Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-04-12 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, April 12,- 1993 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Jana Lynn Britton, Tom Suchecki, J. E. Springborn, Kenneth Pummill, Joe Tarvin, Jett Cato, Bob Reynolds, and Jerry Allred Chuck Nickle Alett Little, Tim Conklin, Don Bunn, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others Mr. Suchecki advised some items had been pulled from the agenda: CU 93-12 for a duplex at 213 Oakwood had been tabled indefinitely. Some of the adjoining property owners presented letters and a petition in opposition to the conditional use. Mr. Suchecki advised the other item, CU93-13 for a home occupation (child care), had been tabled until May 10, 1993. MINUTES The minutes of the March 22, 1993 meeting were approved as distributed. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R93-17 DAVID & PATRICIA CHANCE - 1702 N. LEWIS The next item on the agenda was a public hearing of Rezoning R93-17 for property located at 1702 N. Lewis requested by David and Patricia Chance. The request is to rezone .21 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential, to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Mr. Conklin advised the Commission the applicant had proposed to rezone the. subject lot in order to meet the zoning requirements for development of a duplex. He explained the lot was approximately 75 feet wide by 120 feet deep, which corresponded to 9,000 square feet of lot area. He reviewed the lot area minimum and lot width minimum for R-1, R-1.5 and R-2 for one family, two family and three family units. He explained the proposed use by the applicant would be allowed under R-1.5 R-2 zoning. He noted the R-1.5 zoning allowed a density of 12 units per acre the development of triplexes; however, the subject site would not meet minimum R-1.5 and R-2 bulk and area requirements for three or more units. Mr. Conklin pointed out to the north and east was R-1 zoning, to the south P-1 and to the west was R-3. He advised the land to the south and east vacant, there were single family homes to the north of the subject site apartments and single family homes to the west. and and the was was and He noted the 1970 General Plan designated the property as public and water. He explained that, based upon development trends in the area, staff recommended a residential land use in the area. He pointed out access to the site was from Lewis Street, a local street. He advised water and sewer was available to the site. • i • Planning Commission April 12, 1993 Page 2 Mr. Conklin recommended denial of the requested rezoning from R-1 to R-2. He further recommended that, instead, staff recommended rezoning the property to R- 1.5 which was more restrictive and would also provide a buffer between the R-3 zoning to the west and R-1 zoning to the east. He advised that, if the Planning Commission did not feel the re -zoning was warranted at this time, the issue could be sent to the Board of Adjustment which had the responsibility for making determinations on the bulk and area requirements. Mr. Chance stated he would be agreeable to the R-1.5 zoning. Ms. Britton stated she had a problem with rezoning the subject property since basically the entire block was zoned R-1. She pointed out the R-3 property was across the street and did not impact the subject property. She further advised she would hate to see just one lot rezoned and noted there was not enough property to be a buffer between the R-1 and R-3 properties. Mr. Reynolds stated the property was a small tract with university property to the south. He advised he did not have any problem in rezoning the subject tract because he could not see anything else the applicant could do with the property. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to approve R-1.5 zoning for the subject property. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-2-0 with Commissioners Allred, Suchecki, Reynolds, Cato, Pummill, and Tarvin voting "yes" and Commissioners Britton and Springborn voting "no". 13V • i • Planning Commission April 12, 1993 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING 93-18 JOE EDWARDS REVOCABLE TRUST - E OF SOUTH SCHOOL, N OF CHERRY The next item was a public hearing on rezoning 93-18 submitted by Chuck Trantham on behalf of Joe Edwards Revocable Trust for property located on the east side of South School Avenue, north of Cherry Street. The request is to rezone 0.21 acres from C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, to R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Conklin explained the subject lot was part of a three -lot tract of land that was under one ownership. He noted the other two lots owned by the applicant were zoned R-1 and the applicant wanted to develop the subject lot with a single family home. He advised C-2 zoning did not allow the establishment of single family homes but the requested R-1 zoning would allow a single family home to be developed on an 8,000 square foot lot with 70 feet of frontage. He noted the applicant had been advised, if the rezoning was approved, that a property line adjustment would be necessary in order to build a single family home on the lot. He pointed out the zoning to the north was C-2, with R-1 to the south and east and 1-2 to the west. He also advised that to the north, south, and east the land use was for single family homes and to the west was Highway 71B and residential use. He stated the 1970 Land Use Plan had designated the property as medium density residential and development trends in the area had shown development as mixed uses. Mr. Conklin advised access to the property was from Highway 71B, a principal arterial. He also noted water and sewer were available to the site. He recommended approval of the requested rezoning and stated it would be compatible with adjacent zoning and land uses. Mr. Trantham advised his client had owned the property for approximately 14 years and had received no interest for a commercial enterprise on it. Me. Little advised the subject property set up above the highway approximately 12 to 15 feet, making it not very suitable for a commercial enterprise. She expressed her belief it would be better suited to a residential use. Ms. Denise Georgio, 1600 West Cherry, advised Cherry Street was a unique and fragile neighborhood, near the airport, the bypass and the Tyson plant but still a beautiful wooded area. She noted they did prefer homes to a commercial strip but had some concerns about what was going on. She explained they had been shocked and dismayed to find bulldozers had razed the property. She stated they had removed mature trees and all vegetation, the sight and sound buffers between the neighborhood and the highway. She advised they could have talked to every neighbor in 15 minutes and warned them they would be removing the trees. She further stated they had not obtained a building permit, no zoning requests had been made and nothing had been posted. She stated all that was left was an abandoned, dilapidated house; an abandoned dog; piles of beer cans and trash; mounds of dirt; and destroyed vegetation. She noted there was no concern for drainage or erosion. She wanted to know what assurances the neighbors had that the applicant would meet city code and have concerns for the integrity of the neighborhood. She asked if the City had any requirements for the trees to be replanted or other vegetation which was needed to buffer the highway noise. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Ms. Little explained she doubted the grade was 20%; that, after going up the hill from the street, the lot was fairly level. She further advised the City was currently working on a tree ordinance but it was not in effect at the present time. She explained that all previous work done on the lot had not required permission from the City but a moving permit would be required in order for the applicant to move houses in to the lots icro • • • Planning Commission April 12, 1993 Page 4 and they would have to be brought up to city code before someone could live in the houses. Mr. Trantham explained they did plan extensive landscaping of the lots. He advised he would be willing to discuss any of the neighbors concerns with them after the meeting. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to rezone R93-18 to R-1. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. /i l • • • Planning Commission April 12, 1993 Page 5 PRELIMINARY PLAT - NORTHWEST ACRES, PHASE V DENNIS SMITH - OFF CARRIAGE WAY, N OF WEDINGTON DR. The next item was a preliminary plat for Northwest Acres, Phase V, presented by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Dennis Smith for property located off of Carriage Way, north of Wedington Drive. The property is zoned R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential, and contains 17.67 acres with 73 lots. Mr. Bunn explained there had been no significant comments by any of the utility company representatives at the plat review meeting other than several new easements and street crossings requested. He noted the additional easements and crossings were agreed to by the owner. He advised staff comments involved the fact that only one ingress/egress point was being proposed for the subdivision at the present time. He stated there were several streets shown to be extended to the east, north and south, however, none of those streets tied to an existing street. He noted there had also been comments concerning the sewer sizing in the area and the possible upgrading of a sewer lift station. He advised the existing line which served the area was only a 6 -inch line and it appeared that, at some point, the line should be at least an 8 -inch line. He further explained the capacity of the pump station, which received the flow from the subject area, might need to be upgraded to handle the ultimate development flows. He informed the Commission the developer would, as part of the required off-site improvements, be required to contribute to those improvements. Mr. Bunn stated the Subdivision Committee's discussion centered around the issue of access. He advised the committee had voted to send the plat to the full Planning Commission subject to staff comments and for further discussion on access. He recommended the preliminary plat be approved subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; approval of a grading and drainage plan; approval of detailed plans for water, sewer, streets, and drainage; the execution of a contract with the developer for the construction of permanent cul-de-sacs on the east side of the property if the land to the east did not develop within 3 years; the execution of a contract or bill of assurance for pro -rata off-site sewer improvements (line size upgrade and pump station upgrade); and construction of sidewalks and payment of parks fees in accordance with city ordinances. He also noted waivers would be required for the length of the cul-de-sacs. In response to a question from Me. Britton, Mr. Bunn stated they had approved a plat for the subdivision to the west. He explained that subdivision provided the ingress/egress for the subject subdivision. Mr. Jeff Allen advised the area directly to the south of the subject property had not been platted so Carriage Way would not be a through street at the present time. Dave Jorgensen stated they were in agreement with staff comments. He presented a concept plat of the entire Northwest Acres area and reviewed phases of construction on those areas which had been platted. He pointed out the area between Phases 3 and 5 had not been platted. He advised Phase 5 was lining up with existing streets in Phase 3. He further noted they planned a stub out of the streets for future development to the east, which would eventually connect to Rupple Road. He also pointed out two cul-de-sacs at the extreme southeast corner of the proposed subdivision which would eventually tie into Franciscan Trail. /4 • Planning Commission April 12, 1993 Page 6 He stated they were seeking approval of the preliminary plat subject to the owner obtaining another means of access into the subject property. He advised he had hoped to have that problem worked out prior to the meeting but had not. He stated the other means of access would be via Carriage Way or the unnamed street to the east, or the furthermost eastern street tied into Franciscan Trail. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Jorgensen advised current access would be through Phase 4. He noted they would be starting construction within the next few weeks on Phase 4. Mr. Allred asked if staff would be comfortable with approving the subdivision subject to working out another ingress/egress. Ms. Little stated it would have to be realized that, if another ingress/egress was not worked out, the subdivision would not be approved. Mr. Bunn asked if they were referring to actual construction or just the provision of another ingress/egress. Ms. Little stated she believed that depended upon the timing of the development of the adjacent property. She explained that, if staff believed it would be reasonable that the street would be extended in a year or so, they could feel comfortable with the improvement. Mr. Springborn stated that was rather vague. He asked if they were talking about any access or just access to Carriage Way. • Mr. Jorgensen explained it would be another access. He further stated the situation would get better once there was a tie in to Rupple Road. Ms. Britton asked how far Franciscan Trail went to the east. • Mr. Jorgensen stated it went to the corner of Carriage Way. Ms. Mary Watson, 1302 Carriage Way, advised her property was at the corner of Carriage Way and Franciscan Trail. She expressed concern regarding the traffic caused by the units currently being constructed. She pointed out Carriage Way would become the main street of the area. She expressed hope the streets in the subject subdivision went through to Rupple rather than Franciscan Trail. Mr. Jeff Allen appeared before the Commission and advised he was the legal owner of the property to the south of the proposed addition. He stated he had a. problem with getting notification. He pointed out the land he owned in the area. Ms. Little advised notification of the Mr. Allen stated he the rezoning. Ms. Little advised records. MOTION she had a card signed by Mr. Allen stating he had received preliminary plat on April 1, 1993. had received notification of the preliminary plat but not of the information was taken from the County Assessor tax Ms. Britton moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to staff comments and subject to two accesses being built within one year and a temporary waiver for the cul-de-sac length. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. • • • Planning Commission April 12, 1993 Page 7 Ms. Little asked if the one year restriction was from preliminary plat approval. Ms. Britton stated it was. She amended her motion to include the one year restriction was from the date of preliminary plat approval. Mr. Reynolds seconded the amendment. The motion carried unanimously. • • • Planning Commission April 12, 1993 Page 8 CONDITIONAL USE CU93-14 - HOME OCCUPATION (BEAUTY SALON) PAMELA LANDERS - 465 ASSEMBLY ROAD The next item was a request for a conditional use submitted by Pamela Landers for property located at 465 Assembly Road, zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. The request is for a Home Occupation for a Bingle station beauty salon. Mr. Conklin explained the salon would be operated by appointment only and would be open from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday - Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. on Saturdays. He noted no additional parking would be developed on the site. He advised the applicant would request that all customers enter her property from Maple Street and park in the existing off-street parking area. He stated no sign was allowed to be installed on the property to advertise the business (per Section 160.085(b). Mr. Conklin expressed the belief the proposed use would not adversely affect traffic in the neighborhood. He explained the applicant would have only one salon chair which would limit the number of people coming and going to the home. He further noted the applicant's hours of operation did meet the code requirements for home occupations. Mr. Conklin recommended approval of the requested conditional use to allow the establishment of a single chair hair salon. He further advised the applicant would be clearing some brush away and, even though the code did not allow for additional parking to be created, additional parking would be created for her own residential use. He further noted there were no identified adverse effects to the public interest. Ms. Landers stated she was available to answer any of their questions. Ms. Little presented photographs provided by the applicant. MOTION Mr. Tarvin moved to approve conditional use CU93-14. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. /4h • • • Planning Commission April 12, 1993 Page 9 CONDITIONAL USE CU -93-17 (TANDEM LOT) AND LOT SPLIT #1 W. J. BROOKS - 6073 HUNTSVILLE ROAD The next item was a request for a conditional use for a tandem lot and a lot split submitted by W. J. Brooks for property located at 6073 Huntsville Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Bunn explained the original tract was 51.5 acres and the request was to split off 0.72 acres. He noted the property would be accessed by a 60 -foot permanent access easement. He advised water, as well as other utilities, were available on Highway 16. He stated sewer was also available to the property since it was inside the city limits. He reminded the Commission they had approved a lot split on the subject property earlier in the year which was located outside the city limits. He explained that, since that time, it had been determined that an on-site sewage disposal unit could not be approved and therefore the location of the lot split was - changed to be inside the city limits where sewage would be available to the tract. He noted that, since the property was inside the city limits where zoning ordinances were enforced, a tandem lot approval was requested in addition to the lot split. Mr. Bunn stated that, while sewer was near the lot in question, it did not appear to be actually on the site (but was on the parent tract) He explained an easement would have to be given for the purpose of public sewer or all applicable requirements of the County Health Department would have to be met if they planned a septic tank. Mr. Bunn recommended the lot split and tandem lot be approved subject to either sewer being provided or the approval of a septic system by the Washington County Health Department being obtained. Ms. Britton asked if the 60 -foot easement was not more than usually was required. Mr. Bunn advised he believed the 60 feet was required by the county. He agreed it was usually more than required. Mr. Brooks advised it had just been there. MOTION Mr. Cato moved to approve the lot split subject to staff comments. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to approve the conditional use. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. • • • Planning Commission April 12, 1993 Page 10 ALLEY VACATION V93-5 LINDSEY FAMILY TRUST - 900 BLOCK OF ERNIE JACKS BLVD. The next item was a request for vacation of a north - south alley in the 900 block of Ernie Jacks Boulevard submitted by Curtis Jones of Crafton, Tull &• Associates on behalf of the Lindsey Family Trust. Mr. Bunn explained the request was to vacate a portion of the 20 -foot alley in the 900 block of Ernie Jacks Boulevard. He explained all adjacent property owners had signed the petition and the City had no objections. He noted, however, the city was requesting the vacated alley be retained as a utility easement. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to recommend the vacation of the alley subject to staff comments. Mr. Tarvin seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 41 • • • Planning Commission April 12, 1993 Page 11 PARKING WAIVER & OFF SITE PARKING APPROVAL CAL CANFIELD - 24 E. MEADOW The next item was a parking waiver and off-site parking approval submitted by Cal Canfield for property located at 24 East Meadow Street. The property is zoned C-3, Central Business Commercial. Mr. Conklin explained the applicant had requested this item be brought back to the Planning Commission for their reconsideration He advised the applicant was currently working on several parking arrangements with businesses located in the general vicinity. He stated they had brought the request back to the Planning Commission for their reconsideration based on the new information. He explained a detailed description and analysis of all parking spaces would be provided to the Planning Commission by the applicant at this meeting. He advised the applicant was proposing to develop a 10,003 square foot exhibition center and concert hall and 2,568 square feet of leasable area located at 24 East Meadow. He then gave a summary of the parking that had been secured as of the current date: the night use parking requirements for on-site parking were 14 standard, 15 valet and for off-site parking were 216 standard and 44 valet for a total of 289. He pointed out 331 spaces were required, leaving 42 spaces to be wavered. Mr. Conklin explained the applicant was requesting the Planning Commission to approve the off-site parking spaces within 300 feet, a waiver of 42 required spaces for night use, and approval of the use of valet parking. He advised staff had only included off-site parking spaces where written permission had been granted to the applicant by the property owner for use of their parking lots. He informed the Commission he had verified the off-site parking spaces with the property owners. Mr. Suchecki asked if it was just nighttime or nighttime, weekends and holidays. Mr. Conklin stated it was staff's recommendation for night use (6:00 p.m. or later) and day use only on weekends and national holidays. Mr. Tarvin asked if the count included Carter Tire Company. Mr. Conklin stated it did. Mr. Tarvin advised he had received a call from Neal Carter earlier in the day and he no longer approved the use of his lot. Mr. Conklin stated Carter Tire had included 31 valet spaces. Ms. Little stated she also had talked with Neal Carter earlier in the day. She advised he had some reservations regarding the agreement after he had signed it. She noted she had explained the staff recommendation and why they believed it was a workable situation. She further advised he had not asked that the agreement be pulled. Mr. Tarvin stated Mr. Carter advised that, when he found out a nightclub or private club was going to be in the building with alcoholic beverages, he had changed his mind about the parking. Ms. Little stated Mr. Carter had asked if the applicant had applied for a liquor license. She noted she had advised him they had not at this time. She further explained it was staff's understanding they would use picnic permits for those functions where they wished to serve alcoholic beverages. I�� • • • Planning Commission April 12, 1993 Page 12 Mr. Scotty McLaughlin, representing the applicant, advised there would not be a private club on the premises; that the building would be used as an exhibition hall. He expressed his belief an exhibition hall was needed in this area. He reviewed other projects in operation by the applicants. He explained the Walton Arts Center had seating for 1,250. He pointed out they could not have an exhibition of antique cars at the Walton Arts Center nor a professional boxing match, etc. He stated Mr. Hatfield did want the facility used as an exhibition hall. Mr. Hatfield advised that, it the applicant needed further parking as they began to grow, he would provide it. He stated he owned all of the surrounding property. Mr. McLaughlin stated they were currently negotiating on the Goodyear Building to construct a multi-level parking garage. He introduced the applicants. He advised the structure would be complimentary to the Hilton and the Continuing Education Building. He noted they would be employing between 50 and 100 people. Mr. Allred advised he would be abstaining on this item due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Mark Risk, property owner at 118 North East Avenue, appeared before the Commission. He stated he was not against any of the individuals nor the need for an exhibition hall. He advised he just did not want it at its proposed location due to the problem of parking and the nuisance it might cause to property owners in the area. He pointed out that, if they were not going to serve alcohol on the premises, the customers would drink it in the parking lots, leaving their beer cans and bottles on the lot. He stated he was concerned with his property and had to look out for his interest. He advised the Commission he had invested a great deal of money in his property. He advised the applicants had promoted numerous functions at local private clubs. He pointed out those were not items for an exhibition hall. He stated if it looked like a nightclub, smelled like a nightclub, it would eventually be a nightclub. He reminded the Commission at the last meeting there was a space reserved which could eventually become a private club. Mr. Risk expressed fear the customers of the building would become a nuisance for the existing neighborhood. He pointed out the area was predominately an office neighborhood, not a rock and roll nightspot. He asked city staff, if they had not messed up and already given approval, would they be recommending approval. Ms. Little advised staff had not given the applicants prior approval. She explained they had been working with the applicants three or four months in order for them to get the required parking. She pointed out they applicants had been before the Planning Commission previously and had been asked to do additional work in locating spaces. She stated she supported this project because she believed the nighttime activities were beneficial to the City and there was not a conflict with parking at night. She pointed out staff was not supporting daytime use because there was a conflict with parking during the day. She stated she believed the fact that the applicants had worked on the project for three or four months demonstrated their commitment to the project. She further advised the Planning Commission could approve the application subject to review in one year. Mr. Risk stated it was his understanding the City had allowed the applicant to start the remodeling process He further stated he was not sure staff would be supporting it the way they were if they had not made a mistake. X49 • • • Planning Commission April 12, 1993 Page 13 Mr. Conklin advised the applicants had applied for a building permit but it had never left the Planning Office. Mr. Risk stated he had been told they had invested quite a bit of money in the building. He expressed his belief this type of use belonged in an industrial park. Ms. Little advised the use was an allowed use for the zoning. She explained the problem was they did not have the required parking. She further noted they had worked very hard to address that concern. Mr. Risk stated he understood that but it was unfortunate that it was allowed. He pointed out he had to come to three meetings on this matter. He stated he believed they were trying to wear him down. He advised he had other responsibilities. He stated he had parking spaces behind his building. He advised he believed it was another nuisance that would be in his neighborhood. Mr. Buddy Ledford, Vice -President of Citizens Bank of Northwest Arkansas, advised their property was immediately south of the subject property. He advised 63 of their parking spaces were listed in the total off-site parking spaces. He stated he was concerned regarding debris being left on the lot and the drive-through to the ATM or night depository being blocked or the customers being harassed by patrons of the facility. He stated that, should that happen, he would have to revoke the agreement. Mr. Suchecki asked if the agreements were revokable and the use of the parking spaces could be taken away in the event that problems occurred. Mr. Conklin read the letter sent to those owners signing an agreement to allow parking: "To Whom It May Concern: It is with our sincere appreciation that you have consented to the Fleetwood Ballroom and Convention Center, 22 East Meadow, in utilizing your property parking area in the need should ever arise. If we ever need the extra parking space, it will be needed only after normal business hours or weekends. You will be notified 48 hours prior to the event. Security will be provided at our expense for your property's protection as well as our guests. Any property damage that might occur as a direct result from our patrons will be the full responsibility of Fleetwood Ballroom and Convention Center. The parking area utilized on your property will be cleaned immediately after use. There will not be any vehicles left overnight. Thank you. Sincerely, Ed Christensen." Larry Noblin, property manager of Southwestern Bell Telephone, pointed out their parking lot was adjacent to the subject property. He noted there were approximately 40 spaces, containing approximately 15 company vehicles parked there 24 hours a day. He advised these vehicles contained expensive equipment such as radios, testing equipment, etc. He stated they had not had problems in the past but was concerned there would be problems with people parking in the lot. He further stated they were opposed to anyone parking in their lot, that it was telephone company property for telephone company business only. He advised they were strongly opposed to anyone using their parking spaces. He also pointed out their concern with the traffic coming through the alley. Mr. Canfield stated he had provided a Bill of Assurance from the owner, re - enforcing the items listed in the letter read by Mr. Conklin. He advised they had reiterated those items concerning trash, debris, damage, etc. He further noted they had said security personnel would be working during the events to assist people in parking where they should and keep them from parking where they shouldn't. He stated they would be happy to put signage on the adjacent properties, if the owners requested it in writing, that said "No concert parking X60 • • • Planning Commission April 12, 1993 Page 14 allowed." He advised they would take whatever steps necessary to assure their neighbors that people would not be allowed to park on their property. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Conklin pointed out the Southwestern Bell Telephone lot. He stated that parking had not been counted. Mr. Risk stated it appeared those people signing the agreement with the applicant had assurances that, should their property be damaged, the applicants took full responsibility. He asked if the property owners that did not sign the agreement had the same assurances. Mr. McLaughlin assured Mr. Risk the property would not be a nightclub. Ms. Little advised a nightclub was allowed in the zoning district. She explained that, because they were choosing the assembly occupancy (exhibition hall occupancy), the applicant was required to have 331 parking spaces. She pointed out that, if the building were going to be a nightclub, the parking requirement would have only been 50 spaces. Mr. Herb Hatfield advised the Goodyear Building was constructed in 1956 and had been leased to Mr. Carter for the last 12 years. He noted the lot was 151 feet by 151 feet. He further advised the Commission that, if the exhibition hall's business justified it, he would construct a three-story parking deck on the Goodyear property. He stated that, if the parking waivers were not granted, he planned to start a storage garage to store cars picked up from drug dealers. He further stated he believe the exhibition hall would be a much nicer facility. Mr. Risk asked what kind of assurances the neighboring property owners had that the applicants would do what they said they would do. Mr. Suchecki advised the applicants had stated their use and the adjoining residents might or might not agree with it. He explained that, if they did something illegal or against the ordinance, there was the Police Department to take care of it. Mr. Risk stated his question had not been answered. He asked if the property owners who had not signed a parking agreement would also received assurances that the applicants would be responsible for any damages to their property. Mr. McLaughlin agreed the applicants would be responsible. Mr. Suchecki advised that, if their request was approved, the applicants needed to design an agreement for those neighboring property owners who did not agree to allow use of their parking spaces, to protect their property in case of vandalism attributable to the exhibition hall. In response to a question from Mr. Risk, Mr. Suchecki advised the parking waiver was to the Fleetwood Ballroom and Convention Center. He noted if it ceased to exist, the parking waiver also ceased to exist. Mr. Guy Tutwiler, one of the applicants, advised they were just as concerned as the neighbors. He pointed out they had talked to each neighbor to find out their concerns. He explained they would be going to a great deal of trouble and expense to have people that were qualified as security guards. He further advised they could not control what an outside entity did during an event but they could try to be there to diffuse a situation. He further stated the building would not be a club. He explained the use of the exhibition hall such as ballroom dancing, weddings, etc. /6/ • • • Planning Commission April 12, 1993 Page 15 Ms. Britton asked what would happen if someone withdrew their permission to use the parking lot, drastically changing the number of available parking spaces. Ms. Little stated the applicant would then not be meeting the conditions for use and it would require an additional approval on the part of the Planning Commission. Mr. Springborn stated it seemed to him the agreements for use of parking spaces should not be revocable because they were approving the request conditioned upon the stated and listed parking spaces available. Ms. Little explained that was why the item would have to come back before the Planning Commission should the condition change. Mr. Springborn expressed his belief they were getting into enforcement and that was not their business. He stated that, if they were going to approve a parking waiver and it involved off-site parking, he believed the agreements for parking spaces had to be irrevocable. Ms. Little suggested the Planning Commission set some length should they approve the requests. She further advised she of time should be an adequate length of time to warrant the persons willing to make it. of time for review, believed the length investment of those Mr. Springborn stated he believed the parking requirements, in order to satisfy the business they had before them, had to be permanent, irrevocable parking spaces. Mr. Suchecki advised they could only take action upon what they had before them and, if that condition changed and created a problem, the Planning Commission would take whatever action necessary at that point in time. Mr. Reynolds asked if they could ask for a guarantee that the building would not be used as a nightclub and they would be in operation only at night. Ms. Little explained they could ask the applicant to state what assurances they might be willing to make. Mr. McLaughlin stated they had submitted a Bill of Assurance. Mr. Canfield stated that right before the meeting, Mr. Sherwood, owner of the building across the street, had given verbal agreement for use of 35 parking spaces. He reviewed other spaces also available which they had verbal agreements on. Mr. Conklin explained that, including those spaces, they were still short 7 spaces. Ms. Little advised the requirement was for the developer of the business to provide on-site parking. She explained if they were not able to provide on-site parking, the Planning Commission had within their authority to grant a waiver to allow parking within 300 feet of the site. Mr. Springborn stated he had been looking at the parking problem in Downtown Fayetteville for quite some time (he believed for all the years he served on the Commission). He further stated the last time they had considered this item, the City was no longer in a position to undertake further parking. He noted they could not afford to do it at this point in time and it would be up to private enterprise to undertake and provide all of the parking they would need downtown. 52- • • • Planning Commission April 12, 1993 Page 16 MOTION Mr. Springborn moved to approve the parking waiver and the off-site parking as requested. Mr. Suchecki asked if he would also include a written agreement with the property owners which did not offer off-site parking to protect them against their property. Mr. Springborn stated if it was within their purview he would be happy to do so. Mr. Pummill stated he did not believe they could do that. Ms. Little advised any adjacent property owner would have the same legal rights and remedies as any other property owner against any business which caused them damage. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Ms. Britton advised the motion meant they were Mr. Springborn stated it was as applied for. Mr. Suchecki clarified the parking would be holidays and weekends. Mr. Reynolds asked if they lost parking spaces before the Planning Commission. Mr. Suchecki stated he did not believe so. waiving any need for parking. for after 6:00 p.m. weekdays, if they would have to come back Ms. Little explained it was a condition of approval and they could give the Planning Office the authority to accept substitute parking or leave it to staff's judgment to bring the item back to them, etc. The motion carried 7-0-1 with Mr. Allred abstaining. 16-3 • • • Planning Commission April 12, 1993 Page 17 OTHER BUSINESS: Tree Ordinance Ms. Little advised the Tree Committee had a compromise version of the proposed Tree Ordinance which they had asked to be transmitted to the Mayor's Office. The meeting adjourned at 6:35 p.m.