Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-10-12 MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on October 12, 1998 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Room 219, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Items Considered Action Taken CU98-18: Conditional Use (Gray, pp 485) Approved w/conditions AD98-28: Administrative (226 N. School St., pp 523) Approved w/conditions AD98-29: Administrative (Staffmark II, pp 212) Approved MEMBERS PRESENT: Jolm Forney, Lorel Hoffman, Sharon Hoover, Phyllis Hall Johnson, Conrad Odom, Robert Reynolds, Gary Tucker, and Lee Ward. MEMBERS ABSENT: Bob Estes STAFF PRESENT: Alett Little, Tim Conklin, Dawn Warrick, and Janet Johns. CU98-18.00: CONDITIONAL USE (GRAY, pp 485) This conditional use was submitted by Roma Lisa Gray for property located at 307 East Spring. The property is zoned R02, Medium Density Residential, an contains approximately 3.30 acres. The request is for a chiropractic office to be allowed in an R-2 zone. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The parking lot shall be paved and meet the ordinance requirements for landscaping and design. 2. The exterior appearance of the structure shall be maintained as it exists. 3. No free standing signs shall be permitted and only one wall sign facing Spring Street shall be allowed. 4. The Fire Marshall and Building Inspector shall inspect the structure and any improvements required as results of the inspections shall be made prior to the certificate of occupancy being issued. 5. The conditional use is limited to the existing structure as a chiropractic office and only one chiropractor shall occupy the structure. 6. The hours of operation shall be limited to Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. 7. All unlicensed and inoperable vehicles shall be removed from the site prior to the opening • • Minutes of a meeting of the Planning Commission October 12, 1998 Page 2 of the chiropractic office Dr. Gray was present in connection with this request. Mr. Odom request the applicant come forward. Odom: approval? There are seven conditions of approval Staff are there any further conditions of Conklin: There are no further conditions of approval. I would like to tell the Commission that Ms. Elizabeth Ellis did contact our office and was opposed to the conditional use. She lives at 124 N. Olive. She was unable to make it to this meeting tonight. Odom: We will take public comments here in a few minutes. First, I'd like to open the floor to the applicant and ask if you have any questions or comments about the seven conditions of approval that the staff has recommended. Gray: I did have one question about recommendation number five. I am currently the only chiropractor that would be considered for this office In the future, several years down the line, I would like to have the option of adding an associate chiropractor that would mainly be to decrease my hours and for them to take up some of my patients. There would be some additional traffic from that adding a second doctor and I would like for that to be considered. Mr. Odom read the staff conditions of approval as noted above. Odom. Do you have any further comments or questions at this time? Gray: No, sir. Mr. Odom opened the floor to public comment. Mrs. Susan Chaddick who resides at the corner of Spring Street and Olive, one block up from the proposed area spoke in opposition to the conditional use requesting that the residential integrity of the neighborhood be allowed to stay as it is. Mr. Reese Dickson who resides at 126 N. Olive spoke in opposition to the conditional use request seconding Ms. Chaddick's objections. • Mr. Buddy Chaddick who resides at the corner of Spring Street and Olive spoke in opposition to the conditional use request based on the traffic impact on hidden drives. • Minutes of a meeting of the Planning Commission October 12, 1998 Page 3 Ms. Nancy Hendricks who resides at 209 Trent spoke in opposition to the proposed conditional use and stated that the site of this home is thought to be site of the first permanent homestead in Fayetteville created by the McGarrah family and it is hoped that the site would remain residential. Mr. Don Hardgrave who resides at 220 N. Olive spoke in opposition of the proposed conditional use. Mr. Jim Faust who resides at 209 N. Olive spoke in opposition of the proposed conditional use. Mr. Odom closed the floor to public comment and opened the floor to the applicant for questions and comments from the Commission and Staff. Reynolds: I just want to say one thing. I think Fayetteville has an abundance of C-2 property for rent everywhere you look and I think this is a great neighborhood. I used to live in it. Everybody knows everybody. They have the watch program and you have four items with the fire department and some items with the ADA handicapped. You don't have that in place so therefor, I will not vote for your project tonight. Thank you. (Mr. Forney arrived at 5:50 p.m.) Odom. Just for the applicant, we now have eight here. You are required to have five votes but now that you have eight of us here that's not as big a concern. I am sometimes concerned about an applicant knowing that for a conditional use you have to have not a majority but you have to have at least five votes from all those present in order to pass. Hoffman: I am in opposition of this moving to this neighborhood as well. And I base my reason on a) that we do have plenty of commercial zoning elsewhere in the city and b) we allowed two conditional uses on Lafayette recently both of which business were out of business within a short period of time. So, I feel that if you could look around for some other more suitable location without infringing in a residential neighborhood, it might be a better -- this is a conditional use and I would oppose it for that and also because of your statements about having increased traffic as time goes on. So, sorry. Ward: I have a couple of things. Some of the things that you have agreed to do like all the inoperative and unlicensed vehicles to be removed for the property and paving part of the parking lot up there or the driveway and keeping the exterior appearance the same as it always has been. I'm for all those things because I think that place has really gone down hill. It's really looking rough and it is sitting on three and one-half or three and a third acres which gives it a lot Minutes of a meeting of the Planning Commission October 12, 1998 Page 4 of elbow room around there. It's also zoned R-2 which means you could pop up 70 to 75 apartments on that same piece of property. So, there are a lot of reasons that we would consider your request. I think that if the house was in really shape and you had been living there for a long time and you owned the home and all these things then I would probably make a recommendation of approval to allow this. But since none of those conditions are there, I'll not be for it either. MOTION Mr. Reynolds made a motion to deny CU98-18 Conditional Use for 307 Spring Street. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. Odom. Is there any further discussion? Johnson: One concern I had in a situation like this where we typically don't allow any exterior modification to a building when we had a conditional use in a neighborhood of this sort. I fear that sometimes if we deny a conditional use such as this. We may encourage the continuation of what exists on site now. It seems to me that what exists on site now is not helpful for this neighborhood because the drive is difficult, the vehicles parked there, I think, detract and so the concern I have is it seems to me if we considered a conditional use and put requirements on the applicant such that the property would be improved and the burden on the neighborhood would be limited or not increased at all, we might give a better service to the neighborhood than is we merely denied the conditional use because as it sits today when I drove up, it seems to me that the present condition of the property is more of a negative than if it is made into an office as long as the exterior is not modified. Gray: The current owners of property is Julie Krohn and Albert Cully. I happen to know them very personally. They are going to be moving out of state. They both know me very well and asked me if I would like to have my clinic in their home because they know that I've loved that property and absolutely respect the natural beauty that surrounds that. They too feel very strongly about trying to maintain undeveloped what surrounds that house and the property that they own is over five acres that surrounds that area. One of those that I can assure all of you and I do understand your concern about having more traffic and having business in your area. My practice is very low key, very small. There's not going to be much traffic. It's going to be very private. The house is going to be repainted. It's going to be landscaped better and maintained better than it has been. It's been allowed to grow up quite a bit around the house itself and I would have every bit of respect regarding your concerns. And, as Ms. Johnson brought up, this is a really low impact business that I'm asking to put in this place and I will take personal pride in making sure that this neighborhood isn't disturbed. I would take that upon myself and ask any • Minutes of a meeting of the Planning Commission October 12, 1998 Page 5 of the neighbors. I would like to know everybody that lives in that area But I do wonder what kind of development might occur on that property in the future. They have told me that I can lease it from them indefinitely, so as long as that happens, that acreage is gong to be kept undisturbed and pretty much as a nature sanctuary around there and I know that you can appreciate the woodlands that are there. So I want you to know that whether it makes any difference or not on how you feel about it. I can't say. Forney: I was wondering about the zoning of the adjacent property to the east and west and south and even across the street. I see an R-2 on page 1.7 for the across the street property and no other designations Little: I believe property to the north and possibly to the east is also zoned R-2. Conklin: I would agree with Ms. Little that zone R-2 is north and east. Forney. What about to the south? • Conklin: To the south, yes. Zoned R-2. Gray: There may not be any other businesses right in that block but on Spring Street, there's the Asclepian Center and the Faught Center which both offer some health services, yoga classes, etc. And there's also the Head Start School that's on Willow Street and two churches on Willow as well. So, it's not absolutely isolated residential. • Odom: Any further discussion? (There being none) Call the role. The motion failed with r-fMted•with a vote of 4-4-0. Odom. Is there a motion to pass? Hoffman: I appreciate the effort that you're making to improve the land. My questions then went back to traffic and the appropriateness of the use in that neighborhood. So, since we've lost a motion, I would interested in hearing more discussion and if the neighbors had not heard this stand before. What do you think about it? Mr. Odom opened the floor to the public and requested that only those whose position on the conditional use has changed. There being none, he opened the floor to Commission discussion. Tucker. Could we get some guidance from staff on the conditional use. Should the chiropractic office move, what happens to the land at that point? • • • Minutes of a meeting of the Planning Commission October 12, 1998 Page 6 Conklin: I did make the condition that the conditional use applies to the structure. When you get a conditional use approved, that applies to the structure. When you get approved conditional use it does run with the land. It is limited to one chiropractor using the structure for their office. Little: And it is specific to the use so as long as it is a chiropractic office, as long as it remains a chiropractic office, the conditional use would stay in place. If it were to cease being a chiropractic office for 90 days or more, the conditional use would be void. Johnson: This is 3.3 acres and of course this is very thin development. If we approve the conditional use, have we limited the utilization of the entire almost three and one-half acres to this one chiropractic office with one chiropractor on site? Conklin: That was the intent. I was concerned about this being increased in size and the intent was to if this is approved to condition that the chiropractor's office will be within the existing structure and that it would not turn into an office development on this acreage. Reynolds: I noticed on the east side of that property they've used it to dump on. You've got a couch and something else on the east side of your property. Gray: Sir, it is not my property. I would be leasing this property from Julie Krohn and Albert Cully who has owned that residence and surrounding land for the past twelve years. So I am trying to obtain a conditional use prior to me even leasing the property. That will occur next Spring. So there's not going to be any junk or trash or any old cars or any grown up ditches that are making the driveway less visible. If I take over that place will have my practice there and it will be maintained in a very immaculate manner. Johnson: One of the things that I want to say to the audience because they are my friends and so it is a difficult to do something that your friends don't want you to do. I have a conditional use in my neighborhood and it concerned me when it went in. It's a life insurance office But it's my experience that neighbors are effected by what goes on outside a building not what goes on inside a building. That's why if we don't see an impact outside the building, I frankly think it's of no concern of ours what goes on inside the building. Because you don't know unless you go there and I think you have no reason to know. So I think there's no impact on the neighborhood. It seems to me that we might indeed do this neighborhood more dis- service if we required that this 3.3 acres only had this one residence if we require that it be cleaned up in addition to the vehicle removed and then I would want to think carefully about the paving because I'm not persuaded that a concrete parking lot with eight spaces really keeps a residential character. So, I would want to think about things like paving blocks or some such thing as that which would provide a good surface that wouldn't look like a business. And I • Minutes of a meeting of the Planning Commission October 12, 1998 Page 7 assume that we can require that the paving be something other an concrete if we require that it be surfaced? Little: necessary. Since this is a conditional use, you may place upon it any condition you deem Johnson: I would have to be helped by some folks who know more about construction than I. But, it seems to me that if you use some concrete or similar pavers where you have the grass growing in between. You hold the soil. You avoid gravel washing. But you have a more aesthetically pleasing situation. There's an awful lot of vegetation and I think that is part of what's wonderful about the neighborhood. I would need some input either from staff or some of the other Commissioners on that. Tucker: A permeable surface versus impermeable. Johnson: Yes. I would like to know what the surface would be. Commissioner Tucker was saying just permeable instead of impermeable. I'd rather we have input into what it is because I'd want to know what it was going to look like. I'd want it to look good and still avoid washing the gravel off the hill. Forney: I lean toward supporting a conditional use for this location for many of the reasons already cited by fellow Commissioners. Chiefly to see some improvement in the use of the property in a use that I think will not be disturbing to the neighborhood character. But I do want to confirm that that is the case by expanding on Commissioner Johnson's question. We are limiting the chiropractic office to the existing structure; however, by right, at 3.3 acres, you could develop a fair amount of R-2 housing. I want to confirm that if this is a conditional use for that existing structure, that that in some sense limits the rights to develop housing on additional parts of that property in the future. I don't think it does in the stipulations offered by staff. Little: Since it is question in your mind, it was our intent that the 3 3 acres not be developed. This is probably one that we ought to add a condition to assure. Gray: Mr. Forney, if I might add something on that also, the owners and I have discussed about the surrounding land and one of the things that we agreed upon was that for my office to be there but it was to remain undeveloped as long as my office is there and that's the lot three and four of the twelve lots of the subdivision which is the 3 3 acres that we're discussing. Forney. So lots three and four are the 3 acres Discussion ensued. Minutes of a meeting of the Planning Commission October 12, 1998 Page 8 Conklin: My understanding was the 12 lots made up the 3.3 acres. Forney: There are 12 lots and so we are in fact talking only about lots three and four and so that 3 acres number is probably not the one to look at. Conklin: There's another issue This is a subdivision that was platted along time ago. If you look at the county assessor parcel maps, there are three parcels that make up the 12 lots. I think we need to look at it all as one piece. What Dr. Gray is presenting to us is that she's leasing a portion of the two parcels and it's really not any property line that shows up at the county. Johnson: The property that is between this house down the hill and Willow Street, is that also owned by the same people? Gray: Yes. Johnson: And do you assume that the undeveloped property between the house and Willow is going to be litnites by our action if we choose to do that or do you not assume that_ipart_of this proposal? Gray: I don't understand your questions. Johnson: There are a couple of lots west of this property down the hill between you and Willow. Do you assume that those lots are part of this 3.3 acres? Gray: Yes. Johnson: And thus you assume that if we only allow this one conditional use on this site, that controls that property down the hill between you and Willow. Gray: Yes. Johnson: And you are leasing that property, too? Gray: Technically, I'll be leasing lots three and four that the house is sitting on. A verbal agreement with the owners' of the property is that they would not develop the 12 lot area, the 3.3 acres, as long as my clinic is located there. Johnson: That answers my question. Thank you. • • Minutes of a meeting of the Planning Commission October 12, 1998 Page 9 Gray: If I could add one more thing this is mostly a matter of the heart. You had mentioned the historical significance of this house. That's one of the things that attracted me to it. I can't remember who asked why put a chiropractic clinic there any way. It is partially for me because of the nature beauty that's around there. My health care practice is a little different than some of the more faster paced health care clinics. I want to encourage my patients to run around. To talk a walk down to the fish pond that's there and to enjoy the trees that are there and there is also rumor that this very house was a Civil War Hospital. To me, I just thinks it's naturally in keeping that health care would be provided there again. I think that s historically significant to me and will not devalue that area at all. Reynolds: Did she get a copy of the inspection report from the fire department? Gray: Yes, sir. I was there with the fire Marshall and building inspector. We went through the whole house. They explained to me all of the things that needed to done and they were all very minor except for making it handicap assessable and that's not going to be very difficult either. Reynolds: That was by the city inspector to make it ADA accessible. Gray: Yes. Reynolds: And you say that's no problem for you? Gray: No. Odom: What is the traffic generation on a chiropractic office9 Gray: I can answer for myself. Odom: Okay, answer for yourself. But you've got to realize that this not only goes for yourself but it also goes for any chiropractor that comes in after you. Gray: Okay. Would that still be allowed for a chiropractor that came in after me? I thought it was just for me. Odom: No. It goes with the structure. Conditional use is not granted per person. It goes with the structure, or land, or so forth. Gray: I understand. • Minutes of a meeting of the Planning Commission October 12, 1998 Page 10 Odom: How much would you say your traffic generation would be per day? Gray: 20 to 25 people per day. We have a maximum of five patients per hour. Odom: Okay. Staff, does that sound about right? Little: Sounds very reasonable. Reynolds: Staff, this doesn't have to run forever. We can do a conditional use for a year. Little: Yes, you can. Forney: To clarify that, I thought that every case in every conditional use for up to a year after it's been granted, the neighborhood or anyone could come to raise concerns about it and we could review it within that one year period. Is that the case? Little: No. I'm sure that's confusing. There are several of them that do carry that • requirement automatically. I believe that day care is one of those. But others are simply conditional uses that run until the business ceases. As a matter of fact, anytime the staff does get a complaint on a conditional use, since it is a special permission by the Planning Commission and not something that's enjoyed by right, we investigate those very carefully. And at any time that we get excessive complaints, we would not hesitate to bring it back to the Planning Commission. Because generally, if there are complaints it means that your conditions have been inadequate to protect the neighborhood or that some of those conditions are not being followed. • Odom: So that's not an automatic thing. I'm not anti your business and that's not why I voted against it. I just feel that it doesn't go in keeping with the neighborhood like conditional uses in neighborhoods ought to. I think an increase of 50 traffic units per day in the neighborhood of this size and in the location that your structure is in is just out of line. I think that if it was on the edge or on a more heavily traffic road that could handle that kind of traffic, it maybe more appropriate. But, it's location, I just don't feel that neighborhood and that street that you're on particularly can handle that amount of additional traffic. Gary: Do you make those same types of considerations in granting expansion of subdivisions? Like what's happening at the top of Mt. Sequoyah and the increased traffic that is going to be going to and from those homes? Odom. Sure. We take every case on it's own merit. Hoffman: I'd like to echo your sentiments. It sounds like you have a very holistic approach • • • Minutes of a meeting of the Planning Commission October 12, 1998 Page 11 to your practice and I understand that this is a special site. But, when you talk about adding 50 vehicle trips per day in the neighborhood -- Gray: I don't understand where you're getting 50 -- Hoffman: To and from. You have that much activity in this residential neighborhood. There are lots of commercial structures that are really going begging for tenants. And in terms of the appearance of the structure, I would remind staff and commissioners that we have health codes and housing codes that can be enforced on this structure with illegal dumping and the abandoned vehicles. I think this is not the best use for this structure. Mr. Odom closed the floor to discussion and to entertain motions. MOTION Mr. Ward made a motion to approve CU98-18 with all staff conditions including the following: 8. All unlicensed and inoperative vehicles be removed from the property. 9. All trash be removed from the 3 acre site including sofa and trash 10. The structure must be handicap accessible. 11. The lease must include the 3.3 acres. 12. The conditional use will be granted for one year only. If there are no complaints or anything going on continuation of the conditional use will be allowed. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. Mr. Odom asked if there was any further discussion. Tucker: I would like to amend the motion to include that the parking lot be paved in some type of permeable surface to help it maintain residential character. Odom: Is that something that can be done pretty easily, staff? Little: Yes. There are varying degrees of extent and some of them are Tess expensive than paving. Some of them are more expensive than paving. But, yes, it is relatively easy to do. • • • Minutes of a meeting of the Planning Commission October 12, 1998 Page 12 Odom: So I make that also as one of the conditions: 13. The paved parking will be of some type of permeable construction. Is that part of your second? Forney: Yes, it is. Mr. Odom asked if there was any further discussion. Johnson: I need a definition from staff or Commissioners of "semi -permeable." Little: It is anything that will allow water to percolate through it. It can range from driveways which have just paved runners where the wheels go leaving the rest of it unpaved to using concrete materials that have holes in them so that grass and other types of vegetation can grow there to plastic membranes that have a honeycomb appearance that are filled with gravel generally so it doesn't wash but it does also allow percolation. Johnson: But it could not be just gravel. Little: Generally, gravel is not considered to be semi -permeable because with the high lime content or clay content in this area, it packs down and it doesn't allow percolation of water through it. Forney: So gravel would not fit the definition here. I appreciate Commissioner Johnson's concern and Mr. Tucker's concern. I always have a hard time defining a design element in great detail but it seems to me one way we could do it Just in my own opinion, I'd do an asphalt drive that was strictly for the drive would not substantially detract from the rest of the character. It would just be a circular drive. But, where there is parking for eight cars, that's a substantial field of parking. There a turf block kind of scenario where you have something that holds the grass together but appears to be primarily sod would seem to be a good way to go. Whereas on the driving surface which is going to get more wear generally, we might go ahead and allow asphalt to happen there. It might be a compromise position. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION Mr. Forney made an amendment to the motion that the specific scenario would incorporate asphalt for the driving path and turf block or an equivalent reviewed by staff for the actual parking areas on addition to the conditions of the original motion. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion. • • • Minutes of a meeting of the Planning Commission October 12, 1998 Page 13 Odom: We have an amendment and a second to the amendment. Any further discussion on the amendment. Upon roll call the amendment to the motion was passed by a vote of 5-3-0. Odom: Now, the applicant has a question about the one year -- Gray: Because there will be considerable financial out lay for me to make this handicap accessible, paint the building, clean it up, make the type of parking that you want, I wouldn't be willing to do that if I thought that I could only do it for one year. It wouldn't be feasible. So, that's the concern that I have. I'm not sure that I understand if there are still concerns and complaints would that just be revoked or would there be a whole other discussion. Odom: There would be another hearing. Isn't that correct? Little: That's correct. Odom: What we do for neighbors that are concerned is give them the ability to come back if there are a lot of complaints. Staff, would you explain what kind of complaints would be valid? Little: Certainly. Any unusual amount of traffic noise, disturbance of any kind in the neighborhood including lights would be a valid complaint. I would say based on the conditions that you have, failure to maintain the site in a clean and sanitary manner would constitute a valid complaint. Johnson: What if, within that year's period, there are enough valid complaints that staff is concerned, then what does staff do if this happens in three months. Little: If we receive a large number of complaints very soon, it would just come on back to Planning Commission. We are under no obligation to wait for the year because as I said earlier, it would typically mean that the conditions that you've prescribed are not being followed. Odom: Because of the zoing, it's not a use by right. And so by right you don't have some of the rights that you do when you're asking for a conditional use in a different type of zoing. Forney. Only because of that stipulation of conditional use that I'm willing to support this project. You'd make your life a lot easier if you would put it in a place where it was a use by right. If you want to do this here, there are going to be additional obligations and I can't look at the neighbors in good conscience without making sure that we have protected their rights as well. Minutes of a meeting of the Planning Commission October 12, 1998 Page 14 Reynolds: I want to get something clarified. Is this whole piece of property 3.30 acres? Conklin: That is correct. Reynolds: But she's wanting a conditional use for Just two lots. Little: Let us refer to page 1.13 in the packet. That's this one that shows the entire site. That is what staff intended and that is now the amendment that -- Odom. property. Now refer to page 1.17. There's a black box around a much smaller portion of Little: Yes. As we've understood tonight, I believe that her lease, as it was initially talked about with the owners of the property, was going to be for dust lots three and four. The motion that has been made has changed that and it said that the lease will in compass all 12 lots. That is how staff understood it when it came to us, and I really think that was the intent of the applicant as well. Reynolds: So she's going to be responsible for the whole property. Little: She's going to be responsible for maintaining everything as shown on page 1 13. Reynolds: And all this has to be done before she gets a final inspection to open her business? Little: That's right. Odom: Any further discussion? (There was no further discussion.) Upon roll call the amended motion was passed with a vote of 5-3-0. Minutes of a meeting of the Planning Commission October 12, 1998 Page 15 AD98-28.00: ADMINISTRATIVE (226 NORTH SCHOOL ST., pp 523) This administrative item was submitted by Kelly Sutterfield of Wittenburg, Delony and Davidson for property located at 226 North School Street. The property is zoned C-3, Central Commercial. The request is for a 6 -space parking waiver. Staff recommended denial. Kelly Sutterfield was present representing the parking waiver request for Wittenburg, Delony, and Davidson. Odom: To approve, are there any staff conditions? Little: No. It is a parking waiver. So, it is a decision that would require you to make several findings. Those are listed for you on page 2.2, the findings that would have to made. Mr. Odom asked that the applicant come forward. Sutterfield: My name is Kelly Sutterfield and I'm with Wittenburg, Delony, and Davidson. We are the architects for the project on 226 N. School. If I could just briefly tell you our intentions for the property In 1993, Tim and Christine Klinger purchased the property from the City. It was the building only. It was separated from the adjacent parking lot which is still city property In 1993, the Planning Commission did approve a waiver request for 22 spaces of parking. This late summer we were selected to work on the project. The owner's intent and ours as well is to look at mixed use development in the Dickson Street area. Currently, if you've visited the property, it's a single story shell. And, the owner intends to renovate and use the current building as retail space and add to the height of the structure with residential areas. We then realized that the 22 spaces that were given were given only for the single story structure. We still only would like to use 22 spaces. However, with our development on the first, we would like to use 15 spaces. If you will refer to our letter of request. 5.8 parking spaces would be required for the retail. 8.5 for the restaurant space. Then we would like to use six spaces for four units upstairs. Two of which would be two bedroom and two one bedroom apartments. Odom: Let me first go to staff. Staff, this property is in the C-3, C-4 district. Is that correct? Little: That's right. Odom: And since the time that we have previously given a waiver of 22 spaces there has been some additional deregulation of that area with regard to parking requirements. Is that correct? • Minutes of a meeting of the Planning Commission October 12, 1998 Page 16 Little: The ordinance has changed since the property was purchased in 1993. And the way the ordinance now reads is for any property that is there, so long as it is not expanded or enlarged there is no parking requirement. Odom: So in this case, if Mr. Klinger and the architects were coming to us and saying we aren't adding anything, they would not need a parking waiver. Little: Under this current proposal, they do plan to add a second story. Odom: But if they came to us and they weren't planning on adding a second story, they would not need a parking waiver. Little: That is correct. Odom: So that 22 spaces that we waived previously is really sort of irrelevant here today toward this discussion. Is that correct? • Little: I would agree. • Odom: What were talking about is a waiver request on the additional amount that's going to add to the existing structure. Is that correct? Little: Yes. Odom. So as far as the 15 you want on the bottom floor and 6 on the top floor, I think that's really irrelevant with regard to this discussion. What we're talking about is that you need a waiver for six parking spaces on the amount that's increased. Is that correct? Little: For the second story. Odom: Does the staff agree that six spaces is what would be required for the addition to this existing structure? Little: Sort of. The reason staff would condition that is that it is a C-3 zoned property and while it is planned to be residential and the parking is going to be calculated residential, that's how we would end up with the six parking spaces for residential. With it having that zone, they have the use. They have the ability to make it retail and so there is no guarantee in the future that the amount of square footage that would be placed on the top would not generate the same amount of need for parking as that that's on the bottom because they have the ability under their zoning to develop it in that way. • Minutes of a meeting of the Planning Commission October 12, 1998 Page 17 Odom: If the applicant is coming forward and stating to the Planning Commission that what's going on top is residential in nature then we have a reasonable expectation to believe that that's what is going in. So, let's say we grant six parking waivers and then they go through and they put commercial on top. Well then you can't get a building permit because they don't have enough parking waivers. Is that correct? Little: Assuming that a building permit would be required to change the use. We don't have a business license. We don't normally know when things are changing if it is in compliance with the zone. Odom: Well, what sort of assurance can we get tonight so that we don't waive six spaces for residential and then it turns into commercial. Little: A deed restriction or a bill of assurance saying that the additional square footage would never be used for anything other than residential purposes. Odom. Is the applicant prepared to offer a deed restriction or bill of assurance that the • amount that is being added on to this structure is going to be residential in nature only? • Sutterfield: I think that would be acceptable. More than acceptable. After we do the construction for this top level, it would be very difficult to change that to a retail type space. Yes. I think we would be willing to provide that. Odom: So we have to make a determination then. One of the specific findings is that the proposed use will not generate as much parking as required under the existing standards. That is not the case. Is that right? It's going to generate six spaces more. The second thing is that shared parking facilities are available. I think that there are facilities within that area that you could share parking spaces with. And number three, that on street parking can satisfy the intermittant and occasional demands. Personally, I think there plenty of public parking down there and I think it can meet those demands. Those are just my thoughts though. But if we can make those findings in your favor, then we are bound by some additional conditions. One of them is that the applicant will agree to pay an in lieu fee of $1200 for each on site parking space that is waived or that there are signed agreements with other property owners allowing the sharing of that parking. Is that correct, staff? Little: That would be correct. We don't have that agreement. Odom. Do you have or intend to get any letters of agreement from other property owners with regard to sharing their parking? • • • Minutes of a meeting of the Planning Commission October 12, 1998 Page 18 Sutterfield: Actually, the question had arisen with the Planning Department. The lot that would make the most sense to enter in a shared parking agreement would be the City's lot adjacent to the property. Because of the small area in the back of the property is you're familiar with it. The topography plus the transformers in the back really restrict us from any additional on site parking. Odom: Well then that's adequate public parking. And I would agree that there is adequate public parking but I don't know about any shared agreement with any landowners. Other people have come through and paid for parking. And you need some type of agreement from them that they will agree to share parking and I don't think you can do that with the City because that goes to the public parking issue. Staff? Little: I think you're on target. Odom: I don't have a problem finding that you have plenty of adequate parking. But, then we must do one of two things. We must have a letter of agreement from the applicant with some other landowner within a reasonable area, stating you can share the parking in that area. Or assess you $1200 for each parking space that we waive. Those are our two options. Sutterfield: Okay. Odom: At this point you don't have any shared parking agreement with any other landowner. Is that correct? Sutterfield: That's correct. Johnson. I have a question of staff. If this building were razed and this were new construction, what would the parking requirement be? Little: Based on the original 4300 sq. feet, I believe it's 22 spaces. They would be entitled to reconstruct the building to the same size that it was before and not incur the need to construct additional parking. That's how your ordinance works now. Odom: Or you can ask for a waiver. Johnson: Well I guess one concern I have is whether or not this applicant is getting around our ordinances by calling this a building. I went and looked at it and I think it's a real stretch to say that this is a renovation of an existing building. Odom. Well I think even if they tore it down, staff is staying it doesn't really matter. • • Minutes of a meeting of the Planning Commission October 12, 1998 Page 19 Little: If they tore it down, they could build a building of equal size and not incur a charge for any parking. Hoffman: And that credit is for 22 spaces then regardless of the condition of the building. Odom: The Ozark Brewing Company was essentially torn down. All that was really left of that place was just the walls. I think that looks to be offensive to the community at large. Johnson: I just thought our ordinance had to do with renovating existing buildings to upgrade decrepit buildings. If you raze a building, you have not upgraded a building. You have new construction and I thought there was a distinction in our ordinance between those two situations. Little: Here is the wording..."In C-3 and C-4 zoning districts, parking requirements are waived for the square footage footprint of any building which existed and has been removed since October 1, 1995, in order to rebuild." So they could remove it and they're still going to be entitled -- Odom: there. It still meets the same purpose. The purpose is to encourage the development Sutterfield: To give you more information, we are currently looking at and the owner is involved with historical preservation. Those remaining parts of the building would not be used for any structural purpose. We will have a totally new structure. The brick would then become a veneer. He is wanting to keep the store front to them and look at the cost options on keeping the existing side or looking at new brick detailing for that side. So it is correct to say the shell in itself depending on it's soundness will not be kept in it's entirety. Odom: I think it clear to say the only good use of the building right now is to skateboard. The clear intent of the ordinance is to encourage development and I think that's what this does. Reynolds: Will this come back through large scale development. Little: No, sir. Reynolds: We won't have a say on material or what it's going to look like? Little: It will still fall under commercial design standards But since it is less than an acre in size, that falls to staff to administer that portion of the commercial design standards ordinance. • se Minutes of a meeting of the Planning Commission October 12, 1998 Page 20 Mr. Odom opened the floor to public comment. (There were no comments.) Ward: This property has been a real eyesore down there in that Dickson Street area for quite a few years now and I'm kind of excited about seeing it developed and I think this development is going to be very similar to other things that have been approved on Dickson Street recently with residential upstairs and commercial, restaurants, office, what not, down on main level. MOTION Mr. Ward motioned for approval of AD98-28 which is a waiver for their six parking spaces including a bill of assurance providing the upstairs will remain residential and that there will be an assessment of $7200 for the parking waiver or you will get a shared parking agreement with one of the adjoining neighbors to be approved by the staff and meet all other staff comments. Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion. Mr. Odom asked if there was any further discussion. 4 Upon roll call, the motion passed with unanimous vote of W-0-0. • • se Minutes of a meeting of the Planning Commission October 12, 1998 Page 21 AD98-29 00• ADMINISTRATIVE (STAFFMARK II, pp 212) This administrative items was submitted by Jerry Brewer of Staffmark for property located at 302 East Millsap Road The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 1.51 acres. The request is for a waiver of the ordinance requiring overhead electrical lines be placed underground. Mr. Brewer was present to address the issue. Odom: Staff recommended approval subject to nine conditions. Staff, are there any further conditions of approval. Little: No there are not. And this particular project was approved with those nine conditions at large scale development. What we have before us tonight is a request for a rehearing on condition number seven that all existing and proposed utilities be placed underground. You will remember that this particular site has frontage along the bypass and along Millsap Road and there is a rather large power line that crosses Millsap and then runs along the bypass. At the time that it came through large scale, we discussed whether that was necessary to put it underground or not and it was decided that it was. Subsequent to that, we have dealt with the Washington Regional Medical Center which has the same line. Planning Commission did ask that it be put underground, however, that was appealed to Council and Washington Regional Medical Center then was not required by Council to put that portion of the line underground. Odom: We got a memo from Kit Williams and City Council regarding underground utilities: "The Ordinance Review Committee of the City Council met on September 22 to discuss Section 166.13, Underground Utility Wires, of the U.D.O. in an attempt to clarify the intent of the ordinance. Representatives of both power companies were present and the discussion centered around the size of line that should exempted, as well as whether the ordinance covered existing power lines. After a serious discussion with the power companies, the ordinance was revised to exempt power lines of 12 kv and above rather than the 34.5 kv that now exists. A draft copy of the change is enclosed. Since this ordinance originated from the Planning Commission, the Council Ordinance Review Committee agreed to send it back to you for review and comments. Please place this item on your next scheduled meeting." • • N Minutes of a meeting of the Planning Commission October 12, 1998 Page 22 So that's going to be coming before us at our next meeting. It was my understanding although it's not in the memo but it is also the intent of that Ordinance Review Committee to allow existing overhead lines to remain. Is that correct? Little: That was also discussed. And where we are tonight is that Mr. Brewer is constructing the Staffmark building. You've probably seen it being constructed alongside the bypass and he is at that point where he needs to pave the parking for Staffmark. He must make a decision whether to include conduit that would allow the placement of the lines underground or whether that's going to be necessary. And it's my understanding that the placement of the conduit would run in the neighborhood of $10,000. He is at a decision point on his project that he needs some guidance from the Planning Commission so he has asked you to rehear this waiver request. Odom: present? Thank you. Mr. Brewer, do you have anything that you would like to add or Brewer: We've wrestled this thing a long time. We were, needless to say, in a hurry and I didn't want to oppose this thing is the reason why I agreed to go with it. We had been in several discussions. I spent $3,000 or $4,000 to put up a bond and all these kind of gyrations. I bought the property not with the intent of burying the lines. I think it would be nice to bury all utility lines throughout America. All I can say is I want it resolved one way or the other. We're in dire need of some parking and it would cost about $10,000 to $12,000 to put in the sleeves. If I was building a one or two story building, I would probably go ahead and spend $60,000 to bury that line. But with a four story building - with the magnitude of it - I don't think it would detract from the property that much. It's in the middle of the parking lot. I've elected not to bury the line, if I had a choice, and that's where I'm at. Odom: Staff, in granting this waiver would it be consistent with other waivers in this area? As you stated, we asked Washington Regional to go underground and City Council said no. Little: It is consist with Council action while possibly not consistent with Planning Commission action, but of course, we are a body that is of and about the Council. I would have to say that it is consistent. Odom. They're the boss. Johnson: Is this power line greater than 12 kv? Little: Yes. • • Minutes of a meeting of the Planning Commission October 12, 1998 Page 23 Brewer: It's a major line. That was SWEPCO's big problem with burying it. Little: I think it's 28 kv. Reynolds: It's still bigger than 12. Johnson: It's only the 28 or 34 kv line that we're talking about not burying. Is it not? Odom: No. It's also existing lines. Little: All of the lines that are above ground in the area are the high power lines. I believe they are 28 kv. The subdivision itself was already developed with the local service lines being underground. So this is a legitimate transmission line that we are discussing. Reynolds. It seems to me that the City Council has laid the work out for us here that line of 12 kv and above shall be exempt from this section. It looks like we don't have anything to do other than give him his right. Johnson: Except it hasn't been passed yet. Odom: Yes, but if it was passed, we wouldn't even be talking about a waiver. Is that right? Little: That's right. Mr. Odom opened the floor for discussion. No discussion ensued and the floor was closed for public discussion. Hoover: I'd like a clarification. Are we just talking about the existing overhead lines - not the proposed. Little: All of his service lines are already underground. They were underground in the subdivision. He has had to make some connections placing them underground. We are simply talking about the transmission lines that were already in place. Forney: I'm wondering about the fact that the easement goes right over the parking lot. Do we typically allow parking lots through easements? Is that normal practice? Little: Yes. Oddly enough the City and utility companies allow parking lots to be placed over easements where sometimes they will not allow landscaping to be place within easements. Minutes of a meeting of the Planning Commission October 12, 1998 Page 24 Yes, we have a long track history of allowing parking lots over easements. MOTION Mr. Reynolds made a motion to allow the waiver for AD98-29 as per the City Council comment. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. Mr. Odom opened the floor to further discussion. No discussion ensued. Upon the roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m. • • • . Item #1 CU`18-18 GeM Item #A 1. CU98-15 Gr?Ay Item #511 CURS -19 GCAV MOTION PENNOIDS Wen Fo2NPI SECOND W4aD ROtNE`l v7Gl4Nccn1 J. Johns ✓ A. Little t.. -- B. Estes A BSG1 fT P5Sa'r ASSIair J. Forney CF1eetvE S:56) L. Hoffman S. Hoover P. Johnson C. Odom R. Reynolds G. Tucker L. Ward ACTION T3 Dcy \1EW/Ama D Coco. ; ami rrKSRa4 VOTE 4-4-0 5-3-0 5-3-0 STAFF PRESENT ABSENT J. Beavers `/ ✓ T. Conklin J. Johns ✓ A. Little t.. -- B. B. Vinson D. Warrick • • e • Item #51 Z AD98-218 ZZa N.SC++aoL- Item n3 AD98- Z9 STAFF MAP1LIE Item #6 MOTION WAND ZelNOLAS SECOND POPPM -N WAC6 B. Estes A13�E7.Ft- ASSI:R1-1 J. Forney \/ 7 L. Hoffman Y y S. Hoover y y P. Johnson 1 Y C. Odom Y Y R. Reynolds Y Y G. Tucker Y y L. Ward Y y ACTION Ate, Wask.%0 APPeU. VOTE a-0-0 8-0-d