Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout172-02 RESOLUTIONRESOLUTION NO. 172-02 A RESOLUTION TO GRANT THE APPEAL OF DON NELMS CONCERNING LSD 02-21 (NELMS) WHICH WAS REJECTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON OCTOBER 14, 2002 WHEREAS, the Planning Staff has recommended approval of LSD 02-21 and because the petitioner has fully complied with all developmental ordinance requirements of the UDO. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby grants the appeal of Don Nelms for LSD 02-21 and approves that Large Scale Development as presented to the Planning Commission and pursuant to all recommendations and conditions placed upon LSD 02-21 by the Planning Department and specifically grants the variance for use of metal halide lights. PASSED and APPROVED this the 5th day of November, 2002. APPROVED: By ATTEST: By: a�"'�� eather Woodruff, City Cie4Z NAME OF FILE: CROSS REFERENCE: Item # Date • Resolution No.172-02 Document • 1 11/05/02 Resolution # 172-02 2 10/15/02 Letter from Black, Corley & Owens, P.A. to Heather Woodruff 3 10/14/02 Planning Commission minutes 4 12/05/02 Memo from Heather Woodruff, City Clerk to Tim Conklin, Planning NOTES: Black, Corley & ()wens, RA. arc hi lett, principals Larry A. Black John A. Corley Leslie A. Owens associates Bryan Smith Brian Black 219 West South St. Benton, AR 72015 Tel. 501-315-7686 Fax. 501-315-0487 bnan Q bcorleyo.com • October 15, 2002 Ms. Heather Woodruff Fayetteville City Clerk 113 West Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 RE: Landers Auto Park Ms. Woodruff, • We wish to appeal to the City Council to overturn the Planning Commision's rejection of LSD 02-21.00 (Nelms) during the PC Meeting of October 14, 2002. During the past six months, we have worked closely with the City of Fayetteville Planning Department staff to design a 7 28 acre site expansion for the Landers Auto Park located at the intersection of Interstate 540 and Highway 112. The project was last reviewed at the October 3, 2002 Subdivision Committee Meeting and forwarded to the Planning Commission. The City Planner (Tim Conklin) and the City Engineer (Matt Casey) recommended approval of the Large Scale Development subject to the conditions listed in the attached letter. During the Planning Commission meeting, we publicly agreed to meet each of the nine conditions. Despite our efforts, the approval of the Planning Staff, and the advice of the City Attorney, the Planning Commission voted to reject our proposal. We respectfully request to appear before the City Council during the next meeting scheduled Tuesday, November 5, 2002. Sincerely, Dian Black Don Nelms Representative, Landers Auto Park Representative, Nelms LLP • • • - • • 1 ,1..1 .h, ,(1 ,1•,1:1`1 .f\ rIu; - •:1.,1i).1,"r1�!. rery ,H :,1Ir,.1 4,I Y '1 . :1 htiai !'I./77t1 `JBIi 1 fi II(! ,I t f1)["oet 1%i`ii PI` et1U`_V Sit, ,ttnfliJ3 r'r;!-11 r.I f. -!Qi' .ECJ • FROM • (TUE)OCT 15 2002 14:58/3T.14:57%N0.6307170717 P • • FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAVIT[evnerat, ARXA1sSAs 113 W. Mounds st. FestIwIlles AR 11701 LSD -02-21 Pin l PC Meeting of October 14, 2041 Reda ran TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission Member THRU: Tim Conklin, City Planner, A.I.CP. FROM: Matt Casey P.E. Staff Engineer DATE: October 10, 2002 LSD 02-21.00: Large Scale Development (Nelms, pp 249) was submitted by Phil Hagen of Crafton, Tull t Associates on behalf of Nelms, LLP for property located west of I-540 and east of Hwy 112. Tho property is zoned C-2. Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 7.28 acres with a 300,000 sq.ft. outdnor display area proposed. Findings: • Proposal: Construction of additional display area for Landers Auto Park Parking Provlded: 645 spaces for display Existing Development: Vacant Surrounding Zoning: West C-2 East: A-1 North: A-1 rezoning to C-2 South: 41 Surrounding Land Use: Vacant (east), Auto Park (west), Vacant (north), Vacant (south) Right-of-way being dedicated: None Tree Preservation: Site Coverage: Overlay District 39.I% open Space 38.6% Entire Development Recommendation: Approval subject to the conditions listed below. Conditions of Approval: 1. TCIc final grading plan, storm water plan, and floodplain development permit shall not be approved and issued by the City of Fayetteville until the U S. Army Corps of Engineers concurs with the wetland delineation and issues any/all required permits for work and improvements within the delineated wetland area and waters of the United . States. If the wetlands that are shown on the large scale development are revised by c+USLaSCOM OMPL4MVDJG'EPOsrsvc xsPORTS210:ac7oeatuar42-m_0241.00 MILMS,LOC QCT -11-2002 11:Q9 95%: P.02 FROM 1,TUE)OCT 15 2002 14:59/ST.14:57/N0. • . the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers aad are impacted by the proposed development, the large scale development shall require rehearing and approval by the Planning Commission. 17 70717 P 3 LSD -02-21 Pmp r 2. A letter of map revision based on existing conditions and more detailed study shall be submitted to FEMA for review and approval in order to accurately delineate the 100 year floodplain and floodway on the FIRM map. The letter of map revision shall be completed within one year from approval of the large scale development 3. A variance for the use of metal halide lights shall be required by the Planning Commission. All lighting shall meet the IESNA standards for illumination of automobile display areas and shall be shielded and directed downward. 4. Landscaping shall meet the Design Overlay District requirements for spacing of tree; within the 25 foot landscaped area along the highway frontage. 5. 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) 6. 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 arc subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shill l comply with City's current requirements. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards. 8. Large scale development shall be valid for one calendar year. 9. 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 OCT -11-2002 1139 IP I ZUSCOASIDAIPLUJAWALPORTSIPC WORTS 200210C7Da6Ruatla.SD_2-n;00 NEU43DOC 95% P.03 FPCM (TUE)6C7 15 2002 14:59/ST.157/N0.5307170717 F 4 • • LSD 02-21.00 r d. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by §I58,01 AOuarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Fuithet, 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 July 29, 2002 Technical Plat Review and tabled for drainage issues. It was again reviewed at the August 28,2002 Technical Plat Review and the September 12, 2002 Subdivision Committee Meeting. It was then delayed due to environmental concerns and again reviewed at the October 3, 2002 Subdivision Committee Meeting. Discussion at the Subdivision Committee meeting included tree preservation, wellands, drainage, lighting and environmental coacarns. The Subdivision Committee forwarded the large Scale Development to the full Planning Commission subject to all staff comments. Infrastructure: 1. water. Existing 2. Sanisry Sewer: Existing 3. Streets. NA 4. Grading and Drainage. A preliminary grading plan and drainage report have been submitted and reviewed for general compliance. A final review and approval will be naessary before construction can begin. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: yea Required Approved Denied Date; Comments: CCT -11-2002 11;35 95% P.04 FROM cth Grafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. (TUE)OCT 15 2002 15:00/ST.14:57110.6307170717 P 5 • • R0. Box 549 Rogers, AR 72751 479,636.4838 Fax 479.631.6224 www.aattuiL oom September 25, 2002 City of Fayetteville Planning Division 113 West. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR Re: Best Management Practices Proposed for the Landers Autopark Expansion Project. Dear The City of. Fayetteville Planning Commissioners and Planning Staff: Our proposed large scale development plan for the above referenced project includes the following Best Management Practices. 1. Silt Fencing 2. Diversion Dikes 3. Detention Ponds 4. Vegetation Filtration Basin 5. Utilizing Existing Natural Drainage Ways Should you have any questions concerning thls request, please feel free to contact me at 479-878-2423. Respectfully, Phil Hagen, E.I. Project Engineer Ar c hi t e c t s, E n.g i n e e r s & S u r v e y o r OCT -11-2002 1139 P.06 FROM (TUE)OCT i5 2002 15:00/ST.14:57% 10. 5307170717 P • LSD02-21.00 Closs Up Wiw NELMS • IlnwHNINUMN Lind SAM Property - 1$00041.00 Sheets "Th.. ESP* 411P Pur.wo 0 112.5 225 OCT -LL -2002 11:39 95%: P.07 F"OM L5002-21.00 One Mile View (TUE)OCT 15 2052 15:31,/ST.14 • 71NC. 07170717 P OCT -11-2A?? 1:39 Legend Subsci Property ®15002 21.00 arta Nan Prrae 0 0.1 02 Boundary r N._ Planning Aran o Lce./ ib -1 DlrOrl L COP Limb Masi& GV Marr Otter Plan rnw+.pgpaq Ilio pwcpd iivpnal ` 1I YN MSI ♦ la 5. cares rrrrr Nark Uttar 95% P.06 • • • • FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 LSD -02-21 Page 1 PC Meeting of October 14, 2002 Nelms, LSD TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission Members THRIF Tim Conklin, City Planner, AIC P FROM: Matt Casey P.E. Staff Engineer DATE: October 10, 2002 LSD 02-21.00: Large Scale Development (Nelms, pp 249) was submitted by Phil Hagen of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Nelms, LLP for property located west of I-540 and east of Hwy 112. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 7.28 acres with a 300,000 sq.ft. outdoor display area proposed. Findings: Proposal: Construction of additional display area for Landers Auto Park Parking Provided: 645 spaces for display Existing Development: Vacant Surrounding Zoning: West: C-2 East: A-1 North: A-1 rezoning to C-2 South: A-1 Surrounding Land Use: Vacant (east), Auto Park (west), Vacant (north), Vacant (south) Right-of-way being dedicated: None Tree Preservation: Site Coverage: Overlay District 39.1% open Space 38.6% Entire Development Recommendation: Approval subject to the conditions listed below. Conditions of Approval: 1. The final grading plan, storm water plan, and floodplain development permit shall not be approved and issued by the City of Fayetteville until the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers concurs with the wetland delineation and issues any/all required permits for work and improvements within the delineated wetland area and waters of the United States. If the wetlands that are shown on the large scale development are revised by E:1 USERSICOMMOMPLANNINGIREPORTSIPC REPORTS 200110CTOBER110-I4ILSD_02-11.00 NELMS.DOC • • • • the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and are impacted by the proposed development, the large scale development shall require rehearing and approval by the Planning Commission. LSD -02-21 Page 2 2. A letter of map revision based on existing conditions and more detailed study shall be submitted to FEMA for review and approval in order to accurately delineate the 100 year floodplain and floodway on the FIRM map. The letter of map revision shall be completed within one year from approval of the large scale development. 3. A variance for the use of metal halide lights shall be required by the Planning Commission. All lighting shall meet the IESNA standards for illumination of automobile display areas and shall be shielded and directed downward. 4. Landscaping shall meet the Design Overlay District requirements for spacing of trees within the 25 foot landscaped area along the highway frontage. 5. 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) 6. 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. 7. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards. 8. Large scale development shall be valid for one calendar year. 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 MIUSERS1COMMONIPLANN/NGIREPOR7S1PC REPORTS 10011OCTOBERI/0-14ISD 01-1/.00 NELMS.LKK •• •• LSD 02-21.00 Page 3 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 AGuarantees 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 July 29, 2002 Technical Plat Review and tabled for drainage issues. It was again reviewed at the August 28,2002 Technical Plat Review and the September 12, 2002 Subdivision Committee Meeting. It was then delayed due to environmental concerns and again reviewed at the October 3, 2002 Subdivision Committee Meeting. Discussion at the Subdivision Committee meeting included tree preservation, wetlands, drainage, lighting and environmental concerns. The Subdivision Committee forwarded the Large Scale Development to the full Planning Commission subject to all staff comments. Infrastructure: 1. Water. Existing 2. Sanitary Sewer: Existing 3. Streets. NA 4. Grading and Drainage. A preliminary grading plan and drainage report have been submitted and reviewed for general compliance. A final review and approval will be necessary before construction can begin. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: yes Required Approved Denied Date: Comments: CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Date: • • • • Required Approved Denied LSD 02-21.00 Page 0 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 •• •• Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 549 Rogers, AR 72757 479.636.4838 Fax 479.631.6224 www.craftull.com September 25, 2002 City of Fayetteville Planning Division 113 West Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR Re: Best Management Practices Proposed for the Landers Autopark Expansion Project. Dear The City of Fayetteville Planning Commissioners and Planning Staff: Our proposed large scale development plan for the above referenced project includes the following Best Management Practices: 1. Silt Fencing 2. Diversion Dikes 3. Detention Ponds 4. Vegetation Filtration Basin 5. Utilizing Existing Natural Drainage Ways Should you have any questions concerning this request, please feel free to contact me at 479-878-2423. Respectfully, Phil Hagen E 1 Project Engineer Arch• i t e c t s Engineer s & Sur v e y or s • • LSD02-21.00 Close Up View • • NELMS SUBJECT PROPERTY NN I NI I NN I NI I NN I IkT S#I II IX I XX I XI I IIN I IH I NX I XI I XX I IX IX x-0 Overview Fri Legend Subject Property ... :: LSD02-21.00 Streets Existing Allee Planned 0 112.5 225 Boundary '•'s_, Planning Area & oocb 0000eo Overlay District L _ _I City Limits Outside City 450 Master Street Plan �j Freeway/Expressway 'N....* Principal Arterial Minor Medal e ,,,. Collector • ••• Historic Collector 675 900 Feet maml[rga1R_ ii epnn .. au L.mi OWN c.FU; NNNNN Ile p TO. mina Legend Subject Property LSD02-21.00 Streets �i Existing lj Planned Boundary Master Street Plan ' '• Planning Area '5IFreeWOy/Ewressway ..•itt„„t Principe Medal 0 o Overlay District oo00000 4^`y Minor Arterial r — 1 City Limits a' so odleaar L Outside City ••• • Historic Cdleaar Planning Commission October 14, 2002 Page 19 • • LSD 02-21.00: Large Scale Development (Nelms, pp 249) was submitted by Phil Hagen of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Nelms, LLP for property located west of I-540 and east of Hwy 112. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 7.28 acres with a 907,194 sq.ft. outdoor display area proposed. Aviles: The next item on our agenda is LSD 02-21.00, which is for Don Nelms. It was submitted by Phil Hagen of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Nelms, LLP for property located west of 1-540 and east of Hwy. 112. This property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 7.28 acres with a 300,000 sq.ft. outdoor display area proposed. Tim, do we have signed conditions of approval? Conklin: Let me check. Aviles: There are nine, I will go ahead and read those conditions. 1) The final grading plan, storm water plan, and floodplain development permit shall not be approved and issued by the City of Fayetteville until the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers concurs with the wetland delineation and issues any/all required permits for work and improvements within the delineated wetland area and waters of the United States. If the wetlands that are shown on the large scale development are revised by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and are impacted by the proposed development, the large scale development shall. require rehearing and approval by the Planning Commission. 2) A letter of map revision based on existing conditions and more detailed study shall be submitted to FEMA for review and approval in order to accurately delineate the 100 year floodplain and floodway on the FIRM map. The letter of map revision shall be completed within one year from approval of the large scale development. 3) A variance for the use of metal halide lights shall be required by the Planning Commission. All lighting shall meet the IESNA standards for illumination of automobile display areas and shall be shielded and directed downward. 4) Landscaping shall meet the Design Overlay District requirements for spacing of trees within the 25 foot landscaped area along the highway frontage. 5) 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) 6) 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. 7) Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards. 8) Large scale development shall be valid for one calendar year. 9) Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: Grading and drainage permits; Separate easement plat for this project that shall include the tree preservation area; Project Disk with all final revisions; Completion of all Planning Commission October 14, 2002 Page 20 • • 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. Conklin: Madam Chair, we do not have signed conditions of approval This is a Large Scale Development, it is going to expand the Lander's Auto Park. Mr. Nelms owns the land currently. It is going to expand it by 645 spaces for display. This is immediately adjacent to and east of the Landers Auto Park. Staff has worked with the developer and the engineer to make sure that the tree preservation protection ordinance is being met. They are showing a tree preservation area that will be shown on the easement plat up to the north of this display are. That area will comply with our tree preservation ordinance and will preserve 15% tree canopy within that area. Also, with regard to wetlands, they did hire an Environmental Specialist, he has done a preliminary wetlands delineation that has been submitted to the Corps of Engineers. Preliminary discussions with the engineer indicate that they will not be developing within any of the wetlands. In the two places where they do cross the current channel that has wetlands located at the bottom of the channel, they will be spanning that and not within that area. Condition number one addresses the issue of whether or not the Corps of Engineers, if they make a change to that that will come back to the Fayetteville Planning Commission for review and approval The current parking lot ordinance that we have does exempt display areas for the sale, lease, and storage of vehicles from any interior landscaping requirements and therefore, you don't see interior landscaping within this display area That is all I have, thank you. Aviles: Thank you very much Tim. Is the applicant present? Hagen: Good evening, I am Phil Hagen with Crafton, Tull & Associates. I don't have a presentation but I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Aviles: Thank you Mr. Hagen. Is there any member of the public that would wish to address us on this Large Scale Development? Seeing none, I will go ahead and bring it back to the Commission and the applicant for further discussion and motions. Shackelford: A question for the applicant, it was mentioned in the presentation by the city staff that we don't have signed conditions of approval, are there any conditions of approval that you or the applicant take issue with? Hagen: Not at all. That is my fault, this is the first Large Scale I have brought through to Fayetteville and I wasn't aware of that but we agree to all of the conditions. Planning Commission • • October 14, 2002 Page 21 Church: I know at the agenda session we talked at length about the lighting issue. We really don't have a lighting ordinance yet but it seems like there are a lot of cars and a lot of lights out there. I guess I would just like to hear your thoughts. Are you out of space? Are you adding a different line of vehicles? Our intent is for you to be able to do business in Fayetteville. I guess are you just needing more room? That is something that we would want to take into consideration. Hagen: I am not sure if I am the appropriate person to answer those questions. Mr. Nelms leases this to Landers and yes, they need more parking spaces. When I went out there for the tree preservation, I had to go measure the canopy for all the trees, I had to drive around for about 15 minutes to find a place to park my car. They are just crammed in. They are doing great business so yeah, the general need is for parking out there. They do not have any current plans for another dealership or expanding another line that I am aware of. Church: Thank you. Hoover: 1 have got a question for staff. Tim, I know there is an exception for display areas with our parking ordinance, but when I am looking here at the Design Overlay District Ordinance, it says that should the regulations and standards of the underlying and Overlay Districts conflict, the Overlay District regulations and standards shall control. Conklin: We amended our Overlay District Regulations a few years back and modeled those after similar standards so we wouldn't have conflicting standards. The parking lot landscaping standards are the city wide ones that we use. Hoover: Where is that in the ordinance? I guess that is what I am having trouble understanding. Conklin: I will get you an ordinance number of when we amended our Overlay District requirements. Once again, we are trying not to have ordinance requirements repeat in different areas. Aviles: While Tim is looking that up, I will just ask the applicant a question. This is going to add a much larger area of parking display. I think everybody would agree that when you drive by at night it is like noon at the equator, you can really see the cars My questions are two fold, do you have timers intended for the parking lot to dim the lights at say midnight or ten o'clock, whenever people stop shopping for cars? That is one question and the second question is has the drive in movie theater been contacted and have they agreed with the addition because you are directly next door to them? Hagen: Yes, they have been contacted. They have been given a set of plans and Mr. Nelms has discussed this with them and they have no objections to it. Planning Commission •' • October 14, 2002 Page 22 Aviles: Have they written you a letter to that affect? Hagen: They were going to, I don't know if the City has received it. I haven't received a copy myself. Aviles: I will wait until Tim is through looking up that ordinance number. Hagen: The owner is in Missouri so I don't know if they received the letter or not yet. This is Brian Black with Black, Corley & Owens, he can answer your questions better than I can. Black: My name is Brian Black with Black, Corley & Owens Architects. We are the architect firm that hired Crafton & Tull to help us with the development of this property. I can answer your questions with regard to timers on lights. We have stated before in Subdivision Committee that we do intend to put the lights on timers for different times of the night. We have not worked out yet a plan with staff which would be agreeable yet between staff and the owner but typically on the dealerships that we do around the state, we have a mode of security lighting where we reduce the amount of lighting by half after about 10:00 p.m. so we are perfectly willing to do that in this case if it is an issue. Aviles: Are you looking to do that on the entire project or just the new addition? Black: It is my understanding that right now the existing lot lights are circuited to where half of them may be turned off at anytime. Right now the new owner, Landers Auto Sales as far as I know, does not operate them on a dim down condition after a certain time. This issue has been brought up a few times and we know that it is an important one to staff and to the Committee and so we are perfectly willing to work that out. Aviles: Does that mean yes, you are looking at redoing the existing lot in conjunction with this phase? Black: Yes Ma'am. The existing lot lights are circuited right now to where we can put them on a timer to where half of the lot lights go out after a certain time. Aviles: Not dimmed but you turn off half of them. Black: Yes Ma'am, just turn them off. Aviles: Thank you very much. Planning Commission • • October 14, 2002 Page 23 Allen: I had a few questions to ask too. I wondered if the lighting ordinance, which I know is not yet in affect, whether or not the lights in the first phase would comply. Conklin: I am not sure if they comply or don't. With regard to the lumens or brightness, we are setting standards in our lighting ordinance. Condition number three in the staff report with regard to this phase of the project does state that they have to meet the IESNA standards. I know that doesn't answer your question but we are recommending that as a condition. We currently don't have a lighting ordinance but we do have that as a condition that they meet the Illumination Engineering Society of North America's standards for illumination of automobile display areas. I am not sure if the current one meets it though. Allen: I also wondered whether the 645 space display area, how does that compare with the existing unit? Black: Our design intentions, and this is how it has shown up on our plans so far, is to exactly match the existing density of the spaces. Typically, however many cars that the current lot has per acre will be implemented in the new lot. There will be no density change and we are hoping that we can match our new light fixtures with the existing ones. We have not yet checked it out to see if the existing lot lights comply with the new standards. Our intentions are to match the new with the old both in lighting, landscaping, and parking density. Allen: Ok, so this would really just double it in size? Black: No Ma'am. The existing lot capacity is over 1,000 cars. We would be adding 650 to 675 spaces. Allen: I also wondered from staff, I have concern about this being kind of an artery into our town, and whether they see this as an appropriate vision for Fayetteville for this to be what people who come to our community see. Conklin: With regard to the use of the property, the property is zoned C-2. Automobile sales are allowed in C-2 zoning districts so with regard to the issue of whether or not automobile sales should occur in this location, that is not something that the staff or the Commission are deciding tonight. That is something that has already been decided. As you look at College Avenue and 71 Business, we do have car dealerships on that corridor. With regard to expanding this with the 670 additional spaces, we do have an auto mall out there that pretty much, in my opinion, sets the land use pattern in that location right there. You have a piece of property that is located in between I-540 on the east and south boundary and to the west you have Landers Auto Park. I think it is appropriate that you would see additional car sales in that location. I think that since they are out there Planning Commission • • October 14, 2002 Page 24 already and you have the existing Landers Auto Park and you have got Interstate 540 on two sides, that it is an appropriate use out there. Black: Ma'am, if I might also add, we are extremely, I know that this is coming from a guy that designs car dealerships, but we are extremely proud of the existing presence that that lot has out there in comparison with practically any other car lot iri Northwest Arkansas. I think that if you go out to the Landers Auto Park and compare it to anything within a 75 mile radius of Fayetteville you will find that the landscaping is second to none, it is immaculately kept. The lighting is nothing out of the ordinary with dealerships. From a landscaping to display ratio, it is as nice as anything you are going to find around here I think. Hoover: I have a question for the applicant too. When people come to this park, where do they park? Where is the parking lot for the customers? Black: The parking lot for the customers is in front of each store. The existing lot is organized in a kind of concentric layers of parking. The customers enter through a main artery that goes from east to west right through the entire auto park. From that main artery they can turn off onto small side roads, which lead them into by way of arrows and signage, and a separation of landscaping from the main artery, lead them into the customer parking areas. They are directly in front of each dealership and will accommodate about 20 cars per dealership in front of each store. Hoover: So are you saying on this additional area people are going to park in front of the Toyota building and then walk over to this display area? Shackelford: They have golf carts. Black: Yes Ma'am. Hoover: Then in general, staff, we are adding display area, I was just curious on our parking requirements for customers, what is that based on for an auto park? Conklin: We do not have a standard with regard to automobile, are you talking about the additional customers that are coming out to the dealerships? Hoover: Yes. I would assume that this would be like adding onto a restaurant, adding more seating or adding more product, they are probably expecting to have more customers. Black: We are also hoping at some point in the future to have another dealership out there. This new parking expansion has been organized that way. You may take a look at the drawing and see how the main artery has extended further to the east with pretty much an identical separation of landscaping to the north of that Planning Commission • • October 14, 2002 Page 25 artery extension, which would allow the location of a dealership in the future if Landers so chooses. I would like to emphasize that right now there are no plans in the works to add a dealership. We are trying to logically expand this parking lot to where we can do that in the future. Conklin: Just to answer your question, we looked at this as a display area. We did not look at additional parking. Our understanding was that they had additional product that needed to be displayed out in this part. Madam Chair, I do have the answer to the question with regard to the Overlay District. Aviles: Yes Tim. Conklin: Ordinance 4128 was passed on December 15, 1998 and that removed certain sections of the Design Overlay District. One of those sections was number three, parking lots. That was done to have a uniform landscaping policy throughout the city. Prior to our landscaping standards within parking lots, the only area we had required landscaping was within the Design Overlay District. The Planning Commission with staff and City Council, we amended our ordinances to require landscaping in all parking lots throughout the city. That was the reason for that change. Hoover: I'm sorry, I'm confused, can you put it in summary? Conklin: Summary: The City Council said "Let's landscape every parking lot in Fayetteville verses only landscaping 660' from I-540 on each side and if we are going to do that let's have one standard that we hand out to applicant and developers to use and amend our Design Overlay District so we don't have two standards, one standard in the Overlay District and one standard city wide." Basically we modeled the Overlay District standards throughout the city. Hoover: You are saying that both of them are the same now? Conklin: They were very similar, that is correct. Hoover: They were very similar and now they are both the same but how does that exception fall into the whole thing because this is a display area? Conklin: In the parking lot ordinance it states that display areas are exempt for internal landscaping for the sell of cars. Hoover: But we still have in our Design Overlay District ordinance, it still states that if there is a conflict that the Overlay District... Conklin: You don't have that in your ordinance. In 1998 that was removed, it was deleted. I will read you the ordinance. `Be it ordained by the City Council of Planning Commission • • October 14, 2002 Page 26 the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Section 1: That Chapter 161, Zoning Regulations, §161.21 Design Overlay District, of the Code of Fayetteville, is hereby amended to delete §161.21 D. Non -Residential Site Design and Development Standards Subsections 1. Setback from Right -of -Way; 3, Parking Lots; 4) Landscaping Treatment a. Replacement and b. Native Species; 8. Screening, a. Equipment, b. Trash and c. Parking; 12. Utilities; and 16 Plans/Drawings Required, a. -f., including illustrations. Passed and approved this 15'h Day of December, 1998. Maybe our City Attorney can explain how that works. Williams: The only thing that I have to add, I was on the Council at that time and we were trying to harmonize our ordinances. Unfortunately, I think the copy of the U.D.O. you have there has not been updated since the time that ordinance passed if it is still in your U.D.O. The City Clerk's office has been working and I hope is about ready to present a newly updated Unified Development Ordinance to all of you and to us. We have been avidly waiting for that and hopefully will get that soon and then we won't have these kinds of problems where it looks like that this might be some conflict. Hoover: Tim, you are saying in what you just read to me that 161.21 .C no longer exists? Conklin: That is what the City Council passed and deleted. What we have been trying to do for the Commissioners and those that have books, is to give you colored pages of ordinances, I know it has been a long time waiting. The City Clerk's office does have the Unified Development Ordinance. We are going to codify it in house. The City Attorney's office has been working with them and hopefully we will have a complete book to you. I know it is confusing. Let me just hold my book up to give you an idea. Everything with colored pages are new ordinances since June of 1998. 1 put them in supplements and keep it all together. I apologize if you are looking at an Overlay District that has the landscaping standards in it. We, as a City, are going to bring forward a codified U.D.O. so we don't have this confusion in the future. Ostner: One last question. It almost seems like the Overlay District has been nullified from which you just said, surely it has not. Williams: Only sections of it, not all of it. Conklin: No. Ostner: What is it now? If it is not all the things you told me that have been removed, what is the Overlay District now, green space? Conklin: 25% green space is in there. With regard to building materials, no metal buildings unless the metal resembles the appearance of wood. Planning Commission • • October 14, 2002 Page 27 Williams: Restrictions on the amount of intersections to a road. In other words, how many driveways you can have, that is more restrictive in the Overlay District. Conklin: Intersections, site coverage. The one standard that is greater in the Overlay District than throughout the city, you are required to have 25% open space verses 15% so that was left in there. When we looked at the City of Fayetteville over the years, the Overlay District was the only place you had to put your utilities underground, now you have to put your utilities underground throughout the city. The Overlay District was the only area where you had to landscape your parking lots, now you have to landscape your parking lots. The Overlay District was the only area that you had to have architectural elevation drawings to be reviewed and approved by the Commission, we have passed commercial design standards city wide. We have moved from architectural design and review, underground utilities, site coverage, monument signs, and we have amended our ordinances over the years. When we did that we thought it would be better to have city wide standards instead of having one standard in the Overlay District and one standard outside the Overlay District. That was the purpose of those amendments, thank you. Aviles: Thanks Tim. Allen: Madam Chair, I continue to have problems with the lighting since I think the current auto park could be mistaken as the City of Fayetteville. I wanted to know whether or not if the City Council does pass this lighting ordinance, whether or not the current lighting or the lighting that you might build would be grandfathered in or whether you would have to comply with the new ordinance. Conklin: The current proposal, after meeting with the subcommittee many times, was to grandfather all existing lighting in unless they completely replace their lighting it will be grandfathered in. I can't predict or guarantee what the City Council will pass in the upcoming months but the current proposal is to grandfather everything that is existing. Bunch: Possibly one way of solving this lighting situation, since one of the things that is happening on this project, even though we are looking at one small portion of it, it doesn't reach back and look at the overall project that brings in the tree preservation area. The question I would have is if we can go back and reach into the total project and since our architect has already told us that the circuitry is currently set up on the existing facility to allow diminished lighting at night, I guess this question will be for the City Attorney. If we can reach back and do tree preservation at this time for the total project, can we also reach back if the applicant would agree to the conditions and place a condition that says put the timers on the circuits that already exist to reduce the lighting level for the total project in addition to the project? Planning Commission • October 14, 2002 Page 28 Williams: That is a good question. I. don't know if I have a firm answer. I would be a little bit nervous to try to condition this approval on a project that has already been built and is operating. I don't know if they voluntarily agreed then they could certainly be held to an agreement. You can agree to do things that you can't be forced to do. I would be nervous about attempting to force them to go back and change something that is already in existence even if it is just putting it on a timer. I think that this project that is before you should stand basically on its own merits as opposed to trying to undo or trying to redo something that has been approved in the past. Bunch: That is well and good but we are undoing and redoing tree preservation by virtue of this action. As one of the conditions if the applicant would offer to put timers on existing lighting system for which he says the circuitry is already set up, I think that that would go a long ways in convincing members of this body to approve this project at this time. Though I am not going to request this be done but if the applicant would offer it, I think that would make a big difference. Black: I am not authorized to make that offer. That can only be made by the owner. I can pass onto you the conversations that we have had before is that the circuitry is in place for the majority of the dealership to turn off half of the lights. If it were a requirement to dim half of the lights we would agree to do that. I am not authorized to make that offer to you. Aviles: Let me interject at this point. I realize that we cannot go back and make requirements on existing projects but this is an area of concern that many people have voiced to me since the approval of the initial project and I think it is a matter of considerable concern just to the citizens of Fayetteville. It is something that I would certainly like to entertain if it were at all possible if the owners would be amenable to adding some switches or whatever is needed to dim the lights at night when they are really not needed and that is also an energy conserving measure. With that being said, I would like to support the project and I think that I have an obligation as a Planning Commissioner to support a project that meets all of our ordinances and meets the spirit of the ordinances. With the knowledge that we have a new lighting ordinance at least that is being considered by City Council it would be certainly I would think beneficial if the owners would consider such an offer but I can't base my vote on it. Then the other thing that I needed to let you know is that I think we only require the simple majority, which is four positive votes for this project, we have seven Commissioners present. It is not the five affirmative but it is four positive votes. I just wanted to let you know that. Shackelford: I am confused on one issue Tim, I'm hoping you can help me out. On condition of approval number three, a variance for the use of metal halide lights shall be Planning Commission • • October 14, 2002 Page 29 required by the Planning Commission. We don't have an outdoor lighting ordinance at this point but I assume by reading this that we have to have a• specific finding on a variance. Can you enlighten us a little on what we are asked to give a variance upon? Conklin: This kind of goes along with Commissioner Hoover's question about what is left in the Overlay District. We do have a standard that states sodium type lighting shall be used no taller than 35'. The sodium type lighting is a yellowish orange light that probably most of us have experienced. If you look at your cars at night they change, they don't look the same color. They don't bring out the true colors. Car dealerships like to use metal halide, that is a white type light that provides more of a true color and we did grant that variance to allow the car dealerships, the existing Landers to have the metal halide lights. That is something that staff is in support of because if you are going to light your parking lot up for a car dealership, hopefully we are lighting up for the purpose of it to be able to see what color car you are buying so we are in support of that. Thank you. MOTION: Shackelford: With that said, I think I am going to try to formulate a motion here. I am going to move that we approve LSD 02-21.00 based on all conditions of approval while I understand Commissioners desire to try to reach back into the lighting issue, I agree with our City Attorney Kit Williams that I am a little hesitant to do that. I can understand where we might encourage the applicant to do that but I don't feel that we need to try to incorporate that into approval of this issue. I feel that this LSD has to stand on it's own merit and I feel that it matches up with the requirements therefore. I will go ahead and make a motion to approve LSD 02-21.00 subject to the conditions of approval, all nine as stated. Aviles: Thank you Commissioner Shackelford. Church: I will go ahead and second the motion but I also have one comment. I served on the committee to draft the lighting ordinance and one of my questions was why do we even need a lighting ordinance because I feel like at times we have too many. I guess the answer kept coming up, I was given the example at the time that it was Nelms. I guess I would just encourage you if you have any influence at all, if there is a way to tone down the lighting I think you are going to make a lot of friends doing that if there is a way that you could influence it. I will go ahead and second the motion. Aviles: Thank you Commissioner Church. Ostner: I feel I must weigh in, everyone else has spoken. It is nice to turn them off at 10:00 and it seems like they could all be off at 10:00. If our 2020 Plan talks Planning Commission • • October 14, 2002 Page 30 about our community character and enhancing the entry ways into our city there are only a few entry ways into our city, this is one of them. I agree with Tim that this is a perfect use for this site. There should be an auto park place here, it is a perfect match. It is very simply, just too bright. I think metal halide is warranted, you all need to sell cars and the orange light doesn't work. I think how every many lights there are, are too many. As we talked about at the very beginning of this discussion, it is glowing like a town, a refinery. I am going to vote against it simply because there are only a few entryways into our city and this is one of them and I don't want to reach backward, I just want to deal with this project. I would like the metal halide to be less bright. This doesn't deal with it and I think it should. Everything else looks great, I understand the landscaping, the layout, all of that is just fantastic but I think it is a crucial part of this project and I think it impacts this entire town, I think it impacts all of the visitors and I think it would be a benefit to everyone to look into it more. It is unfortunate that we don't have a lighting ordinance, it would enable you to go forward. I think that needs to be done now, I think that this is the time to do it somehow. Hoover: I do have a few concerns with this project. I think unfortunately you are at a disadvantage because you already have something built to look at.. When I came on the Commission that was one of the first projects that came in and I was alarmed after it was built about how close it was to the interstate. I had no idea and I am an architect and can read the plans and I had no idea it was going to be that close. That is why I keep looking back at our usual setbacks and when it encroaches the 50' building setback, which we are now calling "display area" but display area doesn't qualify as building area, which is confusing to me now it comes to a parking area can encroach into the 50' setback. I have two issues, lighting yes, because we can definitely see what the existing lot looks like and all I can do is double that in my mind and then the setbacks. I agree that this is the perfect use for this land, it is just that I think we should be careful about it and follow our 2020 and keep the character that we think Fayetteville has. I agree that this is an entryway into the city, everything on the interstate is an entryway into our city and that is how you can tell the difference between us and Springdale. That's all I have. Aviles: I would just like to put this in perspective again with regard to the vote. Should this fail Tim, this would then be able to be appealed to the City Council? Conklin: That is correct. They have ten working days to file an appeal with the City Clerk's office. The developer can file that appeal if it is denied. I would like to respond to one thing about the lighting and the brightness. Condition number three once again, is talking about the IESNA standards. That is the lighting ordinance with regard to how bright the display areas can be illuminated. It does set a standard and we don't currently have an ordinance but staff put that as a condition of approval. Even if the ordinance was passed and we had the Planning Commission • • October 14, 2002 Page 31 ordinance in place today, those would be the standards we. would be using. If there is something wrong with those standards we need to talk about it but they are engineering standards used throughout the country. What those standards will do is to prevent over lighting or making it too bright. It establishes reasonable standards for automobile display areas. I wish I could tell you how bright it is or how not bright it is going to be compared to the existing one, I don't know. I am not sure but that is a condition of approval. Iris something that was recommended by a local engineer in Fayetteville. Aviles: Maybe the applicant could respond to that. Do you have a lighting engineer on board and have you looked at the lighting levels for the new verses the old? Black: Ma'am, we do have a lighting engineer on board. It is Pack Engineers in Little Rock. We have not yet done a photometric survey of our new lighting layout yet. We would like to be more familiar with the standards that Tim Conklin has made reference to and use those in choosing our bulb size and adjust our layout accordingly. Aviles: The reason I asked that is because I wouldn't think that you would want one phase to be different in appearance than the other phase, the new and the old. Black: Yes, and I am concerned a little bit that that will happen if we are using new • standards now that were not used when the original complex was built that Landers has purchased within the last year. We do have a risk there of having a noticeably dim expansion compared to the existing site. If that does happen then I am positive that the owner will want to do whatever is necessary to match the new site. I am very sure of that. Aviles: Thank you very much. Allen: It is my suggestion that prior to a vote you would want to be able to give us more information about the lighting. Black: Ma'am, as it.is right now, our intentions until we are more familiar with the lighting ordinance, is to match the new fixtures with the existing fixtures. The existing ones are metal halide, vertical bum, typical automotive display lights. They are fairly low to the ground. They are I believe 20' poles that we have out there right now, not the 30' and the 35' poles that you see on so many dealerships. That is really all I can tell you right now is that our intentions are to match the look of the existing dealership, even if we can't match the lighting levels. Allen: Ok, thank you. Planning Commission • • October 14, 2002 Page 32 Bunch: Just a question for the motioner and the seconder, does your motion include the variance as spelled out in condition three? Shackelford: That is the same direction I was going with my comments. I realize that I didn't and yes, I find specific grounds to grant a variance and allow the metal halide lights on the new addition. Bunch: Seconder? Church: I do agree, yes. Shackelford: Just a couple of real quick comments. I know we are dragging this thing out quite a bit. We are establishing standards that the project must meet. It is the standards that we all have got to get comfortable with and familiarize ourselves with but there is a standard out there. Also, the comment that we could turn the lights completely off, obviously, there is security issues and other things that don't allow us on that issue. I have been in this town my entire life, I have seen a lot of car lots come and go in this town and I am satisfied with the appearance of this car lot and its location. Therefore, I support it. Aviles: Thanks. Renee, before you call the roll, I just have a final comment. I need to be clear that when I don't vote for something on why that reason is. The reason is, as stated before, you are at somewhat of a disadvantage for having the existing lot be there and having it be so bright. I think that you are really on the right track and I want to encourage further study on the lighting. Maybe if this passes then you will go ahead and do that and I would hope that that would be the case. If it doesn't pass and if it is appealed to City Council, then you might be further along in the process with that. Reluctantly, I will not be voting for the project because of the conflicts with the lighting. Is there anybody else? Conklin: I just want to make sure the Commission is aware that, as staff, our responsibility is to let the applicant know what ordinances they have to meet in order to get their project approved. We currently don't have an outdoor lighting ordinance. Staff has went as far as to add condition number three for IESNA standards, which is currently not law. I just bring this up because our job is if they can't meet the standards we need to tell them how to meet the standards and I am very concerned about projects that if they are going to be denied that we need to understand what standards are not being met. That is basically what I wanted to comment on, thank you. Williams: Let me reiterate if I could. There is a famous case in Arkansas called The Richardson Case which says that the Planning Commission must follow the current ordinances in affect. In that particular case the Planning Commission turned down a development because of other objections to it but not objections specifically within the development ordinances of the City. The Supreme Court • Planning Commission • • October 14, 2002 Page 33 said you cannot do that. Even the City Council can not go beyond its current ordinances. In order to turn a project down it must violate currently existing city ordinances. You must have the discretion somewhere given to you to reject this project. I would just caution the Planning Commission about that. Personally, I certainly share some concerns. I have seen the very bright lights of that project, that is why we went forward with the lighting ordinance, so that we could get a handle on it and I don't think that that means that since we don't have the lighting ordinance yet that we can go forward and turn down a project unless there is some other ordinance, some other objection that you can point to that this Large Scale Development request is in violation of some of our development ordinances. Otherwise, I think we are really going on what our power is. Aviles: Thank you Mr. Williams Black: I would also like to add that it is very difficult to commit right now as to what measures would be taken to dim down the lights or turn them off because we honestly have not studied enough of what is involved in dimming the lights on the existing light fixtures. Are the light fixtures compatible with smaller bulbs that we could put in there to bring it into compliance with the new ordinance? We don't know. If it is simply a matter of changing the bulb out to a smaller wattage bulb that would be wonderful, we would have no problem with doing that. If it involves removing the existing ballast, disassembling the light and putting in a ballast that is going to produce lower light levels, then that is a very expensive proposition, something that could cost in the neighborhood of $600 to $800 per light fixture, and there are numerous light fixtures out there. There is no way I could stand before you right now and commit to doing that. I can tell you that from day one of this project we have tried to communicate as much as possible with staff with people like Tim Conklin and Kim Hesse just to make sure that we are on the right track with this project and our intentions are the best. We fully intend to extend the existing character of the dealership into the new addition and hopefully comply with in the future, the new lighting ordinance and bring the light levels down. It is our intention to do that but I cannot commit to you at this time that that will happen because I don't know what the cost implications are. Aviles: I certainly understand your concern. I was on the committee too and I think that the work we did with our engineer and with our assistance, is that existing things, even if they just relamp would not ever be required to have to change the ballast because we understood the cost implications of that so that would not be something that my comments were intended to construe if they were construed that way. Thank you. Bunch: I will be supporting this ordinance, supporting this Large Scale Development. Since it must stand on its own and since the applicant has agreed to the Planning Commission • • October 14, 2002 Page 34 conditions of approval and those conditions of approval do incorporate the standards that have been putting forward in our lighting ordinance that has not been approved yet but there would still be, this phase of the project will still be going by what we have put forward as our requirements. I see that it is not a question, we can not penalize this because of what was done in the past before we had the lighting ordinance. We still don't have a lighting ordinance but what the applicant has agreed to is the standards that are included in our lighting ordinance. With that being said, I will be supporting this Large Scale Development because all of the other items seem to be in order, they have complied with everything. Aviles: Thank you Commissioner Bunch. Are there any further comments? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 02-21.00 was denied by a vote of 3-4-0 with Commissioners Allen, Ostner, Hoover and Aviles voting no. Aviles: Thank you Renee. The motion is denied on a vote of three positive and four negative. Thank you very much for your work and we hope that we can work this out. FAYETTEVI CLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE To: Tim Conklin From: Heather Woodruff, City Clerk Date: December 5, 2002 Attached is a copy of Resolution # 172-02 granting the appeal of Don Nelms concerning LSD 02-21. The original will be microfilmed and filed with the City Clerk. cc: Nancy Smith, Internal Auditor