Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-02-12 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, February 12, 1990 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. David Ozment, Jerry Allred, J.E. Springborn, Ernie Jacks, Gerald Klingaman, Joe Tarvin, Jack Cleghorn, Jett Cato and Fred Hanna OTHERS PRESENT: John Merrell, Don Bunn, Becky Bryant, Elaine Cattaneo, members of the press and others APPOINTMENT TO THE DICKSON STREET IMPACT STUDY COMMITTEE Chairman Jacks explained that Gerald Seiff who was the previous appointment to this committee is no longer on the Planning Commission. He noted that he has asked J.E. Springborn to replace him. ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION YEAR OF 1990 Chairman Jacks advised that this is the annual meeting at which they select the Chairman, Vice -Chairman & Secretary for the coming year. He added that he had appointed a committee who were charged with bringing in a slate of officers with Commissioner Springborn as chairman. Commissioner Springborn stated that the nominating committee recommends that Ernie Jacks continue as chairman, Fred Hanna continue as secretary and J.E. Springborn undertake the Vice -Chairmanship. MOTION Commissioner Cleghorn moved to accept that slate of officers, seconded by Klingaman and followed by further nominations. MOTION Commissioner Allred moved to nominate Fred Hanna as chairman, seconded by Cato. Chairman Jacks advised that would leave only one position to be voted on, Chairman. He asked that all the Commissioners write their choices on a slip of paper for the Planning Secretary to count. The nomination to elect Fred Hanna as Chairman passed 5-4-0. Commissioner Jacks exchanged seats with Chairman Hanna. is • • Planning Commission February 12, 1990 Page 2 MOTION -C.,..n,, ��v oq S�ogw Commissioner -GemaW moved to nominate J. David Ozment for the position of Secretary, seconded by Cleghorn. There being no further nominations, Chairman Hanna advised that Commissioner Ozment is Secretary by acclamation. MIN[PPES The Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of January 22, 1990 were approved as distributed. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION #R90-2 LESTER LONGWITH - NW CORNER OF WEDINGTON DR & 51ST AVE The fourth item on the agenda was a public hearing - rezoning petition 1IR90-2 submitted by Lester Longwith for property located at the northwest corner of Wedington Drive and 51st Avenue containing 4.51 acres. Request was to rezone from A-1, Agricultural to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. There was no one present to represent the petitioner. Chairman Hanna asked if there was anyone present to speak in favor of this petition. There being no response, he asked if anyone was present who wanted to speak in opposition to this petition. Clyde Hayre stated that he has three acres of property adjoining the subject property and he is concerned that a rezoning to commercial in this area would degrade his property along with other properties along there. There being no one else wanting to speak, the Public Hearing was closed. John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that the staff is recommending that this rezoning be denied for the following reasons: a) this is a classic example of "spot zoning" with no other commercial zoning near here and the rezoning would have no apparent public benefit, b) the rezoning is speculative in nature which is primarily applied for to increase the value of the land or at least a perceived value of the land, c) the Planning Commission has established a policy over the years to try to restrict commercial rezonings along the Wedington Drive corridor to commercial nodes at the intersections and d) this rezoning is not in compliance either with the current Land Use Plan or the proposed new Land Use Plan. MOTION Commissioner Cleghorn moved to deny the rezoning request based on the staff's comments, seconded by Klingaman. The motion passed 9-0-0. Chairman Hanna advised that this decision to deny the rezoning can be appealed • to the City Board of Directors. !3 • • • Planning Commission February 12, 1990 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION #R90-3 STEVE & TERRI STURM - NE CORNER OF NORTH ST & GREGG AVE The fifth item on the agenda was a public hearing for rezoning petition #R90-3 submitted by Lew Steenken on behalf of Steve & Terri Sturm for property located at the northeast corner of North Street and Gregg Avenue. Request was to rezone from R-1, Low Density Residential to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. John Merrell stated that the staff is recommending denial of this rezoning petition for the following reasons: a) a commercial rezoning at this corner is inappropriate. The other three corners are all zoned for residential uses, b) this is an example of "spot zoning" in that virtually no public benefit would result. The rezoning would essentially only benefit the petitioners, 3) the rezoning is not in compliance with the current Land Use Plan or with the proposed new Land Use Plan and 4) the staff has a number of concerns with this rezoning relative to traffic because of the proposed curb cut locations, proposed locations of accesses into the property and sight distance problems. Mr. Merrell noted that the staff feels that if this were rezoned, it is possible that this could generate some nuisances for the surrounding residential property owners. Also, there has been neighborhood opposition expressed. Steve Sturm stated that he is proposing to build a he had preferred to try for an R-0 zoning, but Mr. would be better to try for C-1. He added that he any requirements for parking and exit/entrances. building a residential type building. In Commissioner Klingaman, Mr. Sturm stated that he and if this is not approved, he plans to construct tanning salon. He noted that Steenken had advised that it would like to try to work out He stated that he would be answer to a question from is the owner of the property a residence at this location. Chairman Hanna asked if anyone else wanted to speak in favor of this petition. There being no response, he asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition. Tim Ernst of 411 Patricia Lane who is a neighbor of the subject property stated that there are quite a few members of the audience that are neighbors of his and are opposed to this rezoning. He added that they have a petition to submit in opposition to this with 107 signatures out of the 109 residents they talked to. Only two would not sign a petition and those two did not state that they were in favor of it, they just didn't want to sign a petition. The residents in this neighborhood are opposed to this rezoning because it is a solid block of R-1 property and they feel that this would set a bad precedent for future decisions. He noted that bringing in a commercial business to this area would add a great deal of traffic and would create a safety hazard on both North & Gregg Streets. When Chairman Hanna asked for a show of hands of the persons in the audience who were opposed to this rezoning petition, approximately 15 people raised there • • • Planning Commission February 12, 1990 Page 4 hands. There being no further discussion, the Public Hearing was closed. MOTION Commissioner Allred moved to deny the rezoning request, seconded by Cleghorn. The motion passed 9-0-0. Chairman Hanna advised that this decision to deny the rezoning could be appealed to the City Board of Directors. PRELIMINARY PLAT OF REGENCY ESTATES & SPRING CREEK ADDITION II PARKS & RUSSELL LTD & CHARLES SLOAN - E OF OLD WIRE RD, N OF MISSION BLVD The sixth and seventh items on the agenda were the preliminary plats of Regency Estates and Spring Creek Addition II. Regency Estates was submitted by Parks & Russell Ltd for property located east of Old Wire Road and north of Mission Boulevard and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, containing 6.52 acres with 23 proposed lots. Spring Creek Addition II was submitted by Charles Sloan for property located east of Old Wire Road and north of Mission Boulevard containing 8.8 acres with 21 proposed lots and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Harry Gray from Northwest Engineers represented both of these subdivisions. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that there are two subdivisions presented on one plat here so that the Planning Commission could get an idea of how the two fit together. Regency Estates is the north subdivision. He noted that the minimum length of a cul-de-sac will have to be waived in order to approve this subdivision. There is a street that goes south from Regency Estates which ties into Spring Creek Addition II. There were no significant comments by the utilities and the staff recommends approval of the plat. Harry Gray, Representative, stated that the owners and developers are present in the audience. He stated that the developers have tried to work together with the City on this street layout. When Spring Creek Addition I was presented as a preliminary plat, it became apparent that the Planning Commission was concerned with trying to make provisions for a tie for Ramsey Avenue and provisions for a tie through to Old Wire Road. He added that they were concerned that if the proposed Ash Street (in Regency Estates) and Charlee Avenue ( in Spring Creek Addition I) were tied together, it would create basically a "collector" street with a high traffic density situation. With this plan, they have provided a good plan for a tie through to Old Wire Road and a tie to Ramsey. In answer to a question from Commissioner Klingaman, Mr. Gray stated that the reason Lots 13, 14, 15 & 16 are shaded on the plat is because in order to • • • Planning Commission February 12, 1990 Page 5 accomplish this lots of Spring construction of development, they will have to replat or redo the north three Creek Addition I. He added that they have held off on this cul-de-sac until they see what is determined with this. Mr. Harry advised that they will need a sac for Ash Street because it is about ordinance is 500'. He added that the the city staff saw no problem with it. variance on the length of the cul -de - 700' long and the minimum length per fire chief saw no problem with it and Robert Sly who lives on the corner of Old Wire Road and Ash Street stated that there is a tremendous amount of traffic on that street now. He was concerned about how the new Ash Street would tie into the existing Ash Street. Mr. Gray showed him a copy of the plat. Melanie Stockdell of 1690 Ramsey Avenue stated that she appreciates the developers concerns with regard to the traffic problem. However, she has a few concerns that haven't been addressed. There is a big concern for drainage problems in connection with the creek that runs about half way between the cul- de-sac on Ramsey and Highway 45. That creek regularly floods with heavy rains and she hopes the developers will pay special attention to the drainage problems in that area. Although it is not directly involved in the plat per se, it will be grossly impacted by it. Another major concern is in regard to the traffic that is going to be created on Ramsey which runs right into Root School. At 8 a.m., the traffic is backed up. She noted that she'didn't have a chance to talk with the administration about long-term plans, but she does know that Perry Franklin, Traffic Superintendent, has had address the PTO at the school because of the serious traffic problems. She noted that if the cut -through is used to get from Old Wire Road to Highway 45, there will be some very serious problems with traffic there. She stated that it appears from the plat, that the sidewalks are planned on the opposite side of the street of where children have to be to cross Highway 45 to get to school. There are no sidewalks currently on Ramsey and haven't been needed because it is a safe street right now, but she asked in light of this new development that a sidewalk be designated along one side of Ramsey all the way to Highway 45. Another issue that she hopes will be addressed is the possible signalization at the corner of Highway 45 and Ramsey Avenue because it will be so busy and has taken a back seat to other signal needs. She requested that this preliminary plat be tabled until those things have been considered. Mr. Gray stated that they would prefer to have cul-de-sacs on all of these streets, but the Planning Commission with the earlier phase of Spring Creek did voice their concerns that Ramsey be allowed to connect somewhere and that a tie be made to Old Wire Road. He added that they appreciate the concerns with the drainage, but actually at least 80% drainage of this site does run to the north. He stated that they will work with the city staff on the drainage plans for the project. Commissioner Tarvin stated that from the plat, it appears that a good section of the southern part of the property is going to be draining back in the southern • • • Planning Commission February 12, 1990 Page 6 direction which would cause some additional run-off. He asked if there has been any consideration by the City or otherwise regarding enlarging that drainage facility on Ramsey so that the problem won't be compounded further. Mr. Gray stated that will have to deal with the city staff on that. He advised that from looking at the contours on the plat, only the south 200' would drain to the south with the rest draining to the west and to the north. In answer to a question from Commissioner Tarvin, Mr. Gray stated that they hadn't thought about moving that sidewalk back against the right-of-way rather than putting it up against the curb line. Commissioner Tarvin stated that it seems like a much more desirable location for safety reasons. In answer to a question from Commissioner Tarvin, Mr. Gray stated that the 50' right-of-way shown running south of Regency Estates from Old Wire Road to the Spring Creek Addition II is not part of the development. It is the only access Mr. Torbett has to his home until these new streets are constructed. Commissioner Tarvin asked how the Bill of Assurance in regards to construction of Old Wire Road as recommended in the staff report would work. Would some money be deposited or does that mean someone in the future would be responsible for putting that money up and if so, would it be the present developer or would it be the owners of the property. Commissioner Springborn stated that this matter came up in the Subdivision Committee meeting and Becky Bryant was going to contact Jerry Rose, City Attorney, to clarify the difference between a Bill of Assurance and a contract. Mr. Rose has it under consideration now and after further research, he will contact Mr. Merrell and give an answer on it. Mr. Bunn stated that the way the Bills of Assurances are written, generally they bind the owner, the property and any subsequent property owners. So, it is possible that even the people who buy the property might be subject to that Bill of Assurance although generally the property owner is the one who is bound by it He further noted that the Planning Commission and the staff over the years have developed a policy of requiring construction of half the street that runs adjacent to the subdivision for off-site improvements. The concept of "impact fees" is being studied to try and come up with a better and more fair way to handle this. He stated that he is recommending that half of a 31' street be constructed (half of a standard residential street). It is likely that when Old Wire Road is upgraded, it will be wider than 31'. In answer to a question from someone in the audience, Mr. Gray stated that in order to get his plat approved, this developer will have to dedicate right-of- way for extension of Old Wire Road. When Old Wire Road is widened, if the city needed it, the City would have to acquire more right-of-way on the other side of the road. Commissioner Ozment asked for clarification on the point that was made about the sidewalk being on the opposite side of the street. Mr. Bunn stated that he didn't think the developers have a problem with one side of the street or the Planning Commission February 12, 1990 Page 7 other. However, if they are talking about on down Ramsey Street, he isn't sure if there is a sidewalk designated on the Master Sidewalk Plan. Even if so, he doesn't think they could ask this developer to construct a sidewalk down Ramsey. Mr. Gray stated that on Spring Creek Addition I, they weren't really considering the traffic flow so on that final plat, the sidewalk is shown on the east side which is east of the school. Now they are trying to figure out a way to move it to the west side without going through a replat procedure. Mr. Bunn stated that the staff doesn't have any objections to it being moved to the other side. Commissioner Springborn stated that the Subdivision Committee recommended approval of this plat with the exception of No. 7 of the staff's recommendations. He stated that he would like to suggest that instead of a Bill of Assurance, it be a document that would meet with the approval of the City Attorney. MOTION Commissioner Springborn moved to approve the preliminary plat of Regency Estates and Spring Creek Addition II subject to Plat Review comments, staff's recommendations with the exception on No. 7 that instead of a Bill of Assurance, a document approved by the City Attorney, the sidewalkbeing moved across the street and a variance 'egranted from 500' to 700' for the cul-de-sac on Ash Street in view of the Fire Chief's approval of it. The motion was seconded by Cleghorn and followed by discussion. Commissioner Tarvin stated that he thinks it is important that the City Engineer take a look at the drainage on Ramsey to see if there is already a problem there and make sure the situation is not compounded. Ms. Stockdell asked how she would find out what is decided as far as the impact of this addition on the traffic problems on Highway 45 at Root School. Mr. Gray stated that he has the same question on the drainage and what it means for the developers. Chairman Hanna stated that staff will make recommendations to him. Mr. Merrell stated that as far as traffic, the staff doesn't normally do a lot of detailed traffic study on a single-family residential subdivision plat. Perry Franklin, Traffic Superintendent, could work up a computer printout of what might be projected as far as the traffic volume and they would be happy to work with him and Ms. Stockdell on that. Ms. Stockdell stated that she just wants to be sure that the traffic problem is addressed because of the safety concerns. A member of the audience expressed his concern about whether or not the dirt access that is existing off of Old Wire Road will be blocked off when the new streets are finished so that he would not have a dirt street beside his property. Mr. Gray assured him that once the streets in the subdivision are developed, the dirt access road will be closed off. Commissioner Ozment stated that he would like clarification; he doesn't want to • • • Planning Commission February 12, 1990 Page 8 give signals that the developer will be going to assume traffic responsibilities after a study is done. He asked Mr. Gray how he understood his position. Chairman Hanna clarified that Ms. Stockdell was requesting a traffic flow study to see whether or not traffic control could be installed at the intersection of Ramsey and Highway 45. That wouldn't be the developers responsibility. Ms. Stockdell stated that if the solution to the problem takes the form of a signalization at that intersection, it would be good. She stated that she is not suggesting that this is an inappropriate place for them to develop, but the problems there now will be adversely affected by the addition of more traffic. Bob Hall who owns the property to the north of Regency Estates stated that he is concerned that cautions have been made for the drainage that will go to the north. He noted that there aren't any storm sewers along Old Wire Road. There is a natural slope to the north of the proposed extension of Ash Street and there is a lot of drainage on his property presently. He asked if this development would cause additional drainage or would it be routed differently. Also, he was asking about the possibility of a privacy fence between his property and the subdivision development. Chairman Hanna advised that there isn't any provision for a privacy fence between private yards. Mr. Gray stated that the property does slope to the north and to the west and they will have to work out storm drainage plans with the City. Basically, Ash Street will intercept all the water running to the north and carry it due west to Old Wire Road and then north to the creek. Mr. Hall stated that there aren't any storm sewers going under Old Wire Road which would be the most probable route for the drainage to carry it down to the creek. In answer to a question from Commissioner Ozment, Mr. Bunn stated that he has talked with the City Attorney about what document should be used for off-site improvements and he hasn't talked very favorably about using anything other than a Bill of Assurance right now. He added that the basic problem is not having a definite plan scheduled for improvement on Old Wire Road. Mr. Merrell stated that the questions that have been raised on drainage and traffic does give the Planning Commission the prerogative to postpone the vote on this plat. If they do choose to postpone this, the staff will try to address those items for the February 26th meeting. The motion to approve passed 8-0-1 with Cleghorn, Ozment, Springborn, Hanna, Tarvin, Klingaman, Cato & Jacks voting "yes" and Allred "abstaining". CONDITIONAL USE - CHANGE OF NONCONFORMING USE _ DORWIN KILGORE, 525 MISSION BLVD - OFFICE SPACE AND BLUE PRINT SHOP The eighth item on the agenda was a conditional use to change from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use for an office space and blue print shop submitted by Dorwin Kilgore for property located at 525 Mission Boulevard. • • • Planning Commission February 12, 1990 Page 9 Property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. John Merrell advised the Commission that this item has been withdraw from the agenda because the applicant did not submit all the names of the surrounding property owners for notification. Therefore, certain surrounding property owner were not notified. He stated that the staff is going to try to place this back on the agenda at the next meeting. CONDITIONAL USE - CHANGE OF NONCONFORMING USE (SIGN SHOP) MIRE SHffiAN - 15 W SOUTH ST The ninth item on the agenda was a conditional use request for a Sign Shop submitted by Mike Sheehan for property located at 15 West South Street and zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that this is an old commercial building that dates back to the early part of the 20th century which has been used for quite a variety of commercial uses over the years. The most recent use was for a motorcyle repair shop. He noted that what Mr. Sheehan proposes to do is have a sign shop. He has in fact already starting operating his business at this location. The staff contacted Mr. Sheehan and stated that they would hold off on any sort of enforcement as far as having him stop operating in this location until the Commission could act on this.petition. The building is a nonconforming use and the Land Use Plan designation for the property is Medium Density Residential. The staff is recommending that the conditional use be approved subject to the following: 1) This property needs a general clean-up. The staff feels with this being a contract type business, the Planning Commission should stipulate if they approve this that either there be no outdoor storage of old signs, trash or any business related material or that outdoor storage be screened in some manner; 2) If Mr. Sheehan chooses to fence or screen, he will be allowed 60 days in which to install the fencing or screening; and 3) The existing signs must be brought into conformity with the Sign Ordinance. Presently, there is one wall sign on the side of the building facing South Street and two on the side of the building facing Block Street. The staff would like to recommend a stipulation be made upon approval of this ordinance that Mr. Sheehan have 30 days in which to bring the property into conformance with the Sign Ordinance. In answer to a question from Commissioner Tarvin, Mr. Merrell stated that Mr. Sheehan is not the owner of the property. The owner did sign the application. The past practice has been that a tenant can apply for a conditional use, but technically the conditional use is issued to the owner. • • • Planning Commission February 12, 1990 Page 10 Chairman Hanna asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak in favor or in opposition to this request. There being no response, it was turned over to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Allred stated that this might be a good viable solution to cleaning up some of the property in that general area. Mr. Merrell stated that the staff had reminded him that Mr. Sheehan had been injured last week and that is probably why he isn't here. MOTION Commissioner Allred moved to grant the conditional use as requested subject to staff comments, seconded by Tarvin and followed by discussion. Commissioner Tarvin stated that he understood the staff's recommendation was to make a choice between one thing or the other. Mr. Merrell advised that the Planning Commission can choose if they have a preference or they can make the motion such that Mr. Sheehan has a choice. Commissioner Allred stated that he had interpreted the staff's report to indicate that Mr. Sheehan would have the choice to do either/or and that is what he intended in his motion. Commissioner Tarvin asked how this would be followed up on to ensure that these things are done. Mr. Merrell stated that the staff will customarily follow up and make periodic field visits to make sure Mr. Sheehan is in compliance with what the Commission stipulates. If not, it would come back to the Planning Commission for review. The motion passed 9-0-0. CONDITIONAL USE - STUDIO FOR TEACHING FINE ARTS J. PAUL PINKERT - 1024 HUGHES The tenth item on the agenda was a conditional use for a Studio for teaching Fine Arts submitted by J. Paul Pinkert. Property located at 1024 Hughes and zoned R-3, High Density Residential. Mr. Merrell stated that this is an area with quite a mixture of land uses including mostly single-family, duplexes and multi -family. This building was most recently used as a church and Mr. Pinkert has informed the staff that he would like to conduct classes in the building with anywhere from 2 to 10 people per class. It would be in operation during the day and the evening on certain occasions. There is a sanctuary in the church building that apparently holds approximately 50 people. He stated that the staff recommends that the Commission approve this application, although they are somewhat concerned about parking. There isn't a paved parking area, but the staff isn't going to recommend that the Commission not require the paved parking because there is some concern that t4 Planning Commission February 12, 1990 Page 11 paving would create a drainage problem. Chairman Hanna asked if the applicant was proposing a conditional use under Unit 25 and under Unit 4. Mr. Merrell advised that Use Unit 25 does permit a studio for the teaching of liberal arts as a conditional use in R-3, High Density Residential. J. Paul Pinkert stated that he is a student at the U of A and has lived in the area since 1985. He added that he has worked with the Adult Educational Division at the West Campus of Fayetteville High School and teaches on a yearly grant from the State Department of Education assigned to Washington County. They deal primarily with the dropout students. The yearly enrollment averages around 500 dropouts per year. Those who receive their G.E.D. do go out for employment and he is working towards a Vocational Certification and has found a serious problem that a skills gap exists in the G.E.D. student in the speech area. His proposed studio would be an almost non-profit situation where they pay as they go. Therefore, they would need concession and supply sales. He stated that he feels that his proposed studio would make better citizens of the G.E.D. students. There being no further comments, it was turned over to the Planning Commission. MOTION Commissioner Klingaman moved to grant the Conditional Use as requested, seconded by Ozment. The motion passed 9-0-0. CONDITIONAL USE TO CHANGE NON -CONFORMING USE (RETAIL SPORTING GOODS STORE) LEN EDENS `lx363 WEDINGTON DRIVE The eleventh item on the agenda was a conditional use to change a non -conforming use ( Retail Sporting Goods Store) submitted by Len Edens for property located abateWedington Drive and zoned A-1, Agricultural. LA3GJohn Merrell stated that this building is a quonset hut type building that has been used for commercial purposes in the past including a plumbing supply and contracting business. He advised that earlier in the 1980's there was a conditional use approved by the Commission to allow a T-shirt screening business in this building, but according to Mr. Edens, that business never really moved in there. He advised that the staff has taken a hard look at this and is going to recommend that it be approved although it is somewhat marginal. He noted that Article 4 of the Zoning Ordinance which deals with non -conforming uses states that within the districts established by this ordinance, if there exists uses of lands which were lawful before this ordinance was passed but would be prohibited or restricted under the terms of the ordinance at this time, it is the intention of this ordinance to permit these non -conforming uses to continue until they are removed but not to encourage their survival. He noted that it is not the intent of the City to encourage the perpetual existence of non- conforming uses. The staff recommends that this conditional use request be approved for the following reasons: 1) the building has a history of being used • • • Planning Commission February 12, 1990 Page 12 for commercial purposes, and 2) the building is right across the street from a landscaping business (a landscaping business is a permitted use in the A-1 zone). Mr. Merrell advised that the staff feels that this is an area that needs paved parking and recommends that the Planning Commission require a dustless and durable surface parking area if they choose to approve this application. In answer to a question from Commissioner Klingaman, Mr. Merrell stated that this property has never been up for a rezoning to the staff's knowledge. Len Edens stated that he didn't feel that a rezoning would go over very well with the Planning Commission so the only alternative he has is to ask for a Conditional Use. If the Conditional Use isn't approved, then he has a 10,200 square foot metal building that he can't use. He added that they don't intend to use the total space in it because of financial restrictions. In answer to a question from Commissioner Springborn, Mr. Edens stated that if he is required to pave the parking it would probably eliminate him. He noted that at two other locations he has 2,400 square feet and 1,600 square feet of concrete parking that was required by the City and has never been used and it was very expensive. He stated that he doesn't know if the sporting goods business will last, so he doesn't want to pay for the paving now. He wouldn't mind paving it later on for more parking area when he knows the business is going to go. Mr. Merrell noted that there is a small area that is already paved at this location, but it isn't really sufficient. On the other hand, if they required Mr. Edens to pave for the entire square footage of the building, he would have to pave 51 parking spaces which is excessive. Commissioner Klingaman asked if they would be selling live bait. Mr. Edens answered, yes, they would be building a concrete tank to hold the bait inside the building. In answer to a question from Commissioner Allred, Mr. Edens stated that he would be using about 1,400 square feet of the building and doesn't envision using the remainder for anything other than personal storage. Commissioner Allred asked the staff if the parking requirement could be calculated on display area and not include the warehouse. Mr. Merrell stated that the zoning ordinance has tried to take into consideration the display and storage areas. This particular case is a somewhat unusual situation so maybe they could find a happy medium between the what is paved there now and the maximum requirement of 51 spaces. Fourteen hundred feet of floor space would require 7 parking spaces which, in his opinion, would not really be enough. Commissioner Allred clarified that if they approve this, the staff and Mr. Edens will work out the paving problem. Mr. Merrell stated that if the Commission does approve this, they could give the staff a certain amount of latitude to work with Mr. Edens to come up with a good parking ratio. • • • Planning Commission February 12, 1990 Page 13 Mr. Edens stated that he doesn't see any advantage to having it paved and he doesn't foresee who he would be hurting if he put SB2 down instead. He noted that the nursery across the street has a gravel driveway currently. Mr. Merrell stated that the reason they have a gravel driveway is because it was gravel when they were annexed into the City and they were not required to pave. In answer to a question from Commissioner Cato, Mr. Edens stated that he proposes to put a gravel driveway all the way around the building and had planned to gravel some additional parking. In answer to a question from Commissioner Allred, Mr. Merrell stated that this conditional use will come up for review every year. Commissioner Allred stated that they could approve this conditional use as submitted with the understanding that at such time it became a nuisance, Mr. Edens would be in agreement that he would pave the parking. Commissioner Springborn asked if they could make the requirement that instead of leaving it for the staff to make a decision after one year, that it come back to the Commission. Mr. Merrell answered, yes, the Commission can grant the conditional use for one year and have it come back to them in a year for review. Mr. Edens asked what stipulations would be put on it. Chairman Hanna stated that after one year, if the Planning Administrator decided that the parking should be put in, the Commission would vote on whether ornot to require it. If the Planning Commission voted to require it and Mr. Edens didn't pave it, he would have to shut down. Mr. Edens asked what the guidelines would be; letters of complaint. Chairman Hanna stated that he would imagine that it would be complaints, observation by the staff of whether or not there is a dust problem and if the parking area and driveway was in good repair. Commissioner Springborn stated that it would also depend on the degree of the success of the Sporting Goods Store. MOTION Commissioner Springborn moved to grant the conditional use as submitted with the provision that it be brought back to the Commission instead of to the staff at the end of one year for review, seconded by Cato and followed by discussion. Commissioner Tarvin asked if this means that it automatically comes back to the Commission or only if the staff thinks it should. Commissioner Allred stated that if everything is working smoothly it shouldn't have to come through again. Mr. Merrell stated that the staff's recommendation would be that the conditional use be granted for one year and at the end of that one year, the Commission would consider renewing it for a time period in the future based on field observations by the staff and by the Commission as well as whether or not any letters of complaint have came in. Commissioner Springborn stated that when he made the motion, he was looking for a solution to the parking problem because at the present time they aren't able to define a solution. He noted that as he sees it, the solution depends to a large extend on the success of the venture. If they come back after one year, 1 Planning Commission February 12, 1990 Page 14 they should be able to define the parking problem. Commissioner Allred stated that they maybe should amend the motion to state that if there are no problems, it would be automatically renewed, but if there are complaints or the staff feels that the Commission needs to review it, it would come back to them. Commissioner Cleghorn stated the only problem he sees with that is that if it is wasn't conforming to what the City needed, there would need to be room for a judgment call. Commissioner Tarvin commented that they owe it to Mr. Edens to give him an idea of how long he might have to survive with the business before he has to either pave it or except all of his losses from the investment. He added the Commission ought to be able to make a decision at this meetingwhether or not the parking will need to be paved. Commissioner Ozment asked what the normal time frame of a conditional use is. Mr. Merrell stated that there is a section in the zoning ordinance that speaks to the one year time frame for a conditional use under certain circumstances. Chairman Hanna stated that they have always operated under the premise that a conditional use was a year to year thing that is not brought back to the Planning Commission unless there are complaints. Commissioner Ozment stated that since he has been on the Commission, he has voted on conditional uses under the guidelines that a conditional use is renewed each year if running smoothly, but no one is given a green light that they have conditional use approval for a large number of years. He added that he feels there is some uncertainty with a conditional use as they have been interpreting it. Mr. Merrell stated that he feels that they have enough latitude to bring a conditional use back to the Commission after one year or whatever time period if it does become a problem. The motion to grant the conditional use passed 9-0-0. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT 111 NARY LARSON - S OF MAPLE AVE, W OF OLIVER ST The twelfth item on the agenda was a waiver of the subdivision regulations (Lot Split Ill) submitted by Mary Larson for property located south of Maple Avenue and west of Oliver Street and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Don Bunn, City Engineer, advised that this is the first split of a piece of property that is a little bit unusual in which the tract has already been conveyed to Mary Larson by fiduciary's deed which was part of a settlement of an estate. Therefore, the property in question has already been transferred to Ms. Larson and the intent is to legally split the property so that it can be sold again and so that the City can issue a building permit for that lot. The staff recommends that the lot split be approved subject to the payment of the required parks fees and coordination with any other utilities that might need easement on the property in order to serve the property. Planning Commission February 12, 1990 Page 15 Commissioner Klingaman asked if splitting off this front portion of this property will cause the property behind it to be landlocked. Mr. Bunn advised that as he understands it, there is a 20' easement in the deed which would allow access to that back piece. He noted that the back piece of property has not come up for a split yet and access would have to be provided for at some point. Chairman Hanna stated that their diagram shows the entire property in two tracts with access to Maple on both. There being no one in the audience wanting to speak to this, it was turned over to the Planning Commission. MOTION Commissioner Tarvin moved to approve the lot split subject to staff comments, seconded by Springborn. The motion passed 9-0-0. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT 111 FAYETEVILLE PARTNERS - W OF COLLEGE AVE, N OF TOWNSHIP RD The thirteenth item on the agenda was a waiver of the subdivision regulations - Lot Split 111 submitted by Nancy Langford on behalf of Fayetteville Partners for property located on the west side of College Avenue, north of. Township Road. Property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that the original tract is .70 acres and they propose to split it into two tracts of about .35 of an acre each. Both tracts have buildings on them and all utilities are on the property. The staff recommends that this lot split be approved subject to: 1) construction of a sidewalk along North College as required by the Master Sidewalk Plan. Commissioner Klingaman asked if there weren't planting islands with redbud trees in them located in this area of College Avenue. If so, he would hate to see these islands taken out to be replaced by a sidewalk. Nancy Langford stated that those planting islands do exist here in front of this property. She added that there are no sidewalks along that whole side of the street. Also, they recently completed new asphalt on the whole property and the islands were reconstructed at that time. John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that on the one hand, the staff would like to see vegetation along North College Avenue, but he doesn't think it is out of the question to require a sidewalk along here. The very reason that there are no sidewalks along North College makes it a good idea to start requiring them. However, under the circumstances the staff will withdraw their recommendation to require the sidewalk along this property. Commissioner Jacks asked if the sidewalk issue is not a matter of ordinance. He stated that he thought if the Master Sidewalk Plan designated a sidewalk, the Planning Commission couldn't do anything about it. Mr. Bunn advised that • Planning Commission February 12, 1990 Page 16 the Planning Commission can waive the sidewalk requirement. Mr. Merrell stated that a committee of staff people was created a few months ago to study the whole issue of sidewalks in Fayetteville. There were a lot of complaints from citizens who were complaining about having to walk out in the street. A lot of people are into bicycling and walking for exercise and it has become quite a serious problem on arterial and residential streets. He noted that he envisions the staff coming back to the Planning Commission at some point later this year with some pretty firm recommendations on sidewalks. Chairman Hanna stated that his recollection after driving by this location is that the whole front of that property is paved with the exception of where those planting islands are. Ms. Langford stated that he is correct. Chairman Hanna added that he wasn't sure anyone could tell the difference between a sidewalk and the parking lot because it is all paved. Commissioner Cleghorn stated that he worked on that corner for eight years and he could vouch that the only foot traffic there comes from Villa Boulevard down to Township. He added that he hardly ever saw anyone walking north on College Avenue. • MOTION Commissioner Cato moved to approve the lot split with no stipulation of a sidewalk, seconded by Allred. The motion passed 9-0-0. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT 1 LESLIE GOODMAN - 1 TEXAS WAY The fourteenth item on the agenda was a waiver of the subdivision regulations (Lot Split #1) submitted by Leslie Goodman for property located at 1 Texas Way and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that the original tract contains 7/l0ths of an acre and the property proposed to be split off contains a quarter of an acre and all the utilities are available to this site. The remaining property will have just over 4/10ths of an acre. The staff does recommend approval of the lot split subject to: 1) a survey of the property by registered surveyor, 2) dedication of 10' of additional right-of-way off of Lighton Trail and an additional 5' off of Texas Way, and 3) the payment of parks fees. Leslie Goodman stated that he will comply with the staff's requests, but he does have one question regarding the dedication of additional right-of-way on Texas Way. He stated that he has already dedicated the whole 40' of easement because the property line actually goes all the way across Texas Way. In this particular instance, the whole 40' has come off of the subject property. That area also is currently blacktopped and he would prefer not to yield up the 5' additional area. The whole length of Texas Way there has 20' off the center line and no one else in the area was asked for the additional 5'. Also, because 277 • Planning Commission February 12, 1990 Page 17 of the lay of the land there, there is about a 6' drop in elevation along the edge of the blacktop, so the City would have no real use for the additional 5' anyway. This would also make the existing structure more non -conforming. He added that he has no reservations about the other stipulations made by the staff. He stated that there is 9.2' on Lighton Trail offsetting a parallel line down Lighton Trail so he would like to dedicate 9.2' there instead of 10' so that it is in a straight line there. Commissioner Tarvin asked if the full 40' of Lighton Trail had been taken off his side. Mr. Goodman stated the original property included the 40' of dedication for Lighton Trail, so the additional 5' requested for Texas Way seems a little excessive to him. Mr. Merrell, Planning Management Director, advised that the staff has been conferring and has agreed to Mr. Goodman's proposal for the dedication of right- of-way and will withdraw the recommendation for 5' of right-of-way on Texas Way. NOTION Commissioner Tarvin moved to approve the lot split subject to staff recommendations with the exception that the right-of-way dedication on the south side be 9.2' and that no additional right-of-way be required along Texas Way, seconded by Allred. The motion passed 9-0-0. DETERMINATION OF SPECIAL MEETING DATE FOR PLANNING COMMISSION The fifteenth item on the agenda was a discussion item to determine a special meeting date for the Planning Commission to determine a date to review the 2010 General Plan. Chairman Hanna commented that in view of the work that Commissioner Jacks has done on this over the years, he feels it is in order to ask him to be Chairman of a committee to handle the setting of the meeting. Commissioner Jacks noted that it is to be a informal meeting of the full Planning Commission. Chairman Hanna stated that is true, but he would like to form a committee of the Planning Commission with Commissioner Jacks, Commissioner Cleghorn and Commissioner Tarvin. Chairman Hanna stated that he would like for Commissioner Jacks to point out some things that he has done with working with Mr. Raby and the staff on the new ordinances. Mr. Merrell stated that copies of the latest version submitted by Mr. Raby has also been distributed to the Board of Adjustment and they are going to have an informal meeting on February 19th to review this. The staff would appreciate it if the Planning Commission would attempt to set up this informal meeting as soon as possible; they would possibly need two meetings to get through all of it. He noted that Mr. Raby will not be present. After discussion among the Commissioners, it was determined that they would set Planning Commission February 12, 1990 Page 18 the meeting for 8:00 a. m. on February 15th in City Hall, Room 326. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at about 7:30 p.m. • •