requesting tonight is that density to be able to have some creativity and we will come back with this one. That is it for my presentation. I will quickly point out on the driveways, this is one example we are proposing where we cluster the driveways together. We have a 12' curb cut on the street and then widening out to 16' to enter the garages. We would prefer this option mainly because it is difficult to sell shared driveways. Be aware that they have very limited private yards and so you are going to have kids using the driveways as their play area. Hopefully they are going to be in the park and the green space but when they are in their own yards a lot of times they are going to be using their own driveways. We would like to use a very limited amount of shared drives. If we do so I do want to point out that you really kind of take away from the front door. This is one way that we can make a shared drive work but as you can see, the shared drive actually goes in front of the front door, for us to have enough room to actually park outside your garage door. I think that is important. This would be the way that we could make that work but we really prefer to have a very limited amount of this type of situation. We do have a couple of representatives here if you have any questions. Ostner: At this point I will open it up to the public and ask for public comment on the PZD for Walnut Crossing. Seeing that there is no public here I will close it and bring it back to the Commission for comments and motions. Allen: Kim, thank you for the visual. I think that is very helpful for us to literally be able to see it. A point of curiosity, I wondered what criteria was used to determine that that is affordable housing. Is that a national level, $99,000 to $109,000 is kind of startling to consider that that is affordable housing. Hesse: I know. Ten years ago I was buying into my first home and I remember it was $55,000 or $60,000 and that is not that long ago. This is the standard. It is hard to find anything cheaper than this in a new home. This is new home construction, I think it definitely meets the standards for what we have been reviewing throughout areas of the United States. Ostner: On your covenants there appear to be blanks you haven't filled in on square footage of these homes, have you all made up any of those decisions? Hesse: We are still in the design phase. I think what I've shown you tonight is going to be basically the limit. We hate to put a maximum on them Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 93 because sometimes what we do is provide a basic floor plan but then allow the home buyer to add to that. Sometimes instead of having an attic area they will open that up for an actual floor area like a bedroom so we kind of leave that flexible. It will be no less than 1,100 sq.ft. Ostner: Ok. Shackelford: Have you reviewed and do we have signed conditions of approval? Hesse: I did and I signed it including use units 10 and 26 which I would like to have. Everything else is perfectly fine. Ostner: On the cluster home area or town homes as you showed them up there, are those going to be sold? Hesse: Yes, those will be sold under a horizontal property regime. They will have additional property owner dues to maintain their shared drives and then the yards that are specific to the town homes. Ostner: We have several determinations, master street plan, parkland dedication. Does anyone have any comments about those? Clark: Before we do that, I didn't understand what Kim was saying about the signed conditions. What did you overlook? Hesse: We originally through miscommunication only included duplexes for the town home area and we want to include triplexes and four plexes. That enters in Use Unit 10 and Use Unit 26. MOTION: Clark: I was very excited about this project when it came through Subdivision. I think defining affordable housing is difficult but at least this is a developer who will use that term and I think in good faith. I was very heartened to see that. I think the greenspace is incredible. The canopy preservation is commendable. I think that with the things that we need to determine tonight, I would make the motion that we forward R-PZD 04-1181 with the conditions of approval including as written by staff number two with the amending the master street plan as indicated, accepting the parks and recreation dedication, determination in favor of staff's recommendation. Anthes: Second. Vaught: On number four it says that the maximum driveway width shall be 12', is that at the curb? They are proposing it to widen as it got closer to the garage. Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 94 Pate: It is measured from the right of way. Vaught: Did you add Use Unit 10 and 26? Clark: Yes, adding Use Unit 10 and 26 on lots 137 and 138 for the cluster homes. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of R- PZD 04-1181 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Announcements Meeting adjourned: 10:35 p.m.