Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-02-24 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on February 24, 1997 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Phyllis Johnson, Jerry Allred, John Harbison, Conrad Odom, Gary Tucker, Lorel Hoffman, Bob Reynolds, John Forney, and Mark Sugg. STAFF PRESENT: Alett Little, Jim Beavers, Rich Lane, Dawn Warrick, and Heather Woodruff. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES The minutes were approved as corrected. Ms. Johnson announced item #4, Canterbury Place, had been removed from the agenda at the applicant's request. • NEW BUSINESS VA97-2.00: VACATION OF UTILITY EASEMENT I/ ROGER WILKINS- 3181 IDLEWOOD WAY The first item on the agenda was a request for approval of the utility easement vacation request presented by David Jorgensen on behalf of Roger Wilkins for the easterly 5 feet of the 10 ft. utility easement on the west side of lot 84, Brookbury Woods. The total requested vacation is 464.93 sf. The applicant has received the required agreements from the utility companies including the City of Fayetteville Water/Sewer Department. Ms Johnson asked if there were any existing utilities in the easement. Mr. Dave Jorgensen, Jorgensen & Associates, stated the utility companies had not acknowledged any existing utilities in the easement. Ms. Johnson asked if the remaining 5' utility easement would be useless. Mr. Jorgensen stated it would be useful, because an of adjoining 10' utility easement making a total of 15'. • Mr. Reynolds asked how Mr. Wilkins had missed his property line by 5'. Mr. Jorgensen stated Mr. Wilkins had hired a subcontractor, who was now bankrupt In response • Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page: 2 to a question from Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Jorgensen thought a survey would help in the prevention of such mistakes. There was no public comment Ms. Johnson thought there were three possible options: to grant the request and vacate the five feet, to deny the request, or to charge some monetary cost to the applicant for the loss of the easement. Mr. Jorgensen stated the builder had bought some property from the people to the west for a lot line adjustment so there would not be a setback encroachment. MOTION Mr. Odom moved to approve the vacation. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. • The motion carried by a vote of 6-3-0 with commissioners Sugg, Harbison, and Hoffman voting • nay. • Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page: 3 CU97-2.00: CONDITIONAL USE FOR A DANCE HALL VALERIE ALMON- 9 S. SCHOOL STREET The next item on the agenda was submitted by Valorie Almon for property located at 9 South School Avenue. The request was for a conditional use for a dance hall. The property is zoned C- 2, Thoroughfare Commercial, which allows nightclubs by right. The staff recommended approval of the request contingent upon the following conditions: 1) Inspection by Fire Marshall and Building Inspector. 2) Agreement with the applicant that there will be no music or dancing external to the building. Compliance with the noise ordinance, including section §96.04, limiting maximum noise levels by land use. 3) Provide 21 parking spaces ( one of which must be ADA accessible). A shared parking agreement with adjacent property owner can be substituted in lieu of 6 spaces. • 4) Compliance with conditional use criteria, section § 160.195. • 5) Any proposed lighting be directed downward away from adjacent properties. 6) The conditional use will be reheard in one year if there are significant complaints (as determined by the Planning Director). Ms. Johnson asked if they needed to detail the screening requirements in the conditions listed for approval Ms. Little stated screening would be required on south and west sides where there were residential properties. Ms Johnson stated the applicant had applied for a liquor license. She reiterated the Planning Commission had no control over a liquor license. They could only discuss dancing. Ms. Almon stated her liquor license had been approved by the State. In response to a question from Ms. Johnson about amplified music, Ms. Almon stated the windows would be boarded up and insulated. She reassured the Planning Commission there would not be any live music, with the exception of an upright piano. She stated there would not be any outdoor music or outdoor activities. CSD • Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page: 4 Ms Johnson asked if Ms. Almon had agreed to the conditions of approval and to the screening requirements. Ms. Almon stated she would agree to the conditions. Mr. Reynolds suggested Ms. Almon also be required to screen the north side. Ms Almon stated there was an existing wooden fence on the north side. Ms. Hoffman asked if the screening was a requirement for the conditional use request or zoning. Ms. Little stated it was a zoning requirement. She added Ms Almon would be able to meet her parking requirements with a signed agreement from the property owner to the north. They were not contemplating the use of the property to the west for parking. Ms. Almon presented a floor plan to illustrate how small the dance floor was (15' X 17'). She stated she had signed a long term lease and had every intention on being a good neighbor. • Ms. Little stated the parking ordinance required 25 square feet for each tree. The trees would • need to be planted in the ground; they could not be planted in a container. Ms. Johnson asked if the applicant's assurance that no music would be heard outside could be made as a condition of approval Ms. Little thought it could be made a condition of the approval provided it related to the activity of dancing. Ms Almon reassured the Planning Commission she would not have live bands or outdoor activities. Mr. Reynolds asked if she would be willing (on her own) to offer a bill of assurance stating she would not allow music to be heard outside her building. Ms Johnson asked if Ms. Almon was willing to offer a bill of assurance which would become one of the conditions of approval Ms Almon stated she would provide one. Mr. Allred suggested tying the conditional use to the noise ordinance. Ms. Johnson asked if the City had a method for determining if the noise ordinance had been 5� • Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page: 5 violated. Ms. Little stated the City had the mechanical ability to measure the noise level. The police department, the ordinance enforcer, had a well defined procedure. Mr. Reynolds questioned the affect a bar would have in the neighborhood. Mr. Odom reminded the Commission Ms. Almon was allowed to operate a bar by right; the Planning Commission could only address the issue of dancing. PUBLIC Mr. Gaylord Wilson, neighboring business owner, believed Ms Almon should be granted the conditional use, expressing his belief she would not disturb any of the neighbors. Mr. Gary Fast, representing the property next to Ms. Almond's, approved of her business and had agreed to lease her additional parking. • Mr. Joe Hart, radio station KDAB, expressed concerns about the enforcement of the conditions of approval. Ms. Virginia Cammack, an area residence, expressed concerns about the combination of alcohol and dancing. She presented a petition with 169 signatures. In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, Ms Cammack stated she did not know the percentage of signatures that lived in the area. Ms. Eva Culturman, applicant's architect, stated 29 of the signatures on the petition lived in a 8 block radius. Ms. Cheryl Hart, KDAB radio, stated the Planning Commission did not have sufficient time to enforce the City's regulations. She referred to the Bottoms Up Club, who had been required to upgrade their parking lot. She asked the Planning Commission to outline their plans for enforcing their regulations. Ms. Little responded the Planning staff followed up on complaints, not the Planning Commission. She stated she was not going to discuss a different case at this time. She suggested Ms. Hart come to the Planning office during regular office hours. • Ms. Johnson reiterated they were discussing Ms. Almon's conditional use and asked Ms. Hart to keep her comments to that topic. • • • Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page: 6 Mr. Odom asked Ms. Little where complaints were to be sent. Ms. Little stated anyone could call or come by the Planning office to receive complaint form. The staff would then investigate the complaint. If there was a violation of an ordinance, then it would be referred to the City Prosector. Ms. Johnson ask if the conditional use could be brought back to Planning Commission before one year if there were valid complaints. Ms. Little stated, if there were sufficient complaints, then the staff would bring it back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Allred asked, if the conditional use was denied, what would become of the staff recommendations. Ms. Little stated only 15 parking spaces would be required. The inspections from the Fire Marshall and the Building Inspector would not be required and the lighting would not be addressed. Ms. Hoffman asked if the screening would still be required. Ms. Little stated the screening was an ordinance requirement and would have to be addressed. Mr. Tucker asked if the conditional use was approved and the ownership of the property was to change, would the conditional use run with the land or the owner. Ms. Little stated as long as the use did not change, the conditional use would remain in place. If the use were to change then the conditional use would be abandoned and would no longer be available to the person, even if they changed back to the original use. Mr. Allred asked if the conditional use could be tied to Ms Almon. He pointed out if they were to deny the conditional use, then the Building Inspector and Fire Marshall would not be inspecting the building. He thought the club itself was more of a determent to the neighborhood but they had no jurisdiction over the club. He suggested the conditional use run with this applicant only. Mr. Harbison suggesting adding to condition #6 that if the establishment violated the city's noise ordinance then the conditional use would return to the Planning Commission for review. 7i3 • Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page: 7 MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the conditional use with staff recommendations and with two added conditions. (1) the conditional use would run with Valorie Almon and (2) if the noise ordinance was violated, then the conditional use would return to the Planning Commission for review. Mr. Odom seconded the motion. Ms. Hoffman stated she would not be voting in favor of the conditional use because of her concerns about the noise level for the adjoining residence. Mr. Odom stated the Planning Commission had no control over the noise; the only reason the applicant was before them was for the dancing. If it was not for the dancing they would be allowed to operate by right. Ms. Johnson asked where the majority of noise violations had occurred. • Ms. Little thought the majority of problems had been in outdoor facilities with live music and • dancing. Ms Hoffivan believed a dance club had a greater chance for a noise problems than a bar. The motion carried by a vote of 6-2-1. Reynolds and Hoffman voting nay. Johnson abstaining. • • • Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page: 8 PP97-1 00: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR KIRKWOOD ADDITION CUSTOM BUILDING PRODUCTS -N. OF REAP DR. AND W. OF LEWIS AVE. A Preliminary Plat for Kirkwood Addition was submitted by Kurt Jones of Northwest Engineers on behalf of Custom Building Products for property located north of Reap Drive (private) and west of Lewis Ave. The property is zoned R-3 (High -Density Residential) and contains approximately 3.94 acres with 16 lots (34 units) proposed for a single-family townhouse development. Findings: This is a proposed townhouse development for single family occupancy. The lots are designated as either two or three unit clusters. Recommendation: Approval subject to the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: 1. Planning Commission resolution of the requested waiver of cul de sac length. The applicant is requesting a cul de sac of 790 feet, 500 feet is maximum without a waiver. 2. Dedicate adequate right of way to reflect 25' from centerline on Lewis Ave. Improvement of one-half of Lewis Ave. adjacent to this development including curb and gutter, drainage, and sidewalks to City standards. Sidewalks installed as follows: a. A minimum 4' sidewalk with a min. 5' greenspace on one side of Kirkwood wrapping the cul de sac b. A minimum 4' sidewalk with a 6' greenspace between curb and sidewalk on Lewis Ave. 5. Payment of parks fees of $300.00 per unit, totaling $10,200.00 6. Pedestrian access (15' wide access easement) on west property line south to Reap Drive, to include a 4 ft. concrete walk. The access easement cannot be adjacent to, or included in, the drainage easement for the detention pond. 7. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. 46 • • • Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page: 9 All public improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements and are subject to additional review and approval. Fire protection shall meet the requirements of the Fire Chief. Minimum easement widths (or a combination of right of way and easement) shall be 20'. Wider easements shall be required for sewer lines over 10' in depth and must also allow for trenching at a 1:1 slope within the easement. Water and sewer shall be extended to the property lines where streets also extend to property lines. 8. Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments, including the written plat comments mailed to the applicant. Please note that this includes the Public Utilities (AWG, SWEPCO, OZARKS, TCA, SWBELL) and City Staff. Ms. Johnson asked if the applicant had agreed to the conditions of approval Mr. Kurt Jones, Northwest Engineers, stated they had seen the conditions of approval and would agree to them. In response to Ms. Johnson questions concerning drainage, Mr. Jones stated all of the site drained toward Reap Drive where they were proposing a detention basin. Mr. Sugg asked if building pads would require fill. Mr. Jones thought some of the lots would require some fill, but they did not anticipate the street construction requiring fill. The building pads would be constructed by the individual lot builders. Ms. Johnson stated there had been some concern about the length of the cul-de-sac. She asked if the turn -around could be moved to the north which would allow additional lots along the western edge of the subdivision. There had also been concern about providing for access to the north toward Dean Street. She asked Mr. Jones if he had given any additional thought to some of the concerns voiced at the Subdivision Meeting. Mr. Jones stated they had looked at several different alternative before Plat Review. The owner and developer of the project had a specific building in mind. They were planning a duplex townhouse structure. Lots to the west would not work with their building layout. The area south was well suited for a detention basin. In order to catch as much runoff as possible, they needed to have the detention basin on the lowest spot on the property which was the southwest corner. He did not see the possibility of getting an access to the north because the area was completely 5�0 • Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page: 10 developed. Ms. Johnson thought there was an undeveloped strip of land to the north of lot 8A and lot 8B. Ms. Hoffman asked, if the property was so low where the detention pond was located, why would he want to place the street there. Mr. Jones stated they did not have enough room to develop lots, but they had enough room for a detention pond. He explained the detention pond had a more flexible design than a lot. Ms. Hoffman had hoped that, by pulling the cul-de-sac in to the east, they could place an equal number of lots on the west end of the property. Mr. Sugg asked if there had been any attempts to gain access from any of the private streets. Mr. Jones stated he had met with a representative from Washington Plaza. They were not willing to allow a connection to Reap Drive. Ms. Johnson asked if on -street parking would be allowed on the 24' street. Mr. Beavers stated 24' was a standard residential street and parking would be allowed on the street. Ms. Johnson asked if considerable on -street parking would be a concern for emergency vehicles on a lengthy cul-de-sac. Mr. Beavers stated they could not prevent people from parking on both sides. Mr. Jones commented on -street parking could be addressed in the covenants. Mr. Reynolds asked if they could ask for two car parking pads for each unit. Ms. Johnson stated she would like to see the cul-de-sac shortened. Mr. Fomey asked if the lots met the city's requirement. Ms. Little stated they met the City's requirements. Ms. Johnson asked about the likelihood of the redevelopment of the Washington Plaza. • Ms. Little thought the likelihood of the complex redeveloping within the next quarter of a 41 • • • Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page: 11 century was very unlikely. PUBLIC Caleb Weaver, manager for Washington Plaza Apartments, he stated the apartment complex was a government housing project for moderate and low income housing. The complex would be extensively renovated and would be in use for the next 50 years. He stated drainage had always been a problem, but the problems had increased with the Pine Addition. He asked if the detention pond would hold water for a long period of time. He suggested a walk between the two properties for the children going to and from the park and school. He thought there might be social problems if the duplexes were rental. He asked if there were problems, who would they contact. Ms. Johnson stated the social problem were not the City problems. Mr. Weaver stated if the detention ponds did not work properly it would be a burden on them. Ms. Johnson replied the City's ordinance required that there be no more drainage from the property after completion of a project then there was before development. She thought the engineer would study the project carefully. Mr. Jones stated there would not be any standing water in the detention pond. He explained it would hold water during the storm then it would drain. He estimated the pond would be drained within 30 minutes, depending on the size of the storm. The detention pond would be design to limit the peak flow. They would be increasing the runoff into the detention pond. In response to a question from Mr. Forney, Mr. Jones stated the street would be set lower to intercept the water in the street. The lots were typically built up by the builders to drain into the street. Mr. Sugg stated he would not support the project because of the length of the cul-de-sac. He thought there were other alternatives that had not been explored. Mr. Reynolds thought the cul-de-sac needed a break and suggested lot 8A have a stub out. Ms. Little thought lot 8A was the most likely place that a public street could ever be constructed. There was a possibility at 5A through the parking lot of Washington Plaza. She thought, if there was an "L" at the end, then they would dispense with the cul-de-sac. If the street was to turn north at 8A and a cul-de-sac was not formed, then the street alignment would be at a 90° so the lots would come off of the streets straight. • • • Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page: 12 Ms. Hoffman asked if fire and sanitation would approve of the "L" shape. Ms. Little stated sanitation trucks were not in favor of having to back up, they preferred to turn in a circle. Mr. Jones stated they would prefer to keep the cul-de-sac and stub out a street to the north property line of 8A. Mr. Allred asked that the covenants reflect the stub out would be a street extension and future development could happen. MOTION Ms Johnson moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to the staff recommendations #2-8 and in addition a street stub out would be constructed to the property line on lot 8A and the covenants of the subdivision would state the stub out could become a through street. Mr. Harbison seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-2-0. 4'' • • • Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page: 13 LS96-41.00: LOT SPLIT FOR U.S. POST OFFICE STEVE WARD- HWY 156 AND E. OF CITY LAKE RD. A lot split for the U.S. Post Office was submitted by Steve Ward for property located north of Hwy 156 and east of City Lake Road. The property is zoned I-1 (Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial) and I-2 (General Industrial) and contains approximately 12.7 acres. The request is for a first lot split to create a new parcel which contains approximately 2.0 acres. The staff recommended approval of the lot split with the following conditions: 1. Resolution of the request/requirement for the applicants to install a 5' sidewalk along City Lake Road (Highway 156). a. The U.S. Post office shall install a sidewalk along the segment of City Lake Road which they are retaining (tract 7A). b. The purchaser of the 2.0 acres tract will install a sidewalk during development of the smaller lot (tract 7B). 2. The applicant must note that sewer is not available to tract 7B and must be extended at some future time as part of the development of tract 7B. A utility easement to allow this extension must be provided. (Sewer has been extended to lot 7A). 3. Tract 7B will come back through the Planning process for Large Scale Development approval. 4. A final survey with the surveyor's seal, and plat page 642 designated in the title block is required. Ms Johnson stated applicant had agreed to the conditions listed. Ms. Little stated a representative was not present. Ms. Johnson felt the requirement for the sidewalks was clearly stated in the conditions. Mr. Allred thought the sidewalks needed to be installed. There was no public comment. • • • Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page: 14 MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the lot split subject to all of the conditions of approval Mr. Forney seconded the motion. Mr. Beavers asked when the sidewalk would be constructed. He added the U.S. Post Office did not have to comply with the City's normal process. He did not know how they could guarantee that it would ever be constructed. In response to a question from Mr. Beavers, Mr. Rakes, inspections, stated the Post Office would not have to apply for a Certificate of Occupancy nor a building permit. Mr. Reynolds asked what they could do to insure the City would receive the sidewalk. In response to a question from Mr. Forney, Ms. Little stated the applicant for the lot split was not the U.S. Post Office, the Chamber of Commerce was selling their property to the post office They had signed the conditions and she believed the Chamber would install the sidewalks. Mr. Reynolds commented the City had spent $50,000 to run sewer to the property. He felt the Post Office could install a sidewalk. Mr. Sugg asked if the lot split would be illegal until the sidewalk was installed. Ms. Little stated it would not be a valid lot split until the sidewalk was installed. The motion carried by an unanimous vote of 9-0-0. • Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page: 15 DISCUSSION OF REQUIRING A SURVEY BEFORE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. Ms. Little stated requiring a survey prior to issuance of a building permit would be a change from the way business was currently conducted. She explained, currently a site plan was required which included most of the items that were required on a survey. Unfortunately some of the items had been missed and mistakes had happened. Mr. Venable had suggested Mr. Rakes have a meeting with the builders and discuss the problems. In 1995 there had been five residential variances and three commercial. She did not believe that was large amount. Mr. Allred did not believe the percentage was very high. He added most mistakes were caught when a lender or title insurance required a survey. Mr. Tucker asked if he would have to have a survey to add a deck onto his house. Ms. Little stated that as long as he had survey to locate all the easements, he could use the old survey. • Mr. Allred believed it should only be requirement for new structures and not for remodels or additions. • Mr. Odom thought the chance for error was greater with remodels and additions. Mr. Rakes stated they had implemented a new system in 1996, requiring a builder to prepare a site plan drawn to scale showing setbacks, easements, and existing buildings. He suggested giving the new system time to work before requiring a survey. Mr. Allred suggested tabling the issue for a year to see if the system was working. Mi. Odom agreed. The meeting adjourned at 8:OOp.m.