Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-01-23 MinutesN • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, January 23, 1995 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas, MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Tarvin, Ken Pummill, Jerry Allred, Charles Nickle, Phyllis Hall Johnson, Tom Suchecki, Robert E, Reynolds, Jana Lynn Britton, and Gary R, Head OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Tim Conklin, Don Bunn, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others PRESENTATION BY JERRY ROSE, CITY ATTORNEY, ON LIMITS OF LIABILITY FOR PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS' ACTIONS: Jerry Rose, City Attorney, spoke on what personal liability the members of the Planning Commission had in making planning decisions. He explained public officials were not personally liable so long as they acted in good faith that they were empowered to take the action that they took. He explained an exception of is personal liability where for intentional misrepresentation of things they knew were wrong and that they were doing personally out of malice or mischief. Mr. Rose explained under Arkansas Case Law, public officials were immuned as municipal officers from personal liability for taking actions, even if those actions were beyond the scope of their authority, so long as they had acted in good faith without malice and without willfulness on their part. He stated this was often a question for the jury to decide or judge to decide. He added, therefore, it might not prevent anyone from filing suit against them but it would enable their attorney to raise that as a defense. He pointed out that the case law was pretty secure that even if they were acting outside the scope and course of their employment, so long as they were doing so in good faith without willfulness or malice, they would be immuned from damages. He advised that city officials like everyone else were responsible for their own torts which meant they would be personally liable for damages that anyone suffered as a result of their torturous actions. He explained there were two kinds of torts, an intentional tort and torts of negligence. He noted an intentional tort was injury to someone as a result of a person's conscious or directed action with fraud being an obvious one. He pointed out there were some obscure and little known kinds of torts in Arkansas such as interference with a business relationship or with a N • contractual relationship or interference with a perspective business advantage. He explained the case law was secure that city officials might indeed interfere in business relationships as part of their job, but so long as they were motivated by the good faith attempt to protect the City's interest, they were immuned. He reiterated their motivation and good faith was the key to their liability and immunity. Mr. Rose stated they were actually afforded probably more protection under Federal law if they were ever accused of federal law violations because it stated that they be provided municipal immunity as an official and generally an absolute immunity for legislative action that they took and a qualified immunity for actions which were administrative in nature. He explained they would be protected unless they knew or reasonably should have known what they were doing was unauthorized under the law. He added if a Section 1983 civil rights action were brought against them, they would be accused of violating someone's federally protected rights under cover of State Law. He pointed out most of their actions were going to be under cover of State Law with the only question remaining as to whether or not they had violated someone's federally protected rights. He explained even in that case they would have a qualified good faith immunity in that public officials were immuned from damages when the federal laws they violated were not clearly established at the time they acted. • Mr. Rose advised the Commission that the City of Fayetteville had a One Million Dollar insurance policy for errors and omissions which meant they would be defended up to a million dollars in a law suit and a lawyer would be provided for them to maintain a defense on their behalf. He noted it was a $50,000 deductible policy and he knew of no occasion in which the City had not come up with the deductible if they were sued personally. He stated he could think of no occasion in his six years as City Attorney in which anyone had asked for personal liability of a public official. He noted the few occasions in which a person was named, it had been in the Section 1983 civil rights violations and they had been police officers whose liability was always on the line for their personal activities. He noted the City had always been very supportive of them. Mr. Rose stated the exception to the insurance and to what coverage he, as City Attorney, would be able to provide them would be in criminal activities. He explained if they were accused of a crime, the City wouldn't even be able to pay for their legal defense. Mr. Rose summarized his presentation by saying if they believed that what they were doing was in good faith and it was discretionary and not done with willfulness or malice towards anyone, they would generally be immuned from damages. He reiterated the insurance policy would cover up to $1 Million and provide a defense with the only exception being criminal law in which case • they would be on their own. u • Planning Commission January 23, 1995 Page 3 In response to a question, Mr. Rose explained the $1 Million coverage would be total per act, not per person. r 1 U • • Planning Commission January 23, 1995 Page 4 OLD BUSINESS: PRELIMINARY PLAT OF CRYSTAL SPRINGS, PHASE II JED DEVELOPMENT - E OF SALEM RD, N OF MT COMFORT RD The first item was a preliminary plat of Crystal Springs, Phase II submitted by Mel Milholland on behalf of JED Development for property located east of Salem Road, north of Mt. Comfort Road. The property was zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains 35.32 acres with 104 lots. Ms. Little advised they had a letter from the developer outlining the steps they had taken to attempt to address the second access which would be the access to the north and then to the east to Deane Solomon Road. She noted there had been a number of overtures on their part to obtain access in various directions. Ms. Mickey Harrington, representing the developers, explained this plat had been tabled twice, first for some plat revisions which had been made and then so that efforts could be made with the property owners to the northeast to provide an access. She advised that was • done and an offer was made but it was so unattainable that the developer could not take them up on it. She contended, therefore, access to the land of the owners to the northeast was impossible for the developers to obtain. She added David Taylor, owner of the Razorback Golf Course, had given his feelings regarding access across the Golf Course at the last meeting. She noted several offers and possibilities were discussed with him including some exchanges of lands and other options so as not to negatively affect the Golf Course, but he didn't see access across his land as a viable option. Ms. Harrington added that Mr. Zaccanti, the property owner directly to the north of Phase II, was a potential developer who could provide a link through stub -out streets in Phase I and possibly a stub -out street in Phase II. She referred to the site map and noted Gypsum Street stubbed out on the east side with a possible stub -out street coming from Crystal Drive to the north in the center of the Crystal Drive portion along the top of Phase II. She explained that piece of land went all the way to East Salem Road to the north which would provide a very good access for the entire area. She pointed out Gypsum Street would exit onto Salem Road and Crystal Drive would go all the way through by the school and exit onto Salem Road providing two exits accessing the subdivision. She explained there were only 88 lots in that Phase which would be coming through to the west on Crystal Drive with two accesses out • on both Crystal Drive by the school and to the north and out on Gypsum. • Planning Commission January 23, 1995 Page 5 Ms. Harrington pointed out that Bridgeport Subdivision on Mt. Comfort Road with 108 lots, Fieldstone Subdivision with 207 lots and Meadowlands, all have only one exit and very near Fieldstone with 104 lots all were approved within the last year. Ms. Harrington explained it was apparent from the concept plan of this development that there would be several different exits which would adequately. She pointed out Salem Road wasn't nearly as busy as Wedington or Mt. Comfort Road where the larger subdivisions with one access were already being developed. Ms. Harrington advised no variances were being requested, all the requests made by the Commission had been met, and changes had been made to that effect. Ms. Little advised the staff had received the information in regard to the extension to the east and had done some preliminary work. She stated there were approximately 660' owned by the City and they would be willing to use that for street purposes. She noted in regard to the developer's share of the street, if the 330' were acquired from the Sleghel's, the City would look for the developer to install approximately one-half of that street. She added with • the total cost of the street being $75,000, the developer's share would be approximately $37,500. She pointed out, as requested in the letter, the staff felt it would be fair for this to be a maximum assigned to them at it was developed. She added that if it were the Planning Commission's wish that the access to the east (Deane Solomon Road) be pursued, the staff would recommend to the City Council that the powers of imminent domain could be used so that the street could be installed. In answer to a request for clarification from Ms. Britton, Ms. Little advised there was a total length of 990' with 660' of it being on the City's land and 330' along the Sleghel land. She advised the estimate of $75,000 for street costs was derived from the total length. She added with regard to the court costs and any cost associated with the proceedings of imminent domain, the City would look to the developer to be responsible for any attorney's cost as well as the court assigned cost for the land. In response to a discrepancy in what Ms. Little had stated and what Ms. Harrington had stated in her letter to the Commission, Ms. Little reiterated any attorney's fees associated with proceedings of imminent domain would be the responsibility of the developer. Steve Parker, a City Alderman, stated there seemed to have been one major suggestion by the Planning Commission for the developers . which was utilization of their land to the south for an access. He pointed out the developers were planning to build on the land to the south in Phase III of their development and noted (although it (01 • Planning Commission January 23, 1995 Page 6 might cost more to put the access to the south with possibly a bridge having to be installed) it could be done. He pointed out at the last meeting, it had been stated by representatives of the developers that they had exhausted all efforts in their attempt to find an outlet to the east after which Ms. Sleghel had contended she hadn't received any communication in regard to it. Mr. Parker expressed concern that these developers, instead of building a road across their own land as intended with Phase III, would like the city government to pay for access out to the east, at least a portion of it. He contended the City currently didn't have the money to do a lot of things needed on current roads and intersections. He stated the $37,500 which would come out of the pockets of the citizens of Fayetteville did not include attorney's costs, court costs, any other incidental expenses on the condemnation costs, or property costs that would have to be paid to the Sleghels for their land. He contended the developers should build that road out to the south instead of taking money from the citizens of the city and condemning a private landowner's property. Ms. Little pointed out the $37,500 proposal had not been made solely by her, but involved four people with the City. • Mr. Head pointed out Ms. Harrington's letter stated the developer had agreed to pay the condemnation costs which would include court costs and attorney's fees and the court negotiated land acquisition costs. Ms. Little pointed out all of it would be subject to the approval of the City Council. She stated Wilson Kimbrough had made the point at the earlier Commission meeting that the City had made a commitment to residents in that area in the past that the access to the east was very necessary as a part of the development. She contended that directly influenced the Planning Commission's request of the developer to explore the possibility further. Mr. Wilson Kimbrough clarified his statements in that he had talked with a city official along with several other individuals in regard to this. He noted it was generally agreed that there ought to be an access to Deane Solomon Road and he assumed there would at least be an effort to do that. Mr. Nickle asked for Mr. Kimbrough's personal feelings in regard to the proposal being put before the Commission, the connection to Deane Solomon Road. Mr. Kimbrough stated he hadn't gotten the details yet of a process of trying to accomplish that. . Mr. Kimbrough stated he had heard statements from several people including the city staff giving a comparison of the traffic being worse in one area as opposed to another in Fayetteville. He ❑© • Planning Commission January 23, 1995 Page 7 contended all that argument did was to make the worst traffic situation in Fayetteville a standard for all other areas of Fayetteville. In response to a question from Mr. Head as to whether an outlet to the east would be helpful to the situation with this development, Mr. Kimbrough agreed that it would. Mr. Jim Kimbrough of Salem Road contended at the meeting he attended where the concept plat was available for review, they were prevented from discussing anything except Phase I. He pointed out if they had been discussing the entire plat, some of the questions might have been dealt with in a better manner. He noted they were denied the opportunity to discuss the impact of that entire development. He added in relation to the involvement of the Corps of Engineers, Phase I of the development was all that was discussed. Mr. Kimbrough noted it had been pointed out that one possibility was never explored until after the plat had been tabled the second time. He contended the traffic problem could be better served if it could be put out on Deane Solomon Road, but noted there was an • alternative to what had been proposed. Howard Davis, general partner of JED Development, stated there had been some implication that he hadn't spoken the exact truth. He contended that wasn't true. He clarified Mr. Kimbrough, with an attorney, headed up a delegation from that neighborhood who had stated to the developers several times that the Sleghels weren't interested in offering access across their property. He contended from that he made the assumption that she was not interested. He pointed out the reason he hadn't approached Ms. Sleghel was simply because he was led to believe by the attorney representing the neighborhood group there was literally no possibility that she would be interested in discussing it and had felt any call to her would be nothing more than a harassment call. Mr. Davis contended they had tried to do what was best for the City and weren't trying to avoid some future responsibility or trying to get out of opening the road to the south. He advised with their proposal they were trying to offer something that could be done immediately. He contended they had full intentions of developing the whole property. He pointed out the concept plat offered was just a concept. He noted they still planned on developing to the south, but the time -frame of that part of the development depended on interest rates, long-term growth, and how many more subdivisions opened in the City. He stated, therefore, he would not and could • not say they would definitely develop to the south. He reiterated they were offering a solution to the immediate problem and were not trying to get out of anything or to mislead anyone in any way. • Planning Commission January 23, 1995 Page 8 Ms. Britton asked for clarification as to whether the changes to the plat which were requested at the last meeting had been made. Mr. Davis stated the one thing which hadn't been put on the plat was another access along the long row of houses on Phase II. the west Mr. Reynolds asked if this were approved, could they request a Bill of Assurance that a road would be put in to the east,. the south, and the west before any further phases were approved. Mr. Davis stated they had discussed designing Phase III with a road that would give another access out to Mt. Comfort Road. He advised he didn't have any problem giving an assurance that before they come back with Phase III, they would have another access out possibly to West Salem Road, Deane Solomon Road, or Mt. Comfort Road. Ms. Britton pointed out the Planning Commission was trying to ensure there was access from this large block of land in as many directions as possible and the reason they are pursuing the access to the east at this time was because it seemed more feasible. She • contended putting an access through to Mt. Comfort Road would really not give people that much of an alternative as to which direction they travelled because Salem Road basically directed to Mt. Comfort anyway. She stated if it went on over to Deane Solomon Road, the traffic would have an option to go north. Mr. Parker expressed concern they were cranking up judicial machinery to condemn private property for the benefit of this developer's project when he owned land to the south which could be utilized. In answer to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Davis stated to develop Phase III before Phase II would be very costly because of the need for a bridge across the street. He noted the approval from the Corps of Engineers to cross the street was a very time- consuming venture. He noted there would have to be a thorough and expensive study as to what impact a bridge would have on the 100 -yr flood plain. He noted they could in fact go on top of the hill in Phase III behind Birdhaven to avoid a bridge, but he had in mind the bridge would make it convenient to get to the school to alleviate some traffic. He noted it had seemed more logical to put Phase II behind Phase I. He pointed out they would let the lot sales pay for the street in Phase II to get them closer to the bridge. Mr. Nickle asked if they had not in the past asked developers to . pay the cost of a road initially with some of the costs being paid back to the developer by other developments which tied into it. M • Planning Commission January 23, 1995 Page 9 Mr. Bunn stated they had done that in the case of water and sewer lines, but not with a street. He noted they had discussed that in house and determined it could be done if it were set up in ordinance form. He added that would have to be discussed with the City Attorney. Mr. Nickle stated he wasn't in favor of the City spending money to pay for a road which would serve other citizens besides just those of the current development. In answer to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Davis stated Phase III would possibly be developed a year from now. Mr. Tarvin asked if there would be any way to connect Phase III to Gooseberry. Mr. Davis noted it was his understanding that a small piece of property would have to be condemned in order for that to happen. Mr. Tarvin made a suggestion that they develop Phase III. before. developing Phase II without taking it up to the bridge initially. He noted Phase III could be developed with two outlets to Mt. • Comfort Road which could be connected when Phase II was developed. He clarified in that case, the bridge would be with Phase II but it would be developed after Phase III. Mr. Davis stated they had thought about the different options and pointed out it always made sense to him that the major traffic out of that neighborhood would end up on Salem Road. He stated he had been looking into getting an access to Deane Solomon from the beginning since that would provide a link to Highway 112 which would be the best way out as far as general traffic flow. Mr. Head expressed opposition to condemning someone's property for the sake of this development. He contended it would be good to have a connection to Deane Solomon someday and pointed out they had the option of going to Phase III and having a 200 lot subdivision without the wetlands disturbance, without the bridge, and still with two outlets. He added Phase II could be developed later and connected. Ms. Harrington advised the proposal didn't come from them, it was a suggestion brought to them by the City staff. She noted it was her understanding the Planning staff was looking at the overall situation for the benefit of the public as a whole. Therefore, they were not proposing that a condemnation occur just for Crystal Springs Development, since that road might be needed through there anyway. • Mr. Tarvin contended if that were the case, then Crystal Drive should be built to collector standards and taken across the Golf . Planning Commission January 23, 1995 Page 10 Course. Ms. Britton stated the development of Phase III before Phase II would create a bigger traffic problem in that there would be more traffic to the school instead of the children having the better pedestrian and bicycle access. Ms. Little pointed out 660' of the property was City owned and would mean that two-thirds of the distance of the cost of that street would be borne by the City if they didn't ask for developer contribution. She explained that was a way for the City to require that, as a part of access and as a part of the process of planning for access to schools, one-half of the cost of that road be born by the developers and one-half born by the City. In answer to a question from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Little stated South Salem Road past West Salem Road was paved all the way to Howard Nickle Road which was paved all the way to Highway 112. Mr. Michael Andrews, a resident of Timberidge Court, expressed concern for the traffic problems and the potential traffic problems . developed by poor planning. He contended that they needed to look at the larger impact instead of just small areas when planning developments. Mr. Bob Stockalper, a Realtor with Remax Realtors, stated one of the big selling points of this subdivision was that it had access to the north and the south and from his experience there was as much traffic coming in one way as the other. He pointed out about one-half of the 112 lots in Crystal Springs, Phase I would take one exit out and the other half would take the other exit. Mr. Head expressed concern for the traffic situations around the school and he noted this was an opportunity for someone to pay for a portion of another outlet by a busy school in a growing part of the City. He added he didn't like the idea of taking land, but he was sure they could come up with a fair price which would allow other accesses. Mr. Bunn pointed out the suggestion for condemnation of that property was made by the staff because in two separate instances recently the City Council had chosen to condemn private property where development was involved: the Cliffs Subdivision and an access point to property on top of Country Club hill. He noted, therefore, there was some precedence for making that suggestion. He added the staff only made the suggestion and it would be up to the City Council to determine if that condemnation would be in the • public's interest. In answer to a question from Mr. Allred, Ms. Little advised after 34 • Planning Commission January 23, 1995 Page 11 a condemnation the City would own the street. Mr. Allred stated he didn't have a problem with this because he thought there would be enough taxes generated in that area and the people living there would be glad to have another access. He contended it was time to look at what was best for the City overall and go in that direction. Mr. Mel Milholland, the engineer for the project, stated the pattern in which the development was proposed was in line with what they had submitted in the beginning. He noted all the phases were presented with a lot of input and the City as a whole had benefitted from this package with the school on land given to them by the developer. He contended that the proposal for the access to the east was in order. Mr. Kimbrough expressed concern that they needed to look at aerial photos in regard to the Master Street Plan to avoid placing them on top of someone's house. He reiterated his earlier comment that the public wasn't allowed to discuss the concept plat and address the impact of traffic problems and such of the entire development when it was before the Commission. • Mr. Head pointed out it was important to determine the street locations when there wasn't anything developed in an area yet. It was pointed out that the City of Fayetteville and the Fayetteville Planning Commission was taking a rap for traffic problems when several other entities, notably the Arkansas Highway Department, had put the cart before the horse for 50 years. MOTION Ms. Britton made a motion to approve the development subject to the additions/deletions agreed to at a previous meeting, to the staff's comments, to the condition that there would be another access built before any of the lots were sold in Phase III, to the City Council agreeing to take on the condemnation, and to the developer footing the bill as! agreed for any costs incurred in regard to the condemnation of land for an additional access. Mr. Suchecki seconded the motion after confirming that it was based on the letter from the attorney and the eastern access. Ms. Johnson pointed out the recommendation in the letter which was submitted was that the payment of the $37,500 not be made until the extension was constructed. She expressed concern that the City needed some more assurance that those monies would be recouped. • Mr. Don Bunn stated it would be proper for payment to be made at the time the contract was let for the street. .I L • E Planning Commission January 23, 1995 Page 12 Ms. Britton stated that would be a part of the staff comments that her motion was subject to. Mr. Tarvin expressed concern that it was unfair to the people to the north to condemn their property to solve a problem for this development when there appeared to be another option, going to Phase III with two outlets onto Mt. Comfort Road. Mr. Head stated he didn't feel that was a valid option for most of the traffic out of that school. Mr. Allred asked what would happen with this if the City Attorney or City Council decided there was not a public need. Ms. Little stated the Commission's approval would be subject to this occurring and noted their approval would be void in the case that it didn't occur. Ms. Johnson.asked if the motion tied them to the location of the street to the east being north of golf course or would it allow the street to east, the condemnation to go across the golf course based on what seemed more appropriate. Ms. Little pointed out it did not the golf course. She stated it the City Council to direct that. In answer to another question, owner would be paid the current appraisals and sells in the area tie them to the location north of would be up to the discretion of Ms. Little advised the property market value based on the recent as set by the court. The motion carried 8-1-0 with Commissioner Tarvin voting "no". a] • Planning Commission January 23, 1995 Page 13 CONSENT AGENDA: A. MINUTES: Approval of the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of January 9, 1995. B. LOT SPLIT #1 - LS95-2: Submitted by Doug Frans for property located at Sunbridge Center, Lot 12 and zoned R -O, Residential - Office. MOTION Mr. Head made a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented. The motion was seconded by Ms. Johnson. The motion carried with a unanimous vote, • Is • Planning Commission January 23, 1995 Page 14 LOT SPLIT #1 - LS95-5 DONALD WILLIAMS - E OF DEANE SOLOMON RD The next item was a lot split #1 - LS95-5 submitted by Donald Williams for property located east of Deane Solomon Road and zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Mr. Tim Conklin advised the staff recommended approval and had no further comments to add to their staff report. MOTION Mr. Pummill made a motion to approve the lot split subject to the staff's recommendations. The motion was seconded by Mr. Head. The motion carried with a unanimous vote, CONDITIONAL USE - CU95-03: REQUEST WAS FOR A CHURCH DONALD WILLIAMS - E OF DEANE SOLOMON RD • The next item was a conditional use request CU95-03 submitted by Donald Williams for property located east of Deane Solomon Road and zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The request was for a church. Mr. Conklin advised the staff recommended approval and had no additional comments. MOTION Mr. Head made a motion to approve the conditional use as presented subject to the staff's comments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. The motion carried with a unanimous vote, • 0 N • Planning Commission January 23, 1995 Page 15 PRELIMINARY PLAT - POINT WEST PHASE III WILLIAM RAMSEY - N SHILOH DR The next item was a preliminary plat of Point West Phase III submitted by Mel Milholland on behalf of William Ramsey for property located on North Shiloh Drive and zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial. The property contained 12.30 acres with 13 lots. Mr. Tarvin announced that this item had been pulled from the agenda and would not be discussed at this time. CONDITIONAL USE - CU95-02: MELANIE P STAFFORD - 462 & 465 BUCHANAN STREET The next item was a conditional use request CU95-02 submitted by Melanie P. Stafford for property located at 462 and 465 Buchanan Street and zoned R-3, High Density Residential. The request was for a professional office use in one-half of the duplex. 40 and Conklin advised the staff had recommended against the proposal and had no further comments. Ms. Melanie Stafford advised the applicants had visited with all the neighboring property owners. She noted who favored the proposal. She added there had been complaints by neighbors in the past that there had been loud music at all hours and people moving in and out and they would prefer to see an owner/occupant on one side and a day use on the other. In answer to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Conklin advised under the proposed office use, the requirement was one parking space per 300 square feet. He noted there was 1,850 square feet on each side and noted the existing four parking spaces for each side provided adequate parking spaces. Mr. Conklin advised the staff was aware that the neighbors had no objections to this request, however, the City Council by resolution did ask the staff to base their recommendations on the 2010 Land Use Plan. He explained, based on that Plan a chiropractor's office, in the staff's opinion, would not benefit the neighborhood. He noted a chiropractor office would not primarily serve that neighborhood which was the reason for the staff's recommendation of denial. In answer to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Conklin advised • approval of this request would be restricted only to a chiropractic office at the location. o 0 • Planning Commission January 23, 1995 Page 16 In answer to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Conklin pointed out only conditional uses in an R-1 zoning for Home Occupations were brought back to the Commission for review in a period of one year after approval. Mr. Reynolds advised this property was directly across the street from Bates Elementary School and he expressed concern that approval of this would create increased traffic flow in front of the school. In answer to a question from Ms. Britton, Ms. Little pointed out Buchanan Street was a one-way street to the south at all times. In answer to a question from Mr. Reynolds, Ms. Little stated she didn't know whether parking was allowed on that street. The applicant or a representative stated they didn't foresee the chiropractic practice growing large enough in that location to cause a traffic problem. She advised their plan was to live on one side of the duplex and have their office on the other. She added they hoped to widen one of the driveways so cars could be parked next to each other. She advised their plan was to purchase another property for their practice after it had become established and then utilize the subject property for rental once again. In response to a request from Mr. Reynolds for clarification, Ms. Little advised if a conditional use were approved, the subject property could continue to be used for a chiropractic office until the use was changed. In answer to a question from the applicant, Ms. Little advised reverting the use of the property back to rental property would be allowed in that zoning without additional approval through the Commission. In answer to a question from Mr. Allred, Ms. Little stated they could put a condition on the approval that the use would revert back to rental when the chiropractic office was no longer in practice there. Mr. Allred pointed out the traffic would probably not be increased with this proposed use. Ms. Little pointed out the staff's recommendation was based more on the General Plan requirement that these types of uses when inserted into neighborhoods be primarily neighborhood related whereas it was more likely this proposed use would attract patrons city wide. • Mr. Conklin advised he had contacted a local chiropractor and had determined that clients of this type use were region wide and not just from the neighborhood. ' Planning Commission January 23, 1995 Page 17 Mr. Tarvin pointed out such a use as a grocery store at this location would serve the neighborhood and satisfy the General Plan, but it would have much more of an impact than a chiropractor office. In response to a concern from Mr. Reynolds, Ms. Little advised the neighbors(the owners of the structures) were notified of this request and there hadn't been any opposition expressed to the staff. Mr. Allred made a motion to approve the conditional use subject to the staff's comments and to the condition that the use revert back to the R-3 zoning uses by right at the time the chiropractic office use ceased. The motion was seconded by Mr. Suchecki. The motion carried 7-2-0 with Mr. Nickle and Mr. Reynolds voting "no". • • r n • Planning Commission January 23, 1995 Page 18 ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 160, ZONING CODE, OF THE CODE OF FAYETTEVILLE TO REPEAL OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN VARIOUS SUBSECTIONS OF SECTION 160.055; TO ADD A DEFINITION FOR "PARKING LOT" IN SECTION 160.002; TO REPEAL SECTION 160.118(D)(5) SETTING FORTH A MINIMUM PARKING SETBACK REQUIREMENT REDUCTIONS; TO REPEAL SECTION 160.117, OFF- STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS; AND TO ADOPT STANDARDS FOR PARKING LOT CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS, PARKING LOT DESIGN STANDARDS, STANDARDS FOR THE NUMBER OF SPACES, BY USE, PARKING LOT LOCATION STANDARDS, PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS, SIDE AND REAR LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS, LANDSCAPING BETWEEN BUILDINGS AND PARKING LOT, PARKING WAIVERS, AND NONCONFORMING PARKING LOTS. Mr. Conklin advised the Subcommittee had recently met to work on all the regulations in an effort to implement the 2010 Plan. He advised from those meetings, they did a public hearing last July for some public input into that ordinance. He pointed out recently, in December, there was an alley vacation and the issue of parking lots and their location came up at Planning Commission and City Council level. Then, at the Council's meeting in December, a few of the senior aldermen gave direction to the staff to develop • landscaping, screening, and location standards for parking lots. Mr. Conklin advised, the staff had tried to incorporate the comments made with regard to that one issue with all of the Unified Development Code sections dealing with parking lots. He noted they also looked at what other cities in Arkansas had done with parking lots, specifically Bentonville and Little Rock. Mr. Conklin gave a presentation with slides to the Planning Commission based on the staff's findings including some examples of parking lot landscaping. In answer to questions from Mr. Allred, Mr. Conklin stated parking lot lighting wasn't required, but the ordinance did regulate any impact that lighting used had on adjoining properties. He noted there was an exemption from the landscaping requirements for a lot with less than 10 spaces. Ms. Little advised a separate public meeting had been scheduled for February 6 at 5:00 p.m. for the Planning Commission on these issues. She noted the staff would like action to be taken by the Commission at that time. She added the staff would be introducing three other ordinances to the Commission at that meeting to be acted on in the future including the "Granny Units"(the inclusion of a second dwelling unit on a single lot), the Flood Plain • Ordinance, and Conditional Uses for Commercial Uses in Residential Districts. OV • Planning Commission January 23, 1995 Page 19 In answer to a question from Mr. Suchecki, Ms. Little advised the $1,200 fee for waiving of parking spaces noted in the ordinance was derived from computations made in regard to the development of the Walton Arts Center parking lot and other comparisons. She explained it estimated the cost to be about $1,000 per parking space. In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Little advised the ordinance would apply to 5 or more parking spaces. Mr. Tarvin contended they needed to make sure the ordinance would be practical. Mr. Conklin pointed out parking lots had been built in Fayetteville in the past without a parking lot ordinance requiring landscaping and noted that some of them had been developed with more landscaping than would have been required if the ordinance was in effect. He noted he tried to tailor the ordinance proposal to those existing parking lots in Fayetteville which seemed to have been practical as far as financial feasibility. Mr. Head contended all the examples Mr. Conklin had shown them were • of companies or situations where a lot of money was available for landscaping in the parking lots. He stressed they needed to be careful not to be real tough on the other 95% of the population. Ms. Little stated they recognized not everyone could put in large plants and trees. She pointed out the ordinance stated the landscaping should reach the screening height within three years from planting which provided the option of putting in small plantings. Mr. Tarvin expressed concern as to whether a hardwood tree could grow in a 25 square foot planting area. Ms. Britton advised a 5 x 5 square would not allow a hardwood to grow to its optimum mature height, but it would allow it to live. Ms. Little pointed out the 25 square feet per tree in the ordinance was a minimum specified. She noted the City would expect that some landscaping expertise be utilized when planning the parking lots. Mr. Allred expressed concern that they were losing the focus on what they were supposed to be doing which was to design an ordinance to protect existing neighborhoods from parking lots being developed. He noted it seemed they had developed another design or landscape ordinance instead of trying to address the concerns the Council had on the parking issue a few weeks ago. • Mr. Conklin advised that situation was not a recommendation based on a parking lot, but an alley vacation. He pointed out the E • Planning Commission January 23, 1995 Page 20 ordinances allowed for an alley to be paved over. Ms. Little advised the that the three paragraphs under the "Location Standards" section of the ordinance was all that was submitted to the Council when they requested the ordinance. She noted at the time it was presented, they were asked to include such things as landscaping, lighting, and etc. Mr. Conklin pointed out this ordinance did not result from that debate, but as a part of the Unified Development Ordinance in regard to the 2010 Plan adopted November 16, 1993 which was worked on with a subcommittee for six months and a public hearing in July. He noted as part of the presentation, the staff wanted to ensure that they weren't directing it to one small issue with regard to parking lots. He advised the point of the Unified Development Ordinance was to bring everything together and make it easily understandable for the public. Mr. Allred pointed out since a parking lot with less than ten spaces was exempt from landscaping requirements in the proposed ordinance, it wouldn't have any bearing on the small intrusions into the neighborhoods. He contended it was good for the large • centers, but didn't really address the small parking lots. Ms. Little stated the staff would do some research before the next meeting for the Commission in regard to the size of that lot that was reviewed by the City Council and do some computations in the number of parking spaces to determine how many spaces it would accommodate. She requested that the Commission take a look around town between now and the next meeting to see if there were other areas they needed to address. Mr. Allred contended it was apparent that the major lots were aware of landscaping and screening in parking lots because they were already doing it. Mr. Tarvin pointed out the issue that came up recently included concerns from the neighborhood about more than just the parking lot bordering Maple Street, but also the other parking lots for the church. He asked if a church could build a parking lot in an R-1 zone without the ordinance. Mr. Conklin pointed out with the ordinance, a conditional use would be required for a church to build a parking lot in an R-1 zone. He noted the location of the parking lot could be approved as a part of the approval for the church or, in the case of an existing church, the expansion of the parking lot would have to approved by 40 the Commission as a conditional use. • Planning Commission January 23, 1995 Page 21 The Planning Commission will meet again on the ordinance February 61 1994 and so no decision was made on the ordinance. • • • Planning Commission January 23, 1995 Page 22 PRESENTATION OF SLATE OF OFFICERS FOR 1995 BY NOMINATING COMMITTEE: Mr. Reynolds reported that the Nominating Committee met on December 19th at 12 noon. He stated the press was notified, but none were present. He advised the slate of officers nominated were Phyllis Johnson for Chairman, Jerry Allred for Vice -Chairman, and Jana Britton for Secretary. Mr. Tarvin advised they would vote on that at their next meeting. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m. • NINUTEB OF A NBETINQ OF THE CITY COUNCIL i PLANNING COMNI88ION A special meeting of the Fayetteville City Council and Planning �- Commission was held on Tuesday, January 31, 1995, at 5:30 p.m., in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas, PRESENT: Mayor Fred Hanna; Aldermen Stephen Miller, Kit Williams, Cyrus Young, Woody Bassett, Steve Parker, Robert Prichard, Len Schaper, and Heather Daniel; Commissioner Phyllis Johnson, Tom Suchecki, Robert Reynolds, Jerry Allred, Charles Nickle, Jana Britton, and Gary Head; City Attorney Jerry Rose; City Clerk/Treasurer Traci Paul; Administrative Services Director Ben Hayes; Planning Director Alett Little; Public Works Director Kevin Crosson; members of staff, press, and audience. ABSENT: Commissioner Tarvin and Pummill CALL TO ORDER Mayor Hanna called the meeting to order with eight aldermen present and seven commissioners present. DISCUSSION The City Council, Planning Commission, and staff discussed the roles of the City Council and Planning Commission, the 2010 plan, the Unified Development Ordinance, and growth and development priorities. The meeting adjourned at 6:35 p.m. NOTE: This meeting was a discussion meeting only. No action was taken. A recording of this meeting is available in the City Clerk's .J Office.