Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-04-13 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held April 13, 1998, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Gary Tucker, Sharon Hoover, Phyllis Johnson, Bob Reynolds, Lee Ward, Bob Estes, Con rad Odom, John Forney STAFF PRESENT: Tim Conklin, Dawn Warrick, Alett Little, and Debra Humphrey ITEMS REVIEWED: AD 98-8.00: Administrative Item (Amendment to Parking Lot Ordinance) PP 98-1.00: Preliminary Plat (Wedington Place, Phase II) LSD 98-4.00: Large Scale Development (Cedar Lake Apartments aka Fayetteville Sr. Appt) AD 98-12.00: Administrative Item (Town Creek Builders) RZ 98-7.00: Rezoning (Mark Marquess and Dan Dykema) RZA 98-8.00: Annexation (Prestige Properties) RZ 98-9.00: Rezoning (Prestige Properties) Al) 98-13.00 Administrative (Planning Commission Findings) AD 98-14.00: Administrative (Young Parking Ord. Prop.) ACTION TAKEN Denied Approved Approved Approved Denied Approved Approved Resolution/Next Meeting Resolution/Next Meeting APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR MARCH 23, 1998 The minutes were approved as distributed. NOMINATION COMMITTEE: Ms. Johnson stated the Nominating Committee made the following nominations: Chairman - Conrad Odom Vice-chairman - John Forney Secretary - Lorel Hoffman There were no nominations were given by the floor. Mr. Estes moved to accept the nominations from the committee, and Mr. Ward seconded the motion. The roll was called and said motion carried unanimously with a vote of 8-0-0. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT: Mr. Odom appointed Bob Reynolds, Phyllis Johnson and Lorel Hoffman. • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 1998 Page -2- OLD BUSINESS: ITEM 1: Al) 98-8.00: ADMINISTRATIVE_ ITEM (AMENDMENT TO PARKING LOT ORDINANCE) An ordinance amending Section 160.117 of the Zoning Code to change parking requirements for restaurants and restaurants with entertainment to require one space per four seats, plus one per employee. Attached is the resolution and proposed ordinance the Planning Commission approved at the March 23, 1998 meeting. The Planning Commission will need to make a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed ordinance. This proposed ordinance was discussed at the November 13, 1995 meeting, at which time a motion was made to approved and due to time lapse, the proposal was brought before the Commission March 23, 1998. Resolution was passed at last meeting. Public comments: Rob Sharp inquired if ordinance would reflect 1 employee per shift per space. ❑ Ms. Little stated the ordinance would reflect 1 employee, per shift, per space. Recommendation: Ms. Johnson recommended to add "per shift" after one per employee. Discussion: In response to a question regarding if proposed ordinance would apply to Cl through C4, Mr. Conklin stated yes. ❑ Ms. Hoover inquired how many more spaces would this require for an average restaurant and whether all restaurants were requesting waivers. ❑ Ms. Hoover stated according to her calculations with a restaurant for 5,000 sf and occupancy of 148 people, that under the new code it would require 68 parking spaces, which now would require 25 spaces which would be allotting 43 more parking spaces. Ms. Little stated at the present time our code for restaurant parking is the maximum and in order to have more they have to request a waiver above the 20% allowed Mr. Ward moved to approve AD 98-8. Mr. Estes seconded said motion. Mr. Tucker noted ordinance did not presently have a description of use which matched restaurant entertainment and would proposed ordinance address this. ❑ Mr. Conklin stated the ordinance would address this. He referred to Page 1.4 which addressed the two items directly from the code. ❑ Ms. Little noted drive-thrus had been requesting the same amount no reason for a distinction. 1 • • Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 1998 Page -3- Public: Richard Alexander, representing the Downtown Dickson Enhancement Project, on behalf of the Board approached the committee. The Downtown Dickson Enhancement Project would like Planning Commission to make not make a determination concerning this ordinance. He stated this was the first time they heard of the proposed change. ❑ Mr. Odom stated the change was over a year old. Mr. Alexander stated Downtown underwent a parking survey and conclusions state reflected more than adequate parking, and therefore, requested the Commission not make the requirements more rigid than they are. Zoning code is 1/250' of restaurant space. Much of the renovation came about as a result of the fact the parking lots were lessened and not strengthened. Ms. Little stated the goal would be to encourage the reuse of existing buildings. This ordinance would only affect the new restaurant business within C3 and Cl. Mr. Alexander requested, on behalf of the board, an opportunity to address this ordinance request before the commission votes. Mr. Odom noted the public would be able to address their concerns before the hearing to the City Council. Mr. Tucker noted this proposed ordinance was passed by Planning Commission November 1995, and assumed that it went before the City Council and failed. O Ms. Little stated the City Council did not take a vote due to the concerns for Dickson Street project and was remanded to Planning Commission for a study. It was noted the ordinance allotting the parking spaces were minimum, as well as, maximum and would only be for those restaurants that renovate or for new restaurants. This ordinance would not include the restaurants already in existence. Mr. Tucker stated he had called other cities and noted Little Rock uses 1/100 except for the central business district 1/300. Springfield uses 1/80 sf or 1/2.5 seats but in the central business district they have no parking requirements. He stated in the 20/20 reference the ability for the business district to be served by public transit and walking distance and shared parking. Mr. Ward stated he would be in agreement for this ordinance due to restaurants looking to coming in and need of more parking than allowed but also sees wanting to protect the business district. Mr. Forney agreed with Mr. Ward's notation, and the use of 1/4 seats, and wanted to know if there were any with the 20% overage that were not granted. ❑ Ms. Little stated there were several along Millsap road, and also some restaurants who had considered coming to Fayetteville, due to parking. Ms. Little also stated she could not convince these restaurants to consider existing buildings for renovation.. ❑ Ms. Little stated the ordinance address minimum and maximum which are allowable and required. ❑ Ms. Little read what parking requirements for other areas in the country. (Attached as Exhibit A). • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 1998 Page -4- Ms. Johnson stated this issue could be discussed back and forth regarding the downtown area. Therefore, she recommended this item go before the council and the Downtown Enhancement Project discuss their concerns at that time. Mr. Odom agreed and also agreed with Mr. Forney's concerns. Forney stated he would vote against due to allow flexible range. The roll was called and said motion was denied with a vote of 3-5-0. Mr. Ward, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Estes, Mr. Forney, and Ms. Hoover voted nay. • Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 1998 Page 5 MISSING • • • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 1998 Page -6- LSD 984-00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (CEDAR LAKE APARTMENTS aka FAY. SENIOR APT.. - NORTH OF EAST 15TH STREET AND WEST OF MORNINGSIDE DRIVE Submitted by Geoffrey Bates of Northwest Engineers, and William Anderson, architect 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 approximately 12 acres. Findings: This project was originally submitted as "Fayetteville Senior Citizens Apartments." Staff recommendation: Approval subject to conditions of approval as noted by Mr. Odom. ❑ Ms. Little stated there no further conditions, and noted a letter had been distributed and staff did not have signed condition of approval. Kurt Jones appeared on behalf of Thomas J. Embach, the owner. Mr. Jones stated the items he would address were #3 parking spaces backing onto the streets. He stated he was under the impression this was worked out, but he would be willing to work with the staff and was under the impression four would be allowed. ❑ Mr. Odom re -read Item #7 and noted it "does include sidewalks." Mr. Jones then mentioned the parking arrangement at the northwest corner, and the variances requested. No final agreements for right-of-way and approval would be contingent on and are pursuing this at the present time. Public: Arlene Sperley stated she does not want street there and gave a memorandum in this regard. She read the letter she had submitted to the Planning Commission. Attached as Exhibit B to minutes herein. Ms. Sperley stated Morgan Manor currently drained onto her property and would cause more flooding. She stated her son was planning on building and she was wanting to put a duplex there. Discussion: ❑ Ms. Johnson noted at Subdivision meeting there was a recommendation that all parking lots have a minimum throat length of 25 feet. Therefore, she proposed adding a condition No. 15 of minimum of 25 feet. It was noted this recommendation was noted after Item No. 14. Mr. Jones addressed this development was zoned R-2 and currently were proposing 96 units approximately 12 acres. Allowable R -2s are 24 units, therefore, we would be developing to 1/3 of full potential and developer has made sincere effort to not over develop property. ❑ Mr. Forney addressed the issue of parking at northwest corner being an issue - be waived ❑ Mr. Conklin stated it was brought up and staff agreed and was willing to go along with that. ❑ Ms. Little stated Condition No. 3 addresses this issue and there is public right-of-way and it is a future condition. There was no provision for and if Planning Commission wants to ratify then they can do that tonight. She further stated adequate room would have to be accommodated if closer to the buildings. ❑ Mr. Tucker inquired as to Subdivision Committee's feeling as to condition #1 right-of-way issue. • Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 1998 Page -7- Mr. Forney said the committee's recommendation was the project should not go forward without gaining access to the east. Mr. Jones understood this to be a requirement and his drawing reflected a possible connection. ❑ Mr. Reynolds stated his concern was access for the senior citizens to Walker Park without getting on Morningside without someone getting killed, and did not see any way until a solution to a street access was obtained. Mr. Jones stated they were in the process of talking to property owners to property further to the south. He stated the Subdivision Committee stated if solution did not work out and their ability to obtain access to 12th street fell through, then the project would have to be revisited at that point. ❑ Mr. Beavers stated he had referred the developer to send a letter to the Public Works Director and to CIP. ❑ Mr. Reynolds stated there were concerns such as theft of mail at Morgan Manor, drainage, and a need for a fence along Wood Avenue. Mr. Jones stated they have allowed for connection anywhere along the right of way and were not planning to develop anything east of property. He further stated they do have property on south end for possible connection. This owner has already purchased additional property for connection to Morningside. • Mr. Reynolds reiterated his concern for the health and safety for senior citizens and the need for another entrance for emergency vehicles. Jones was in agreement and was seeking approval contingent on getting access required. ❑ Ms. Little stated 12th street was the optimum connection for the Senior Citizen Center. If developer was unable to acquire right-of-way, developer could go to City Council acquisition procedures and developer bear the cost. Discussion was concerning to the south and that would be better than no connection, but 12th Street was optimum. ❑ Mr. Forney agreed 12th Street would be the best direction to go. He stated he did understand developer may have difficulty and Ms. Sperling's concerns, and Planning Commission agree and limit their access to Morningside and direct to Wood Street. Western connection to 12th street would be the ideal connection. He further stipulated to mandate some connection to Wood Street There is a large pond spillway would possibly help the drainage situation. ❑ Mr. Estes inquired about the sidewalks along Morningside Drive on 2 sides of piece of property going North and whether the City would pay for the portion that was void. ❑ Ms. Little stated on Page 3.3 there was approximately 133 feet and 125 feet on North side. Also a large ditch there. Sidewalks are recommended be deferred until Morningside Street be constructed. Mr. Reynolds moved to table project until we get all paperwork and new drawing showing a street to 15th street. Mr. Jones noted he had turned in revised drawings which reflected provisions for 15th Street and one to Wood and two to Morningside. • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 1998 Page -8- Mr. Forney moved to approve project with number of conditions: 1. Public street to the west for future extension. Approval of preliminary plat require connection of a public street to Wood Street from west property line of this project. 2. Grant variance 25 feet to 10 feet 3. The northwest corner parking be eliminated 4. The required minimum tangent length of 100' be waived and 50' variance be allowed and reconfirm #15 - 25' minimum throat length be required to all parking lots and all other conditions of approval. Ms. Johnson seconded said motion. Mr. Tucker inquired if motion address the existing Wood Street. Mr. Forney stated the motion does not address the possible extension of Wood Street, it only requires connection from the east to the west to Wood Street as it exists. Mr. Odom stated the city ordinance the post flow be no greater than the free-flowing water problem. The roll was called and said motion carried with a vote of 7-1-0. Mr. Reynolds voted nay. • In regard to the project on Morningside Drive,I would like to respond on the opening of the through streets. These streets into the project off of Wood Street would cause an enormous amount of problems for that area First of all this is , correct me if I am wrong, a ninety some unit project that will be constructed in this area. That means that if even half of the residents have cars, and we know they will, the stress on this area would be tremendous It would also be ludicrous to suggest that Morningside Drive or Wood Street take the brunt of this traffic. These streets are narrow, to say the least, and not well maintained by the city. I am sure promises can be made to joining property owners, however we have no assurance that any promise will be kept. All that is wanted at this time is our signature to allow access to •a through street. It would make better sense for this projects owner to obtain access to his project through 15th street. It is amajor artery to the industries and it is more able to take the stress of the Morningside project. It is our suggestion that you forget putting streets on Wood Street and the owner really needs to thmk about the traffic stress in the areas and come up with a more realistic solution. Please do not forget Morgan Manor is in that area and there are many young children in there, most are allowed to play in the street. If you put 50 extra cars, and more , it has the blue prints for a tragedy. • • Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 1998 Page -9- AD 98-12.00: ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM (TOWN CREEK BUILDERS1 404 WEST 6T11 STREET - NORTHWEST CORNER OF S. SCHOOL AVENUE AND WEST 6T11 Submitted by Rob Sharp on behalf of the applicants for property located at 404 West 6th Street, at the northwest corner of S. School Avenue and West 6th Streets. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.3 acres. The request is for a permanent waiver of Section 160.123 which requires that all utility line's be placed underground. Findings: A mixed use development is the goal of the applicant for this site. As stated in the attached documentation, the cost of placing the overhead electric lines underground in this specific location will more than double the land cost for this project, making it unfeasible. Also attached is a formal estimate from SWEPCO which states that the total cost would be approximately $222,807.00. The estimate also states that the quoted price is valid only based upon the assumption that SWEPCO would be allowed to build an overhead line on 5th Street and Church Street. If that is not allowed, the cost of placing lines underground for the subject tract would increase by approximately $70,000.00. A waiver of the ordinance requirement for underground utilities may be granted by the Planning Commission in the "case of hardships, (including by not limited to financial, geological, environmental, or regulatory) unique to the subject property." A waiver, if granted, may be permanent or temporary. • Staff Recommendation: Approval. • Staff felt the exorbitant cost of placing utility lines underground in this particular location would perpetuate the run down appearance and feel of the site. An infill project which could lead to some revitalization in this area should be encouraged. Any further conditions: None Applicant: Rob Sharp, on behalf of applicant, came before the commission. He informed the commission the plan was to develop a building with art studios, apartments. He further noted the goal was to provide space close to downtown and flexible. He stated the cost of putting underground utilities would be $292,000.00. Because affordability was too much they request a waiver of financial hardship. He addressed several questions about the ordinance and power lines in new development. When deeded access requesting 20' access does this become city's expense or developer's cost. New development or develop lots one at a time? After review minutes of meeting build a successful project. $24,000.00 had been budgeted for landscaping will help with the aesthetic issues. Staff: ❑ Ms. Little responded according to Ordinance 160.123 in the new residential requiring all utility lines autolysate shall be placed underground. When right-of-way is granted it becomes the developer's responsibility. She further stated as to new commercial development what is there remains and it is rehabilitated. • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 1998 Page -10- Public: Richard Alexander came before the commission and stated he was peripherally involved with this project. In trying to put this deal together and work with Rob, they had done research and surveys regarding hazardous materials. This was a vast and difficult project. As a citizen, he stated it would behoove the city to approve this project due to it is currently an eyesore. I think this requirement requiring utilities underground is expensive. Discussion: ❑ Mr. Reynolds commented not too many people drive south to Coop, and the mill has been getting moisture and stench. He stated if developer wanted to renovate and make it attractive he felt the commission should assist and work with the developer. ❑ Ms. Little stated the Planning Commission requested an estimate of the total cost of the project and it was $2 million preliminary estimate. ❑ Mr. Tucker stated 10% was not a exorbitant amount and was not convinced would be an outrageous request. Mr. Sharp stated 14% when you spend more on the land the offer was contingent on resolving this issue. It is unfeasible to this developer at this time. ❑ Mr. Forney commented this may be a piece meal way of handling this waiver. He suggested staff research ordinance requirements and research ways to create a fund for a reasonable amount or doing a lot of waivers. He further stated the methods we were considering were not feasible. ❑ Ms. Little stated this waiver would apply only to this applicant and this project. Mr. Sharp referred the commission to Page 4.2 which outlines the proposed buildings which reflect the character and nature of that sight, and would be going through Large Scale Development. Ms. Johnson moved to waive requirement of underground utility lines only to this project, as defined on Page 4.2. Mr. Forney seconded said motion. The roll call was given and said motion carried with a vote of 8-0-0. • • Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 1998 Page -11- RZ 98-7.00: REZONING (MARK MAROUESS AND DAN DYKEMA) SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 46TH STREET AND PERSIMMON Submitted by Michele A. Harrington on behalf of the applicants for property located at the southwest corner of 46th Street and Persimmon and contains approximately 60 acres. The request is to rezone the property from A-1, Agricultural to R-1, Low Density Residential. Findings: 1. The proposed rezoning will allow the development of the land for residential purposes as shown on General Plan 2020 Future Land Use Plan. 2. There are many considerations that determine how property can be developed and at what price an individual is willing to pay for a particular piece of property. A professional market and feasibility study would be necessary to completely understand the current supply and demand for property zoned R-1. 3. Rezoning this property to R-1 will not create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion. 4. Rezoning this property R-1 would not alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on public services including schools, water, and sewer facilities. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning from A-1 to R-1. No conditions of approval. Michele Harrington, representing applicant, appeared before the commission. She stated this was only 1/4 mile past the 71 bypass which was inside the city limits. She stated the engineers and Mr. Markus were present for any questions. Public: Cyrus Kooshesh, who lives on 46th street, appeared before the commission. He stated the property in question was actually 1.3 miles from the bypass. He noted his concerns as follows: 1. The range of the size of houses were presently 1.99 acres, the rest 1.5 to 3 acres. He stated he was not in opposition to selling the lot. However, he stated sometimes the City approves plans, and afterward fmd problems previous administration did not consider. 2. He stated he understood R-1 could have up to 4 houses per acre which would be 240 houses maximum. When those 240 houses go up you would need to allow for people who would have at least two cars which would cause traffic overflow. He further stated Highway 16 West has worse traffic at the lights. He stated they had asked the City Council to negotiate for either the City or the State for a road to Double Spring Road and bypass. 3. His next item of concern was drainage. He showed the commission two pictures of his backyard which was standing in water at the present time. He stated the City allowed a church to be built and prior to that it would drain, now a dam has been built to contain the water His house is approximately 1/8 of mile and 1.5 miles from 46th street. • 4. He requested for the commission to consider the number of houses and limit per acre. He stated there were currently 2600 to 2700 square foot houses on existing property at the present time. • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 1998 Page -12- Bill Giles, who lives on 46th street, appeared before the commission. He stated originally this was an improvement district and were still paying for improvements in this area. He further stated that anyone developing in this area would be getting a free ride. He requested to keep this area and allow enough affordable housing there. He noted a development to the east of 46th had started and were going to build houses and was not able to complete the project and now it was messed up, and stated he would not want anymore of that in this area or location. He stated his wife currently owns 200 acres which was approximately 1/4 mile from neighbors. Discussion: The applicant, Mr. Marquess, appeared before the commission. He wanted to address some of the issues presented before the commission. Issues: He stated 1/4 north back on Hwy 16 was a subdivision consisting of 190 homes; Fieldstone subdivision was 1/4 of mile; Meadowlands Subdivision and Heritage Village, and therefore, this area was not as remote as it appeared. He stated R-1 maximum was 240 lots and their plans would not contain near that many houses. He further noted plans include dedicating 25 acres for parks and recreation. As to the drainage issue, Mr. Marquess stated he believed the property was upstream from the proposed property which was south and the water flow went south and west. He further stated commercial expansion was going on out there, and noted they were not requesting R-2 or R1.5, they were requesting R-1. 0 Mr. Odom noted his concern zoning should not be R-1 and asked if any consideration had been given to R -E. Mr. Marquess stated density lots running at least $40,000 to $60,000 minimum. Unfortunately, the only area that could substantiate a R -E designation was on the east side. Traditionally in that area of 2 miles average lot price supports $12,000 to $20,000 lot price. 0 Mr. Reynolds noted Salem Street has three subdivisions yet to be built, Crystal Springs has two phases to build, and inquired if R -A or R -L was a consideration. Mr. Marquess stated a market analysis was prepared on the west side, and nothing supported that issue. He further noted Heritage Village was building its last 45 lots and some are duplex; Magnolia Crossing was down to its last 50 Lots; Fieldstone subdivision opened up there last phase, and these were approximately 4-5 miles away from this lot. 0 Mr. Reynolds inquired if proposed project was compatible to the neighborhood currently there, and Mr. Marquess stated it would be within 1/4 miles. Mr. Marquess stated most of the homes in this area were not $300,000+. Mr. Marquess further stated out of the 300 homes were cut down to 3 acre lots, they would find less than 5% of homes over $125 to $150,000. Another issue of concern was property to the north does touch property already zoned R-1. In reviewing the plat it was noted the majority of the property adjoining was zoned A-1. • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 1998 Page -13- Ms. Harrington addressed the improvements and stated the landowner would also be paying sewer fines, and many issues regarding traffic, drainage, etc. would be addressed at Subdivision Committee. She further stated when bypass came in everyone knew west would be developed and was designated residential on our 20/20 plan. Mr. Estes stated it appeared zoning was consistent and allowed residential purposes as shown on general plan 20/20 In addition, it would be impractical to use the land for any other uses permitted under its existing zoning classification, and for these reasons he moved to approve this request. Mr. Ward seconded said motion. Mr. Odom stated he was in agreement with Mr. Estes' majority of assessment which indicates master plan does indicate it to be residential. However, he was not convinced R-1 should be the correct zoning to be consistent with the surrounding area. And therefore, would not approve this request due to the adjacent landowners concerns. The roll call was given and motion failed on a vote of 440. Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Forney, Mr. Odom and Ms. Hoover voted nay. Mr. Odom stated the applicant could appeal to the City Council. Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 1998 Page -14- RZA 97-8.00: ANNEXATION: NORTH OF MT. COMFORT ROAD AND EAST OF HUGH MOUNT ROAD Submitted by Michele A. Harrington on behalf of Prestige Properties for property located at north of Mt. Comfort Road and east of Hugh Mount Road. The property is located within the county and contains approximately 0.93 acres. Discuss both: No conditions of approval. Applicant: Michelle Harrington, representing Prestige Properties, came before the commission. She stated due to failure to close submittal and failure of conveyance, a small thin triangle was created. This error was discovered in title work. This property fits between the parcels and would make it contiguous. Public: None. Discussion: The Planning Commission reviewed the information brought before them and the request. Ms. Johnson moved to approve this annexation request. Mr. Estes seconded said motion. The roll call was given and said motion carried with a vote of 8-0-0. • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 1998 Page -15- RZ 98-5.00 REZONING NORTH OF MT. COMFORT ROAD AND EAST OF HUGH MOUNT ROAD Submitted by Michele A. Harrington on behalf of Prestige Properties for property located north of Mt. Comfort Road and east of Hugh Mount Road The property contains approximately 0.93 acres. The request is to rezone the property from A-1, Agricultural to R-1, Low -Density Residential. Findings; 1. This site is shown on the General Plan 2020 Future Land Use Plan as residential. 2. This property is located between Serenity Place Subdivision, zoned R-1, and the 200 acres recently annexed and zoned R-1. 3. Additional improvements would have to be made to the street system as part of the subdivision process to accommodate increased traffic under R-1 zoning densities. 4. Development of this land under R -I zoning should not cause an undesirable increase on the load with regard to public services including schools, water, and sewer facilities. Public services and facilities would be evaluated in greater detail at the time of development to mitigate any impacts associated with development. No staff comments. No public comments. Ms. Johnson moved to approve the rezoning. Mr. Reynolds seconded said motion. The roll call was given and said motion carried 8-0-0. • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 1998 Page -16- AD 98-13.00: ADMINISTRATIVE (PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS) An ordinance requiring the Planning Commission to take a separate vote to affirm findings. Staff: Cyrus Young appeared before the commission to state his case requiring Planning Commission to make a separate vote on the findings. According to Mr. Young he stated the Ordinance required fmdings to be voted on separately. Public: Richard Alexander, on behalf of Downtown Dickson Street, requested the commission had no objections asked by Board the Planning Commission not make parking requirements more difficult. In that regard, he stated they observe the struggle in fmding of facts. Item 8 and 9 would like to see an ordinance not to require finding of facts to grant a waiver but allow items to set forth fmdings of fact and to also consider other issues such as whether or not a project is beneficial and desirable. He recommended leaving a lee way to grant waivers. He stated the Downtown Enhancement Project's position was to make a broader range of issues and grant variances on that basis. Discussion: ❑ Mr. Tucker clarified there would not be a vote taken at this time, but would serve as a public notice. ❑ Mr. Odom commented he liked the idea and would be helpful to know what findings they were to make and why, but stated this may put undue hardship on the commission. He stated he liked the concept but not the form. Mr. Young stated his recommendation was to base their decision on facts where is evidence to support facts. He stated the finding may not be adequately reflected in the minutes and would need it spelled out more. Mr. Young further identified a project at the previous meeting regarding a parking waiver. He stated the ordinance stated if you waive the parking, to recognize shared parking, there was a requirement for a signed agreement between owners. If findings had been made, the commission would have noted there was no signed agreement, and would either deny or table it at that point. He stated instead it was approved. ❑ Mr. Odom stated separate findings are made, but not voted on separately. ❑ Mr. Estes stated as a member of commission, he based his decisions and vote not on assumptions but findings of fact. He does find ordinance appropriate but not enough to require to take separate votes. He further stated it was implicit in voting process that we have made those findings. ❑ Ms. Johnson stated the Commission does make findings but stated due to time constraints, there should be a concern for the last applicant on the agenda, and then the quality of their work would be hampered, and therefore, was in agreement with Mr. Estes. Mr. Young noted he had been timing the motions and roll call and found there were approximately 2 minutes for each vote and roll call. ❑ Ms. Johnson stated his timing was misleading from motion until roll call. ❑ Mr. Estes emphasized when making his vote, he does it according to the findings and facts, and substantial evidence. • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 1998 Page -17- ❑ Mr.Tucker inquired as to how many other commissions and meetings take separate votes for findings. Mr. Young stated previous boards and council have required to make findings. ❑ Mr. Forney stated the minutes reflect the thinking and fibrillation of the Planning Commission's deliberations. Mr. Odom made a resolution to put this item on next agenda as old business for April 27th. Mr. Estes seconded said motion. The roll call was given and said motion carried with a vote of 8-0-0. • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 1998 Page -18- AD 98-14:00: ADMINISTRATIVE (YOUNG PARKING ORDINANCE PROPERTY1 The planning commission shall have the authority to waive the number of off-site parking spaces required in C-3 and C-4 districts. Staff comments: Additional information from Alderman Young regarding a hearing regarding property off Dickson Street. In regard to parking lot section, some clarification was needed. Page 8.1 in agenda and is doing things existing parking spaces or parking waivers regarding findings, separated out and each finding has had a letter placed in front of it. A. And B. Or C. One of those findings would have to be made in C3 and C4. On page 8.2 the wording regarding findings, to waive (per ordinance). Cyrus Young appeared before the commission. He stated his intent was to clarify this ordinance. Council for first construction. His impression for the existing buildings parking would be waived, new construction would like to separate to make it more clear. Resolve to put on the next agenda. Public Comment: Richard Alexander, on behalf of Downtown Enhancement Project, appeared before the commission. He stated the board's concerns regarding parking waivers, and their need to see an ordinance for Planning Commission to make waivers. He stated public or private parking did not meet these criteria and Planning Commission should consider these recommendations. He further stated the Downtown Enhancement Project did a study of the parking and depending on the area propose whether parking was adequate. He noted at the end of Dickson Street, after 5:00 p.m. the two deck parking at old Washington County Courthouse was available, as well as the parking at the public library. He also noted the church parking behind the square was available. Planning Commission should make their determination without having to make through findings and facts, and requested that the Downtown Enhancement Project have some input on the ordinance language would recognize the C3 and C4 area. o Ms. Little had attempted to obtain a parking study and would make available to Planning Commission for review. She further noted the testimony of Sergeant Carroll that, due to inadequate parking he had arrested people. Richard Shoemaker, who lives on Dickson Street, came before the Commission. Dickson Street had made it since 1990, and would not have made it if it did not relax its ordinance. He stated "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". A few years from now you could, but not right now. It is hard to find by the ordinance and regarding the hearings and findings that came through. Add it as #C. Followed Downtown Enhancement Project through LSD and the issue was brought through. He stated Mr. Young had opposed it regarding character of Dickson Street. He stated this ordinance was simply trying to stop development on Dickson Street. He further noted change was not Mr. Young's approval. He stated do not place another regulation that would stop what is going on. Bootsie Ackerman, a member of the Downtown Enhancement Project, appeared before the commission. She stated in keeping with them regarding waiving parking requirements has stimulated the development. While we were waiting for today's objectives she commented think of the future and set aside money the development would catch up and parking would be problematic. Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 1998 Page -19- Discussion: Mr. Forney commented the best way to handle this issue might be to look at the proposed site and stipulate spaces for whatever use, and therefore, he felt this would be a mistake to use this language. He also inquired as to why Sergeant Carroll considered parking an issue. ❑ Ms. Little stated he knew what happened on the street and what the police department had in the area, and because he was a public servant she wanted to make the Planning Commission aware of his concerns. ❑ Ms. Little further stated City over -rules State in regards to liquor license. ❑ Mr. Tucker recommended there be 2-3 meetings with the Downtown Enhancement Project regarding conceptual issues and have not had any in the last year. He suggested an opportunity to make a presentation to us regarding their vision and their studies regarding parking, and review where Dickson Street was heading. ❑ Mr. Odom recommended Mr. Tucker's request be tabled and brought before the next Planning Commission. Mr. Odom made a resolution that this item be put on the agenda for the next Planning Commission for April 27, 1998. Mr. Forney seconded said motion. The roll call was given and said motion carried with a vote 8-0-0. There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. • • • John P. Pearson Page 2 services. Mr. Pearson stated that the only egress and ingress on the University Baptist Church side of the building was a fire exit, which is very rarely used. Mr. Pearson testified that the restroom facilities will be installed and that in the past this building had been rented to persons who had private parties which had, on occasion, caused problems for the Fayetteville Police Department. Mr. Pearson testified that if his son were granted the private club permit that he would have more control over the patrons at the private club. Mr. Pearson stated that his son owns Play It Again Sam's in Fayetteville which is a restaurant with a mixed drink permit. 2. John Pearson testified in support of the application. .Mr. Pearson stated that he has operated Play It Again Sam's for one year without any problems with the Fayetteville Police or with the Alcoholic Beverage Control. Mr. Pearson further stated that he felt that he should not be held responsible for problems which had been caused at the building by other tenants. 3. Sgt._Ron—Carr•o11'of the:Fayetteville Police Department testi-fied inopposition to -the a'pplication. Sgt. Carroll testified that Chief Watson objected to the application because the University Baptist Church had complained about private parties that had been held in the building in the past. Sgt;, Carroll._f.ur.ther testified that there was inadequate Oe king_for allJof"the outlets with ABC permits in the -Weed; and that the Fayetteville Police had arrested drunks in the parking lot who were not only drinking in the parking lot but were urinating in the parking lot as well. Sgt. Carroll also testified that the Chief of Police was concerned because the proposed outlet was located only ninety four feet from the University Baptist Church Youth Center. FINDINGS OF FACT The Board finds that John Pearson is a qualified applicant and that he will make an economic investment in the area. The Board finds that the applicant will address the concerns of the Fayetteville Police Department and that he will be able to better control- the situation at the proposed location with a private club permit granted by the ABC. The Board further finds that there were no objections to the application from the University Baptist church. • • er 1 AD 98-8 PP 98-1 LSD 98-4 AD 98-12 RZ 98-7 RZA 98-8 RZ 98-9 AD 98-13 AD 98-14 MOTION a ) (d es ( P' 'lei atin (kw SECOND 110 � 91 G%rt d Wim+' Ai, fsi`5 40- Pki Ward ✓ N n, ✓ // ✓ / ✓ ✓ ✓ Tucker i/ d 1 / / ✓ ✓ / / ✓ Estes ✓ Yt' ✓ ✓ ✓ v ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Reynolds / / ✓ N / A/ ✓ ,/ ,/ ✓ Forney ✓ W / ✓ ✓ /j/ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Odom / ✓ / ✓ ✓ N ✓ / ✓ t/ Wastkiins l� //gayer % ✓ Ai ✓ ✓ ✓ n �l/ / ✓ ✓ ✓ 11;40-- ✓ 1/ ✓ ✓ ✓ '✓ I/ ✓ ✓ 7 3-s6 01.7'/.(% Pid 7-s'a p'40'e sin er 1