Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-02-28 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held in Room 219 of the City Administration Building at 5:30 p.m. on February 28, 2005. Items Discussed Action Taken ADM 05-1425: Harps LSD Extension Approved Consent PPL 05-1386: Preliminary Plat Bellwood Subdivision Approved Page 3 PPL 05-1388: Preliminary Plat Crescent Lake Approved Page 10 LSD 05-1385: Westside Treatment Plant Approved Page 13 LSD 05-1390: Glass Hill Carwash Tabled Page 19 Members Present Members Absent Loren Shackelford Alan Ostner Nancy Allen Sean Trumbo Christine Myres Staff Present Jeremy Pate Renee Thomas Suzanne Morgan Brent O'Neal Candy Clark Jill Anthes Christian Vaught James Graves Staff Absent Planning Commission February 28, 2005 Page 2 Ostner: Welcome to the Monday, February 28, 2005 meeting of your Fayetteville Planning Commission. If you could call the roll please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were five Commissioners present with Commissioner Graves, Anthes, Vaught and Clark being absent. Ostner: Allen: Shackelford: Allen: There are a lot of people sick tonight. The first item of business is the approval of the minutes from the February 14th meeting. We just received those a few minutes ago today. I have not read those, I wondered if we could table them. For the record, I did receive these by email today and did have an opportunity to look at them. There are a couple of corrections I would like to note. On page nine, I asked a question and then it is showing that I answered the question. Staff obviously did. I think it was Mr. Pate that answered the questions. On page eleven you are showing myself as giving the staff report and obviously, I believe that is incorrect as well. The only other change that I noted on page twenty-four regarding the vote on CUP 05-1369 I did recuse from that vote and it is showing a 9-0 approval and it should be 8-0 with my abstention. Thank you. I move that we table the approval of the minutes until the next meeting. Shackelford: I will second. Ostner: I have a motion to table and a second. Shall we vote? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table the minutes was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. ADM 05-1425: Administrative Item (Harps LSD, 401): Request to extend the approval of the Large Scale Development, LSD 04-05.00 (Clary Development/Harps), for property located north of Wedington Drive and east of Colorado Drive. Ostner: There is one item on the consent agenda. I will read it, it is ADM 05-1425 for Harps Large Scale Development. Is there anyone in the audience who would like this item removed from the consent agenda? Are there any Commissioners who would like to remove this from the consent agenda? If not, I will take a motion for approval. Shackelford: I will make a motion that we approve the consent agenda. Trumbo: Second. Planning Commission February 28, 2005 Page 3 Ostner: There is a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the consent agenda was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. PPL 05-1386: Preliminary Plat (Bellwood Subdivision Phase I, pp 400): Submitted by Dave Jorgensen for property located north of Wedington between Rupple Road and Plum Tree Drive. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre, and contains approximately 26.40 acres. The request is to approve a residential subdivision with 78 single family lots proposed. Ostner: The first item under new business is PPL 05-1368 for Bellwood Subdivision Phase I. If we could have the staff report Ms. Morgan please? Morgan: The subject property is located between Rupple Road and Willow Springs. The applicant is requesting approval of a subdivision with 76 single family lots on approximately 26.4 acres. In addition to these 76 single family lots there will also be a 2.5 acre detention pond. This pond will be more of a retention pond in nature in that it will retain water and the location of this pond in proximity to the surrounding single family homes is less than the required 100' by ordinance. The applicant is requesting a waiver of this regulation. Public comment was received with regard to tree preservation and has been addressed by both the applicant as well as staff. With regard to rights of way being dedicated with this property with this application there will be 45' of right of way from the centerline of Rupple Road as well as 50' for all interior streets. At this time there are several developments occurring along Rupple Road and in order to avoid a piece meal improvement of Rupple Road staff recommends an assessment be collected for improvements along Rupple Road adjacent to the subject property. This will allow the city to utilize these funds at a future date to improve the entire length of this street. An estimate was submitted by the applicant and approved by staff and it is also incorporated in condition one of the conditions of approval. Connectivity is provided in all cardinal directions and the Subdivision Committee, as well as staff, found in favor of the proposed connectivity. Staff is recommending approval of this PPL 05-1386 with 22 conditions of approval. The first three concern assessments. Condition one, Planning Commission determination of street improvements. Staff recommends assessment of street improvements for Rupple Road in the amount of $68,552 for improvements including street, 14' from centerline, curb, gutter, 6' sidewalk at the right of way as well as street lights and storm drainage. Condition two, Planning Commission determination of off site assessments. Staff is recommending that the developer shall be proportionately assessed for future construction of Planning Commission February 28, 2005 Page 4 Ostner: Hafemann: Ostner: Shackelford: Hafemann: Shackelford: Rupple Road bridge over Hamestring Creek in the amount of $5,160. Condition three, there is also an assessment in the amount of $4,994 to be paid prior to Final Plat for future construction of Oak Haven Place. At this time the plat is showing a temporary cul-de-sac at that location. Additionally, Planning Commission determination of a waiver from the 100' separation of permanent water surface from the finished floor of the proposed structure. Again, the Engineering Division recommends approval of this requested waiver with the condition that a fence is placed around the pond prior to recordation of the Final Plat. The Subdivision Committee has recommended approval of this requested waiver. Since the time that this staff report was submitted to you we do have a modification on condition number seven. With regard to the lift station lot, Engineering has stated that the lift station shall be a temporary facility with access 24' wide paved to the sidewalk with Portland cement, that there be a 12' access drive to the lift station and all weather paving. Typically the same as access for rear yard man holes and gravel paving. Additionally, to waive the requirement for paved surface around the station so that there could be a gravel all weather paving, as well as fence, back up power and insulation, which will be required, as well as provisions in place for future extension. I will let the Engineering Division address those comments if you have any other questions. Thank you Ms. Morgan. Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Good evening Commissioners. My name is Garrett Hafemann with Jorgensen & Associates here on behalf of Mark Foster. This is a pretty straight forward, Bellwood Subdivision. We are looking at 76 residential lots. Two more lots are on the plat for the lift station and the detention pond. Any questions that you have I would be happy to answer. Thank you. At this point I will open it up to the public. Would anyone like to speak to this issue, PPL 05-1368 for Bellwood Subdivision? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the five Commissioners for questions. I have a question of the applicant. First of all, let's start with the newly stated condition number seven regarding the lift station. Have you reviewed the new recommendations per Engineering? Yes Sir, absolutely. We actually kind of worked with Engineering to derive at those conditions. I think that we are both in agreement on them. Are there any other conditions of approval that you have any concerns with? Planning Commission February 28, 2005 Page 5 Hafemann: Not at this time. I believe number seven was the only thing that we had a sticking point on and we have worked that out. We are happy with all of the assessments and we are happy with the conditions of approval. Shackelford: The other question that I have is for information for all the rest of the Planning Commissioners. We took a pretty long look at this at Subdivision Committee with the fact that there is a retention pond and not a detention pond that is going to hold water year around as kind of an aesthetic value for some of the lots surrounding it. It is also a great opportunity to do some on site mitigation with our trees. One thing I don't remember as I read this is the fence that is going to be placed around that. Was that discussed at Subdivision Committee and maybe I should be asking staff that question instead of the applicant. Pate: That was not discussed at Subdivision Committee. If you will remember, at that time we had not formally recommended, a staff recommendation had not been formally submitted to you whether we were in recommendation of that retention pond or not. Through the Engineering review of that Engineering felt that a fence in that location would be more appropriate. It does not necessarily have to be a privacy fence. It does need to allow for safety around that feature. Shackelford: That was obviously one of the conversations I remember Commissioner Anthes and myself made the points that we don't typically fence in or fence out those type of areas in development and I think you are somewhat impeding the use of aesthetic situation allowing retention instead of detention if you fence it in where it is not visible. That is one thing that has changed since the Subdivision Committee level that I probably don't know if I would support fencing the retention pond at this time. Ostner: That is exactly the item that I brought up at agenda session asking Mr. Pate the same question. Does this body have any latitude on the fencing? Pate: It certainly does. This body, like any street improvement or anything else about this development, as long as it meets ordinance requirements you do have the latitude to decide what improvements or things of that nature that you feel are appropriate for a project of this nature. I can think of one in particular, other waiver request that the Planning Commission voted not to have the fencing in a similar case where the surface water elevation was within 100' of a structure. That is coming from our Engineering Division in discussions with the City Engineer for that recommendation of safety for the single family homes. Shackelford: I would also like to ask the applicant before I let him get away, we had a conversation at Subdivision Committee regarding this retention pond, the height of the water in regards to where the 100 -year floodplain would be, Planning Commission February 28, 2005 Page 6 Hafemann: Shackelford: Ostner: Allen: Pate: whether that would still be within the banks, how far that would have to increase to get close to these homes and you might let some of the rest of these folks know that. Absolutely. On our grading plan, which is included in your packet there, in the worst case scenario there are two lots I believe that are right above the 2' level as far as the lot elevation is 2' above the 100 -year water surface and then as you get around the pond it gets higher up towards 3' or 3 '''A' above. We are well within the 2' requirement vertically. It is just the 100' horizontally that we are unable to achieve with this layout. I will add real quick on that fence issue that we did talk to the owner of this subdivision and he did not have a problem with a 4' high wrought iron fence on the property line. That way it would still be see through and it would provide the safety that Engineering was looking for. We are trying to work with everybody on that one. Thank you very much. The fence issue is my only item that I'm concerned about. It is not a big concern. It seems strange to me and almost counter productive to force them to fence in a water feature basically. That edge is going to be where the kids are going to want to be fooling around with tadpoles and what not. It seems to me that it would be very aesthetically pleasing to have that fence there but I do not understand staffs rationale in deciding that this particular detention pond would be fenced where as others are not. This very Planning Commission has voted both ways on that issue depending upon the situation. Staff has recommended in both situations. It really depends upon the situation with for instance, these lots are single family lots. That is a little unique. Typically we would see this on a multi -family development. As I mentioned earlier, many of the apartment complexes, one that I remember in particular, Southern View Phase II, had a similar waiver request. Staff with that recommendation did not recommend a fence because there was significant landscaping around that feature and it was at least 50' to 60' away from any structure. With this particular case we do have a new City Engineer reviewing these projects as well and so that recommendation has just come forward as a recommendation with the condition. I think we are amenable to a 4' wrought iron fence even with gates. I don't think access is entirely prohibited from this but it is a feature that at times could be construed as dangerous. That is really what we are trying to protect is anyone from getting into a situation where they could not get out. Planning Commission February 28, 2005 Page 7 Allen: Does staff feel that this particular detention pond is more dangerous than others? Pate: Shackelford: Ostner: Hafemann: MOTION: Ostner: Not necessarily. They all have to meet the same slope requirements. Again, I think the significant difference as we envisioned it at the Subdivision level is that it is a retention pond and not a detention pond so it will hold water year around. There is a difference and I do see where. That, quite honestly, was a discussion that we had in that meeting. The benefits of having the aesthetic view, the opportunity for some on site mitigation and doing some really neat stuff around that verses the safety. This, I feel, is unique because it is a retention pond and not a detention pond and it will hold water year around. I understand where staff is coming from. It is a tough call. I personally think that those lots are going to be appealing to a lot of the home buyers because of the close proximity to the water. You would like to think that it is a parenting decision and if they need a fence to protect their family that the homeowner could put the fence in. We definitely have the ability at this time if we wanted to pursue a 4' wrought iron fence at least we know it is going to be permeable and still allow a view for the rest of the neighborhood. I would wonder if the developer might have a better sense after the subdivision were built and the homes started to go in whether he thought, they thought, that the fence might be needed. I would like to sort of hear from the developer if you all would. Do you all envision the fence? Do you think you want one? Our initial concept was not to have a fence. We would like to leave it up to the home builder or whoever buys those lots. Like you mentioned those would probably be a premium lot and you would probably be buying one of those lots to enjoy the water feature and so if they did put a fence up I would assume that it would be of a wrought iron nature and not a privacy type. That was our initial idea on this. When Engineering came back with a comment for safety. Honestly, we questioned the safety issue of it. Where the water is being held in the pond slopes at a 6 to 1 slope. It is much milder than the bank further up the slope that is used for the storm water retention. It would be a very gradual slope going into the water. It wouldn't really be a safety hazard of someone falling off and falling into a situation that they couldn't get out of. Our initial idea was to not have a fence. Safety was not, I don't want to say that we didn't concern ourselves with safety, but we didn't see this as been a hazardous situation. Thank you. I think sometimes we can imagine dangerous situations and we would all be walking around in fences sometimes. Streets are very Planning Commission February 28, 2005 Page 8 dangerous but we don't fence those off. I would like to go ahead and make a motion that we on condition of approval number four, that we allow the developer to control the fence or type of fence, that is placed around the pond. With that change, I will go ahead and make a motion that we approve this. Pate: Is that requiring a fence and allowing the developer the latitude to choose what type of fence? Ostner: That is allowing the developer to choose no fence or the type of fence, or the wrought iron. Williams: What you are basically doing I guess is just striking all of the italicized portion of number four just granting the waiver of the 100' and leaving the fence up to the developer. Does your motion also approve all of the monetary figures that have been recommended in the first three conditions? Ostner: Yes, thank you. The three monetary figures are in condition number one the Planning Commission determination of street improvements to move in a positive motion for the $68,552 and condition number two, the determination of offsite assessments, that amount is $5,160 and condition number three, an assessment in the amount of $4,994 shall be paid by the developer prior to Final Plat for the un -constructed portion of the Oak Haven Place stub out. Trumbo: I will second. Osmer: Is there further discussion? Myres: We have a motion to approve subject to the changes that you have indicated? Ostner: Yes. Myres: I just wanted to clarify that for myself'. Shackelford: I guess we need to make note condition number seven to change as stated in the staff report. Osmer: Yes. I am going to allow staff to insert that we have agreements on all parties. Thank you. Trumbo: I will second that. Ostner: Can you call the roll please? Planning Commission February 28, 2005 Page 9 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 05-1386 was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission February 28, 2005 Page 10 PPL 05-1388: Preliminary Plat (Crescent Lake, pp 607): Submitted by Tom Hennelly for property located at Goff Farm Road west of Stonebridge Meadows Phase I. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre and contains approximately 17.50 acres. The request is to approve a Preliminary Plat of a residential subdivision with 43 single family lots proposed. Ostner: Morgan: Our next item is PPL 05-1388 for Crescent Lake if we could have the staff report please. Thank you. The applicant requests approval of a Preliminary Plat for the construction of a subdivision with 43 single family lots. The property contains approximately 17.5 acres and is located north of Goff Farm Road as well as west of Stonebridge Meadows Subdivision Phase II. This property is a little unique. It is surrounded by a golf course to the west as well as floodway and a creek to the east and the north. Right of way to be dedicated for this subdivision includes 35' of right of way from centerline on Goff Farm Road as well as 40' rights of way within the interior of the subdivision. With regard to connectivity, there is one point of connectivity proposed to be provided to connect to Goff Farm Road. The Subdivision Committee approved connectivity as shown on the proposed Preliminary Plat. The applicant has in past weeks met with several different representatives of different Fire Departments including the Fayetteville Fire Department as well as County and State. As a result of these meetings, they discussed connectivity or access in an emergency to this property. On page 3.8 there is a letter from the applicant's representative, H2 Engineering, with regard to the discussion result of this meeting with regard to an additional access easement and paved access. That is addressed further in condition number eight of the conditions of approval. Staff is recommending approval of this Preliminary Plat with 22 conditions. These include condition one, Planning Commission determination of street improvements. Staff recommends improvements to Goff Farm Road including 14' street from centerline as well as curb, gutter, 6' sidewalk at the right of way as well as street lights and storm drainage. Additionally, condition number eight reflects the letter on page 3.8 and I will address any further questions if you have them. Ostner: Thank you Ms. Morgan. Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Hennelly: My name is Tom Hennelly, I'm with 142 Engineering representing Lamberth & Carlton LLC, the developers on this. I read the conditions of approval and don't have a problem with them. I think Suzanne, is there one in there that mentions a parks fee? Morgan: Yes Sir. Planning Commission February 28, Page 11 Hennelly: Ostner: Morgan: Williams: Morgan: Williams: Pate: Trumbo: Pate: Shackelford: Hennelly: 2005 The only contention that we have is that that parks fee was when we initially submitted the plat we had 44 lots on there and they deducted one lot because there is an existing house there. Now we are at 43 lots so one lot should be deducted. That should be 42 lots that we are charged for with the parks fee. Other than that, we don't really have any contention. Thank you Mr. Hennelly. At this point I will open it up to the public. Would anyone like to speak to PPL 05-1388 for Crescent Lake? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Does staff know if condition number ten is accurate? It does list 43 single family units. With 43 single family lots one would be deducted for an existing single family home, which 42 single family lots at $555 per lot equals $23,310. $25,000 you are saying? $23,310. If you subtract $555 from $25,860 you get $25,310. The original number was incorrect. The correct number is $23,310. That is for 42 lots? The final amount will be determined at the time of Final Plat if the number of lots goes up or down. I do have one question of the applicant. One of the things that was pointed out at Subdivision Committee was the required width of the driveway for the existing house. You talked about whether or not you were going to be able to do that or if you would have to do a tandem drive there. Is that something that we need to address at this time or did you figure out a way to bring that up? We have got approval to do both a shared drive with the adjacent lot or we are able to configure it to get the 5' separation. I really figured I would just leave that. The developers are planning on remodeling that house and we are going to try to incorporate that in whatever drive configuration. There is some latitude there. Shackelford: Maybe I should ask that question of staff if we do a shared drive on those two lots does that need to be designated on the Preliminary Plat in any way? Planning Commission February 28, 2005 Page 12 Pate: At the time of Final Plat again, we can look at that more specifically and determine if it is a better access point from the shared drive or from an individual drive. MOTION: Shackelford: Thank you very much. This property is a very unique location given the development and the water front around it. This is a situation that we don't see very often where there is not any connectivity but it makes perfect sense given the locale of this property. I think that the applicant and the staff have done a great job of putting this thing together and for the record, this is another area that I don't think we need a fence around the water area. I think this is going to have a very nice appeal to these lots. I am going to make a motion that we approve PPL 05-1388 subject to all conditions of approval with the specific finding on number one for the street improvements that staff recommends and number ten to read payment of $23,310 for 42 lots for park land dedication. All other conditions as stated. Osmer: Thank you Commissioner Shackelford. Myres: I will second. Ostner: There is a second by Commissioner Myres, is there further discussion? Could you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 05-1388 was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission February 28, 2005 Page 13 LSD 05-1385: Large Scale Development (Westside Treatment Plant, pp 479/515): Submitted by McGoodwin, Williams & Yates for property located at Persimmon between Broyles and 54`h. The property is zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural and contains approximately 321.64 acres. The request is to approve a wastewater treatment facility on the subject property with 4,867 sq.ft. and 30 parking spaces proposed. Ostner: Our next item is a Large Scale Development for the Westside Treatment Plant. If we could have the staff report please. Pate: Certainly. This property is located east of 54th Avenue south of Persimmon Street, west of Broyles Road, which does traverse through the site currently. The property is zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural and contains approximately 168 acres. Approximately 40 acres of the 168 acres is being utilized for a new wastewater treatment plant, which is the proposal before you, with much of the remainder in open field, tree preservation area, and wetland mitigation area as you can obviously reference here on the graphic. Just for a little history for both the public and Commission, in 1999 the city purchased 322 acres of property which is seen in the graphic south of West Persimmon Street, east of South 54th Avenue, west of Broyles and north of Woolsey Farm Road. It is approximately 322 acres there. The outline in red is showing the 168 acres currently under review for Large Scale Development. The City Council approved the location of a plant site on this property back in 1999 or 2000, purchased and annexed the property with an R -A zoning district, which allows the plant site as a use permitted by right. Numerous public meetings were held in the decision to locate the new facility which is intended to facilitate the new growth that Fayetteville is experiencing. The proposal consists of a development of the wastewater treatment plant to treat wastewater flows generated within the Illinois River Water Shed from the City of Fayetteville. The Westside Treatment Facility will treat flows in the Illinois River Basin and the Nolan Plant will serve the White River Basin. It will capture much of the wastewater that is currently pumped to the Paul Nolan site on the east side of Fayetteville. Only a small portion of the property is actually accessible to visitors and those will probably be visitors with high security. There are a number of state, county and federal regulations that this property and project are subject to beyond the scope of the Planning Commission. Those of course, have all been complied with or are in the process of being complied with to complete construction drawings and continue forward with this project. The Planning Commission's purpose for this project, as with any Large Scale Development, is to review the submitted proposal for compliance with applicable development and zoning provisions of the Unified Development Code. That includes the landscape plan that has been submitted, the tree preservation plan, any street improvements, water and wastewater access, appropriate screening, etc. Staff has evaluated this project based on the criteria in the Unified Development Code and Planning Commission February 28, 2005 Page 14 included conditions of approval as part of the staff report. Staff is recommending approval of this Large Scale Development finding that the project does meet all applicable zoning and development regulations. There are 15 conditions of approval. As you noticed in your packet, there has been significant public comment within this process. City staff did require the applicants, the city is the applicant, it is a unique situation. We are reviewing as a reviewing body, the Planning staff and Engineering staff, reviewing this as a Large Scale Development as with any other project that you see as a Large Scale Development or subdivision. The applicant's representative is here tonight to speak to any questions or issues that you might have about the project and specifically, there has been public comment with regard to notification for this project. Much of which of course is against this specific use. I just want to remind the condition that this use is a use by right. It is not something that the Planning Commission is here to decide whether or not the treatment plant should go on this property. That is something that the City Council made a policy decision years ago to locate this on this property. The Planning Commission is here to decide whether or not it meets current zoning and development ordinances. As a use by right and not industrial or commercial in nature, there is not technically a screening requirement. However, much of the public comment that came out in these public hearings did request or have views concerning screening. Therefore, through this particular development project there is significant screening proposed. To the west along 54th Avenue is a significant landscape buffer. To the east along Broyles Avenue is also some mounding and berming of earth and landscape in that particular location. As you can see, to the south along the creek the area is being preserved as a tree preservation area for the most part. That will provide screening as well. There are a couple of items that the City Council will have to review as a part of this project. There are two Master Street Plan amendments on pages 4.13 there is a graphic as well as page 4.12 indicating those Master Street Plan amendments that the Planning Commission is asked to make a recommendation to the City Council upon. The first of which, is Broyles Road, which currently makes an "S" curve with right angles through the property currently. The city is proposing to construct approximately one mile of street beyond what is already being constructed from Wedington. The city has constructed Broyles Road south from Wedington to Persimmon Street, which is at the northeast corner of this site. An additional section of course, will be constructed per this project. That would be a 28' wide street within a 70' right of way. The other Master Street Plan amendment is Sellers Road, which currently traverses east/west through the property boundary. Staff is recommending that Sellers Road, a minor arterial, be moved south to be in line with Woolsey Farm Road to complete that connection both to Rupple and Sellers eventually. As I mentioned, staff is recommending approval of this Large Scale Development. There are a lot of easements that are on going Planning Commission February 28, 2005 Page 15 currently and utility relocations. I did not itemize everything. I don't think this Planning Commission really needs to understand what fiber optic lines are being removed or what lines are being relocated but I did include a condition that through the construction process the city and the utility representatives will work through that process to adequately relocate any of those lines. Formal easement and/or right of way vacation requests will need to be approved by the City Council for any right of way that does need to be vacated, as well as the City Council shall review the Master Street Plan amendments associated with this project. Item number six, Planning Commission determination of street improvements, staff is recommending that the applicant construct Broyles Road for approximately one mile from Persimmon Street to the south of the subject property with a 28' street section with 6' sidewalks located on the west side of that property. Item number seven, again, I mentioned is technically not required but I did include it. Planning Commission determination of appropriate screening. Staff has evaluated the proposed screening and finds that it does adequately screen this use from adjoining property owners. I believe all of the other conditions are self explanatory but if you have any questions feel free to ask. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Pate. Is the applicant present? Siversen: I'm John Siversen, the architect with McGoodwin, Williams & Yates. I am here on behalf of the City of Fayetteville to present you with your Wastewater Treatment Plant. I would like to elaborate a little bit on the site facility which Jeremy has so comprehensively presented. We are very much aware of how important this project is to the city and how we want to be a good neighbor for the community and in particular, the adjacent neighbors. Our approach to the project has two essential elements. The first one being to blend the new facility into the surrounding natural landscape by addition of earth berms and landscaping and secondly, to use architectural design elements to minimize the impact of the buildings on the project site. To help explain this project, if you look at this photograph here you can see as Jeremy so well explained, you have the overall tract which is 322 acres and then within that tract we are designating an area which is going to be the LSD tract, that is 168 acres and then within that again we've got 40 acres which will be a fenced off area for the plant site. As Jeremy said initially, this larger parent tract was purchased by the city back in 1999 solely for this purpose. Back to the LSD tract, which is surrounded by red, we have got the 168 acres and it is bordered by 54th Street on the west and Broyles Road on the east and the new alignment of Broyles Road is coming around here to the southeast. On the south we have got this creek and the far wooded area here and then to the north there has been an alignment determined here to accommodate the wetlands in this LSD tract. Within this LSD tract there are several existing and proposed features. The large wooded area here situated on the south side Planning Commission February 28, 2005 Page 16 and then it comes around to the west side and will provide a dense screened buffer. To the west there is a large open pasture between 54`h Avenue and the plant. That is bordered on the east side of 54th Avenue with the required street tree plantings and then immediately adjacent to the plant there is going to be groupings of trees there to provide additional screening to the plant from the view from the west. Then to the north we've got the wetlands which is 26 acres in area that consists of these bermed areas that are enhanced with landscaping and trees and then to the east of the plant between Broyles Road and the plant there are several berms and planting of deciduous and evergreen nature. Situated within all of these surroundings we have got the wastewater treatment plant itself. It is with an 10MG annual average capacity which is necessary to meet the projected wastewater needs up to the year 2020. Within this plant you've got the engineering on the project requires numerous structures and buildings with various shapes and sizes. These buildings are a direct result of the function that occurs within them and they vary considerably. It has been an architectural endeavor to have these buildings be harmonious and blend in with the existing future residential areas. To this extent we have minimized the height of the buildings and the impact of these buildings in the front. All of the buildings have hip roves to give you a lower profile rather than having gabled ends with a high pitch that would be more intrusive into the landscape. Then we are accenting the horizontal by using the base of the buildings have got a CMU base with wainscote and then there is a pre -finished metal horizontally applied to the building for the remainder of the wall. This is a banding effect, which sort of helps emphasize the horizontality and in effect, keeps a low profile for the project. As well as that we are going to be using a color scheme which includes mainly earth tones that again, helps it blend in with the surroundings. There won't be any use of any accent colors or anything bright that will be fantasy or draws attention to the structures. We want to compliment the future residential development of the adjacent property. In conclusion, this facility with the earth berms and landscape features will blend in with the natural landscape along with the architectural design elements to minimize the impact of this building. It will be harmonious with the surrounding and go above and beyond the status of being a good neighbor. Thank you. Ostner: Thank you Sir. At this point we will hear from the public. Would anyone like to speak to this issue? Please step forward and give us your comments. Going once, anybody? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Shackelford: I will start the conversation. It was pointed out earlier by the staff and something that we had a discussion about at the Subdivision Committee level. We do have to remember that this property is already annexed and zoned and the use is a use by right on this property. As we serve as Planning Commission February 28, 2005 Page 17 Planning Commissioners at the discretion of City Council our job is to look simply at the development side of it with provisions to include landscaping, tree preservation, street improvements and to some degree, screening. Although we don't even quite honestly have the ability to determine screening because it is a use by right on this property as well. With that being said, I think the developer and the architect and everybody involved has done a good job in limiting the affect that this is going to have. Obviously, it is a tough sell if this is across the street from your house but I think that with the berms and with the landscaping and that sort of thing I think we have come a long ways from some of the fears and the concerns that were originally thought would be involved with this project. I would like to first congratulate everybody for their involvement and hard work in this process and the end result is necessary for the growth of the City of Fayetteville and I think it is a very good project given what has to be done in this location. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Shackelford. A question that I have for the applicant is speaking of a tough sell, my question is smells. I have read in the report that this facility is using state of the art systems to control odor. Could you elaborate on that? Siversen: That is more into the engineering side of it. From my architectural understanding, they are using state of the art, research is ongoing in this country in this area and we have been in touch and involved with the latest and greatest and you are going to be getting it. Ostner: You don't have anyone here on staff who would know more about the specifics? Siversen: I can tell you that we are using bio filters and bio scrubbers. We had initially intended to use carbon filters but throughout the course of the project technology has changed to the extent that we have adopted this different approach. Crider: My name is Lane Crider, I'm with McGoodwin, Williams & Yates. One of the items in your packet has actually changed from your submission. Rather than using bio filters followed by bio scrubbers the design has gone up another step and we are using bio filters followed by carbon absorbers. That is going to eliminate the additional potential of any odor releases by going to that additional type of construction and type of technology. All of the facilities, the basins, which we feel are the odor producing facilities are being covered either by the concrete top, which is the construction of the basin itself or with FRP type covers. The air underneath those will be drawn out from under the covers and all be sent to a centralized treatment facility which has the bio scrubbers followed by the carbon absorbers. This type of technology in many applications has been proven to be as Planning Commission February 28, 2005 Page 18 MOTION: Allen: good as it gets for this type of facility. We feel like you are getting the best type of treatment that you are going to find for a wastewater treatment plant. I think the additional step of covering those basins that may produce any type of odors release, in that step alone is doing well. Some of us on the commission toured the Nolan Plant a few years back and I was really amazed at the ability that they had at that time to deal with odor and I presume that technology has improved since then. Also, I would like to commend the developer on the aesthetics of these buildings. I do think they blend in beautifully with the terrain and going above and beyond with the landscaping. With that being said, I am going to go ahead and move for approval of LSD 05-1385 subject to the fifteen conditions of approval. Ostner: I will second that motion. There are several municipalities, several cities around here, who have development moratoriums because they don't have enough sewer capacity. We do not have a moratorium, we are looking towards the future. I think this is a big step towards planning for the inevitable growth of our city. I think it is an important part of the puzzle On a more parliamentary note, I believe we have several determinations. Condition number six and seven are specific, seven is not a specific determination. Williams: Five is though, you are recommending a change in the Master Street Plan. Ostner: Master Street Plan change, does the motioner accept conditions five and six as specific findings? Allen: Yes I do. Ostner: As the second I will agree. Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll all the motion to approve LSD 05-1385 was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission February 28, 2005 Page 19 LSD 05-1390: Large Scale Development (Glass Hill Carwash, pp 566): Submitted by Mandy Bunch of EB Landworks for property located on the south side of Huntsville Road just east the intersection of Crossover Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.23 acres. The request is to approve a 3,792 sq.ft. carwash. Ostner: Our next item is LSD 05-1390 for Glass Hill Car Wash. Shackelford: At this point I am going to recuse from this item. Trumbo: Mr. Chair, I will recuse also. Ostner: Mr. Shackelford and Mr. Trumbo have recused, they will wait outside while we see this item. I am not sure we have a quorum all of the sudden. Williams: I think you would have a quorum but let me read rule number E in Article III. It says a quorum shall consist of five members, which you began this meeting with five members. No formal business may be conducted without a quorum and no vote can be cast by proxy. Here is the item that concerns me, it says no action may be taken on any item which excluding those members who abstain, there are fewer than five members voting. It looks to me like we don't have five members voting and so I would be concerned about trying to approve this project because I'm afraid we could be challenged on that. I would recommend that we probably still hear it so it could be old business when it comes up and you would be first on the list at the next meeting. It may be an abbreviated presentation by staff because you will probably want to make this again. Ostner: With that in mind, we will go ahead and have a brief presentation and any public comment and we will see this item again when we have quorum. Morgan: This is a 1.23 acre tract located south of Huntsville and east of Crossover. The zoning is C-2 and currently vacant. The applicant proposes construction of a car wash with three vacuum stations as well as an ATM. Right of way is required to be dedicated along Huntsville Road by Warranty Deed. With regard to access, they are proposing access from this property to Huntsville Road, as well as eliminating access on adjoining property to the west and creation of a cross access in that location. There is an issue with regard to street improvements. Staff is recommending construction of a 6' sidewalk at the right of way per the Master Street Plan requirements. The applicant is requesting that the existing 4' sidewalk adjacent to the curb on Huntsville Road be utilized and remain in lieu of construction of a new sidewalk. With regard to the conditions of approval, which staff is recommending approval of this project, the Planning Commission has been requested to make a Planning Commission February 28, 2005 Page 20 determination of street improvements with regard to the sidewalk and compliance of Commercial Design Standards, in which staff is in favor of. Ostner: Thank you Ms. Morgan. Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and give us your presentation if you would like, I'm sorry about these circumstances. Bunch: That is alright. My name is Mandy Bunch, I'm with EB Landworks. I'm here tonight representing Glass Hill LLC, which Bob Hill is representing the owner here with me this evening. Basically, when we left Subdivision Committee, we have a six bay carwash. When we left Subdivision Committee there were some concerns over commercial design standards and we have come quite a long way in our presentation and we feel like we have really gone the extra effort there. I'm not going to go into detail about it because I realize I need to be brief. I feel like we've got a very good looking product at this point. The issue regarding the sidewalk, that is always something that I never want to ask for because it is required by the Master Street Plan. What we are looking at here, the developer is taking a pretty unsafe configuration with the driveway configuration. That existing driveway that is coming out of the medical facility that used to be the old Watson's Grocery Store, is about only 160'. It has also got limited visibility at that juncture. What the developer is doing on their own accord because we knew that there were some concerns about the development across the street, is to actually relocate the drive on our side thereby constructing almost 160' of relocated drive and also aligning with the developer across the highway. We feel like we have gone the extra effort to do this and what we are talking about is not a big issue with the sidewalk. Also, I have kind of gone down this road several times when the Planning Commission has required this and when we get down to the actual construct ability of the engineering and other items that we have basically not constructed and relocated the sidewalk because what we are dealing with here is a 4' sidewalk that is probably two years ago. There is already a 2' greenspace and actually moving that back to the right of way within our property since we are having to dedicate the additional right of way also makes that sidewalk look quite interesting. I think we generally received positive comments from Commissioners Clark and Anthes at Subdivision Committee and so we are hoping that the rest of the Commission will join us with that consensus. If you guys have any questions we will be glad to answer them. I was hoping we could go with the majority tonight. Ostner: I am going to go ahead and open it up to public comment. If anyone would like to speak to this issue of LSD 05-1390 please approach the podium. Seeing none, I am going to close the public comment and bring it back to the three commissioners. Planning Commission February 28, 2005 Page 21 Williams: You can move to table. Myres: MOTION: Allen: Myres: Bunch: Williams: Pate: Williams: Pate: Ostner: Roll Call: Thomas: Ostner: I just did want to compliment the applicant on their willingness to tweak the visual appearance. This would have to be the best looking carwash I have ever seen in my life. The changes in materials are very attractive. It is a very good looking structure and we appreciate your willingness to make the number of changes that you were requested to make. That's all that I wanted to say. I will move to table LSD 05-1390 until our next meeting. I will second. Can I ask a question? I was just wondering since the two abstaining members weren't here this evening and the only other two Commissioners that aren't here this evening will most likely be on the Subdivision Committee at the next round would it be possible for these Commissioners to agree with the Commercial Design Standards so that we could be approved at the next Subdivision Committee? I would just have to ask the Planner. Does the Subdivision Committee, can they approve Commercial Design Standards? Yes, as long as there are no waiver requests the Subdivision Committee does have the right to approve a Large Scale Development. What about the sidewalk, is that something that the full Commission would have to approve? Yes. Simply because they are requesting a waiver of that Master Street Plan requirement. There is a motion to table and a second, is there any further discussion? Could you call the roll please? Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table LSD 05-1390 was approved by a vote of 3-0-2 with Commissioners Trumbo and Shackelford abstaining. The motion carries. Thank you. That is the end of our agenda. There is a nominating committee to be appointed tonight for officers. The nominating Planning Commission February 28, 2005 Page 22 committee is Commissioner Trumbo, Commissioner Myres and Commissioner Clark. All of the present Commissioners accepted with Commissioner Ostner stating he received a personal acceptance by Commissioner Clark. Ostner: We will be making new appointments to the Subdivision Committee at the next meeting. That is all that I have to say. Are there any announcements? We are adjourned. Meeting adjourned: 6:30 p.m.