Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-02-14 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Monday, February 14, 2000 at 5:30 p.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN Approval of 01/24/2000 Minutes LSD99-22: Butterfield Trail Village, pp175 CU00-2: Richardson, pp328 AD00-4: Richardson, pp328 RZ00-4: Lake Hills Church, pp255 RZ00-9: City of Fayetteville, pp628 AD00-2: Ferguson, pp528 AD00-3: Davis, pp366 CU99-23: Drummond, pp571 RZ99-34. Norman, Pendergraft, Barnes, pp136 RZ00-2: Keating Enterprises Inc. pp290 RZA00-1: Arkansas Oaks, pp361 RZ00-3: Arkansas Oaks, pp361 MEMBERS PRESENT Don Bunch Bob Estes Lorel Hoffman Sharon Hoover Phyllis Johnson Don Marr Loren Shackelford Lee Ward STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Janet Johns David Jurgen Ron Petrie Dawn Warrick • Approved Approved Approved Approved Denied Approved Approved Denied Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved MEMBERS ABSENT Conrad Odom STAFF ABSENT None • • Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 2 Approval of January 24, 2000 Minutes Johnson. Welcome. We have a somewhat lengthy agenda this evening. I believe that all of the items remain on the agenda. The first matter is approval of the minutes. Are there any additions or corrections to the Minutes from the January 24th meeting? Seeing none then, those will stand approved as distributed. • • Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 3 LSD 99-22: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT BUTTERFIELD TRAIL VILLAGE, PP175 This item was submitted by David Norman of McClelland Engineers on behalf of Butterfield Trail Village, Inc. for property located at 1923 East Joyce Blvd. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, and contains approximately 25.99 acres with 60 units (30 duplexes) proposed. David Norman was present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Planning Commission determination of an assessment to go toward offsite improvements to Old Missouri Road. Staff does not recommend an assessment for this project due to the minimal projected traffic. Upon request by the Subdivision Committee, the staff has provided an estimate for an assessment based on the projected traffic impact to Old Missouri Road. This amount has been estimated to be $2,965. 2. Construction of Stage Road shall be completed with the completion of Phase I. 3. The new Flood Hazard Study by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is planned to be available in the spring of 2000 which may change the location and elevation of the flood way/flood plain. The applicant is advised that this new data will be utilized when applying for building permits when it becomes available. The following street name revisions are requested by the 911 coordinator: a. Overland and Cumberland should be called Drive or Way. b. Mud Creek should be Terrace or Place. c. Elk Horn should be Circle or Point. d. Cross Hollow and Signal Hill could be called Depot, Link, or Cutoff. 5. Dedication of 1.2 acres of park land as recommended by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. 6. Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 7. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations for grading, • drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, sidewalks, parking lots and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 4 general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. Large Scale Development approval is valid for one calendar year. 9. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. Separate easement plat for this project. c. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City as required by §158.01 to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 10. All new utilities are required to be underground. Committee Discussion Johnson: This is an additional development to the existing Butterfield Trail Village. This development would be located to the south of the existing Butterfield Trail. There are various conditions of approval that have to do with assessments for offsite improvements including those to Old Missouri which would cost the developer $2,965. Stage Road would have to be completed before phase I of this development is completed. The Corps of Engineers, Flood Hazard Study must be complied with. It is to be published and available in the spring of this year. So, this new data probably will affect this applicant. Even though it is not in hand, it would be under federal law and the applicant should be advised of that. There are certain street name revisions which the 911 coordinator has requested. Park land of 1.2 acres should be dedicated. The Plat Review and Subdivision comments should be complied with before the project is finalized. Tim, do you have some additional, initial, introductory information on this? Conklin: With regard to the assessment condition which is condition number one, staff has recommended that no cost be assessed to this development due to the minimal amount of traffic it generates at this time. At Subdivision Committee, there was discussion regarding if we were going to make an assessment to Old Missouri Road and what amount that would be, based on traffic. That amount is estimated to be $2,965. Johnson: Thanks for that correction. I was in error on that. Conklin: For the record, staff would like to state that the applicant has agreed to work with the City to provide access to what will be dedicated as the area of park land for a proposed park and ride lot that will provide access to a trail that will connect over to CMN, Phase II. • • • Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 5 Johnson: Commissioners, do you have any questions right off the bat for the staff or the applicant? Do we have a representative of the applicant here this evening? Norman: I'm David Norman and I'm with McClelland Engineers and I'm representing the Board of Butterfield Trail Village. Johnson: David, do you have a presentation or do you want to be available for any questions? Norman: I'm here to answer any questions that you may have. Johnson: Okay. My question, initially, is to be addressed to Subdivision Committee. I was looking at the map showing the length of this property running north/south and there are no cross streets or connections running east/west proposed for this development. In looking at page 1.9 of our packet, of course, the black area is this development which doesn't include the existing Butterfield Trail which essentially is all the property to the north of this development. What we would be contemplating is, ultimately, a development for Joyce Street running all the way south to, I believe, Mud Creek which is the stream there on this south boundary without any east/west possibility of future connection. That looks to me to be a pretty large area without any potential of east/west future connection. Did you look at that in Subdivision Committee? Hoffman: The discussion around Subdivision centered around the depth of the project and the connectivity issues. I think that the two points that we discussed were the necessity of keeping Stage Road which is an overflow road. Stage Road connects to Old Missouri on the east and there are, I believe, two stub outs, Cross Hollow Street and Signal Hill Street and staff, correct me if I'm wrong, on the east side of the development. Johnson: You're talking about access or ingress and egress into the development. All of that would only serve people going to this development. I was talking about east to west connectivity and through streets. Hoffman: We did not address that. You're point is well taken, but I think that due to the unique nature of the development and the fact that it is a retirement community, the points that we touched on had to do with ingress and egress from that itself but not through traffic for the rest of the city residents. The other points that we discussed at some length were the road improvement issues and the staff has answered that question for us adequately. We didn't have any idea what the traffic impact was actually going to be to Old Missouri. It appears that the overall traffic volume of this development within itself is rather low. Johnson: I failed to ask whether the applicant has signed the agreement evidencing their willingness to comply with the recommended conditions of approval • • Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 6 Conklin: The applicant has signed the conditions of approval. Johnson' Well, is there anything else at this point before I go to public comment? Let me ask whether there are those in the audience who would address us on this large scale development? Public Comment None MOTION Commissioner Estes made a motion to approve large scale development 99-22. Johnson: Is there a second? Commissioner Shackelford seconded the motion. Johnson: We have a motion by Commissioner Estes and the second by Commissioner Shackelford that we approve this large scale development. I would like to hear some discussion about the fact that this is a large development when you put the new part with the old part. This is in an area that has not been developed to the west or to the south. Has it Tim? Conklin: To the south is Brookhaven Subdivision. Johnson- And Brookhaven does come up to this property line. Conklin: Yes, it does. To the west is undeveloped. To the east there is a small area which is undeveloped and still owned by Butterfield Trail Village. Johnson: There is an odd shaped R-2 tract over to the west of this and I believe you said that has not been developed. Conklin: That is correct. Johnson: My concern is that if we allow this project to go in with no east/west connection then it appears to me that we have guaranteed ourselves that there can be no east/west connection all the way from Joyce Street to the north, down to Brookhaven to the south. • Ward: Butterfield Trail is in kind of a unique position because they are a gated community for security reasons. A lot of their people in there don't even have cars. A lot of • • • Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 7 them are in the nursing home part of Butterfield Trail. A lot of the other ones are elderly and they use buses to get around town. 1 think the big thing they are looking for in there is security and privacy for these people. I can understand. If I was living there, I would want to not have any through traffic coming through the retirement village like this. One of the points I was trying to get with Ron Petrie on is on the park issue. Did we ever figure out how to get ingress and egress to that park? Petrie: We've looked at it. It appears from what we have an access can be provided within the land that they have shown on the plat. The City Engineer has requested that the record reflect that they would work with us in case we need to adjust that slightly and provide some kind of access easement along the road. We won't know for sure until we have it designed and that won't be until the summer. We want to leave the door open just a little bit. Ward: Okay. Estes: I entertained some of the same concerns that you did when I first looked at this LSD. My thinking is pretty much the same as Commissioner Ward's. This is an elderly housing community. It is a planned village development and security and the aspect of the development being a closed community are important to the residents. That satisfied my concerns regarding the cross access issue. It's one of the reasons that I made the motion which I, of course, will vote for. Johnson: I understand that. I understand that this is a development that most of us have friends or relatives in and it's been here a long time and was established by churches. I also understand that you're not going to be able to go east/west in a large area of that part of town. I don't think it worries us so much now when we don't think of anybody wanting to go east/west. Looking at the Master Street Plan, Tim, how can you get from College Avenue over to Crossover Road south of Joyce if we go ahead and develop this without any east/west access possibilities. Conklin: We did get right of way with Brookhaven which would connect to Millsap Road in the future. South of Brookhaven, we do have Stubblefield Road that connects to Old Missouri Road. We also have Rolling Hills which is shown as a future collector street which would connect over to Highway 265. Johnson: Okay. On page 1.9, what street might someday be a through east/west street? Conklin: South of the development? Johnson: Yes. Conklin: Look at page 1 9 and find Buckingham, there is a small stub out that is going • • Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 8 northwest. If you follow Millsap, Millsap is a street which is directly south of 71 Bypass and if you go east there it could eventually connect. That would provide access over to Old Missouri Road Further south, if you look at Stubblefield Road which shows Harold Street at the next intersection, that provides access to College Avenue. Stubblefield Road is the street south of Masonic. Johnson: In other words, it almost runs into Harold. Conklin: Yes, it does run into Harold. You make a 90 degree turn and go back to the north a few hundred feet then back to the east and that provides access to Old Missouri Road We have Rolling Hills Drive at the intersection of Old Missouri Road creating a "T" intersection. If you extend Rolling Hills Drive directly to the east, that will eventually get you out to Crossover Road That is on the Master Street Plan shown as a collector street. Johnson: In the vicinity of where this project is, you would come off of what is called Millsap where it is located west of 71 but that is what it's called east of 71. Where is that in conjunction with the gas company? Is it up on the hill? Conklin: It's on the hill. If you know where Coldwell Banker Faucette Real Estate is, it would have to go around the church. There is a church at the end of Millsap to the east. We do have right of way that goes through that parking lot that would provide a connection over to Brookhaven Subdivision. Johnson: What is the status of the development that we've approved east of Front or is that further north? - Conklin: I'm thinking of Zion Valley, Planned Unit Development off of Zion Road. They did construct Vantage Street along their westernmost boundary. Johnson: Do you know about what the distance is from Joyce Street to the southern edge of this development? Conklin: I can give you an idea. Approximately 1,800 feet from Joyce Boulevard to the south boundary line of this development. Johnson: Does that not concem staff? Conklin: This property does contain areas of flood way and flood plain so the actual development does not go all the way back to that distance. Once again, when we met with the developer and through Subdivision Committee, they are trying to control access into this development. They are going to have a gated road. In working with staff, they have agreed to • Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 9 allow Stage Road to be open during daylight hours. Johnson: Does that deal with my concern of through traffic east/west? This will only serve this development. Conklin: That is correct. This is a private development with private drives. Johnson: My question again is does staff have any problem with no through east/west streets for this large an area in this location? Conklin: Based on this development with private drives, if we did have through access, they would have to redesign the development, in my opinion, and provide public streets. At this point in time, staff is not recommending that. Johnson: And it really doesn't concern you. Conklin: It's not shown on our Master Street Plan for an east/west connection through this • piece of property. Johnson: Well, most of our connecting streets aren't on the Master Street Plan. Conklin: That's correct. Most R-1 subdivisions, where they are dedicating right of way are not on our Master Street Plan. They have not proposed to dedicate public right of way for this development. I think if we were going to look for through access, we would have to relook at this development and determine how to provide a local street through this development. They have not proposed that. The Traffic Superintendent has looked at this. City Engineering has looked at this. They feel like they can serve this property adequately with the private drives they are proposing. • Johnson: Are there any other questions or comments? Ward: Joyce Street is right there. That's an east/west street right next to this. We don't really need another east/west street through it. The next thing is that just east of this development is the golf course. You're not going to put a highway through the golf course going east. I feel like we do need another east/west road but it needs to be further south like Rolling Hills or Stubblefield. With Joyce Street adjoining this development, that should take care of it. Johnson: Concerning the golf course as it exists today, true, we wouldn't need an east/west street at that location. I don't think we can assume that golf course will always be there. I think once we allow developments that are closer into town that we have assured ourselves that there won't be a street there ever, even after the golf course is gone. That is my concern. • Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 10 Hoffman: If you look on page 1.9 at the zonings involved to the west of this site and realize the densities involved, I would say that the right of way, in my opinion, connecting through Brookhaven and Buckingham which would eventually connect through to Millsap would serve the R -I and R-2 properties adequately. The C-2 on Front Street and Joyce is only going to be accessing Joyce, I believe. A lot of that is already developed. You're only talking about the area in Brookhaven. Conklin: I believe that has been platted but I'm not sure if it's been built out. Hoffman: That would then be a future connection through there. Conklin: Correct. Hoffman: The R-2 property above that is not platted. Conklin: No. It is vacant right now. Hoffman: Then, we have Mud Creek. So, if we wanted to put a street through this development, it would also need to cross Mud Creek. I'm pretty satisfied with the large amount of C-2 going directly to Joyce and with the two developments, one unplatted and one undeveloped and zoned R-1 and R-2, that we can adequately serve any traffic that's going to need to go through that area. I'll vote for this project. Johnson: Are there any other questions or comments? If not then, we have before us the motion to approve LSD99-22. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 7-1-0. Commissioner Johnson voted against the motion. • Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 11 CU00-2: CONDITIONAL USE RICHARDSON, PP328 This item was submitted by Adam and Sheila Richardson for property located at 121 W. Township. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 0 77 acres. The request is for a dance hall. Adam and Sheila Richardson were present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Planning Commission approval of requested shared parking agre ment (see AD00-4.) 2. Compliance with all conditions placed on the shared parking agreement by the property owner. • 3. Hours of operation for the dance club shall be limited to those hours when shared parking is permitted (Monday through Friday 7:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., Saturday 5:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m.) Hours of operation for the dance instruction studio shall not be limited by this request. 3. (Amended) Hours of operation for the dance club shall be limited to those hours when shared parking is permitted (Monday through Friday 7.:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., Saturday 5:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m.) Hours of operation for the dance instruction studio shall not be limited by this condition. NOTE: This condition was amended to 2 a.m. - refer to AD00-4. 4. No additional outdoor lighting shall be installed. 5. Signage shall be limited to wall signage as allowed by the City's sign ordinance. 6. Compliance with the City's noise ordinance. 7. Activities related to this dance hall shall be contained within the structure. No outdoor music or entertainment shall be permitted. • 8. A permanent Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained through the Inspections Division prior to opening the dance hall for business. • • • Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 12 9. Water shall be turned off immediately and the dance hall shall not operate if any of the conditions are not met. 10. This conditional use shall be automatically revoked if any condition is not met. 11. (Added) This conditional use shall operate only as a ballroom dance hall. Commission Discussion Johnson: The next item on the agenda is item number two. Item number three is a companion item. Number two is a conditional use submitted by Adam and Sheila Richardson This property is at 121 W. Township. The next item has to do with shared parking. This property is on Township at Gregg at the southeast corner of the intersection. What is proposed here is a dance hall. Thus, the conditional use. Presently, ball room dance instruction is given at that location and their proposal is to go ahead and allow a dance hall. There are various conditions of approval which the staff has suggested. The first requires a shared parking agreement with the others who are in that same building. The hours of operation would be limited to the hours when the shared parking agreement would be in effect. The hours of operation would be Monday through Friday, 7:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. and Saturday from 5 p.m. to 1 a.m. There is a change I suggest in number three The last word in number three instead of the word request, I would suggest that it be change to the word "condition" (as follows)..."Hours for the operation for the studio shall not be limited by this condition." There would be no additional outdoor lighting. The signage would only be wall signage. They must comply with the noise ordinance. All activities at the dance hall would have to occur inside. Then, the other normal requirements with conditional uses including that the water would be turned off immediately and the dance hall wouldn't be allowed to operate and the conditional use automatically revoked if any of these conditions weren't complied with. Compliance would either occur or the operation would not continue. Staff, are there additional things that you would add for our information? Conklin: We have received information for the property owner and they have extended those hours to 2 a.m. The applicant has requested that condition number three be allowed to have the club open from 7 p.m. to 2 a.m. Staff is in support of that request. That's all I have. Johnson: Do you have initial questions of the staff? Is there someone here representing the applicant this evening? A. Richardson. Hello. My name is Adam Richardson and this is my wife, Sheila Richardson. I have written down my thoughts, if you don't mind. This has been our only occupation for 10 years now. For the first 7 years, my wife and I taught for owners of other dance studios in Fort Smith, Little Rock, and Memphis • • • Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 13 S. Richardson: When Adam and I first visited Fayetteville as a possible place to begin our family and start our new business, we noticed right away that the establishments catered to the college students mainly and this left us to wonder what social activities were available to professional adults. Most of our new students are referred to us by our current students although we encourage everyone to enjoy the benefits of what we teach, the majority of our student are between the ages of 30 to 88 years old. We chose to open our dance studio in Fayetteville in 1996 with only the two of us teaching. Within a few weeks, the number of students increased to the point that we had to train two additional teachers. We now have six instructors. A.Richardson• Hundreds of area residents have Teamed to enjoy ballroom and social dancing at our studio. Many students compete in various competitions held throughout the United States and many of those students have encouraged me to open this dance club locally, operated with the same cleanliness, class, and elegance as our dance atmosphere. With your approval, we hope to do just that. S. Richardson: We have the support of the Fayetteville Chamber of Commerce as well as other local organizations such as Hospice, Women's and Children's Shelter, Children's Hospital Fund Drive, Kiwanis Club, Veteran's Hospital, Student Honor Society, Washington Regional Hospital, and First Night 1999 to name a few. During the past three years, we have provided dance exhibitions and group lessons at many local, private, and charitable events. Next week, we will be volunteering our services at the Washington Regional Annual Heart Dance. A. Richardson: It is our plan to always continue offering ballroom dance instruction to the general public. This is our primary business and unlike other clubs, does not rely on the sale of alcohol. The current plans are to operate the dance club only on Friday and Saturday evenings after regular business hours and we expect the majority of our patrons to be from our own student body. S. Richardson: We are simply a ballroom dance studio that would like to provide a classy atmosphere in which our students can enjoy a glass of wine in a smoke free environment and enjoy the benefits of ballroom dancing. A. Richardson: We also feel this is an opportunity to approve a business which will improve the community through the fine art of dance. All of our students support this issue and many of them are here today to show their support. If you don't mind, I would like to ask them to stand so you can see the people here in support. I want to thank them very much for coming. Thank you for this opportunity. Further Commission Discussion Johnson: Thank you very much. Let me ask whether there are questions that you have of • • • Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 14 the applicant or staff about this proposed conditional use? Note the one change of time which is number three would be changed to allow the Monday through Friday operation to close at 2 a.m. Tim, is that also true on the Saturdays and Sundays from 5 p.m. until 2 a.m.? Conklin: That's correct. Johnson: This is in a location where there aren't any close residences. It is a very busy, business kind of location and so there doesn't seem to be opposition. Marr: What about public comment? Public Comment Hal Henson, a tenant of the Cross Creek Center at 2418 North Gregg, was. present. Henson: Cross Creek is a retail office complex right across Township. I'm also here representing Ken Evans, the owner of Cross Creek Center. He is out of the state and will not be back until mid-March. He's asked me to ask some questions about this. He received and faxed to me the letter from S&A Enterprises which I'm assuming either came from them or you. Let me read what I see here. I'm assuming you have a copy of this. Warrick: I believe that is a letter mailed by the applicant to the adjoining property owners. The Planning Commission does not have that in their packet. Johnson: We don't receive the notices that the other landowners receive. Henson: I'm reading from this letter, "...We will occupy approximately 3,800 square feet in our space, suites eight through eleven, in Township Gregg Center and in addition to dance instruction, we will introduce the Highlight of Dance Connection..." I'm assuming that's the name of the Friday and Saturday night dance hall. "...a dance hall currently planning on being open on Friday and Saturday evenings. We will offer for sale wine and beer on these two evenings as well as dance music of a variety by DJ." I guess a couple of things that I wonder about here is the process. As I understand it, they are not selling any wine or beer at this time. Is that correct? Johnson: I think that is correct but in any event, we have no authority over that. That is completely controlled by the ABC with the State of Arkansas. That is not something over which we have any authority. Henson: My question was how that process took place. Can they sell that any night of the week? Their plan is to be open just on Friday and Saturday nights. • • Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 15 Johnson: Again. Henson. It has nothing to do with you. Is that correct? Johnson• We have no authority over that. None what so ever. Zero. Henson: So, this conditional use is for? Johnson: The conditional use is before us for one reason and one reason only and that is: can folks dance in the building? Henson: That is the only decision that is being made tonight. Johnson: That is right. Henson: The only other thing and I don't think this is going to be a consideration. I happened to notice that your item number seven on the agenda tonight is a dance hall on Sycamore owned by Mr. Clark Davis. If this use were to change, the process comes back through here to change the use? Johnson: Understand that a conditional use for the right to dance at this location is what is being sought and that is what must have the Planning Commission's okay. The request is for the right to dance at this location. Once they come before us for a conditional use, then we have considerable ability to put restrictions and conditions on their use. That is what we've done in this case with the ten particular conditions. One of those conditions has to do with shared parking. Another has to do with hours of operation. One has to do with lighting. They must comply with all of those conditions and should they wish to later amend those conditions, they must come back to us and seek our authority to change one of the conditions that we require. Henson: Okay. As a matter of fact, some of my clients in real estate are participants and I've talked with them and they certainly enjoy the Dance Connection as it is now and they are looking forward to participating in the future. Again, Mr. Evan's and my only concern is that the use of the building for dancing can be dancing of any kind. In other words, it will be the Dance Connection now if approved for dance in this building. Let's say they go out of business. Does this conditional use stay with the Dance Connection or does it carry with the building in the future. Johnson: As I understand it, it goes with the building. • Conklin: It goes with the building. • • • Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 16 Johnson: These owners don't have to stay in place for the conditions to remain. Other future owners would have the right to square dance, line dance, whatever other kind of dance and there is no restriction on that. Henson: As long as whoever follows them would stay within the guidelines set out in the conditions tonight? Johnson: That is exactly right. Henson: Thank you. Johnson: Are there others in the audience who would address us on this conditional use? Tim Stanley, tenant at Gregg and Township Center, 121 Township, Suites 4, 5, and 6, was present. Stanley: My office is next to this. My concern is with the hours of operation. As a small business owner, I'm up there very late at night during the week. Friday and Saturday night is great. If there is any change to what they are proposing tonight, how will I be notified? I have a very good, two to three week relationship with Adam and Sheila. I think they would inform me. My concern is when I'm up there late at night. When the martial arts studio was there before, I couldn't work. Johnson: Because? Stanley: Noise. The drums and whatever was going on. Johnson: Well, noise. Stanley The noise level. I don't think this type of noise is actually disturbing. My concern really isn't with Adam and Sheila's business. My concern is much like that of Mr. Henson, with the future and what if the business is sold. It would be extremely disruptive. I did not go to the last meeting for the martial arts studio. I thought it was going to be great. But, every morning, there were juice boxes, socks, all kinds of paraphernalia in front of my business. Now, I'm the one who had to pick up it. I'm the president of my company but I'm also the janitor and everything else. Those are my concerns. I don't want to do anything to prohibit their business from opening and operating. My concern is the future and how will I be notified. Sometimes, I'm out of town for three or four weeks. There's no problem with parking or the hours of operation. They're great. How will I be notified if something changes? If I hadn't looked at the sign, I wouldn't have known about tonight. • • Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 17 Johnson: If there is a change to the conditions of approval that we require, I'd presume you would get a notice. Conklin: We require the applicant to notify the property owners not the tenants. Johnson: If there is a change in the business operation other than outside our conditions of approval for this applicant, what happens? Conklin: We would require the new applicant to do public notification. Stanley: I'm concerned about a ladies night kind of activity going on. I'm really concerned about that. Conklin: Condition number three does talk about permitting this to operate Monday through Friday from 7 p.m. to 2 a.m. We're not limiting them to Friday or Saturday night. Stanley: I would like to voice my concern about any time outside of Friday night. Johnson: Because of noise? Stanley: Because I have to work. Johnson: I know you said you didn't want a littered parking lot. That's not connected with Wednesday and Thursday The concern you have about weeknight operation is noise. Stanley: Specifically, yes. Bunch: How does the noise ordinance in Fayetteville relate to next door neighbors in the same building in C-2? Would it be the responsibility of the dance studio to provide some means of attenuating the sound to keep it from migrating to the next door neighbors? Conklin: The property owner, Sexton and Associates, signed the application to allow this conditional use to go in. With regard to whether or not people who lease this building and whether or not the noise ordinance applies to the tenants, I don't know. The Police Department enforces our noise ordinance. I can find out and let you know, but tonight I don't know the answer to that. I don't know whether or not, one tenant can complain about another tenants' noise and be cited. Stanley: I don't think the noise from the Dance Connection as it exists today would be intrusive. My concern again is what if Dance Connection is sold and there is another form of music in there that is disruptive. How would I address that? • • • Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 18 Johnson: We understand your concern. I'm not sure whether we have the perfect solution. We understand that noise is primarily what you are concerned about. Stanley: I didn't want to sit idly by and not raise a voice of concern. Estes: Your business is Total Document Solutions? Stanley: Total Document Solutions/Xerox. Estes: The conditions of use are Monday through Friday 7 p.m. to 2 a.m. Are you there after 7 p.m.? Stanley: No. Not on weekends. Estes: That's Monday through Friday at 7 p.m. to 2 a.m. Stanley: I am there Monday through Thursday sometimes until three in the morning. It Just depends on what is going on. My concern is not with today's proposal, it's if something else changes. Estes: What separates your leasehold space from the applicant's leasehold space? Stanley: A piece of glass. Estes: A piece of glass? Stanley: Large framed windows. Marr. Currently, I think there is instruction going on in this location. Is that correct? Stanley: Yes, right. Marr: Do you have any noise complaints at this time for the music that you hear during the instruction periods? Stanley: I'm pretty tolerant. They're trying to build their business. I can hear saws and all that going on. It's not any complaint because it is temporary. I don't have any complaints at this time. Marr: Okay. • • • Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 19 Johnson: Thanks. Are there others in the audience who would address us on this proposed conditional use? Leah Edwards, student of the Dance Connection, was present. Edwards. I take lessons at Arkansas Dance Connection now. This business fills an ever increasing need in northwest Arkansas and that is a place to dance. Unlike other businesses that offer dance, this would be smoke free and a dance facility for families. This is a place for people who love the sport of ballroom dancing and can come together, Learn, practice, and become more than friends, a family. Unlike the bar scene where safety is an issue, this would be a safe place to dance. Many of the other clubs in this area leave one feeling that they are in a meat market. This place is designed to be a classy place where dancers show each other respect. I've been dancing for about a year now and it has built confidence and made me more outgoing and more people oriented. I'm asking you to give other, new and experienced dancers the same joy and excitement that ballroom dancing has brought to me. Thanks. Johnson: Thanks, very much. Anyone else who wants to address us on this conditional use? Let me say that because of the length of our agenda and because we know that a lot of folks favor this that I want to encourage you if you merely are in favor of this operation and how well it's run, we are aware that is the opinion of most people and we've not heard anybody contradict that. Let me encourage those who want to second the fact that these are good folks and that we saw that by everybody standing up. David Edgar residing in Fayetteville was present. Edgar: I'm a senior citizen. I would like to speak specifically toward the sound problem that seems to be of concern here. Johnson: Let me interrupt you at this point and let us have a discussion about that. I'm not persuaded that it is within our jurisdiction to apply the noise ordinance inside a individual's building. That is what I think Tim alluded to. We've got different tenants and so we're talking about applying noise ordinance requirements inside a building which I don't believe that we have ever attempted to do and it's my sense that is not really our purview. Most of us who operate in a building inhabited by some other folks outside our business have some noise and it seems to me that we deal with our landlords and not the City of Fayetteville to handle that. That is just my opinion. Let me get the sense of the Commission whether it is appropriate for us to deal with adjacent tenant's concerns about noise inside the building. Let me just say this. Those of you who think really we should get into that, then let me hear from you. Estes: I don't have an answer for that. I know from personal experience that our noise ordinance has been used with regard to substantial renovation and construction going on inside a • • • Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 20 leasehold space and disturbing other tenants. In that particular instance, the Fayetteville Police Department was asked to come and take a decibel reading and the problem was subsequently resolved. I don't believe that the noise ordinance was invoked. Johnson: Let me put it another way. I guess my question is whether other Commissioners feel it's within our purview under a conditional use to try to protect other tenants from the noise of the conditional use. Estes: Let me speak to that. The sound insulation to protect adjoining leasehold tenants does concern me. Johnson: So, you think this is our concern. Estes I'm not saying it's a Planning Commission issue. It concerns me. I would speak directly to the applicant and say I think that potential problems between your adjoining neighbors could be best avoided. If you have a yapping dog in your backyard at two o'clock in the morning, the solution is get the dog inside or you're going to hear from your neighbors. It seems to me this is a very common sense issue. I don't know that we have any business telling people to be good neighbors which is in effect what we would be doing if we applied a condition for sound insulating or buffering between neighbors. To be a good neighbor, it seems to me that you don't need to be annoying your next door neighbor whether it's a yapping dog or loud dance music. Adjoining tenants would certainly have a grievance with their landlord. I don't think it rises to the level of constructive eviction but I know that if I was a tenant and I couldn't do my work because of some loud, dance music from my tenant upstairs, the landlord would hear about it. Hoffman: You are echoing my thoughts. I believe that the Planning Commission can make a decision based on the ordinances that we have which affect the adjoining properties. However, in the interior of the building itself, I think that the landlord will certainly be creating his own problems if he can't enforce or police the interaction between tenants and 1 would hope that no future problem arises should this be approved. If these folks go out of business next month and a college dance club comes in, I can guarantee you that there would be complaints to the Police Department from adjoining property owners and from within. That again is solidly within the Police's purview and I think the Planning Commission should just decide the case based on the merits of what is in front of us. Johnson: Let me just do a poll of the Commission. Are there those who feel it is appropriate for us as a Commission when we are dealing with a conditional use to make sound requirements inside a leasehold space between two lessees? Let me see a show of hands. Mr. Stanley posed the problem and I'm sympathetic with noise problems. It seems to me that it is not within the purview of this group to address his problem. Don, do you disagree? • • • Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 21 Bunch: We're looking at a C-2 but before take this pole, we need to look at C-3 and other applications in town particularly in the entertainment district and the Dickson Street area where we have residential issues being imposed in a commercial district. We have housing going in built on top of commercial spaces and we would be wise as a Commission to look to the future and say that we might possibly want to require the property waters to provide that for their tenants. Not necessarily at this location but other locations in town, we could have problems with mixed use in a building. Johnson: Mr. Edgar, it appears there is interest in discussion of the noise issue and whether we should do something to protect other tenants. I apologize for keeping you on hold. Go ahead, if you will, with your comment. Edgar: Actually, what I'd like to say is to me it's a moot point. I have been outside the studio when the music was playing and immediately outside their door, it's impossible to hear what's going on inside. In other words, I'm trying to say, they are certainly in compliance with all ordinances that I have ever seen. I have visited other dance halls in the area and the sound was so loud that I couldn't even walk in the door, let alone stay inside there. I'm half deaf. I don't know how people can do it when they have good hearing. There are two other things that have not been said. Adam and Sheila are going to provide for those of us who are interested in what I call dancing and not just jiggling. We want to dance on a floor that is suitable for dancing. Concrete floors with a little bit of vinyl on top of them, the older you get the more it hurts your legs and feet. I simply cannot dance very long on a floor that is concrete. Adam and Sheila are going to provide a suspended floor which is suitable for dancing. I just want you to understand they are interested in the health of the people who are there. They keep the sound level down. They are not about to let people go onto the dance floor with a beer in one hand a cigarette in the other. That's not impossible in many other places that are available. I simply would like to urge you to consider this positively so that we would have a place that is healthful and one that we can dance. Johnson: Thanks, Mr. Edgar. Are there others in the audience who have any comment. Mr. Richardson, you are the applicant. Is there anyone else not connected with the applicant who wishes to address us on this conditional use? Stanley: Can I get a clarification? Johnson: No, for the reason that we must get through this agenda before midnight We really only allow a speaker one time. There is no debate in this forum. Seeing none, I'll close discussion. I will let the applicant, Mr. Richardson, speak very briefly. It needs to be brief. I have gone around in circles and we've spent a lot of time and haven't really accomplished much. A. Richardson: I just wanted to comment in reference to everyone's concern about the • Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 22 noise issue with our adjoining neighbors. We haven't done this yet because we are still under construction, but our current plans are to sound proof between our spaces. I realize that whoever comes in there next could tear that down but our plans are to do that up to ceiling height at this point. As well, I just wanted to comment that I do know the Sexton's who are the owners of the property and I personally don't believe that they would allow anyone to go into the space, if I were to leave, that would do something that the other tenants would be against. Johnson: Thanks. MOTION Commissioner Ward made a motion to approve CU00-2 subject to all staff comments as contained in the report and an additional condition eleven, that this conditional use will operate only as a ballroom dance hall and any other use would have to come back through the process for approval Ward: I think everyone is happy with this being a ball room dance hall. The • Richardson's could sell and it might turn into something that could become a problem. • Johnson: Is there a second to the motion? Commissioner Bunch seconded the motion. Johnson: We have the motion by Commissioner Ward and seconded by Commissioner Bunch to approve this conditional use adding condition eleven that this would operate only as a ballroom dance club. Bunch: Item three has to do with the shared parking agreement for this. We need to be sure and pick up the 2 a.m. closing time. We're not in sync with the two. Johnson: We'll deal with that after we have finished up on this matter. Is there discussion of the motion? I have a concern about limiting the dancing to ballroom dancing. I am not comfortable with discriminating against square dancing or other kinds of dancing. That seems to me to be inappropriate. Marr: I could not agree with you more. I think this is a compatible use with the other properties. I think we have noise ordinances in place that take care of complaint issues. From a business perspective, if I am trying to rent space, I can't imagine that I would not be dealing with noise ordinances from other tenants which might result in a loss of income. I'm in support of this condition but I agree with you that I don't feel it is necessary to be that specific with the • • Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 23 dance requirement. Estes: Has the applicant agreed to the ten conditions of approval? Staff? Conklin: We do not have a signed agreement. Johnson: Let me ask the applicant if they have seen these ten conditions? A. Richardson. I have the signed one here. Johnson: And you have agreed to all of them? A. Richardson: Yes. Estes: I suppose the next question is what does the applicant say to condition eleven providing ballroom dancing only? A. Richardson: About restricting the type of dance? Estes: Yes. A. Richardson: I agree. I'm not sure I'm able to give you all the examples of ballroom dancing that might occur at our location. It doesn't concem my business for the simple fact that ballroom dancing means pretty much everything. For example, the Cha-cha. S. Richardson: The Tango. The Rumba. A. Richardson. Ballroom dancing can be done in so many different ways and so many different styles to every single kind of music that you listen to everyday. It doesn't concern me that you're restricting it to ballroom dancing. Estes: The applicant has agreed to all eleven conditions. That solves it. A. Richardson: There are certain people who are very knowledgeable of dance and break it into ballroom, rhythm, Latin and it bothers me that someone might pop up later and ask who is going to define ballroom dancing. I'm not sure I can do that. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION • Commissioner Johnson moved to amend the motion to approve CU00-2 subject to the ten original staff conditions of approval with the change of hours in condition number three and • • • Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 24 changing the last word from "request" to "condition." Johnson: Is there a second to the amendment? Commissioner Marr seconded the motion. Johnson: We have a motion to amend the previous motion to approve the conditional use request and the second by Commissioner Marr that we go back to the original ten conditions of approval. What discussion is there of the amendment? Ward: As long as it's going to become a ballroom dance club, there's no reason if they were to sell or close down and somebody wanted to put in a different type of dance hall there besides ballroom dancing. I think ballroom dancing covers a wide spectrum of dancing. Anyone could come back in and ask for a conditional use for this area. I'm not sure I would be in favor of a teen club. There would be more noise, more cars, more running through the parking lot, and a different type of crowd. That was my thought in limiting to some degree. Johnson: I'm not sure it is the business of government to prefer one type of dancing over another. We are an arm of local government. It makes me nervous to say we like ballroom dancing and by implication there are some other types of dancing that we don't like. That's my problem with it. Johnson: The amendment is that we essentially delete condition eleven as a part of the original motion. If you vote in favor of the amendment, you are voting in favor of deleting the new condition as proposed by Mr. Ward in his motion to approve this conditional use request. Roll Call Upon roll call, the amendment to the motion failed with a vote of 4-4-0. Commissioner Bunch, Commissioner Hoffman, Commissioner Shackelford, and Commissioner Ward voted against the motion. Johnson: Is there discussion of the original motion? Seeing none, we will vote. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion with eleven conditions passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 25 AD00-4• ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM RICHARDSON, PP328 This item was submitted by Adam and Sheila Richardson for property located at 121 W. Township. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 0 77 acres. The request is for shared parking. Adam and Sheila Richardson were present on behalf of their request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommended approval of the shared parking agreement subject to the following conditions: 1. Spaces shall be shared within the existing parking lot between the hours of 7:00 p.m. through 1:00 a.m. Monday through Friday and 5 p.m. to 1 a.m. Saturday. • 1. (Amended) Spaces shall be shared within the existing parking lot between the hours of 7:00 p.m. through 2:00 a.m. Monday through Friday and 5 p.m .to 2 a.m. on Saturday. 2. The applicant is responsible for ensuring that the use of these spaces does not increase litter within the parking area as per the agreement with the property owner which states, "Dance studio/dance club to pick up any litter left by their clientele in the parking lot or in the common areas. Litter to be picked up each night after closing." Commission Discussion Johnson: Let's see how long we can take with the companion item to our previous discussion. This is an administrative item for the same location. The request is for shared parking. The spaces would be shared within the parking lot between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and if you will change your notes to 2:00 a.m. Monday through Friday to be consistent with our previous action and 5:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. on Saturday and closed Sunday. Secondly, the applicant is responsible for ensuring that the space doesn't increase the litter in the parking lot and the applicant will have to clean up the litter every night after closing. Tim, do you have additional information for us on this item? Conklin: Staff has no additional information. • Johnson: This seems to be straight forward. Does the applicant have additional information for us on this shared parking request. • • • Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 26 A. Richardson. We have made an agreement with Sexton and Associates to enforce the cleanliness as you have mentioned already. Johnson: We have the signed agreement about the shared parking. Are there questions that you have to the staff or applicant? Public Comment None MOTION Commissioner Marr made a motion to approve administrative item 00-4. Commissioner Shackelford seconded the motion. Johnson: We have the motion by Commissioner Marr and the second by Commissioner Shackelford that we approve administrative item 00-4. You've changed the hours of the parking agreement and condition number one to reflect the 2 a.m. Is there discussion? Estes: I have a question for staff. The shared parking agreement is from the landlord. Is that correct? Conklin: That is correct. Estes: When a tenant becomes a tenant that tenant has a leasehold interest in the contiguous property and by that I mean, the leasehold tenant has a right to access these parking spaces. Why are we satisfying ourselves with a shared parking agreement from the landlord when the landlord in effect has leased those parking spaces to his tenants? Conklin: The Planning Commission does have the authority to approve shared parking when you don't have conflicting demand for parking from businesses. If you would look at page 3.3, we have listed the businesses within the shopping center and based available parking on the hours of each business operation and peak hours, there are only two other businesses within the development that are open for regular business hours during the times that may conflict with the hours of operation for the dance club. If those two businesses were open and they were using all the parking that they are required to have and the dance hall was open at the same time, the requirement would be for a total of 74 spaces that would be required for the two businesses that are open plus the dance hall. You would have 20 additional spaces vacant in the parking lot. Staff can find that we don't have conflicting demand for parking between the businesses in the shopping center. Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 27 Estes: Thank you, Tim. That answers my question. Johnson: Other comments about this item? We have before us then the motion to approve AD00-4. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • • Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 28 RZ00-4: REZONING LAKE HILLS CHURCH, PP255 This item was submitted by Joseph S. Rogers of The Benham Group on behalf of Lake Hills Church for property located on Hwy 265, south of Williams Dance Studio. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 3.58 acres. The request is to rezone to P-1, Institutional. Joe Rogers and Jon Allen were present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning based on the findings included as a part of the report. Commission Discussion Johnson: The next item on our agenda is a rezoning. This is immediately south of Williams Dance Studio. You'll recall, Commissioners, that this item was before us last year for a conditional use which was approved but the applicant now prefers a rezoning. The adjacent uses other than the dance studio include A -I property to the south and west. There is Brookbury Subdivision with single family homes to the east. Tim, do you have additional information for us on this proposed rezoning. Conklin: The applicant did approach the City and ask what zoning would be appropriate for a church. P-1 zoning does allow a church as a use by right. Last April, the Planning Commission did approve a conditional use for a church on this property. We did limit that conditional use to a certain size and location. They have now requested this P-1 zoning which would allow the church as a use by right. That's all staff has at this time. Johnson: Initial questions that the Commissioners have of the staff or applicant? Hoffman: I remember there was some office proposal from the last go round. Is that still a part of this proposal? Conklin: Last April, we did have a rezoning request for R -O zoning that was withdrawn by the applicant. If there are any offices, they will be church related. Hoffman: Thank you very much. Bunch: Would P-1 zoning allow a school? • Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 29 Conklin: P-1 zoning does allow child care center, schools, art galleries, libraries, museums, and all cultural and recreational type facilities. Johnson: Those uses are found on page 4.4 of our packet. Other questions initially? The applicant is here. Do you have any presentation or are you here for our questions? Rogers: I'm Joe Rogers with The Benham Group and I'm really just here for questions. Johnson. All right. Anything before I turn to the public? Public Comment James Renby, residing at 2870 Crossover Road, was present. Renby: I'll be as brief as I can. I also want to be clear. One thing I want to clear up is something that was perhaps misunderstood the last time this came before the Commission. The. area surrounding the property in question is zoned A-1. It is all agricultural. However, in the context of the City's vernacular, it is also a residential district. By that I mean that the properties • surrounding the property in question are all lived in by individuals with the exception of the Williams Center. The Williams Center itself is only one half of one of the boundaries of the property in question. To the south is the Tu family's property with a house on it. To the west are the properties on the other side of Crossover Road which are houses that can be seen as you drive by. My property is on the north side to the east and to the east of us is the Brookbury Subdivision. We're dealing with a residential area even though it's zoned A-1. The only property that does not have a structure on it now is the property in question. The second thing that I would like to talk about is the word "church." What are we talking about? One of the things under P-1 zoning is build a church by right. They can build other things as well. We'll talk about them in a minute. In April, a rezoning was requested for residential office which was defeated. They were given A-1 zoning with a conditional use for a church. They can build a church now. What they have done is gone back to the architects, recast the plans to fit something that was not within the conditional use. They are not only coming before this body for rezoning, they are also before the Board of Adjustments seeking adjustments in terms of setbacks and that kind of thing. In their own words, the land is not suitable for the structure that they want to put on it. If the zoning is changed, the City is going to give up control dictating the size of what is put on the property. In P-1 zoning, they can cover up to 60% of the land area. There is no longer control over the size of the structure they have built. There is no longer control over the siting of the structure that is built. There were other standard conditions including the natural woods area behind the studio which protects certain residents including the people in Brookbury. You alluded to some of the things that could go into the property if the church fails. I want to talk • about two things for just a time. The time line and the future and the present. This is by right. This is not by application for conditional use. By right, they can build an art gallery, library, • • • Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 30 museum, child care center or nursery school. When the Williams Center inquired about that very use, they were told that it was not appropriate for the area. Stand alone church, college or university. That may sound a little strange but Remington College, now Webster University, is an installation like that which could go into the property. A dormitory could go on the property. We could have borders at the university. An auditorium or stadium. Community center. Detention home. Golf course. That sounds a little silly but if you throw the word miniature in front of it, we could have a miniature golf course there. Hospital. Park. Play field and playground. Gulley Park is near by and I enjoy recreation and playgrounds and play fields but not in a residential district where we have one right across the street. A private club or lodge could go in there. Lord knows what that means. Riding stables. A school. Swimming pool. Tennis courts. Zoo. That's what could go in the future if the church were to fail. In passing the P-1 zoning, the church could do anyone of these things now. The minute you vote P-1 in there, they could do any one of these things by right as soon as it is approved by the City Council. Remember this is the church that wanted rental income property space included in the R -O proposal. Voting P-1 gives them the right to do this now without any future review by the city. There is no control except the city wide restrictions. What Lake Hills is asking the neighbors and the city to do is bear the risk of their project. The pastor has told us that he has come here from California. He sold his church in California. He has come here and purchased or obtained this property without the zoning for the church. Now, he's seeking to get zoning for a church which he has conditional use approval to build. He was given approval for the church last April. I'm fearing that what we're trying to do is shoe horn another project into that piece of property that was obtained for the church. I strongly and vehemently am against giving up control and the protection of this property through P-1 zoning. This is a conditional use that belongs conditional use. Thank you. Johnson: Are there others in the audience that would address us on this issue? Amy Tu, one of the adjoining property owners to the south, was present. Tu: Just for a short description and to add onto to what Mr. Renby said, there are 3.85 acres and it's about 100 to 180 feet wide. What we're talking about is piece of property that is natural and undeveloped right now. However, there is a concern for control and controlled, planned development. On April 26, 1999, when the conditional use was granted to the applicant, the three concerns that Tim Conklin had were the size of the church, the location of the church, the shared parking with the Williams Center as well as the preservation of the aesthetic nature of the land. If this P-1 is given then you are losing the ability to have planned development of this development. Currently, along Hwy 265, you have a considerable amount of development occurring. Candlewood Addition sits on the south side of our property. You have the Brookbury and the Savannah areas to the east. To the north is the Renby's property. I think what we're looking at is an ability to plan and control the development of the property to the north of us. As Mr. Renby stated, P-1 is divided into two categories of uses. The first one is uses by right which • Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 31 is agricultural and essential services. It is also allows cultural and recreation facilities. As Mr. Renby said, art galleries, child care, nursery school, church, college, private club, lodges, and schools. These are all concerns from a present stand point but also a future stand point. If the concerns raised by Mr. Conklin were size, location, and shared parking in the April, 1999 meeting these should still remain concerns of the city. Therefore, if the P-1 is granted and you have cultural and recreation facilities that are allowable on this property at the current time, those particular concerns raised by Mr. Conklin are basically nullified and negated. As an adjacent landowner, I want to make the following points which are fundamental to the character of this property and this application in question. Number one, the church has the ability currently to build its church. April 26, 1999, a 10,300 square foot church was allowed on the property according to the size and specifications that were given to Mr. Conklin and were approved by the Commission. Number two, the land is narrow. It's 3.85 acres. You're putting a large scale development on this property. Therefore, you should have a concern about exercising some control over development of this property presently and also in the future. Thirdly, as for the granting of the P-1 in the present, we are concerned about where the church is located, how it rests on the property and also the shared parking. Obviously, if you have a nursery school or a child care center, you're going to have an increased traffic flow which will be of concern to the adjacent landowners. In the future, it's hard to tell what will happen to the church. Whether they fail because financial instability or a sale of the property because the church's congregation has increased and they need to look for more property this is certainly of concern. Therefore, future landowners will be able to use this for a large variety of uses under P-1. My family and I have owned that property for over 20 years. We are unclear as to what we will do with the property given the fact that there is development on the south side with Candlewood and the fact that there is potential development on the north side with the church. We are concemed about the planned development of Fayetteville and we are in opposition and cannot support the application that is currently at the Planning Commission's table. Further Discussion Allen: My name is Jon Allen and I am the pastor of the church. To be brief, this property is owned by Lake Hills Church. It is not owned by me despite what Mr. Renby said. I didn't own the church in California and neither did I sell it. We were not defeated for R -O. We withdrew our request. At that time, we were asked to speak with the planner and seek a rezoning accommodation that would work with the Planning Division and come back here. That's what we did. As I understand the application here from the Planning Division, all of the conditions have been met and there are certainly no objections from them. I emotionally disagree with all this reference about the church failing. This church has grown and we have every intention to make use of that land for a church facility and we're not going to put a prison or a library or whatever else. We have come back with this at your behest from the last time we were here to try and work an accommodation that will meet our needs. This was recommended by the Planning Division. I think there were six, seven, or eight conditions that came in the report to • • Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 32 you as staff's recommendation. I certainly would like to see this pass so we can get on with our building and not be delayed any further. Johnson: Thanks, Mr. Allen. Estes: This is a rezoning request. Staff recommends approval based on the findings included in their report. Our decision is advisory only to the City Council. MOTION Commissioner Estes made a motion to approve RZ00-4. Commissioner Ward seconded. Johnson: We have the motion by Commissioner Estes and the second by Commissioner Ward that we approve rezoning 00-4. Is there discussion? Hoffman: I will vote against the motion for similar reasons as the last time. When the church applied for the R -O zoning, we had considerable discussion about leaving basically the back half of the property in a more appropriate zoning buffer to the adjoining residential uses. Therefore, I cannot support a motion to rezone the entire tract of land P-1. I would be more than willing to consider rezoning approximately one-half of it to accommodate the church and go with a more conducive buffer situation in the rear Hoover: I am in agreement with Commissioner Hoffman. I'm sorry I missed agenda but I have a question for staff. I don't understand why they are coming back for the rezoning. Is the building larger than it was when we gave the conditional use? Is that reason or have I missed something? Conklin: The applicant approached staff and asked what zoning would be appropriate for a church as a use by right. P-1 zoning allows a church as a use by right. We have other churches and schools zoned P-1 in this community. With regard to the conditional use, it was approved with a 10,300 square foot church and that was what was submitted to staff by the applicant. Sure, the Commission could amend that condition to allow for a larger church if they wanted to in the future and the applicant has been made aware of that also. Hoover: So that is an option. Thank you. Johnson. You'll recall that on rezonings, the action of the Commission is merely a recommendation to the Council. However, for this to go forward automatically to the Council the action must get five positive votes. • Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 33 Marr: I feel that we have, based on some of the things that we heard tonight, more control on the types of uses in the future. As we voted earlier this evening about ballroom dancing versus any dancing, I think a conditional use gives us more control to determine what is on the property. Therefore, I would not support the rezoning. Shackelford: If this rezoning is not approved, the conditional use is still in effect. Is that correct? Conklin: They have had approval since last April to build a church. Shackelford: What you're saying is that the conditional use in effect will not allow them to build what they are wanting to build right now. Conklin: That is correct. They would have to come back. We've carried the large scale development with a conditional use together when they've come through the process and approved them at the same time. That's how we have handled other churches. That way when they change square footage or the parking areas, we can handle those at the same time. • Shackelford: So, in affect we could have them come back with an amendment for the additional • square footage and consider the LSD at the same time. Conklin: That is correct. Marr: Was there any investigation of that option outside of this request? Any discussion on doing it that way versus a rezoning? Conklin: Just recently in the past couple of weeks, I have met with Mr. Allen and informed him of what options are available for him to get his church built at this location. Ward: I would be persuaded to vote P-1 for the first 300 feet and leave the balance of that which is basically woods as A-1. The whole thing is zoned A-1 now. Estes: There would have to be consideration given to the footprint of the building and parking if Commissioner Ward's suggestion were done. We would have to have considerable input from the applicant regarding the footprint of the building and parking. That would be my concern. Ward: My understanding is that the church is going to try to save all the trees and keep the buffer back there. That would be good for everyone. It looks to me like from what we have on the drawings, the church lines up with the gymnastics center. 300 feet deep would be more than enough to take care of parking and build the church meeting the setbacks. • • • Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 34 Johnson: If a church is built on this site, does it have to come back before the Commission as an LSD? Conklin: Yes, it would come back before the Commission as a large scale development. Johnson: Lee, I don't think that your second to the motion binds you to the vote. We have before us to approve rezoning 00-4. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion failed with a vote of 2-6-0. Commissioners Bunch, Hoffman, Hoover, Marr, Shackelford, and Ward voted against the motion. Johnson: The action of this Commission can be appealed. It will not automatically go before the Council. Conklin: The applicant would have to appeal within ten days of this action. • • • Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 35 RZ00-9: REZONING CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, PP638 This item was submitted by Charles Venable on behalf of the City of Fayetteville for property located at the southwest corner of Razorback Road and Cato Springs Road The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 19.47 acres. The request is to rezone to I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial. Dave Jurgens was present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning based on the findings included as a part of the staff report. Commission Discussion Johnson: Tim, would you make a presentation on this item? Conklin: This is a request to rezone the Water and Sewer City Operations from R-2 to I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial. This is the location of where our city Water and Sewer Service Center is located. It also includes an outdoor storage area. The site was rezoned from I- 1 to R-2 in 1998. We were working with the Dinerstein Companies to do student housing at this location. Since then, they have withdrawn from the project. The city has decided to expand this facility. The I-1 zoning is required. Staff is recommending support of this rezoning to get back to the original zone. We have with us, Dave Jurgens, who has additional information and can answer questions if you have any Johnson: Mr. Jurgens, good evening. Jurgen: Good evening. Dave Jurgen. Water and Sewer Superintendent. The project to expand this facility was on the books before the offer from Dinerstein was ever made to purchase this land. The Water and Sewer Operation Center has been at this location since 1963. There is a lot of facility in place. Rather than move to an alternate site as originally planned when the purchase offer was made, we decided to save 1.5 million and leave the facility where it is. It's going to cost us roughly 1.5 million dollars more plus the expenditure of whatever the value of the property where ever we would move to. It seems quite honestly to be an unnecessary expenditure of funds to build an equivalent facility at a different location. Additionally, this site gives us excellent access to our most critical facilities via the bypass because our largest waterlines are on the north edge of town. Responding to the location of those waterlines is critical. We've had water leaks in excess of 125 gallons a minute. The time driving from a site • • • Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 36 on S. Morningside Drive quite honestly caused us a great deal of concern. We were looking at 10 to 15 more minutes of travel time going up Hwy 265 which will be better soon. That was a significant issue for keeping it at the current location. The primary issue is the 1.5 million dollars that we don't have to spend in order to get an equivalent facility at the current site. Estes: Thank you. Public Comment None MOTION Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to approve RZ00-9. Commissioner Shackelford seconded the motion. Estes: Hoover: The motion has been made and seconded. Is there discussion? Tim, in an I -I, is there any screening required? Conklin: We do have a buffer and screening section as part of our code for residential neighborhoods That is something we will look at during large scale to determine what would be required in this area. Hoover: My concern is the view from Razorback Road which is our southern entrance to Fayetteville. I'm not sure what you plan for the facility there. Jurgen: The architect and I are very well aware that this facility is at one of the primary entries to the City. Like you said, the City of Fayetteville entrance sign is right across the road from us. We are going to try and match that. We are indeed going to put up screening. We're going to face the new structure to Razorback Road with a new address off of Razorback Road. Passersby will be looking at the entrance and not the back side. The back side of anything like this never looks as good as the front. Employee parking would be located in the front and then all of the city owned vehicle parking would be in the back so it would be more screened as well. We are planning a full row of trees in the parking area. These are very preliminary plans and would naturally have to come forward to Subdivision Committee as part of a large scale. Also, instead of having two driveway entrances, we are going to share the existing driveway entrance with the Childrens House so that we wouldn't have an additional curb cut. • • • Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 37 Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 38 AD00-2• ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM FERGUSON, PP528 This item was submitted by Tony Catroppa on behalf of Mr. Ferguson for property located at 2932-2940 E Huntsville Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.06 acres. The request is for shared parking. David Ferguson and Tony Catroppa were present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the shared parking request subject to the following conditions: 1. Hours of operation must coincide with times when shared spaces are available. According to the signed agreement, spaces shall only be shared between the hours of 6 p.m. and 7 a.m. Monday through Saturday. • 2. Installation of one landscaped island in the center of the row of 15 parking spaces adjacent to Hwy 16E in order to comply with current parking lot design requirements which allow for a span of no more than 12 spaces without a landscaped island. 3. Occupancy for this tenant space shall be limited to 96 persons based on the proposed 32 shared parking spaces (33 existing currently with one to be removed for landscaped island.) • 4. The hours of operation for any business located in the other half of this structure shall not conflict with this shared parking agreement which permits spaces to be shared between the hours of 6 p.m. and 7 a.m. Commission Discussion Johnson: This is out across from the equipment dealership on E. Huntsville. There is a signed agreement that the spaces could only be shared between 6 p.m. and 7 a.m. Monday through Saturday. Staff, do you have additional information for us on this administrative item. Conklin: You may remember last year, this was the site of the conditional use revocation hearing for Millennium 2000. Planning Commission did revoke that permit. Since then, they have approached the City and asked how to obtain approval to convert the building back into a tavern type use. Staff has advised them that they would have to provide additional parking based on 1 space for 3 occupants or obtain a shared parking agreement. They have provided to us a shared parking agreement. There are 33 spaces existing in the parking lot. To the east there is a • Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 39 flea market that does not conflict with the hours of operation of this use unit 33, adult live entertainment establishment that is proposed at this location. Staff is recommending approval. We will have to monitor and make sure that the additional space in the building if it is leased out does not create a conflicting demand for parking. As I indicated on the last dance hall for Richardson, anytime we have a multiple tenant type shopping center or building, we will need to make sure that we don't have conflicting demands for parking. That's all staff has this evening. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Johnson: Additional questions of staff? Estes: On unnumbered page 6.8, it shows construction of a 5 foot sidewalk. Tim, what's going on there? Does that have anything to do with this shared parking request? Conklin: That sidewalk is existing. That was part of a lot split. They were required to build that sidewalk. Estes: Is that sidewalk there? • Conklin: Yes. Estes: Thank you, Tim. Johnson. Other questions? Public Comment None Further Commission Discussion Ferguson: My family owns this property. There has been a night club in there since 1992 and we have operated successfully with 3 additional retail outlets in the center at one time without any problems. Currently, one is now vacant but it will probably end up being another retail operating during the daylight hours. Johnson: So, you don't have any problems with the conditions of approval? Ferguson: No. • • • • Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 40 MOTION Commissioner Marr made a motion to approve AD00-2. Commissioner Hoover seconded the motion. Johnson: We have the motion by Commissioner Marr and the second by Commissioner Hoover that we approve administrative item 00-2. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • • • Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 41 AD00-3: ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM DAVIS, PP366 This item was submitted by Clark Davis for property located at 716 W. Sycamore St. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.16 acres. The request is to revise a condition placed on the original approval of this dance hall allowing outdoor entertainment (CU98-23.10.) Clark Davis was present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommended denial of the request based on specific requirements on the original conditional use permit. Commission Discussion Johnson. The request is to revise a conditional use that the Planning Commission granted last June when we approved this dance hall. The request is to allow outdoor entertainment. Staff is recommending denial because this was approved prohibiting outdoor use of this facility. On page 7.5, the outdoor patio area was not to be utilized by patrons to congregate or consume alcoholic beverages. No use of the patio area is to be made by this business unless a separate approval is obtained by the Planning Commission. The applicant has come back seeking to get that separate approval so he can use an outdoor patio area. Tim, do you have additional information for us? Conklin: Staff is recommending denial. Staff still believes that there should not be outdoor use of the patio area Directly across the street, is the Law Quad Apartments which is a residential use. Therefore, staff wants to make sure that we contain this dance hall and associated uses being limit to within the building. Johnson: Mr. Davis, you may make whatever presentation but I think the main question that we have for you is what has changed from then to now so that we should be persuaded to allow you to have part of your club outdoors? Davis: There are a couple of things I'd like to clarify in the Planning Division correspondence. There is section stating the area contains 1,800 square feet. There are four existing tables that the previous restaurant used for outdoor dining and that's the space I'm talking about. It's approximately 15x20. We're only talking about 16 more people. The use of this space isn't planned to be any kind of outdoor entertaining. It's mainly for my patrons who are nonsmokers to go outside and grab a little air. Of course, I would build a privacy fence Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 42 around it which the state agency requires for any kind of outdoor alcohol. I don't really see that this is anything that is going to disturb the neighborhood. I've been there for a year now and I feel like I have proved to everybody that a neighborhood bar can be compatible with a residential area if it is run properly. I hope that you can consider that in my change of use here. Johnson: Initial questions that you have? Hoffman: Staff, have you had any complaints from the neighbors in this last year? Conklin: I have not received any complaints. Public Comment None Further Commission Discussion Estes: There is a residential area, of course, immediately to the south and immediately to the west. We debated and argued and took public comment on this issue less than a year ago. I would vote against AD00-3. MOTION Commissioner Marr made a motion to approve AD00-3. Commissioner Hoover seconded the motion. Johnson: We have the motion by Commissioner Marr and the second by Commissioner Hoover that we approve administrative item 00-3. Is there discussion? Hoffman: I'll vote against the motion because the patio shown is to be considerably larger than 10x15 and it looks to me it could become an outdoor noise problem. I'll be voting against the motion. Hoover: I have a question for the applicant. In the letter submitted to the Planning Division, it states the space is approximately 46x40 feet. Davis: Some of that space has trees and shrubs. Hoover: But, the entire garden area will be enclosed. • • • Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 43 Davis: Yes. I didn't want my patrons in a box. I enclosed the landscaping to make it more aesthetic. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion failed with a vote of 2-6-0. Commissioners Bunch, Estes, Hoffman, Johnson, Shackelford, and Ward voted against the motion. • • Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 44 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 0.40 acres. The request is for a home occupation permit for a mini storage rental office. Curtis Drummond was present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of this conditional use subject to the following conditions: 1. The office shall be located in the existing house as shown on the site plan and shall occupy only 288 square feet of the existing house (the 16x18 foot room called out on the site plan provided by the applicant.) 2. No exterior alteration of the structure may be made which is of a nonresidential nature. 3. No advertising, signs, display, storage or other external evidence of business shall be permitted on the property located within the City. 4. No person may be employed other than a member of the immediate family residing on the premises. 5. No mechanical equipment may be used which creates a disturbance such as noise, dust, odor or electrical disturbance. No parking spaces other than normal residential parking spaces shall be permitted. Only a driveway shall be allowed and limited to a maximum of 24 feet in width. The applicant is showing parking spaces on the site plan located inside the City. 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 applicant shall apply for a Home Business Permit. The fee for this permit is $25.00 and it must be renewed annually at a cost of $12.50. • 9. The office shall be open only from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. 10. Only typical residential lighting shall be allowed and all lighting shall be shielded and • • • Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 45 directly downward and away from residences. 11. The structure shall be inspected by the Fire Marshall and Building Inspector. All required improvements shall be completed prior to the office opening. 12. No chain link fencing and/or barbed wire/razor wire shall be located on the property within the City Limits. 13. Compliance with all Washington County requirements including the construction of a 6 foot tall, wooden, privacy fence along the entire southern property line of the mini storage facility. 14. Water shall be turned off immediately and the office shall not operate if any of the conditions are not met. 15. The conditional use shall be automatically revoked if any condition is not met. Committee Discussion Johnson: The property in the county is under construction and will have mini storage units. We have nothing whatsoever to say about the mini storage facility because it is not in the city However, we do have authority to deal with whether or not there can be an office dealing with the storage facility in the house because the house is in the city. Staff recommends approval subject to the 15 conditions of approval Is the applicant present this evening? Drummond: I'm Curtis Drummond. Johnson: Have you had a chance to see the 15 conditions of approval that the staff has recommended? Drummond: Yes, ma'am. Johnson: Are you in opposition to any of those? Drummond: No, ma'am Johnson: So, you agree to all of them? Drummond: Yes, ma'am. Johnson. Because of their length I won't go through all of them. I will turn to staff to see if • • Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 46 they have any additional information for us. Conklin: Staff has no additional information. Johnson: Okay. Mr. Drummond, we have all the conditions before us and we understand that the only thing that we're asked to do is to allow you to have an office there in the existing residence. One of the conditions is that there not be any exterior alterations to the residence so that it looks like anything other than a residence. And, that there not be any lighting outside and that there not be anything other than what a residence would have. Drummond: Yes, ma'am. Johnson: And that there not be any mechanical equipment which may cause any sort of disturbance on this property which is in the City. The conditional use would keep you pretty well confined and you understand that. Drummond: Yes. Public Comment None MOTION Commissioner Shackelford made a motion to approve conditional use 99-23 subject to all staff recommendations. Commissioner Marr seconded. Johnson: We have the motion and second to approve conditional use 99-23. Is there discussion? Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • • Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 47 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. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 0.76 acres. The request is to rezone the property to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Dan Broyles was present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning from A-1 to R-2 based on the findings included as part of this report. Commission Discussion Johnson: This is another rezoning. If you will, Tim, explain this proposition to us Conklin: Sure. The request is to rezone the property from A-1 to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Previously on the agenda a couple of weeks ago, we had a request from A-1 to R -O. The R-2 zoning is more consistent with the zoning of the surrounding area. If you refer to page 9.8, to the south we have Zion Valley, Planned Unit Development zoned R-2. We have R-2 directly to the west. Across the street is zoned A-1. This rezoning will allow the applicant to apply for conditional use in the future to convert the house into a professional office. Staff is of the understanding that a conditional use will be applied for in the future. However, R-2 at this time is appropriate due to the fact the south side of Zion Road is zoned R-2. That's all staff has at this time. Ward: I need to abstain from voting on this particular issue. Johnson: All right. Thank you for that. Is there someone here representing the applicant? Broyles: I'm Dan Broyles of Coldwell Banker Faucette Real Estate and I am representing the applicants. Johnson: All right, Dan. Did you want to make a presentation or are you here for our questions? • Broyles: Questions will be fine. • • • Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 48 Johnson: Thank you very much. Are there initial questions? Estes: Mr. Broyles, in the material that we have is a statement that indicates the business is food sales and marketing. What is the business? Broyles: These three gentlemen own a business that is focused completely on the marketing of poultry items internationally and in some cases to the coastal areas of the United States. They were responsible at one time for developing that market place for Tyson Foods and they left that company and developed this business themselves. Currently, they are operating out of rental space located above Gold's Gym. That is a small area and their primary objective is to use this property as a small office. They have no intentions of changing the complection or the structure of the building other than to paint it and do some modest repairs. They want to maintain the integrity of the residential appearance of the property. Estes: Are there going to be 18 wheelers full of chicken pulling up out front or what is going to be going on there? Broyles: No, sir. There will not be. Their intent is to be a professional office. They have no objectives of receiving product, warehousing product, or having any 18 wheelers. They strictly market by the phone and the Internet. They anticipate four employees total. They would be the three principles plus one staff person. Two of those principles travel in the majority of the sales effort for the company. I do not know of any intent on their part to create any type of a traffic danger to the area. They will not be living in the residence and there will no impact on traffic or schools. All the utilities are there. Their primary reason for corning is the property was entered into a contract contingent on the rezoning for this use primarily because it was available in a location that was conducive to their needs because their residences are located close by. In the long term scheme of things, this was a good investment. Estes: Thank you, I have no further questions. Johnson: Mr. Broyles, let me mention to you that our action on rezonings at this level are merely recommendations to the Council. However, if we pass a rezoning it goes forward to the Council with our recommendation that the Council grant the rezoning but if we defeat a proposed rezoning then it does not automatically go forward and you have to appeal our ruling. It takes five positive votes to pass a rezoning here. This evening there will only be seven votes on this matter. Any time we are short handed, I give the applicant the opportunity if he wishes to pull his item and come back at a time when we have essentially more than seven. Broyles: I think we want to move forward tonight. As mentioned by staff, we have made every effort to accommodate the neighborhood as well as staff and to adjust this to meet the long term plan for the City, the 2020 Plan, so we hope that tonight is going to be our best opportunity • • • Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 49 to move forward. Public Comment None Further Discussion Estes: This property is located in an area already zoned R-2. Staff has recommended approval of the requested rezoning from A-1 to R-2. MOTION Commissioner Estes made a motion to approve RZ99-34. Commissioner Marr seconded the motion. Johnson: We have the motion by Commissioner Estes and the second by Commissioner Marr that we approve rezoning 99-34. Is there discussion? Roll Call Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-1. Commissioner Ward abstained. • • Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 50 RZ00-2: REZONING KEATING ENTERPRISES, INC. PP290 This item was submitted by Bill Keating of Keating Enterprises, Inc. for property located at lots 1 and 2 Sunbridge East. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 2.89 acres. The request is to rezone to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial Bill Keating was present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommended approval based on the findings included as part of the staff report. Commission Discussion Johnson: This is on Sunbridge which has recently been extended through to College Avenue. I guess this is where we have the new stoplight. Staff has recommended approval stating that this is a commercial node and is an appropriate place for some small commercial establishments which can be allowed in a C-1. Tim, do you have additional information for us on this proposed rezoning. Conklin: This rezoning also is consistent with the 2020 Plan. This area is shown as community commercial on that plan. Johnson: Staff also notes that if this is rezoned and developed, then commercial design standards will apply which will give us some additional authority in the development. Let me ask whether there is someone representing the applicant and if so whether he wants to make an additional presentation to us. Keating: Happy Valentine's Day. I'm Bill Keating. Johnson: Do you have questions of the staff or Mr. Keating on this proposed rezoning? We took a look at it last Thursday when we were on tour so we know the location. Public Comment None MOTION 110 Commissioner Shackelford made a motion to approve RZ00-2. • • • Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 51 Commissioner Bunch seconded the motion. Johnson: We have the motion by Commissioner Shackelford and the second by Commissioner Bunch that we approve RZ00-2. Is there discussion of the motion to approve? Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • • Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 52 RZA00-1: ANNEXATION ARKANSAS OAKS, PP361 This item was submitted by Andy Feinstien of Engineering Design Associates on behalf of Arkansas Oaks for property located east of New Bridge Drive and south of Mount Comfort Road. The property is in the planning growth area and contains approximately 15 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. Michael Marie was present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommend approval of the requested annexation based on the findings included as part of staff report. Commission Discussion Johnson: This is a companion item with a rezoning. We will vote on these separately but we will have discussion together. Tim, let me ask you to give us a synopsis of why the staff believes we ought to approve this annexation. Conklin: Staff is recommending approval. If you refer to page 11.7 in your agenda, you will note that several weeks ago, the Planning Commission did approve RZA99-5 and RZ99-35. Those are on the City Council agenda tomorrow night. That is for 13.39 acres to be zoned R-1. This is an additional 15 acres. We're actually moving further to the east into the City. Staff is recommending approval. There is a new middle school directly to the north that is currently under construction and scheduled to open in the fall of 2000. This will allow additional development to tie in with Bridgeport Subdivision which is zoned R -I also. Johnson: Is the applicant present? Marie: I am Michael Marie and I'm with Engineering Design Associates and I am here to answer any questions you might have on this proposal. Johnson: Michael, spell your last name for me? Marie: M -A -R -I -E. Johnson: Marie. Thank you. Do you have questions of Mr. Marie or the staff? Public Comment • Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 53 None Further Commission Discussion Hoffman: Can we move on both actions at once? Johnson: No. We have to deal with them separately. MOTION Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to approve RZA00-1. Commissioner Marr seconded the motion. Johnson: We have the motion by Commissioner Hoffman and the second by Commissioner Marr that we approve RZA00-1. Is there discussion? • Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. Johnson: The annexation carried unanimously and of course that will go forward to the City Council who will take final action on whether or not it is to be annexed. • • • • Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 54 RZ00-3: REZONING ARKANSAS OAK, PP361 This item was submitted by Andy Feinstein of Engineering Design Associates on behalf of Arkansas Oaks for property located east of New Bridge Drive and south of Mount Comfort Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 15 acres. The request is to rezone to R-1, Low Density Residential. Michael Marie was present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommended approval of the requested rezoning based on the finding included as a part of the staff report. Commission Discussion Johnson: This is the rezoning request for the property we recommended for annexation at the comer of New Bridge Road and Mt. Comfort Road Tim, would you tell us why the staff recommend approval of this proposed rezoning. Conklin: The R-1 zoning is consistent with the R-1 zoning for Bridgeport Development and the rezoning that was recommended by this Commission several weeks ago. Johnson: Questions of staff and the applicant? Public Comment None MOTION Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to approve RZ00-3. Commissioner Marr seconded the motion. Johnson: We have the motion by Commissioner Hoffman and the second by Commissioner Marr to approve RZ00-3. Of course, our action on rezonings is merely a recommendation on to the Council. • • • Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 Page 55 Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. Johnson: The rezoning carried unanimously and will go forward to the Council with our unanimous, positive recommendation. Marie: Thank you. Johnson: Is there other business to come before us this evening? Conklin: Staff has no other business. Meeting adjourned at 7:42 p.m. 5:26 5:21 5: 33 S -3p 5:24, -5zz • 5:Z3 5: ZZ • PC MEETING Z:CO MOTION Af:PeouAL OF 124 miuur ITEM # Bui I NaPI ELD TP -AIL ITEM # 1.S399 -Z2 Est EI SECOND s fPcY ReD D. BUNCH B. ESTES L. HOFFMAN S. HOOVER P. JOHNSON D. MARR y y y C. ODOM A6si Assair L. SHACKELFORD L. WARD ACTION VOTE APpeovm APPIErw I� 1-1-0 STAFF COOLUN SC;tiNs PE.ThIE JbEGG.>_s i E1 • • PC MEETING 01i14leo MOTION RICF+A N ITEM #CUoo-Z eICNACDSCN Am9.1DmEUT ITEM # V ACO SECOND D. BUNCH B. ESTES \t L. HOFFMAN S. HOOVER \JI y N P. JOHNSON D. MARR 7 Y y C. ODOM TIasEMT- L. SHACKELFORD L. WARD N ACTION VOTE FAIL 8-0-0 4-4-0 PAQGz- PC MEETING O414100 MOTION pi4.CNArDYiN ITEM # ACE(& -4 UJKE 1-4111..5 ITEM # e7aD-4 1 SECOND SI -lora D INAKt • D. BUNCH B. ESTES L. HOFFMAN S. HOOVER y N y y N P. JOHNSON D. MARR y N C. ODOM AESair Aeep r L. SHACKELFORD L. WARD R ACTION VOTE 8-0-0 • • • PC MEETING OZlI4kD MOTION OJNOF FANJET/BM If ITEM # l O-9 ITEM # ACCO -Z. 1-101PN I SECOND SHAccafeen D. BUNCH B. ESTES y y y y L. HOFFMAN S. HOOVER y y P. JOHNSON D. MARR 1 y y \/ y C. ODOM ASseNtr h Esiarr- L. SHACKELFORD L. WARD \-' y ACTION VOTE APPFekim APPea, Ft 8-0-0 8-0-0 PAGE4 • PC MEETING CZ 114 It MOTION DAVE ITEM #M-3 D umm6►.D ITEM # CSR -Z3 nue SI4ACxaFan SECOND kcavec D. BUNCH B. ESTES N \I L. HOFFMAN S. HOOVER y y P. JOHNSON D. MARR N y C. ODOM 4jt L. SHACKELFORD L. WARD N y ACTION VOTE Z --6-o 8-0-0 PAGES • • PC MEETING O' 14 MOTION ktOernew, PENCEtragrif31, ITEM # (CONTI #e7C0-7.-- SkAC(R RED SECOND mwr $DNC4 D. BUNCH B. ESTES L. HOFFMAN S. HOOVER P. JOHNSON D. MARR y y y C. ODOM ABsan- Agaa.fr L. SHACKELFORD L. WARD ACTION VOTE APPEDVED Afro PAGEG • • • PC MEETING I° MOTION Aerikt€AS ITEM # t ZAQ3-I Aeic rEAS CAS ITEM # E2I -S 4OFFrMM SECOND D. BUNCH B. ESTES N L. HOFFMAN S. HOOVER y \i) P. JOHNSON D. MARR C. ODOM N y PgSarF Agsaw L. SHACKELFORD L. WARD y ACTION VOTE APPemcn AP ECVAD 8-0-6 PAGE7