Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-01-10 Minutes• • i MINUTES OF A MEETING OF PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, January 10, 2000 at 5:30 p.m. in room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED Approval of 11/22/99 Minutes Approval of 12/13/99 Minutes AD99-31: Covington Park pp295 PP99-15: Appleby Estates, pp250 RZA99-5: Arkansas Oaks, pp321/322 RZ99-35: Arkansas Oaks, pp321/322 CU99-23: Drummond, pp571 AD99-30: Zion Valley, pp136 RZ99-34: Norman, Pendergraft Barnes, ppl 36 CU99-24: Lisle pp445 MEMBERS PRESENT Don Bunch Bob Estes Lorel Hoffman Sharon Hoover Phyllis Johnson Conrad Odom Loren Shackelford Lee Ward STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Janet Johns Dawn Warrick ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Withdrawn Approved Withdrawn Denied MEMBERS ABSENT Don Marr STAFF ABSENT None Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2000 Page 2 Johnson: I will call to order the January 10, 2000 meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. We have several items which have been removed from the agenda which I need to make the audience aware of. Item number one which was the preliminary plat for Appleby Estates has been removed from the agenda. Item number five which is the conditional use request 99-23 has been removed. And, item number seven which was a rezoning request has also been removed from the agenda. If anyone is present regarding items one, five, or seven, we will not be discussing those tonight. Approval of the November 22, 1999 Minutes Johnson: With that said, we will continue with approval of the minutes. Is there any member of the Commission who has any additions or corrections to the November 22nd Minutes? Seeing none, then those will stand as they were distributed. Approval of the December 13, 1999 Minutes Johnson: Is there any member of the Commission who has any additions or corrections to the December 13th Minutes? Seeing none, then those will also stand as distributed. • • • • Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2000 Page 3 CONSENT AGENDA AD99-31: ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM COVINGTON PARK, pp295 This item was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of Gary Atha for property located north of Highway 45 and east of Blue Mesa Drive. The property is zoned R- 1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 37.95 acres. The request is to extend the deadline for construction of a public street connection to Hwy. 45 for an additional six months. Dave Jorgensen was present on behalf of the request. Commission Discussion Johnson: We have one item on the Consent Agenda. That item is AD99-31 submitted by Dave Jorgensen for property located north of Hwy. 45. Is there any member of the Commission who wishes to remove this item from the Consent Agenda? Is there any member of the audience who wishes to remove this item from the Consent Agenda? Roll Call Upon roll call the Consent Agenda was approved with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2000 Page 4 NEW BUSINESS RZA99-5: ANNEXATION ARKANSAS OAKS, PP321/322 This item was submitted by Andy Feinstein of Engineering Design Associates on behalf of Richard Doyle, Arkansas Oaks, Inc. for property located at the southeast corner of Bridgeport Drive and Mount Comfort Road. The property is in the planning growth area and contains approximately 13.39 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. Richard Doyle was present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation based on the findings as included in the staff report. Commission Discussion Johnson: Does staff have anything further to add on this project? Conklin: We have nothing further. Public Comment None. Further Commission Discussion Johnson: I need to remind everyone that our decision is merely a recommendation to the City Council who has the final say in this matter. MOTION Commissioner Odom made a motion to approve annexation RZA99-5. Commissioner Shackelford seconded the motion. Roll Call Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2000 Page 5 Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. • Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2000 Page 6 RZ99-35: REZONING ARKANSAS OAKS, PP321/322 This item was submitted by Andy Feinstein of Engineering Design Associates on behalf of Richard Doyle for property located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Bridgeport Drive and Mt. Comfort Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 13.39 acres The request is to rezone to R-1, Low Density Residential. Richard Doyle was present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommended approval based on the finding included as a part of the staff report. Commission Discussion Johnson: Does staff have any additional information on this matter? • Conklin: Staff has nothing further. Public Comment None. MOTION Commissioner Odom made a motion to approve the rezoning. Commissioner Hoover seconded the motion. Johnson: This decision is also a recommendation to the City Council. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2000 Page 7 CU99-23: CONDITIONAL USE DRUMMOND, PP571 This item was submitted by Curtis Drummond for property located at 1199 Mally Wagon Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 8.61 acres. The request is for a Home Occupation permit for a mini -storage rental office. This item was removed from the agenda pending action by the Washington County Planning Board. • • • Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2000 Page 8 AD99-30• ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM ZION VALLEY, PP136 This item was submitted by David Bercaw of Ball & Mourton, Ltd., PLLC on behalf of Lenk Development for property located south of Zion Road. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 5 acres. David Bercaw was present on behalf of the request. Committee Discussion Johnson: Does staff have anything further? Conklin: I need to call your attention to page 6.2. This matter does need to be reviewed by the City Attorney and approved by the City Council. The letter of credit needs to be tied to the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index. Bercaw: I'm with Ball and Mourton. I did discuss with Mr. Conklin the indexing of the letter of credit. I do think it will have to be an annualized letter of credit and increased each year according to the cost of the construction index. My understanding is it would probably increase around 2 to 3 percent per year. We have no objection to it being a nondiscretionary letter of credit. Johnson: Give us the definition of what you are using as a nondiscretionary letter of credit. Estes: Simply stated, with a nondiscretionary letter of credit there can be no conditions based upon the exercise of the letter of credit. If the letter of credit is called, it is called. There are no conditions of any nature placed upon the call of the letter of credit. When called, it is paid. Conklin: I would like to bring up an issue that was requested by Mr. Bercaw in his letter. They had requested they be given a certain amount of time to construct the improvement and I want to make sure it does not conflict. I'm not sure if that is a condition. They are asking for permission that when the letter of credit is called that they have a certain number of days where they can actually construct this improvement. Johnson: What is the staffs position on that request? Conklin: Staff is not opposed to allowing them to construct the improvement as long as the construction meets the city street standards and meets the standards for development in the area. • • • Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2000 Page 9 Johnson: Did the previous Planning Commission action preclude the developer from building the street? Conklin: The original Planning Commission action required the developer to actually construct the street. They came back a year later and requested to not construct the street and could monies be escrowed. That was approved by the Planning Commission. Now, they have come back and asked if they can use a letter of credit to guarantee the improvement instead of putting the money into escrow. Johnson: Or build the street themselves? Conklin: That is correct. Johnson: I would prefer that the annualization of the letter of credit be submitted to the staff for it's approval rather than to the Commission. Odom: The agreement allows it to go into escrow. I'm looking at the minutes of the meeting where we agreed to do that on January 27, 1997. Has any money ever been placed in escrow? Conklin: No money has been placed in escrow. Odom. Is that unusual? Conklin: We normally get the money prior to our sign off on the mylar which is recorded at the county. Once that money is placed in escrow, the five year time period begins. If it is not expended within that period, there is a public hearing of the Planning Commission to decide what to do with that money. Typically, we get that after the development is built and prior to sign off of the mylar copy of the final plat. Odom. We have not signed off on it? Conklin: We have not done that yet. Public Comment None. MOTION Commissioner Estes made a motion to approve administrative item 99-30 subject to the Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2000 Page 10 condition that the letter of credit be nondiscretionary, that the cost basis increase be based upon the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index and that the letter of credit be annualized. By that, I mean, that it be brought back to the staff on an annual basis for review and be increased in accordance with the Engineering News Record, Construction Cost Index. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. Johnson: The motion by Commissioner Estes is to grant the requested administrative item allowing a letter of credit to be posted by the applicant. It would be an annualized letter of credit. It would be nondiscretionary and it would be annualized to the extent that every year the cost would be adjusted by tying it to the Engineering News Record, Construction Cost Index. Shackelford: Clarification, please. This motion states that the letter is nondiscretionary, therefore, we are taking away their ability to build the road themselves. We're strictly saying when the road is going to be built, we'll draw on the letter of credit and do it ourselves. I think we need to resolve what Tim was saying and what Commissioner Estes was saying on the nondiscretionary matter. Estes: My thinking was that the applicant would have the opportunity to build or complete the construction of Sterns Streets and if they do not do so, then the City calls the letter of credit and the future construction of Sterns Street is paid for with the nondiscretionary letter of credit and is constructed by the city. Johnson: That was my assumption on the second as well. Hoffman: I would like to offer a friendly amendment that the final condition be that this letter of credit be in a form finally approved by the City Attorney. I know it's going forward to the City Council but I would like it to be formalized or recorded according to Arkansas State Law. I think it is a little unusual to take so long in figuring out how to do the street. I would like to put in every precaution that we can Estes: I accept the amendment. Johnson: We have five specific conditions. The letter of credit is nondiscretionary. The cost is to be tied to the Engineering News Record, Construction Cost Index. The letter of credit amount will be annualized. The applicant will have the opportunity first to construct the street itself before the letter of credit is called and the letter of credit must be approved by the City Attorney. Odom: Mr. Bercaw, you are a representative of Ball and Mourton and I guess you are here on behalf of the applicant. • • Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2000 Page 11 Bercaw: Yes, sir. Odom: 1 don't know if you are the right person to answer this question, but we first stated that we wanted the street built. That was approved. You came back and asked us to reconsider that and put the money in escrow. It has now been three years and the money has not been put in escrow and you are asking us now to reconsider that and you are asking to provide a letter of credit. I'm wondering what is next. Bercaw: I'd like to explain the history on this. The development was originally started by Zion Valley, LLC of which the primary member was Jack Torres. He subsequently died and his daughter took over the operation of it. The development went idle for about a year and a half to two years. My clients, Unique Homes and Lenk Development, purchased the property and now they are starting the development again. The original appeal was in 1997 for the cash escrow and that was granted to Zion Valley LLC and not my clients. Odom. I'm going to support staff. I grow more leery of this development every time we see it. I know it's had a change of hands. For this development, we waived many of the streets on the Master Street Plan to begin with. I'm tired of seeing it. I'm getting more concerned that as this goes along, we lose control, especially with all the questions about the letter of credit. Estes: I will vote for the motion. To relieve some anxiety conceming the difference between a cash deposit and a letter of credit, a nondiscretionary letter of credit is cash in the bank. It's Just as good as cash money in the bank. It's nondiscretionary. It's going to be indexed. It's going to be annualized. The money is going to be there to build the street if it becomes necessary for the City to take on this task and complete the construction. Shackelford: A letter of credit is also irrevocable. Once it is in place, it's there through maturity. Odom: What happens at the end of a letter of credit? Does it have a maturity date? Shackelford: Correct. Odom: I know when we put money in escrow, we can vote on it again to see if we want to extend it if the need is going to be there in future. If the maturity date expires and the letter of credit is gone, what happens at that point? Estes: That is a problem with annualizing this letter of credit. When it expires at the end of one year it will be gone. There is going to be a gap period in which that letter of credit will not be available. If for any reason, this applicant is unable by reason of credit worthiness or desire or intent to replace the letter the credit, then we'll see this again. • Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2000 Page 12 Odom: Our safeguard for escrowing monies is that it remains accessible and we can vote on it again if we need to. What is our safeguard in the letter of credit? Estes: It is possible that there would be a gap period where that letter of credit would not be place and in that case, we would see this again for the fourth time. Shackelford: It also operates like any loan with an annual balloon. The bank will approach the borrowers prior to the expiration and request to renew it. Theoretically, at that point, they would contact the city and find out the adjustment of the index and letter of credit and get the paperwork started so the second letter of credit would be ready at the time of the first letter of credit's maturity. You have to have annual balloons in place to calculate the index and increase the value over time. Estes: If we annualize the letter of credit, when it expires it is possible there is a gap period and depending on the credit worthiness of the applicant, that letter of credit may or may not be replaced. I want each Commissioner to understand that. That is the down side of taking a letter of credit in lieu of cash in escrow. Perhaps that is one reason our statute does not specifically provide for a letter of credit but does specifically provide for cash in escrow. Johnson. What about the possibility of the basic letter of credit not being annualized but rather having whatever term is appropriate and only the increase being annualized? Could that reasonably be done so that the risk is really only tied to the increase in the cost of construction and the risk is not tied to the $74,000 that we know is the base price? Hoffman: If we did that, construction costs are totally predictable. Johnson: It's tied to the Engineering News Record, Construction Cost Index. There would be three letters of credit. One would be a long term letter of credit for however many years we felt like it needed to be to get away from the problem of it being annualized and then the part that would be annualized would only be a portion that is the increased amount due to inflation. Hoffman: Is that a number that can be arrived at? Conklin: We know how much it would cost today and that is $74,364 and theoretically, every year that goes up. The past couple of years it has increased about 2.5 percent. We rely on the City Attorney to make sure that this works. Johnson: This does go on to the City Council. � Conklin: That is correct and by ordinance, the form has to be approved by the City Attorney so he will review and recommend the final form. Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2000 Page 13 Odom: I'm going to support it then. These minutes will reflect our concerns and if that is a problem they can address it. Johnson: It seems to me the City Attorney would have the authority to segregate the two elements of the letter of credit and if he felt it was better, there could be two letters of credit. One for the $74,364 and one for the increase and staff can convey that to him as one idea. Hoffman: On the conditions of approval, could be add that if a satisfactory decision is not made by the City Attorney that the money be immediately escrowed since it has not been to date. Johnson: Tim, I understood you to say that the fact that it hasn't been escrowed to date is not atypical. In most projects it would not be escrowed by this date. Conklin: Normally, those funds are escrowed when they get ready to sell the lots or the homes. To date, we have not signed off on the final plat. There has been no development recorded at Washington County Courthouse. Johnson: We benefit because the five year period for the escrow doesn't start running until after construction is complete. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. • Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2000 Page 14 RZ99-34: REZONING NORMAN, PENDERGRAFT, BARNES, PP136 This item was submitted by Daniel Broyles on behalf of Robert Norman, Kyle Pendergraft, and Rick Barnes for property located at 1633 E. Zion Road. It is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 0.76 acres. The request is to rezone the property to R -O, Residential Office. This item was removed from the agenda. • • Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2000 Page 15 CU99-24: CONDITIONAL USE LISLE, PP446 This item was submitted by Barbara Lisle for property located at 410 Gunter Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.25 acres. The request is for a Home Occupation for a massage therapy practice. Barbara Lisle was present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: The massage therapy room shall be located in the existing house as shown on the site plan and shall occupy only 200 square feet of the house. 2. No exterior alterations of the structure may be made which are of a nonresidential nature. 3. No advertising, signs, display, storage or other external evidence of a business shall be permitted on the property. 4. Only one massage therapist shall conduct business at this location and they shall reside on the premise. 5. No mechanical equipment may be used which creates a disturbance such as noise, dust, odor or electrical disturbance. 6. No parking spaces other than normal residential parking spaces shall be permitted. 6. (Amended) No parking space other than normal residential parking and one parking space in the yard behind the house for applicant to park during business hours shall be permitted. 7. The conditional use permit shall be issued for a period of one year, and may be renewed annually by the City Planner if no complaints are received. 8. The office shall be open only from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. 9. Only typical residential lighting shall be allowed and all lighting shall be shielded and directed downward and away from residences. Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2000 Page 16 10. The structure shall be inspected by the Fire Marshall and Building Inspector All required improvements shall be completed prior to the office opening. 11. Water shall be turned off immediately and the office shall not operate if any of the conditions are not met. 12. The conditional use shall be automatically revoked if any condition is not met. 13. The applicant shall apply for a Home Business Permit. The fee for this permit is $25 and it must be renewed annually at a cost of $12.50. 14. (Added) The applicant has the personal responsibility to be sure that nobody parks in the alley where the alley adjoins her property. 15. (Added) The applicant must park her private vehicle(s) behind the house allowing her clients to park in the parking space in front of the house. Commission Discussion Johnson- Has the applicant seen the conditions of approval? Lisle: Yes, I have. Johnson: Have you found all of those acceptable? Lisle: Yes. Johnson: Staff, do you have additional information on this? Conklin: I received a phone call from Councilman Reynolds who had received a call from a resident, Mr. Brooks, in opposition to this proposed conditional use. Bunch: The condition whereby the conditional use is approved for one year and subject to renewal by the City Planner, doesn't this use stay with the property? Conklin: Conditional uses run with the land. If someone moved into this house and wanted to do massage therapy and met the conditions, they would be allowed. Under R-1, Home Occupations, they have to be renewed annually and if any complaints are received, those are brought back to the Commission. Bunch: Is the applicant also the landowner? Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2000 Page 17 Lisle: Yes. Hoffman: Have we ever tied a conditional use to the occupant and not to the land? Conklin: I have not recommended that but I believe you have once or twice. Johnson: There is no prohibition against our requiring that the therapist residing there also be the owner. Conklin: Under the provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance, you have the authority to grant a conditional use with such conditions and safeguards as are appropriate. So, if you feel that you need to place additional conditions on this approval, I believe you have the authority to do that. Public Comment Susan Swink residing at 411 Gunter was present. • Swink: I have a handout for each of you. My husband and I are business owners and we are completely in favor of Ms. Lisle's pursuit of being a business owner. We are concerned in regard to parking. Gunter Street is 20 foot wide which barely allows one vehicle to park safely there. In this neighborhood, parking is at a premium. If you will bare with me, I will run through the packet quickly. Ms. Lisle's letter to the Planning Commission says that she will see only one client at a time and this person will park in her driveway. She is specifying that her driveway is the place where her client's will park. The staff's recommendation includes no exterior alterations of a structure may be made which are of a nonresidential nature and number six clearly states that no parking spaces other than normal residential parking spaces shall be permitted. Off street parking and loading areas are required. Parking shall be contained to the existing residential driveway with no additional parking allowed to develop. On page six, it mentions again that no exterior alterations may be made which are of a nonresidential nature. Page seven indicates that there shall be no parking spaces other than normal residential parking spaces shall be permitted. I have included maps. Page eight shows Ms. Lisle's home. The circle and "X" indicate where our home is. On the east side of Ms. Lisle's home is a very narrow alley. If you'll turn to page nine, you can see more detail on the location of Ms. Lisle's home and it's proximity to our home. There is one parking place in front of Ms. Lisle's home. When I went to the Planning Division this morning to look at this plan, I found where Ms. Lisle had marked on page ten and eleven, two car parking behind her house. Behind her house is just a yard. That is the only parking that Ms. Lisle has. I have attached pictures which show the front of her house with her truck parked there and the backyard where she indicates two car parking. I'm • wondering that if she has two clients back to back, where will they park? They can't park on the street and if you can't make alterations, where will the parking be? I'm concerned where people • Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2000 Page 18 will park. There isn't any parking behind her house. There is a garage. As I read this, it says there are no provisions for her to make any alterations to the yard for this purpose. If someone is parked on the street, it causes tensions to run high in our little neighborhood. People can't get out of their driveways. Especially us. That's what I'm concerned about I have others with me tonight and I would like for them to show their hands. Johnson: Those who are in support of Ms. Swink's position, would you raise your hand? Swink: Neal Crawford lives in the alley and he is often blocked and I think he would like to speak next. Johnson:. Anyone who wishes to speak is going to have an opportunity to. Neal Crawford residing at 610 Walnut was present. Crawford: The back of my property attaches to the alley way. Your next to last map shows that I am in favor of her opening up this business. My concern is that this alley way is frequently blocked. It creates a problem for me in getting my boat in and out of my property. I have photos showing a car parked in the alley and a picture of her car blocking that alley. My concem with the parking issue is that the clients are going to parking in the alley way and it is the access to the back of my property. Heaven forbid that there is a fire Rick McKinney residing at 609 Walnut was present. McKinney: My property is around the corner from Gunter. We have owned this house since 1981. I am concerned with the parking around the neighborhood. These are old, neighborhood streets developed in the 1940's when the Gunter Addition was developed off the Gunter Farm. There is no street parking available. I know this a conditional use that is renewable through the clerk subject to review by your board and the Council. However, there are only about 3 or 4 other commercial businesses in the area of this neighborhood. There is an antique store where the old Phillips Grocery used to be. There is Virginia Young's accounting office and La Petite Yarn Shop in what used to be the old gas station decades ago. At the corner of Mission and Maple, there are a few businesses that have been there throughout the years. Our neighborhood seems to be more subjected recently to commercial exposure which is not the reason I bought in this neighborhood. The reason we bought in this neighborhood was to have a place to live and raise our children. I would rather not have additional commercial exposure. You have streets like Locust off of Dickson Street as well as Spring and Church which have a number of different houses that have already been converted to medical offices or small medical facilities. My opinion is that would be a better place within the city for this type of business to be. I don't mean disrespect to Ms. Lisle. I have admiration and respect for your profession but I don't think this neighborhood is the place for it even if it is a small, one person business. I am a small • • • Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2000 Page 19 business myself. I retain my business to my office and it is located in a commercial, office zoned area. I would urge you to consider this closely and look at the residents of this neighborhood who have bought homes to be long term residents in this neighborhood. Orland Maxfield, residing at 533 N. Willow was present. Maxfield: I live on the comer of Willow and Davidson. I own and live in that residence and have been there since 1956. This has given me 40 plus years of observation and experience in that part of town. I am two blocks west of the property in question as the sparrow flies. Years ago, Gunter or Davidson was to have come through from Walnut to Willow. That has been off the books for years. I'm simply saying this is very close to me although I cannot go out of my drive and immediately turn onto a street that will take me to Gunter. As I see the issues over a conditional use, and I've been down this road a few times in my neighborhood and elsewhere. The concern that I have is probably a little broader than the concern that the Swink's have stated and the other gentlemen here. It's not whether this is a legal conditional use. It is as far as I know. My concern, very largely, is what guarantee do we have that the requirements will be met once they are agreed upon. I have seen far too many examples where everyone comes to an agreement and there is a sign off and then before whatever is to be done and whether it is parking or something else is completed, the whole thing has been ignored. It's been a problem some times getting the City to come back and look at this and see what has gone wrong Tim answered one thing that I was concerned about. I believe he said there would not be any signs advertising the business. Is that correct? Conklin: That is correct. It is not allowed by our zoning ordinance. Maxfield: How will clients know where to go? That is one of my issues. I am concerned with parking and with traffic. The proposed use itself as has been mentioned is unoffensive. It produces no pollution, no threat to wetlands or endangerment to wildlife. How will the service be advertised? How will parking be made available so that it will not negatively affect the residential parking of other people in the neighborhood? I had thought as Ms. Swink made mention but business parking in a residential area such as this had to be in back. Conklin: There is no requirement that it be located behind the structure. Maxfield: The parking on Gunter reminds me of the situation on Willow which I think is a little bit wider but we have people spinning off from Mission. I sometimes sit on my porch and count what's happening on Willow. I have not done that on Gunter. I imagine that people spin off of that and go over to Olive or Walnut and proceed to Maple or Lafayette If you increase parking by one or two cars, this is going to be worse than it already is. It will affect property values and this is a very stable neighborhood. You don't have a lot of turnover of real estate. I don't know about the rental situation but 1 think probably most of those are lived in by their • Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2000 Page 20 owners. I asked the City to do a study of traffic in front of my house on Willow and at first I think they didn't believe me but they didn't know me either. First thing they did was put up 25 miles per hour speed limit signs because we had never had any. People always plead ignorance unless something is shoved in their face. I waited an appropriate length of time and just about now dug in again. So, they came out with the radar gun because I complained that the City Police Cars could be seen a mile away in winter and the radar did no good. They came out on a motorcycle. Estes: May I respectfully interupt the public comment? Each of the Commissioners have studied the material carefully. If there is anything to be added to the staff report or comments on the staff recommendations, it would be much appreciated Maxfield: I was going to give you an experience on the topic but if you don't want it, that is quite all right. I have never heard mention of the quality of residential life in this room. We pride ourselves on having upscale restaurants and other things. When I come out my door as when the Swink's come out their door or anyone else, I look up and down the street and I see what makes up the quality of my resiriftial life. To me this does not include a business across the street. It does not include traffigproblems. If I were to ever run for City Council, it would be with a platform emphasizing the quality of residential life and not that there is a Job here for you and there are fine restaurants. I ask you to consider that also in this request. Thank you. Further Commission Discussion Johnson: Ms. Lisle, I have a couple of questions. One of the pictures that has been sent around to the Commission shows the back of your house and it appears that your backyard is enclosed with a chain link fence and it doesn't look as if there is any available spot that is accessible off the alley where cars could park. Tell me whether the picture is misleading or whether you have some plan to create two parking spaces back there. Lisle: I have not seen the pictures. Johnson: Come forward and take a look at these. The question is whether or not it is possible presently for two cars to park behind your house? Lisle: Yes, it is possible. I don't normally park there. There is a chain link fence in this picture but there isn't a chain link fence. I have driven back to my garage and it is possible to park there but I do not intend for my clients to park there. As I said, I only intend to have one client at a time and they will have 45 minutes to one hour in between clients and they would park in my driveway. • Johnson: You would anticipate a gap between clients that there wouldn't be two clients on Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2000 Page 21 site at any one time. Lisle: That is correct. Johnson: Who would you anticipate parking in the back? Lisle: I can park in the back or I can park in the street. I won't park in the alley. It is possible for two cars to park back there. I don't anticipate doing that. I was trying to alleviate some concerns about parking. It is possible to park there. I only own one car. There are people in my neighborhood who own more than one car and they have two cars parked at their residence. I only have one car. I don't have two cars and I don't have a boat either. Johnson- Tim, on the street that you said was 20 feet in width, is there any prohibition against anybody parking curb side on the street? Conklin: No. I looked at it this morning. There are no signs on that street that prevent people from parking on either side. Estes: Ms.`Lisle, I am confused. Tell me what these pictures show. Is that your car in the driveway? Lisle: Yes. That is where I intend for my clients to park. Estes: There is another picture which shows two cars parked in that driveway. Lisle: Yes, it does. Estes: Where is your driveway? Is it off Gunter? Lisle: Yes. It is adjacent to the alley. Estes: There is one car in your driveway and one car blocking the alley. One of staff's findings is what parking shall be contained to the existing residential driveway. When people come to see you, are they going to park in the alley or is there room for them to get in the driveway? Lisle: There is room in the driveway. I think this picture was probably taken at Christmas when my daughter and my son in law were there and I did ask him to move his truck down in the street so it would not be blocking the alley. He was blocking the alley. Hoffman: Your driveway is adjacent and unseparated from the alley. Is that correct? • • • Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2000 Page 22 Lisle: Yes. Hoffman: In light of the parking configuration, I'm going to be very hesitant to approve this conditional use because these streets are so very narrow. The Gunter Addition is 100% residential use and for a business to be approve with streets that are barely functioning for residential traffic, I don't think that is something I can support. Sorry. I think that you do have a viable business but not without parking. Estes: My concerns are exactly the same. It seems that the driveway is contiguous to or directly connected to the alley. Is that right? Lisle: That is correct. Estes: If the alley is blocked then there will be people there who will be denied access to their homes or else they have to go around the block and come in the other way. Lisle: The alley runs the whole length and comes out on Johnson Street. It runs between Johnson and Gunter. I'm not asking for permission for clients to park in the alley and block the alley. Hoffman: I think you are certainly well intentioned but if our only option is to have this conditional use to run with this property, I just don't feel comfortable with the fact that somebody else could come in later and own two or three cars and be able to run a business as well. I think we have to look beyond your immediate use and realize that there could be others to come if we grant this conditional use. Lisle: So this conditional use permit would not be to me, it would be to anybody? Hoffman: It would be granted for the property. Lisle: It's only good for a year. Hoffman: You have to have your business license. Conklin: Yes, this does run with the land. Lisle: There are 13 conditions that have to met in order for this to be renewed each year One of those conditions is that there is no parking in the alley. It sounds like your concerns is one of the conditions of the conditional use permit and that it would not be renewed after one year if those conditions were not met. • • • Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2000 Page 23 Johnson: I was concerned about the parking until I saw all of the detailed information and saw that Ms. Lisle plans to park her own vehicle in back of the house and so long as that is an added condition that she parks in the back and as long as she keeps the alley clear which I think does need to be a condition, then I don't see that this would have any impact on the neighborhood. She's said that she will only have one client on the premise at a time and I can believe that a massage therapist can't very well and I understand the physical requirements of the work, you are not going to do massages back to back to back and still have wrists and arms and all of that. I believe that with the conditions that we have before us and a couple of additional ones that I don't believe there would be a noticeable impact on the neighborhood. MOTION Commissioner Johnson made a motion to approve conditional use 99-24 subject to the 13 staff conditions of approval and add number 14 which is that the applicant has the personal responsibility to be sure that nobody parks in the alley where the alley adjoins her property and number 15 that the applicant park her private vehicle(s) behind the house allowing her clients to park in the parking space in front of the house. McKimmey: I would like to redirect. You asked Ms. Lisle to come up and answer some questions. Johnson: Once we have the Public Comment and that is closed, we do not accept rebuttal. The applicant is responsible to respond to whatever questions that we may have. McKimmey: So if there is another point brought up, I don't have a chance to respond? Johnson: No because we would be here all evening. There is no debate. You may address your questions to the staff at an appropriate time. All alleys in the City are always to be open and the Commission does not deal with enforcement issues. Swink: What about off street parking? Is she going to park in the street? There's not room for parking in the street. Johnson: I would request that the audience observe the rules of the Commission. I know this is important to you and we're going to take this as an important matter which we are doing but it is not something that is to be debated back and forth and we will not debate it with you and let me ask that you observe the rules of the Commission and once your opportunity to speak has been fully granted that you then allow us to go ahead with our work. We have a motion before us to approve the conditional use. Is there a second? Commissioner Ward seconded the motion. • • Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2000 Page 24 Johnson: Is there discussion of the motion? Shackelford: 1 have a question for staff. Commissioner Estes has mentioned that if the alley way is blocked then there will be landowners that are denied access to their property. Are there any driveways that directly access the alley or is it strictly a secondary access to the back of the property on that block? Conklin: I'm not sure. Johnson: I drove it this afternoon. Estes: The staff's finding was that parking shall be contained to the existing residential driveway. Do I understand there is an additional condition now that there be parking behind the residence and that would be the applicant's parking spot? Johnson:. Correct. Estes: Does that conflict with the staff's finding that parking shall be contained to the existing residential driveway? That certainly implies or suggests that there be no other construction or onsite improvements providing for other nonresidential parking spaces.. I want to clarify that we have a staff finding that says parking shall be contained to the existing residential driveway and we have as part of the motion an additional condition of the conditional use that the applicant park their car in the grass behind her house. Do those two conditions conflict one another? Conklin: Condition number six was included because we wanted to make sure that no parking lots are built at this location. We can modify condition number six to say that one additional space behind the house would be allowed and that should clarify it for everybody. Bunch: The applicant has not had an opportunity to say whether or not she accepts the additional conditions which have been placed on this. Johnson: Ms. Lisle, do you object to either the additional conditions or the amendment to condition six. This makes you something of a policeman for the alley way beside your house. This must remain clear for ingress and egress and you must park your personal vehicle(s) in the back behind your house. Are either of these conditions objectionable to you? Lisle: The first one is acceptable. I'm worried about the second one. I still want to park on the street in front of my house. Does this prohibit me from parking in the street in front of my house? • • • Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2000 Page 25 Johnson: The motion indicates that most of the time you would be parking behind your house. Lisle: I will accept those conditions. Hoffman: This discussion just points out to me that these conditions are totally unenforceable and I see no point in voting for a home occupation in this area. I think the site is entirely too tight and parking will be an issue and we will see this again Johnson: I don't think we have ever seen a conditional use come back. Maybe we have but it is by far the exception and not the rule. I wouldn't like to imply to anybody that these usually come back before us because in deed the opposite is true almost always. The staff advises us and conditional uses are handled pretty carefully and after they are passed, if they are, the staff almost never has complaints. Isn't that accurate? Conklin: Yes, that is accurate. Hoffman: I should clarify. In our latest standard conditions, we have been putting that the water would be turned off so that would preclude anymore public meetings of this nature. I think this is an unenforceable and unworkable situation from a parking standpoint. Estes: I will vote against the motion. The parking concerns me. Shackelford: I do support the motion but I would offer a friendly amendment on the final condition approval that the applicant park behind the house. I'm concerned that in the off hours and evening hours that she not be allowed to park in front of her house. I would like to amend that to provide the applicant not parking in front of her house during business hours. Johnson: That is acceptable. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion failed with a vote of 3-5-0. Commissioners Bunch, Estes, Hoffman, Hoover, and Odom voted against the motion. Meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m. S: Z8 5:zq 5:2-1 S: Zco •5:28 5.zs 5:15 241 E1 RAW Comm Ct NC issicio 10 icet ll'ZZ1 mINuTS lz11319i9 mINIMS colds. ft kaDP frez Abort COV -31 I NG101.1 MOTION SECOND D. Bunch \/ B. Estes L. Hoffman S. Hoover Y P. Johnson V • D. Marr A(3SQJT AECERJr /-i(eJT C. Odom V Shackelford Y L. Ward 1 ACTION A vY:) 8-0-5 APP1201 () VOTE CbUt in, \JOHNS • WAMCIC • • • z q=t -5 ARK GABS tZ�i t-35 ACCOArQ A cct9 30 2101.1 VALIO/ MOTION QDCY) 0C p ESrES SECOND S\-IACILaFECD 1-\ -1" Pfki cnk-1tJ�jN D. Bunch \l B. Estes \-1 \E T L. Hoffman \J \E 7 S. Hoover \I Y 1 P. Johnson Y V y D. Marr ASSaST Ael_I,JT Asemer C. Odom \I Shackelford 11 I L. Ward \e \ 1 \( ACTION 'Pe VOTE 8-0-0 2-0-o • • • C USIA -74 MOTIONa14,STI SECOND VNAM D. Bunch N B. Estes N L. Hoffman NI S. Hoover N P. Johnson D. Marr ,Ar C. Odom N Shackelford L. Ward ACTION FAIu—p VOTE 3-5_0 • Planning Commission Table of Contents 2000 Item Considered: AD99-31 Covington Park, pp 295 PP99-15 Appleby Estates, pp 250 RZA99-5 Arkansas Oaks, pp 321& 322 RZ99-35 Arkansas Oaks, pp 321 & 322 CU99-23 Drummond, pp 571 AD99-30 Zion Valley, pp 136 RZ99-34 Norman, Pendergraft Barnes, pp 136 CU99-24 Lisle, pp 445 PP99-15 Appleby Estates, pp 250 CU99-25 Donner, pp 292 AD00-01 Home, pp 484 LSD99-27 Northpark Place II, pp 212 CU00-01 Northpark Place II, pp 212 LSD99-22 Butterfield Trail Village, pp 175 U00-2 Richardson, pp 328 AD00-4 Richardson, pp 328 RZ00-4 Lake Hills Church, pp 255 RZ00-9 City of Fayetteville, pp 628 AD00-2 Ferguson, pp 528 AD00-3 Davis, pp 366 CU99-23 Drummond, pp 571 RZ99-34 Norman, Pendergraft, Barnes, pp 136 RZ00-2 Keating Enterpnses Inc., pp 290 RZA00-1 Arkansas Oaks, pp 361 RZ00-3 Arkansas Oaks, pp 361 LSD00-1 Interface Computer Center, pp 286 VA00-1 Millsap Rd Investments, pp 213 RZ00-10 Stiles, pp 519 RZ00-8 Tyson, pp 639 CU00-3 Campbell Bell Building, pp 484 AD00-1 Home, pp 484 CU00-4 Candlewood Development, pp294 CU00-5 Candlewood Development, pp294 RZ00-11 Ogden, pp 638 AD00-5 Stepp, pp 556 •U00-7 Lewis, pp 641 Date: 1/10/00 1/10/00 1/10/00 1/10/00 1/10/00 1/10/00 1/10/00 1/10/00 1/24/00 1/24/00 1/24/00 1/24/00 1/24/00 2/14/00 2/14/00 2/14/00 2/14/00 2/14/00 2/14/00 2/14/00 2/14/00 2/14/00 2/14/00 2/14/00 2/14/00 2/28/00 2/28/00 2/28/00 2/28/00 2/28/00 2/28/00 3/13/00 3/13/00 3/13/00 3/13/00 3/13/00 Action Taken: Approved Approved Approved Approved Withdrawn Approved Withdrawn Denied Approved with Conditions Approved with Conditions Tabled Approved with Conditions Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Denied Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved- forwarded to Council Approved- forwarded to Council Approved- forwarded to Council Approved Pulled- rescheduled 3/13/00 Denied Withdrawn Approved Denied Approved tem Considered: 00-6 Charleston Place PUD, pp370 CU00-6 Dunn, pp 367 RZ00-12 Butterfield Trial, pp 176 AD00-1 Home, pp 484 CU00-6 Dunn, pp 367 LSD00-4 CMIS, pp 214 LSD00-5 Steele Crossing, pp 213 RZ00-13 City of Fayetteville Fire Station, pp 213 AD00-7 General Plan Update Nominating Committee Election of Planning Commission Officers PP00-2 Quail Creek, Ph III, pp 250 CU00-10 Clark Davis, pp 366 CU00-I 1 Stephen Deen, pp 445 Nominating Committee, Subdivision & Land Use LSD00-7 Indian Springs, Ph II, pp 372 LSD00-8 McDonald's, pp 401 LSD00-5 Steele Crossing. Pp 212 AD00-12 Parking Waiver for Craft, pp 484 PP00-1 Yorktown, Ph III, pp 214 Z00-15 Clevenger/Silvis, pp 437 AD00-10 City of Fayetteville VA00-3 Maguire, pp 600 LSD00-2.10 Atlas Construction, pp 367 CU00-14 St. Clair, pp 251 CU00-15 Clevenger/Silvas pp 437 AD00-16 Northwest Arkansas Mall, pp 173 AD00-17 Garroutte, pp 137 LSD00-7.10 Indian Springs, Ph II, pp 372 VA00-4 Millsap Road Investment, pp 213 VA00-5 Wiggins Memorial Umted Methodist Church, pp 523 VA00-6 Stephens, pp 521 LSD00-11 Ozark Electric Cooperative Corporation, pp 440 RZ00-16 Gale, pp 60 CU00-13 Hooker Construction, pp 209 LSD00-9 Hooker Construction, pp 209 LS00-14 Hooker Construction, pp 209 RZ00-17 Damen, pp 364 00-18 Holland/Osbome, pp 251 gliAD98-8 Amendment Chapter 172 Date: 3/13/00 3/13/00 3/13/00 3/13/00 3/27/00 3/27/00 3/27/00 3/27/00 3/27/00 3/27/00 4/10/00 4/10/00 4/10/00 4/10/00 4/10/00 4/24/00 4/24/00 4/24/00 5/8/00 5/8/00 5/8/00 5/8/00 5/22/00 5/22/00 5/22/00 5/22/00 5/22/00 6/12/00 6/12/00 6/12/00 6/12/00 6/12/00 6/12/00 6/12/00 6/12/00 6/12/00 6/12/00 6/12/00 6/12/00 6/12/00 Action Taken: Denied Postponed Approved Withdrawn Approved Approved Denied Approved to R -O Discussion Slate for 2000 officers Approved Approved Approved Approved Members appointed Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved tem Considered: 00-8 Amendment to Chapter 163 AD00-19 Steele Crossing, pp 212 LS00-18 Anders/Bryan, pp 141 LS00-17 Gladden, pp 167 LSD00-12 Gary Hampton Parking, pp 245 RZ00-19 Sage House, pp 247 RZA00-2 St. Joseph's Church, pp 373 AD00-18 Amendment AD00-22 The Mill District, pp 523 AD00-23 The Mill District, pp 523 AD00-22 The Mill District, pp 523 LSD00-14 Trinity Temple, pp 609 LS00-22 Martm, pp 609 LSD00-16 Keating Enterprises, Inc., pp 289 RZ00-20 Dixie Development, pp 176 AD00-1 Parking Waiver, Horne, pp 484 LSD00-7.10 Indian Springs PUD, Ph II, pp 372 CU00-16 Arkansas Oaks Inc. pp 321 LSD00-17 McDonald's, pp 134 LS00-24 Middlebrook, pp 140 •S00-25 Krueger, pp 255 CU00-19 Krueger, pp 255 CU00-17 Lake Hills Church, pp 255 LSD00-20 Cornerstone, pp 402 Date: 6/12/00 6/19/00 6/26/00 6/26/00 6/26/00 6/26/00 6/26/00 6/26/00 6/26/00 6/26/00 7/10/00 7/10/00 7/10/00 7/10/00 7/10/00 7/10/00 7/24/00 7/24/00 7/24/00 8/14/00 8/14/00 8/14/00 8/14/00 8/14/00 CU00-21 First United Presbyterian Church, pp 407 8/14/00 LSD00-21 First United Presbyterian Church, pp 407 8/14/00 AD00-28 Williams, pp 481 VA00-7 Phillips, pp 523 LSD00-19 Bradley, pp 177 RZ00-21 Tyson, pp 565 CU00-20 Turner, pp 484 VA00-8 Starmer, pp 600 CU00-18 St. Joseph Catholic Church, pp 373 LSD00-22 St. Joseph Catholic Church, pp 373 CU00-20 Coffey, pp 565 CU00-23 Lake Hills Church, pp 255 FP00-3 Summersby, pp 410 RZ00-22 Massey, pp 522 Reconsideration of LS00-25 Krueger, pp 225 LS00-25 Krueger, pp 225 C00-32 Amendment to Ordinance #4178 D00-29 The Mill District, LLC, pp 523 8/14/00 8/28/00 8/28/00 8/28/00 8/28/00 9/11/00 9/11/00 9/11/00 9/11/00 9/11/00 9/25/00 9/25/00 9/25/00 9/25/00 9/25/00 10/9/00 Action Taken: Approved Denied Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Removed by Applicant Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Denied Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Forwarded Approved Forwarded Approved Forwarded Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Forwarded Approved Approved Forwarded Approved tem Considered- SD00-27 Emad Damen Duplex Unit, pp 364 CU00-25 Wilkin, pp 370 AD00-29 General Plan 2020 Update RZ00-24 Martin, pp 755 CU00-26 Gunnell, pp 213 RZ00-25 Caudle, pp 400 AD00-19 General Plan 2020 Update AD00-39 Fayetteville Boys & Girls Club, pp 439 RZ00-26 Baker, pp 558 RZ00-27 La Pacbanga, pp 601 LSD00-31 Dixie Development, pp 176 30 day extension for FP00-4 Covington Park Ph IV, pp. 295 CU00-24 St. Paul's Episcopal Church, pp 484 LSD00-30 St. Paul's Episcopal Church, pp 484 LSD00-33 Lots 13-16 Millennium Place LSD00-32 Park Apartments, pp 175 LSD00-34 Fazoli's, pp 213 CU00-28 Hooker, pp 209 LSD00-35 Hooker, pp 209 4)CU00-31 Electric Cowboy, pp 559 CU00-32 Brown, pp 209 RZ00-25 Caudle, pp 400 Date: 10/9/00 10/9/00 10/9/00 10/23/00 10/23/00 10/23/00 10/23/00 11/13/00 11/13/00 11/13/00 11/13/00 11/13/00 11/27/00 11/27/00 11/27/00 12/11/00 12/11/00 12/11/00 12/11/00 12/11/00 12/11/00 12/11/00 Action Taken: Approved Approved No Action Taken Approved Approved Denied Forwarded Approved Forwarded Forwarded Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved