Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-12-12 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, December 12, 1988 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Butch Robertson, B.J. Dow, Jerry Allred, J.E. Springborn, Ernie Jacks, Julie Nash, Gerald Klingaman, Gerald Seiff and Fred Hanna John Merrell, Larry Wood, Elaine Cattaneo, James Meinecke, Glen Smith, Roy Cate, Collins Haynes, James Atwell, Mel Millholland, Newton Bailey, memberscof.._the:press and.others Chairman Jacks stated that they have had a request to move Item 5 up to position one on the agenda. He asked if anyone had any objections. A member of the audience objected and the agenda was left as it was. PUBLIC HEARING -REZONING PETITION R88-25 JAMES I. MEINECKE - 2890 CROSSOVER ROAD The first item on the agenda was consideration of a rezoning petition #R88-25 submitted by James I. Meinecke. Property located at 2890 Crossover Road (Williams Dance & Gymnastics Center) containing 1.51 acres Request was to rezone from A-1, Agricultural to R-0, Residential -Office. John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that this request is relative to Mr. Meinecke's Dance Studio and School at 2890 Crossover Road. As was pointed out in the staff report, he needs an R-0 rezoning in order to expand his building and add a new dance room. He noted that the staff has had several discussions with Mr. Meinecke and evidently it is quite a specialized facility with a specialized and expensive floor. He added that he thinks it is very important for the City to be quite careful in terms of rezonings on Crossover Road which is a major north/south arterial street just like North College and they would rather not see it become another commercial strip. He advised that one way to keep that from happening is to try and concentrate future commercial rezonings at key intersections such as the intersection of Crossover and Highway 45 and several I10 Planning Commission December 12, 1988 Page 2 others along Crossover Road. Mr. Merrell stated that they are recommending that this rezoning be approved and that Mr. Meinecke has offered and signed a Bill of Assurance which you have before you which states that he has agreed that if the City does rezone this property to R-0, the use of the property will be limited to the teaching of dance, gymnastics and related fine arts. He noted that this would essentially give Mr. Meinecke what he needs to expand his building and his business which is very successful. It will also offer some protection to the City as a whole and the surrounding property owners and there will be no misunderstanding as to how this property will be used in the future. He noted that staff does recommend approval of the R-0 rezoning subject to the Bill of Assurance. Chairman Jacks advised that there is a Land Use study of Highway 265 (Crossover Road) bearing out what Mr. Merrell is saying. Also, he noted that this piece of property is used for the purpose which is presently being used because it was skipped over somehow during an annexation through an error. There was a island of property there outside the City that wasn't discovered until the dance studio went up. Commissioner Seiff asked where in the Bill of Assurance does it state the use of the property. Mr. Merrell pointed it out to him. James Meinecke stated that his business is beneficial to the youth of this town. He stated that they run a student enrollment now of between 600 & 700 students and most come for an hour a week. He noted that they teach artistic gymnastics and tap and ballet dance. They compete in a seven state area with a good competitive junior olympic program. He added that if he is allowed to have a new dance floor, it will allow him to have a top-notch dancezprogram. They have good international class gymnastics equipment, but the dance floor is concrete and they need to put in a wooden dance floor that will allow the students to dance with a proper floor which would be much better and safer. He noted that they have boy students as well as girls now. James Rimbey of 2870 Crossover Road stated that he is speaking on behalf of himself and Edward Spears of 2890 Crossover Road. He noted that their property directly adjoins Mr. Meinecke's property. He stated that he would like to speak in favor of the rezoning based upon the Bill of Assurance. He stated that if the property is rezoned to R-0 given the various possibilities that could be inserted into that property, it would not be at all in the interest of the residents of the area to consider a rezoning change at this time. However, given the Bill of Assurance that has been presented by Mr. Meinecke which would restrict the use of the property from all the various types of businesses allowed in R-0, the immediate residents would favor the rezoning. Chairman Jacks asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak in opposition of this rezoning. The Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Klingaman stated that the idea of nodes of development along a thoroughfare has been mentioned many times, but no one seems to indicate exactly what is an ideal interval. Would that be a logical area for development of a commercial nature with Old Wire Road close to there. Chairman Jacks stated that he thinks the goals and policies, etc, talked about one mile intervals. Planning Commission December 12, 1988 Page 3 Mr. Merrell stated that in his own personal opinion, this is a little bit far away from the Highway 45 intersection to really be within what he would consider to be a node of commercial development which would make him hesitate to recommend an unrestricted non-residential rezoning. Commissioner Klingaman stated that he was thinking as a development on Highway 265 as a node. Chairman Jacks advised that Larry Wood did a study of Highway 265 which was approved by the Planning Commission a few years ago. MOTION Commissioner Hanna moved to recommend approval of the rezoning as requested with a Bill of Assurance offered restricting the use of the property, seconded by Seiff. The motion passed 9-0-0. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION #R88-26 GLEN L. SMITH & MARCELLA THOMPSON - 112 FLETCHER The second item of consideration on the agenda was a rezoning request #R88-26 submitted by Glen L. Smith & Marcella Thompson. Property located at 112 Fletcher and containing .85 of an acre The request was to rezone from R-1, Low Density Residential to R-2, Medium Density Residential. John Merrell, Planning Director, called the Commission's attention to the letters from Edward Bernstein of 116 Fletcher, Mr. & Mrs. Robert Prenger of 146 Fletcher and Grace A. Polly of 111 North Fletcher which are all _in opposition of this rezoning petition. He noted that there has been a fairly significant amount of objection to this rezoning from the neighboring property owners. Mr. Merrell stated that in the staff report he attempted to point out several concerns that the staff has to this rezoning. He advised that Fletcher Avenue has served as a boundary between the R-2 zoning district to the West and the R-1 zoning district to the East for a number of years. In the staff's opinion, it has served very effectively as the zoning boundary between the two districts. Sometimes it is difficult to use the street itself as a zoning boundary because invariably you run into a situation where you have single-family dwellings across the street from multi -family or duplexes such as in this case. There are three duplexes across the street from this property and the remainder of the neighborhood is predominantly single-family. He noted that the buildings at 216 and 224 Fletcher on the eastern side of the street were constructed back in the early 1960's according to the records and the building permits state that the property was zoned R-2 at the time. Based on that and several other records that were found, the assumption was made that apparently that side of Fletcher was zoned R-2 at the time and evidently during the deliberations that the Planning Commission did in 1969 and 1970 in adopting the new zoning ordinance a decision was made to go ahead and use Fletcher Avenue as the boundary between the R-2 and the R-1 zones particularly given the fact that Fletcher Avenue is almost all single-family residential on the eastern side of the street. Mr. Merrell pointed out that basically the Commission has four choices: 1) recommend rezoning to R-2 as requested, 2) elect to recommend a rezoning to R- 1.5 which would restrict the density a little more, 3) grant a conditional use Planning Commission December 12, 1988 Page 4 • to convert the house into two units, or 4) recommend denial of rezoning to R-2 or any conditional use which is what the staff is recommending. Glen Smith stated that this a rather large house that actually has five bedrooms with a separate entrance at the north side of the house. At one time it was apparently a duplex including two kitchens. He advised that they want to try to improve the property to do extensive renovations to attract working couples of upper income. He added that when he got his letter he was a little bit upset with the inordinately strong wording of the recommendation in the staff report which states that "under no circumstances does the City Planning staff recommend an R-2 or R-1.5 rezoning". He added that the thought occurred to him that perhaps there was a vested interest here so he looked up the home address of the Mr. Merrell and he lives on Fletcher. Frankly, that upset him because it seems to him that if a person is in the decision making process on something like this and you do have a vested interest, you should divorce yourself from the decision process. • • John Merrell stated that he rents an apartment on Fletcher Avenue. He added that had he been a property owner in the neighborhood, he certainly would have withdrawn himself from any involvement in this case. He stated that he has no vested interest. Chairman Jacks stated that a petition was submitted with approximately 23 names of people in the neighborhood opposing this which may or may not include the persons who have submitted letters in opposition. Ed Bernstein of 116 Fletcher Avenue stated that he has lived at his present home since 1976. He stated that he loves that hill and had the. apportunity to buy an older home which has some architectural integrity with a beautiful view. He added that the subject property might very well turn into some beautiful condos but what is to prevent that building from being torn down when it becomes profitable and apartment buildings built. He noted that he feels that it ought to be known to the public that this property was owned and still might be owned by Hank Mahler who was his next door neighbor for six or seven years and is a landlord in town. Who knows in a few years if this might be torn down and big apartment houses being built. There is also the question of the property values; this doesn't look well for the future of his property. Finally, there is the question of the traffic which would probably just not bear this. He stated that it would be a shame to take one of the fine older areas of Fayetteville and make it like every place else. Connie Wilson of 144 Fletcher read from a letter that was submitted by her husband Steven C. Wilson, M.D. who stated that he had chosen this neighborhood because it had a sense of stability where one may still find a peaceful neighborhood that retains the style of living reflected in the beautiful architecture of the houses of the area. The house they live in will soon be 100 years old and has always been occupied by single -families. He feels that allowing multi -family units in this neighborhood will eventually destroy this atmosphere that is already disappearing from Fayetteville. Greg House of 1650 Cleveland who owns property across the street from the subject property stated that he is also representing Mr. & Mrs. Raymond Block who are Mr. Merrell's landlord. He noted that they are opposed to this for all the reasons stated by earlier opposition. Also, as property owners in the neighborhood (even • • • Planning Commission December 12, 1988 Page 5 though they do own property that is R-2) they have a certain sense of reliance in the status of the neighborhood and the chance that the neighborhood could change with a request from the petitioner makes them feel a little insecure in how they can proceed with their own property. Homeowners should be able to rely on the makeup of the neighborhood and that it will stay as it is. Mary Phebus of Rodgers Drive stated that her main objection to this is the safety aspect. Aesthetically, she wouldn't like to see it happen but safety wise it is a very dangerous corner. She is concerned about the safety of her son when he is riding his bike down there. Jim Atkisson of 141 Fletcher Avenue stated that he has two children who ride their bicycles around there and they have a dangerous blind corner of which people do tend to drive too fast around. He opposes it just for the safety reasons. Glen Smith stated that he realizes now this was a lost cause. He apologized to Mr. Merrell for assuming that he was a property owner. He added that he and his wife are the co-founders of the Farmer's Market here in Fayetteville of which he was president for the first seven years. Therefore, they think very highly of this community and they do try to do good things in this community. At present they are berry farmers with the "Berry Patch" out Highway 16 West and their plan is certainly not to denigrate the community in anyway. They were trying to do good things here not bad. The Public Hearing was closed for discussion among the Commissioners. MOTION Commissioner Robertson moved to recommend denial of the rezoning as requested, seconded by Springborn and followed by a question. Commissioner Seiff asked if Mr. Smith would like to withdraw his request based on his statements. Chairman Jacks stated that after it is denied, this property can't be brought before the Planning Commission for at least one year. Mr. Smith stated that they have a contingent contract so he cannot withdraw because it might affect the earnest money that he has put down on the contract. The motion to recommend denial passed 9-0-0. Chairman Jacks advised that this can be appealed to the City Board. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION #R88-27 ROY CATE - 4147 WEDINGTON DRIVE The third item of consideration on the agenda was a rezoning petition 1iR88-27 submitted by Roy Cate for property located at 4147 Wedington Drive containing 2 acres more or less. Request was to rezone from A-1, Agricultural to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. John Merrell, Planning Director, stated that this particular piece of property has been used for commercial purposes in the past. Basically, it is a freezer Ila- • • Planning Commission December 12, 1988 Page 6 locker building which King Pizza had used for cold storage and other similar uses have been made of it in the past. The property contains about 2 acres with about 415' of depth. The freezer locker building is set back some 200 plus feet from the highway and the barn with stables back behind this building. He added that he understands that Mr. Cate desires the rezoning to C-2 in order to utilize this building for the storage of frozen yogurt. A freezer locker building is an allowable use under Use Unit 17 which is allowed by right in the C-2 zone. He stated that he looked at this a little bit like he did the rezoning on Crossover Road in that they would rather not see a long strung out line of commercial businesses out 16 West. There are a lot of very nice homes in this area. However, this particular piece of property is at an intersection or very close to an intersection that does contain commercial development. On one corner of that intersection is an older building which is used for the sale of agricultural products, on another corner on that particular intersection there is a new convenience store that is going up. Based on the proximity of this property to that intersection which is basically fifty percent commercial and twenty-five percent vacant and based on the fact that this building has been used as a commercial building for some years in the past, the staff would recommend that a rezoning be granted for the property. Chairman Jacks asked Larry Wood if he had done a Land Use study for Highway 16 West. Mr. Wood answered, yes, there is a study on file with the City. Mr. Merrell stated that he was not aware of a study for Highway 16 West. Mr. Wood stated that he believed that Mr. Merrell is correct that Rupple Road is a commercial node. Mr. Merrell stated that it is possible that there is a copy of it at the Planning Office, he will check it out and give Mr. Wood a call. Chairman Jacks asked if Use Unit 17 is a Conditional Use in any other zone. Mr. Merrell answered, no, it is not allowed by right or conditional use in the C-1 zone, it is allowed as a conditional use in the C-3 & C-4 zones. It is allowed by right in the I-1 zone. Chairman Jacks stated that his real interest lay in the C-1 zone. Commissioner Nash asked if it is a non -conforming use until now. Mr. Merrell answered, yes, the problem is that it has been vacant for quite some time as a non -conforming business and the grandfathering statue has passed. Commissioner Klingaman asked how Mr. Merrell envisioned the commercial nodes forming, at what kind of zoning level. Mr. Merrell stated that the issue of nodes is a little bit vague. It is one of those situations where you have to draw a line somewhere in defining these nodes. Staff would consider this to be in a potential commercial node given the fact that it is only one lot away from the intersection of Rupple Road. As far as the zoning is concerned, given the fact that it is an arterial street, they don't have any qualms with recommending C-2 rezoning although the other two commercial uses at that intersection only require a C-1 use. Commissioner Klingaman asked ,given the setback on that building, what some other possible kind of businesses that could be put on the front of this property given a C-2 zoning. Mr. Merrell stated that there are seven or eight other Use Units allowed by right in C-2 other than 1117, but just within Use Unit 17 alone would be quite a number of repair services such as auto repair and quite a number of personal help services such as dry cleaning. He added that the Commission does have the option in his opinion to recommend a C-1 rezoning because that is a • • • Planning, Commission December 12, 1988 Page 7 lesser intensive use than C-2. Also, Mr. Cate has the option of offering a Bill of Assurance toward his proposed use for the property. Theoretically, that would offer more protection to the surrounding property. Chairman Jacks stated that C-1 doesn't allow the type of use that they understand this is to be put to. Mr. Merrell clarified that Chairman Jacks is correct, Use Unit 17 isn't allowed by right or with a conditional use in the C-1 zoning. Commissioner Hanna stated that he thinks Mr. Cate should be able to use that building as a freezer, but was I-1 (Light Industrial & Heavy Commercial) zoning considered as an option. Mr. Merrell stated that it was considered. Commissioner Hanna stated that when the rezoning for the Spee -dee Mart on the corner of Rupple Road was requested, the applicants were afraid to ask for C-2 there because they knew the Planning Commission would probably turn it down. He noted that they had enough trouble getting the C-1 zoning there because of the drainage, water, neighbors, etc. Right after that the people that owned the particular piece of property that is in question now requested a rezoning so they could use that building to store boxed pizzas in and all the neighbors signed a petition in favor of it and the Planning Commission turned it down. Now we are talking about putting C-2 in there which would allow the front part of that property to be used for any type of commercial businesses that would compete with the property across the street that requested C-1 in order to get by the Planning Commission. He noted that he feels they ought to look at what they can do in order to let Mr. Cate utilize that building, but he has a problem with rezoning' it to C-2. Mr. Merrell stated that he sees Commissioner Hanna's point. The Commission does have the option although not at this meeting to recommend:an I-1 rezoning with a Bill of Assurance offered. However, they don't have that option in a C-1 zone because it is not even a conditional use. Chairman Jacks stated that an I-1 rezoning would require readvertisement because it is not a less intensive zoning. Chairman Jacks asked who would like to speak in favor of this petition. Roy Cate stated that his main objective in this petition is to utilize the existing building. He stated that he has no intentions of doing anything to the front property. The building is ideal for his business which would only require him coming in there about two times a week with very little traffic because he picks up the product and distributes it. Chairman Jacks asked if Mr. Cate was talking about a cold -storage facility for one specific item. Mr. Cate answered, yes, the frozen yogurt. He added that he is currently paying rent and he is wanting to locate his own building and be paying for it instead. This is the ideal building because it has the freezer capacity already in it and which would not cause him to have to do any structure change. He stated that this property is only one lot from the Rupple Road intersection and he would think that people would be more opposed to a Light Industrial type zoning than a C-2. Chairman Jacks asked Mr Cate if he was interested in offering to the City a Bill of Assurance that the property would be used only for this frozen storage operation. Mr. Cate stated that he would have to give some thought to that • Planning Commission December 12, 1988 Page 8 because purchasing the property is contingent on the rezoning. Chairman Jacks asked if Mr. Cate is not the owner. Mr Cate answered, no, but the owners have petitioned legally. They signed the application. Mr. Cate stated that the disadvantage is that everyone knows the value of the property on a major highway. He advised that he doesn't have the capital to improve the front of the property or anything other than utilize the building. Commissioner Hanna asked Mr. Cate how he would feel about a C-1 rezoning for the front portion of the property (around 210' in depth) and a C-2 for the remainder of it which would include the building and barn. Mr. Cate answered that he would be open to that. Commissioner Hanna stated that convenience stores can sell certain items in a C-2 zoning which couldn't be sold in a convenience store in C- 1. Mr. Cate stated that he hadn't considered splitting the zoning until now. He just wanted to be able to utilize the building. Commissioner Hanna stated that he would be inclined to vote for a rezoning with the front portion to C-1 and the remainder C-2. Commissioner Springborn stated that he understands that the zoning ordinance is being redrafted and that it is due in the near future. He asked Mr. Merrell if there was any chance that a use such as this could be allowed under a C-1 in the redraft. Mr. Merrell advised that the Land Use Plan is what is being redrafted now and not the new zoning ordinance. He added that they do expect delivery of that by the end of this month, but the zoning ordinance redraft hasn't even begun and will probably not be available until early summer. • Chairman Jacks asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition of this. • O.D. Feagin who lives just southeast of the property with the corner of his property joining the property in question stated that he has no objection to Mr. Cate using this property for what he is intending. However, his chief concern would be the future uses of the property. He noted that he is the only one that lives in this general area. The public hearing was closed and discussion took place among the Planning Commissioners. Commissioner Klingaman stated that he thinks they are opening this up to something that they may not know what they are getting into. The prospect of that remaining simply a small freezer plant for the long haul is fairly remote. Some of these other uses probably would eventually creep in and he is not in favor of it as it is petitioned. Commissioner Springborn stated that he went to an auction that involved a built- in freezer storage and he found out this sort of thing is pretty easily removed from a building. In fact, they sold it right out of the building at the auction, so that reenforces the concern that was just expressed. Commissioner Seiff asked Commissioner Springborn if his concern is that the inside of that building can be taken out and the building be used for something else. Commissioner Springborn answered, yes. Commissioner Dow stated that she agreed with the concerns and she would also like to add that she is concerned about rezoning the back portion of the property C-2 • • • Planning Commission December 12, 1988 Page 9 because of the residence back there with the potential uses that C-2 would allow. Commissioner Robertson stated that this building was built as a cooler and it is not just a unit so the cooling unit couldn't be taken out of it, so that is not a concern of his. Commissioner Seiff stated that all the components of the freezer could be removed but the building would have to stay because it is the locker. Commissioner Robertson stated that he agrees with what Commissioner Hanna had suggested to minimize the commercial use of the property on the front and zone the back 200' or so to include that building to C-2 so that this building could be used for what it is designed to be used for. Mr. Merrell stated that they had anticipated this and they went out there this morning and took a few measurements. He noted that it is 244' from the right-of- way to the back of the freezer locker building. MOTION Commissioner Robertson moved to recommend rezoning the front portion (210' or within 10' of the north face of the building) to C-1 and from that point back to the south to C-2, seconded by Hanna and followed by discussion. Commissioner Nash stated that when this discussion first started about doing two different zones, what she understood Commissioner Hanna to say was that he would want the C-1 on the highway so that the C-1 across the street wouldn't have an unfair advantage. Commissioner Hanna stated that what he said was that they have made it pretty plain to the person across the street that C-1 might be acceptable but C-2 would not. Therefore, he feels that they should.be the same zone because you can sell more stuff in a C-2 zone. Commissioner Nash stated that her point is that they aren't supposed to consider who makes the money in a situation; they are supposed to look at the land. Commissioner Nash stated also that this would create a great tandem lot that would be a totally different zone than the first lot which might cause hardships later on. She noted that her idea would be just not to rezone it at all. Commissioner Klingaman stated that there would have to be access granted to the back lot and they may be getting ahead of themselves to rezone that to two different lots. Commissioner Seiff stated that he agreed with Commissioner Nash and Commissioner Klingaman because if they can suggest perhaps the C-1 and C-2 but before they go ahead with it , he would like to see a plat or drawing of the access before he votes on it. Commissioner Hanna stated that they did this at the Winery Restaurant and no one had any concern about how they would drive into that restaurant. He didn't see any difference since one person would own all the property. He added that they would not be granting a lot split here. Commissioner Allred agreed that they are not discussing a lot split or a tandem so the zoning is irrelevant as to ingress/egress to the back part. His concern is that if they don't do something positive with that property, it is going to be a bigger detriment to the adjoining property owners because apparently this has Planning Commission December 12, 1988 Page 10 been before them a number of times and they have never been able to satisfactorily work out some sort of agreement with the existing use that is there. He stated that he would be in a different frame of mind if this was a proposed site or location. How do they effectively work with that neighborhood if they turn everything down. That is not planning, anybody can say no. What they need to do is figure out how that property can be best utilized with what is there at this moment. He added that he doesn't see any real good alternatives except the motion that has been made. It is not an ideal solution, but it is a workable solution at this point. Commissioner Nash stated that the difference in a rezoning is that it does not affect only what is there at the moment. It affects the future and sometimes correct planning is saying no to something that may in the long run be detrimental to the City's best interest. Commissioner Klingaman asked if they can rezone something this way without some sort of lot split. Chairman Jacks answered, yes The motion to recommend approval of rezoning the front portion to C-1 and the back portion to C-2 failed 4-5-0 with Robertson, Allred, Seiff & Hanna voting "yes" and Dow, Springborn, Jacks, Nash & Klingaman voting "no". MOTION Commissioner Hanna moved to recommend approval of the rezoning to C-2 as requested, seconded by Allred. The motion failed 3-6-0 with Robertson, Allred & Hanna voting "yes" and Dow, Springborn, Jacks, Nash,.K1ingaman, & Seiff voting "no". Chairman Jacks advised that this can be appealed to the Board of Directors. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF THE ISLAMIC MOSQUE COLLINS HAYNES - 1880 W MITCHELL The fourth item of consideration on the agenda was a Large Scale Development Plan of the Islamic Mosque(Church) submitted by Collins Haynes for property located at 1880 W. Mitchell including 4.15 acres and zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. Commissioner Dow stated that the Subdivision Committee reviewed this plan and there was very little discussion on it that was debatable and it was approved subject to Plat Review comments. Collins Haynes, Architect, stated that SWEPCO had originally stated that they would not have the availability of 3 -Phase power at that location but they have since reversed that decision and have granted them the right to achieve 3 -Phase power there. Other than that, their attorney is in the process of writing a description easement that grants 5' on the north side of Mitchell to the City of Fayetteville for right-of-way on Mitchell Street. MOTION Commissioner Dow moved to approve the Large Scale Development Plan subject to 113 Planning Commission December 12, 1988 Page 11 Plat Review comments, seconded by Robertson. The motion passed 9-0-0. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR MCDONALD'S RESTAURANT MCDONALD'S CORPORATION - JIM ATWELL - SE CORNER OF HOLLYWOOD & 6TH STREET The fifth item of consideration on the agenda was the Large Scale Development Plan of the McDonald's Restaurant submitted by McDonald's Corporation and represented by Jim Atwell. The property is located at the southeast corner of Hollywood and 6th Street containing 3.27 acres more or less and zoned I-1, Light Industrial & Heavy Commercial. Commissioner Dow asked the Planning Secretary if they had received proof of notification of the adjoining property owners. She answered yes. Dow advised that the Subdivision Committee had approved this Plan subject to Plat Review minutes. The curb cuts from the State Highway had been squared away. Jim Atwell, representative, stated that the McDonald's Corporation feels that they will be improving this corner somewhat and hope to be an asset to the City. Chairman Jacks asked if he agreed with the Plat Review comments. Mr. Atwell answered, yes, they have no problems with them. Commissioner Nash asked what had happened with the Sign Appeal that McDonald's had submitted. Mr. Atwell stated that they were allowed a 75-50 sign (the same size that they have on their other restaurant here in town) which is smaller than the sign that they were requesting. • NOTION • Commissioner Dow moved to approve the Large Scale Development Plan subject to Plat Review comments, seconded by Robertson. The motion passed 9-0-0. APPROVAL OF A LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF FIRST ASSEMBLY OF GOD CHURCH MEL MILLHOLLAND - NORTH SIDE OF E FIFTEENTH STREET, JUST EAST OF DRAKE'S CAFE The sixth item of consideration on the agenda was a Large Scale Development Plan for First Assembly of God Church represented by Mel Millholland. Property located on the north side of East Fifteenth Street just east of Drake's Cafe and zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. Commissioner Dow advised that the Subdivision Committee had approved this Plan subject to Plat Review comments and they do need to do some discussing on the three waivers that are being requested because the Subdivision Committee didn't make a recommendation on them. These include 1) a request for a waiver on the requirement for a sidewalk, 2) a temporary reduction in parking spaces and 3) the delay of hard surfacing for 12 months. Commissioner Dow advised that the Planning Commission doesn't have the authority to grant a waiver on the sidewalk requirement, but they can accept a Bill of Assurance on it. Chairman Jacks stated that they have recommendations on that from the City Engineer and asked Mr. Merrell if he wanted to comment on that. Mr. Merrell stated that the staff is very much opposed to all three of these waivers. He H • • • Planning Commission December 12, 1988 Page 12 noted that the cost of the construction of the sidewalk and the construction of any parking on the site in comparison with the cost of the building is only a drop in the bucket. The Board of Directors have adopted a sidewalk policy for the City and have retained the right to waive a requirement for a sidewalk if it is requested. He pointed out that just to the East of this there is another building under construction and there will be a sidewalk in front of that building. He added that they realize that sidewalks aren't particularly common on that street but they feel that one of the reasons that the Board adopted the sidewalk policy is to encourage the construction of sidewalks where they are not now located. He stated that they do not support the requested waiver for the construction of the sidewalk. Also, staff does not support the waiver for the temporary reduction in parking spaces because they simply don't have the staff ability to constantly monitor construction projects and membership trends in churches or any other sort of organization. There have been many churches that have been built in Fayetteville who have complied with the parking regulations and they aren't talking about a great discrepancy in what would be required and what is being asked to be waived and they recommend that no waiver be granted. Item three deals with surfacing and they do not want to encourage gravel parking lots in this or any other area of the City. The zoning ordinance specifically states that a surface of a parking lot be durable and dust -free which means basically concrete or asphalt paving. Therefore, staff does not support any of the three requests for waivers. Mel Millholland apologized to the Subdivision Committee for not making it to that meeting. He stated that he had talked to the Pastor who is present tonight and they would be willing to sign a Bill of Assurance with the City to construct the sidewalk upon call of the City. They were going by the .fact that there aren't any sidewalks out there adjoining this property for a considerable distance either way. Mr. Millholland asked if the Bill of Assurance could be allowed here by the Planning Commission. Mr. Merrell stated that his understanding is that there have been instances where the staff has been approached for a Bill of Assurance to temporarily delay the construction of a sidewalk. Personally, as Planning Director he has problems with that. He asked Mr. Millholland how long they would want to delay the sidewalk. Mr. Millholland stated that they would install it at the call of the City. When the sidewalk would serve a purpose, they would be glad to comply to match with the adjacent properties. Mr. Merrell stated that staff does not support that. What the commission has to keep in mind is that none of us have any idea of what is going to happen on adjacent properties. The other thing that bothers the staff is that generally if sidewalks are not required to be constructed during construction of that building, then down the road you have a problem and sooner or later the City will have to put in the sidewalks. He added that the staff would feel a lot more comfortable if the sidewalks were required along with the construction. Commissioner Seiff stated that he can understand what Mr. Merrell is saying, but if you put a sidewalk out in the middle of nowhere practically it can be very dangerous. For instance, somebody starts zipping down the sidewalk on a bicycle and suddenly they are out of a sidewalk because the adjacent properties have not been constructed yet. He noted that he doesn't see anything that is unfair about accepting a Bill of Assurance that when the adjacent sidewalk is built, theirs should be built. Then you have a continuous tract of sidewalk. He stated that Planning Commission December 12, 1988 Page 13 he would be very willing to accept a Bill of Assurance on a sidewalk. Chairman Jacks noted that the question in his mind is if this is the Planning Commission's decision as to whether to accept a Bill of Assurance or is it the Board of Directors. Mr. Merrell answered, no. Mr. Merrell stated that the Board of Directors are the ones that have reserved the right to waive the requirements for a sidewalk. Commissioner Seiff stated that the City Engineer, Don Bunn, said in his report that the "Planning Commission" may accept a Bill of Assurance so as to delay the construction of the sidewalk. Mr. Merrell stated that he believed where Mr. Bunn is coming from on that is the fact that in the past in rare circumstances his predecessor had accepted Bills of Assurance to delay the construction of a sidewalk. He noted that perhaps Mr. Bunn feels that if the Planning Director can do that then it would follow that the Planning Commission can do that. Personally, he has a problem with even the Planning Director being able to do that. Chairman Jacks stated that his understanding was that the Board took the whole package on sidewalks. Mr. Millholland clarified that the Church isn't asking at this point to have the sidewalk waived, but to be able to build the sidewalk at the time that sidewalk would be utilized for the purpose of a the walk. Commissioner Hanna stated that the Planning Commission has accepted a Bill of Assurance on a sidewalk before. Commissioner Seiff stated that it seems strange to him that they can deal with trees but they can't deal with sidewalks. Chairman Jacks advised Commissioner Seiff that the history of that is that they used to deal with sidewalks and the Board in its wisdom took the package from them totally and made a Master Sidewalk Plan. Commissioner Allred stated that in the past Bills of Assurance on sidewalks had been given because one was given to him by Don Bunn when he was constructing some apartments because the proposed street was not in yet. He commented that they are arguing over peanuts basically because they are going to be out there pouring many yards of concrete so what few yards it is going to take to build a sidewalk isn't really worth discussing. If it is required, let's do it and go on to more important things. Mr. Millholland stated that they respectively request the Commission to consider the other two requests. This is a church facility which isn't like a commercial establishment where you have a certain amount of area to sell products on; it is a growing institution. At this time the congregation is not adequate to fill the facilities. It's not just peanuts to pave a parking lot and they are willing to put down asphalt within a year. Commissioner Dow asked if the Planning Commission is allowed to make a waiver of the City "durable and dustless" rule which is written in the Code. Mr. Merrell answered that he doesn't think so. He is not sure that anyone has the authority to waive the second request because the ordinance stipulates the required number of parking places for the construction of a building. He stated that he thinks theoretically the Board of Adjustment could perhaps hear an off-street number of spaces variance request. However, staff would certainly not support it. Also, theoretically the Board of Adjustment can hear appeals for variances based on the literal interpretation of the zoning ordinance and that might hold true on the surfacing requirements also. He noted that he is bothered because these actions are being requested to the Planning Commission because he is not sure that they Planning Commission December 12, 1988 Page 14 have the authority to bend or break the rules on those items. Commissioner Nash stated that over the years the Planning Commission has waived lots of things. She noted that they have let people build parking spaces in phases if it is a large operation. However, she is very happy to see a staff that is energetic in supporting the ordinances as they are written. She commented that she would like to see less waiving and varying. Commissioner Allred stated that he thinks that these requests for variances need to be at the Board of Adjustment because they did hear these type of variances when he sit on that Board. He added that the Planning Commission could approve this Large Scale Development Plan without dealing with the variances and let the appropriate body make the recommendation and decision. NOTION Commissioner Allred moved to approve the Large Scale Development Plan subject to Plat Review comments with no recommendation regarding those three variances, seconded by Nash. The motion passed 9-0-0. APPROVAL OF LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF HARP'S FOODSTORE NEWTON HAILEY - 1189 NORTH GARLAND (N OF WRDINGTON, W OF GARLAND) The final item of consideration on the agenda was the Large Scale Development Plan of Harp's Foodstore submitted by Harp's Food Stores, Inc. and represented by Newton Hailey. Property is located 1189 North Garland (north of Wedington, west of Garland) and zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Commissioner Dow asked if proof of notification had been submitted. Mr. Hailey answered, yes. Commissioner Dow stated that they had reviewed this at Subdivision Committee meeting and had discussed the fact that the north drive was too close as drawn to James Street. She noted that they plan to move it farther South and they approved it subject to Don Bunn's, City Engineer, approval of the location. She stated that their motion was to approve it subject to "IGA" being eliminated from the name, "fire department substation" be changed to "fire department connection", the fact that Harp's do not own the property, they are leasing it, and that the north entrance be moved South to a point to be determined by Don Bunn. Commissioner Dow noted that there was some discussion from Perry Franklin, Traffic Superintendent, about some research being done on extending James Street to eliminate that messy intersection but that is nothing they can count on. She added that they decided moving the entrance as far south as possible would help. Commissioner Klingaman property as shown on the access their behind the whole property and he is asked for clarification on whether J. Vernon Wilson's plat was a part of this because he was curious about the Bank. Chairman Jacks advised that Mr. Wilson owned the leasing it to various people. Mr. Hailey stated that Hayden Mcllroy still owns the Mcllroy corner and Mcllroy Bank and Trust couldn't agree to work out some sort of adjoining driveway arrangement without his prior approval. Since he doesn't live here they have not 115 a • • • Planning Commission December 12, 1988 Page 15 been able to determine that. There was a easement given in the deed to the original Mcllroy tract which granted Mr. Wilson a 30' right of access across the west end of what is presently the Mcllroy branch operation. He in turn transferred that to Harp's as the leasing people to come into that road. The layout that has been submitted was to make sure that they could get in at that point and down to the grocery store. They have had one meeting with the Bank to try to see if there was a way the whole block could work together without having to come back out on any of the streets and circle back around. He explained that they are private drives and at this point all he can say is that they are trying to work out something between Mr. Wilson's property that he has retained on James, the Harp's leasing property and the Mcllroy Bank property. The southwest corner lot is still in the hands of Mr. Wilson. Chairman Jacks stated in his professional opinion, that access doesn't mean much one way or the other about the Large Scale Development. Commissioner Springborn stated that he has driven out there twice and checked that entrance off of Wedington into the Mcllroy Bank and both times that he drove in, he met cars coming out. He noted that he went home and reflected on that and discussed the matter this afternoon with Mr. Merrell. He stated that he has great respect for Perry Franklin, the Traffic Superintendent, in making this an "entrance only". However, from a technical standpoint, he would have far less problems if that were an "exit only". If you start at a controlled intersection and go West, when the light turns green, you are going to be moving with the traffic to make a right turn into that "entrance only". That means that traffic is trying to accelerate and all of the sudden you are at the driveway and you have to turn right into it and all of the traffic behind you is going to have to slow down almost to a stop. He noted that he also went East on Wedington and attempted a left turn into the "entrance only" and he found that he was in such a precarious position because the light had changed and the traffic coming up the hill and he would have to have stopped and waited some period of time in order to make a left turn into that "entrance only". From a safety standpoint, they ought to not have an "entrance only" to serve a Harp's market at that point. He explained that he is not quarreling with what exists now because that is history. Mr. Merrell advised that he and Commissioner Springborn did discuss this earlier and he contacted Mr. Franklin and discussed his reason for having this particular driveway set up as an "ingress only" as opposed to a two-way. Mr. Franklin had explained that his main concern is if traffic was sitting in that driveway and attempting to make a lefthand turn, they would have very little site distance because of the hill on Wedington just west of this. Commissioner Springborn stated that he would certainly endorse that concern, but that would apply equally to traffic coming east and wanting to turn left into the "entrance only". In either case, it is an "entrance only" that ought not be there. Mr. Hailey stated that this is still being negotiated and part of the negotiation is to widen and use the existing Mcllroy drive coming on to the East, tying into the Harp's parking lot a little bit closer to Garland and taking that twisting turn out of the street. It would run beside the grocery store and turn at the corner of the grocery store. Planning Commission December 12, 1988 Page 16 Commissioner Allred asked if the Planning Commission has the authority to determine whether that be an ingress or an egress. Mr. Merrell stated that they have the authority to make a recommendation, but the Highway Department probably has the final authority. Chairman Jacks stated that he assumes with the Large Scale Development of the Bank that was approved as an "ingress only". Commissioner Dow stated that if it was approved at that point as an "ingress only", her concern is how would they make it an "egress only" now. MOTION Commissioner Dow moved to approve this Large Scale Development Plan subject to Subdivision Committee comments, seconded by Robertson and followed by further discussion. Commissioner Klingaman stated that he thinks this is a prime example of why they need some sort of a Landscaping Ordinance in Fayetteville. Here we have a three - acre parking lot and a very small strip of landscaping planned on the front boundary. This is something that is going to look like Evelyn Hills Shopping Center looked until they did their facelift last summer. This would be a prime time for the developers of this to take some initiative and actually put in at least some kind of minimal planting area in the lot to break it up. Mr. Hailey stated that part of that was addressed at the Subdivision Committee. A problem up until Wednesday of last week was that they did not know whether the Highway Department would allow the northerly most entrance coming off of Garland. He noted that they laid the parking lot out to make sure they could get the adequate number of parking spaces and wound up with maybe 28 or 29 over the required. If the Highway Department had not allowed the north entrance, then he was going to have to bring the truck traffic through the main entrance through the bulk of the parking lot in front. He added that he has indicated to the Plat Review and to the Subdivision Committee that now that he knows he can meet the parking requirements with what the Highway Department has done, in the final design of this they will incorporate certain of those items. He advised that the property is under option for a little bit longer period of time and they were trying to find out exactly what was required and make sure everything is taken care of so they can go into final negotiation. Chairman Jacks clarified that Mr. Hailey is saying that there is a good chance that there will be planting in the parking area. He asked if the Large Scale Development Plan is going to change. Mr. Hailey answered, no, not appreciably; the landscaping will be in there now that he knows where the road will go. Chairman Jacks asked Mr. Merrell if they were to get a revised plat of this LSD in after it has been approved, would they compare them and check what has changed considerably. Mr. Merrell stated that they do look at them very closely and if they feel that it goes against the grain of what the Plat Review, Subdivision Committee or the Commission says, then it will be brought back before them. Commissioner Nash stated that she is concerned about the danger of the intersection there at Mount Comfort and Garland because she had been involved in an accident there. She asked how far the north entrance off of Garland would be from Mt. Comfort Road. Mr. Hailey stated that was undetermined until the City • Planning Commission December 12, 1988 Page 17 Engineer goes out there, but they have agreed to more than equal what is required. Commissioner Nash asked if there is any way not to even put an entrance onto Garland and put it somewhere on Mt. Comfort. Mr. Hailey stated that he doesn't really have access to Mt. Comfort because that is Mr. Wilson's property. The motion to approve passed 8-1-0 with Klingaman voting "nay". OTHER BUSINESS Item #1 Chairman Jacks advised that they have an 1989 Plat Review, Subdivision Committee and Planning Commission meetings schedule. He asked if anyone has a comment about that. Item #2 Chairman Jacks advised that they have three people with their time up unless they reapply and/or are reappointed. They include S.J. Dow who is not going to reapply and Butch Robertson has reapplied but may not be reappointed because he lives outside the City Limits. Commissioner Robertson stated that he does have a residence in the City in which he lives on occasion. The third person is Chairman Jacks and he noted that he hasn't decided yet as to whether he will reapply. Chairman Jacks thanked Commissioner Dow for her great service. Item #3 Commissioner Seiff advised that the next Subdivision Committee meeting is January 4, 1989 and if Commissioner Dow is not going to reapply then that leaves Commissioner Robertson and himself. He advised that he was only appointed to serve through the month of December. MINIPEES The minutes of the regular meeting of November 28, 1988 were approved as mailed. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned.