Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-02-23 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held February 23, 1998 at 5:30 p m in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: ITEMS REVIEWED: Phyllis Johnson, Lee Ward, John Watkins, Gary Tucker, Lorel Hoffman, John Forney, and Bob Estes Alett Little, Jim Beavers, Tim Conklin, Dawn Warrick, and Sharon Langley ACTION TAKEN AD98-1.00: Transient Merchants Committee Formed AD98-4.00: Fayetteville Senior Citizens Apts. Waiver Granted AD98-5.00: Advanced Towing Tabled LSD98-2.00: HMT of Fayetteville Approved • APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES The minutes of the February 9, 1998 meeting were approved as distributed. OLD BUSINESS: AD98-1.00: ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM - TRANSIENT MERCHANTS The first item before the Planning Commission was discussion regarding a resolution by the City of Fayetteville Planning Commission to initiate an amendment to the zoning code to regulate transient merchants. Mr. Fomey advised this item had been discussed at the Agenda Session and it had been agreed a committee needed to be established. He stated the committee needed to include members of the City Council, members of the Planning Commission, a representative of the Police Chief, etc. Mr. Reynolds stated they had discussed the appointment of three Planning Commissioners and three Aldermen, a representative from the Fayetteville Police Department and a representative from the Washington County Sheriffs Office. He advised their goal would be to draft a solid transient merchant regulation. • In response to a question from Mr. Reynolds, Ms. Little suggested they first appoint members from the Planning Commission and City Council and then staff would set up a meeting. • Planning Commission February 23, 1998 Page 2 Mr. Forney advised the proper action to take would be to move a resolution to establish the subcommittee MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to establish a subcommittee, staffed by three Planning Commissioners, three City Council members, a representative from the Fayetteville Police Department and a representative from the Washington County Sheriffs Office, to draft a transient merchant regulation. Mr. Estes seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, 8-0-0. Mr. Reynolds stated he wanted the public to be aware the transient merchant regulation would not cover agriculture items nor garage sales, but would cover retail sales on corners. • In response to a question from Mr. Forney, Mr. Reynolds advised there was a state law in force which regulated transient merchants which was to be enforced by the County. • Mr. Forney pointed out they had requested three City Council members be included in the Committee and asked staff to invite their involvement. He then asked for volunteers from the Planning Commission. Ms. Hoffman requested the County Clerk also be a member of the group. There was no public comment on the motion. Lee Ward, Bob Reynolds and Bob Estes volunteered to serve on the committee. • • • Planning Commission February 23, 1998 Page 3 NEW BUSINESS: AD98-4: ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM - FAYETTEVILLE SENIOR CITIZENS APTS. THOMAS J. EMBACH - N OF 15TH. W OF MORNINGSIDE The next item was an administrative item regarding determination of street requirements and setback requirements from the water feature for the Fayetteville Senior Citizens Apartments, submitted by Kurt Jones, Northwest Engineers on behalf of Thomas J. Embach for property located north of East 15th Street and west of Morningside Drive. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, and contains 12 acres. Ms. Little explained the item had been submitted as a large scale development for review but, after realizing there were some issues which needed to be resolved in regard to street designation and to setbacks from a proposed water feature, the applicant decided additional information from the Planning Commission would make it possible to rework the design, if necessary, in order to process the large scale development in a more complete format. She stated the Subdivision Committee moved to forward the project to the Planning Commission with the recommendation the streets be public. She noted staff supported the Subdivision Committee's recommendation for public streets, noting that, while the proposed project was private, public streets and connectivity were very important considerations. She pointed out it was possible that, with a connection to the west, the senior citizens living in the proposed development could access the city's Senior Citizen Center without having to enter onto or to cross major thoroughfares. She went on to say that comments to the applicant prior to submittal of the project included the necessity for the project to have two points of access. She noted the developer had purchased property in order to provide a second access to Morningside Drive. The developer was also told that he might have to purchase property and build a part of a street to the west of the project. Ms. Little advised on the second issue, setbacks from the water feature, the Subdivision Committee moved to forward the project to the Planning Commission with the recommendation that the requested waiver be approved. She noted the Drainage Manual adopted by the City's Drainage Ordinance stated that, if a project had a permanent pond or lake, there needed to be 100 feet of horizontal separation between the water feature and any structures. She went on to say Section 163.114 stated the City of Fayetteville could grant a written variance from any requirement of the drainage ordinance. She advised the Engineering Division stated a variance to allow 20-30 feet of separation was reasonable and they would support such a variance. She advised the applicant was requesting a variance to allow 25 feet of horizontal separation. Mr. Kurt Jones, representing the applicant, appeared before the Commission and stated he was present for the Planning Commission's input on the streets and setback from the water feature. He further stated his client had coincided the streets would need to be public streets but wanted • • Planning Commission February 23, 1998 Page 4 input on the possibility of presenting the project as a Planned Unit Development with a variance on the setbacks from the streets. Ms Little presented maps showing the streets in the surrounding area Mr. Forney stated it was his understanding the Planning Commission needed to resolve where they wanted connections to be made; a determination as to what streets, if any, could be private; and a determination regarding a waiver for the setbacks from a water feature. There was no public comment. Mr. Forney pointed out there were two accesses to Morningside Drive but no other connections to city streets. He advised the Subdivision Committee had made some suggestions as to placement of connections. He asked if anyone of the Commission members did not agree there needed to be potential connections to the south, west and north. He did, however, point out impediments to connections to the north. Ms Johnson expressed her belief they needed to look at connectivity and, while it was difficult to say exactly where the connections should be, she did believe that to the west an obvious choice would be 12th Street. She further stated she believed there should be one or two stubouts to the north in line with Janelle and/or Elmhurst. She noted there was a drainage problem to the south but a stubout to the south might be needed. Mr. Forney asked if there were any streets south of 15th Street which could, at some time in the future, be connected. Ms. Little stated there were no streets south of 15th. Mr. Forney asked if the Commission believed there was a need for a connection to the south. Mr. Reynolds pointed out there was right-of-way on Wood Avenue to the south. Ms. Little agreed with Mr. Reynolds and pointed out that, if a connection was made to the west to intercept Wood Avenue, there was right-of-way to 15th Street. Mr. Reynolds expressed his belief there needed to be a connection to the west to 12th Street in order for the residents of the proposed apartments to have a connection to Walker Park and the City's Senior Center without getting onto a thoroughfare. • Mr. Fomey asked if they just asked for a stubout or encourage the developer to make a physical connection to Wood as part of the development. • Planning Commission February 23, 1998 Page 5 Mr. Jones advised the applicant had approached the property owner to the west with the possibility of purchasing the land specifically to get a connection to Wood Avenue. He asked if 12th Street connected to Wood. Ms. Little advised 12th Street was a cul-de-sac in the Fayetteville Housing Authority, but there was a direct line to Wood Avenue. Mr. Jones advised the property owner to the west was not interested in selling his property. He stated the applicant was very interested in making the connection to Wood Avenue and would do whatever he could to make the connection. He also pointed out a stubout to the west on the proposed project. Mr. Tucker asked if the cul-de-sac on 12th Street was a public street. Ms. Little stated she believed it belonged to the Fayetteville Housing Authority so there would have to be coordination with them. Ms. Hoffman asked if, since 12th Street was a private street, there would need to be an upgrade • in order for the street to meet city standards. • Ms. Little stated she did not know but there was curb and sidewalk. She advised the Planning Commission would need to assess whatever off-site improvements were necessary. She advised the proper time to make that assessment was when reviewing the large scale development. She further advised the assessment should be made based on the traffic generated by the proposed development. She further stated they could also recommend city involvement, if they so desired. Mr. Forney pointed out that, at this time, they only needed to advise where they would like connections to be made. Ms Johnson suggested considering whether they needed at least one street to the south since typically they normally saw three north -south streets on a project of similar size. Mr. Forney stated they also needed to determine whether they wanted public or private streets. He pointed out the ordinance required any street connecting to public streets to also be public. Mr. Watkins stated the applicant had conceded to public streets, so the only question was setbacks from the public streets. • Planning Commission February 23, 1998 Page 6 Ms Little explained the applicant could go to the Board of Adjustment to request setback variances but she hesitated to ask an applicant to go to two Boards when there was a way for one Board to deal with it. She pointed out that, if the applicant submitted the large scale as a Planned Unit Development, the Planning Commission could review the setback issue. MOTION Ms. Hoffman moved that a north and west access be provided with good connectivity throughout the project which would mitigate the need for a south access; that the setbacks for the water feature be waived and reviewed in conjunction with the large scale development. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Mr. Watkins suggested the connection to the west line up with 13th Street rather than 12th Street since 13th would be a public street. He asked if the intent of a connection to the north was to connect to McClinton Street. • Ms. Hoffman advised she believed that discussion would be conducted when reviewing the large scale development. Mr. Forney stated he would assume staff had recommended 12th Street rather than 13th because 12th Street was paved. Ms. Little stated that was one of the key issues plus the presence of the sidewalk along 12th Street. She explained the sidewalk was important due to the location of the Senior Citizens Center and allowed the residents to walk from the proposed project to the Center. She also pointed out the presence of the drainage ditch and dam would require an additional stream crossing on 13th Street. She added that the option of a connection to 13th Street should not be closed since they were not certain a connection to 12th Street could be worked out. She advised 13th Street would be staffs second choice. She noted 1 lth Street would not be a good choice since it was substandard and also would cause all of the houses on McClinton to have two frontages. Mr. Reynolds pointed out the extension of 13th Street would cross more property owners than the extension of 12th Street. Mr. Forney pointed out the motion did not specify where the connections should be made but left that at the large scale development review. • Ms Johnson stated she would be interested in whether the staff believed a connection to the south would be desirable. • • • Planning Commission February 23, 1998 Page 7 Ms. Little stated that from Wood Avenue extension, to the east was Drake's Cafe, a church, a large drainage ditch, the Hanna Warehouse site, and another church. She pointed out the only place there would be any room for a street would line up with the westernmost street of the development. She explained that, if the proposal was a traditional subdivision with individual lots, it would be highly desirable to have a connection to the south; but, since it was a senior citizens development, she believed the extension of Wood Avenue was much more important. She further stated that, if the Planning Commission strongly believed there needed to be a connection to the south, she would recommend asking the developer for a contribution for the extension of Wood Avenue and passing on a resolution to the City Council. Mr. Forney restated the motion: require a single connection to the north, a single connection to the west and a waiver of the setback requirements from water features from 100 feet to 25 feet and that all streets be made public. The motion carried unanimously, 8-0-0. • • Planning Commission February 23, 1998 Page 8 Al) 98-5• ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM - ADVANCED TOWING BARBED WIRE FENCE NICK JEFFRIES - 331 WEST POPLAR STREET The next item was an administrative item submitted by Nick Jeffries of Advanced Towing for property located at 331 West Poplar Street. The request is to allow barbed wire on the fence surrounding the impound lot for this business. Ms. Little explained the applicant was requesting a variance from Section 160.118, Buffer strips and screening, of the Fayetteville Zoning Code. She explained the requested variance was in order to obtain permission from the City Police Department to be on their list of "approved" impound lots. She advised the Police Department had adopted an operating procedure which conflicted with the City's zoning code in that it required barbed wire at the top of a secure, fenced area She stated it would be necessary to establish the "need" for the barbed wire prior to formalizing a recommendation. Mr. Jeffries appeared before the Commission and pointed out that, without the barbed wire, anyone could climb the fence and break into vehicles in the impound lot. He stated he was trying to provide a safe place for towed vehicles. He also advised the screening made his job unsafe since he towed vehicles at times against the owner's wishes. He pointed out that, with screening, he would be unable to see if a hostile patron was waiting on him or his employees when they came in with another car. Mr. Forney pointed out the staff had provided options for resolution of the conflict: (1) the Police Department could change its operating procedure so that it does not conflict with the zoning code; or (2) the Planning Commission may devise a compromise which would exempt towing yards from the prohibition of barbed wire when adequate screening (board fence or heavy landscaping) is in place. He asked if option 2 had been suggested knowing the police department also objected to the screening. Ms. Little stated staff had not realized that until shortly before the agenda session. She asked the date of the adoption of the regulation by the Police Department. Sgt. Curtis from the Police Department stated the regulation had been adopted approximately 2 years earlier. Mr. Forney asked if there were other towing yards within the City used by the Police Department and, if so, how the problem was resolved at those yards Sgt. Curtis stated the current towing yards had barbed wire. He reviewed other impound lots • within the city. • Planning Commission February 23, 1998 Page 9 Ms. Little noted there were two other impound lots that probably would be requesting a waiver. Ms. Hoffman asked how many vehicles were normally contained in a lot. Sgt. Curtis advised there usually were 5 - 6 tows per day per lot. In response to a question from Ms. Little, Mr. Jeffries advised his lot held approximately 15 vehicles. He pointed out that, if a car had been in an accident, it could set on the lot for awhile. Ms. Little advised she believed it was important for the Planning Commission to make a distinction between vehicles towed for parking violations, etc. versus wrecked vehicles. She pointed out one of the things they were reviewing was appearance. She contended those vehicles that looked like cars on a used car lot should receive different treatment than vehicles which looked like they belonged in a salvage yard. Mr. Forney suggested using guard dogs which would allow the elimination of the barbed wire. He stated he believed the Commission was in a difficult situation. • Mr Jeffries pointed out the impound lot owner had greater liability in having guard dogs, noting the dog didn't know the "good guy" from the "bad guy". • Mr. Tucker asked how often Mr. Jeffries had hostile customers he had. Mr Jeffries stated he had been in business approximately 7 months and had completed approximately 800 tows and just a few hostile customers. Ms. Hoffman asked if the neighbors had been notified of the hearing. She also asked if the City had received complaints regarding impound lots. Ms. Little stated the neighbors had not been notified since it was an administrative item. She advised the Planning Office had received a complaint regarding the impound lot on South School and a number of complaints on the lot on Huntsville. She stated all of the complaints related to appearance. Ms. Hoff an stated she was not prepared to make a decision on the item, noting there was a definite conflict between security of an impound lot and aesthetics for the city. She asked if there was any type of screening that could screen the lot but not impede security. Mr. Jeffries contended his lot was not visible from anywhere except Poplar Street due to its location. Planning Commission February 23, 1998 Page 10 In response to a question from Mr. Forney, Ms. Little stated the property across the street from the impound lot was zoned R -O and was a metal building owned by Pat Tobin. Mr. Watkins noted the variance standards for Section 160.118 was different than the one for Section 160.124. He asked which standard applied. He advised he believed the long term solution was to have the City Council amend the ordinances to waive the requirements for an impound lot. Ms. Little stated the variance standard at 160.118 applied. She explained the reason their reports contained the Commercial Design Standards was to note the affect upon the community. She stated she did not believe it was necessary to apply the Commercial Design Standards variance procedure because there was a procedure under 118 which covered the variance procedure. Mr. Watkins pointed out the variance standard in 118(D)(3) referred to practical difficulties due to circumstances unique to the property. He advised he had not heard anything showing there was anything unique to the property. He stated the practical difficulties were unique to the use of the property but not the property itself. • Ms. Little advised Mr. Jeffries had worked closely with the staff; had looked for and found industrial property so there would be no need for a conditional use. She stated he was informed of the screening and no barbed wire requirements at that time. She further stated staff had not been aware there was a conflict with the operating procedure of the Police Department but did believe some weight should be given to city ordinances which had been in place for over 20 years. She also noted she had conversation with Sines Body Shop previously and they told her the razor wire had not stopped break ins on their lot. • She also pointed out the General Plan did promote mix use and allowed residential units on industrially zoned property. She stated she had suggested to Mr. Jeffries having a caretaker living on the site. Mr. Watkins contended that, when there was a conflict with city ordinances and police department regulations, the police department had to concede. Ms. Johnson stated that, while this was an administrative item, she believed the neighbors should be notified since they were discussing aesthetics. She also suggested planting tall trees which would not block the view of the lot but would allow the public to focus on the foliage rather than the lot. • Planning Commission February 23, 1998 Page 11 MOTION Ms Johnson moved to postpone further consideration until the adjacent land owners had been notified and suggested the applicant consider some type of vegetation. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion., Ms. Hoffman asked if they could approve it as a conditional use so, if there were any complaints, they could re -review the situation. Ms. Little explained that, while it was not a conditional use, it was a type of condition. She went on to say the Planning Commission could impose reasonable conditions at the granting of a waiver or variance to insure compliance or protect adjacent property. Mr. Forney stated he had found Section 160.118 confusing as to where screening was required. He stated it appeared the Commission had a great deal of latitude with the ordinance and he did like Ms. Johnson's suggestion of taller trees at the property edge. • Ms. Johnson stated she believed the neighbors should have an opportunity to express themselves • on the screening. Mr. Estes stated he believed the request was compatible with the area, pointing out there were 4 or 5 businesses in the area with chain link fence, barbed wire and no screening. The motion carried 7-1-0 with Commissioners Hoffman, Forney, Watkins, Ward, Reynolds, Johnson and Tucker voting "yes" and Commissioner Estes voting "no". • Planning Commission February 23, 1998 Page 12 LSD98-2.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - HMT OF FAYETTEVILLE HMT OF FAYETTEVILLE - N OF DICKSON. E OF ROLLSTON. W OF THOMPSON The last item on the agenda was a large scale development submitted by Glenn Carter of Carter Engineering on behalf of HMT of Fayetteville, L.L.C. for property located on the north side of West Dickson Street, east of Rollston and west of Thompson. The property is zoned C-3, Central Commercial, and contains approximately 1 13 acres. A parking waiver has been requested in regard to this project. Mr. Reynolds advised he would be abstaining since he was a property owner on Dickson Street. The staff report showed the proposed project would total 58,709 square feet with commercial usage at 34,017 square feet and residential usage at 24,692 square feet and a two-story parking deck with 109 parking spaces. The proposed construction will envelope the existing two restaurants (ROTC and The Grill) and the restaurants will remain open and in use. The following waivers have been requested by the developer: • (1) Street widths and rights-of-way: a. Rollston. The developer requests the existing 28 feet of right-of-way and 20 feet of pavement be left as is. Staff agrees with this request. b. Dickson. The existing right-of-way is 55 feet. Dickson Street is shown on the Master Street Plan as a collector with a required right-of-way of 70 feet. The developer requests the existing right-of-way be kept at 55 feet. Staff agrees with this request. Formal action by the City Council is required for the deviation from the Master Street Plan. c. Thompson. The existing right-of-way at this location is 15 feet. The developer has proposed to add 5 feet of right-of-way on the west side for a total of 20 feet of right-of- way. The developer also proposes to construct a 21 -foot street and 6 -foot sidewalk the length contiguous to the project to the entrance into the parking deck. This will place approximately 4 feet of the street and the sidewalk on private property. Staff agrees with the request to increase the right-of-way and pavement width. Staff requests that the right- of-way be extended to include all of the paved street. (2) Parking: The developer requests a waiver of 38 parking spaces. Staff disagrees with the • developer's calculations and states that the waiver should be for 73 spaces. Planning Commission February 23, 1998 Page 13 (3) Other Variances: Requests for variances from building setbacks for awnings, brackets, balconies, etc. will go to the Board of Adjustment. The staff has requested the applicant provide a shared access agreement with Terry Hunt, the property owner on the northwest corner. Conditions of Approval: 1. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards. (A decision must be made under Section 160.124(D)(2)(c) "A development should provide compatibility and transition between adjoining developments.") 2. Planning Commission determination and resolution on the requested street improvements and/or right-of-way width waivers: a. Rollston. The developer requests the existing 28 feet of right-of-way and 20 feet of pavement be left as is b. Dickson. The existing right-of-way is 55 feet. Dickson Street is shown on the Master Street Plan as a collector with a required right-of-way of 70 feet. The developer requests the existing right-of-way be kept at 55 feet. c. Thompson. The existing right-of-way at this location is 15 feet. The developer has proposed to add 5 feet of right-of-way on the west side for a total of 20 feet of right-of- way. The developer also proposes to construct a 21 -foot street and 6 -foot sidewalk the length contiguous to the project to the entrance into the parking deck. This will place approximately 4 feet of the street and the sidewalk on private property. 3. Planning Commission determination and resolution of parking issues and requested waivers. 4. 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 All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval and all improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. • • Planning Commission February 23, 1998 Page 14 Fire protection shall meet the Fire Chief's requirements which will include reconfiguration of the existing fire hydrant to the 12 -inch water main on Dickson. Further, depending upon the final design, an additional fire hydrant may be required within 100 feet of the Fire Department's connection to the building's sprinkling system. 6. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards and the right-of-way as available. Greenspace provided (if any) shall meet the requirements of the Sidewalk & Trails Coordinator and the Landscape Administrator. 7. All existing and proposed utilities shall be placed underground. 8. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. 9. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives). 10. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. Separate easement plat for this project c. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by Section 159.34 "Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements" to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 11. Shared access agreement from Terry Hunt, the property owner to the northwest. Background: The proposed large scale was heard at the December 31, 1997 Technical Plat Review, the January 15, 1998 Subdivision Committee meeting and the February 12, 1998 Subdivision Committee meeting. Parking, street right-of-way and improvements and effects upon adjacent property were discussed. The Subdivision Committee voted to send the proposed large scale to the full Planning Commission with the recommendation to accept the street waivers and without a recommendation for the parking waivers. Infrastructure: • Water and sewer. Water and sanitary sewer mains are available for the developer's engineer to use in designing extensions. • • • Planning Commission February 23, 1998 Page 15 Grading and Drainage. A formal, final drainage report and grading plan will be required prior to any construction. Mr. Forney advised the Commission needed to discuss the right-of-way and parking since both were waivers. He asked if there were any other conditions of approval with which the applicant was not in agreement. Mr. Greg House, representing HMT, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated they were in agreement with all other conditions. He advised the right-of-way issue had been discussed at length at the Subdivision Committee meetings. He stated that, while the Master Street Plan required Dickson Street to be 70 feet wide, the existing right-of-way was only 55 feet wide with existing buildings up to the edge of the right-of-way line. He further stated the new structures would be within the setbacks and would not be encroaching with the exception of the second story above the two restaurants. He also pointed out Rollston Avenue was less than minimum street standards and they had discussed the ability of fire and safety vehicles to serve the subject property and adjoining property. He noted Rollston had been recently improved and he believed it was wide enough for an emergency vehicle. He advised the Fire Chief had, after driving a truck through the area, approved the width. He further stated Thompson had been designed to the same width as Rollston for the same reasons. He noted that, by adding to the right-of-way, they had lost approximately 10% of their Dickson Street frontage. He pointed out the existing Thompson north of the subject property was extremely narrow. He contended the big issue was how to feed the traffic ingressing and egressing from the proposed development. Mr. Forney stated the staff agreed with all the waivers for right-of-way. Mr. House explained that, when the property was purchased for development, he and his partners had relied on the ordinance in making their feasibility study. He stated they had believed they would not have to provide any parking for existing structures because of the way the ordinance was worded on parking in a C-3 zone. He stated that, in an effort to move the project forward, they had agreed to count in their calculations the number of parking spaces required for the existing restaurants (approximately 20 spaces). He explained they had treated it as a completely new project since there was no guidance in the ordinance. He then read from section 160.117(D)(1): "...parking requirements shall be met at the time any building or structure is erected, enlarged, or increased in capacity, changed in use..." He went on to read (1)(a): "...new construction, razed buildings or enlarged buildings shall conform to the parking requirements of the city. For enlarged buildings, additional parking spaces will be calculated by the amount of square footage that is added." He pointed out the parking ratio table and stated they estimated the parking on maximum retail use and maximum restaurant use. He noted the parking ratio for restaurants was shown as 1 for 200 square feet of floor area. • • • Planning Commission February 23, 1998 Page 16 Mr. House stated the square footage for Restaurant On The Corner and The Grill required 20 parking spaces. He contended that, if the buildings were demolished, and constructed new buildings with the exact same square footage, only 20 parking spaces would be required. He explained the conflict between the developers and staff was how to count parking for the existing buildings. He also advised they were asking for a 38 space waiver but would be using shared parking for the site (set out under Section 160.117(E)(4). He contended that, since the project was a mixed use project, they could share parking with themselves. He advised there was nothing in the ordinance restricting them from using parking spaces during the day for retail and using the same spaces at night for residential. He also presented a letter from University Baptist Church allowing the use of 50 church parking lot spaces. He also contended there would not be a $1,200 fee per parking space since they did have shared parking for the 38 spaces. Charles Britton, professor of economics at the University of Arkansas, appeared before the Commission and advised he had attended the Master Planning session at the university earlier in the day and the university was in favor of the project. He further stated he, personally as a professor of economics, was in favor of the project, contending it would assist in the revitalization of Dickson Street. He did, however, express concern regarding view obstruction of Old Main. Lamar Pettus, property owner of 151 West Dickson, pointed out there was a movement afoot through the Downtown Dickson Street Enhancement Project, to ask the city to reduce the right- of-way of Dickson Street to 24 feet. He asked the Commission to be careful on how they handled the parking. He also advised the Commission had received a letter from the Dickson Street Improvement District and wanted to be sure they understood that was from the Commission, not the individual Dickson Street property owners. He pointed out Mr. House was one of the Commissioners for the Dickson Street Improvement District and would have been one of the people authorizing the letter. He also noted the Improvement District had not called a meeting of the members. He asked the Commission to not include the letter in their considerations. He also advised that, if the Commission waived the parking places for the subject project, they would need to do the same for future projects on Dickson Street. Charlie Allison, an area property owner, appeared before the Commission and stated his property was on Thompson and Watson. He pointed out Thompson was a very narrow street and expressed concern people using the facilities of the proposed project would be using that street. Michael Thurmond, an adjacent property owner, contended the Commissioners needed to consider the impact to adjoining property. He pointed out they could widen the portion of Thompson adjacent to the project but then Thompson still would narrow to one lane past the project. He stated he believed Mr. House had presented a good development but he was concerned regarding traffic flow. • • • Planning Commission February 23, 1998 Page 17 In response to a question from Mr. Forney, Mr. Thurmond suggested closing Thompson to the north of the project as a solution to the problem. Richard Shewmaker, 605 W. Dickson, appeared before the Commission and expressed hope the parking waiver be granted. He expressed his believe the university was the most important economic, social and cultural function in northwest Arkansas. He told of a previous survey that showed most people within the City of Fayetteville wanted to improve the area around the campus. He contended the current project would improve the area. He reminded the Commission they had alleviated the parking problem on Dickson Street by changing the ordinance relating to parking in the Dickson Street area. He pointed out the new establishments after the ordinance was changed, contending Dickson Street was now a better place. He asked the Commission to approve the project with the parking waiver granted. He also pointed out this would be a major contribution to the tax structure. He also informed the Commission Mr. House had an investment backer which would be very important to Dickson Street. Ms. Jana Britton appeared before the Commission and contended she had problems finding places to park in the Dickson Street area. She advised there would be people parking where they shouldn't if parking spaces were not provided. Joe Fennell, owner of Jose's, appeared before the Commission and contended all property owners on Dickson have learned to share parking. He stated he was in favor of the proposed project. Celia Scott-Silkwood, 221 N. Locust, spoke in support of the project but did agree parking was becoming a problem. She noted she no longer could park in front of her house but had to use the public parking lot. Cyrus Young stated he owned property 443 feet from the proposed project. He contended the project was out of scale with the rest of the area. He reminded the Commission residents of Fayetteville had consistently asked for preservation of the character of Fayetteville; compatibility had even been placed in the land use plan and the commercial design ordinance. He advised the proposed project, if approved, would significantly alter the character of Dickson Street. He stated he had heard people express a desire to maintain neighborhood integrity and that applied on Dickson Street as well as other areas of town. He pointed out the proposed development was larger than the Walton Arts Center. He stated he could not believe the building would ever be compatible with the rest of Dickson Street. He contended the project did not meet the ordinance and asked the Commission to deny the approval of the large scale development. • • • Planning Commission February 23, 1998 Page 18 Mr. Young went on to ask that, if the Commission approved the project, they deny the parking waivers so the building might come closer to the scale of other structures on Dickson Street. He agreed with Ms. Silkwood that, when the parking lots were full, the parking overflowed into the residential area. He also contended that, if the waivers were approved, someday people's homes would be condemned for commercial parking. He stated the Planning Commission had always said there was a need for planning, a need for compatibility, a need for good design, a need for compliance with ordinances. He advised all of those words would have been for nothing if the project were approved. Ms. Little stated there were two issues on the project, the first was under the commercial design standards. "A commercial structure or development shall be designed to avoid or minimize the elements set forth in D (1) above" (unpainted concrete precision block walls, square `boxlike' structures; metal siding which dominates the main facade; large blank, unarticulated wall surfaces; and large out of scale signs with flashy colors). She advised the development did meet paragraph D(2)(a). She then read D(2)(b): "A commercial development which contains more than one building should incorporate a recurring, unifying and identifiable theme for the entire development site." She stated there was a theme to the development. She then read D(2)(c): "A development should provide compatibility and transition between adjoining developments." She showed a site plan of the existing buildings in the area. She stated the existing buildings on site were approximately 4,800 square feet; the proposed project would be approximately 58,000 square feet or 10 times the size of the existing property. She advised one of the newspaper articles stated the project was approximately the size of the Walton Arts Center. Ms. Little then advised that, with regard to parking, she believed it was a matter of interpretation. She stated staff had no disagreement with the developer regarding the additional square footage and the parking planned for the addition. She did point out staff had been calculating restaurant parking differently than set out in the ordinance; instead of 1 space for every 200 square feet of floor space, staff calculated one space for every four seats plus one for each employee per shift. She explained this change had been made at the request of restaurant owners throughout the City who believed 1 space for every 200 square feet was not adequate. She stated the discrepancy with the developer for parking on existing buildings had come about from the parking ordinance which said in C-3 and C-4 districts parking requirements were waived for any existing structure with a change of use. She contended there was no change of use. She advised there were 55 existing spaces for the two restaurants She advised the Commission staff had applied a number of tests to determine if the 55 spaces were excessive parking. She pointed out the calculation for the number of seats in the restaurants - 49 spaces plus 1 for each employee (30 employees for the two restaurants). She stated any new restaurant anywhere else in town would require 79 spaces. She stated staff had reviewed the 1994 aerial photographs (taken at approximately 10:00 a.m.) and calculated there were 55 spaces • • • Planning Commission February 23, 1998 Page 19 on site. She pointed out the number of cars parked in the restaurant lot. She also advised staff had taken photographs in the area on how parking was utilized. She stated staff took the photographs on Friday afternoon at approximately 5:30 and again at noon on Saturday and again at noon on Monday She noted the parking lot was not full during those times; however there were more on Friday evening than at noon on Saturday and Monday. Ms. Little stated the Commission would need to make interpretation of the following section: 160.117(D)(1)(a): "Parking requirements are waived for any existing structure with a change of use...For enlarged buildings, additional parking spaces will be calculated by the amount of square footage added." She advised that, for the amount of square footage being added, 127 parking spaces were required; the applicant proposed 109. She went on to say staff believed the 55 spaces currently in existence were necessary to service the restaurants. She expressed her belief the ordinance granting the ability to give waivers was a generous gift on the part of the City in order to encourage rehabilitation of existing buildings on Dickson Street. She advised that, if they were only talking about renovation, there would not be a parking issue; but it was the addition of new square footage that was causing the issue. She asked the Commission consider the effect on renovation -- what effect from a commercial standpoint would the new commercial square footage have on the renovation of the rest of Dickson Street; and what is the effect of the proposed building on adjacent residential properties. She reminded the Commission that one of their goals in the 2020 Plan was to promote affordable housing, particularly in the downtown area. She advised the living units proposed in the project were not affordable housing. She contended it was significant that area property owners would be experiencing development pressure were already having their quality of life was being affected. She agreed there was a need for renovation and economic development on Dickson Street but asked how much was too much. Mr. Tucker stated he had reviewed the Historic Downtown Commercial area of the 2020 Plan and found the overriding goal for the area was to encourage commercial development and retain the historic character and to encourage denser residential development. He advised the guiding principles were to continue the revitalization of the historic downtown commercial area and enhance it with evening businesses; encourage the continuation of the revitialization of Dickson Street and provide a sense of connection between Dickson Street and the Square; encourage retail use of ground floor space and restrict office and residential use to higher floors. Ms. Little stated she believed the two existing restaurants were a part of the street scape of Dickson Street and she applauded the efforts to preserve them. She further stated she believed the residential units above the retail areas was in keeping with the General Plan. She further advised she believed the facade of the building did improve the streetscape; however the height of the building was of concern. • • • Planning Commission February 23, 1998 Page 20 Mr. Forney asked if Mr. House had a signed joint access agreement with the adjoining property owner. Mr. House stated he did have a copy of a signed joint access agreement. Mr. Forney stated they had not been using the parking requirements in C-3 and C-4 areas due to the changes in ordinances. He reminded the Commission they had considered applications for waivers of parking spaces in light of adequate public parking within 600 feet of the proposed development. He stated he did not see that specific language in the code book but did see under 160.117(E)(3) and (5) the following: "Off-site locations. If off-street parking cannot be provided on the same lot as the principal use due to existing buildings or the shape of the parcel, parking lots may be located on the other property not more than 600 feet distant from the principal use, subject to conditional use approval by the planning commission." He stated that apparently did not apply since the applicant was not asking for a conditional use. Ms. Little advised that applied to property owned by the applicant or under contract to the applicant. She noted the 600 feet also appeared in "Intermittent parking" for places such as churches who could count available on -street parking within 600 feet. She pointed out that the applicant had brought a letter for shared parking from the University Baptist Church. She noted the letter did not specify a length of time in terms of a lease Mr. Forney asked about the in lieu fee of $1,200 for each on-site parking space waived which was to be paid to the city. He asked if that was an option. Ms. Little stated the applicant could pay the in lieu fee or find adequate public parking facilities available within 600 feet from the entrance of the structure. She also pointed out section (H) Parking Waivers which said the Planning Commission shall making findings indicating the proposed use would not generate as much parking as required under the existing standards; that shared parking was available; or on -street parking could satisfy intermittent and occasional demands. Ms. Hoffman stated that, in other cities which allowed shared parking, a traffic impact analysis was either required or completed by the applicant which was much more detailed than the information before the Commission. She further stated the anaysis included hours of operation, number of vehicle trips per day, etc. She advised she would be looking for more detailed information. Mr. Watkins contended the project was the type they should embrace rather than obstruct; that there should be more incentives for infill and mixed use project such as the proposed project. He added his belief it was commendable the private sector was willing to invest money without tax breaks, etc. that other cities had to encourage this type of project. • • • Planning Commission February 23, 1998 Page 21 He further advised the relevant language in the parking ordinance said: "For enlarged buildings, additional parking spaces will be calculated by the amount of square footage added." He contended that was what the developer had done; however, the staff was inserting a phase that was not in the ordinance "For enlarged buildings, additional parking spaces in addition to those currently existing to serve the site will be calculated by the amount of square footage added. He advised that was a huge change in the ordinance and he did not believe it possible to interpret the ordinance in that fashion. He also pointed out the ordinance did not treat restaurants any differently than any other business and calculated parking at 1 space for every 200 square feet of floor area; not 1 per every 4 seats plus one for each employee. He stated a fair reading of the ordinance and a fair calculation of the parking spaces support the applicant's position. Mr. Watkins further stated it appeared the applicant was short 38 spaces but, with the shared parking arrangement for 50 spaces with the church, the requirements of the ordinance had been met. He contended the applicant should not be penalized for not tearing down existing buildings or not building at the edge of town. He also advised that, while the ordinance required a developemnt should provide compatibility and transition between adjoining developments, it did not mean the same; otherwise, there could never be any change, everything would have to be one story on Dickson Street. He noted the City of Fayetteville did not have a height ordinance; however, they might consider enacting some type of height ordinance. Mr. Watkins stated he was in favor of the project. Ms. Little stated it was her responsibility to interpret the ordinances and she had given such interpretation to the Commission. She reminded the Commission of other projects when the same interpretation was made. Mr. Estes asked if the shared parking was within 600 feet of the proposed development. Ms. Little stated the measurement, as shown on the aerial photograph, was measured from the front of the Restaurant On The Corner. She stated it appeared, if the measurement was taken from the back of the project, the parking would be within 600 feet. Mr. Estes stated he believed there was ambiguity in the ordinance relating to the waiver of parking spaces. He pointed out that, to grant either the 38 parking spaces claimed by the applicant or the 73 parking spaces claimed by the staff, to achieve either result the Commission had to make certain findings under the ordinance: (1) that the proposed use would not generate as much parking as required under existing standards; (2) that shared parking facilities are available; or (3) that on -street parking could satisfy intermittent and occasional demands. He advised he was concerned with the first finding; that he was not sure it was true He continued that, while • • Planning Commission February 23, 1998 Page 22 the applicant had presented a letter of shared parking, there was no termination date to the letter and he did not believe on -street parking could satisfy intermittant and occasional demands. He also pointed out the residents using the University Baptist Church parking lot would not vacate the parking spaces on Saturday night or Sunday morning. He advised he was struggling to satisfy the requirements of the ordinance and was very much inclined to not grant the waivers, irregardless of how they were computed. Mr. Forney stated part of the developer's interpretation was there was shared parking within the project. Mr. Estes stated that also led to some ambiguity. He further stated the developer had suggested making an agreement with himself to share among himself so he could satisfy a shared parking requirement. He advised he understood the mixed use but it appeared the developer would have to ask a resident to move his care so a restaurant patron could park. Ms. Hoffman agreed with Mr. Watkins that the Commission wanted to encourage development on Dickson Street but did not believe they could tell developers to build on 100% of the lot and not carefully consider parking. Ms. Johnson advised she too was concerned about the scale of the project. She added she believed the scale was much of what drove the parking concerns. She expressed her belief the project was too massive for too small a space. She also advised they could not ignore the fact that the project would have a negative impact on the parking situation. Mr. Tucker stated they were facing risks: (1) too few parking spaces and (2) driving off an investor who was willing to spend five million dollars on Dickson Street. He expressed his belief that driving an investor off of Dickson Street was greater than not having a few extra parking spaces. Mr. Watkins stated the ordinance said the Commission shall have the authority to make the waivers on certain findings -- not all three findings. He pointed out there was a shared parking agreement so the ordinance was satisfied. Mr. Forney stated he was one of the Commissioners who had served on the subcommittee which encouraged the waiving of the parking rules on Dickson Street in 1995. He advised he understood Mr. Estes' concerns regarding making findings. He thanked the staff for their clear interpretation of the parking spaces; but there were few people objecting to the project, saying Dickson Street would be ruined because of parking. He further noted restaurant parking was still in the ordinance as 1 space per 200 square feet of floor area. He advised he believed there was • the potential to make a finding that the shared parking with U.B.C. and the prospect of internal sharing, it did meet the parking requirements. He also contended the project contained the first • • Planning Commission February 23, 1998 Page 23 double level parking space proposed by the private sector and believed it was the solution for situations like Dickson Street. He stated it did not appear there was controversy regarding the right-of-way issues. He further advised he believed the project was compatible with Dickson Street. Ms. Little read the following shared parking agreement: "To Members of the Planning Commission: Subject to the restrictions stated below, the University Baptist Church will allow tenants, visitors and employees of HMT's proposed mixed use project at the 200 block of Dickson Street to park 50 cars on the church's parking lot at Lafayette Street and Campbell Avenue at any time with the exception of Sundays, all day, and Wednesday evenings after 4:00 p.m. However, this shared parking shall be restricted to use of only residents or office patrons, tenants and employees. Use by patrons, tenants and employees of retail space shall be limited to those businesses that do not use or sell alcohol as any part of their business. This shared parking arrangement will have no conflict with our current parking needs." Signed by Gary Smith, University Baptist Church. Mr. Estes stated that, in order to make the finding the shared parking was satisfactory, the Commission had to find the individual spaces identified on a site plan for shared users was not being shared by more than one user at the same time. He expressed his belief the developer could not enforce the parking agreement with U.B.C. MOTION Mr. Forney moved to approve LSD 98-2 acknowledging the following: the waivers for street widths and right-of-way on Rollston, Dickson and Thompson Streets as detailed in the staff report be granted and that the Thompson Street right-of-way include approximately 4 feet of street as requested by the staff so that the Thompson right-of-way include all of the paved street; that the parking waiver for 73 spaces be granted in light of the shared parking agreement with U.B.C. and acknowledging the use of different tenants and patrons in relationship to retail and residential needs on site; that the commercial design standards be recognized as being met by the project; and that a joint access agreement signed by a neighbor be provided as required in the conditions of approval; and that all other staff conditions of approval be included. Mr. Tucker seconded the motion. Ms. Johnson asked if the waiver of the 73 parking spaces was at the set rate of reimbursement. Mr. Forney stated that, as he understood Section 160.117(H)(1) the in lieu fee of $1,200 for each space would be paid or for any parking space proposed to be shared under the provisions of • 160.117(E)(4) the fee was waived. He pointed out the applicant had a shared parking arrangement for 50 spaces, leaving 23 spaces. He went on to say he would assume the remaining • • • Planning Commission February 23, 1998 Page 24 23 spaces would be covered by the sharing of the spaces between the residential use and retail use. Ms. Johnson asked if the motion then was to waive any contribution in lieu. Mr. Forney stated it was The motion carried 5-2-1 with Commissioners Hoffman, Forney, Watkins, Ward and Tucker voting "yes", Commissioners Estes and Johnson voting "no" and Commissioner Reynolds abstaining. Mr. Tucker advised he would like the Commission to meet with the Dickson Street Enhancement Project to determine their vision for Dickson Street. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.