Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-03-23 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held March 23, 1998, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Phyllis Johnson, Lorel Hoffman, Lee Ward, Gary Tucker, Bob Estes, Robert Reynolds, John Fdmey, Conrad Odom, John Watkins STAFF PRESENT: Jim Beavers, Alett Little, Tim Conklin, Dawn Warrick, and Debra Humphrey ITEMS REVIEWED: ACTION TAKEN LS 98-9.00: Lot Split (Sam Rogers) Approved AD 98-6.00: Parking Waiver (Joe Fennel) Approved AD 98-8.00: Administrative Item (Amendment to Parking Lot Ordinance) Approved CU 98-6.00: Conditional Use (Audra Lee) Approved RZ 98-6.00: Rezoning (The Dinerstein Companies) Approved AD 98-5:00: Administrative Item (Advanced Towing Barbed Wire Fence) Denied AD 98-9.00 Administrative Item (Christian Life Church Access Road) Denied AD 98-11.00 Administrative Item (Stonebridge Meadows Sign) No action APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES The minutes were approved as distributed. NOMINATION COMMITTEE: Mr. Odom appointed the following Nominating Committee: Phyllis Johnson, Lee Ward, and Lorel Hoffman. LS98-9.00: LOT SPLIT (SAM ROGERS) NORTH OF WEDINGTON DRIVE AND WEST OF SALEM ROAD Submitted by Kurt Jones of Northwest Engineers on behalf of Sam Rogers for property located north of Wedingtn Drive and west of Salem Road. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and R -O, Residential Office, and contains approximately 9.97 acres. Request is to create two lots (8.36 acres and 1.61 acres). This is the first lot split request. Staff Recommendation: Approval subject to conditions of approval as noted. Kurt Jones, of Northwest Engineers, appeared before the commission on behalf of the applicant. He was in agreement with all the conditions of approval except for Items (D and F). According to Mr. Jones the applicant would be required to pay for the road twice. • • • Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1998 Page 2 O Ms. Little stated that Item D could be omitted and the applicant and commission would only deal with Item F. Mr. Jones inquired about the City and State paying 50% of the costs of the road and the developer would have to pay the other half. Mr. Jones further stated the owner would be willing to pay his fair share, but they have not had the opportunity to review the figures staff had provided, and therefore, could not state they were in agreement on Item F. There were no public comments. ❑ Mr. Odom read Option #3 (Delay the assessment until development plans are filed for Tracts A and B and collect the proportionate share at that time). Mr. Odom inquired if this option was more agreeable to the applicant. Mr. Jones stated this was more agreeable which allowed them additional time to review the figures identified in Item F. ❑ Ms. Little noted to the commission another project submitted by a bank would be coming before them in a couple of weeks. The question before the commission would be whether the bank, as the developer, would be charged with the assessment fee of paying for the road, or Mr. Rogers, as the owner. The bank would be leasing the property from Mr. Rogers. ❑ Ms. Little addressed Mr. Fomey's concerns regarding the right-of-way, and noted item No. 11 requiring dedication of the ROW. She also stated all parties are aware the property would have one single owner who preferred to maintain control of the location of the curb cut on Tract A rather than Tract B. ❑ Ms. Johnson inquired if the dedication of the ROW is to go across the entire length of the entire property. ❑ Ms. Little stated the 40 foot right-of-way right angles to Salem Road goes the entire length of the north boundary of Tract B. It is located wholly on the part of the tract which was zoned R-2 and would be located directly north of proposed Tract B. There was further discussion concerning the right-of-way and the location of the streets. Ms. Little referred to Plat No. 16, which addressed some of the commission's concerns and questions regarding the location of the right-of- way and right-of-way. ❑ Mr. Forney noted one of the conditions of approval is maintenance of the east/west connection at the west property line of the parent tract. He further noted the right-of-way from Tract B to the west edge of Tract A, but fixing there will be a connection to the west edge. ❑ Ms. Little confirmed this was correct, and noted at the Subdivision Committee there was some discussion about connecting the ROW to the west. However, she noted we would not want to fix the location of the ROW further west than the western boundary of Tract B the location. Ms. Little also stated the condition of approval that relates to this concern was IIA which deals with the construction of internal streets. ❑ Mr. Forney emphasized this project was previously submitted to Subdivision Committee and stated this was a very complex project. He further commented when approving lot splits we need they are truly lot splits and not subdivisions to alleviate future problems. • • • Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1998 Page 3 MOTION Mr. Forney made a motion to approve LS 98-9 subject to all conditions of approval in the report, eliminating Item 11D, and include an amendment to Item IIA to use Option 3, but to also include this subdivision would acquire connection to the west edge of Tract A upon development of the tract in the future from Salem Road, and those conditions of approval with the asterisk which constitute a part of this motion. Mr. Reynolds seconded said motion. Mr. Forney stated Option #2 was to be included in said motion. Mr. Tucker inquired about the applicant's concem on Item 11F, and whether the $11,850 was the cost for the complete building, city's but the state's portion. Mr. Jones stated he had several concerns regarding proportioning of the costs, city vs. the state, and felt the numbers were excessive and requested additional time to review the numbers. He further noted if this fee was assessed to the owner, what kind of payment procedures would city require. ❑ Mr. Beavers responded to Mr. Tucker's concern about the calculation identified and stated it was not related to the highway widening. It was the traditional assessment of a developer '/, of a standard city street. It had no basis on the highway department plans. ❑ Mr. Odom inquired if the motion was approved as it stood, would the developer be able to come back later and say this is not a fair number or do we close the door on their option. ❑ Ms. Little stated the developer would still have the option to come back and say it was not a fair number. However, she noted it would be unusual because the recommended option is just for Tract B. She further responded to the concern about payment options and indicated it could be paid into an escrow fund, and if there are any overages, it would be refunded with interest. Mr. Jones stated his concern was when you look at the traffic this property would be generating compared to the traffic on Wedington, you would find the increase in traffic volume would be insignificant, and the cost therefore, would be very minor. He also stated this property would already limited to one curb cut, and would not get the benefit of the entire length of the highway. Therefore, he would like to request some additional time to review the number calculations and defer the assessment of this until the other developer came through. ❑ Ms. Johnson stated there would be no reason to delay due to the benefit the developer would be getting. Therefore, she stated that the commission vote on the motion as presented. The motion carried with a vote of 8-1-0. Mr. Watkins voted nay. • • • Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1998 Page 4 AD98-6.00: PARKING WAIVER (JOE FENNELI 310 WEST DICKSON STREET Submitted by Roger Boskus of Heigel-Miller Architects on behalf of the applicant for property located at 310 West Dickson Street. The property is zoned C-3, Central Commercial and contains approximately 0.17 acres. The request is for a waiver of the required number of parking spaces. The applicant proposes some shared parking. Staff Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings. If the Planning Commission chooses to approve this project, staff recommends approval subject to conditions of approval. ❑ Ms. Little noted that per Item 8 the required variance had been granted and staff had already received a signed condition of agreement for Item 5. Ms. Little referred to page 2.8 which reflected a parking arrangement currently existed and had received information dealing with the bare parking. ❑ Ms. Little further noted the developer had presented her with a letter from Carl Collier with the Dickson Street Improvement District dated March 23, 1998, and from Laleh Amirmoez, Chairman of the Downtown -Dickson Enhancement Project dated March 23, 1998. Both letters indicated their approval of this parking waiver. Said letters are incorporated herein as Exhibits A and B respectively. Roger Boskus, of Heigel-Miller Architects, appeared before the commission representing the applicant, Joe Fennel. He stated he had received a letter from Andrew Cozart of McAllister & Wade, Attorneys at Law, representing James Hargis and Nancy Lewis, which outlined some of the concerns of Hargis and Lewis. Mr. Boskus further stated he and the applicant would work with the attorney and his clients to address their concerns. Mr. Boskus outlined the project and referenced Item No. 4 regarding the alley. He stated the applications had been filed and plans were to vacate the alleys. The intent of the project was to improve the back of Jose's and create a screened common area for trash, and possibly function as an outside court for Play it Again Sam. There were no public comments. In response to Mr. Tucker's inquiry, Mr. Boskus showed the sketch reflecting where the sidewalk would connect to the parking behind Dickson Street. The intention there was to provide a pedestrian sidewalk through the development to Dickson Street. Mr. Boskus stated the sidewalk would extend across the property which is what the lease agreement referred to. Mr. Boskus further referred to the model which indicates a parking courtyard would cross through to Dickson Street. He further stated the proposal would include creation of a curb cut to allow easier access from the city lot. ❑ Ms. Johnson noted that the commission was dealing with a parking waiver, but the project contains more and looks like more like a project. She recommended in light of the March 20 letter which was just received this be tabled until the requirements have been met. ❑ Ms. Little noted there were three conditions under which the commission may consider a parking waiver: 1) Shared parking facilities are available; 2) The proposed use would not generate as much parking as required under the existing standards; 3) That on -street parking can satisfy intermittent and occasional demands. ❑ Ms. Johnson stated those particular parking spaces at Subdivision Committee were told would be dedicated to the residences in the building. • • • Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1998 Page 5 ❑ Mr. Watkins commented about the 34 required spaces and according to the staffs calculations would provide 38 parking spaces, including the 6 spaces which were shared. He noted there would be a shortfall of 2 parking spaces, therefore, this would not be a serious parking deficit and noted the two spaces could be waived without holding up the project. Mr. Fennel wanted to address Ms. Johnson's inquiry concerning the letter and stated he spoke with Ms. Lewis' husband, and their concem was there was no formal agreement. He stated he had been renting the parking lot for 18 years and what Mr. Lewis requested was a letter in the file stating this project was going to pay Mr. Fennel a sublease for those lots. ❑ Ms. Hoffman inquired staff concerning recommendation of 7 spaces be placed parallel on Campbell and noted there were only 2 cars indicated on the site plan. Mr. Boskus indicated on the drawing where the parking spaces were to the commission. ❑ Ms. Hoffman noted if those 7 spaces were available and useable would this also tie in with the sidewalk waiver, if cars parked up directly to the building and stated her concern was people traveling through the center of the project would need to climb over a chain. Mr. Boskus stated this was incorrect. The parking would be completely handicap -accessible from the northern parking lots. ❑ Mr. Tucker wanted to ensure staff had a map from UBC identifying the spaces, which was identified on page 2.9. There was some discussion between staff and the commission concerning the number of parking spaces that UBC had allotted to various other parties and how many spaces were available. After review, it was decided there were enough parking spaces allotted for this project. It was mentioned for the future, information be provided to the Planning Commission for shared parking proposals with UBC. ❑ Ms. Johnson stated she would like to see more parking information and parking studies for planning purposes for an eventual parking garage along Dickson Street. ❑ Ms. Little addressed Mr. Fomey's concerns about 12 parking spaces as opposed to 6, and noted 6 are being lost on the lot currently leased by Lewis and Hargis ownership. ❑ Mr. Reynolds noted he would abstain from voting on this project due to the reason he owned property in the immediate area, but wanted to state if we continue to use UBC parking area, then those businesses on UBC need to put up more lights and make those lots pedestrian for the future. MOTION Ms. Hoffman moved to approve the parking variance as written. Mr. Tucker seconded the motion. Ms. Hoffman inquired about Paragraph 4 which dealt with the alley vacation, and whether Paragraph 4 would be excluded from the motion. Mr. Odom stated the motion would be subject to Paragraph 4. • • • Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1998 Page 6 ❑ Ms. Little responded to the question whether the commission would see this project as a part of a large scale development, and stated it would not. ❑ Ms. Little inquired if the motion was seconded, would it be dependent upon the receiving the agreement for shared parking, and it was noted staff would still need to meet this requirement. Mr. Tucker stated the motion would be subject to the alley vacation at a later date. The roll call was given and said motion carried with a vote of 7-1-1, Mr. Estes voted nay, and Mr. Reynolds abstained. • • • Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1998 Page 7 AD98-8.00: ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM (AMENDMENT TO PARKING LOT ORDINANCEI An ordinance amending §160.117 of the Zoning Code to change parking requirements for restaurants from one space per 200 sf. To one space per four occupants, plus one per employee. Staff has attached a resolution for the Planning Commission to consider that would change the parking requirements for restaurants. This amendment was approved by the Planning Commission at their November 13, 1995 regular meeting. Staff recommends approval of the resolution to amend §160.117. Notice will have to be given on the proposed ordinance and voted on at a future meeting. Staff recommendation: Ms. Little stated this item was presented before the Planning Commission on November 13, 1995, and minutes have been included in everyone's packet. Ms. Little noted the item that kept reoccurring with restaurants was their request for more parking than our ordinance would allow. At that time Planning Commission chose to forward to the City Council. This issue was continuous and staff felt the proposal for 1 parking place per 4 occupants plus 1 additional space for an employee and had been told this was not enough. ❑ Ms. Little informed the commission they would not request a vote on this at this time. Public notice required had been given and this agenda item will be considered at the first meeting in April. No public comments. ❑ Ms. Johnson stated at the Agenda Session a suggestion was made concerning the number of spaces be changed from 1 per 4 occupants, that occupants be changed to chairs. ❑ Ms. Little stated this would be acceptable. She further stated the zoning code required Planning Commission when to initiate an amendment to Chapter 160 pass a resolution, and subsequent to passage of resolution and public notice, then it would be forwarded to the next agenda. MOTION Mr. Odom moved to initiate the resolution as presented. Ms. Johnson seconded said motion. Roll call was made and said motion carried unanimously with a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1998 Page 8 CU 98-6.00: CONDITIONAL USE (AUDRA LEE) 1662 MISSION Submitted by Ken Shireman on behalf of Audra Lee for property located at 1662 Mission. The property is zoned R- 1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 1.54 acres. The request is for a conditional use to allow a multi -use studio for art, dance, music, and drama (Use Unit 4, Cultural and Recreational Facilities). Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to conditions of approval. Ms. Little noted the applicant had not signed the conditions of approval. Ken Shireman came before the commission representing the applicant Audra Lee. He stated he would like to address Conditions 2, 7, and 8. O Condition 2 - Construction of the multi -use studio as shown on the site plan and building elevations. Mr. Shireman stated drawings as submitted were conceptual only, and would come back with the detailed drawings when this project comes back as a large scale development, therefore, they request they not provide the building elevations at this time. O Condition 7 - The two-way driveway limited to 24' in width Mr. Shireman inquired where this requirement carne from, and stated the Highway is recommending 36' driveway with 2 exit lanes and 1 entrance lane. He stated he may want to address this condition at the LSD and not make it as a condition of approval at the present time. ❑ Condition 8 - Additional on-site and off-site requirements will be placed on the proposed project at the time of the large scale development that will address the capacity and availability storm water facilities, the location and type of outdoor lighting, commercial design standards, right-of-way and street improvements, grading, and tree preservation. Mr. Shireman stated he was not sure what off-site meant and stated he had discussed the storm drainage and was not willing to accept this condition. He further noted when project went to LSD then staff may come back and state they had inadequate storm drainage off-site and did not want to place his client in that position. ❑ Ms. Little responded concerning Condition No. 2 which did comply with parking lot standards and that particular requirement is reflected on page 144(R) paragraph C and did allow 2 kinds of parking lot drives. One would be 24 feet which provides one way in and one way out. The other would be 46 feet wide because it would provide for 12 feet lane in, a 10 foot island for separation, and two 12- foot drives for out (right) and out (left). The maximum curb cut the HWD would approve is 40 feet wide. Ms. Little further stated she had talked to Phil in Little Rock who stated the City's requirements on curb cuts overrule the Highway Department rules, therefore, the City should be able to follow the City's rules without complication. ❑ Mr. Conklin responded to Condition No. 2 and referred to page 4.9. Mr. Conklin stated per the building footprint the applicant would need to define it and how the change would occur, and stated he had discussed breaking up the building to prevent such a large mass. • Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1998 Page 9 ❑ Mr. Odom addressed construction of the multi -use studio to substantially comply with the site plan and building elevations, and both staff and applicant agreed with this change. ❑ Mr. Conklin stated in reference to Condition No. 8, this project would be going through as a LSD and other staff members would be addressing sidewalks, tree preservation, etc., and Condition No. 8 was simply an attempt to let the applicant know the site plan was not approval for that development, and additional requirements would be placed on this development. ❑ Mr. Watkins stated Condition No. 8 would not need to be as a condition of approval since this would be dealt with at Subdivision, and was just a warning to applicant what issues would arise at LSD. Public Discussion: There were 16 people present who were in approval of this project. One was a neighbor and 15 were customers. Rudy Hatcher, the adjoining neighbor along the north side, appeared before the commission. He stated he was confident that the staff would take care of the drainage issue in the LSD meetings. He commented he had visited with Ms. Lee and had reviewed their plans and wanted to state his approval of the project. ❑ Mr. Reynolds inquired concerning conditional use in an R-1 neighborhood and in order to keep the neighborhood as it is, he would prefer they leave the driveway for 24 -foot as opposed to a commercial driveway in a residential area. Mr. Shireman stated he would agree with Mr. Reynolds request. • There was some discussion concerning the property location and it was noted there was a house north of Mr. Hatcher's property and then the cemetery property would be next. • ❑ Mr. Tucker stated he was hesitant in approving this project due to introducing commercial into a residential area. ❑ Mr. Watkins stated he was in favor of the project due to the reason this project was similar to a school which was located in residential areas, and this project would not be any different from a school. ❑ Mr. Odom seconded Mr. Watkins sentiments. There was some discussion involving the parking lot location. After some discussion it was felt the project would require the number of parking spaces requested. The parking lot would be blocked by a fence to Charlie Avenue and parking would not be visible. ❑ Ms. Little stated this project was conditional use to allow a dance school and anything other than that would not be allowed. MOTION Mr. Estes moved to approve CU 98-6.00. Mr. Reynolds seconded said motion. Mr. Tucker stated he would not vote for this project due to his concern if this school failed, then it would be setting it up for a commercial endeavor later. Mr. Odom stated he would vote for the motion for the reasons stated by the other commissioners. • • • Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1998 Page 10 Mr. Forney confirmed the motion would amend Condition No. 2 to comply with elevations, and Mr. Estes stated this was correct, and Condition No. 8 would be a part of the above motion. The roll was called said motion carried with a vote of 8-1-0, with Mr. Tucker voting nay. • • • Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1998 Page 11 RZ 98-6.00: REZONING (THE DINERSTEIN COMPANIES) SOUTHEAST CORNER OF CATO SPRINGS ROAD AND RAZORBACK ROAD Submitted by the applicant for property located at the southeast corner of Cato Springs Road and Razorback Road. The property is zoned 1-1, Heavy Commercial -Light Industrial and contains approximately 19.47 acres. The request is to rezone the property R-2, Medium Density Residential. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning from 1-1 to R-2. Mr. Harold Heady appeared before the Commission on behalf of the applicant. There were no public comments. Mr. Heady stated the intent of this project was to build 180 apartment units which would be upscale. It would contain a clubhouse along with substantial amenities e.g. computer facilities and a pool with a deck and students would be the market. ❑ Mr. Reynolds stated there was heavy commercial in this location and previously the Commission had refused development and recommended zoning to R-2. ❑ Mr. Forney stated his support for the rezoning saying he would like to see additional development inside the bypass. He further mentioned there was discussion at the University for more student housing. Another thing Commissioner Forney wanted to note as a member of the Planning Commission the state law provided to the Planning Commission to review all public facilities. He requested that relocation of any city facilities (siting issues) be discussed at Planning Commission. MOTION Commissioner Reynolds moved to approve requested rezoning from 1-1 to R-2. Commissioner Ward seconded above motion. The roll call was given and said motion carried 8-1-0, Watkins voted nay. • • Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1998 Page 12 AD98-5.00: ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM (ADVANCED TOWING BARBED WIRE FENCE1 331 WEST POPLAR STREET 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. The applicant is requesting a variance from the following parts of the zoning code §160.118 Buffer strips and screening. (C) Fence required Required fences shall be of a wood or chain link type (barbed wire not permitted) not less than six feet high, constructed of good, substantial material, of first-class workmanship, and so erected as to resist wind pressure, ensure public safety, and present a neat, attractive uniform appearance. (D) Screening required. (I) At the expense of the owner or lessee of the property, and in all zones, the following uses shall be completely surrounded by a view obscuring fence or by view -obscuring vegetation, or a combination of the two, of sufficient height to prevent the view of the premises from vehicular and pedestrian traffic on adjacent streets: outdoor storage yards, including, but not limited to, auto salvage yards, scrap metal yards, used furniture yard, and garbage dumps. Where vegetation is used to meet the requirements of this subsection or subsection (2) below, the vegetation shall be planted at a density sufficient to become view obscuring within two years from the date of planting. If vegetation planed under this subsection does not become view -obscuring within two years, a view -obscuring fence shall be installed. The applicant has requested the variance in order to obtain permission from the City Police Department to by on their list of "approved" impound lots. The Police Department has adopted an operating procedure which conflicts with the City's zoning code in that it requires barbed wire at the top of a secure, fenced area. The applicant was seeking a waiver as allowed by (3) below: Options for resolution of the conflict: 1. The Police Department change its operating procedure so it does not conflict with the zoning code. 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.) 3. The Planning Commission shall have the authority to waive or grant a variance from the screening requirements prescribed by subsections (1) and (2) above in those instances where strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties due to circumstances unique to the property under consideration when it is demonstrated that such action will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this section. The planning commission may impose reasonable conditions in the granting of a waiver or variance to ensure compliance or to protect adjacent property. A violation of any such condition shall constitute a zoning violation. Issues: • 1. Is barbed wire necessary for the protection of public health, safety, or general welfare? 2. What is the effect of barbed wire on the community - is it compatible with commercial design standards? • • • Planning Commission Minuses March 23, 1998 Page 13 Staff: Staff noted this was the same report dated February 19, 1998, which was tabled in order to notify adjoining property owners. ❑ Ms. Little stated the barbed wire was a part of the state regulations on towing yards and the City had adopted the state regulations. There was also some discussion about the screening requirements and the need for the police department to see into towing yards for security purposes. There were no public comments. ❑ Mr. Watkins repeated his concern the variant standard Section 118(D)3 refers to practical difficulties due to circumstances unique to the property, and there had been no showing of anything unique to this property which would warrant a variance. Therefore, under our present ordinance there is no basis for waiver and the remedy Mr. Jeffries seeks would be with the City Council and not with this Commission. ❑ Mr. Odom stated he was in agreement with Commissioner Watkins. He questioned staff if the waiver request was denied based upon this would the applicant have the right to appeal to City Council, and Ms. Little stated he would. ❑ Ms. Hoffman stated the compromise she would like to see would be adding trees which the police could see under and still provide a buffer between the street and barbed wire. Mr. Jeffries responded in order to get a tree high enough he would have to purchase full-grown trees which would limit his expansion possibilities. He further stated the reason he was requesting barbed wire was so he could be added to the police list. Several companies that were not able to tow for the police due to criminal backgrounds, etc. He further stated he had lost business from the police for the past 8 months. ❑ Mr. Odom stated if Planning Commission denies the waiver request, applicant could appeal to the City Council, and secondly, and request to modify the ordinance. ❑ Mr. Forney stated the applicant should request the City Council to exempt towing businesses from this ordinance. ❑ Mr. Odom stated he would support the above recommendation. ❑ Mr. Forney stated he would recommend the exemption be for towing yards that had a contract with the police for towing as opposed to every towing yard, and stated he would be in support of the above recommendation. Ms. Little responded to a question concerning locations in town where barbed wire is in place. She stated staff was in the process of locating those places which are quite numerous, therefore, the discussion at the Council level would deal with other issues regarding barbed wire. MOTION Mr. Watkins moved this request be denied at this level and the applicant appeal to the City Council to exempt towing businesses from the ordinance completely. Commissioner Reynolds seconded said motion. The roll call was given and said vote carried 8-1-0, Ms. Hoffman voted nay. • • • Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1998 Page 14 AD 98-9 ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM (CHRISTIAN LIFE CHURCH - ACCESS ROADI 1285 MILLSAP ROAD Submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of the applicant for property located at 1285 Millsap Road. The request is to allow a private street as an additional access to the church facility. There currently is right-of-way for Millsap Road that would allow for a future connection to the east. The applicant has requested construction of a private drive that would be partially on the right-of-way and on the Southwestern Energy Company property. This private drive would connect Millsap Road to Sain Street and provide access to the existing parking lot to the east and a proposed parking lot to the north. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Millsap Road be extended and constructed as a public street to the north up to and just beyond to the point where the proposed private drive intersects with the right-of-way (approximately 300 feet to the north, see site plan). The drive that connects Millsap Road and Sain Street shall be constructed to City street standards. A waiver is required from the Planning Commission in order for the drive to be private because the City requires any street which connects two public streets to be public. Dave Jorgensen came before the committee on behalf of the applicant and stated their problem with traffic congestion as well as parking for their church members. He addressed the different ideas they had tried to come up with a solution and this project before them was the best solution which would only be temporary for 5-10 years. One problem they identified would be to install 300 feet on Millsap Road which would require removal of large trees. Mr. Jorgenson outlined their concerns as follows: 1. Millsap extension as public for 300 feet. 2. Church and gas company would like to request it be a private drive instead of public street. 3. Vertical alignment problem which would require a waiver due to not being able to provide 4% vertical. 4. Tree removal. Public Comments: Steve Dixon, Co -Pastor for Christian Life Church, stated he was the applicant and was available for any questions. O Mr. Beavers stated he could not comment on the item whether anyone else has connected a private drive from one public road to another private drive. There was some discussion concerning the private drive turning into a public drive. Mr. Jorgenson commented the problem was when you connect public streets it would be under the category of public. Therefore, you would be dealing with costs and access conformity to city streets. He further stated the church does need access from their parking lot to the north. ❑ Mr. Odom asked staff could something this street be considered a private drive. ❑ Mr. Beavers stated if Planning Commission deemed it to be a private drive, then it would be a private drive. He further stated there was no ordinance defining private drives and noted driveways would be like what you find at Glenwood Shopping Center or inside the new Wal-Mart. There was further discussion concerning the elevation of the property which prohibits this project from accessing any other location. • • • Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1998 Page 15 Concerns of the commission included private drive vs. public and safety concerns. ❑ Mr. Estes stated his concerns were with the fluency of the existing driveway out of the church, the proposed drive connecting to Sain, and then what would happen to Millsap if it were to go east. ❑ Ms. Little stated the master street plan Millsap turns north to Brookhaven Subdivision right-of-way to the East which provides for Millsap to go up to Zion Road. ❑ Mr. Forney referred to the master street plan. He stated the right-of-way to the east is good and the need the connectivity is there. However, the private drive, temporary or not, would encourage a lot of traffic by people other than the church, and a lot of safety hazards He further stated an option to consider would be if the gas company would allow the church to use their parking lot and build a walkway through the woods. MOTION Mr. Forney moved to deny the request to allow a private street as additional access to a church facility. Mr. Tucker seconded said motion. Mr. Jorgenson if the gas company and church agreed to go with the staff recommendation as presented would the commission approve it as is. He indicated the second sentence in the recommendation. He further stated the cost would not be tremendous, the only problem would be they could not abide by the 4% grade rule intersecting intersections, but could request a waiver. ❑ Mr. Beavers stated it was not just the planning department's request the recommendation private streets be built to public standards, but was in the ordinances. ❑ Mr. Forney noted the problem with this project is lack of all right-of-ways on the plat and lack of property lines. He further stated he would be interested in reviewing a city street connecting Millsap to Sain. Mr. Jorgenson stated there was no way to come up with a public street connection which would inn from the north to the south and abide by the rules due to the grade ❑ Mr. Watkins stated the applicant had requested what the commission would do, and stated he could not make sense out of the current map, and cannot make a motion on hypothetical situations. ❑ Ms. Johnson confirmed Mr. Fomey's information concerning the plat did not reflect ownership, existing easements and streets, and the information needed had not been provided. ❑ Ms. Little stated the applicant may come back before the commission at the next meeting and would have the additional information outlined above. The roll call was given and said motion carried 8-1-0, with Mr. Odom voting nay. Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1998 Page 16 AD 98-11.00 ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM (STONEBRIDGE MEADOW SIGN STONEBRIDGE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION (RIVER MEADOWS DRIVE1 Submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Bill Meadows for a sign at the entrance of Stonebridge Meadows Subdivision (River Meadows Drive). The request is to allow a sign within the street right-of-way. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to conditions of approval as noted. Dave Jorgensen, appeared on behalf of the applicant, Bill Meadows, and stated they were in agreement with all the conditions of approval. ❑ Ms. Johnson inquired about staff's approval of placing a sign in a private driveway. ❑ Ms. Little responded the street standards approving placement of a sign within any right-of-way. Staff's recommendation was for that property to remain private, or the island will be private which is reflected on page 8.10. If the applicant is agreeable to the conditions as noted, then the commission would not need to address this agenda item. ❑ Mr. Beavers responded to Ms. Johnson's inquiry about standard procedure. He commented this was the first subdivision that had come through where the site agreement with the highway department needed an easement. There was some discussion concerning the location of the sign and other locations that might be more presentable. ❑ Ms. Little stated the developer had only 50 feet right-of-way and there are two adjoining property owners with one garage on the right-of-way line which prevents putting it on the side. Ms. Johnson commented if the applicant was willing to be treated as private then this should be acceptable to the body and thereby would be an administrative item. Mr. Odom concurred with Ms. Johnson. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:17 p.m. Downtown • Dichon huancement Projed, In • • March 23, 1998 TO: City of Fayetteville Planning Commission Mr. Joe Fennel is proposing a mixed use development for 310 W. Dickson Street and has asked the Downtown/Dickson Enhancement Project to comment on the appropnateness of this project. Mixed use projects such as this, placing retail space on the street with residential space above, has been identified by our Design Committee as the most desirable for infill development in the business corridor along Dickson street. Current trends in the area seem to be creating demand for this type development and research of other similar projects show success. Approved by the Board of Directors Laleh Amirmoez, Chairman P.O. Boer 3573.1 &a . AR 72702-3573 100 W. Cert6er Suite 301 ragellevifie, AR 72701 • 501-571-3337 • • • Dickson Street Improvement District 100 West Dickson Street — Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 — 501-442-6262 Carl Collier, Chairman The City of Fayetteville Dawn T. Warrick Planning Department 113 W. Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 March 23, 1998 Dear Ms. Warrick, The commissioners of the Dickson Street Improvement District endorse the concept of mixed-use in our area. The combination of rental, office and residential also makes the best use of the smallest number of parking spaces We would encourage all electric lines to be put underground or combined into one neat service. Dumpsters should be available to city personnel but not obtrusive to the public. Finally, we would like to commend Joe Fennell and Jose's on their commitment to quality development on previous projects. The idea of mixed-use project at the 310 W. Dickson Street (the old Holsum bread store) is interesting. That property is certainly in need of improvement. His projects have been instrumental in the success of the Improvement District and we would encourage the Planning Department to accord him all consideration. Sincerely, Carl Collier dle • • CLIFTON WADE` A. D. MCALLISTER LYNN F. WADE •FOUNDING PARTNER 11910497A) LAW 'DEVICES McALLISTER & WADE A PROFESSIONAL LIMITED l:O>IIOANY 20 EAST CENTER STREET P.O. Box 1000 FAYETTEYII.I.E, ARKANSAS 72702-1000 TELEI'IIONE 501-521-1411 TELEFAX 501-521-8862 wRI .t1ly 132It `d'9dr March 20, 1998 Mr. & Mrs. Joseph J. Fennel 324 West Dickson St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 RE• Proposed parking agreement & alley vacation Dear Mr. & Mrs. Fennel: STEVEN D. GUNDERSON ANDREW C. COZART I am writing on behalf of James M. Hargis and Nancy Witt Lewis, as owners of the adjacent property to your property, 310 w. Dickson Street. They have asked me to review the documents delivered to them by your representative. Upon reviewing the proposed documents, I have several concems about my clients entering into the shared parking agreement and consenting to the vacation of the alley. Primarily, my concern is what the long term consequences will be for my clients' use of their property. Based upon our discussions, my clients are not willing to sign the parking agreement nor waive their objection to the vacation of the alley. In an effort to try to accommodate your needs, my clients are willing to try to develop an alternate arrangement whereby you sublease the areas needed for parking for your building from Jose's, Inc.. Any sublease, however, would be tied to Jose's lease with my clients. If you have further information that would shed light on this situation so that I can advise my clients as to the affect on the future use of their property, I certainly am open to listening to you or your representatives. In the meantime, other arrangements will have to be made. I appreciate your time with this matter. If you have any questions, by all means give me a call. Sincerely, LISTER $i WADE, P.L.C. AndrewC. Cozad ACC/wt • cc: James M. Hargis and Nancy Witt Lewis •e• • • PC 3/23/98 Ls9a-9 43e„ %Q/I%-47 Tot itanzl .ln 9s-8 anted vett 4),,L 0 WE/ dtfcGfa iM-& Ab9x3- 4 >r/ 42198-y £1 aC AD91-11 Syne .,eq,,. ✓ 7/tL eLaz MOTION ril V 1,11 c, or P a O/ 7 th & ' l!1 SECOND I,llr '`/" rri"-.9' 1A)1 I"'^. '''" Phyllis Johnson / t/ t/ / / / / 7 Lorel Hoffman / v / / ✓ / N V Lee Ward i/ ✓ / / / / !/ ✓ Gary Tucker 7 / / / # 1/ / / Bob Estes -ea) / f/ /1 / / / Bob Reynolds Aft / / R / / / / John Forney _(n ,/ ✓ / 7// V / 1/ Conrad Odom % 1/ L/ L/ / / / / p/ John Watkins / ,tV / / / iii / frrn Sato 3r)4 Peiin- Alai bi /1-0 g,/ -O g,i-o g,/ -b 4 ��M