Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-08-28 Minutes• • • ??�v MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the City of Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on August 28, 1995 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain, Room 219, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBER ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: APPROVAL OF MINUTES Jerry Allred, Jana Lynn Britton, John Forney, John Harbison, Gary Head, Phyllis Johnson, Conrad Odom, and Robert Reynolds. Charles Nickle. Alett Little, Rich Lane, Mandy Bunch, and Janet Johns. Corrections to the minutes included pages 8, 9, and 15. Minutes were approved as amended. Ms. Little announced rezoning R95-28 - Kenneth Mourton had been pulled due to problems with the legal description. OLD BUSINESS REZONING R95-24 - MARJORIE S. BROOKS AND NANCHAR, INC. MILHOLLAND - E OF GREGG, N OF US 71 BYPASS, W OF SKULL CREEK, S OF MUD CREEK This item was submitted by Milholland Engineering on behalf of Marjorie S. Brooks and NANCHAR, Inc. For property located east of Gregg Street, north of US 71 Bypass, west of Skull Creek, and south of Mud Creek. The request was to rezone 38.10 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. REZONING R95-25 - MARJORIE S. BROOKS AND NANCHAR, INC. MILHOLLAND - E OF SKULL CREEK, N OF 71 BYPASS, W OF US 71B, S OF CLEAR CREEK This item was submitted by Milholland Engineering on behalf of Marjorie S. Brooks and NANCHAR, Inc. For property located east of Skull Creek, north of US 71 Bypass, west of US 71B, and south of Clear Creek. The request is to rezone 271.67 acres from A- 1, Agricultural to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Staff did not recommend rezoning the entire tract C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Further staff recommended denial of rezoning petition R95-24. Alternatively, staff recommended zoning that portion of the property to the north (north of the proposed alignment of Joyce Street extension) which is the western edge of the N WAR Mall C- 2, and further recommended rezoning that portion of the property located south of the Spring Creek development C- 2, on a line which coincides with the western Boundary of the current C-2 designation. Staff recommended rezoning the balance of the property R -O in an effort to achieve development consistent with General Plan 2010. Ms. Little stated staff favored a portion of C-2 to allow for large hotel and motel development which was the major difference for C-2 zoning. She stated R -O could be developed commercially including restaurants. Further she stated as a result of the NWA Mall being zoned C-2 and granting of the subject rezoning request would make much of the City's C-2 zoning in one area. She urged the Commission to consider transportation and traffic impacts caused from additional densities including increased traffic and a way for traffic to exit the property or handled on site. She stated is was appropriate to consider transportation but specific issues shuch as street locations would be addressed at large scale development. • Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1995 Page 2 line was the divider and a natural barrier. Mr. Milholland made a presentation regarding the issues which they were requested by the Commission to address. Further he stated they had hired professionals to address those matters. He stated they had worked with the adjoining neighborhoods and provided them with a buffer. Mr. Irwin introduced their team including himself, Mr. Milholland, Mr. Ernie Peters, traffic engineer, Mark Robinson, planner, Joe Von Turban, planner. He presented the revised plan and stated there would only be 240 acres for development after deducting the green space and road right of way. He stated there would not be any recanalization along the flood way. He stated they were planning for large retail in the proximity of a proposed Wal-Mart facility, specialty commercial, hotels along the Bypass and behind those a mixed use/outdoor mall. Additionally they proposed highrise offices and restaurants. Mr. Irwin stated they would do R -O on 38.12 acres. He stated timing was a factor and phasing would occur from north to south building the road in Phase I within 12 to 15 months within the proposed C-2 zone. The acreage breakdown by zone included 160 acres of C-2, 35 acres of C-1, 15 acres of R -O, 30 acres of amended (with restrictive covenants) C-2, 48 acres of green space in the floodway and street right of way. He stated the plan as presented had been conceptualized by their planner without consideration of zoning issues. Discussion ensued regarding timing and construction of the proposed north -south road. Further discussion ensued regarding the various color coded zones and proposed usages and zones of same. • Ms. Johnson inquired regarding staff reaction to the revised plan as presented. Ms. Little stated she had not seem the subject plan but there had been conceptual discussion meetings. Discussion ensued regarding various zones shown on the plan. Ms. Little explained C-2 zones traditionally were less intense traffic generators and she further stated she would support a hotel zoning if one was available based on same. She stated there was a need for a large hotel in that area. Discussion ensued regarding the differences between staff recommendation and the developers plan. Further discussion ensued regarding a theoretical hotel zone. Ms. Little stated the developer had no concrete proposal for a hotel and was requesting a C-2 zone which would allow for considerably more than a hotel. Discussion ensued regarding C-3 and C-4 zone and Ms. Little stated historically that would not be a good idea because those zones are seldom developed to the required density. Further she stated the C-3 and C-4 zones were established to allow for development in the Dickson Street and Downtown area and it would be change in policy to allow C-3 and C-4 as a zoning option on the subject tract. Ms. Little stated staff would recommend a hotel zone north of the bypass and east of a north/south collector. Discussion ensued regarding various alternatives for the developer to obtain staff support and commission approval to develop a hotel in the subject area. Ms. Britton inquired if a Planned Unit Development which would allow for a hotel and Ms. Little stated the PUB allowed for the density required by the zone in which the tract was located. Further she stated the 2010 Plan suggested that any commercial type development over 5 acres in size be submitted as a Planned Unit Development. She stated Planned Unit Developments were allowed in any zone. Mr. Odom stated PUB was not a factor until after the rezoning was approved and Ms. Little agreed. • Ms. Britton stated the area as designated on the plan looked as if three hotels could be developed. Ms. Little responded information had been gathered from realtors and civic clubs which indicated there was an expressed need for larger hotels with meeting spaces on the north side. • Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1995 Page 3 Discussion ensued regarding the subject hotel tract. Mr. Irwin stated in addition to the hotel there would be specialty retail and offices. In response to a question from Mr. Haribson, Ms. Little stated R -O would not allow for specialty retail but office would be allowed and restaurants with conditional use. Mr. Reynolds inquired if a Bill of Assurance could proffered limiting the subject C-2 zone to hotel only and Ms. Little stated a Bill of Assurance could not be requested but if one were offered it could be accepted. Discussion ensued. Mr. Forney inquired regarding the two different road alignments presented on the plans and Mr. Irwin stated the Arkansas Highway Department was not committal as to whether or not they provide the "fly over" and stated until such time as they were committal, those alignments could not be planned for. Further he stated at present they planned to utilize the existing ingress and egress to the bypass. Ms. Little stated there was not enough information to consider the plans of the ADD and those issues should be addressed at large scale development. Discussion ensued regarding the Shiloh connection and Ms. Johnson stated same would not be prudent in managing traffic flow. Further discussion ensued regarding a connection to Zion and Ms. Johnson stated due to the configuration of the mall same would not be practical. Mr. Forney stated that both staff and the developer agreed on C-2 zoning for the northern most section of the tract but he expressed concern regarding egress and stated same was not addressed in the 2010 Plan. Ms. Little stated there was opportunity for egress to the east on Shepherd Lane which would utilize a portion of the • private mall loop road then south egress to east at Joyce to Highway 71 and west to Wilkerson or Johnson Road and then further south to the proposed north/south road to the west at Gregg. She stated there would be two receptors to the west at Johnson Road, and two receptors to the east at Highway 7l. Mr. Peters stated the "fly over" would be possible with local support. Discussion ensued. Mr. Peters stated the subject project would not be complete for another 10 years which would allow time for the "fly over" to be worked out. He stated the ADD did not have current plans to develop the subject area but he was confident it could be completed in a 5-8 year time frame. Ms. Johnson inquired as to the location of egress prior to completion of any ADD plan and Mr. Peters initially no egress at the subject point would be available and the egress point would simply culdesac. Mr. Irwin stated they would be able to egress off of the proposed north/south connection. Discussion ensued regarding the adjoining property owned by Wal-Mart creating the need for C72 zoning. Discussion ensued regarding uses allowed in R -O and Ms. Johnson inquired if there was a need for 150 acres of R - O zone. Ms. Little responded in compiling information for the 2020 Plan there was a great need for office space, restaurant, and multi -family which would be allowed in the R -O zone as conditional use. Discussion ensued regarding the effect street locations would have on contiguous zoning areas. Ms. Little stated if the C-2 zoning request was denied it could not be resubmitted as a C-2 zoning request for one year but it could be resubmitted as another zone. Mr. Allred requested that prior to any decision, a staff report and recommendation on the current proposed zoning district be provided to the Commission. Further he requested more R -O zoning and a traffic report. Discussion ensued regarding information to be provided to the Commission including a traffic report Mr. Forney inquired if the developer would consider C-3 zoning which would permit hotels and Ms. Little expressed concern and delineated various options for dealing with the traffic generated by C-3 uses and she stated the proposed plan would not develop to the maximum density allowed under C-2. 3 • Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1995 Page 4 Discussion ensued regarding traffic issues. Ms. Little delineated various options for connections and problems associated with same. Discussion ensued regarding "big box" type retail development. Mr. Irwin inquired if a commitment to construction location of the north/south road would address and answer some of the concerns of the Commission. Ms. Johnson stated that a general location of the route would suffice. Ms. Little requested traffic data in order to provide a staff recommendation. Ms. Johnson requested the use of streams and natural existing boundaries to mark the proposed zones. MOTION Mr. Allred made a motion to postpone the item until the September 11, 1995 Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • CI . Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1995 Page 5 REZONING R95-27 - N. GLENN SOWDER S OF NORTH STREET, W OF N GREGG The next item on the agenda was submitted by N. Glenn Sowder for property located south of North Street, west of N. Gregg. The request is to rezone 2.89 acres from R-2, Medium Density Residential to R -O, Residential -Office. The request is accompanied by a Conditional Use request to allow up to 40% of 16,820 square feet of restaurant use within the R -O zone. Staff recommended approval of the request based on a finding that neighborhood commercial is encouraged as a part of the overall development plan for the city. Ms. Johnson stated that presently the site had three single family homes and two would remain and also on the site are eight townhouses and four one bedroom apartments. She stated the new construction would have 12 ground floor office/residential units with 4 second floor office/residential units and 8 ground floor one bedroom studio apartments. Further she stated in conjunction in the rezoning is a requested conditional use for 40% usage of restaurant with hours of operation limited to 6 a.m. to 11.59 p.m. Regarding the conditional use the conditions were as follows: • 1. Signage in accordance with ordinance provisions. 2. Lighting minization and directed downward. 3. Compliance with the parking lot ordinance at large scale development. 4. Installation of appropriate screening to be decided at large scale development. 5. Conditional use requirements. Ms. Little distributed additional information in the agenda supplement regarding the number of townhouses existing and those to be constructed (reflected correctly above.) Discussion ensued regarding Unigreen and alternate paving mechanisms. Mr. Sowder stated this allow for increased parking but reduces the run off on the hillside. Mr. Sowder provided two drawings addressing alternative for locating a restaurant 80-100 feet from the comer alleviating the traffic hazard. He stated the square footage would remain the same. He stated additional parking across the driveway had been added to compensate to the parking area removed along North Street. Discussion ensued regarding the proximity of the railroad and warehouse to the subject tract. Mr. Sowder stated his property did not adjoin railroad right of way. Ms. Britton inquired if the type of development being considered would be allowed in the new neighborhood commercial and Ms. Little responded commercial would be allowed in any residential zone as long as it resemble the residents it is mixed with. Further she stated the new neighborhood commercial is limited and does not include as much office or restaurant. • Discussion ensued regarding the 40% restaurant number and Mr. Sowder said it was a round number and stated initially he planned for a coffee house or delicatessen but requested the 40% restaurant usage to avoid additional 46 • Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1995 Page 6 rezoning applications in the event another restaurant came into the development. Ms. Britton inquired regarding the office/residence mix and Mr. Sowder requested the option to provide for the future in the event office space was not needed he would like to be able to rent the development as residential.. Discussion ensued regarding the subject area and whether or not the entire block would be rezoned. Ms. Little responded the block would be rezoned in its entirety including the existing structures. Mr. Joe McPherin spoke in opposition to the request on the grounds of traffic issues and commercial intrusion in a residential neighborhood. Mr. Max Johnson spoke in opposition to the request on the grounds of traffic issues and commercialization of the neighborhood. Ms. York opposed the proposed requested on the grounds of traffic issues. Ms. Little noted that at the current zone, the property could be developed to 75 units. Ms. Ramona Tudlow opposed the requested on the grounds of traffic issues and noise issues. Mr. Don Stycos opposed the development on the grounds of neighborhood decline. • In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Little stated 60% of the property was currently undeveloped. Discussion ensued regarding removing two of the existing structures. Ms. Johnson stated approval of the request would decrease the traffic problems. Mr. Sowder stated he felt the proposed development was the best option for the area with North Street having over 12,000 cars on it per day. Discussion ensued regarding postponing the rezoning and conditional use requests until the September 11, 1995 Commission meeting. Mr. Sowder stated he was agreeable to postponing the request. MOTION Ms. Johnson made a motion to postpone the matter until the September 11, 1995 Commission meeting to allow for negotiation with the adjoining property owners. Mr. Head seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. E • Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1995 Page 7 CONDITIONAL USE CU95-21 - DAN & DEBORAH COODY E RODGERS DRIVE The next item on the agenda was submitted by Dan and Deborah Coody for property located on E. Rodgers Drive and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. The request is for a tandem lot. Staff recommended approval of tandem lot subject to the following: 1. Resolution of double tandem lots issues. 2. Dedication of the 25 feet permanent access easement prior to deed transfer. LOT SPLIT #2 - DAN & DEBORAH COODY E. RODGERS DRIVE The next item on the agenda was submitted by Dan and Deborah Coody for property located on E. Rodgers Drive and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. The request is to split a 1.91 acres off of a tract containing 29.66 acres. Staff recommended approval of the lot split subject to extension of utilities to the created lot. • Ms. Little distributed a supplemental map. Mr. Coody stated a originally owned 10 acres. He stated he bought an additional 30 acres and sold 6.75 which resulted in a total of 33 acres. Discussion ensued regarding the transportation situation to the east, south, and north. Ms. Little gave an overview of the existing structures locations and noted another structure was under construction. She stated the entire tract had frontage on Rodgers Drive making it a legal lot. Further she stated 25 feet of access would be required but the split creating a lot containing 1.91 acres becomes a tandem lot behind the legal lot. She noted there was a structure to the northeast of the subject property which is separate has no frontage and therefore was not on a legal lot but had been existing since 1928 and same could not be considered in the scope of investigation but without frontage would also be considered a tandem lot. Discussion ensued regarding Sec. 160.091(B)(2) procedures to determine is the terrain of the area would allow the subdivision of the area into a standard city block. Ms. Johnson stated the problem was not the terrain but that a route has not been established and expressed her concern. Further she stated approval of the rezoning and conditional use request would effectively close off any future connection. Mr. Coody stated they intended to provide an access easement to the subject property owner but wished to wait on approval of the requests prior to expending funds for a survey. Further he stated he intended to provide water to the subject area which would be paid for out of proceeds from the sale of the created lot. Ms. Britton stated she favored taking a lot adjoining the access point and she explained her reservations by stating there was not a terrain problem making the division not subject to subdivision regulations. Mr. Head stated the Master Street Plan did not designate a street in the subject area and therefore the petitioner should not be held to constructing a street. Discussion ensued and Ms. Britton stated a local street would not be included on the Master Plan. Ms. Little stated the real question was regarding development scale. Mr. Coody responded the top 7 acres would be developed in 1 acre or greater resulting in 5 single family dwellings excluding • the tandem lot. Further he stated they planned a cooperative farm. Ms. Little stated she had received a call from Ms. Ramona Gordon supporting the subject request. • Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1995 Page 8 Mr. Richard Covey stated he had no objection to the lot split request and as the tenant in the house on the double tandem lot created, he stated he had ingress/egress by right of use of an existing path behind the water tower. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the ingress/egress provided legal access. Ms. Johnson inquired if there was sentiment that there was a terrain problem and Ms. Little stated there was no terrain problem. Discussion ensued. Discussion ensued regarding the effect of denying the lot split and the effect same would have on obtaining future street connections. Mr. Coody stated he was planning to construct a private road and no areas would be land locked with the exception of Mr. Covey. Mr. Allred noted the development would consist of 5 units accessed by private drive and would be subject to the usual requirements. Mr. Allred inquired as to whether or not the Commission should subject the proposed development to usual standards and require a city street to be constructed. Ms. Britton agreed. Discussion ensued. Mr. Allred inquired if the remaining land would be subject to Subdivision regulations and Ms. Little stated it would. USYNTerill Mr. Head made a motion to approve conditional use CU95-21 Mr. Forney seconded the motion. • Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 7-1-0. Ms. Johnson voted against the motion. MOTION Mr. Head made a motion to approve the lot split #2 subject to staff recommendations. Mr. Odom seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 7-1-0. Ms. Johnson voted against the motion. 0 aq) • Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1995 Page 9 VACATION VA95-8 - DAN & DEBORAH COODY 1418 E. RODGERS The next item on the agenda was submitted by Dan and Deborah Coody for property located at 1418 E. Rodgers. The request was to vacate a utility easement. Staff recommended approval of the vacation. Ms. Britton inquired regarding using the easement as a connection with Southern Heights. Discussion ensued and Mr. Bunn stated it would not be a proper location for road construction in the easement area. Further Mr. Bunn stated there were no city plans for constructing a water line in the subject area. Discussion ensued. MOTION Mr. Head made a motion to approve the vacation. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. The meeting recessed for 5 minutes. • • a • Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1995 Page 10 CONDITIONAL USE CU95-19 - LINDA R. RHODES 317 HOLLY STREET The next item on the agenda was submitted by Linda Rhodes for property located at 317 Holly Street and zoned R- 1, Low Density Residential. The request was for a bed and breakfast consisting of two bedrooms and one bathroom upstairs in an existing home. Staff recommended approval of the conditional use subject to the following: 1. Immediate installation of house numbers. 2. No signage installed greater than 4 square feet in area. Ms. Johnson stated there would not be structural changes made to accommodate the request. Further she stated parking would be the existing parking which is all off street, behind the house on an asphalt driveway. She stated the applicant had submitted a Bill of Assurance stating the approval of a conditional use for a bed and breakfast would be null and void in the event the Rhodes' no longer owns the property or no longer lives there. Ms. Little reiterated that installation of house numbers was a city requirement which is a separate from the request. Further she stated staff had received several letters in opposition to the request. • Ms. Rhodes stated the numbers were posted but had been changed to silver on dark green and further stated there would not be a sign other than a small plaque beside the door. She stated the request was a part time endeavor and the operation would mainly be effective during game weekends and craft fairs. Discussion ensued regarding traffic and parking. Ms. Sharon Muney spoke in opposition to the request due to the fact there was no through street. She stated she did not see a conditional use notification of public hearing sign and Ms. Little stated a notification of public hearing sign was not required to be posted. Ms. Helen Brewer spoke in opposition on the ground that a precedence would be set for other business uses in the neighborhood. Ms. Sally Beard spoke in opposition to the request on the grounds of traffic issues and precedence for business uses in the neighborhood. Mr. Allred inquired if notification had been given to adjoining property owners and Ms. Little stated they were notified by certified letter, return receipt. Ms. Little read the Bill of Assurance. Mr. Mark Whitler spoke in opposition to the request on the grounds that precedence would be set for allowing business uses in the neighborhood. Mr. Odom noted the application would come back to the Commission in one year for renewal Discussion ensued regarding Mr. Rhodes' home occupation and Ms. Little read Section 160.095 governing home occupations. • Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1995 Page 11 Ms. Britton expressed concern regarding the objections of the neighbors and suggested limiting factors be placed on the request. Ms. Little stated the maximum stay allowable would be 14 days. Discussion ensued. Mr. Odom noted the Commission usually only allowed one conditional use per neighborhood and therefore no precedence of business uses in the neighborhood would be set. MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to approve the conditional use. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a note of 7-1-0. Mr. Allred voted against the motion. CI 0 Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1995 Page 12 LOT SPLIT #1 - MARY COFFIN N OF CATO SPRINGS ROAD, W OF CLINE AVENUE The next item on the agenda was lot split #1 submitted by Garth Wiebe on behalf of Mary Coffin for property located north of Cato Springs Road, west of Cline Avenue and zoned R -I, Low Density Residential. The request is to split off a 1.65 acre tract from a 5.0 acre tract. Staff recommended the lot split be approved subject to the construction of a sidewalk along Cato Springs Road and the granting of an additional 10 feet of highway right of way by warranty deed. CONDITIONAL USE CU95-24 - MARY COFFIN N OF CATO SPRINGS ROAD, W OF CLINE AVENUE The next item on the agenda was the conditional use submitted by Garth W iebe on behalf of Mary Coffin for property located north of Cato Springs Road, west of Cline Avenue and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. The request was for a tandem lot. Staff recommended approval of the tandem lot subject to approve of the lot split, sidewalk construction, and dedication of highway right of way by warranty deed. • Ms. Little presented a letter from Mr. Emery who wished to comment on the lot split and conditional use but was unable to stay until the item was address. His request was that drainage issues be addressed. Mr. Barry Coffin addressed the Commission and gave an overview of the proposed lot split and conditional use request. He stated work on the Cato Springs Branch would prohibit any site work to be done at the subject location. Ms. Little stated the Corp of Engineers had begun a project for flood control on the Cato Springs Branch and Mr. Bunn stated access easements had been acquired for channel maintenance. MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to approve the conditional use. Mr. Head seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. MOTION Mr. Head made a motion to approve the lot split. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. is • Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1995 Page 13 REZONING R95-30 - U OF A FOUNDATION, INC. N OF TOWNSHIP ROAD, W OF VILLA BOULEVARD The next item on the agenda was the rezoning request submitted by U of A Foundation, Inc. for property located north of Township Road and west of Villa Boulevard. The request was to rezone a 6.10 acre tract from R -O, Residential -Office, A -I Agricultural, and C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial to C-1 Neighborhood Commercial. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning as consistent with the General Plan and adjacent land uses. Ms. Johnson stated the property was adjacent to the Nelms Chevrolet dealership and the purpose of the request was to integrate the parcel with the property occupied by Nelms Chevrolet and redevelop both as a unit for a grocery store. Ms. Little noted the 6 acres tract of land had three zoning classifications and the more appropriate zoning classification would be C-1 Neighborhood Commercial. Further she stated the project would be subject to large scale development and at that time street connections and right of ways would be addressed. Ms. Johnson expressed concern regarding the intersection at the subject area and Ms. Little stated this project would allow opportunities for needed right of way on Township which would facilitate the improvement of the intersection and a contribution for the extension of Sunbridge Road could be assessed. • Ms. Britton inquired as to which part was zoned A-1 and Ms. Little stated it was located in the middle. Dr. Mae Nettleship stated the tract was her farm and laboratory. Further she stated she was deeding the property to the U of A Foundation as investment property and there was a plan for construction of a memorial to her husband. MOTION Mr. Head made a motion to approve the rezoning. Mr. Odom seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 6-0-2. Mr. Forney and Mr. Harbison abstained. 40 Oie Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1995 Page 14 PARKING WAIVER The last item was the parking waiver submitted by G. Oney & Associates on behalf of Taco Bell for property located at 2055 W. 6th Street. The request is for a waiver of the parking lot size restriction and the number of parking spaces required. Staff recommended approval to grant development of additional parking including space for large vehicle parking and permission to develop the parking in an R -I zone with the following conditions: I. Provision of vegetative screening which at maturity will achieve a height of' at the south property line rather than the board fence. 2. Installation of a 5' sidewalk along Hollywood with handicap accessible curb ramps at street crossing. 3. Installation of a l5' wide landscaped zone from the rear of the existing parking lot to the south property line. 4. If conditional use is granted same does not approve grading and drainage plan which should be coordinated through the engineering division. • 5. If conditional use is granted tree preservation must be coordinated through the landscape administrator's office. Mr. Oney stated he had a problem with requirement number 3. Ms. Little explained under the parking lot ordinance passed in February, 1995, for parking lots in residential zones, the requirement is that every parking lot should be landscaped for an equal and uniform width of 25 feet parallel to the front property line street right of way. Further she noted the landscape area could be reduced by 10 feet when the parking lot is screened abutting a street by providing a berm, wall, vegetation, or combination of at least three feet high. Ms. Little stated is was a required improvement and the recommendation was written to remind the developer of same. Regarding losing the three parking spaces, Ms. Little noted areas where they could be replaced including the south area with parallel parking arrangement. Discussion ensued. Mr. Oney stated he would comply with the requirement. Mr. Odom made a motion to approve the parking waiver subject to staff recommendations. Mr. Head seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. 0 • 10F5 PLAWWC, COmmisscCN VOTING LOG FOR ZS '95 8-0'0 i11 MOTION SECONDX� ALLREDES�CT U BRITTON FORNEY F623ajT Y HARBISON HEAD Pk�SEWT JOHNSON NICKLE ODOM cri fDe� U yREYNOLDS 8-0'0 i11 U v Pr-tGE z OF -5 RAWKIING COMMISSION VOTING LOG FOR -M 95 S.o4a -7•a-0 MOTION SECOND ALLRED Y Y BRITTON FORNEY \/ HARBISON �% Y HEAD 7 JOHNSON W NICKLE ffE�sar Ana n Asst 3 ODOM Y REYNOLDS S.o4a -7•a-0 • RAwumc, Commiss(oN VOTING LOG FOR 7$ Aws. I`ns 9;-� 3o=5 MOTION N �m SECOND die/ ALLRED BRITTON FORNEY HARBISON HEAD Y JOHNSON �I NICYLE A%wr ABspn ODOM \/ REYNOLDS \� -7-1 0 R.0.O -7,14t • E PIGE 4 CF5 I-titii►iG Commrssia& VOTING LOG FOR ?3 AUC-. JAS MOTION Vcom SECOND N� ALLRED BRITTON FORNEY \I r HARBISON HEAD \/ JOHNSON NICKLE� ODOM Y REYNOLDS Y • t PA>GE75CF5 PLPNwka COMMISSIC" VOTING LOG FOR M AUE-. � d� A► • A u.. i MOTION SECOND Qpm ALLRED Y BRITTON �% V FORNEY Y HARBISON HEAD Y JOHNSON y NICKLE "T ODOM REYNOLDS y