HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-03-03 - Agendas - Final AGENDA FOR A REGULAR MEETING OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission will be held Monday,February 24,
2003 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street,Room
219,Fayetteville,Arkansas.
Roll Call
The following items will be considered:
Consent Agenda:
Approval of minutes from the February 10,2003 meeting
New Business:
1. LSD 03-6.00: Large Scale Development(Superior Industries, pp 682) was submitted
by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull &Associates on behalf of Superior Industries for property
located at 1901 Borick Drive. The property is zoned I-2, General Industrial and contains
approximately 43 acres with 544 parking spaces proposed and four additional buildings
containing 81,184 sq.ft.
2. LSD 03-5.00:Large Scale Development (Shake's, pp 252) was submitted by Mel
Milholland on behalf of Springdale-Market Place,LLC for property located at 2785-2835
N. College. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains
approximately 1.66 acres with two buildings proposed (6000 sq.ft. & 1038 sq.ft.).
3. CUP 03-2.00: Conditional Use (Community of Christ Church, pp 292)was submitted
by Dan Ferguson of Atlas Construction on behalf of Community of Christ Church located
at 2715 N. Old Wire Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and
contains approximately 3.10 acres. The request is for an addition to.a church in the R-1
zoning district(Use Unit 4).
4. RZN 03-6.00: Rezoning(Brophy,pp 291) was submitted by Bill Rudasill on behalf of
Ralph Brophy for property located north of Township and east of 71B. The property is
zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 0.74 acres. The
request is to rezone to R-3,High Density Residential.
5. RZN 03-12.00: Rezoning (Broyles, pp 598)was submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton,
Tull &Associates on behalf of Tom Broyles for property owned by Helen Adams and
located at the northeast corner of 18'h Street and Futrall Drive. The property is zoned I-1,
Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 17.65 acres. The request
is to rezone to C-2,Thoroughfare Commercial.
K:UGENDAW0200311-1a-03.DOC
ORDER OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A. Introduction of agenda item- Chairman
B. Presentation of request-Applicant
C. Public Comment
D. Response by Applicant/Questions& Answer with Commission
E. Action of Planning Commission(Discussion and vote)
NOTE TO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE
If you wish to address the Planning Commission on an agenda item, raise your hand when the
Chairman asks for public comment. He will do this after he has given Planning Commission
members the opportunity to speak and before a final vote is taken. Public comment will only be
permitted during this part of the hearing for each item.
Once the Chairman recognizes you, go to the podium at the front of the room and give your
name and address. Address your comments to the Chairman, who is the presiding officer. He
will direct them to the appropriate appointed official, staff member or others for response. Please
keep your comments brief, to the point, and relevant to the agenda item being considered so that
everyone has a chance to speak.
Please, as a matter of courtesy,refrain from applauding or booing any speakers or actions of the
Planning Commission.
Planning Commissioners:
Lorel Aviles - Chairman
Bob Estes - Vice Chairman
Lee Ward- Secretary
Nancy Allen
Don Bunch
Sharon Hoover
Alice Church
Loren Shackelford
Alan Ostner
LSD 03-06.00
Page 1
PC Meeting of February 24,2003
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS Superior,LSD
113 W. MountainSt
Fayetteville,AR 72701
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission Members
THRU: Tim Conklin,CP&E Director,A.I.C.P.
FROM: Sara Edwards,Associate Planner
Matt Casey P.E., Staff Engineer
DATE: February 20,2003
Project: LSD 03-6.00: Large Scale Development(Superior Industries,pp 682)was
submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull &Associates on behalf of Superior Industries for
property located at 1901 Borick Drive. The property is zoned I-2, General Industrial and
contains approximately 43 acres with 544 parking spaces proposed and four additional buildings
containing 81,184 sq.ft.
Findings:
Proposal: The construction of 543 parking spaces, a 12,025 square foot maintenance building, a
3, 770 square foot maintenance building, a 56,985 square foot manufacturing building addition,
and a 8,431 square foot manufacturing addition. The proposal is for a private drive located on
City property for truck turnaround traffic.
Existing Development: Seven hundred twenty-four thousand two hundred seventy(724,270)
square foot industrial building with seven hundred twelve (712)existing parking spaces.
Surrounding Zoning: North: I-2
South: County
East: I-2
West: I-2
Surrounding Land Use: North: Hanna's Candle Factory
South: undeveloped
East: Gas company and 2 homes
West: City property, Combs Park, White River
Water: An existing eight(8)inch water line is available along Borick Drive.
Sewer: An existing eight(8)inch sewer line is available along Borick Drive.
Street Improvements Proposed: No public street improvements are required. The applicant will
be allowed to build a private drive to access the property on city owned land with an access
Planning Commission
February 24, 2003
LSD 03-6 Superior
Page 1.1 _
LSD 03-06.00
Page 1
easement.
Tree Preservation: Existing Canopy: 5,263 Square Feet
Preserved Canopy: 5,263 Square Feet
Recommendation: Approval Subject to Following Conditions
Conditions of Approval:.
1. Construction may not begin until the access easement is obtained from the City and
approval is granted from the Parks Board for the private drive on city property.
2. The sidewalk requirement is fora minimum six foot sidewalk with a minimum ten foot
greenspace along Borick Drive and Black Oak Road. The applicant has requested the
option to review the construction costs and contribute funds to the sidewalk fund
dependent upon these costs.
3. The private drive and parking lots shall be constructed of asphalt or concrete.
4. A floodplain development permit is required for all development in the floodplain and
must be obtained prior to any grading or improvements.
5. The facility shall comply with all Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality
regulations and permits.
6. A certificate of zoning compliance shall be obtained for any new manufacturing
activities.
Standard Conditions of Approval:
7. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to
the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives -AR
Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communications)
8. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable)
for grading,drainage, water, sewer,fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks,
parking lot(s)and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review
process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to
additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's current
requirements.
9. Large scale development shall be valid for one calendar year.
10. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required:
Planning Commission
February 24, 2003
LSD 03-6 Superior
Page 1.2
LSD 03-06.00
- Page 3
a) Grading and drainage permits
b) Separate easement plat for this project that shall include the tree preservation area.
c) Project Disk with all final revisions
d) Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the
City(letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by§158.01 "Guarantees in Lieu of
Installed Improvements" to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all
improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be
completed,not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
Background:
The project was reviewed at the January 29, 2003 Technical Plat Review and the February 13,
2003 Subdivision Committee Meeting.
Discussion at the Subdivision Committee meeting included environmental complaints,noise
complaints, floodplain, street improvements and the sidewalk requirements.
The Subdivision Committee forwarded the Large Scale Development to the full Planning
Commission subject to all staff comments.
Additional information:
Noise- Noise is monitored by the Fayetteville Police Department. Staff has requested a reading.
However, we may only take a reading within the city limits. If Superior is found to violate any
noise ordinance,they will be required to rectify any violations.
Air Emissions- Emissions are permitted by the Arkansas Department of Environmental
Quality. Superior is currently in compliance with the ADEQ Air Permit. They are in the process
of amending the current permit to allow the proposed expansion. ADEQ investigates all
complaints associated with air emissions.
Liquid Emissions-All liquid emissions from the plant drain into the City of Fayetteville sanitary
sewer.ADEQ has not received any overflow complaints in recent years.
Floodplain-Floodplain exists on the northeast corner of the site.
Vibrations-Neither the City or ADEQ have regulations in relation to seismic or sound wave
vibrations.
Notification- All property owners who share a common boundary with the project have been
notified as well as one owner directly across Dead Horse Mountain and one across Borick Drive.
Planning Commission
February 24, 2003
LSD 03-6 Superior
Page 1.3
LSD 03-06.00
Page 4
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: ves Required
Approved Denied
Date:
Comments:
The"CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL", beginning on page one of this report, are accepted in total
without exception by the entity requesting approval of this development item.
By
Title
Date
Planning Commission
February 24, 2003
LSD 03-6 Superior
Page 1.4
nm `'
T E u t
212 E r S T ? 23 555
D
T T
E V / L L E
D U S T R / A L
PRIVATE DR J B Hanna, L.L.C.4� V `
¢ P.O. Box 3647 \ P A R K
P
Fayetteville, AR 72702 i \`' � E P L A T
cr Q RE I
� .
1
I
q16 'I iA T55
i I 17
I I Nv `i i I
zFIv3O II I I
9/1,59 . ..__...-..?..� O
g r City of Fayetteville FArET�EVI LLE
21 a
C/O Arkansas Western Gas Co. INDUSTRIA l_PA RX pj\RK
u
P. 0. Box 1266 - REF AT I j RF-PAT
„a Fayatteville, AR 72702-1288
M ¢C
n «s
IAB 2 21 21 2fa 18'
REPLp i I ! t
Superior Industries
I
I �
1
I
I '
Manolo Molina -- Charles Thrasher Combs _ Lucille Combs George
3357 Dead Horse Mountain Rd. 6516 E. Riverdale 2617 Stantoh -
Fayetteville,AR 72701 Mesa,AZ 85215 Fayetteville, AR 72703
i !
I
I , \O9 SW-SE
I k z
I Ik \
e en
_m= City Limits
0 187.5 375 750 1,125 1,500 y==:m Buildings
wE Feet planning Cmimission
Februa 24, 2003PIanning Area
S LSD 03- SgeriorStreets
City of Fayetteville
;Tree Preservation Plan Review Form
Project: Superior industries Developer: Superior Industries
Location Address; 1901 Borick Drive Engineer: Crafton Tull and Associates
This form shall stand as a: Olnitial Review/Letter of Confirmation
✓Recommendation to Planning Commission or City Council
OFinal Administrative Determination*
Submittal requirements met:
✓Initial Review OSite Analysis OAnalysis Report OTree Preservation Plan
Comments: The site analysis drawing a brie analysis report and a tree preservation plan are
all due for this deJelopment is required Prior to subdivision review.
Canopy measurements:
%Tree Canopy Required to be Preserved. Total Area of Existing Tree Canopy:
Land Use "L Acres:
%To be Pre@erved 15% Square Feet 5.263 sf
%of Total Site Area: ???%
Total Area of Site:
Acres: 1.66 acres Existing Tree Canopy Preserved:
Square Feet; 27 ,309.6sf Acres:
Square Feet:5,263 sf
%of Total Site Area???%
Mitigation/Off Site Alternatives Requested: OYes ✓No
00n-Site Mitigation OOff-Site Preservation OOff--Site Forestation OTree Fund
Tree Preservation;kriteria Met: ✓Yes ONo (See back for criteria list and
comments)
Applicant's Plan OApproved ODisapproved ✓Conditionally Approved
Conditions of Approval: The site analysis drawing a briefanalysis report and a tree
preservation plan are all due for this development is required prior to subdivision review. On the
Tree Preservation Plan the site area included in the development is to be calculated to determine
the percent ofca�'existing and preserved.
Planning Commission
Si Landscape Administrator, dat sbr r' �9' ert
P
Page 1.6
0
Criteria used by Landscape Administrator to evaluate Tree Preservation Plan:
1. The desirability of preserving a tree or group of trees by reason of age,location,size or species..
Comments The existiniz trees are located along the perimeter of the site and will be preserved
2. Whether the design incorporates the required Tree Preservation Priorities.
Comments . All existing trees to be preserved.
3. The extent to which the area would be subject to environmental degradation due to removal of
the tree or group of trees.
Comments Minor,
4. The impact of the reduction in tree cover on adjacent properties,the surrounding neighborhood
and the property on which the tree or group of trees is located.
Comments Minor, there are no current uses adiacent to the site that would be effected by tree removal—
surroundingproperties are vacant.
5. Whether alternative construction methods have been proposed to reduce the impact of
development on existing trees.
Comments Trees are not to be impacted with current design
6. Whether the size or shape of the lot reduces the flexibility of the design.
Comments No
7. The general health and condition of the tree or group of trees, or the presence of any disease,
injury or hazard.
Comments
8. The placement of the tree or group of trees in relation to utilities, structures, and use of the
property.
Comments Since the existing trees are located along the perimeter ofthe development, none are to be
affected.
9. The need to remove the tree or group of trees for the purpose of installing,repairing,replacing,
or maintaining essential public utilities.
Comments None
10. Whether roads and utilities are designed in relation to the existing topography,and routed,where
possible, to avoid damage to existing canopy.
Comments
11. Construction requirements for On-Site and Off-Site Alternatives.
Comments N/A
12. The effects of proposed On-Site Mitigation or Off-'Site Alternatives.
Comments1NA
13. The effect other chapters of the UDO, and departmental regulations have on the development
design.No apparent effect.
Comments
14. The extent to which development of the site and the enforcement of this chapter are impacted by
state and federal regulations.
Comments No impact
15. The impact a substantial modification or rejection of the application would have on the
Applicant:Application recommended for approval.
*An appeal may be filed against a Final Administrative Determination in accordance with Chapter 155 of the Unified
Development Ordinance. City Landscape Administrator determinations/decisions may be appeale"X an r mmfon ed
to the Planning Commission within 10 business days. Recommendations go straight to Planning Comnye�riron
tQim al
appeal is necessary for recommendations. LSD 03-6 Superior
Page 1.7
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS -
KIT WILuAMs,QTY ATfomEY _
DAVID WFIITAKER,ASST.CITY ATTORNEY _
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
TO: EnvironmentalConcerns Committee
FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney
DATE: February,7,,2003
RE: Odor emitting facilities
The City of Fayetteville has already instituted as much regulation
of potential air pollution (smelly) emitters as we can under state law.
When I was an Alderman, I requested the Planning Department to
devise a way (by conditional use) to prevent the unfettered right of a
rendering plant, paper mill, or other very unpleasant smelly facility
from locating in an inappropriate location.
We then passed a requirement that odor-emitting facilities would
only be allowed by conditional use so that we could require odor
reducing apparatus or actions by such facilities. Unfortunately, Bakery
Feeds somehow got in under the wire and began operations. As you
remember, the City had to pay substantial sums to get Bakery Feeds to
leave town.
When Hanna's candle making factory wished to expand in the
industrial park, the Planning Department used our conditional use
ordinance in an attempt to ensure that a new factory would comply
with an air quality control permit to be issued by the Arkansas
Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). Hanna's eventually
Planning Commission
February 24, 2003
LSD 03-6 Superior
Page 1.8
decided not to close its old factory to expand in its new warehouse
location.
When the legislature passed Air Pollution Control Act with the
stated purpose of "controlling or abating air pollution ... and
preventing new air pollution ...,"it gave us a mixed blessing. The State
would try to regulate air pollution which is defined in the act as "air
contaminants which unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of
life or use of property .... " A.C.A. §8-4-303 (5). I believe this means
unpleasant odors are regulated by this act.
The down side is that the legislature preempted this whole area
of air pollution regulation and prevented cities from passing their own
restrictions or regulations.
"In order to avoid conflicting and overlapping
jurisdiction, it is the intention of this chapter to
occupy, by preemption, the field of control and
abatement of air pollution and contamination
and no political subdivision of this state shall
enact or enforce laws, ordinances, resolutions,
rules or regulations in this field." A.C.A. §8-4-306
(copy enclosed)
The City of Fayetteville has already instituted as much regulation
(by conditional use and zoning) to control odor emitting facilities as
permitted by law. I do not believe we have legal authority to pass
Further regulation of odor emitting facilities. Instead, citizens need to
file complaints with the Department of Environmental Quality or the
Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission.
Planning Commission
February 24, 2003
LSD 03-6 Superior
Page 1.9
�
spa S8 m� tQ
ms � m .° 8 �: g gm m
a am � oWB m�Ubi
oa.°° If
pwU� o
i9 Q y •m'6 'tt roIg 4 E m Q �STjj a
�® X GD
A �.p�.q m0. m�'cAJ EGq� ej 0 �Qaa11 P p
& ° >'m ma`•¢`:� 'd 8'g � � 3 0.^�t'� ��� as°•m� SVS � •J' m yO.f
SE
04
Viz" 914
'� z'zm � m gg �.apwpp8a°��
0 LP
a � y"p ��y �$OA4 �ema]�3° 8. p spy"p : 3�I
UA Fi 8 ���yaa0 $
MAE
�
aima
Ilia' . a
x,
t.
alb.
a+�. O
a ago:
. gipm
91 a ����.A
:a S
HUI CPU J.
y� m ; g spa 1 �" s� ma s
,8411 fT
50" � : ° -0F 1010+.x �p ' y z
v, lJ'"ie 1 . v I .ai l—1_.'.a aAi'" �
p .'9
M.g a'�S
m.d� a •"'• p PlcfhA'tr7 int'' ion
February 24, 2003
_ LSD 03-6 Superior
- ------ — Paee 1 10
Sara Edwards Superior Industries Page 1 t
k
From: Sara Edwards
To: ellisj@adeq.state.ar.us
Date: 2/18103 11:02AM
Subject: Superior Industries
Jay:
We at the City of Fayetteville.would like to get copies of all the complaints that have been received for
Superior Industries since it's opening.We feel that this would help us to determine the proper action to
take with regard to the proposed expansion for Superior.
appreciate anyassistance. Also, I am working on getting contact information for adjacent complainants.
Thank You
Sara Edwards
Associate Planner
City of Fayetteville
Planning Division
113 W. Mountain
Fayetteville,AR 72701
(501) 575-8264
(501) 575-8316 fax
sedwards@ci.fayetteville.ar.us
Planning Commission
February 24, 2003
LSD 03-6 Superior
Page 1.11
C Sara Edwards'- RE: Superior Industries Page 1
From: <ELLISJ@adeq.state.ar.us>
To: <SEdwards@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 2/19/03 11:02AM
Subject: RE: Superior Industries
I have forwarded your request to our Little Rock office and am waiting for
their specific instructions. Also, I have been unable to locate a complaint
in my field file with the name Molina (although this name does seem
familiar) - I have not cross referenced my field notes as of yet or checked
the annual county complaint files. This is a time consuming process I will
do after the inspection. Superior is a major stationary source (Title V) and
they are subject to the NSPS subpart N - National Emission Standards for
Chromium Emissions .... The Superior inspection is usually conducted over a
2-3 day period. Several days are needed to review the records and write the
report.
I did conduct surveillance this morning of the melt furnace operations. No
offsite visible emissions were noted. There is a considerable amount of
steam associated with this facility from heat treatment/curing ovens,
drying/cleaning operations, and the chrome plant. Odors were easily
noticeable this morning (from Hanna's candles and Superior). This is likely
due to climatic conditions.
Feel free to call me if you have any questions. Dong Szenher of our Little
Rock Office is coordinating the acquiring of the complaints.
Jay
----Original Message----
From: Sara Edwards[mailto:SEdwards@ci.fayetteville.ar.us]
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 2:44 PM
To: ellisj@adeq.state.ar.us
Subject: Superior Industries
Jay:
The specific complaints are from:
Martha Molina
3357 Dead Horse Mountain Road
479-582-0523
She owns property at 2951 Black Oak Road across from Superior.
Thanks
Planning Commission
February 24, 2003
LSD 03-6 Superior
Page L 12
Sara EdwardsSupenor Industnes Page 1
From: Sara Edwards
To: ELLISJ@adeq.state.ar.us
Date: 2/20/03 8:31 AM
Subject: RE:Superior Industries
Jay:.
Can you elaborate on the type of odor from Superior. We met with them yesterday and they stated the
manufacturing on site consists of only melting metal and cooling metal with steam. Could an odor.be
coming from the melting process? Do you have any suggestions as to the source of the odor? Is it coming
from an open door or something else that might be closed to stop the odor?
>>> <ELLISJ@adeq.state.ar.us> 02/19/03 11:01AM >>>
I have forwarded your request to our Little Rock office and am waiting for
their specific instructions. Also, I have been unable to locate a complaint
in my field file with the name Molina(although this name does seem
familiar) -I have not cross referenced my field notes as of yet or checked
the annual county complaint files. This is a time consuming process I will
do after the inspection. Superior is a major stationary source (Title V) and
they are subject to the NSPS subpart N - National Emission Standards for
Chromium Emissions.... The Superior inspection is usually conducted over a
2-3 day period. Several days are needed to review the records and write the
report.
I did conduct surveillance this morning of the melt furnace operations. No
offsite visible emissions were noted. There is a considerable amount of
steam associated with this facility from heat treatment/curing ovens,
drying/cleaning operations, and the chrome plant. Odors were easily
noticeable this morning (from Hanna's candles and Superior). This is likely
due to climatic conditions.
Feel free to call me if you have any questions. Dong Szenher of our Little
Rock Office is coordinating the acquiring of the complaints.
Jay
---Original Message—
From: Sara Edwards fmailto:SEdwards(dei.favetteville.ar.usl
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 2:44 PM
To: ellisi(@adea.state.ar.us
Subject: Superior Industries
Jay:
The specific complaints are from:
Martha Molina
3357 Dead Horse Mountain Road
479-582-0523
She owns property at 2951 Black Oak Road across from Superior.
Thanks
Planning Commission
February 24, 2003
LSD 03-6 Superior
Page 1.13
cQ Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc.
%p 901 N.47th Street, Suite 200, Rogers,AR 72756 479.636.4838 Fax 479.631.6224 www.craftull.com
February 17, 2003
Ms. Sara Edwards
City of Fayetteville, Planning Department
113 W. Mountain
Fayetteville, AR 72701
RE: Superior Industries
CTA Job No. 021155-00
Dear Sara:
This letter is submitted to you in response to issues that were raised at the
February 13, 2003 meeting of the subdivision committee for the above
referenced project.
- Please find attached the current ADEQ permit for the facility. Currently,
Superior is working with ADEQ, to permit their new equipment. They
will submit the type of equipment including the use and output for
review and approval. ADEQ will than revise the existing permit, which
must be done prior to the installation of any new equipment.
- Superior makes aluminum wheels. Future manufacturing activities with
this expansion will be the same, but they intend to increase output at
15%.
- Superior's liquid emissions are permitted with the City of Fayetteville
under permit No. FAY09. Attached is the permit for your files.
- Currently, there is landscaping along the frontage of Borick drive and
some landscaping within the parking lot area. The following is our
calculations of landscaping required:
1. 560 stalls to remain (560/1tree per 12 spaces = 47 trees) @10% 5
trees required
2. 3501f frontage on Black Oak and 5001f frontage on Borick Drive
(850/1 tree per 301f = 28 trees) @ 10% 3 trees required.
It is our intent to plant an additional 18 evergreen trees along Black
Oak Drive to meet and exceed the additional requirement to provide
some buffering to the adjoining neighbors.
- Superior Industries has an ADEQ operating air permit. Superior meets
the requirements of the permit and we fill that it does not qualify as an
odor producing facility.
Planning Commission
February 24, 2003
LSD 03-6 Superior
Page 1.14
A r c h i t e c t s E n g i n e e r s & S u r v e y o r s
We have attempted to address all the issues that were raised during the
subdivision committee meeting. Please let me know if you have any other
questions or issues that need to be resolved prior to Planning Commission.
Very Truly Yours,
Crafton, Tull &Associates, Inc.
Jerry Kelso, P.E.
Vice President
Planning Commission
February 24, 2003
LSD 03-6 Superior
Page 1.15
°° SUPERIOR INDUSTRIES
Close Up View
: 6
4.2
do
A
A.?
tZ
EPP
u
L �{
b
SUBJECT PROPERTY
I
\
Overview Legend
a Subject Property Boundary Master Street Plan
LSD03-6.00 Planning Area ^ yFreeway/Fxpressway
Streets Overlay District Principal Arterial
�00000°
I City Limits Minor Arterial
Existing L_
ll0 Collector P anning Commission
Planned :1 Outside City
i. 00%. Historic Collector February 24, 2003
0 212.5 425 850 1,275 - 1,700 LSD 03-6 Superior
Feet Page 1.16
A
LSD03-Vi
00
One Mile Viewew SUPERIOR INDUSTRIES
I e
i :a F. -
.I.
0
-_ i
i
yru�, _ �+EMMAUS q C11MP S�rA��RA r
1 �" .
-OiW
I 1
� ._._..._ t
pp
"awvAreoie SUBJECT PROPERTY L=
✓ 11 I I i .Iit771777 —t-:-.
1. ,res
I t 1
Overview Legend
Subject Property Boundary Master street Plan
LSDO".00 �..r Planning Area PdWpl>Fxerial
!:y 'P00016yPrlrldpal Arterial
0 o Overlay District
Shoats 00000_o '- 0Mlnw Arbtlel
edWng City Limits 0'%r Coll r
41G a•n�d Outside City •••• w.wdocoueom 1anningCommission
g February 24, 2003
0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 O.Miles LSD 03-6 Superior
Page 1.17
Planning Commission
February 24, 2003
LSD 03-6 Superior
Page 1.18
LSD 03-03.00
. Page I
PC Meeting of February24.2003
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS Shakes,LSD
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville,AR 72701
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission Members
THRU: Tim Conklin,CP&E Director,A.I.C.P.
FROM: Sara Edwards,Associate Planner
Matt Casey P.E., Staff Engineer
DATE: February 20,2003
Project: LSD 03-5.00: Large Scale Development (Shake's,pp 252)was submitted by Mel
Milholland on behalf of Springdale-Market Place, LLC for property located at 2785-2835 N.
College. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.66
acres with two buildings proposed(6000 sq.ft. & 1038 sq.ft.).
Findings:
Proposal: The proposal is to construct a 6,000 square foot operations building and a 1028 square
foot drive thru restaurant with a 1,120 square foot outdoor patio and two drive through lanes.
Cross access is being provided to the south.
Parking: Forty-one (41) standard parking spaces with Two (2)handicap spaces and Two(2)
bicycle racks.
Existing Development: There was an existing gas station on the south portion of this property.
There is an existing fast food establishment(Shake's) on the north portion of the property.
Surrounding Zoning: North: C-2
South: C-2
East: C-2
West: R-2
Surrounding Land Use: North: commercial shopping and office space
South: car dealership
East: College Avenue
West: residential
Water: An existing six (6)inch water line is available to the east along Hwy. 71B.
Sewer: An existing six (6) inch sanitary sewer is available to the east along Hwy. 71B.
Right-of-way being dedicated.• A Fifty-five (55) foot right of way is being dedicated along Hwy.
71 B.
Planning Commission
February 24, 2003
LSD 03-5 Shake's
Page 2.1
LSD 03-05.00
Page 2
Street Improvements Proposed: None
Tree Preservation: Existing Canopy: 7,666 Square Feet
Preserved canopy: 7,666 Square Feet
Recommendation: Approval Subject to the Following Conditions
Conditions of Approval:
1. Planning Commission determination of the requested waiver for a 12 foot high retaining
wall. The maximum allowed height of a retaining wall is ten feet The request is for a
two foot waiver. Staff is in support of this request.
2. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards.
§166.14 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND CONSTRUCTION AND
APPEARANCE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES.
D. Design Elements Guidelines for Commercial Structures.
1. The elements to avoid or minimize include:
a. Unpainted concrete precision block walls.
b. Square, boxlike structures.
c. Metal siding which dominates the main facade.
d. Large blank, unarticulated wall surfaces.
e. Large out of scale signs with flashy colors
3. Two variances shall be granted by the Board of Sign Appeals in order to approve the
signs as proposed. The required variances include the request of more than 1 freestanding
sign per lot and the allowance of a roof sign. Staff is in support of the requested
variances.
More than one freestanding signs:
a. One monument sign will be located along College.
b. One monument sign will be located in front of the operations center.
C. Two freestanding signs are proposed as drive thru clearance signs located at
the rear of the building.
Roof sign: The applicant is proposing the sign on the front of building to project above
the roof line,which is prohibited.
Standard Conditions of Approval:
4. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to
the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives -AR
Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communications)
5. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations(where applicable)
Planning Commission
February 24, 2003
LSD 03-5 Shake's
Page 2.2
LSD 03-05.00
Page 3
for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks,
parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review
process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to
additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's current
requirements.
6. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum six
foot sidewalk with a minimum ten foot greenspace along College Avenue.
7. Large scale development shall be valid for one calendar year.
8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required:
a) Grading and drainage permits
b) Separate easement plat for this project that shall include the tree preservation area.
c) Project Disk with all final revisions
d) Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the
City(letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by§158.01 "Guarantees in Lieu of
Installed Improvements" to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all
improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be
completed, not just guaranteed,prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
e) Parks fees paid and/or deed recorded and copy received.
Background:
The project was reviewed at the January 29, 2003 Technical Plat Review and the February 13,
2003 Subdivision Committee Meeting.
Discussion at the Subdivision Committee meeting included sign variances,retaining wall height,
and cross access.
The Subdivision Committee forwarded the Large Scale Development to the full Planning
Commission subject to all staff comments.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: yes Required
Approved Denied
Date:
Comments:
Planning Commission
February 24, 2003
LSD 03-5 Shake's
Page 2.3
LSD 03-05.00
Page 4
The "CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL", beginning on page one of this report, are accepted in total
without exception by the entity requesting approval of this development item.
By
Title
Date
Planning Commission
February 24, 2003
LSD 03-5 Shake's
Page 2.4
01
City of Fayetteville
Tree Preservation Plan Review Form
Project: Shakes Frozen Custard Developer: Springdale Market Place,LLC
Location Address:2785—2835 N. College Engineer: Milholland Co.
This form shall stand as a: OInitial Review/Letter of Confmmation
6/Recommendation to Planning Commission or City Council
OFinal Administrative Determination*
Submittal requirements met:
Olnitial Review ✓Site Analysis OAnalysis Report ✓Tree Preservation Plan
Comments:A brief analysis report is required prior to subdivision review.
Canopy measurements:
%Tree Canopy Required to be Preserved Total Area of Existing Tree Canopy:
Land Use C-2 Acres:
%To be Preserved 15% Square Feet 7,666 sf
%of Total Site Area: 10.6%
Total Area of Site:
Acres: 1.66 acres Existing Tree Canopy Preserved:
Square Feet: 72,309.6sf Acres:
Square Feet:7.666 sf
% of Total Site Area 10.6%
Mitigation/Off Site Alternatives Requested: OYes ✓No
OOn-Site Mitigation OOff-Site Preservation OOff--Site Forestation OTree Fund
Tree Preservation Criteria Met: ✓Yes ONo (See back for criteria list and
comments)
Applicant's Plan: OApproved ODisapproved ✓Conditionally Approved
Conditions of Approval:
The construction ofthe retaining wall along the southwest portion of the site will affect canopy.
Confirm that the wall can be built outside of the canopy or investigate the possibility o moving
storage and the associated drive to the north side of the operations center where the slope is less
sever and cangpv does not exist.
i
Planning Commission
Signe . Landscape Administrator, datb3`�
L - :are s
Page 2.5
0
Criteria used by Landscape Administrator to evaluate Tree Preservation Plan:
1. The desirability of preserving a tree or group of trees by reason of age,location,size or species..
Comments The existing canopy lies within the slope to the west of the site and is in an un-maintained
state with heavy underbrush.
2. Whether the design incorporates the required Tree Preservation Priorities.
Comments The plan shows little to no impact on the existingcanoy.
3. The extent to which the area would be subject to environmental degradation due to removal of
the tree or group of trees.
Comments Currently the canopy does keep the slope from eroding
4. The impact of the reduction in tree cover on adjacent properties,the surrounding neighborhood
and the property on which the tree or group of trees is located.
Comments This stand ofirees provides a buffer from adiacent homes to the west. Hwy 265.
5. Whether alternative construction methods have been proposed to reduce the impact of
development on existing trees.
Comments Canopy is not proposed to be affected..
6. Whether the size or shape of the lot reduces the flexibility of the design.
Comments No.
7. The general health and condition of the tree or group of trees, or the presence of any disease,
injury or hazard.
Comments The cants is un-maintained and covered in vines and invasive understory
8. The placement of the tree or group of trees in relation to utilities, structures, and use of the
property.
Comments None proposed.
9. The need to remove the tree or group of trees for the purpose of installing,repairing,replacing,
or maintaining essential public utilities.
Comments None proposed
10. Whether roads and utilities are designed in relation to the existing topography,and routed,where
possible,to avoid damage to existing canopy.
Comments
11. Construction requirements for On-Site and Off-Site Alternatives.
Comments N14
12. The effects of proposed On-Site Mitigation or Off-Site Alternatives.
Comments N/A
13. The effect other chapters of the UDO, and departmental regulations have on the development
design.
Comments
14. The extent to which development of the site and the enforcement of this chapter are impacted by
state and federal regulations.
Comments
15. The impact a substantial modification or rejection of the application would have on the
Applicant:implication recommended for approval.
'An appeal may be filed against a Final Administrative Determination in accordance with Chapter 155 of the Unified
Development Ordinance. City Landscape Administrator determinations/decisions maybe appealed by any person aggrieved
to the Planning Commission within 10 business days. Recommendations go straight to Planning Commission thus no formal
appeal is necessary for recommendations. Planning Commission
February 24, 2003
LSD 03-5 Shake's
Page 2.6
LSo03-5.00 SHAKE 'S
Close Up View
/ E
39
m ; � _a
xz
u
m A 0 -
__
MfMOSA
ql
EVERGREENLN1.
- C
i
SUBJECT PROPERTY
i
i
n w
%..............
ro
g
...........
i
F
i R.o
Overview _ Legend
Subject Property Boundary Master Street Plan -
-.�e LSD03-5.00 .°—`-,, Planning Area Freeway/Expressway
��.�.1 Streets ... Overlay District Principal Arterial
Jl ��+ � � City Limits Minor Arterial
}� ��, \_ Existing L— IO4o% Collector P anning Commission
°. pPlanned utsideC m' 00 February 24, 2003
ee Historic Collector �'
0 75 ISO 300 450 600 LSD 03-5 Shake's
Feet Page 2.7
5.00
LSD03-View
One Mile View SHAKES
:no77
oar o
PRIVATE D4
°oe
F it
o° ._aaivaa .i,.
0 0 $ 000 I UIS�AfwRyi
6-0 o. t #
%0--ooopOoo'a _.-. °OOoa
eop ° '�o a >,. nANCrIpsT D
' I. 600",
a .xs�'. bGViEW.ST -SfStt St ,Q6WEW 5
P±-I.
:...._°o°00000�o
aARoc
o
foo°° 1 -- - -.. RfStC -�csFa: HARoup sa flAR '`� '
000 sr.DiMFCtPpK AR ''r Kp ..BRIARVLIFF ST.eR "SFA r
tt�tt. ,�'1Ff11 `-'A• RqF � .�-°lr-ar t ._. 'a^ u mnCUPF ST ::t
a
RIEAND scsdnTLANusr
00 1 j Is .. CCEICM Sf r Efa ?jl'rvAT D
Tlf�G60R l a NST }
I' , _� 7 '3!: s''r. ��,� ;�rvit^uns�` 1
LIJ SUBJECT PROPERTY
la ,v rerMosa cry n oMr,sT q` e:
t �`-h l dear m -.J AANag .R 15EM c
It _-R7,
.t
i t SiA OR,
#a,
HE
:AsP =
ssr w,
aEYrvotos ,s._SunaRlaoE
OR-
LI
R„
I� o
w w nA�xauTM
P42ASE Ave. \
E A
t r C
4 i 1 �:...i l� 4uLe:ia'�' a� �tGu �C�rvSHi:S+YRWis t T T,(�4Yry$ R(T ..
Wlf xy: >KERR>"M1ia
aRENT lx <
N. I
U �~ z
Ee�tsr�
Iga .
oRr,res i---- tilil7ir`tWI}f41!{'+iftY . RN&�2pR T 8 3'- j J�N y
Overview Legend
` ---- Boundary Master Street Plan
Subject Property .» �Freeway/Expressway
Planning Area
LSD03'5.00
Princlpl Me
rial� oMinor Medal o°oOverlay District
Streets
14[ L _I City Limits
Existing
collecbr
Planned JOutside City d1. Historic Coiledor
--
tanning Commission
— February 24, 2003
0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0. LSD 03-5 Shake's
Iles Page 2.8
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville,AR 72701
Telephone:(479)575-8264
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission
FROM: Dawn T. Warrick, AICP, Senior Planner
THRU: Tim Conklin,AICP, City Planner
DATE: February 24, 2003
CUP 03-2.00: Conditional Use (Community of Christ Church,pp 292)was submitted by Dan
Ferguson of Atlas Construction on behalf of Community of Christ Church located at 2715 N. Old
Wire Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately
3.10 acres. The request is for an addition to a church in the R-1 zoning district (Use Unit 4).
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use subject to the following conditions:
1. Planning Commission determination of the compatibility of the proposed addition
(materials, articulation, general appearance)with the existing neighborhood.
Project shall be constructed in accordance with site plan, landscape plan and
building elevations as approved or modified by the Planning Commission.
2. Development activities shall comply with UDO Chapter 170 Stormwater
Management, Drainage and Erosion Control with regard to permitting and
detention requirements for the proposed addition.
3. Improvement of the parking lot to include:
• Stripe of existing parking spaces
■ Relocate wheel stops to prevent vehicles from encroaching landscaped areas
around the parking lot
■ Create necessary ADA spaces as shown on site plan (1 van accessible ADA
space is required)
■ Remove pavement necessary to create one landscaped island with a tree as
required per §172.01 (proposed island currently only shows installation of
shrubs, this shall be modified to provide for one interior tree)
4. Payment of$4,500.00 in lieu of installation of a sidewalk along Old Wire Road
adjacent to the subject property per§171.12(B)(5)—see attached.
K:IReporu120031PCREPOR7S102-24�-up 03-2_mmmunityofchrisi church.doc Planning Commission
February 24, 2003
CUP 03-2 Community of Christ Church
Page 3.1
5. Installation of a 6' tall wood board privacy fence along the south property line
adjacent to the parking area to provide a screen for the residential neighbor to the
south.
6. Trash pick shall meet the criteria of the Solid Waste Division.
7. All utility equipment(new and existing) shall be screened from the public view. The
applicant proposes to use wooden, lattice-type enclosures to screen condenser units
on the west(rear) side of the proposed addition.
8. No new signs shall be added to the site for the proposed addition.
9. Any outdoor lighting shall be shielded and directed downward and away from
adjacent residential properties.
10. Tree protection shall be installed as required to save all existing on-site trees as
shown on the landscape plan submitted.
11.Proposed landscaping along the street frontage shall comply with setbacks necessary
to accommodate the adopted Master Street Plan in accordance with §166.19.
12. Future additions or changes to the current proposal will require a new conditional
use permit and Planning Commission approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required YES
O Approved O Denied
Date: February 24,2003
Comments:
The"CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL"listed in this report are accepted in total without exception by the
entity requesting approval of this conditional use.
Name: Date:
BACKGROUND:
Property description: The subject property is located on the west side of Old Wire Road,north
K.Weports120031PCREP0R7S102-24Lup 03-2_mmmunity ofchrist church.doc - Planning Commission
February 24, 2003
CUP 03-2 Community of Christ Church
Page 3.2