Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-07-13 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held July 13, 1998 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Conrad Odom, Lee Ward, Sharon Hoover, Bob Estes, John Forney, Phyllis Johnson, Bob Reynolds and Gary Tucker MEMBERS ABSENT: Lorel Hoffman STAFF PRESENT: Alett Little, Jim Beavers, Tim Conklin, Dawn Warrick, Debra Humphrey, and members of the press. Chairman Odom called the meeting to order with seven commissioners present. CONSENT AGENDA Chairman Odom introduced consideration of items which may be approved by motion or by resolution and which may be grouped together and approved simultaneously under a consent agenda: APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR JUNE 22, 1998 CU 98-12 00: CONDITIONAL USE (ROBERT MCANARNEY) 4045 NORTH HILLSIDE TERRACE This item was submitted by Jorgensen & Assoc. on behalf of the applicant for property located at 4045 North Hillside Terrace. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 2 64 acres. The request is for a tandem lot. LS 98-25.00: LOT SPLIT (ROBERT MCANARNEY) 4045 NORTH HILLSIDE TERRACE This item was submitted by Jorgensen & Assoc. on behalf of the applicant for property located at 4045 North Hillside Terrace. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 3.5 acres. The proposed lot split will create a tandem lot containing approximately 2.64 acres and the remaining tract will contain approximately 0.82 acres. • Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 1998 Page -2- STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the requests based on the findings included as part of this report and subject to the Planning Commission making the findings required by §160.091 and §160.195 and to the following conditions: 1. Trash pickup will be from Hillside Terrace, and the owner of the tandem lot will be responsible for bringing garbage cans to the street prior to pick up. 2. All comments from technical plat review and subdivision meetings. 3. Extension of water and sewer to serve the new lot will be constructed or guaranteed prior to the filing of warranty deeds. FINDINGS: 1. The applicant has paid the filing fee and submitted an applicant citing § 160.091 as the section of this chapter under which the conditional use is sought and stating the grounds on which it is requested. 2. The Planning Commission is empowered under § 160.091 to grant the conditional use for • 3. a tandem lot in an R-1 Zoning District. A 40' right of way provides access to the tandem lot. 4. Garbage pickup will be at the street for the tandem lot. 5. The existing house is currently being served by utilities. 6. The project meets the required setbacks for a tandem lot. 7. The project is compatible with adjacent and other properties in the district. • VA 98-8.00: UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION (RICHARD RUSH) 2097 HAILEY DRIVE This utility easement vacation as requested by Richard Rush for property located at 2097 Hailey Drive (Madison subdivision east of Starr Drive and south of Highway 45). The property is zoned R -I, low - density residential. The northeast corner of the house extends into the utility easement approximately 1.73 feet. The request is to vacate only that part of the easement on which the house encroaches, approximately 5 square feet. Please refer to the enclosed survey plat from Alan Reid, dated May 4, 1998. The applicant has submitted the required notification forms to the utility companies and to the City. The results are as follows: OZARKS Electric - no objection. Arkansas Western Gas - no objections. SW Bell - no objections • • • Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 1998 Page -3- SWEPCO - no objections TCA Cable - no objections City of Fayetteville. Water/Sewer - no objections Street Department - no objections STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION: Approval of easement vacation. AD 98-20.00: EASTON PARK SUBDIVISION (REQUESTED VARIANCE) CRESTLINE ROAD AND NEWTON BOULEVARD Street design standards for Easton Park Subdivision - requested variance. The engineers for the subdivision request a variance from the street design standards of the subdivision regulations for the intersection design of Crestline Road and Newton Boulevard (refer to the Easton preliminary plat). Specifically, Jorgensen requests a street grade of 5% for 140 feet for Crestline Road coming onto Newton Boulevard. The street design standards require a 4% maximum grade for the first 100 feet of the intersection. The street design standard of 4% maximum was adopted by ordinance in 1976 (refer to 159.50 of the Subdivision Regulations). The previous, and the current revised street standards, are a segment of the subdivision regulation. § 159.46 (variances) of the subdivision regulations state that it is the Planning Commission, not staff, which has the authority to grant a variance to the design standards. Jorgensen requests the variance to reduce the cut for the street construction from 4 feet to 1.5 feet. Crestline is a relatively short street serving eight lots and connects the future Township Street extension within the subdivision to the proposed Newton Boulevard. Based upon the relatively short street segment and the fact that the residents can access Township approximately 380 feet south of Newton, Engineering Division supports the applicant's request for this specific variance. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the requested variance. There were no public comments or planning commission requests to pull any item from the • • • Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 1998 Page -4- consent agenda. Upon roll call the consent agenda was approved on a vote of 7-0-0. Commissioners Ward and Hoffman were not present. Planning Commission Meeting • lune -22719981 Zu l j 13,1492 Page -5- NEW BUSINESS: LSD 98-12.10: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (LIQUOR TO GO) 2831 NORTH HIGHWAY 112 This item was submitted by Glenn Carter Engineering on behalf of Donna Masterson for property located at 2831 North Highway 112. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately .98 acres. The project is located within the Design Overlay District. FINDINGS: This project proposes to construct a new structure on the site and to then demolish the existing liquor store. The site is shaped to provide access to both Highway 112 and to Drake Street. Design Overlay District regulations and Commercial Design Standards apply to this development. The applicant has requested the following waivers (refer to July 2, 1998 -letter from Glenn Carter). • 1. Waiver of the Overhead Utility Ordinance. 2. Waiver of the Design Overlay District regulations concerning the placement of wall signage. A wall sign is proposed for the west, facing Hwy. 71 instead of on the south side of the building which is considered a front and faces Drake Street. 3. Waiver of the curb cut/entrance drive from the regulation standard 24 feet to 30 feet. 4. Waiver from any requirements to improve Drake Street or contribute money toward future improvements of Drake Street across their property. • STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Design Overlay District. 2. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards. 3. Planning Commission decision concerning the applicant's request to waive the requirement to place all existing and proposed utility lines underground. 4. Planning Commission determination of the appropriate width of the entrance off of Hwy. 112. The applicant has requested 30 ft in lieu of 24 ft. Staff supports the 30 -ft wide entrance. 5. Planning Commission determination of improvements to Drake Street. Drake Street is approximately 18 feet - total paved width at the applicant's property (175 6 feet of frontage). Staff recommends that the developer be required to (a) widen the Planning Commission Meeting ` June -22, 199& zyl.(1-y 1311 gi918 • Page -6- approximately 175 feet of frontage from 9 feet to 14 feet (from existing centerline), add curb and gutter and storm drainage and add tapers at the property lines or (b) contribute the funds necessary to widen this section of Drake, estimated by engineering at $6,000 or a rational nexus amount to be estimated by the developer's engineer, per section 159 33 A;B 6. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments furnished to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, TCA Cable). 7. All improvements will comply with City's current requirements. 8. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a 6' sidewalk and 10 ft. greenspace along Drake Street and repair of the broken sections of sidewalk along Hwy. 112. 9. The developer will be responsible for extending a sanitary sewer in order to meet current requirements. The existing service line cannot be used for the new development. 10. In accordance with 159.33.E, "Off-site improvements to state highways...," the Planning Commission will determine any improvements required by the developer to be coordinated with the AHTD. Staff does not know of any necessary improvements or desired for Highway 112. Staff requests that the developer contact the AHTD and determine if improvements to Highway 112 are requested by the State. If improvements are requested, and such improvements determined to be required by the Planning Commission, then the developer will provide the improvements as a condition of this LSD. 11. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. If construction has not started within one year, then the approval is void. 12. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits. b. Separate easement plats for this project. c. Completion of all requirement improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by § 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. Glen Carter, of Carter Engineering, appeared on behalf of the applicant, Donna Masterson. Mr. Carter is in agreement with the conditions of approval as noted except for those items listed as waiver requests. 1. An overhead electric ordinance to place the utility lines underground. This would be cost • prohibitively to the project and would create a hardship for the owner. The owner is not a Planning Commnssion Meeting drum -2271948 MU L'j 1-5,195t Page -7- developer. The owner is wanting to upgrade her business. There are approximately $36,000 for cost of placing utility lines underground which represents 20% of the project cost. We were faced with some unexpected costs. There is a sewer hookup which is not a legal hookup. So just to make the point the project is already financially stressed. The owner does not feel they could go with the project if the requirement for the overhead electric was enforced. 2. Drake Street Improvements: The applicant does not feel Drake Street has potential for widening or improvement of the street. Odom: Carter: He inquired what the cost estimate for the improvement of Drake Street would be. He responded the cost estimate would be $6,000 for money in lieu of construction. 3. Entrance variance: The standard for the curb cut is 24 feet and the owner has an existing concrete entrance which is 30 feet wide. The applicant feels it would be a safety issue to allow the curb cut to remain at 30 feet vs. the standard 24 feet wide. 4. Wall Sign variance: Applicants felt if they opportunity to place a sign which fronts the east side vs Drake Street frontage. If placed on the west side then it would be visible from the 71 bypasses. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no public comments. PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS: Odom: Carter: He inquired if the true frontage of this subject property would be Drake Street or Frontage Street. He stated the EZ Mart does obstruct the view of one side of the building. Commissioner Odom moved to waive the requirement for placement of utility lines Planning Commission Meeting • .14413 2, 1998 90-1-8- l3, l9 ( Page -8- underground. Commissioner Johnson seconded said motion. Hoover: She inquired what the utility lines waiver request pertained to. Carter: He noted the overhead lines that run across Drake Street is the waiver the applicant is requesting not to place underground. Hoover: Carter: Hoover: Carter: She inquired if the applicant had neighbors on either side of him. He responded, yes, there were adjoining neighbors. She inquired how would the neighbors receive electrical power. He noted right now the neighbors have easements across the applicant's property and they obtain power overhead. • Hoover: She noted right now there is a secondary pole behind the convenience store and inquired if this pole would remain. Carter: He stated this existing pole services the Liquor to Go at the present time. This pole would be removed. Hoover: She inquired if the lines that ran to the neighbor's pole also run along the utility line in question. Carter: He noted there was a pole at the entrance on the left side from Drake Street. He indicated the dash line on the map represents the new lines which would run northwest to the pole. This line would run directly behind the property. Ward: He noted his concerns for the sign waiver request. He noted this project was in an overlay district. He inquired if the applicant could revise the metal to split block or something similar in order to meet the commercial design standards. He felt if the developer could accommodate this change, then he would be able to go along with the other waiver requests. Carter: He inquired if this was in reference to the sign on the west side of the building. Ward: He stated he thought the material would be simulated wood. He stated it would • be a much better looking store if the developer used different material than what • • • Planning Commission Meeting I.tn998 3,15'99 Page -9- Reynolds: Architect: was proposed. He stated at the Subdivision committee the question of the material used on the sides other than the front would be revised. He stated this item was discussed at the Subdivision Committee. He stated they had initially intended metal siding to be installed for the upper 3 to 4 feet of both the north and side wall. The applicant had proposed metal siding for the wall where the sign was being requested to be installed. He stated Subdivision Committee had requested altering this material and consideration being given to masonry on all four sides of the wall or running masonry up 6 feet on the west side to match the north and south sides. Elevations were revised and submitted on the west elevation. The applicant was hoping to use a metal wall panel. This is a R -type panel which is economical. It was the intent of the applicant to provide a variation on the facade to give some articulation. He brought some photographs of other buildings in the City which he passed to the commission for their review which reflected some masonry and metal. Several of the items was the school on Hwy. 45; Superior Industries has split face masonry veneer; the post office facility on City Lake Road also uses a split face masonry panel; and the education facility at the Walton Arts Center uses masonry. He stated obviously, they would be willing to look at other alternatives if the commission requested. It is the applicant's feeling the panel is simulated standard painted board and batten. Reynolds: He stated the commission would like to see what the applicant is proposing because whatever the commission approves, that is what they will be looking for. Odom: He referred to the motion of the waiver of the overhead utilities. Estes: He inquired if the overhead waiver request was for the utilities on Drake Street to the pole. Also he inquired whether the developer would be placing the utility lines underground from the pole. Carter: He responded, yes, this was correct. The roll was called and said motion carried on a vote of 8-0-0. Commissioner Hoffman was not present. Johnson: She stated at Subdivision Committee the discussion was held concerning the Drake Street improvement. Since the committee meeting she has now realized there is a riding club which owns some of the property by the fairgrounds along with other two buildings on the north side. There are also the fairgrounds. The • • • Planning Commission Meeting -Ague 22, 1998' Z1.1_61 13,1995' Page -10- University would be developing an equestrian center at this location. Therefore, she feels Drake Street may receive more traffic than earlier anticipated. She inquired if staff had checked on the ownership of the property in the Drake Street area which was requested at SDC. Little: She responded staff had did not have this information. Johnson: She noted with the University and the equestrian center she felt that Drake street improvements would need to be anticipated in the future and she did not feel the $6,000 payment in lieu would be too high for the developer. Therefore, she could not support the waiver of the Drake street improvement. Reynolds: He confirmed Commissioner Hoffman's concerns. He stated that the commission has saved the developer $36,000 with the waiver of the utilities. Therefore, he would not waive the variance for Drake Street improvements. Forney: He stated he would be in agreement with Commissioners Johnson and Reynolds. He inquired if there were any future plans for the improvement of Drake Street. Little: She responded at the present time the City did not have any plans to improve Drake Street. The City would be willing to accept the money in lieu of for the Drake Street improvement. She stated this would be a condition of approval Johnson: She stated the Subdivision Committee addressed the curb cut issue at the committee level and felt the curb cut width presently at this site would be safer and would be in support of waiving the curb cut requirement. Commissioner Johnson moved to waive the requirement for the curb cut from 24' to remain 30'. Commissioner Ward seconded said motion. Upon roll call the motion was approved on a vote of 8-0-0. Ward: He inquired if staff had determined there were two frontages. Little: She confirmed there were two frontages: Drake Street and Hwy. 112. She stated the request was for the sign to be placed on the west side and staff supports the waiver. Planning Commission Meeting .111„c 22 -,- w 13, I 9-98 Page -11- Tucker: He noted in reference to the sign ordinance, wall mount signs may be installed per business ... second signs may be allowed if it is determined the structure has more than one front facing the street. It does not indicate the sign has to be on the frontage. Little: She stated staff would support the sign being placed on the west side. Odom: He stated the ordinance is liable to interpretation and since the ordinance does read the way it does. The ordinance allows a strong argument to support the waiver request. Johnson: She stated staff has to interpret the ordinance. Therefore, not to complicate the ordinance she would make a motion. Commissioner Johnson moved to allow the second sign to be installed on the west elevation. Commissioner Ward seconded said motion. Upon roll call the motion was approved on a vote of 8-0-0. Commissioner Hoffman was not present. Commissioner Forney moved to approve the waiver request as per the elevation and materials submitted. Commissioner Hoover seconded said motion. Johnson: She inquired whether this waiver would need to be addressed when they applied the commercial design standards, and whether it would not be more efficient if all the elevations were reviewed. Forney: He concurred with Commissioner Johnson's statement. He stated he was simply stating he had no problem with this project in relation to the commercial design standards or the overlay district requirements on material uses. The commission reviewed the elevations of July 6, 1998 which were presented to the committee to see if it met the intent of the ordinance. Odom: He asked for some clarification of the elevations. Architect: He noted they did not provide colored elevations on all four sides since this was not required. Planning Commission Meeting June -227199e— ' JLI Ly f Z19173 Page -12- ry Reynolds: He stated he liked the building and expressed his appreciation to the developer for the changes which were made. Little: She noted under building materials, "building will be constructed of wood, masonry, or natural -looking material. No structure will be allowed that have no sidewalls unless the metal siding is similar in appearance to wood, masonry, or natural -looking material." Odom: He noted the material did look more like siding than natural wood. Architect: He stated it was their intent to introduce the material as an articulate means. They would be willing to install drivet if the commission preferred. However, he did not feel it would be the best selection. He noted according to the comments from the commissioners metal would be acceptable as proposed under the conditions in limited amounts on 3 facades. Johnson: She inquired why the developer preferred metal vs. drivet. Architect: He responded for this given situation it gave a varied finish, more shadow lines and more character. The drivet was simply a plainer element. He stated it was also for economical purposes as well. Commissioner Forney withdrew his previous motion concerning the waiver for the commercial design standards and design overlay considerations. Commissioner Forney moved to approve LSD 98-21.00 incorporating: 1) a waiver of the overhead utility ordinance; 2) waivers of the curb cut standards; 3) to include a contribution of money toward future improvements of Drake Street; 4) to accept the elevations presented to the commission dated July 6, 1998, so that on three sides metal siding would be included and on the entry side drivet would be included, 5) and a waiver of a sign on the west side; and other staff conditions of approval. Commissioner Johnson seconded said motion. Upon roll call said motion was approved on a vote of 7-1-0. Commissioner Hoffman was not present. • Planning Commission Meetin Jxnc22 1993 Fat I4 6 Page -13 - CU 98-13.00: CONDITIONAL USE (THE SANCTUARY OF FAYETTEVILLE, INC.) 908 ROLLING HILLS DRIVE, SUITE >l This item was submitted by Clark Davis for property located at 908 Rolling Hills Drive, Suite J. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The request is for a dance hall. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval contingent upon the following conditions of approval: 1. Compliance with § 160.195, Conditions goveming applications of conditional uses, procedures of the zoning code. 2. The shared parking agreement remaining in effect as long as the dance hall is at this location. 3. Restriction on hours of operation to Midnight Monday - Thursday and 11:00 p.m. on Sunday. 4. No outdoor music. 5. Compliance with the Fire Marshall and Building Inspections reports. A certificate of • occupancy will not be issued until the work is completed and inspected as required by the reports. • STAFF'S FINDING: 1. The applicant has paid the filing fee and submitted an application indicating the section of this chapter under which the conditional use is sought and stating the grounds on which it is requested. 2. The Planning Commission is empowered under § 160.096 to consider the granting of a conditional use for a dance hall at this location. 3. The existing site is developed with 207 parking spaces. The applicant has a signed agreement by the owner of the property allowing him to share the 207 parking spaces. 4. The parking lot is existing and does not adjoin residential uses. 5. There are existing refuse and service areas 6. There are existing utilities serving the building. 7. The applicant plans to utilize the existing pole sign and install a wall sign in the same area as PGA's wall sign. 8. The dance hall will be compatible with adjacent properties and other properties in the district. The parking lot is located in a commercial development away from the single family neighborhoods to the south and east. Clark Davis appeared before the commission. • • • Planning Commission Meeting k„r 22,-1998 ZUL5 95? Page -14- Davis: He stated there were a lot of rumors concerning this project. He stated according to the rumors he was opening a gay, Latino, and stripper bar. He stated there are no strippers and there were no considerations for this. This would be in violation of his liquor license. The other two items would probably be a discrimination issue. The club would be open to anyone of legal age over 21 years of age. He stated he was proposing a lounge for anyone around the age of 30-40 for a place to go and relax after work. He stated the purpose for opening this was due to the fact there was nothing for anyone his age. This would be upscale, a private club, clean, smoke-free, and a comfortable lounge with a separate room for billiards. There would be an additional room for dancing. There would be no loud bands inside or outside. He stated he had received a visit from one of his neighbors. He addressed what his target market would be. The neighbor stated she was concerned about the parking lot being trashed. He had told to her he would maintain the parking lot and hire a security guard to patrol the parking lot. The process that this was for the conditional use for the dance hall. He stated there is presently a liquor license on this establishment. He added there was a liquor store approximately 100 yards away from his property. He stated the reason he chose the location was due to the central location, it was away from residential areas and has on-site parking which he could control. It is buffered from other businesses which close around 5:00 p.m. He stated the owner, Mr. Israel, approved of the club. He stated some of the concerns were with the name of the club "Sanctuary." He stated some people think the name has some religious connotation. He stated his intent was for a place of refuge or protection like an animal sanctuary or bird sanctuary or even a sanctuary from the world. He commented if anyone wanted the name changed this would create a lot of financial hardship, since he has invested a lot of money already. He stated his only questions with the staff's recommendation was the hours. He stated he would prefer to stay open and have dancing to 2:00 a.m. The restriction would cut back 15 hours which would equal two working days. He stated there is already a 2:00 a.m. curfew in other clubs and no other clubs contain this restriction. He stated most people do not even go out until 11:00 p.m. He also noted times when there were three day weekends or holidays. He commented if there were any problems like River City the City could shut him down. He is in agreement with the other conditions of approval Planning Commission Meeting Juno 22 8 3-'UULy l3,1s99 Page -15- PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were approximately 100 people in the room in opposition to this project. Bruce Johanson, 1100 Glenn Lane, appeared before the commission. He was speaking for the residents on Glenn Lane. As residents, they do not want to have a dance hall in their neighborhood and requests that the commission deny this request. 1. He stated there were several households less than 100 yards from the entrance to the property in question. He read a statement from Marge Swope. She stated due to her health and age she could not attend the meeting. She bought her home at 1005 Rolling Hills 19 years ago and this is a nice place to retire. She is the resident closest to the property in question. In no way would she like to have a dance hall and requests that this be denied. 2. He stated many of the children walk to the convenience store on the corner and Blockbuster in this area. They allow them to go alone because they do not have a business like the proposed bar in the area. He stated if this request is granted, this privilege would be taken away from the children. 3. Several churches are in the area - with Trinity Temple being the closest to the property in the area. Many of the churches have nightly activities. They do have children who walk from the church to the convenience store passing by the property in question. 4. They know there was a PGA sports facility. It was their understanding this was a recreational facility. Then beer and wine were added. The clientele that frequented this property was different than the clientele which would frequent the bar. He stated it was his understanding that if this business wanted to have a sexually -oriented business they would not have to come back before the commission for approval. Little: She noted this information was incorrect. Sexually -oriented businesses would require the applicant to come back before the commission. He noted the majority of the businesses do not want this business in their area. He noted some of the businesses do have activities at night and parking would be an issue and these businesses are Planning Commission Meeting lnne 22, 13,1198 Page -16- identified as professional. He stated he and his family have lived in this neighborhood for 12 years They do not experience a lot of crime. He stated if this business was approved there would be a lot of crime which may come into the neighborhood. Therefore, they request the commission deny this conditional use request. Jason Carter, who manages the Hancock Fabric Store, appeared on behalf of his parents and grandparents. 1. He noted the hours of operation of Hancock Fabric Store. He stated he had customers, as well as employees, giving their opinion that it would affect their comfort level for working in the evenings and doing business from 6:30 to 9:00 p.m. 2. He noted the shortest route to the proposed business is between Ozarks Cleaners and Hancock's light is the biggest in the area By no means do they want the overflow parking in their lot. He stated one of their businesses in Texarkana had a similar bar next door and are constantly fighting broken bottles, trash, late night disturbances and damage to their building because of the things that occur when combining the elements of late night and alcohol. Therefore, he requests the commission deny this conditional use request. Dr. Willet of 1011 Rolling Hills Drive appeared before the commission. She stated there was a serious traffic problem existing here. Market Street has been cut into her driveway. There are bike lanes on either side of Rolling Hills Drive. She cannot park in front of her property on Rolling Hills. The traffic makes this a 3 -lane road. When a car is going east to turn onto Market Street if they have their blinker on, the car behind goes to the right and continues on down the street. She has experienced backing out of her driveway and somebody coming. from Market Street. The car on Market Street will turn east and try to get behind her and then continues east on Rolling Hills Drive. She stated Hancock Fabric does stay open until 9:00 p.m. She stated the people in this store watch the neighborhood. She stated there is a lot of noise there and the noise level has increased since she purchased the property in 1975. She also noted kids gang up in the parking lot at Hancock Fabric after they close and have had to call the police several times. The lady presently residing at her home had to recently call the police because of the congregation of the children. She has had to purchase a dozen mailboxes because of the traffic problems she has discussed. Planning Commission Meeting hex7hex22, 1998 stay 13) 1492 Page -17- l Therefore, she is opposed to allowing this business in this area. There is not enough parking, too much traffic, it is not controlled, and Market Street has been cut into a residential property. Ed Papizan appeared before the commission. He stated he started a neighborhood watch program at this neighborhood about 15 years ago. He stated they would not give up on protecting this neighborhood. He stated most of the residences have children at home. He inquired what does this business expect to contribute to the neighborhood. He did not feel there were sufficient facts given. He spent two days of his time visiting places of business. They were not concerned but wanted to know why this location was selected. He referred to a parking letter which was distributed by Mr. Israel. Some of the people on the list were not given the information that their parking spaces could be used. He noted one of the businesses is a travel bureau who has three ladies working in there. They occasionally have to come down during the late night hours to give tickets to the people who would be leaving early the next morning. There is a business owned by a lady who runs a sewing machine which is right across from this location. She offers sewing classes at night. He stated she is concerned about the availability of parking and safety for her customers. He also noted there is a lady who owns a hairdressing business and does not leave until 12:00 p.m. This would create a safety issue. Therefore, he requests the commission deny this conditional use request. Kenneth Mills, 3101 Cheryl Avenue, appeared before the commission. He stated they had just purchased their home a little over a year He stated when they purchased the property if they had seen the proposed business in this location, they would not have bought their home. They had looked at numerous homes in Fayetteville, Springdale and the surrounding area. Their consideration was a neighborhood where they could raise their family and wanted a good established neighborhood. Therefore, he requests the commission to deny the conditional use request Planning Commission Meeting Ante -227-1998w MILAI1311gy'2 Page -18- Mack McLendon, 2870 Stanton Avenue, appeared before the commission. He stated he was strongly opposed to this type of business coming into the neighborhood. He stated he lived at his place of residence for 23 years and enjoyed the peace and tranquility of the area. He realized with the growth of the city changes do take place. Fiesta Square has become a hangout for the younger generation on Friday and Saturday evenings and may be unsafe to drive through late at night. With the entry of this type of business into this area this would increase the late night activities. He stated it was very evident that the people in this neighborhood are very opposed to this business and ask the commission to deny the request. Darren Rogers, Senior Pastor of Trinity Temple, appeared before the commission. He stated they were not willing to attack anyone personally. The issue he wanted to address was that when PGAs went in he was told this would be simply another activity place. He stated he had called Mayor Hanna and he personally assured Mr. Rogers that there would be no liquor and no problems. He stated we see where that went from there because now PCAs does have liquor. He noted it has to go through the commissioners in order to change. He represents 300 parishioners at Trinity Temple. He stated if they had known liquor had been served at PGAs they would have been before the commission. Their opposition is due to their beliefs and for the love of their children and to protect their church. A lot of their property is unsupervised and a place for transients to spend the night. He requests the commission to deny this request. Laura Reef, with Top Cut Hair Studio, appeared before the commission. She stated she has been a tenant with Mr. Israel for nine years. She has concern for the safety of her clients and herself. She was not asked if she would be willing to share her parking with this business. She does not feel her clients, their children, or she would be safe. She stated sometimes she works 9:00 p.m. or later. Therefore, she requests the commission deny this conditional use. • • • Planning Commission Meeting r, .1.„c 22, 4998 TJ"j f — 1 13t� 9%d Page -19- Odom: He inquired what her hours of operation were. She stated it was anywhere from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Larry Lloyd, who works at a business on Rolling Hills Drive, appeared before the commission. His concern is the traffic on Rolling Hills. He wished that everyone that went to this proposed type of business either had a designated driver or knew when to quit. He encourages his teenagers when they go to Fiesta Square to the movies to go down to Rolling Hills. His concern was when they leave the movies at 10:30 or 11:00 at night and have to come down Rolling Hills the same time when customers of this business would be out on the same street. Therefore, he requests this conditional use be denied. Mitch McAllister, Oaks Manor, appeared before the commission. He stated there is a critical mass of opposition. He wanted to reiterate his concem. He is a parent of three children and has lived there for eight years now and would hate to see it change. Therefore, he asked if the commissioners would want an establishment of this sort down the road from where they lived. The manager of Hobby Lobby appeared before the commission. He stated Hobby Lobby likes to hold high family values. They close on Sunday because of this so that families can be together and families go to church together. He asked that the commission consider the character of the neighborhood. He has nothing against the business. Therefore, he requests the application be denied. Shannon Randolph, 1056 Bonnie Lane, appeared before the commission. She has a 3 -year-old daughter and she is currently pregnant. She walks every evening in the neighborhood and they have to walk in the streets. Her other concern is her child would be riding her bike in these streets. This street tends to be a cut through to get to other streets. Her concern is hit and run and whether her child could play in the yard safely and whether they could walk safely in the neighborhood. Pete Jenkins, Bonnie Lane, appeared before the commission. He stated his concerns regarding this proposed business and asked the commission to deny this conditional use request. • • • Planning Commission Meeting -Arne-2-27+998 otgAiligekS) Page -20- There were no further public comments. Mr. Clark addressed the comments presented by the public. 1. He noted there were actually 207 parking spaces. 2. Regarding the shared parking, the bottom of the letter stated there would not be any parking reserved for the tenant's use and there would be ample parking. 3. Hancock's has a separate parking lot and his parking should not overflow into their area 4. Traffic concerns should not be addressed since there was already a lot of traffic in this area and another 100 cars should not make a difference. 5. Traffic at Fiesta Square is a concern. That is why he is having people at his entrances to prevent any problems relative to this business. He stated with the security guard in this area would increase safety. 6. He noted PGAs had been in this location since Fall of 1996 and is not aware of any problems which had happened since then. 7. He noted his clientele would be more sophisticated and his signage would be standard. According to the city requirements he would be required to use what is presently at this location. PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS: Odom. He inquired how many parking spaces are required for this operation. Conklin: Staff calculated about 236 parking spaces would be required which includes the dancing and the nightclub. Total parking within the complex is 207 spaces. The applicant has received a letter from the owner, Ben Israel, of the complex that the parking may be shared by all the users within this complex. The actual nightclub would need 140 parking spaces and was based on one per 3 occupants. Building inspections and fire Marshall went out to this location and set an occupancy load up to 420 people at any one time. Hoover: She inquired if the complex was the drawing on Page 3.7. Conklin: He confirmed this was correct. Estes: He inquired if these parking spaces include Hancock Fabric parking? Conklin: He stated it did not. Estes: For clarification, he noted 236 parking spaces are required. There is a total of • • • Planning Commission Meeting J 221998 uLy 13,19- 8 Page -21- Conklin: Estes: Conklin: Little: Reynolds: Little: Odom: Little: Reynolds: Estes: 207 parking spaces which leave a deficiency of 29. He confirmed this was correct. He inquired if staff calculated the numbers from the shared parking agreement in their information packet. He stated the numbers were calculated by the number of people who could occupy the building which was 420 giving a total of 140 parking spaces needed. She clarified the 236 parking spaces do not assume any shared parking. He inquired if there were 207 parking spaces with 13 businesses operating in this location. She clarified there were presently 18 businesses in this area. He inquired if the shared parking agreement would be with the owner of the property or the tenants. She responded it would be the owner. He stated he considered the owner the same as the lessee. If the lessee has paid the month's rent paid then the owner should not be able to talk for the lessee. He further noted this community has been there for 35 years and was built by Sam Rogers, Gene Davis, etc. This is a very solid residential neighborhood. He stated he felt the applicant would be getting too close to a good residential neighborhood and he would not vote in favor of this conditional use. He stated he would not support the conditional use due to the parking issue, and the character of the neighborhood, and due to the opposition at this meeting. Commissioner Ward moved to deny CU 98-13.00. Commissioner Reynolds seconded said motion. Forney: He stated he understood the clear issue of parking. He did not anticipate any type of parking problem. He further noted the commission has latitude for conditional uses and to make restrictions upon these. He inquired what specific issues the commission should be considering besides parking. • • • Planning Commission Meeting -ata .nt-y l31qqS Page -22- Conklin: He stated the commission is required to look at the criteria under § 160.195 which was listed on page 3.3. He referenced page 3.4 regarding the general compatibility with adjacent properties. He stated the commission is required to find whether it is compatible, whether ingress or egress is adequate, off-street parking, sanitation areas, utilities, screening, signs, etc. Johnson: She inquired if the music would be able to be heard outside the building. Carter: He stated it originally was built as a movie theater and stated you would not be able to hear anything on the outside. Johnson. She inquired that the applicant had mentioned that this would be nonsmoking. Carter: He responded it would not be a real smokey beer bar. He noted he could not ban smoking or he would not have any customers. Tucker: He inquired if staff had received any complaints against PGA when it was in operation. Little: She stated since the two years of operation they had not received any complaints in the office. She stated she knew PGAs did receive a liquor license but she was not sure at what point they received their liquor license. Matt King, attorney for Mr. Clark, addressed the commission. King: He stated to his knowledge PGAs did have a beer and wine license beginning in the fall of 1996. Odom: He inquired if they played music at PGAs. King: He stated yes they did, but it was not the same as what Mr. Clark is proposing. Forney. In order to clarify the eight considerations, the only two he would have any problem with potential concerns is the parking. He does not believe there are adequate parking and the concern for the noise from the parking and other activities. He referred to Item 8 regarding the compatibility issue. The adjacent property is C-2 zoning. However, they have heard from the business owners and • • • Planning Commission Meeting Jtmo-32,1998 trULt 131652 Page -23- their concerns. Forney: He inquired what is the distance which is considered too close to a residence. According to his scale it looks like it would be 300 feet from the proposed business to the nearest residence. In order to make sure the applicant's request is given fair hearing, he noted conditional uses are allowed to be revisited in one year. Johnson: She wanted to know what the time limits were for hearing those objections. Little: She responded the normal process if there were significant complaints for a conditional use, then this would be brought back before the commission for rehearing. Commissioner Ward commented if this was going to be a dance studio or a sports bar he would have no objection to the conditional use. However, he would not support a dance hall and requested the roll call. Upon roll call the motion was denied on a vote of 5-3-0. Commissioners Johnson, Forney, and Tucker voted nay. Commissioner Hoffman was not present. There was a five minute recess. Planning Commission Meeting • J2LLY I3 19,SPage -24- l AD 98-21.00: ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM (MOUNTAIN MECHANICAL, INC.) EAST OF S. SCHOOL AVE. AND NORTH OF 22ND STREET This item was submitted by Gary Harvey on behalf of the applicant for property located east of S. School Avenue and north of 22nd Street. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.27 acres. The Master Street Plan shows a minor arterial street which connects Cato Springs Road to the east through this lot. The applicant requests postponement of street improvements required for a new development on this site with a Bill of Assurance. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. This project must be submitted and reviewed as a large scale development which will provide for the dedication of the right of way required for a minor arterial (90' total right of way, 45' from the centerline). 2. Project will be subject to Commercial Design Standards at the time of large scale • 3. development. Bill of Assurance will be executed, filed and provided to the planning division prior to the issuance of a building permit for any approved Large Scale Development on this site. • There were no further conditions of approval Commissioner Tucker stated he would abstain from voting on this item since Mr. Harvey was a client of his. Gary Harvey appeared on behalf of the applicant. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no public comments. PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS: Commissioner Estes moved to approve AD 98-21 subject to staff's conditions of approval. Commissioner Ward seconded said motion. Odom: He inquired if Mr. Harvey was in agreement with the conditions of approval Planning Commission Meeting • June 2274998S att Ly i3, 149$ Page -25- • • Harvey: He stated he was in agreement with the conditions of approval Upon roll call the motion was approved on a vote of 7-0-1. Commissioner Tucker abstained and Commissioner Hoffman was not present. OTHER BUSINESS: Ms. Little notified the Planning Commission that there was a Historic Preservation Award scheduled for July 22, 1998 at 2:00 p.m. Another item was a letter received from Municipal Electric Systems of Oklahoma dated July 7, 1998, commending the City of Fayetteville for placement of utilities underground. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m. • • July 7. 1998 MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC SYSTEMS OF OKLAHOMA, INC. 201 N. E. 23rd Street Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105-3199 (405)528-7564 FAX(405)524-5095 Honorable Fred Hanna. Mayor City of Fayetteville 113 W. Mountain Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 Dear Mayor Hanna: While I was home in Siloam Springs for the Fourth of July weekend. a friend told me that the City of Fayetteville was considering a policy of requiring all new power lines to be underground. If that is true. I wanted you to know that I would heartily applaud the effort. Many very progressive college cities such as Palo Alto, Fort Collins, Colorado. and Dover. Delaware have adopted all underground electric line policies. Fort Collins has completed the undergrounding of all lines in that city. Cities with colleges in Oklahoma where nearly all new lines are underground include Edmond and Stillwater. The fact is that the long term owning cost of underground power lines is less than overhead lines. This bit of information comes from instructors of the American Public Power Association's underground design course whose instructors include John Miner. former head of the City of Austin Electric Utility. The above cities all own the local electric system which makes them different from Fayetteville in only that respect. Rocky locations such as that served by Seattle City Light have mostly underground construction while Florida has found that winds don't bother buried power lines. Our association encourages electric line construction to be underground. When done correctly, such construction can be done with reasonable expense. Most rural cooperatives in Oklahoma offer to do underground installation at no expense to the residential developer, for example. However. this is often done with direct buried cable which will provide future problems. Therefore. your policy should include construction standards to insure avoidance of this practice. Proper installation may require some developer participation in construction. For example, some cities require the developer to provide ditching and the sand base of the ditch while the utility provides all other costs. • • Our private utilities place most new lines underground in Oklahoma. and most cities have sub- division standard which require or encourage undergrounding of lines. Such standards have been common since I began my career here over twenty years ago. Prior to that time I was in the MPA program at the University of Arkansas and picked up a few bucks working for the planning department of the City of Fayetteville in its early Community Development Block Grant efforts. I'm glad to see the city is still moving forward in this regard. and encourage you to adopt underground standards for new construction. Respectfully. AVX Shane \Voolbright Executive Director • • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 13, 1998 AT 5:30 P.M. CU 98-12 LS 98-25 VA 98-8 AD 98-28J LSD 98-21 CU 98-13 AD 98-20 MOTION SECOND S. Hoover ✓ ✓i/ ✓i/ V C. Odom i/ ✓i/ ✓A/ V V J. Forney ✓ ✓d✓✓ /2" R. Reynolds V Vi/Vt/ ✓ B. Estes / v 1/1/17/ !/ G. Tucker V 1/i/i/7V N if I y=am ^-. P. Johnson / i/V✓i/ r/ i 7.0,o 7�) 5,3 1 -i -I