Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-07-22 Minutes1�D • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on July 22, 1996 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry Allred, Phyllis Johnson, Bob Reynolds, Lorel Hoffman, John Forney and Gary Tucker MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Sugg, John Harbison, and Conrad Odom STAFF PRESENT: Alett Little, Jim Beavers and Sharon Langley INTRODUCTION OF NEW MEMBER Ms. Johnson introduced Lorel Hoffman, a new Planning Commissioner, explaining she replaced Gary Head. APPROVAL OF THE JULY 8. 1996 MINUTES The minutes were approved as distributed. OLD BUSINESS: RZ96-13: REZONING REQUEST FOR CANTERBURY PLACE PERRY F. & VERNAL L. CRAWFORD - N OF JOYCE & W OF CROSSOVER • The first item on the agenda was a rezoning request for Canterbury Place, submitted by Northwest Engineers for Perry F. and Vernal L. Crawford for property located north of Joyce Boulevard and west of Crossover Road. The property is currently zoned A-1, Agricultural, and the request is to rezone the property to R -O, Residential -Office. The property contains 6.37 acres. Ms. Johnson reminded the Commission this matter had been reviewed at the June 10 meeting and it had been tabled. She noted staff had previously recommended approval of the rezoning request. She stated the staff report had contended the rezoning would be consistent with General Plan 2020. She pointed out they had, at the June 10th meeting, rezoned a portion of the tract R-1, Low Density Residential. She advised the staff report stated the R -O would allow a mix of uses, compliment the adjacent residential property and discourage commercial strip development. Ms. Little advised staff had two additional items: (I) the president of the Home Owners Association, Ted Brewer, had contacted staff and stated they had not received mailed notification of the meeting (however, he believed an adequate number of the residents were aware of the meeting); and (2) she wanted to review Neighborhood Commercial with the Commission. She explained Neighborhood Commercial would allow buildings 2,000 - 3,000 square feet in area within residential areas. She went on to say the building would have to be strictly residential in character. She contended a tract of 6.37 acres would not fit under the Neighborhood Commercial category. Ms. Johnson stated Joyce Street was classified as a major arterial and was scheduled to be widened to 4 lanes within the next two years. She added the right-of-way would be left at 80 feet and there would be a 10 -foot trail on the north.side of the street. She reminded the Commission the 10 -foot trail was a new trail width for the City and the developer of the project would have to bear one-half the cost of the trail. Kurt Jones, Northwest Engineers, pointed out the rezoning request did conform with the 2020 Plan. He noted the Commission had worked quite some time forming the 2020 Plan. He advised the developers planned a subdivision • with single-family residential lots at the rear and professional offices similar to the offices to the east of the subject tract at the front of the tract. He stated the City was spending close to a million dollars to widen Joyce Boulevard for 1611 • Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1996 Page 2 a major arterial. He contended it made sense to have office buildings along the street, in building up the infrastructure, rather than single-family homes. He also pointed out the zoning across the street was R-2 and the R -O would be a logical transition from R-2 to R-1. Mr. Ted Brewer, 2607 Joyce (immediately across the street), reminded the Commission the property owners on the south side of Joyce Boulevard had objected to the rezoning district of R -O and had filed a petition of objection. He advised they were still opposed to the rezoning. He contended the rezoning was not consistent with the residential environment on the south side of Joyce Boulevard. He informed the Commission the residents on the south side of Joyce had purchased their property because it was in a premier residential area and they wanted to reserve both the residential atmosphere and their property values. He also noted the adjacent property had gone up for sale which he believed was reflective that the Commission was going to approve the rezoning. He contended consideration of this request was no different than any other major arterial going thou Fayetteville. Mr. Bob Shaw, 2633 Joyce, complained he had to read the sign on the property in order to get notification of the meeting. He advised that, when had purchased the property 10 years earlier, the entire area was residential in nature. He contended the area residents wanted the area to remain residential with no offices. Neal Pendergraft, one of the applicants, and also owner of the property immediately to the east, advised he had purchased the subject property because it was shown as R -O property in the 2020 Plan and so he could protect the integrity of the development he had started next door. He pointed out they had received many positive comments on how they were complying with the tree ordinance. He stated there was always the chance, when purchasing property adjacent to agricultural property, that the agricultural property would be rezoned. He advised their intent was to put • in office neighborhoods, keeping the trees and constructing nice buildings. He stated he was looking for good tenants for his buildings, ones that would not be high traffic businesses. Gary Tucker asked what type of access was planned for the offices to Joyce Street. Mr. Pendergraft advised that was something the engineering would have to draw up but he did envision 2 access points. Mr. Jones advised the access would be worked out at the preliminary plat process. He stated he believed there would be one main access point to the subdivision and perhaps two of the lots would have access to Joyce directly. He stated they would work with the city and Planning Commission at the preliminary plat stage. Jerry Allred expressed concern that R -O allowed multi -family housing. Mr. Jones contend there were no plans for multi -family housing; their only plans were for offices. He asked what type of density was allowed under R -O. Ms. Little advised duplexes were allowed as a use by right and apartments were allowed by conditional use. Bob Reynolds asked if the owner would be willing to offer a Bill of Assurance that only offices would be constructed on the property. In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Little advised the Commission could accept such a Bill of Assurance but only if it was voluntarily offered. Mr. Pendergraft stated that, while he could not speak for his partners, they had no desire to construct duplexes on the property and he would offer a Bill of Assurance that no duplexes would be constructed. • • Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1996 Page 3 In response to a question from Mr. Jones, Ms. Johnson explained that, when the developer had discussed only offices, the Commission assumed that only offices would be constructed; but, if they merely rezoned the property, there was no assurance that only offices would be constructed. She stated the zoning classification was broader than just offices and, if they rezoned the property to R -O, they could not require just offices to be constructed at a later date. Mr. Pendergraft advised he had no intention of putting any residences of any type on the lots. He stated he would be happy to draft a Bill of Assurance stating there would be no duplexes or apartments on the lots. He asked, however, how they would handle an apartment in connection with an office for someone who would be in town periodically. Ms. Little stated the Bill of Assurance would have to be carefully crafted in order to allow an apartment within an office. Upon request of Mr. Allred, Ms. Little read the uses by right allowed in R -O zoning: governmental facilities; single family and two-family dwellings; offices, studios, and related services; and professional offices. Mr. Allred stated the rezoning concerned the land use, not land development and he was concerned about construction of duplexes. Mr. Forney stated he did not share Mr. Allred's concern regarding duplexes. He pointed out there was R-2 zoning across the street. He stated he would not encourage duplexes but could not see how it would be more objectionable than R -O zoning. • Mr. Allred stated that, if there were assurances the duplexes would be of high quality, he would have no objections. He pointed out, however, that when discussing rezonings, there were no assurances. Mr. Forney stated he shared Mr. Allred's concern but pointed out there was R-2 on the south side of the street. He asked how deep was the R -O zoning in the 2020 Plan. He contended they had the worst of both worlds -- on the south side residential facing commercial and on the north side residential facing commercial. He explained he would rather see a depth of residential lots on the north side of the street. Ms. Little pointed out immediately to the east of the subject tract was an R -O parcel which was greater in depth than the proposal. She also noted further to the west were some R -O parcels which were greater in depth. She asked if Mr. Forney was saying that lots 4 and 17 (on the proposed rendering) would be better suited to R- 1. Mr. Forney stated he believed lots 4, 21, 18 and 17 were all going to be office properties with access on a street which had residential properties on the other side of the street. He advised that, while he sympathized with the residents, he would follow the Land Use Plan which anticipated office on the north side. He explained the intentions on the General Land Use Plan was to make a buffer of office space along a high traffic road and then behind have residential properties. He asked if the adjacent R -O lots had stub -outs to residential areas. Ms. Little stated she believed the Smith/Dill property had a stub -out to the north and she did not remember if the parcel to the west had a stub -out. She further stated there was quite a bit of undeveloped land on the north side of Joyce Street and, at the time the property was subdivided, there would be an opportunity to create linkages. She advised she believed it was better for residential traffic to pass thru office areas than office traffic passing through residential areas. Mr. Forney stated his concern was there was a street which was half office and half residential • Ms. Johnson advised the decision was whether to rezone the property to R -C. She reminded the Commission the developer had offered a promise that no duplexes would be constructed. • Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1996 Page 4 Mr. Forney stated his only question was the depth of the R -O zoning. He stated he would vote in favor of the R -O adjacent to Joyce Street. He recommended the area designated as Lot 17 not be zoned R -O. Ms. Johnson asked what problem they would cure if they did not rezone the area designated as Lot 17 to R -O. Mr. Forney stated there were property owners on the south side of Joyce objecting to facing offices. He explained that future residents in the northern area might also find it objectionable to face offices. Ms. Johnson asked if that was not being ameliorated by the fact that all of the property was being rezoned contemporaneously. She pointed out that any of the residents would be aware of the adjacent zoning. Mr. Forney stated he saw this rezoning as a pattern -setter and he was concerned regarding the connection between the office and the residential. He stated the issue was the depth of the R -O. Ms. Johnson asked if the 2020 Plan contemplated the depth of the R -O. After measuring the 2020 Plan, it appeared the depth was 600 - 660 feet. In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, Mr. Jones advised the total north -south length of the subject property was 1,320 but that portion they were requesting to be rezoned to R -O was approximately 500 - 550 feet. Mr. Pendergraft advised that, if Lot 17 bothered Mr. Forney, he was willing to have it zoned R-1. Mr. Jones pointed out the existing home would remain. He stated the existing home did control the streets and lot • layout. Gary Tucker expressed concern they were establishing a pattern along Joyce Boulevard asking for Bills of Assurance that there would be no multi -family units in R -O areas. He stated he did not see that duplexes were inconsistent with development of the area. Ms. Johnson explained the Bill of Assurance had been suggested because the owner had assured the Commission he was not going to construct duplexes. Mr. Tucker stated he just wanted to be sure they were not establishing a pattern for future development along Joyce Boulevard. Ms. Johnson stated she did not believe they were establishing any pattern Mr. Forney staled he had just been asking a question regarding the R -O depth. He explained he did not know the right answer; that it could be a worse mistake to make a narrower band of the R -O because they would then have individual driveways and accesses onto a high volume road. He explained he wanted the Commission to be clear on how they handled the implications on the north side of Joyce. MOTION Mr. Forney moved to approve Rezoning Request RZ96-13. Mr. Tucker seconded the motion. Mr. Reynolds stated he would be more comfortable with the Bill of Assurance that no duplexes would be • constructed. Planning Commission Meeting • July 22, 1996 Page 5 Mr. Pendergraft made a formal offer of the Bill of Assurance. The motion carried unanimously. • (rte Planning Commission Minutes • July 22, 1996 Page 6 DESIGN STANDARDS IN COMMERCIAL, OFFICE. INSTITUTIONAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS - U.D.O. COMMITTEE The next item was presentation of an Amendment to chapter 160: Zoning, of the Code of Fayetteville to provide site development and architectural design standards for commercial, office, institutional and industrial uses. Ms. Johnson advised this item was presented by the U.D.O. Committee and reminded the Commission this was the second consecutive meeting for this particular item. Mr. Conklin reviewed the changes made since the previous meeting: the building material standard had been removed but added that plain metal siding buildings and box -like structures were discouraged; and the legal department had added architectural guidelines and elements. Ms. Johnson advised they would not be able to vote on the proposed ordinance until the next meeting (August 12, 1996). Mr. Allred asked if a material board was actually needed if they were also requiring a scaled and colored, architect rendered elevation drawing. Mr. Conklin stated the material board would give an assurance (or guarantee) of the actual materials to be used Mr. Tucker pointed out a material board was already required in some conditional use situations. • Mr. Forney pointed out the drawing could be made to look anything and so the materials were a way to provide an assurance. He further stated it was likely the materials could change from the early stage to actual construction stage. In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, Mr. Conklin advised there would be additional UDO meetings prior to the next Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Johnson informed the Commission she had received a letter from David Lieb with numerous comments on the proposed ordinance. She requested the UDO Committee review the letter. Mr. Tucker asked where the committee was in the process of including photographs in the ordinance. Mr. Conklin replied the City Attorney's staff was still doing research. Ms. Johnson advised her office had received a telephone call from Tom McKinney, Sierra Club, suggesting design standards be applied to rental properties as well as commercial properties. Elam Denham, an area resident, appeared before the Commission and contended the proposed ordinance was too arbitrary and dependant upon the discretion of the Planning Commission. He advised that, while the ordinance was very detailed in some areas, other areas were very abstract. He particularly objected to the term "sense of place", stating it was very elusive. In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, Mr. Denham stated he believed the entire section called "Purposes" was too ill-defined and arbitrary and so idealistic that it could not be achieved. He pointed out that only approximately 20% of property in the United States was designed by architects and the other 80% was designed by developers. He asked if the Commission expected non-professionals (the developers) to be able to design something with a sense of • place. He contended the ordinance was too ambitious for general use. Planning Commission Minutes • July 22, 1996 Page 7 Mr. Denham advised he believed that, when someone came to the city with a project, there should be a competence level where the developer could expect to know what the Planning Commission required in order to proceed with the project. He also noted the professional cost had been elevated by requesting additional drawings, material boards, etc. He expressed his opinion the proposed ordinance was a "watered-down version" of the bypass overlay ordinance, noting there were many of the same zoning designations which were much more restrictive than normal zoning designations. He contended that was unfair and advised either all of the city should be under the same restrictions as the Highway 71 Bypass or the ordinance should be eliminated. He advised he believed generally people would make the right choices and, if they occasionally made a mistake, the mistake would work itself out. Mr. Denham also advised that he believed it would be very beneficial to the citizens of Fayetteville to make clear, clean statements of the content of any new ordinances when the notification of the meeting was made. Mr. Tom McKinney, Sierra Club, appeared before the Commission and stated they were in favor of the ordinance. He asked that they include apartment complexes under the ordinance. He contended the purposes of the ordinance were very important and he believed they were very clear. He advised that, while there might be additional costs involved with the proposed ordinance, it would benefit the community. He also added the Sierra Club would like to have Northwest Arkansas native vegetation shown as the required trees for any replantings when possible. Mr. Charles Agee, an area resident, appeared before the Commission in opposition to the proposed ordinance. He pointed out they had spent many hours drafting the 2020 Plan, but, in the last item there had been a long discussion as to how the 2020 Plan should be applied. He contended the proposed ordinance would be even more difficult to • apply. He advised it was impossible to keep Fayetteville looking just as it did now. He stated the Commission was not giving credit to the area residents for the work that had been done in the past. He contended the proposed ordinance was too restrictive. He stated the City of Fayetteville had always been a town of evolution; a town where economics drove the city. He expressed his belief the proposed ordinance would restrict the city's growth since the small, independent businessman would not be able to afford to comply with the proposed ordinance. 0 • Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1996 Page 8 AN ORDINANCE REGARDING SUPPLEMENTARY DISTRICT REGULATIONS FOR PARKING LOTS The next item was presentation of an Amendment to Chapter 160: Zoning, of the Code of Fayetteville, to amend subchapter: Supplementary District Regulations, Section 160.117: Off -Street Parking Lot Design, required number of spaces, landscaping and location of parking lots within the city, to amend Section 160.117(G)(2) to require revised standards for landscaping and screening and to amend Section 160.117(F)(2)(D)(2) to remove the interior landscaping exemption for parking lots 30 feet or less in width. Mr. Conklin stated the ordinance had not changed since the Commission had reviewed it. He noted, however, the City Council Ordinance Review Committee did have some concerns with regard to the view obscuring berm or wall. He advised the UDO Committee planned on doing further work on that section. Mr. Tom McKinney advised the Sierra Club had voted to endorse the proposed ordinance Mr. Elam Denham spoke in opposition to the ordinance, stating the view obscuring berm required would be very dangerous. He contended defensible space in urban areas was a very important safety measure. Mr. Allred asked how the 2 -foot 6 -inch berm would be calculated if the parking lot was on a grade. Mr. Conklin stated the berm would be measured from the surface of the parking lot. He explained they had hoped to break the parking lot from the street. He advised the proposal lowered the current standard by 6 inches for safety measures. • Ms. Johnson asked if the parking lot at Razorback Road and Highway 62 exemplified the intent of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Conklin stated the screening at that lot was 3-4 feet high but the balance of the lot was very similar to the requirements of the ordinance. Mr. Allred pointed out there were parking lots in Fayetteville on a grade that a 6 or 7 -foot berm would not obscure. He asked if the committee had taken that into consideration. Mr. Conklin advised the purpose of the ordinance was to break the parking lot from the street, not totally obscure the lot. He noted cars were usually 3V2 to 4 -foot high so a berm would not obscure the cars. is Planning Commission Minutes • July 22, 1996 Page 9 AN ORDINANCE REOUIRING ALL UTILITY FACILITIES TO BE LOCATED UNDERGROUND The next item was an amendment to Chapter 160: Zoning, of the Code of Fayetteville, to add subchapter: Underground Utilities; to require all utility facilities, including but not limited to gas, electric power, telephone, and CATV cables, to be located underground throughout the development. Ms. Johnson noted Section I required all utility facilities to be located underground. She pointed out some electrical facilities, such as transfer stations, etc., could not be located underground. Mr. Conklin explained the ordinance was drafted from a model subdivision ordinance. Ms. Johnson suggested using the term "utility lines" instead of utility facilities. Mr. Tom McKinney advised the Sierra Club endorsed the proposed ordinance. • CI Planning Commission Minutes • July 22, 1996 Page 10 CU96-16.00: CONDITIONAL USE FOR HOME OCCUPATION (DAY CARE FACILITY) THOMAS & KAYLE MUGGY - 945 GREENWOOD (S OF HWY 71 BYPASS, W OF SCHOOL) The next item was a conditional use request submitted by Thomas and Kayle Muggy for a home occupation (day care facility) for property located at 945 Greenwood Avenue (south of Highway 71 Bypass, west of South School Street). The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 0.43 acres. Ms. Johnson advised staff had recommended approval of the conditional use contingent upon 4 conditions: (1) no more than 5 children can be cared for without a fire wall being installed; (2) only a maximum of 300 square feet of gross floor area could be used for the day care together with a minimum of 80 square feet of fenced play area per child; (3) limit on hours of operation as determined by the Planning Commission; and (4) approval for a one year period only with the applicant renewing the conditional use permit annually. She explained the hours of operation allowed by the ordinance were 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. but the applicant was requesting 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Ms. Little advised that, if the Commission wished to extend the hours as the applicant had requested, they would need a specific waiver. Ms. Hoffman advised she had noted at the on-site visit how dangerous it was to get out of the subdivision onto Highway 71. She asked if most of the children lived within the neighborhood. Ms. Kayla Muggy stated two of the children lived next door and the others lived elsewhere. She pointed out she did not live near Highway 71 but it accessed her neighborhood. is In response to a question from Mr. Reynolds, Ms. Muggy stated she was currently taking care of 4 of her nieces and nephews. She explained she had asked to be allowed to take care of more children in case any of her nieces or nephews happened to be present. Mr. Reynolds asked if they were planning on putting in the fire wall. Ms. Muggy stated she would only be taking care of 5 children. Mr. Reynolds asked who monitored the number of children. Ms. Little stated any occupancy load which had been established could be controlled by unscheduled visits by the Fire Marshall. She went on to say she was not under the impression this type of business was one where an occupancy load was established. She explained they could make visits from the Fire Marshall a part of the approval process, if they desired. Mr. Reynolds stated he had noted the grass was fairly high and could be considered a fire hazard Ms. Muggy explained their lawnmower was in the shop. Mr. Allred pointed out that, since the garage had neither a kitchen nor restroom facilities, the entire house would have to be used as a part of the day care so the fire wall would not be of any benefit. Ms. Muggy advised the Fire Marshall had inspected her home and had given her a positive valuation. She further stated DHS monitored her. 40 • Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1996 Page I I MOTION Mr. Reynolds noted the house was several minutes away from the closest fire station. He stated that, due to the grass situation and lack of a report from the Inspection Department, he would move to table the item until the Commission received a report from the Inspection Department and Fire Department. He further stated he would like to see the letter from DHS. Mr. Tucker seconded the motion. Ms. Hoffman stated she did want to encourage Ms. Muggy in her business because she was sure there was a need for it. The motion carried unanimously 6-0-0. C1 J 0 • Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1996 Page 12 CU96-17: CONDITIONAL USE FOR PARKING LOT DILLON'S GROCERY STORE - E OF VIEWPOINT DR., S OF MISSION The next item was a conditional use request submitted by Kirk Elass on behalf of Joe Fred Starr (Dillon's Grocery Store) for property located east of Viewpoint Drive, south of Mission. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and the request is for a parking lot in a zoning district which is different than the use that is served by the proposed parking. Ms. Johnson explained the Dillon's Store planned to expand by approximately 4,000 square feet and the conditional use was for a parking lot in an R -I zone. She stated staff recommended approval of the conditional use contingent upon 4 conditions: (1) compliance with Section 160.195(C)(2) with specific regard to parking lot landscaping, striping, screening, etc.; (2) any proposed lighting to be directed downward, away from adjacent residential property; (3) completion of a grading and drainage plan; and (4) completion of a parking lot permit. She noted the expansion would be an additional 40 spaces to the existing lot. She advised the new spaces would have to be built in compliance with the parking lot ordinance (including landscaping requirements) and some of the existing lot would belandscaped. Ms. Little advised the portion of the tract adjacent to Highway 45 would have landscaping added. In response to a question from Mr. Tucker, Ms. Little advised the original drawings submitted by the applicant had been in error. She also pointed out the directional changes in the parking lot traffic flow. Ms. Hoffman asked if any trees were to be removed. • Kirk Elsass, representing the property owner, explained Dillion's was enlarging to be in competition with other grocery stores in the area. He stated he did not know if there were any trees to be removed. He advised they would meet all tree, landscaping and parking ordinances. Mr. Forney asked if there were any limitations on the size of the parking lot and how much leeway were they giving on the placement of the parking lot. Ms. Little stated she had been under the impression they were being asked to approve 42 feet deep, not the entire 100 feet. Mr. Elsass explained they were submitting the entire 100 feet because they were uncertain the distance they would need. Ms. Little asked how many spaces they planned for the R -I area. Mr. Elsass stated they had 90 existing parking spaces and the remainder would be in the R -I area. He advised they believed they would only use 50 or 60 feet but, until the land was graded, they would not know the exact amount. Ms. Little asked if they were firm on the 4,000 square foot addition. Mr. Elsass stated they were not. Mr. Allred and Mr. Reynolds suggested a "not to exceed" amount of spaces. Ms. Johnson stated the original request had been 40 spaces. She asked Mr. Elsass if he would be comfortable with • not to exceed 40 spaces in the R-1 area. • Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1996 Page 13 Mr. Elsass stated he believed that would be fine, explaining they had some difficult terrain with which to work. Ms. Little stated with the 28,000 square feet they presently had plus 4,000 square feet they would be required to have 128 spaces by ordinance but, with 20% more (as allowed by ordinance) they could have up to 154 spaces if they added the 4,000 square feet. Mr. John Baccus, 1984 Greenview, asked how many feet into R -I they would be using for parking. Ms. Little stated the minimum would be 42 feet and the maximum of 100 feet. Mr. Baccus expressed concern that if they were granted the 42 feet now and then later the owner requested to build apartments, the encroachment into the residential zone would have already occurred. Ms. Little stated the zoning could not be changed without coming back before the Planning Commission. Mr. Tucker stated he was reluctant to approve all 100 feet. He stated he would not have a problem with 50 feet and giving a restriction on the number of parking spaces. Mr. Elsass expressed concern with 50 feet in case the terrain caused them to use additional land. He advised he did think they might be able to construct the lot with 60 feet. MOTION • Mr. Allred moved to approve CU96-17 as submitted with staff comments and a further condition that the number of spaces be limited to no more than 40. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Mr. Forney pointed out they would be losing some spaces by enlarging the building. Mr. Elsass stated there were currently more than 90 parking spaces on site. He advised they would meet the parking ordinance requirements. Mr. Forney stated he was looking for an assurance for a net 40 gain. Mr. Allred explained the intent of his motion was to have a total of 130 parking spaces. Ms. Little stated staff would not permit more parking spaces than allowed by ordinance without bringing it before the Planning Commission. AMENDED MOTION Mr. Allred amended his motion to approve not more than 130 total parking spaces. Mr. Tucker seconded the motion. The amended motion carried unanimously, 6-0-0. • The motion carried unanimously, 6-0-0. • Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1996 Page 14 In response to a question from Mr. Elsass, Ms. Little advised the motion did not specify the depth of the R-1 property to be used and therefore, it would be assumed by office staff to be the entire 100 feet. She advised that, if the Commission desired something different, she would appreciate additional action. L 0 0 • Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1996 Page 15 VA96-8: RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION DAVE LETSCH - 313 W. DICKSON (S SIDE OF DICKSON, W OF LOCUST) The next item was a request for a right-of-way vacation submitted by Richard Shewmaker on behalf of Dave Letsch for property located at 313 West Dickson Street (on the south side of Dickson, west of Locust). The property is zoned C-3, Central Commercial, and contains approximately 0.06 acres. The request is to vacate the vehicular right- of-way of the north 221.42 linear feet of an alley. Ms. Johnson advised staff recommended approval of the vacation subject to 2 requirements: (1) that the right-of-way be converted into a utility easement for the entire area; and (2) all utilities shall have truck access through the utility easement. She stated it had been her impression the alley was to be used as a pedestrian walk way. Ms. Little stated it was an alley to the point where the right-of-way was vacated and, at that point, it would become a utility easement. She explained the utility companies wished to be able to drive their vehicles in that easement but they would not be able to drive completely through the vacated area. (Robert Reynolds left meeting). Upon further questioning by the Commission, Ms. Little explained the utility vehicles would be able to drive on the utility easement but would not be able to drive through to Dickson Street because there would be a barrier. Mr. Tucker asked if the barrier would be at the south end of lot 3. IsMs. Little stated that was her understanding. Mr. Tucker asked if the barrier could be placed along Dickson Street Ms. Little explained that would deny access to the utility vehicles. She explained the comment came from the water and sewer division and she believed a Dickson Street barrier would be a less acceptable solution. She stated the reason for access was garbage pickup. Ms. Hoffman pointed out the garbage truck would have to back out on Dickson if the barrier were at the south end of the easement. Ms. Little advised Cheryl Zotti, Solid Waste, had indicated she had no objection to the vacation of the right-of-way Mr. Richard Shewmaker, representing the applicant, explained it was the applicant's plan to develop the Shipley Building and the service station to the west. He stated the service station would be removed. He noted they wanted people to be able to walk from the building on the east side of the alley to the building on the west side of the alley without the threat of being run over. He also advised the Commission that, when the Shipley Building was renovated, there would be approximately 8 exits onto the alleyway for fire exits. He expressed concern that, if traffic were allowed in the alleyway and there was an emergency, people could be run over. He informed the Commission Cheryl Zotti had discussed trash pickup with him and he had suggested the trucks could logically go through to Locust Street. In response to a question from Mr. Tucker, Mr. Shewmaker advised the barrier at the south end was desired by the applicant. 0 Ms. Hoffman asked if any temporary outdoor seating was planned in the alley area • Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1996 Page 16 Mr. Shewmaker stated he did not know. He explained no one currently used the alleyway but believed, once development occurred, people would want to drive through the alley. Mr. Allred asked if it would be possible just to allow the developer to place barriers without vacating the alley. Mr. Shewmaker explained all the developer wanted to do was stop vehicular traffic. Ms. Little stated that, while Mr. Allred's suggestion was a good one, there was an ordinance stating it was unlawful for anyone to obstruct any street, alley or sidewalk. She advised she would discuss the matter with the City Attorney but was doubtful the applicant could block the alleyway. Mr. Allred asked if the City could block the alley. Ms. Little explained her advice was that the City always follow the same expected for everyone else. She stated she believed it was unfair for the City to expect developers to do things one way and the City to the same things another way. Ms. Johnson expressed concern regarding access to the City parking lot to the south of the subject property. She pointed out the parking lot was accessed from the alley. She also contended she doubted anyone would drive thru the alley for the "fun of it" unless the concrete was going to be re -worked. She explained the alley was very rough and she was only able to drive through it at approximately I m.p.h. She stated she had a concern about closing the alley. • Mr. Allred stated that was the reason he had suggested not closing the alley but the City placing barriers. He further suggested that, since the vacation had to go to the City Council, they forward the item on to the Council for their determination. Mr. Shewmaker suggested making the vacation of the alley contingent upon the closing of the sale of the property. Mr. Forney stated he was also uncomfortable with closing the alley. He asked if there were utilities within the alley. Ms. Little stated they were sure there was a sewer line and believed there were other utilities as well. In response to a question from Mr. Forney, Mr. Shewmaker advised Lot 8 was a part of the sale. Mr. Forney advised he took no assurance that Lot 8 was an access to the alley, noting there was nothing to say they could not construct a building on lot 8, blocking the access. Ms. Hoffman suggested requiring an easement on Lot 8 for access. Mr. Forney stated he would be more comfortable vacating the alley than abandoning the access, contending it was too valuable to not use it for either a structure or access. Mr. Shewmaker pointed out there was a 9,000 square foot building on one side of the alley and a 12,000 square foot building on the other side of the alley and it made sense, if they wanted movement back and forth, that the traffic be stopped in between the buildings. Mr. Forney explained that, given the value of the property, he would rather see the developer be able to develop the • 12 feet as opposed to leaving it in a purgatory state. He stated that still would not address the parking lot access. • Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1996 Page 17 Mr. Shewmaker pointed out anyone parking in the lot could walk 160 feet to Dickson Street. He stated he believed that was the intent of the parking lot -- people walking down Dickson Street rather than vehicular traffic. Mr. Allred asked if they could, as a condition of approval, require an easement be granted across the northern portion of Lot 8 over to Locust Street. He explained the sanitation and service vehicles could have access to the alley. Mr. Shewmaker stated that, while he could not speak for the developer, but he believed it would be fine. He did express concern that it would eliminate any use of the lot for parking. He advised there had been no objections from any of the area residents regarding closing the alley. Ms. Johnson asked if Mr. Allred was suggesting an alley, open to public use. Mr. Allred stated it could become an alley. He stated the alley needed to be one-way since it was only 12 feet wide. Ms. Johnson stated that would take care of her concern. In response to a question from Mr. Tucker, Ms. Little advised the width of Lot 8 was 50 feet. Mr. Shewmaker expressed concern the residents at the south end of the alley would be disturbed it the alley was open (via Lot 8) to Locust. • Ms. Johnson pointed out it was not an alley which encouraged people to drive fast and she did not believe there would be unnecessary use. Ms. Little advised she could understanding Mr. Shewmaker's concern regarding promising something for his client but suggested it would be at least two weeks before the vacation went before City Council, giving Mr. Shewmaker time to discuss the matter with his client. She noted that, if the client wanted some changes to be made, the request could be made to the City Council. MOTION Mr. Forney moved to recommend to the City Council that the City either vacate the alley if an equal width alley was committed to by the owner for Lot 8 or the City Council control removable bollards to limit public movement through the alley. Ms. Johnson suggested the motion should be one or the other, not either-or. Mr. Forney stated he would prefer the City maintain the alley and close it to car movement. He moved the City control removable bollards to limit access to the alley. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. Ms. Johnson asked what would happen if the City decided to remove the bollards. She asked if the intent was to block the alley and give the City the keys to the barriers. Mr. Forney stated that was his intent. I ZOO • Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1996 Page 18 AMENDED MOTION Mr. Tucker stated he would like to see an amendment to the motion so the bollard would be on the south property line, between lots 3 and 4. The amended motion failed for lack of a second. The motion failed 2-3-0 with Commissioners Allred and Forney voting "yes" and Commissioners Johnson, Tucker and Hoffman voting "no". MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the request subject to staff comments with the exception of Item No. 3; that 16 feet off of Lot 8 be dedicated as a right-of-way to tie in with existing alley. In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, Mr. Allred explained that, by making the right-of-way 16 feet, there was enough space on the existing lot for parking spaces which could back out into the 16 -foot right-of-way. Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion. AMENDED MOTION • Mr. Tucker amended the motion to require a removable bollard be placed at the south property line between lots 3 and 4. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Ms. Little stated staff had no objections to the placement of the bollards. Ms. Johnson seconded the amended motion. Mr. Tucker explained that, by having the removable bollards at the south property line, there would be no barrier on Dickson Street but would restrict through traffic. Ms. Johnson stated that, once the alley was vacated, there would be no traffic. She withdrew her second. The motion carried 4-1-0 with Commissioners Allred, Tucker, Johnson, and Hoffman voting "yes" and Commissioner Forney voting "no". MOTION Mr. Tucker moved to add a fourth condition that the bollards (barriers) not be placed along the Dickson Street frontage. Mr. Allred raised a point of order since the original motion had already carried. Ms. Johnson stated she had not allowed Mr. Tucker to make his motion prior to voting on the original motion. Mr. Tucker stated he was trying to protect the scenic quality of Dickson Street and placement of the bollards would be unsightly. Ll • Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1996 Page 19 Mr. Forney stated that, while he was concerned about the scenic quality, he was more concerned about safety. He explained drivers could turn into the open driveway, thinking there was a way through and then have to back out onto Dickson Street. In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Little stated the original motion granted utility truck access. She further stated she believed the motion did allow for the placement of removable bollards but, she would run the request before the other utility companies. Ms. Johnson contended the Commission was going further into staff related issues than they should and advised she would vote against the motion. The motion was withdrawn. • 0 r�O • Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1996 Page 20 APPOINTMENT OF ADDITIONAL PLANNING COMMISSIONER TO THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE Ms. Johnson advised that, due to the resignation of Gary Head, there was a vacancy on the Subdivision Committee. She appointed Commissioner Forney to the Subdivision Committee. APPOINTMENT OF ADDITIONAL PLANNING COMMISSIONER TO THE TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Ms. Johnson appointed Conrad Odom to the Trails Advisory Committee. The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. 11 is