Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-01-08 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on January 8, 2001, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN CU 00-33.00: Conditional Use (City of Fayetteville (Wilson Park), pp 445) Page 3 CU 00-34.00: Conditional Use (Hensen, pp 523) Page 4 CU 00-37.00: Conditional Use (La Pachanga, pp 601) Page 21 AD 00-46.00: Administrative Item (Definition of Family) Page 24 Tabled Approved Approved Forwarded to Subcommittee MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Nancy Allen Don Bunch Lee Ward Lorel Hoffman Sharon Hoover Conrad Odom Bob Estes STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Sara Edwards Sheri Metheney Loren Shackelford Don Marr STAFF ABSENT Ron Petrie • • • Planning Commission January 8, 2001 Page 2 Consent Agenda: Approval of minutes from the December 11, 2000 meeting. Odom: Good evening ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the January 8, 2001, meeting. The first item we have on tonight's agenda that we need to go over is the approval of the December 11, 2000, minutes. Let me ask if there are any notations or remarks on those minutes? I see that everything was approved unanimously except for one item so I think that speaks volumes to Commissioner Estes and I not being at those meetings. Seeing no corrections they will stand approved as they are. • • • Planning Commission January 8, 2001 Page 3 CU 00-33.00: Conditional Use (City of Fayetteville (Wilson Park), pp 445) was submitted by Lisa Paschal on behalf of City of Fayetteville for property located at Wilson Avenue and Louise Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 16.87 acres. The request is to allow a Greenhouse/Plant Nursery (use unit 2) in a R-1 district. Odom: The first we had on tonight's agenda was a conditional use. That was a conditional use submitted by the City of Fayetteville for property located at Wilson Park. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 16.97 acres. The request was to allow a greenhouse/plant nursery which is a use unit two in an R-1 district. That item has been tabled, is that correct? Conklin: That is correct. The City has requested this item be tabled at this time in order for us to spend a little more time on this project. We may be placing this back on the agenda at your next meeting. Odom. So that item is tabled. It may come up at a later date. • • • Planning Commission January 8, 2001 Page 4 CU 00-34.00: Conditional Use (Hensen, pp 523) was submitted by Brett & Shirley Hensen for property located at the north 50' of lot 2, block 2 of McCrimmons Addition. The property is zoned C- 2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 0.22 acres. The request is to build a wholesale and storage building (use unit 21) in a C-2 district. Odom. Therefore, the first item we will address is item number two on tonight's agenda which is also a conditional use. This is CU 00-34.00 submitted by Brett & Shirley Hensen for property located at the north 50' of lot 2, block 2 of McCrimmons Addition. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 0.22 acres. The request is to build a wholesale and storage building (use unit 21) in a C-2 district. Staffs recommendation is for approval of the conditional use subject to ten conditions of approval Staff do we have a signed conditions of approval? Conklin: Odom: T.Hensen: B.Hensen: T.Hensen: Odom: T.Hensen: Odom: No, we do not. I would ask the applicant to please come forward at this time. My name is Tom Hensen and this is my son. Brett Hensen. Brett owns the business on Locust Street here in Fayetteville. I originally owned it. It's a NAPA Auto Parts store. We bought a lot next door to the business in hopes of expanding some day. We have been there since 1973 and it's time now, we have just run out of space. So the lot next door we are asking to put a building on it mostly for storage at this time but wholesale and storage. We would like for it to look like the one that has existed there for a while because it's an attractive building and we have kept it up and we plan to do the same thing with this one. This is the building, the front of the building and the side of the building. We would like to duplicate that or as close as possible. I guess, Tim, we need to, if we have any questions about the conditions, is this the time to address that? Yes it is. We have a set of conditions of approval which is outlined. There are ten conditions of approval Have you had an opportunity to go over those? Yes. Which ones did you have questions about? • • Planning Commission January 8, 2001 Page 5 T.Hensen: Number one has to do with the south side of the building. I don't know if you folks are familiar with that area but it's a very unusual lay of the land. It's kind of like this (waves arm). We would like to come back on the side of the building a reasonable amount that the City would be comfortable with but we would like to keep it as close to the other building as possible and not go down the complete side of it with brick. As you can see in this building here, we would like to duplicate that if we could The first part there, we are asking that not be put on us. I don't know how to state it. Odom: I understand. You wish to not have to comply with condition number one, which is to require a brick veneer over the entire south wall of the warehouse. T.Hensen. Odom: Correct. We were under the impression, originally, that we would have to go down maybe a few feet. We didn't realize we would have to go the complete length and that will change it from the other building. Yes, we do ask that. Staff, do you have any comment with regard to the requirement of the requirement of the brick veneer cover to the entire south wall of the warehouse? I know one of the things we have to deal with here, Mr. Hensen, is the compliance with the Commercial Design Standards which were not in force at the time that you built your original building and that's where this condition is coming from. That's where the staff report is coming from. Conklin: Yes, that is true. Not only Commercial Design Standards but also the conditional use with regard to compatibility of having a storage building next to a R-2 zoning district. There currently is a single family home directly to the south. It's probably been remodeled in the last ten years. Staff's concern was the appropriateness of allowing a storage building up against a residential zoning district. That is why we did make that recommendation for the brick veneer on the south side of the building. Also, with condition number two and three, which is evergreen trees shall be planted every fifteen feet along the south property line and number three a six foot high wood board fence shall be installed along the south property line beginning fifteen feet from the front property line and running east to the rear property line. We are trying to mitigate the potential impacts of this storage building adjacent to the single family home. Odom: Do you have any comment with requiring maybe not doing the whole thing brick or to maybe make it look like a front facade? Is that what you were wanting to do, was to make it look like a front to the building? • T.Hensen: Yes. The front of the new building, proposed new building will look almost like that Planning Commission January 8, 2001 Page 6 Conklin: Odom: Conklin: T.Hensen: Odom: T.Hensen: building there but the side part of it is what we are asking to remain the same as the old building. Chairman Odom? Just so the Commission is aware of this, the Board of Adjustment, on January 2, 2001, did grant two variances on this piece of property. The first variance was for the rear setback which is 20 feet. They granted a 9 foot variance for 11 foot setback on that east or rear side of the building. They also granted a ten foot setback on the south side. The setback was fifteen feet. Both those variances have been granted. Just to make you aware that this building will be five feet closer to that R-2 zoning district than would typically be allowed under this ordinance. Keep that in mind when you look at this. Overall, I'm trying to make sure that if we do allow a storage building on this property, that it will not adversely impact this property to the south, therefore, we have placed these conditions. With regard to does it need to be brick down the entire south wall? I'm not sure if it has to be 100% brick. I'm trying to break it up at least so you don't have to have a metal building sitting directly along your south property line or north property line for the homeowner to the south. Something that will help mitigate how that looks. Typically, in a commercial building you won't have a metal sidewall completely down your side property line adjacent to a residential district. You would not have a metal sidewall. Right. You would not have a metal sidewall like that. Mr. Odom, can I show you one other thing? Sure. I don't know if you can tell but you will see a man standing right there, he is approximately six foot tall. That's where the fence described would be. Actually it's not going to do anything to hide the building. This is something we can live with but it's just not going to do anything to hide the building. When we originally bought this lot Mr. Clinger, an attorney here in town, sold it to us for this purpose and he gave us a letter stating that he would not challenge anything that the store needed to do within what the City will allow. He, as a neighbor, would not do it and see that it was passed on down. What we are going to do is, it would be basically the same as it is now but this is a fairly narrow lot and it's just going to change the location of the wall. It's not going to differ the wall any. • • Planning Commission January 8, 2001 Page 7 Odom: Let's Just talk about any other items that you have on the conditions of approval. You made your statement about the fence. What about item number two, which is that evergreen trees shall be planted every fifteen feet along the south property line? T.Hensen: Here again, we don't have any problem with that. That would probably be better than a fence. It could grow taller and give some type of shelter. The evergreens and the fence both, it seems like that would be a lot of duplication doing both of them. Number four, we have no problem with, we understand. What the City requires there. The lighting, we have no problem with that because the existing building exercises that. Trash dumpsters, no problem. Sidewalk, we really don't have a problem with but the way that land lays, there is a sidewalk that goes the complete length of that block, across the street. The way that land lays you would almost have to have steps down the sidewalk. I know that this is a long time ago but, originally it was waived, the sidewalk, because of the one on the other side and because of the lay of the land. Odom: Again, we have new regulations and so forth. T.Hensen: I understand. Odom: Item number eight which is, a new site plan shall be provided that meets all stated conditions and all current ordinance requirements prior to a building permit. T.Hensen: Yes. We are supposed to submit that, I believe. Tim talked with Brett a little bit about that and I think that's understood. Then nine and ten is not a problem. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom. Then before we begin discussion among the Planning Commission, what I want to do is ask is there any member of the audience that would like to address for public comment us on this issue? If you would like to address us on this issue, please come forward at this time. Swain: I'm Jim Swain and I live next door to NAPA. We would rather have a fence on top of the little hill out there than evergreens. Odom: Thank you Mr. Swain. I think we read your letter as well. Didn't you write a letter in as well? • Swain: I think my wife did. • • • Planning Commission January 8, 2001 Page 8 Odom: Swain: Odom: Swain: Odom: Okay. We got her letter and we read it as well. Mr. Swain, which house do you live in? The south on the map. The one just to the south? Yes. Thank you. Any other member of the audience like to address us on this issue? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom. Seeing none, I'II close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the applicant for questions and comments of the Planning Commission. Mr. Chairman? Commissioner Estes. Estes: Odom: Estes: T.Hensen: Estes: Originally staff recommendation number one was, of course, compliance with the Commercial Design Standards and a recommendation that the brick veneer cover 50% of the south wall of the warehouse. After agenda session last Thursday, those Planning Commissioners in attendance, there were four of us, went out and looked at the property. It was at that time that we observed the elevation of the lot, looked at the elevation of the building both from the front and from the south and from east as has been presented to us in the packet and it was our unanimous determination that the south wall needed to be brick 100%. That is the explanation for the condition of approval number one that we have before us. In the materials that we have on page 2.10, if I am interpreting that correctly, the front elevation is all brick veneer, is that correct? Yes sir. It was our thinking, again it was a unanimous thinking of those in attendance, that the south elevation would need to have that brick veneer. In other words, wrap it around to the south side. Mr. Conklin has brought to our attention that there was a variance given, instead of the twenty foot setback, it's a fifteen foot setback so that lets you put a little bit larger building on the property than would be normal and that south elevation is • • • Planning Commission January 8, 2001 Page 9 T.Hensen: Estes: T. Hensen: Estes: T.Hensen: Estes: T.Hensen: B.Hensen: going to be clearly visible traveling north on Locust, no question about it. As far as screening with the fence and with the evergreens, as you have so well demonstrated by the photograph you passed out, that elevation is up above that building from the south and that wall is going to be visible. A six foot high wood board fence is not going to obscure that vision. Perhaps, I believe Commission Hoffman, Commissioner Allen, and Commissioner Bunch were there, if they have anything else to add to that. That would be the reason that I would approve the Conditional Use subject to the conditions of approval. Mr. Estes, is it possible not to go up all the way with the brick, do half brick? The issue that I see there is that, with your six foot high wood fence and your evergreens, the ground is going to be adequately screened. It's going to be the top of that building from the roof line down that's going to show. Perhaps Mr. Swain could edify us a little more in that regard but I would think that looking out of the windows on the north side of his house that fifteen feet away he is going to see the metal siding. He is I don't know how many feet he is from the line plus our footage. So it's greater than fifteen but I don't know exactly what it is. Irregardless, fifteen or twenty-five, it's basically the same. It's an application of the Commercial Design Standards that brought us to the point where the recommendation of 50% of the south be bricked, we would like to see, at least the four Commissioners that were out there Thursday afternoon, would like to see that entire south wall brick. Instead of the 50% that was recommended? Yes. I just wanted to give you some explanation for why condition of approval number one was changed from cover 50% of the south wall to cover all of the south wall. If we make a nice south wall out of that, as you recommended there, I think Brett wants to say something here but I would like to say this before we get off of this, the fence, the evergreens and the nice wall is kind of, in our minds, a duplication. If we can't go any other way than the brick, we ask that the fence and the evergreens because they are not going to, they won't accomplish anything really. The only thing that I was going to add, Mr. Estes, is that if the Design Standard is for 50% the length down from the front that, at this point we could ask that the panel • • • Planning Commission January 8, 2001 Page 10 Estes: consider the 50% all the way up as opposed to the full length. I would appreciate consideration on that and then if we can move on to the fence and trees, if that's okay with the panel. Well personally I'm not inclined to bifurcate this down. The conditions of approval are ten in number and I'm willing to vote for approval of conditional use subject to those ten conditions. I don't want to have a vote on item one and then negotiate on items two and three if that's what you are suggesting. That's not appropriate. I'm prepared, at this time, to vote for the conditional use subject to the conditions of approval. I just wanted to explain to you why that condition number one was changed from last Thursday afternoon to today. Hoffman: I'll go ahead and echo most of Commissioner Estes' comments. My main reasons about the brick and stuff are that you got the variance to be closer to the residential property that has been there nearly 100 years. We drove around the neighborhood . and most of the structures down in there are houses. Although you are right on College you do have the facing to the neighborhood. I just have one question for staff. I'm willing to vote for this conditional use as it's worded with all these conditions. If the applicant came up with something... I know that brick is an expensive material and we've looked at wood siding before and natural materials and things like that. Maybe we could get something on the side of that building that wouldn't be as costly to you that would fit into the neighborhood too but that wouldn't be metal siding. Staff, are you willing to take on that responsibility if they come back to you with cedar siding or some kind of deal like that? The other thing is, we take a look at long expanses of metal siding and that they are broken up with windows or other architectural features that might be less costly to you. Is that something that you might be able to entertain? Conklin: Sure. I don't have any problem looking at that. The reason why we put brick in there was that is what was on the front of the building. If they want to use a combination of brick and wood siding and place some windows within that side of the building, l would be more than happy to work with them as staff. Hoffman: We could just vote for this as it is and then you can work out a solution and include the neighbor in the discussion if need be. Conklin: I would like you to amend the condition that it doesn't state that it has to be all brick on the south side, if you want to state it can be 50% brick and the other 50% can be other materials, glass or wood siding. • • Planning Commission January 8, 2001 Page 11 Hoffman: T.Hensen: Bunch: Odom: Bunch: T.Hensen: Bunch: T.Hensen: Bunch: Conklin: T.Hensen: Bunch: T.Hensen: Bunch: Does that sound okay to you all? Yes ma'am. Mr. Chair? Commissioner Bunch. What is the eave height of this building? I know we are talking about a lot of things but we don't know how tall it is. If we could work something out like they were describing there, we would like to go high to get the two buildings to look a little bit more natural. That's a tremendous expense on an eighteen foot wall there, bricking, so we might have to change the height of the building. At this time, you are saying, it has not been determined how tall the building is? We are kind of whistling in the wind here trying to figure our architectural treatments. Yes sir. That would be a little rough. An expanse of metal siding and that sort of thing, if we don't know exactly what we are working with. Tim, along with this, since there has been an adjustment on the east side, have we considered any screening between the building and the residence on the east end? No, we have not looked at that. That is a good idea. It has a natural screening back there. There is nothing behind us. We drove around it and there is a house immediately to the east and there is a vacant lot next to that. What's good for one neighbor should be good for the other neighbor. Since this is an encroachment of a commercial zoning next to a residential, we want to make sure we properly buffer the impact of the commercial operation on the residential use. On the lot directly behind that lot? I guess. • • • Planning Commission January 8, 2001 Page 12 T.Hensen: That's the open lot directly behind it. I don't know if that's a full size lot up there or not. Bunch: The lot to the east it meets on the corner with a vacant lot, there is a house immediately to the east of it. Conklin: We did discuss this during the Board of Adjustment also, about whether or not there was a house there. T.Hensen: Is there a house back there? Conklin: I did go by, on Thursday, on the trolley with the Commissioners, it did appear that this house does line up with that lot that you plan to build on. It is wooded at this time, however, you can see through the trees because it's winter time. Probably, it wouldn't be a bad idea to amend that condition to include a six foot fence along that east property line also. I would not recommend the additional trees because there are trees back along that east property line already on that property directly to the east. Bunch: Again, if we are talking possibly maintaining a twenty foot eave height building, how much of that would a six foot fence screen? So we are back to if were a ten foot building we are talking about bricking that, that's one thing but if we are getting into an eighteen foot building, that's a completely different situation. T.Hensen: Bunch: T.Hensen: Bunch: T.Hensen: Bunch: I'm a little bit lost on exactly what you are saying. Our Design Standards say we are not supposed to have square boxlike structures and large expanses of unarticulated metal siding and concrete block and that sort of thing, that's one thing that we are looking at. An eighteen foot eave height as opposed to say a ten or twelve foot eave height makes a major contribution to not being able to meet our Commercial Design Standards. The other building is fourteen foot. Does that meet the Standards? I think that building was built before these standards were in place. Yes, but I say does that meet the standards of fourteen foot high eave? Probably not. • • Planning Commission January 8, 2001 Page 13 T.Hensen: Bunch: T.Hensen: Bunch: T.Hensen: Odom: Conklin: Odom: Conklin: T.Hensen: Conklin: If you went any less than fourteen foot, it would really kind of be fruitless to build it. It's not so much, the height is a complicating factor but it's not based solely on height. Without screening on the south side of your existing building, it probably would not be in compliance with our Standards. 1 guess you have to tell us what we can do then. Also, one other question. On the parking lot, I didn't see anything in here other than landscaping, maybe I missed it, is that supposed to be a paved parking lot? I think the current one is now. It's planned to be a paved parking lot, yes. That's the plan submitted to Tim. Staff, do you have any comments on that. Item number four, additional landscaping in the parking lot and site shall be determined by the Landscape Administrator and shall include a 15 foot landscaped area along the front property line? Mr. Chairman, the site plan they are showing does not currently meet our parking lot standards. We placed that condition on there that when they do submit their site plan for building permit that it will meet our Design Standards and the Landscape Administrator will be able to recommend or require what landscaping is required for this parking lot. That's really covered under item number eight which states that a new site plan will be provided that meets all stated conditions and all current ordinance requirements prior to building permit. That's correct. Tim, did you say there is not enough parking? Actually, you are showing more parking than what is currently allowed under our ordinance and also, we do have additional landscaping that's required under that parking lot ordinance for a five foot landscaped area along the side property line and a fifteen foot landscaped area in the front of the parking lot. That will have to be amended to show that area. Based on your square footage you are allowed to have two parking spaces. If you need additional parking you need to bring that back. • • • Planning Commission January 8, 2001 Page 14 T.Hensen: Conklin: T.Hensen: Conklin: T.Hensen: Odom: Did we apply for the wrong permit or something? No. What we are looking at tonight, whether or not a warehouse storage building is appropriate use in a C-2 zoning district. What staff is trying to do, we are trying to place conditions on there to mitigate the impact adjoining this property with a single family home in an R-2 zoning district. That's what we are trying to discuss this evening and see if the Planning Commission will approve that. Staff did recommend approval with the ten conditions and those conditions are set to help mitigate those impacts of having a storage building. It is always a challenge to place warehousing or storage in commercial areas especially adjacent to residential zoning districts. It's very difficult to try to mitigate the impact of such a facility. What we are trying to do here is, you can still have the functional use inside that building but try to brick it, put a fence up, landscape it to help minimize having a storage building next to a single family home. That's what we are looking at. If I understand that right, if we just had two parking spaces out front we would be in compliance? With regard to the number of parking. The Planning Commission still has to approve warehousing and storage in a C-2 zoning district. That's the issue they are considering this evening. Whether or not it's appropriate to build a metal storage building adjacent to an R-2 zoning district. What staff has done instead of looking at your plans and recommending denial I looked at it and made a recommendation of how can staff support this project and approve it and that's why we placed those ten conditions on there. If you do this, I think it will mitigate it enough that it will be compatible with that adjoining residence to the south and then the neighborhood. As staff we have to make those findings and the Planning Commission has to make those findings that it is compatible with the neighborhood. Once again, that's why we have these conditions and that's why we are having this discussion this evening. I understand. Mr. Odom has already advised me a couple of times that I'm doing wrong here but I keep referring back. When we originally bought the property we came to the City and told them that we would like to rezone the property to put an auto parts store on it and we kind of went with their recommendation on the C-2 part of it. They recommended that we do a C-2 with a variance, so that's what we did. You are not doing anything wrong. You are making a fine presentation. We are just having to work through it and this isn't abnormal from any other proceeding. So you are not doing anything wrong. Commissioner Allen. • • • Planning Commission January 8, 2001 Page 15 Allen: T.Hensen: Estes: Odom: MOTION Estes: Since it seems like we are all unclear about what needs to be done in order for this to proceed to comply with our Commercial Design Standards, that maybe we can table this and you could talk with Tim and try to come to some understanding of what needed to be done. Would that be helpful? Brett may have a different idea on this but I will go ahead and present my view on that. If you folks can tell us what we need to do tonight, we will do everything in our power to do it. We have just run out of room and it's important that we get something done and we will try to comply with whatever you all think is necessary. We just hope that you all be fair to us too and to everybody. Mr. Chairman? Commissioner Estes. I move that we approve Conditional Use 00-34.00 subject to staff recommendation with the following amendments and additions to staff recommendations: condition of approval number would read "The south side of the building shall be redesigned to comply with the Commercial Design Standards with brick veneer or alternative architectural materials covering all of the south wall of the warehouse with such alternative architectural materials to be approved by staff." Condition of approval number three would read "A six foot high wooden board fence shall be installed along the south property line beginning fifteen feet from the front property line and running east to the rear property line and from the southeast corner of the property north to the northeast corner of the property." Hoffman: I'll second. Odom: We have a motion and a second to approve Conditional Use 00-34.00. I'm going to go over briefly with you the changes that he proposed. The first one which was on item number one which basically allows you to go back to staff and say "Hey staff, we have come up with some architecturally acceptable materials other than brick to put on that south facade." That way we avoid the whole metal building and you may be able to avoid having to brick the whole thing. The other thing that he has added to the Conditions of Approval was with regard to item number three which requires you to continue the board fence six foot high along the east property line to help shield against those people to your east. Those are the two changes. Would you like to speak to • • • Planning Commission January 8, 2001 Page 16 either of those? T.Hensen: I might on the back one. There is no one behind us there. Jim is really our only neighbor. We would ask that the back not be included but we would understand if it is. B.Hensen: The picture that Tom brought up a bit ago gives you an idea of how the lay of the land is there, the fence accomplishes nothing. Where the fence will be placed, almost the whole side of the building will be visible. It seems to me to be unnecessary. If the panel feels that strongly about the brick and I understand that you from what Mr. Estes said, I can understand why you guys are trying to protect the rest of the neighborhood. I understand completely. I would like to ask that the fence be eliminated from this because it simply doesn't accomplish anything. Not to mention, even if it did cover up something, why are we covering up something that is so important that we add to the building in the first place? Hoffman: We left the rear siding as is, just metal siding. B.Hensen: I'm talking about the south. Hoffman: Oh, the south wall. I'm sorry. B.Hensen: Yes ma'am. Hoover: I have a couple of questions for staff. The first one is, I'm trying to understand because I don't have our ordinance book in front of me, what is required between residential in an C-2 district? I thought there was setback requirement. What is that supposed to be originally? Conklin: The setback between the C-2 and the R-2 district was fifteen feet. They granted a five foot variance. They will have a ten foot setback on the south property line along for the side setback. The rear setback was twenty feet which was required, the Board granted them a nine foot variance for an eleven foot setback. Hoover: What are the screening requirements that we have? I know that we have some kind of buffer. Conklin: We do have some buffer and screening requirements and it talks about view obscuring vegetation or a combination of fence and vegetation shall be required between R-1 zones and all non-residential uses and in between any commercial industrial use and • • Planning Commission January 8, 2001 Page 17 Hoover: Conklin: Hoover: Conklin: Hoover T.Hensen: adjacent R-2, R-3 and R-0 zones, so we do have screening requirements. It's more than just Commercial Design Standards. I'm looking at two or three things here, Commercial Design Standards, compatibility issues with regard to the findings that have to be made as part of a conditional use and then also the screening requirements as part of our ordinance. I'm looking at our screening requirements and our fence requirement landscaping to help us make that finding that this use is generally compatible with the R- 2 uses adjacent to this site. So, we really don't have much of an option. In my opinion, it is a requirement. We do need to make sure that there is vegetation there that screens it or a fence in order to make that finding that it is compatible and meets our ordinance. I have one more question. The north wall, is that able to be seen from Archibald Yell? I don't understand this relationship of this building to the existing building, it's not shown. The north wall of the building is going to line up with the existing building. That's my understanding. You will not be able to see it. The current building will be sitting up, I think we talked about six to eight feet during the Board of Adjustment, above this building so you will not be able to see that north wall. Originally, when they met with me probably six months ago, we did talk about the possibility of attaching this building onto their existing facility. There is such a difference in grade there that it was not feasible so now we are talking about a stand -along building on this C-2 zoned property. How far apart is this from the existing building? I'm not sure if I can answer that. It's going to be right on the property line for the new building. I'm not sure what dimension between the two buildings. Do you know how far off from the other building it is? They set like this. I would say maybe ten feet. Hoover: I have a little problem with this because I seem to have so little information. I don't have a drawing with the existing building, those dimensions. I'm concerned about, you've got five parking spaces on here which I know this was not the issue at the time but with the warehouse space you are only allowed two, are you going to be able to... I'm thinking down the road on all of this. I guess it just seems... I'm having a hard time with this. • T.Hensen: There was some additional stuff submitted with our application. Do you have that Tim? • • Planning Commission January 8, 2001 Page 18 Conklin: With regard to the photographs? T.Hensen: I'm not sure what Ms. Hoover wants to see but there was some pictures. Hoover: I've got those. Generally, we would have plans with the existing building next to it and maybe a little more information than this. Conklin: They did provide us elevations of all four sides of the building in the photographs. I do have their Polaroid photographs here if you would like to take a look at the color photographs. Keep in mind on the front elevation you are going to have a building with a front door or window and an overhead door. That's one of the reasons we started the fence fifteen feet back, six foot high fence so the homeowner's to the south didn't have to look at the overhead door. Once again, I know we are having a lot of discussion on this and you are not doing anything wrong as the applicant. Anytime you are trying to place a warehouse/storage facility adjacent to a residential district there is always going to be a lot of questions on how to mitigate it's impacts. T.Hensen: Warehouse is kind of an unusual name for it. That s what we thought we should use in this thing with the City, that particular name. Anyway, it's an attractive building and we've been, as I explained to the folks the other day, we've been an asset to the City of Fayetteville and we hope to be in the future. We wouldn't do anything to jeopardize that. Hoover: One more question. Maybe this is what I'm confused most about. Is it warehouse or retail space or both? T.Hensen: No retail. It would just be the parts. We are busting at the seems. We would just put parts in it and we would take those parts out, deliver them to people and sell them. B.Hensen: We wouldn't sell out of it. It would be overflow from the actual store that exists there now that we do business in. T.Hensen: We wanted to build a building similar to the one we have because we wanted it to look nice. Hoover: Thank you. Allen: I wanted to ask if we approve Commission Estes' amendment to conditional use • number one, whether or not that comes back before the Commission as to what sort of • • • Planning Commission January 8, 2001 Page 19 Odom: Allen: Odom: Allen: Estes: Allen: Conklin: T.Hensen: Odom: Hoffman: facade they use or how that's determined? Two points of clarification, number one, there is not an amendment in front of us. Well, his motion that he made amending it for conditional use number one. That motion was that it would be worked out with the staff. So that would not come back through the Planning Commission again? Commissioner Allen, it was my intention in the motion that the wording was such alternative architectural materials to be approved by staff for it not to come back before the full Commission. Therefore, those alternative architectural materials are to be approved by staff. Okay. I just wondered about that. Also, just to comment, I wondered from touring the site, it did seem to me that a fence would be kind of superfluous because of the lay of the land, there is no way that a fence would do much. I wondered about screening with shrubs and trees that would eventually have sorne impact on the aesthetics of the area. The fence is not going to grow and the building is too tall for the fence to seem to have much of an impact. With regard to the fence, that was recommended by staff. Once again, I'm trying to minimize impact on this adjoining property. I think if they are in the back yard it would have some impact on screening that, if you are down in your yard. Once again, if you do landscaping enough with the evergreen trees, that will help also. I was trying to be able to recommend approval for this, this evening and I put fence, vegetation both combined on this conditional use application. We will do those if you all see benefit to it. My only comment about the fence it does sort of seem like it won't be screening that much if you are standing too far back but the adjoining property owner has asked for that. That was the only thing he asked for was that a fence be built to help his spot. Commissioner Hoffman. I want to make it real clear that personally I feel like we need to encourage your business in it's location and redevelopment in that area of town in particular. It's a hard thing to have it right next to a house so close. That's why it may se m that you are • • • Planning Commission January 8, 2001 Page 20 doing more here than you would be doing in the industrial park or something like that. But please don't feel like the Lone Ranger because we have been making construction offices put doo-dads and gig-gaws on them to make them look nicer. That was just in our last meeting so everybody is, since your original building had been built, being held to a much higher standard and hopefully all of those new buildings and additions combined will help to make all of Fayetteville much more attractive. It's not just you. I want you to really understand that. I am very much in support of this motion as it stands. Odom: Do we have any further discussion? Seeing none, will you call the roll? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call CU 00-34.00 is approved on a vote of 6-1-0 with Commissioner Hoover voting • Planning Commission January 8, 2001 Page 21 CU 00-37.00: Conditional Use (LaPachanga, pp 601) was submitted by Hilda Hurtado for property located at 1819 S. School. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 0.80 acres. The request is to allow a dance hall in a C-2 district. Odom: Item number three on tonight's agenda is another conditional use CU 00-37.00 for property located at 1819 S. School. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 0.80 acres. The request is to allow a dance hall in a C-2 district. Staff's recommendation is for approval of the conditional use subject to twelve conditions of approval. Staff are there any further conditions of approval? Conklin: We have no further conditions of approval. The applicant has signed the conditions of approval and are in agreement with every one of them. Odom: Does the applicant wish to make a presentation? Hurtado: One thing I wanted to ask if I could go ahead and get the dance permit on a temporary basis until you guys get out there and visit the premises? Odom: We are doing that tonight. If we grant the conditional use, it will be granted tonight. Right? Conklin: What he is referring to is, I have a couple of conditions in there with regard to our Landscape Administrator going out there and taking a look at what additional landscaping can be incorporated into the parking lot and also a sidewalk. Something I have been working with the property owner on, we just haven't been able to get out there and take a look at it. We had an existing building which was an existing bar Chili Billy's with an existing gravel parking lot. This past summer before they even approached the City they went out there and they did pave the parking lot, so they did improve the area. However, when I did go out there I did talk with them and discuss the possibility of incorporating some landscaping and a sidewalk within this area. It's going to be fairly difficult because where the building is located in close proximity to School Street, I'm not sure how much landscaping we can get in up front. The applicant and the property owner are willing to work with staff and we will try our best to at least get a sidewalk out there and get some additional landscaping in the parking lot. Odom: Okay. The answer to the question is "yes", they can dance until you guys get out there, • can't they? If it's approved? • • • Planning Commission January 8, 2001 Page 22 Conklin: Yes. I would expect to have those improvements done within 90 days. If I have trouble getting those improvements and they don't comply with these conditions, I will bring them back to you. So, yes. Odom: If it's approved, yes you can start. Hurtado: Wonderful. Odom: Is that it? Hurtado: That's it. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: Is there any member of the audience like to address us on this under the public comment section? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom: MOTION: Hoffman: Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Planning Commission for questions or comments. I move for approval of CU 00-38.00 subject to all staff comments with the additional 30 or 90 day, what did you want, 30 or 90 day temporary use permit or should I put that in there Tim? Conklin: That's something I can work that out with the applicant. Once again, the condition is that they comply with what the Landscape Administrator requires and Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator, so I don't think that needs to be in there. Hoffman: Okay. I'll just move for approval subject to all staff comments. Allen: I second. Odom. Any further discussion? You going to have disco? Hurtado: No. • • • Planning Commission January 8, 2001 Page 23 Hoffman: Are you going to have dance lessons? Hurtado: We might. Odom: Any further discussion? Call the roll. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call CU 00-37.00 is approved by a unanimous vote of 7-0-0. • • Planning Commission January 8, 2001 Page 24 AD 00-46.00: Administrative Item to Amend the Definition of a Family in the UDO to restrict domestic servants as a Conditional Use in residential districts. Odom. The next item we have on tonight's agenda is an administrative item AD 00-46.00 to amend the definition of a family in the UDO to restrict domestic service as a conditional use in residential districts. The staff's recommendation of this motion is to pass a resolution to direct staff to prepare an order to amend chapter 151 Definitions of Family to allow domestic servants only as a conditional use. The current ordinance allows for domestic servants as a use by right and are not considered in the calculation of the number of unrelated persons living within a dwelling unit. Staff, I know that this item you are bringing forward to us because of some concerns that some neighborhoods have brought forward to the Planning Division and you have done a little bit of research on this issue and pulled up some other ordinances. Would you like to make a small presentation at this time? Conklin: Yes I would I am bringing this forward, I have received some complaints in the past and some concerns with regard to the number of individuals living within a structure and certain structures being used other than for a single family home. What I looked at was this issue of domestic servants, we have currently two are three situations in Fayetteville where we do have individuals who have given the City of Fayetteville or me, the Planning Division, domestic servants agreements. Staff is concerned about the number of domestic servants and their impacts on adjoining property owners. Staff would like to look at amending the ordinance. We currently have an ordinance on the books that states that you can have up to three unrelated people within an structure and also you can have domestic servants. Not to take anything away but require that domestic servants be approved only as a conditional use and not by right. I think it's important that the Planning Commission and the neighborhoods be aware of when there is a request for additional domestic servants within a household. That they be aware that is going to be applied for and that it can be approved as a conditional use. I have looked at the definition of families in northwest Arkansas and I have the definitions for Rogers, Springdale and Bentonville and will go over those really quickly. The definition in the City of Rogers is "In addition to customary domestic servants, either (a) an individual or two or more persons related by blood, marriage or adoption, maintaining a common household in a dwelling unit." Then it has some provisions with regard to a group of physically handicapped persons up to eight with two additional helpers that can live in the house is also defined as a family. The City of Springdale's definition is "One or more persons occupying a single dwelling unit, and living as a single, non-profit housekeeping unit, provided that unless all members are related by blood or marriage, no such family shall contain over four persons, but further provided that domestic • • • Planning Commission January 8, 2001 Page 25 Odom: servants employed on the premises may be housed on the premises without being counted as a separate family." So, Springdale allows up to four unrelated people and they also allow domestic servants by right. City of Bentonville, their definition is "One or more persons occupying a single dwelling unit, provided that unless all members are related by blood or marriage or adoption, no such family shall contain over four persons, but further provided that domestic servants employed on the premises may be housed on the premises without being counted as a family or families." It's similar to Fayetteville's except they allow up to four. What I'm recommending this evening is, we did have some questions at agenda session with regard to our definition and how we currently calculate the number of unrelated people. I would like to have chairman Odom appoint a subcommittee Planning Commission to look at this definition further and meet with our City Attorney to discuss the legal implications of amending that part of the definition which refers to the number of unrelated people. Once again, that was not my intention, but it did come up at agenda session and if that's the intent of the Planning Commission to further look at or redefine the actual number of unrelated people, we do need to move with caution and meet with our City Attorney and at least form a recommendation that should come back to the Planning Commission. Once again, this is in response to concerns that neighborhoods have voiced to the Planning Division. There is concern with regard to the University of Arkansas expanding their enrollment and the impact on surrounding neighborhoods near the University and other neighborhoods that the Planning Division has dealt with over the past few years with regard to the number of unrelated people. Typically, when we do receive a complaint, we do notify the property owner/homeowner what the ordinance requirements are, if there are individuals, more than three unrelated people, we do give them a period of time to find additional housing elsewhere and bring their number down to three. That's basically the information that I have this evening with regard to this definition and what we are trying to accomplish by making domestic servants a conditional use in Fayetteville. Thank you. Thank you for that short report. While we are not going to take any action on this item tonight, we do want to take public comment on this issue so, if there are members of the audience would you please come forward at this time, introduce yourselves and make comment. Harrison: My name is John Harrison, I live at 611 North Oliver. I thank you for the opportunity to say a few words about this. The expansion of the University in residential community is a phenomena and the increasing expansion of the number of students at the University of Arkansas, I imagine all of you have witnesses. Currently on three sides of the University campus, we have areas where there has been considerable conversion of • • • Planning Commission January 8, 2001 Page 26 residential housing into multiple student units of one sort or another. The west side of the campus is the only remaining fairly in -tact residential neighborhood adjacent to the campus. Within two blocks of the property in question, there are several houses valued anywhere from $100,00 to $400,000. Recently, l think you looked at another case on Sunset where a two family dwelling had been used for multiple students too. I, as a former dean and faculty member at the University of Arkansas, I have nothing against students. But I do regret that we can't keep in tact an R-1 zoning in a neighborhood that still looks like a neighborhood. That's what it has amounted to. These two properties that are on this lot at the corner of Maple and Oliver are surrounded by one family homes. The first house that was on the lot when Mr. Schmidt or his company acquired it, has been non-compliant and I filed a complaint two or three years ago and I believe it's still non -complying. The new home that was constructed and I don't know ifinembers have seen this and I think you should look at it, it's interesting, has•almost been constructed in defiance of the R-1 zoning. It's ground level, it has two adjacent entryways even. It regularly parks six and seven cars around it. This is adjacent to homes that have been built anywhere to 30 to 50 years ago. There is currently a Razorback flag flying from the third floor. I can understand that this may seem out of context but this is the context of this consideration. Are we going to have an in -tact R- 1 zoning or not? This is an attempt to circumvent that regulation. Thank you. Odom: Thank you very much Mr. Harrison. Any other member of the audience please come forward at this time and identify yourself. Benedict: My name is John Benedict and my mother, Lona Benedict, lives at 535 Oliver. I guess I'm speaking for myself and my mother. Both she and I are long time residents. She has been over there over 40 years and I've been on Oliver Street over 25 years. Both of us are in favor of retaining the R-1 neighborhood. We both chose to live there. I lived in another house on Oliver Street as well. We both chose to live there because it was R-1. If we wanted to live somewhere else where there were multiple units we would have lived at another location but we chose to live there because it was R-1. It would seem to me that you should be able to tell on the front end, in most cases, if the building application comes before you that calls for elaborate servants quarters, which has happened on this street and/or if you have a house that maybe it's 1,500 or 1,600 square feet but it has six rooms that have full closets, it would seem to me that you could tell on the front end what the use of this house is going to be and this is the case. I don't know if this is going to solve the problem is what I'm saying. I'm in favor of this. It would seem to me also, on the front end, you should be able to tell something and maybe head this off to begin with. We are in favor of the R-1. I don't feel like the servants issue should be a loophole for allowing more than three unrelated people to • • • Planning Commission January 8, 2001 Page 27 live there. That's the main point I guess. I can see certain instances like, my mother is a cancer patient, let's say that she decides to stay in her house and she has around the clock care, someone could say there is three unrelated people going in and out of her house at all hours. This would seem to be legitimate. They wouldn't necessarily live there around the clock but someone could say, in the same neighborhood, that my mother had more than three unrelated people going in and out of her house. There seems to me to be conditions that would lead to maybe a permit or conditional use regarding health care. As far as living in a house, I think R-1 should be retainined especially in this neighborhood. Thanks. Odom: Thank you very much Mr. Benedict. Weiss: - - My name is George Weiss and I live on 1614 Sawyer Lane. I am also a member of our neighborhood association and co -coordinator of our block captains. There are number of people in our neighborhood association, which is just west of the campus, who are concerned about this issue. I see it, we have an ordinance trying to retain R-1 zoning that can't reasonably be enforced the way it stands right now and I think we need to do something about it. I think one of the problems, as Tim pointed out, has to do with the clause in there talking about domestic servants. I think the property that the two gentlemen talked about before concerns six people living in one house, three of them are counted as renters and the other tree are domestic servants. I think this is just the way of circumventing the R-1 zoning. So I would appreciate anything you can do to help us be able to enforce this ordinance better and for Tim to be able to enforce this ordinance better. Odom: Thank you Mr. Weiss and I apologize for my interruption. Any other member of the audience? Maynard: My name is Richard Maynard. I'm with the ? Neighborhood Association. I came down here because this is a neighborhood issue and so it doesn't seem like a University Heights issue Just to give them support, we are near the University too, rental properties. Basically, students coming in does create problems and we wholeheartedly support this. I thank Mr. Conklin for coming up with the idea. I think the subcommittee is also a great idea because all of a sudden I can think of about five other loopholes even if we get this one solved that somebody could get around and I think since we are attacking this, trying to close this up, let's try to close it up in a lot of different directions. I do hope that since group homes are licensed for foster care, for people with disabilities, that perhaps that can Just be an automatic exemption. It seems to be that would not be a problem. What the gentlemen said before would be pretty • • • Planning Commission January 8, 2001 Page 28 clear cut. We are just here to support this. Odom. Thank you Richard. Frankenberger: My name is Steve Frankenberger, 414 W. Prospect. I see this definition, it's just the very core of our zoning laws, we don't have a zoning law if we don't have this definition. The very existence of our neighborhoods depends upon these zoning laws. This situation is happening in my neighborhood now. I know. We implore you to fix this loophole. Thank you very much. Odom: Thank you Mr. Frankenberger. Any other member of the audience like to address us on this item? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom: Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the Planning Commission for perhaps some brief discussion before I appoint a committee. Hoffman: I would just like to say, I see this as a public safety and aesthetics issue for the City. I have my personal and other experience. Probably 50% of the complaint calls that I receive have to do with this very issue. I did talk with Mrs. Benedict when the new structure was under construction and I know that we are not singling out anybody and don't intend to with this discussion tonight but that it was her fear that this would happen and that has been realized. I would like to lend some support. I don't want to be appointed to the committee but I've looked up some other ordinances. Did you get my email, by the way, Tim? Conklin: Yes, I did. There is a tremendous amount of information on this subject especially with all the court cases. I have three books right here that have numerous definitions of a family too. Hoffman: I'll offer time at the end of Subdivision Committee meetings if you want to add that to that time slot. It's up to you. I don't really want to actually be on the committee. Odom: I'll just point out that this issue is pretty important. The integrity and safety of the neighborhoods is something that people feel is one of the strong parts of the quality of life in the City of Fayetteville. This is a very important issue. We however have to be sensitive to a lot of the legal requirements that we have on this and not only are there loopholes but there may be some unintended consequences is we go too far or too • • • Planning Commission January 8, 2001 Page 29 reaching which is why it is important that we appoint this subcommittee. To make sure that those concerns are addressed. To make sure that we don't end up affecting people that we didn't intend to affect to begin with. So having said that I am going to appoint Commissioner Estes, Commissioner Allen and Commissioner Hoover to the committee and ask that you all convene and meet with the City Attorney and bring back to the Planning Commission an ordinance that is going to be legally sound proof and make everybody happy and solve all the problems in the City of Fayetteville. Do we have any other comments on that? Staff, do we have any other items that are tonight's agenda? Conklin: There is no other business. I would like for those who are in attendance tonight who are interested to give me their names, addresses and phone numbers so I can contact you of the subcommittee meetings. Odom: We'll be sure and keep the public informed of the subcommittee meetings so that you all may participate in that as well. There being nothing further, we are adjourned. • • • Planning Comm. Meeting 1-8-01 CU 00-37.00 La Pachanga, pp 601 AD 00-46.00 Definition of "Family" Amendment MOTION fid 1' afi SECOND Ai D. Bunch B. Estes L. Hoffman S. Hoover N. Allen 1I D. ManY C. Odom Shackelford 1jo * L. Ward 1 ACTION app(aTed r \i(nl VOTE .0-0 • • • Planning Comm. Meeting 1-8-01 Minutes of the December 11, 2000 meeting CU 0'-33.00 City o . •tteville (Wilson Par 445) , pp CU 00-34.00 Hensen, pp 523 MOTION Es • SECOND • Ige\ D. Bunch B. Estes L. Hoffman I 77 S. Hoover N. Allen D. Marr *OOSSZA\t- C. Odom Shackelford Gtkaltt L. Ward ACTION aeProu-ed aper d VOTE LQ - I -