Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-04-23 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on April 23, 2001, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN AD 01-17.00: Administrative Item (Bandy, pp 484) Approved Page 7 CU 01-10.00: Conditional Use (Gohn, pp 525) Approved Page 13 CU 01-8.00: Conditional Use (McElveen & Rush, PLC, pp 445) Approved Page 15 CU 01-9.00: Conditional Use (Camp Mountain Brook, pp 399) Approved Page 23 AD 01-11.00: Administrative Item (Dandy, pp 524) Approved Page 25 RZ 01-8.00: Rezoning (WHM Land Investments, pp 439) Approved Page 47 Discussion reconsideration of CU 01-3.00: Approved • Conditional Use (Cricket Communications, Inc , pp 528) Page 3 Discussion of AD 01-15.00: Administrative Item (Outdoor Lighting) Subcommittee Appointed • Page 49 • • • • MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Nancy Allen Don Bunch Lorel Hoffman Sharon Hoover Lee Ward Bob Estes Don Marr Loren Shackelford Alice Bishop STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Tim Conklin Dawn Warrick Ron Petrie Kit Williams Sheri Metheney Kim Hesse Chuck Rutherford • • Planning Commission April 23, 2001 Page 3 Old Business: Discussion of CU 01-3.00: Conditional Use (Cricket Communications Inc., pp 528) was submitted by Craig Hull on behalf of Cricket Communications Inc , for property owned by Preston & Eunice Ferguson located behind 2908 E Huntsville Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 0.11 acres. The request is for a 150' monopole to support wireless communications facilities (use unit 3) in a C-2 district. Estes: Welcome to the Monday evening April 23, 2001, meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. Normally the first item of business to be considered by your Fayetteville Planning Commission is consideration of the minutes. Because of the length of the meeting and the volume of the comment, the minutes have not been completed and. were not available in time for this meeting. Commissioners, when these minutes are available they will be included in your packets. That brings us to the first item of business, this is a carryover from the April 9, 2001 meeting, discussion of CU 01- 3.00, Conditional Use for Cricket Communications, Inc. submitted by Craig Hull on behalf of Cricket Communications Inc., for property owned by Preston & Eunice Ferguson located behind 2908 E Huntsville Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 0.11 acres. The request was for a 150' monopole to support wireless communications facilities (use unit 3) in a C-2 district. The conditional use was denied. Commissioners, is there any discussion or comment regarding this item? Hoffman: Did we want to ask the City Attorney or the staff to explain the reason for this before the Commission starts discussion? Conklin: I'll refer it to the City Attorney. Estes: Mr. Williams, do you have any comment before we begin our discussion? Williams: Mr. Chairman, my only comments would be this would simply be, if the Commission wishes to do a motion to reconsider, it would have to be proposed by one of the five members that voted affirmative or in the majority at the last meeting. The reason that I requested some consideration by the Commission for this is so that we could be extremely clear and factual when make the determination because of the fact there is federal law involved in this and that we have to get very clear factual basis for the decision in a case like this. • Estes: Commissioners, is there any discussion regarding this item of old business. • • • Planning Commission April 23, 2001 Page 4 Hoffman: Since I was the mover on the last motion to deny, if I remember correctly, or I did have a lot to say about the site selection. I would like to ask the applicant if he could come up and let me ask you a couple of questions in preparation for a move to reconsider this item? The reasons that I stated in the last meeting had to do with the fact that I was concerned about the method of site selection and the fact that it was contained to a one quarter mile radius. At agenda session we repeated that and I think that you were going to have a bit more information for us just to clarify that issue. Will you be prepared to discuss that at the next meeting, the site selection criteria? My second question is, have you, since that meeting, looked at any other sites? Hull: We will be prepared and the RF engineer has agreed to attend as well as, we are going to get supporting documentation from the technician that was in the field negotiating the original site lease agreement and his thought process involved with that. I am no longer directly representing Cricket or the site acquisition team at this point. I'm representing the proposed tower builders in this case and I don't have any direct information about additional sites at this time. I can tell you that we had a very warm comfortable meeting with the neighborhood association on Saturday and got a lot of good dialog accomplished in that meeting about the issues involved in this particular site and we'll be prepared, as well as Cricket, in providing other information that you are needing on this particular application at the 14th meeting. Hoffman: The reason I'm asking the question, the second part of the question has to do with if you had looked at an additional ste, it would seem to me that that would be an entirely new application and I'm trying to shave time off of this already lengthy process that you've gone through. If you have a new site in mind, I guess Mr. Chair help me out here, we don't know and I don't know if you can tell us but if you have a new site in mind, then we would be looking at a new application and starting from scratch, is that right? Estes: Tim, may the applicant submit another application at any time to site the tower in another location? Conklin: Yes. If they do go to a different location they will be required to submit a new conditional use permit application which will be a new request before this Commission. I have passed around this evening an email from Gary Sorenson that was sent to me on April 2151, regarding the cell tower on Highway 16. Apparently there had been some communication, I'm assuming maybe by Mr. Hull or someone representing the tower, with regard to placing it behind Baker Equipment because that is referenced in this email that you do have before you. To somewhat answer your question, "Has another • • • Planning Commission Apnl 23, 2001 Page 5 site been looked at?", I have a document here that talks about Baker Equipment directly south of this current location. Hoffman: Do you have a preference on whether or not, I need to put this to both staff and the applicant, whether or not we reconsider the same site or go with a new application? Hull: MOTION: I have a preference from the people I represent to proceed with the application that's in front of you. If there is another application submitted by other parties, it would be not my client's and not this particular use permit that's submitted. Since I have changed forces since our last meeting, in focus of my local client's, I don't have information I can provide you but I will get that for you for this. As far as the process, not only do they have to go through whole new loops with the City but there is FAA, there is all kinds of other considerations. If we move this same site 20 feet over on the Ferguson's property, we do it all again. It's that specific once you get to this point and it's taken a year to get to here. Hoffman: I'm trying to understand and also at the same time trying to be a little user friendly with this but it looks like that may not be as easily accomplished as we would all want. I'll go ahead and move that we reconsider this particular item CU 01-3.00 at our next meeting. Estes: There is a motion to reconsider the denial of CU 01-3.00 that was done at the April 9, 2001, meeting. Is there a second to the motion? Allen: I'll second. Estes: There is a motion and second that we reconsider the denial of CU 01-3.00. Commissioners, is there any discussion? Bunch: Is there a date on the reconsideration? Hoffman: It's our next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting which is the 14th of May. Estes: Any further discussion? I will vote against the motion for reconsideration and the reason is, at the April 9, 2001 meeting, one of the findings of fact that we were mandated to make was consideration of proximity to single family residences. At the • • • Planning Commission April 23, 2001 Page 6 April 9, 2001 meeting, I voted against this conditional use and gave the reason being it's proximity to single family residences, namely the local neighborhood. That has not changed in the past seven days and it's for that reason I will vote against the motion. Any other comment or discussion? Sheri, would you call the roll please? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call the motion to reconsider CU 01-3.00 passes on a vote of 7-1-0, with Commissioner Estes voting "No". Planning Commission April 23, 2001 Page 7 New Business: AD 01-17.00: Administrative Item (Bandy, pp 484) was submitted by Benton Bandy for property located at 227 W. Dickson. The property is zoned C-3, Central Commercial. The request is for approval of a shared parking agreement to accommodate additional square footage for an outdoor patio. Estes: The next item of business to come before the Commission is our first item of new business. It is administrative item 01-17.00 submitted by Benton Bandy for property located at 227 W. Dickson. The property is zoned C-3, Central Commercial. The request is for approval of a shared parking agreement to accommodate additional square footage for an outdoor patio. Staff recommends approval of the proposed shared parking agreement subject to the following conditions: Number one, any exterior modifications to the structure shall comply with Commercial Design Standards. Drawings of proposed elevations are required to be submitted with a building permit request to finish out the interior of the structure. Number two, employees of the applicant's business shall be required to utilize shared parking spaces. Number three, Planning Commission determination of a requested waiver of a condition placed on the Conditional Use permit for a Dance Hall approved April 9, 2001 regarding outdoor music. The required parking will allow for the addition of an outdoor patio - as shown in the attached site plan. The applicant has requested that the Planning Commission permit some outdoor music for patrons on the patio. If Planning Commission chooses to approve this waiver request, staff recommends that the music be limited to only programmed music or small ensemble acts ending no later than 9:00 p.m. Are there any additional conditions of approval? Conklin: Yes there is. Staff would recommend condition number four, we talked about it during our agenda session, that is a sign will be posted on the premise notifying additional parking available for all patrons at 209 Watson Street. That corresponds with the shared parking agreement in the lot that they plan on sharing on Watson Street. Also, staff did have some discussions today regarding what is meant by condition number three, small ensemble acts. Staff would recommend we limit that to a maximum of two persons. Estes: Is the applicant present? Conklin: Yes. • • • • Planning Commission April 23, 2001 Page 8 Estes: Do we have signed conditions of approval, staff'? Conklin: No, we do not. Estes: Would you say your name please? Rapert: My name is Jimmy Rapert. Estes: Mr. Rapert, if you would tell us what we need to know about your request, please? Rapert: My main purpose for being here tonight is to ask you to approve a shared parking agreement that would allow us to build an outdoor seating area in front of our business. While this does result in a net loss of three parking spaces, this would be more than offset by substantial gain of twenty-five parking spaces. Before I can continue I would like to point out that I've worked in the downtown Dickson area for 15 years and I'm very much awareof the dynamics that exist between commercial and residential areas, as well as the overall goals of the community to develop downtown Dickson Street as an entertainment district. We believe that the coexistence of the two are not only mutually beneficial but also vital to the success of the downtown area. Before I continue I would like to address one issue that Commissioner Estes brought up in the last meeting about occupancy and clarify that approval of the patio does not impact the net occupancy of the facility. To facilitate the review of this issue, I've identified four outcomes of voting "yes" and one outcome of voting "no". As I say, we would be losing three of five parking spaces located in front of the building but we gain twenty- five across the street. We would be eliminating a safety hazard with regard to back -out parking over a sidewalk. We would replacing a parking area with a visually appealing patio and we would be supporting DDEP's Sidewalk Plan and enhance the strollability of Dickson Street, encouraging pedestrian traffic for people to park and walk. PUBLIC COMMENT: Estes: Is there any member of the audience which would like to provide comment regarding this requested administrative item? If so, would you please come to the podium, say your name and give us your address and provide us with your comments? Young. Cyrus Young, 210 North Locust. The reason I'm here is to address the waiver of the parking or whatever you want to describe it. Yesterday I had a discussion about recycling. Each time the question of commercial recycling comes up on Dickson Street, the merchants start talking about "We can't give up any parking spaces". That's the • • • Planning Commission April 23, 2001 Page 9 only reason I'm here. On the other hand, whenever they want to do something like this, they have plenty of parking spaces. I'm just wanting to put this in the record In times like this they have plenty of parking but then when commercial recycling comes around, they can't give up the parking. The point is that the merchants down there need to speak with a clear voice and be consistent in their question of parking down there. A lot of the merchants, I know, are interested in recycling, I've talked with them. When it comes to giving up a parking space to provide for recycling, that's another issue. Thank you. Estes: Is there any other member of the audience which would like to comment on this administrative item? Ackerman:: I'm Bootsie Ackerman, Director of the Downtown Dickson Enhancement Project. I just wanted to say a couple of words of support for this outdoor patio and particularly the elimination of the back -out parking onto Dickson Street. As we've planned the streetscape improvements along Dickson Street, several of the most contentious areas for redesign have been places such as this location which hacks parking across the sidewalks. It's a significant safety issue and I'm happy to see that Jimmy Rapert has not only proposed to renovate the front of this building and create an attractive renovation of an existing building on this street, but also is willing to give up this parking directly in front of his door to make a more congenial streetscape improvement. Also, I think the addition of the patio provides a place for people to commune and interact in the public areas and that adds a lot to the livability and viability of our community and I fully support it. Thank you for hearing me and I hope you'll support these fellows in their endeavor to improve the property and add to the enjoyment of our community Thank you. Estes: Ms. Ackerman, is the requested waiver of these parking spaces consistent with what is planned for Dickson Street and if not, could you explain or if so, could you please explain? Ackerman: I think it is. We are only talking about three parking spaces here because the continuation of the curb along the front of the building will take two places there and there is plenty of room in the adjacent parking lot, in the shared nature of parking in the downtown area is consistent with this plat. I think it's a perfectly legitimate plan and I think it's important to note that Jimmy has put in writing his desire to create a compatible situation with the neighbors and the community as far as the noise from his business and activity outdoors, limiting the music and things like that. All you have to do is see how wonderful Jose's patio is on the street, it's a wonderful addition to the • • • Planning Commission April 23, 2001 Page 10 Estes: street. This is in another area of the street which extends that liveliness and that viability down the street. I think we are fully supportive of it and I hope you'll approve his request. Thank you Ms. Ackerman. Is there any other member of the audience that would like to comment on this requested administrative item? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the applicant. Mr. Rapert, do you have any response to anything that's been said? Rapert: No. I enclosed a letter from Frank Sharp, our neighbor directly to the east. Yet he was reluctant to sign a parking agreement, that space is right next door to us and he is willing to share his lot with us during those hours. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Estes: I'll bring it back to the Commission for discussions, motions. Hoffman: I would like to take this opportunity to use this project as an example of what good planning and complete planning can do. I voted against the project last time because I felt that there were many unanswered questions and that it seems to me that you all have addressed those questions finally. We do not have the neighbors worried about the cars parking up and down Locust, although I understand Cyrus's concern about the loss of parking. I think that shared parking agreements for businesses that operate at different times of the day are certainly to be encouraged and I think that anything we can do to enhance Dickson Street particularly with the many vacancies that have come up lately, we should do. I would just like to state that and get this on the record that, as projects come forward, it seems to me, that we all need to be better stewards of not brining partial plans to the Planning Commission and having them better thought out and more completely thought out as this one is than it was last time. I considered last time to be a waste of my time but I was a minority on that vote too, I understand that. I'll vote to approve this conditional use. Estes: MOTION: Hoffman: Estes: Any other discussion? Any motions? I meant to move to approve AD 01-17.00. Commissioner Hoffman, does that include the waiver request? • • • Planning Commission April 23, 2001 Page 11 Hoffman: It includes the waiver request and it includes the signage on number two. Are you in agreement with the limitation of two performers for the outside area? Rapert: Yes. Hoffman: I'll include that too. Estes: There is a motion made, is there a second? Bunch: I'll second. Estes: There is a motion made by Commissioner Hoffman and seconded by Commissioner Bunch to approve Administrative Item 01-17.00, is there any discussion? Marr: Just a question for the applicant. Is there going to be any landscaping when you do the patio? I don't see any. Yes Commissioner Marr, there will be. We are trying to come to an agreement on that. I would like to make it a softer approach to it so that if flows better giving you a little bit more greenspace. Shackelford: We don't have signed conditions of approval prior to taking this vote, are there any issues with the four conditions of approval that you have any grievances with? Are you in agreement with all the other conditions of approval? Rapert: I'm in agreement. Estes: Any other discussion? Marr: One more question for staff. The outdoor music, I know we have put certain limitations on certain patios and businesses previously or notations relative to complying with the sound ordinance. I noticed that is not in this, unless I'm missing something, to this particular condition, the sound ordinance requirement. Conklin: We did place that in the previous conditional use for a dance hall. The noise ordinance does apply to this patio. We do that more to make sure that the applicant is aware of that. If you feel like it's needed, we can add it in there but they still have to comply with the noise ordinance. • • • Planning Commission April 23, 2001 Page 12 Marr: I would dust like to make it clear if the motion would accept that added to condition number three. Hoffman: I'll accept that because I do feel this is more of the overall picture of the project and when we go back to look at the plans, these are the ones that we are going to see rather than the ones from two weeks ago. Estes: Commissioner Bunch, does the second accept that? Bunch: Yes. Estes: Any further discussion? Sheri, would you call the roll please? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call AD 01-17.00 is approved by a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • • • Planning Commission April 23, 2001 Page 13 CU 01-10.00: Conditional Use (Gohn, pp 525) was submitted by Lyle & Sue Gohn for property located at 1055 Rodgers Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.65 acres. The request is for a home occupation to teach pnvate music lessons in addition to the existing single family residence. Estes: The next item of new business to come before your Commission is item number two on the agenda, conditional use 01-1.00 submitted by Lyle & Sue Gohn for property located at 1055 Rodgers Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.65 acres. The request is for a home occupation to teach private music lessons in an addition to the existing single family residence. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use subject to four conditions of approval. The first condition is, the maximum number of students per week shall be 15. Number two, the addition to the single family home shall function as a part of the home and shall not be converted to a second dwelling unit without Planning Commission approval. Number three, compliance with §163.19 Home Occupations. Number three, the applicant shall complete an application for a Home Business Permit and pay the initial $25.00 fee. An annual renewal fee of $12.50 shall be due in January of each calendar year that the home occupation is operating. Staff, are there any additional conditions of approval? Conklin: There are no further conditions of approval and we do have a signed conditions of approval on this. Estes: Is the applicant present? Would you like to come forward and tell us who you are and what we need to know about your conditional use request? Gohn: I'm Sue Gohn and our plan is to have an addition to the house that would be connected by decking. It would not have a separate driveway. The students would still be coming on our front sidewalk and then taking the decking to the side of the house over to the addition which is very close, again connected by decking. I teach piano and was not aware that I needed a conditional use permit. I've had several students for quite a length of time, so I'm confessing that I really did not know it. Of course I'm more than glad to do so. I agree to all the conditions. It's not going to be used for anything else. I have my masters in music and have taught piano in different states for quite a while, about 30 years. That's what we are looking at. I will be practicing a substantial amount of time over there, as well as teaching a few students. • • • Planning Commission April 23, 2001 Page 14 PUBLIC COMMENT* Estes: Thank you. Is there any member of the audience which would like to comment on this requested conditional use? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Estes: Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Commission for discussion or motions. MOTION: Marr: I would like to move for approval of Conditional Use 01-10.00 subject to staff conditions. Shackelford: I'll second. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Marr and second by Commissioner Shackelford. to approve Conditional Use 01-10.00. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, Sheri will you call the roll please? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call CU 01-10.00 is approved by a unanimous vote of 7-0-0. • • • Planning Commission April 23, 2001 Page 15 CU 01-8.00: Conditional Use (McElveen & Rush, PLC, pp 445) was submitted by Patrick Rush on behalf of McElveen & Rush, PLC for property located at 505 N. Shady Avenue. The property is zoned R-3, High Density Residential and contains approximately 0.23 acres. The request is for a professional office as a limited neighborhood commercial use in the R-3 district. Estes: The next item of business is item number three, Conditional Use 01-8.00 submitted by Patrick Rush on behalf of McElveen & Rush, PLC for property located at 505 N. Shady Avenue. The property is zoned R-3, High Density Residential and contains approximately 0.23 acres. The request is for a professional office as a limited neighborhood commercial use in the R-3 district. Staff recommends approval of this conditional use request subject to five conditions of approval Staff, do we have signed conditions of approval? Conklin: Yes we do. Estes: The conditions of approval are: number one, Planning Commission determination of a waiver requested by the applicant regarding the surfacing materials for required off- street parking. The applicant proposes to utilize an existing gravel driveway and concrete pad for on-site parking. Number two, this professional office shall be established as a law office for a maximum of two attorneys with no staff or employees. Number three, the applicant shall work with the City Inspections Division and obtain required permits regarding any necessary modifications or upgrades to electrical, plumbing, structural or other systems in the structure to ensure that the building is sound and meets building code requirements for the proposed office and residential uses. Number four, signage shall be limited to one 8"x14" plaque on the east wall beside the main entry door which is compatible in design and color with the brick construction of the structure. This sign will be lighted only by the existing porch light. Number five, a continuous row of shrubs shall be installed between the existing gravel driveway and Shady Ave. to provide a buffer between the parking and the street frontage. Is the applicant present? Rush: Yes. Estes: Is there a presentation that you would like to make to the Commission at this time? Rush: Mr. Chair, we do not have a formal presentation as such but I thought I would just quickly reiterate. You've touched the major points. Mr. McElveen and myself are the owners of 505 Shady Avenue. We wish to turn it into a professional office, two attorney's. It's currently zoned R-3. We are very interested in keeping the character • • • Planning Commission April 23, 2001 Page 16 of the neighborhood as it is. This residence was in quite poor shape when we bought it. We are committed to renovating it and improving the appearance inside and out. We are also in the process of converting the upstairs, which was not finished previous to us buying it, into an upscale apartment. That will help to keep the character of a residential neighborhood, it won't strictly be an office, it will also be a residence. Just to reiterate, we are extremely interested in keeping the character of the neighborhood and that's one of the things that appealed to us, why we chose that spot. PUBLIC COMMENT: Estes: Is there any member of the audience that would like to comment on this requested conditional use? Frankenberger: My name is Steve Frankenberger, 414 West Prospect. I'm chairman of the Wilson Park Neighborhood Association and we offer no objection at all to this conditional use permit. Any time someone comes into our neighborhood and wants to take over a beautiful old structure like this and revitalize it, we have to be in favor of that. Considering that it's zoned R-3, much worse could be happening here. I would like to voice some concerns that were raised by my neighborhood when I polled them. The concept of having an R-3 zone with .23 acres, just makes no sense at all to me. How this happened, I can't imagine a possible use in the R-3 zone that anyone can have for .23 acres. I would like to request that could we have the same conditional use allowed if the owners would agree to a zoning of R-1 or R-2? That would make the neighbors less nervous. Estes: Staff? Frankenberger: Is that something that they could do later? We're giving our approval on this and we are just asking in good faith, is there something that could be done? Conklin: The City of Fayetteville and the Planning staff have been repeatedly told that we can not negotiate zone changes. That's a legislative act City Council makes, it's not something we negotiate here at Planning Commission level. We have worked with applicants in the past with regard to if they want to offer some type of Bill of Assurance to limit the type of zoning. With regard to sitting down and saying "We'll give you a conditional use if you give us this downzoning", is something I don't think we should do as part of the City of Fayetteville. • • Planning Commission April 23, 2001 Page 17 Estes: I don't think that's what Steve was asking, he's asking is if downzoning is possible and it is. Frankenberger: I'm not asking for that at all. We are behind these guys. I'm just asking the question that if at sometime in the future if they went along with an R-1 zoning or R-2 zoning, can they keep their conditional use permit without risking losing it? Conklin: Yes they can. The limit of neighborhood commercial use ordinance does allow that in an R-1 zoning. The answer is yes the City of Fayetteville can look at downzoning property in the City of Fayetteville. We did a comprehensive rezoning in 1970 that established many of the current zones that we have today. Frankenberger: My other concern that was voiced in the neighborhood was, at any time in this process if they were filing this application, did the Planning Commission ever tell these gentlemen "Go talk to your neighbors"? Where they asked that? Here's my point, we want to be good neighbors, that's what a neighborhood association is all about and I would hate for a situation to come up in the future where someone had spent their money, invested their money that went into making an alteration on a property like this and then the neighborhood show up with pitchforks, torches and a rope when it wasn't necessary. Conklin: I can respond to that. Our office does encourage the applicants to talk with the neighbors and to make sure that they explain the project and how it's going to impact the neighbors. We do try to encourage that. Almost every day when we have applicants... Frankenberger: You tell them to contact the neighborhood association in the area? Conklin: Neighborhood associations, neighbors. I can't guarantee you it happened on this one but typically on a conditional use where we are changing land use into some type of limited neighborhood commercial use, we do encourage applicants to go out and talk to their neighbors. Frankenberger: I just wanted to make those points. Other than that, we have no objection whatsoever. Jordan: My name is Bob Jordan, I live at 280 Ila Street. Some of you may know that I was • quite involved in the great Fayetteville tree debate last year and I'm a member of • • • Planning Commission April 23, 2001 Page 18 We've Had Enough. I'm also a professional home inspector and as a home inspector I've seen that there is a human condition exhibited many times The condition seems to be that when someone is selling a house they have a severe case of memory loss or selective memory. With other things that are going on in the City now, I'm seeing that a lot of people have another severe case of a human condition that is reaching epidemic proportions. It seems that developers and builders do what they want and ask permission later. Lately we've seen Sweetser Properties cutting down the two huge black walnut trees and then applying for the LSD. I do commend you for slapping them on the wrist. I doubt that they even winced but thank you. Tonight we are looking at another property, I'm not sure about this, I've recently heard of another property where a developer/builder cut down one acre of trees, I'm not sure if that's on the agenda tonight or not, and then is now asking for the Planning Commission to accept his plans. While there may be some question as to whether he actually broke the law, there is little doubt that he was probably trying to skirt it. This situation has really got to stop because we are losing things so rapidly. I urge you that you work with the City Attorney, Mayor and the Board of Alderman to enact some kind of law immediately so that people who skirt the law, so that it's more painful to skirt the law than it is to follow the law. It has become an epidemic and we are fighting human nature. People always want to get things done cheaply and easily. With that said, this also brings us to the Wilson Park Historic District and the conditional use permit requested here. First I want to give you a little history of things that have gone on in Wilson Park. I'm not sure if any of the anger and frustration that some of the citizens of our area has been expressed here tonight or not. There was a property, I'm not sure the exact address, just north of the 505 Shady Lane property which is zoned R-1. It had a conditional use permit and had been used for probably 25 or 30 years as a boarding house but it wasn't R-1. When Mrs. Rocks died, the property should have reverted to R-1. The new owners, it's kind of convoluted because there were three new owners before it got to this stage, the owner thought that it had always been an apartment building and remodeled it as an apartment building and it fell through the cracks. The Planning Department apparently never questioned what went on and it's now a five or six unit apartment building in an R-1 zoning. We are really a bunch of friendly people in the Wilson Park Historic District. We like to accommodate, we like to be good neighbors and we like to accommodate people who want to do things in our neighborhood. We don't want to get in the way of other people's dreams because we have our owns dreams. In fact, one of the reasons that, I know I talked to three neighbors who couldn't be here, we're all busy, they would have liked to have been here but one neighbor was having a wedding anniversary and t -ball game and two others were out of town. The neighborhoods are at a disadvantage even at a meeting like this when we have an opportunity to speak because we are all very busy We do • • • Planning Commission April 23, 2001 Page 19 like to be good neighbors. We did have a situation come along with University Baptist Church, our neighborhood fought them hard as they seemed to be wanting to make parking lots on the north side of Maple Street. As a part of our compromise we allowed them, wanting to be good neighbors, we allowed them to have a pregnancy counseling center in an area that is zoned for residential use. They put up their sign, to which we agreed, but they also told us that they had no plans to put a parking lot on the north side of Maple Street. Not too long afterwards, two lots got graveled and they began parking on them. We fought them hard and we won and they removed the gravel. However, there is still one lot that is a vacant lot and is not a parking lot that has been used every Sunday, since the first of this year, as a parking lot. Estes: Mr. Jordan? If I may please interrupt. This is a conditional use request 01-8.00. Do you have anything that will edify us as we consider this conditional use request? Jordan: Yes. One counseling center sign must indicate to the world that this is now commercial or office space. Low and behold, now we have two lawyers who buy the property, hang up their sign and then remove the sign and put up a variance request sign. They apparently saw a good deal or their dream opportunity and lost all consciousness as to the correct order of events. They've probably should have gotten the variance prior to closing the property because if they do get turned down here tonight, they can't have their dreams and they've already spent a lot of money. They started construction on an upstairs apartment without a variance, which could be a costly mistake. Presently they are doing construction on that upstairs apartment but they have not posted a building permit, although I do understand that they have one. One major problem is with the current R-3 zoning of the property. The sign that the pregnancy center was the crack in the dike for other business ventures in our neighborhood. What will be next? My great concern is that this neighborhood remain a family oriented neighborhood. Every day when I walk out of my house in the morning, I am very thankful that I live where I do. I have two requirements that I would like to see as a part of this variance request. One is, that the owners agree with the neighbors to revert the zoning to R-1. I don't think this property should have ever been zoned R-3. If there is to be any parking installed, that it be minimally sized and that size be designated by the City. If that parking lot is even enlarged then the conditional use permit should be immediately rescinded. We have fought long and hard over parking lots and we don't want to see the back yard of this house turned into a parking lot for "three cars". I guess that's it. Estes: Thank you. Is there any other member of the audience that would like to comment on this conditional use request? • • Planning Commission April 23, 2001 Page 20 Patton: I'm Jerry Patton, I live at 524 Shady Avenue, right across the street from these gentlemen. I don't have any problem with it. It looks good. It's preserving a historical site. I think it's tasteful I'm for it. Estes: Any other member of the audience wish to comment on this requested conditional use? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Estes: Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the applicant. Is there anything you would like to say in response to the public comment? Rush: Yes. I'll just briefly address Mr. Jordan's comments. We are renovating the upstairs at 505 Shady. That is a separate project. We do have a building permit for that. It's not tied to this conditional use permit in any way. Our permit is posted in the most conspicuous place we could find in the upstairs which is a window facing Maple Street, the most heavily trafficked street. Again, considering it is zoned R-3 and what we are doing, I feel like we are making an effort to be a part of this neighborhood, whereas instead of trying to exploit to it's fullest possible use in the way it is zoned now. I just ask the Commission to consider that when voting on this. McElveen: I would like to comment briefly. I'm Scott McElveen, Pat Rush's law partner and also partner in ownership of this building. To briefly address Mr. Frankenberger's concerns, we are going to have about probably $20,000 to $25,000 invested in the renovation of this building by the time it's all said and done. We have no intention of bulldozing it and putting in a ten unit apartment complex, irrespective of it's zoning. I can just assure our neighbors of that, that's not what we intend to do. It would be foolish to do so. Thank you. Estes: I'll bring it back to the Commission now for discussions, motions. MOTION: Marr. I think based on the feedback I've heard and support from neighbors directly across, the neighborhood association and the fact that I don't feel it's appropriate for the City to require rezoning at the time of conditional use, although I think it's been communicated that it's something the neighborhood and this business may want to talk about outside of this meeting. I would like to move for approval of Conditional Use 01-8.00. • • • Planning Commission April 23, 2001 Page 21 Hoffman: I'll second with a couple of comments. Estes: May we clarify Commissioner Marr, does your motion include the waiver requested by the applicant regarding surfacing materials for the required off-street parking? Marr: Yes. I'm sorry for missing that in my motion. Estes: Commissioner Hoffman, does your second agree? Hoffinan: Yes. For Mr. Jordan, that the gravel drive remain is a part of the conditions of approval that there will be no paved parking. It's going to retain a really nice historic residential look in nature. I learned my lesson on one. I voted against a conditional use on Spring Street and I drove by it again today, I've driven by it several times. I had heard some neighborhood opposition to moving in a low use type of business and those people went in there and made an absolutely beautiful site out of that chiropractic clinic and I hope she's listening now because I'm sorry I voted against you three years ago. We all have to learn and see things as they take shape. As I looked at this property I saw the same potential for it. I did have calls from several people on it and I want Steve Frankenberger to know that I encouraged all those people to call each other. I don't know if any calling got done or not but that's something that everybody should do is communicate. That's my second and I'm standing by it. Bunch: A question for the applicant, could you please explain to us about the parking situation, are you going to utilize some from the University Baptist Church? Also the question I have is where is this resident upstairs apartment supposed to park if you utilize the gravel driveway and concrete pad? Also, please explain to us about the ADA accessible parking. Rush: Currently on the north boundary of the property there is a dilapidated little shed. We are going to take that down. I don't think there is any histoncal value and it's a bit of an eyesore to us, I don't know what the neighborhood feels about it. It was used for parking at one point. We would take that down, there's a twelve foot City alley that runs along that north side also that's graveled. We were going to put the parking for the upstairs resident in the area that is now occupied by the shed. The second part of your question was the ADA, there is currently a concreted surface adjacent to the front door that used to be a carport that we've since removed the roof of that, it was falling in. We are going to expand that to the width required, I think it's about three or four more feet we have to make it, for a small ramp to the front door. We thought that would be the most logical placement of that, closest to the door and make the least • Planning Commission April 23, 2001 Page 22 amount of disturbance to the site. We had spoken to Dawn about the parking too and we were trying to work out something where it would be the least amount of impact visually. That's kind of what we came up with. We are flexible on that if there are other suggestions that the Planning Commission would like to make or anyone else. Bunch: I had just heard there were other considerations going and I wondered what they were. Thank you. Rush: Bunch: Estes: Does that answer your question? Yes it did. Thank you. Any other discussion Commissioners? We have a motion by Commissioner Marr and second by Commissioner Hoffman to approve CU 01-8.00, any other comments? Sheri, would you call the roll please? ROLL CALL: • Upon roll call CU 01-8.00 is approved on a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • • • • Planning Commission April 23, 2001 Page 23 CU 01-9.00: Conditional Use (Camp Mountain Brook, pp 399) was submitted by Dina C. Williams on behalf of Camp Mountain Brook for property located at 4880 W. Wedington owned by Unity Church of Fayetteville. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 4.77 acres. The request is for a 9 week day camp (recreational facilities &. day care) for children ages 7-12 (use unit 4). Estes: The next item of business is item number four, a conditional use 01-9.00 submitted by Dina C. Williams on behalf of Camp Mountain Brook for property located at 4880 W. Wedington owned by Unity Church of Fayetteville. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 4.77 acres. The request is for a 9 week day camp (recreational facilities & day care) for children ages 7-12 (use unit 4). Staff recommends approval of this conditional use request subject to eight conditions of approval. Staff, do -we have signed conditions of approval? Conklin: Yes, we do have signed conditions of approval and there is one change. The applicant has requested for a 10 week camp instead of a 9 week camp. Staff has no problem extending it 1 additional week. Estes: The conditions of approval are: number one, conditional use approval is for this summer session only, separate approval will be required if the camp is to operate again next summer. Number two, Planning Commission approval of a waiver of screening requirements for the outdoor play area due to the temporary nature of the proposed use and the limited amount of time that will be spent on-site. Number three, compliance with all requirements of Fire Marshall and DHS in order to provide a safe and sanitary environment for campers and staff. Number four, compliance with the City's noise ordinance (based on zoning and enforced by the Police Department). Number five, any signage shall comply with the City's sign ordinance and any required permits shall be obtained by the applicant. Number six, trash shall be placed at the curb (or other location designated by the Solid Waste Division) on the morning of pick up days only. Only City approved bags or containers shall be used for trash disposal. Number seven, water shall be turned off immediately and the day camp shall not operate if any of the conditions are not met. Number eight, this conditional use shall be automatically revoked if any condition is not met. Is the applicant present? Williams: Yes sir. Estes: Would you tell us what you think we need to know about your conditional use request 01-9.00? • • Planning Commission April 23, 2001 Page 24 Williams: Unlike in Lake Wobegon, I think our children in Fayetteville are way, way above average and we intend to give them a way, way above average summer day camp experience. It will include canoeing, kayaking or funyaking for the younger group, volleyball, softball, tennis, ultimate frisbee, arts and crafts, skating, singing and dancing, fishing and hiking, low ropes challenges and team building games, nature study and some great field trips. Our staff all have college degrees and several years of experience each in working with children. We have a very low staff to camper ratio and I just really feel this is going to be a fantastic addition to our community. PUBLIC COMMENT: Estes: Thank you Ms. Williams. Is there any member of the audience that would like to comment on this conditional use request? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Estes: MOTION: Ward: Shackelford: Estes: Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Commission for discussion, motions or considerations. I'll go ahead and make a motion that we approve CU 01-9.00 for a conditional use for Camp Mountain Brook. I'll second. We have a motion by Commissioner Ward and second by Commissioner Shackelford to approve conditional use 01-9.00. Is there any further discussion? Sheri, would you call the roll please? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call CU 01-9.00 is approved by a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • • • Planning Commission April 23, 2001 Page 25 AD 01-11.00: Administrative Item (Dandy, pp 524) was submitted by Brian Dandy & Robert Schmitt for property located on lots 1,2, & 3 of City Addition. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. The request is to build multi -family units on two lots without street frontage. Estes: The next item of business to come before your Fayetteville Planning Commission is item number five. It is administrative item 01-11.00 submitted by Bnan Dandy & Robert Schmitt for property located on lots 1,2, & 3 of City Addition. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. The request is to build multi -family units on two lots without street frontage. Before I ask for a presentation by the applicant, Mr. Conklin, could you tell us why this administrative item is before us this evening? Conklin: Yes, Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission, staff has brought this item before you because we have a situation where we had originally three lots up on Fletcher Street that do not have the required street frontage. These three Tots actually have street right-of-way between Fletcher and the lots, which is Center Street right-of- way. Under our ordinance, we either have to require the applicant to build the street, which would be Center Street that would connect to Fletcher, or bring this forward and have Planning Commission grant a waiver for required street frontage on a public street. Staff has reviewed and did approve a property line adjustment that combined the three lots into two lots. There are two property owners involved with this request. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission not require the applicant to build Center Street. At the previous agenda session, prior to this meeting, there was some confusion with regard to what the applicant was proposing on these two lots. He had communicated with the Planning Division staff that he intended to build multi -family residential units on these Tots. He communicated with the Engineering Division that he intended only to build one duplex on each lot. What was submitted to Planning Division, on Wednesday, was a site plan that one six-plex on each block. There were additional questions with regard to site distance on Fletcher and with regard to whether or not it had to comply with the City's grading and drainage ordinance and if there is a permit required. Ron Petrie, our Staff Engineer is here this evening, he can kind of go over the grading and drainage issue. One of the conditions staff did place on this item and is condition number three, is that each lot shall go through the required large scale development process. Staff is very concerned with regard to this project complying with all City ordinances and therefore has recommended that condition. Based on the tree, vegetation removal that did occur over two weeks ago and based on the site plan that we do have before us this evening, one six-plex on each lot, they would have been required to get a drainage permit for that. I'll have Ron Petrie go over that. That is one of the main reasons staff is concerned about making sure that these two lots comply with all City ordinances and has made that recommendation. Just to make sure the • • Planning Commission April 23, 2001 Page 26 public is clear and the Commission, the purpose of this hearing tonight is to decide whether or not the applicant has to build Center Street or is the Planning Commission willing to allow him to access Fletcher without the required street frontage. I want to make sure that's dear in everybody's mind. This property was zoned R-2 in 1970. The use of the property for multi -family is allowed by right and allows up to 24 units per acre. Basically each lot could accommodate 12 units based on the current zoning. The applicant has shown and as a condition of approval number two, the density has been limited to 6 units per lot, basically about half of what is allowed. With regard to the land use that was established over 30 years ago and that's not the purpose of this public hearing this evening. Thank you. Estes: Tim, this is before us as an administrative item, is this in any way a request for a v variance or a waiver or is it a request to abandon a City street? - Conklin: It's not a request to vacate the City right-of-way for Center Street. The request is, we have a situation where the subdivision lots were platted many years ago, prior to our current subdivision regulations. Therefore, we have three Tots in this area that have no improved street frontage on Center Street. It basically just exists on paper. There are other areas in town and on Mount Sequoyah where this also occurs. The question our office faces during in -fill development in these old antiquated subdivisions is, do you require the applicant to go ahead and build the street or do you bring it forward and have the Planning Commission approve this request to allow him to access Rodgers Drive. This site is somewhat unique because the two streets actually, it turns back into Rodgers as it turns back to the east, Rodgers and Center Street parallel each other, if you look at page 5.5 in your agenda. With regard to having another street built by the applicant, you would have Rodgers Drive and Center Street almost paralleling each other in that location. That is another reason why staff is not recommending the applicant build the street because of the intersection angles that you would create between Center Street and Rodgers Drive. Basically, the decision that you have to make tonight is do you require the applicant to build Center Street which would be very difficult and Planning staff and Engineering staff is not recommending that or do you allow them to cross Center Street right-of-way to the north and have access to Rodgers Drive? Estes: The request before the Commission is to build multi -family units on two lots without street frontage. Staff recommends approval subject to the Planning Commission finding that the following conditions have been met: In order to grant the requested waiver the Planning Commission must make findings with regard to the following: The property owner shall make safe and convenient access for fire protection and sanitation vehicles. • • Planning Commission April 23, 2001 Page 27 All structures shall be located on lots as to provide safe, convenient access for servicing, fire protection, and required off-street parking. Number two, the density shall be limited to six units per lot. The applicant is proposing to construct one six-plex on each lot. The density allowed in an R-2 zone is twenty four units per acre by right. This equals approximately 12 units per lot. Number three, each lot shall be required to go through the large scale development process. Any approval with regard to a variance for street frontage shall not be considered an approval of site design. This project will be reviewed by applicable City staff and further conditions or revisions will be required. Do we have signed conditions, staff? Conklin: No, we do not. Estes: Mr. Osborne, do you represent the applicant? Osborne: Yes. Estes: Do you have a presentation you would like to make? Osborne: Yes sir. Let me make mention that in their findings I think there is a factual error. I have not gone out and measured the property myself but the engineers plat furnished to us indicates that each of the three lots are about a third of an acre and I don't know what Tim or Dawn, whoever did it, meant by this. The resulting, there is lot 1, 2 and 3, and they are about 1/3rd of an acre each. I'll give you this plat if you would like to see it. We split 2 down the middle, half 2 went with 3, half of 2 went with 1. There's never been an acre. It's been under separate ownership for at least 25 years. This is not one project, this is two projects. Mr. Dandy has half of it and Mr. Schmitt has the other half and I think the staff put it together for your convenience which is fine with us. I haven't researched it, I'm not certain about this but I don't think an LSD is required and we don't want to do an LSD if we don't have to. It's so time consuming and expensive. We've been sitting on this property and I will mention that land is too expensive for downscale apartments, this is for an upscale development. We are hereby offering a Bill of Assurance for the limitation of six units on Mr. Dandy's project and six on Mr Schmitt's project, a total of 12 units as the Planning Divisions report says. Rather than waste your time with a lot of extra talk, I'll ask if you've got any questions and try to answer them. PUBLIC COMMENT: • Estes: Commissioners, is there any question you have for Mr. Osborne? Seeing none, thank • • • Planning Commission April 23, 2001 Page 28 Davidson: Osborne: Davidson: you Mr. Osborne. Is there any member of the audience that would like to comment on this requested administrative item 01-11.00? Sharon Davidson, 904 Rodgers in Fayetteville. I do have many problems with this and I would hope before you make any decision you all would go out, like this man has not gone to this property and seen it. I've been there many times. I said I have not measured it. Going there and seeing it, I'm surprised that he is so adamant in wanting to pursue such a dense residential area with these roads in this place on the mountain. It's dangerous, it's inappropriate and if you go and look where it's at, you'll see that we can't handle the traffic flow of that. We can start from the beginning saying "What did prompt the applicant to choose this spot for development instead of single family?" Right on Fletcher, I used to live right on Olive right behind where there's three very nice dense units which is about all those streets can handle. If you've gone up Lafayette, tried to turn up Fletcher, go to Mission, all that's feeding up to the mountain, all that's feeding down Dickson, down Spring and those roads can't handle that traffic. You are asking all these people coming into this place for these men's investment property, not homes for families, investment property, to give up a lot for their investment and this is a neighborhood again of families and it is mainly single and duplex. I think again we can look at the zoning being done 30 years ago and we can see that things have changed and this is very appropriate for a downsizing to an R-1. I personally think, in the area itself, a duplex on each lot, four is the maximum that would be appropriate for the area, the roads, the situation. We also have the intent, we as neighbors cannot trust this development situation. We have two separate people coming as one, two projects and we're told originally they are going to come in and build two houses, all of a sudden we want to do the whole 24, who knows what in between. We are told 6 and now it ends up 12. I have problems with those aspects. I also would like other people to speak so I'll try not to take much time but if you go look at the area, it's being developed as a park. There is a very steep hill there, children, walkers, huge walking population on that mountain. A lot of people move there just to be able to run and walk around there. These people are going to be in danger because of the increased traffic that these roads are not prepared for, the area itself is not prepared for If you would look at that as to what's there, the road condition, the neighborhood children, the park and all the people that will have to suffer sacrifice for something that is not really going to add to our neighborhood, our values. In my opinion, it will devalue our neighborhood and create a less family use of environment, create a very dangerous hazard, not just the walking population but again, look down there at Mission, we are not going to get that fixed in • • • Planning Commission April 23, 2001 Page 29 Estes: time to handle any of that. I think it's inappropriate. I think the way they started, went in and bulldozed all the trees and later we see the sign go up, later we are told they are going to go through this. I would question anyone for wanting to put that type of project in this area and them being good neighbors to us in that neighborhood. Thank you. Commissioners, at agenda session there was some discussion regarding Perry Franklin, our Traffic Division Superintendent viewing the project and providing us with his comments regarding site distance and some of the issues that Ms. Davidson just raised and you'll find Mr. Franklin's report in the papers that were distributed to you this evening. Is there any other member of the audience that would like to comment on this requested administrative item? Kultermann: My name is Eva Kultermann, Lown the property at 112 Fletcher which is just across the street and a little bit to the west of the property in question. My main concerns are also traffic issues. I live right in the, it's kind of a sharp turn that comes down from Mount Sequoyah. As the last person said there is a lot of people walking up there and there is a lot of children playing in that park. To me that development also seems much too dense for that area especially being directly adjacent to that park. I have real concerns about the additional traffic that will be generated. I can also tell you that my neighbors and I are not very happy at the way that the site was clear cut. It literally seems as though just about every mature tree was cut down on that site, very quickly and I have real concerns about that. Estes: Thank you Eva. Eva would you like a couple copies of Mr. Franklin's report and maybe give one to Ms. Davidson since it addresses both the issues that were discussed at agenda session and the issues that you've raised? Montgomery: My name is Louise Montgomery, I live at 213 North Summit Avenue. My property adjoins what's supposed to be a City park there on Summit. The traffic going down my little narrow street, headed toward the developments up on the top of Mount Sequoyah and down along Rodgers, is already so heavy that it's frightening to me when my little puppy, he's four years old but his name's "Puppy", gets out in the street, out of the yard. There is a heavy amount of traffic, it's never patrolled, the streets are not what Dawn described to me this afternoon when we talked on the telephone as local streets. They don't have 28 feet wide of pavement, they don't have 50 feet right-of- way. These are streets that were built when this was kind of a little area outside of town made to accommodate a very small population. These streets were never designed in terms of where they run and the way the turns were made, nor given their • Planning Commission April 23, 2001 Page 30 width, they were never designed for a big population. What we have now are thousands more people using these streets than they were designed for. I would urge you to take care of your responsibility of looking not just at what the property owners want. I am sure what they want is the maximum development they can get so they can make more money You have a responsibility to look at all of the people who live in that area, including me and all the folks down around Rodgers and Fletcher There needs to be a street plan. If you were to cut Center Street all the way through to downtown then I wouldn't have to worry about all of these thousands of people who live not off Summit or Fletcher but all these people who whiz by going to other developments. I would urge you, before you permit anybody to build anything else that causes more traffic on my street and on Fletcher, look at the street plan, figure out what you really need to do. Otherwise, you are going to create massive problems in this area. Thank you. Estes: Tim, in response to one of the issues that Ms. Montgomery raised, does the Master Street Plan call for the extension and the addition of Center Street in this location? • Conklin: It does not call for the extension of Center Street. What we have is platted right-of- way on paper. The City does not have any plans to build Center Street at this time either. • Estes: Knowles: Thank you. Is there any other member of the audience that would like to comment? My name is Eric Knowles, 1231 Southern Heights Place. I drive Fletcher 6 to 8 times a day, right past this property. It's my only way out really. It's been told to you tonight Fletcher is a small country road with deep ditches on each side. This is a great deal of traffic to place on that road. There are already seven duplexes on Fletcher, all of them face the road and have direct access to it. That seems like a reasonable strategy for this property as well. If you are going to approve a high density arrangement like I have been hearing about. I don't know which plan will finally be built there whether or not it's a series of duplexes like I saw in one site plan or six-plexes like you've been talking about here. It's a sizable number of people to add in a very small plot of land. I would urge you to find some way to improve the roads there and I think the access of this property to roads and building Center Street sounds like one possibility that would work. You are adding an awful lot of traffic to what is a very small road. Thank you. Meyer: My name is Nancy Meyer and I live at 951 Missouri Way and that is very close to this property. I wanted to speak on a few things that haven't been brought up because I do agree with most of my neighbors that have spoken so far. I think it's important for the Planning Commission April 23, 2001 Page 31 Planners to remember that there are two ways up Mount Sequoyah in this area where I live and that is either Dogwood at the north end or Fletcher at the south end. This is where the fire trucks have to come up. As other people have commented, the road Fletcher is very narrow with deep ditches on both sides. I don't believe it's going to be able to accommodate the 24 cars that are proposed on this plan that I happened to get a copy of from the City. Fletcher is very narrow, there are no sidewalks. These cars turning in and out would be really dangerous in my opinion. What I believe would be possible if for someone to put in an duplex and I understand that is what was proposed to the Engineering Department originally. I think that we shouldn't have any more density than a duplex. That seems like that could be manageable to support this dream of this developer. The reason that people don't clear cut on a mountain is because of the drainage problems. That's why you don't see this on Mount Sequoyah because it really does cause major problems. I've been there several days because I walk my dogs right here and I was so shocked to see what had happened that I went to the City to try to find out what was going on. Even today, it's pretty well flooded and they have put up some plastic around the back side so it won't drain down the hillside. This is very important. I want to make sure that you Planners do, if this does go forward, that these people do have to file a large scale development plan. As I see it now, there really hasn't been much regard for our ordinances. The lots have been clear cut. I went ahead and made some copies of what it looks like, just in case you haven't seen it. I think if you could help the rest of us by somehow recommending to this Tree and Landscape Committee that's been meeting for over a year, if there is any way that you can help people to understand how important it is that they get together with our City staff before this kind of thing happens. This only breeds hard feelings with the neighbors, it really is upsetting. To synopsize what I've been talking about, I really feel that the number of the units are entirely too dense, a duplex at most would be appropriate. All around here are single family homes except for several duplexes. The other thing I would like to add is for future developers who know that something like this will be very controversial, I do recommend that they meet with the neighborhood association. There is a Southwest Mount Sequoyah Neighborhood Association, Gale O'Donnell is the contact person. You can meet with the neighbors and listen to some of our concerns so there wouldn't be hard feelings. That's riot really what we are wanting here. I also have one question about the notification signs that the City puts up. I was wondering if you can put more information on there about the fact that so many units are proposed? A lot of my neighbors didn't have time to come down here and find out what it was that was going to be proposed. I would just hope that you can get a little more information on the notification signs. Thank you. Estes: Would you tell us your name and address for the record? • • • Planning Commission April 23, 2001 Page 32 Jordan: Bob Jordan, 280 Ila Street. I just wanted to point out that this is exactly the kind of epidemic that is occurring across the City. I hope those pictures are as upsetting to you as they are to many of the neighbors and a lot of people in this town and this is just exactly what really has to stop. Thank you. Havens: My name is Jerry Havens and I live at 809 Lighton Trail, just up the hill from the subject property. I would agree wholeheartedly with most of the comments that have been made tonight but what I want to do it just register a different kind of concern. I have not studied this situation but I think if I were to study it I would probably find out there may not have been any rules broken here. However, on the day the property was cleared, I came home about 12:00 p.m. for lunch and they were erecting the sign, that little red request for a variance sign, simultaneously offloading two bulldozers from two flatbed trucks. I stopped and asked the workman who were offloading equipment what was going on, they were not very helpful. I got out and walked over and looked at the sign which I found to be a very brief description not really telling me much about what was going to go on. I went on home, went back to work, there were a flurry of telephone calls to the Planning office, I left work, went home about 4:00 p.m. and at 4:30 p.m. the bulldozers were gone. In two and a half hours with no notice that I can see, there was an attempt here to bulldoze the project to a point where it would be difficult to reverse. My point is, I'm concerned about the fact that there may not have been a violation of any rules. There certainly was an intent to circumvent the planning efforts that I would hope the Planning Commission is interested in. Jansma: My name is Harriet Jansma, I live at 900 Lighton Trail. I'm the person who submitted a note to all of you two weeks ago when Hanna's Candle Company issue came up because I had laryngitis and I still do a little bit but I at least can speak tonight. I would like, with your indulgence, to ask the staff, including Kim Hesse who's here tonight, about the City process in relation to what these property owner's have done. The neighborhood, as Jerry had said, was really stunned by the speed of the clearing and by the fact that the notice was put up at the front of the property at the very moment that the lots were being clear-cut, as Nancy Meyer has said. We were all stunned and felt that the property owners had broken faith with the community and with the neighborhood in approaching this project in this way. I would like to know what happened and how it happened and how the staff responded. It seems to me that we have a situation here, we have an example of a situation that has been happening at other places as Bob Jordan mentioned, that is perhaps the City Ordinance does not propose measures that are punitive enough to stop this kind of action on behalf of property owners. They clear the lots, they pay the fines for killing the trees and they put that cost into their project and they move on. We need to find a way to stop that. I • • • Planning Commission April 23, 2001 Page 33 Estes: would like to know more about this particular situation in relation to that problem. Mr. Conklin, in response to Harriet's questions and Ms. Hesse you are here also, can you tell us what our proper protocol and procedure would have been and what, if any, ordinances may have been violated in this process? What was done by staff once this matter was brought to staffs attention? Conklin: Just to remind the Commission and the public, this is not a rezoning public hearing, or large scale development public hearing, or a subdivision public hearing. This property was zoned back in 1970 so the land use was established back then, R-2, 24 units per acre. The subdivision, I attempted to determine when that subdivision was platted and was unable to. My guess is 50 or 80 years ago possibly, a long time ago. I don't have any records. It's City Addition, three existing lots. With regard to why there is a sign on the property, we place signs forall agenda items that go out. We started doing that about a year and a half ago, two years ago. There is not a sign required to go out but I thought it was important for the Commissioners, public and everybody to be able to find the sites when you are considering something, so we do place signs for every application except for a final plat. At final plat, the subdivision is done and you should be driving on the streets. With regard to these three lots and the property line adjustment, that's an administrative action. If it meets the R-2 zoning, there is no public hearing, they do not come to the Planning Commission. You do not deal with property line adjustments. With regard to those, if they meet the R-2 and they have the required lot area and lot width, by ordinance I have to sign off on those. That's how we ended up from three lots to two lots. The issue came up during the property line adjustment and I was very concerned about approving that administratively and the applicant thinking that we were giving him approval to access across Center Street right-of-way to Fletcher Street or Rodgers Drive. I placed a condition of approval, keep in mind this is administrative now, that the Planning Commission had to rule on this issue whether or not he had to build Center Street or whether or not the Planning Commission would grant approval for him to have a driveway out to Rodgers Drive. Therefore, that's why when you read the sign, the request was to build multi -family units on two lots without street frontage. Since then, we did receive phone calls from the residents up on Mount Sequoyah regarding the trees being removed. We did contact Engineering and our Landscape Administrator when, I'll have Ron Petrie speak to his conversation with Bob Schmitt regarding what was proposed on this site, the general discussion was that one duplex was going to be placed on each lot which does not require a drainage permit. That was not the same information that Planning Division staff was receiving. Since then, as I stated earlier, we received a proposal for a six- plex on each lot. Talking with Ron Petrie, that would require a drainage permit and in • • Planning Commission April 23, 2001 Page 34 your packet you do have a letter from Ron to the Commission and to the applicant stating that a drainage permit and grading permit are required for this development. What we have attempted to do, as staff, in order to make sure that the applicant is complying with all City Ordinances, is to place the condition that each lot go through large scale development. We want to make sure you can meet those findings that you are required to make when you do grant permission to provide access without the required lot frontage on a public street. Planning staff did ask the applicant to communicate with our Landscape Administrator and asked the applicant to contact her and bring her out to the site and evaluate the site to determine whether or not a tree preservation plan would be required. She can discuss that in further detail but our understanding is, if it's not a large scale development or subdivision they don't submit tree preservation plans. The issue has been is it a large scale development? Staff is --recommending that they will be large scale developments, each lot, as a condition of approval for these two lots. That's how the events have come along and that's how we ended up here this evening, with regard to what kind of notification was sent out and what type of public hearing we are having this evening. With a large scale development there will be an additional sign that will go up, there will be adjacent property owner notification that will occur, another public hearing and actual approval of disapproval by this Planning Commission. If you go along with staffs recommendation there will be another public hearing either with the lots combined, if they decide to bring it through as one project, or you'll have two separate large scale developments. I know there is a lot of issues with regard to the land use issue and what type of approval you are granting tonight. The main issue is, do you require Center Street to be built? As staff and, the Planning Commission you aware of this, we have to be able to tell a developer how to develop and meet the ordinance requirements. We can't say "No, you have to leave it as open space and you can't develop your site." The decision this evening is, are you going to require them to build the street or are you going to require access to Fletcher? Covey: My name is Richard Covey, I live at 68 South Kestrel Drive. I drive Rodgers, that's the only way in and out. I have a question about Center Street, that right-of-way there, does that have to be abandoned if he's going to cross over that? Conklin: There are existing driveways that cross over a right-of-way and we have, in the past, allowed driveways to be located within our rights-of-way. The City would not abandon the right-of-way. Covey: I agree with most of my neighbors that are against this development as it's proposed. I • know this is not the time to oppose it I guess. If it comes up as a large scale • • Planning Commission April 23, 2001 Page 35 development, then we do get to oppose it at that time right? Estes: That is correct. The purpose of our hearing this evening is the request to build multi- family units on two lots without street frontage. Covey: I would suggest that a condition of approval would be to upgrade Fletcher Street, make it wider, cover over the culverts and bring it up to standard and go from there. Thank_.. you. Estes: No ma'am, if we allowed everyone that has offered public comment to come again to the podium and speak again, it would not be fair to the other applicants because we would be here all night. Perhaps during the time the Commission discusses the issue we'll take that matter up. Meyer: I've been given a letter by someone who had to leave, can 1 read that for you? Estes: Yes ma'am. Bring that forward and publish it to the Commission and we'll take a look at it, or do you want to read it? Meyer: It has a few main points. I would appreciate it if you all could read it This is written by Mr. Timothy Caffrey, 824 Rodgers. He says that he is not opposed to higher density zoning but if this new multi-plex is built, the developer should pay the real infrastructure cost of the complex. This would be 20 yards of sidewalk in front of the property and the City should be forcing him to go above and beyond to pay for sidewalk and capital improvements all around that area. He says that, we toss around the phrase "quality of life" so often that it's a cliche but here we have an example of the quality of life issue. He says, if this multi-plex goes up and there is not tangible benefits to the immediate surrounding neighborhood then I'm wholeheartedly against it. Estes: Thank you Ms. Meyer. Is there any other member of the audience that would like to provide public comment on this administrative item? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Estes: Seeing none, I'll bring it back to Mr. Osborne who's representing the applicant. Mr. Osborne do you have any presentation in response to public comment? Osborne: Mr. Conklin has done a very good job of explaining the situation, I commend him. The • only issue tonight is whether or not you want us to build Center Street to city specs or if • Planning Commission April 23, 2001 Page 36 you want to waive that and we'll have to get from the City an easement across your right-of-way for our driveway. Otherwise, we'll have no way to get in there. I don't mean this to sound as aggressive as this is going to sound but, we are not interested in LSD. We've got two half acre projects and I believe LSD is only required for an acre and larger projects, Mr. Dandy's project and Mr Schmitt's project. If we can't get that we would rather just build the street. I really don't mean that in the wrong way. LSD is expensive and time consuming. This is a couple of relatively small projects. We are here hat in hand, honestly, offering half of the density that's allowed. We are already in compliance with the zoning, half of that. We are going to comply with landscape. We are going to comply with every City ordinance there is. The issue is do you want us to build Center Street or do you want to waive the frontage and let us have the driveway across the right-of-way of Center Street. I'll be happy to answer any questions if anybody has any. Estes: I'll bring Administrative Item 01-11.00 back to the full Commission for considerations, discussion and motions. • Bunch: Question for staff, have any permits been applied for grading, drainage, tree removal or anything of that nature? • Petrie: No sir. Bunch: None have been applied for and none were necessarily granted? Petrie: Correct. Bunch: Do you anticipate doubling the fees since work has started prior to application for the permits and any other penalties that would be incurred? Petrie: We would not have the authority to double the fees, it's a set amount. Bunch: I'm looking at the development manual and it calls for doubling of the fees in the event that work progresses prior to application or prior to granting of the permits? Conklin: The building permit stage is when they double the fees of the building permit. Bunch: It does spell out the fee schedule for grading and tree removal and all that, is that not included? • Planning Commission April 23, 2001 Page 37 Petrie: Not to my knowledge. I've never seen that happen. Again, I've never studied that. I would have to probably get a ruling from our City Attorney before I knew the answer to that. Osborne: There has been no grading done. Bunch: Tim, if I remember correctly at agenda session, you showed us a string of lots in this development along Center Street that go to the west of this? Conklin: That's correct. There are additional lots that were platted as part of that subdivision a long time ago that run on that undeveloped Center Street right-of-way. Bunch: What happens if someone wants to develop those, how do we get access to it? Conklin: Fletcher Street still exists over to Center Street, eventually someone could develop Fletcher Street and Center Street. One of the unique characteristics of this request is that Center Street and Rodgers Drive parallel each other in this location. There is a small portion, triangular piece of property the City currently owns. We'll have two streets basically side by side. As Rodgers turns into Fletcher and Fletcher goes back up to the north, Center Street continues down the hill to where it currently exists at Walnut Street. That's where it currently stops if you come up from the hill. Bunch: If Center were built out as shown on the plat that you showed us at agenda session, would it connect with Lighton Trail, more or less? My Master Street Plan does not show any extension of Fletcher or Center. Conklin: If you look at the survey on page 5.4, it shows the Center Street right-of-way and Lighton Trail, yes, they would line up. Bunch: In order for those other lots to develop, Center Street would have to be extended? Conklin: Center Street would either have to be extended or they would have to come to the Planning Commission, as the applicant is doing this evening, and request approval by the Planning Commission. Bunch: There was no condition for cross access between the lots? Conklin: Originally when we did the property line adjustment we did talk about limiting curb cuts • onto this site and we discussed having one driveway. However, once again, trying to • Planning Commission April 23, 2001 Page 38 make sure we meet the ordinance requirements, it's my interpretation if you grade or do anything that requires you to have a drainage permit that crosses the property lines or you will not meet setbacks, I consider that one development and you do have to have a large scale development. Therefore, the applicant has shown two driveways in order to not grade across property lines. Since then, we've had the applicant remove all the vegetation or almost all the vegetation from the two lots. If Engineering realized that there was a six-plex on each lot, they would require a drainage permit. That concerns me a lot with regard to making sure they comply with our City Ordinances. Therefore, if we do require them to go through large scale development, we can make sure they have adequate access for fire protection, sanitation vehicles and the possibility of combining driveways. I'm trying to make sure that our ordinances are being followed and met. Bunch: That's all the questions I have at this time. Estes: Tim, the property is zoned R-2, is that right? • Conklin: That is correct. Estes: By right that is 24 units per acre, is that correct? Conklin: That is correct. • Estes: Simply stated, a condition of approval of this administrative item as prepared by staff is that each lot go through large scale development, correct? Conklin: Yes sir. Estes: If this administrative item does not pass, is it possible for the applicant to then build Center Street to specs and develop these two lots without a large scale development? Conklin: Yes, that's how we have handled these antiquated subdivision lots where they meet the zoning in place, the R-2 zoning, they have the required street frontage and these were purchased separately, these were not in combination when Robert Schmitt did purchase the property. Therefore, if they built the street and they met all the zoning ordinance requirements, yes we would have to permit this under our ordinances. Just one clarification, in the beginning there was some discussion by the applicant's attorney with regard to it doesn't add up to over one acre, it does add up to over one acre based on the survey prepared by Jorgensen and Associates, it's 1.06 acres. • • Planning Commission April 23, 2001 Page 39 Estes: Ms. Montgomery, does that answer your question? Montgomery: Almost. Estes: Ms. Hesse? Have you had an opportunity to view this property? Hesse: Yes, I have. Estes: Would it require a tree preservation plan? Hesse: Under our current ordinance, tree preservation plans are required for large scale developments, subdivisions, grading permits of one acre or more. At this point, no. I was notified of the site on April 5t. I was out of town on a conference and I was called by Sara Edwards of the Planning staff and asked that very question. Based on her information they were both under an acre and at this point no grading permit had been requested or was being reviewed. Under our ordinance they do not fall under the tree preservation requirement. Estes: Did the applicant violate any ordinance when clearing the property prior to this administrative item being heard? Hesse: The question would be if at this point they are looked at as large scale development, it's a tough one. To start with if they were two lots, I would say "No". If they were working it as one unit, as one site plan, "Yes". Estes: Does any other Commissioner have any questions of Ms. Hesse? Hoffman: We have in our packets some green and blue plats, who drew these? Osbome: We did. Hoffman: This is one of two pages. They are mirror images of each other. Osborne: Yes, basically. Hoffman: The contention on your part is that each lot is acting independently of the other and there is to be no connection between the two. • Osborne. They are independent. Lots 1 and 2 were owned by party A., lot 3 was owned by • • • Planning Commission April 23, 2001 Page 40 party B. I don't know who owned them, I can't remember off -hand. Mr. Dandy bought 1 and 2 and Mr. Schmitt bought 3. Mr. Schmitt bought half of 2 from Mr. Dandy. Staff is the one who put this all together as one project, not us. They did it for your convenience. This is two separate projects. They don't have any money in common, they are not together, it's two separate projects. It just happens they are going to be developed at the same time. Conklin: With regard to ownership, Robert Schmitt purchased lot number 3 on August 1, 2000 from Gary Goodwin. Lots 1 and 2 were purchased by Brian Dandy on February 28, 2001. There were two property owners. Mr. Schmitt owned lot 3, Mr. Dandy owned lots 1 and 2. There was a property line adjustment that was done to combine the lots from 3 lots into 2 lots. With regard to combining them together, staff was concerned about the number of curb cuts. We talked about using one drive. Staff is concerned about grading, stormwater management. I think the intent, I'm not in charge of the stormwater management ordinance but when it says a duplex is exempt on a half acre lot, I don't remember or think that you would clear the entire half acre lot for one duplex. That concerns me and with regard to fire and sanitation, I think it would be best for these projects to go through large scale development so the City staff can sit down, the utilities can sit down, the police and fire department and sanitation can sit down at the same table and make sure that these projects comply with our City Ordinances. Hoffman: I understand your contention about their being two separate lots but if you end up sharing utility easements, for instance it would not make sense to build two water and sewer easement on opposing sides of the lot when if you are backing up to each other you would more than likely have a common water and sewer easement where you would just run one line instead of two. I would also assume that you would want to take a look at those minutes when the lots were replatted, if you are limited to one driveway then you are going to have a circulation driveway, it would seem to me to be almost necessary between the two lots In applying the large scale development ordinance, I don't want to get technical, but do we have specific wording that says we are sharing items, storm drainage, tree preservation plans or whatever we are sharing to make each lot comply with all of our ordinances, that a large scale development is required? Conklin: That is my interpretation. We have seen quite a bit of activity in these antiquated subdivisions. This is not the first time that this issue has been brought to the Planning Division. There are other lots on Mount Sequoyah and other areas of Fayetteville where I had developers come into my office and they want to know exactly what they • • Planning Commission April 23, 2001 Page 41 have to do to get their development approved. The lots meet all the zoning requirements except for the street frontage. My interpretation is you can develop those lots, you can build the street that wasn't built by the developer that brought the plat through. You can do either, if it doesn't require large scale, we can permit it that way. What I've told developers in the past is, if you cannot meet those ordinance requirements on that individual lot that you have to go through a large scale development process. I do not want to see a bulldozer crossing property lines and basically doing a large scale development and not going through that process. That's what concerns me about this site. There was clearing that occurred on the entire site. When I say "You develop your individual lots independent and you meet all the grading setbacks and the building setbacks and parking Tots, that you don't go out there and completely grade and do everything to both lots or multiple lots in these areas." Hoffman: What I think I'm getting to is it's hard for me to make decisions not having all of the information in front of me. I can see kind of both pros and cons about not using Center Street, if we can still guarantee ourselves that we have access to other lots, if we can satisfy everybody that we have street access to other lots other than these. If these were the only ones involved, I would Just say they can put a driveway across the City right-of-way and however that's managed, but the one's kind of downhill from this, if we don't require Center, does that preclude us from requiring Center to come up from that other street for the future development? Conklin: Once again, staff is recommending that we do not build Center Street because of the grades and angle at the intersection, that would be very difficult to have a parallel street that comes into Rodgers Drive. Basically this development, assuming Rodgers Drive is the front, they could use that drive. About a year and a half ago we did have an applicant who had property along Fletcher and Center Street and all the way down to Olive Street, came to the City and asked for that right-of-way to be dedicated. That was denied by the City Council. Hoffman: That's down at the opposite end of this? Conklin: You are going west, you are going downhill. Center Street currently ends at Walnut. I've heard from the public on both sides of the issue, some of them do not want to see Center Street extended up Mount Sequoyah and I've heard from others that wouldn't mind seeing Center Street extended. Our Engineering Division said it would be very difficult to meet our current minimum street standards today, to actually build that street. • Hoffman: Is it possible to rule on whether or not we have a large scale development requirement • • • Planning Commission April 23, 2001 Page 42 and not do the street issue right now? Conklin: The applicant would like to find out whether or not he has to build the street or he'll have access to Fletcher granted by this Commission Hoffman: I think either way he would have access. If we were going to approve the development for him, he would have to have access and we would have to grant it to him one way or the other. Conklin: I'm not sure. The applicant will probably have to answer that question, whether or not if you deny this request, whether or not they will build Center Street and go through the administrative process. Petrie: I would like to add one thing. If they do choose to construct Center, there would be several waivers required from our minimum street standards and possibly would take some kind of action from City Council. It's my guess if that happens, it would have to take out this corner of Rodgers and have some type of T intersection with Fletcher. I would like to make sure everybody is aware, that's not a simple solution for the applicant to just build Center Street. Allen: Mr. Osborne, with the applicant being unclear as to whether or not this would come through a large scale development, could you explain to me why the trees were cleared? Osborne: I don't know that it's possible to explain it, they just wanted to clear the trees. It's simple as that. It is my belief that a large scale development is not required. One thing I need to clarify, there are two separate driveways. Whatever the audience thinks, this is two separate projects, half acre each, two driveways and a separate utilities to every unit and separate utilities to each development from which the service lines will nm. They are going to put new trees in. I don't think they liked the configuration in the landscaping as it was so they started by taking the trees out and they are going to put new stuff in. That's the only answer I have. They didn't like what was there so they are going to replace it. Marr: I guess when I look at this request I'm very clear that the decision is build Center or allow access to Rodgers but in that is a request from the City that we look at a condition of placing an LSD requirement on it as well as outlining the six units that I believe was the commitment. For me, I'm also looking at the LSD portion of this piece. I guess, I'm sitting here and I look at actions that take place and whether you • • • Planning Commission April 23, 2001 Page 43 Osborne: Marr: Osborne: MOTION: . Marr Allen: Estes: Marr: Estes: Allen: Hoover: act independently or whether it acts as a consolidated project. I already believe that the tree clearing that took place was the entire two pieces. I'm assuming that action is looking at it as a total. I have a site plan in front of me, two different site plans that are drawn identical, it looks like the same configuration. I guess my questions are, are there different architects on this project or are there architects involved in this project? There will be. Are they the same or different? I have selected one yet. That's the site plan for concept only, that's all that's required by City Code at this time. As I said, we are willing to commit to 50% reduction which is why we are able to draw a site plan. I understand that. I think you've made that very clear I am still going back and struggling with the fact that when it looks like a consolidated plan and acts like a consolidated plan, then I tend to say the rule of common sense says it's a consolidated plan. Everything about this looks identical to me and I would prefer, or at least my motion would be to allow access but I agree with the conditions that are placed on this outlining the 12 and requiring the LSD. I'm going to move for approval of Administrative Item 01-11.00. I second. We have a motion by Commissioner Marr and second by Commissioner Allen to approve Administrative Item 01-11.00, Commissioner Marr the applicant has offered a Bill of Assurance for less than or equal to six units per lot, is that an additional condition of approval in your motion? Yes. Commissioner Allen? Yes. Explain to me Tim, why is this an administrative item and I realize it's a waiver but when you are requesting a waiver isn't that usually for an LSD? • • • Planning Commission April 23, 2001 Page 44 Conklin: This is how it's worded in the ordinance. Because they are not building the street, staff has placed conditions of approval on this. They need to know whether or not they have to build the street or you are going to allow them to have access. Hoover: I guess I'm just accustom of if someone is requesting a waiver, It has to go to Planning Commission no matter what. Isn't that correct? If it's under an acre, no matter what, if you need a waiver. Conklin: If they are asking for a waiver of our ordinance, yes. In this situation, this is actually in our ordinance that talks about with approval of Planning Commission they can have access on a lot without frontage. It doesn't say that with approval of large scale development that they can have access without street frontage. It says approval of the Planning Commission for this request. I've inserted large scale development as condition number three. Hoover: If this does get approved with the LSD requirement and the applicant chooses not to go this route, they choose to build the street, they don't need to come back to the City for anything, or they'll have to go? Ron, if they need a waiver that will bring it back to us? Petrie: That's correct. Hoover: How confident are you they will need a waiver? Petrie: 99.9%. Marr: I want to make a comment on the motion. When I read this, I'm supposed to make a finding of fact for fire protection access required off-street parking. The reason I support this and the reason I support LSD as a portion of it is, I don't have the information today in front of me that tells me that. Therefore, I think that's what the LSD process does as a result of bringing that back and that's why my motion is the way it is. Shackelford: As I understand the motion and second, we are making a finding that this is a consolidated project and based on that finding we are requiring LSD. Given that we have two separate owners with purchases of this property six months apart, I would like to ask our City Attorney his opinion whether or not that would constitute a consolidated plan and do we have the right to require this to go through an LSD process? • Planning Commission April 23, 2001 Page 45 Williams: I worked with Tim Conklin about this project. Ever since we discovered it did not have sufficient street frontage, we met with Mr. Osborne and his client and told them they would have to come before you and get a variance. I must say that I agree with the staffs recommendation on this all the way through. I don't think the Planning Commission is actually making a decision that this is a large scale development, what you are saying is you are conditioning your waiver on them coming in to the large scale development. If they choose not to do that, if they choose to build Center Street and can get it approved to city standards which our City Engineer has said will be difficult. I know that area very well myself, this land doesn't quite adjoin mine but I know where this property is and those intersections. That will be a very difficult project. If they build Center Street then you are not involved in this process whatsoever. The Planning Commission is not making the decision this is a large scale. I think what you are doing is saying it's fair to make them go through large scale for safety considerations because in fact they have been developing this project as a single unit even though technically, Mr. Osborne is quite correct, there is two different owners here, technically if they had not certainly been doing this as one project, we could not force them to do that. • Shackelford: We are not in fact making the finding that it is a consolidated project, we are making it as a condition of approval of this administrative item? Williams. Yes. Hoffman: Does our action prevent, if there is a change of mind on part of the applicants, them from constructing a couple of duplexes on these lots? I would assume that this access, granting should they downsize the project to something that would not be multi -family, I think one and two family dwellings are exempted from large scale development on acreage, should we incorporate anything like that in the motion? Conklin: Staff made a recommendation that these projects go through large scale development for access. Ward: Can they build a duplex, each of them? Conklin: Not right now. Ward: Once we allow access without coming through large scale development? Conklm: No. • • Planning Commission April 23, 2001 Page 46 Ward: That's all we need to know. Osborne: I need to clarify one point, the Bill of Assurance was offered for a waiver, it was not offered if we build Center Street. We don't want to submit ourselves to the large scale development process. I'll say one last thing, you've got a good staff. They are good to work with, they really are. Hoover: If they do decide to build Center Street and they have to get a waiver because of the problems with Center Street, will that then mean that it's a large scale development, we'll be viewing it as that or would we just be looking at it as a waiver for that street? Petrie: I believe the answer is we would be looking at it only as a waiver. It would be brought forth as an administrative item, same as this situation. Estes: Any other discussion? Sheri, would you call the roll? ROLL CALL: • Upon roll call AD 01-11.00 is approved by a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • • Planning Commission April 23, 2001 Page 47 RZ 01-8.00: Rezoning (WHM Land Investments, pp 439) was submitted by Deborah Sexton on behalf of WHM Land Investments, Inc. for lots 76-83 located in Meadowlands Subdivision Phases I & II. The property is zoned R1.5 Moderate Density Residential and contains approximately 1 79 acres. The request is to rezone to R-1, Low Density Residential. Estes: The next item on the agenda is item number six, a Rezoning submitted by Deborah Sexton on behalf of WHM Land Investments, Inc. for lots 76-83 located in Meadowlands Subdivision Phases I & II. The property is zoned R1.5 Moderate Density Residential and contains approximately 1.79 acres. The request is to rezone to R-1, Low Density Residential. Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning based on the findings included in the staff report. Is the applicant present? Conklin: I don't see the applicant. Hoffman: Does she need to be present? Conklin: This is a downzoning. I would encourage you to act on this item. • PUBLIC COMMENT' • Estes: Without the applicant present, I'll bring it back to the Commission for discussion, motions and comments. I didn't solicit public comment because Ms. Hesse, video staff and the press are the only persons I see in the audience. Do any of you wish to provide public comment on this rezoning request? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Estes: Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Commission for discussion and motions. MOTION: Shackelford: I would like to make a motion to approve RZ 01-8.00 based on staff findings. Allen: Estes: I'll second. We have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford and second by Commissioner Allen to approve RZ 01-8.00. Any discussion? Sheri, would you call the roll please? Planning Commission April 23, 2001 Page 48 ROLL CALL: Upon roll call RZ 01-8.00 is approved by a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • • • Planning Commission April 23, 2001 Page 49 Discussion of AD 01- 15.00 Administrative Item (Outdoor Lighting) to appoint a sub -committee to consider regulating outdoor lighting. Estes: The last item on your agenda is discussion of AD 01-15.00, outdoor lighting to appoint a sub -committee to consider regulating outdoor fighting. Commissioner Hoffman has graciously consented to serve as Chair of that committee and I have appointed Commissioner Bishop, Commissioner Hoover and Commissioner Shackelford to serve on that committee. Commissioner Hoffman, would you please get in touch with your fellow committee members and schedule an appropriate meeting? Hoffman: I would gladly do that and I would like Tim one thing about the outdoor lighting. You gave me some information at agenda session and I would like a little bit, we could possibly do this at the meeting, I would like to narrow the scope a bit from general outdoor lighting to commercial outdoor lighting? Conklin: That is the purpose of the first meeting. Staff is recommending that. We have researched ordinances across the United States and we would like to have more of a focus on what we want to look at. We can discuss some of the complaints that we've received in regards to new development in Fayetteville and kind of address what we currently do and what other cities in the United States are currently doing. Hoffman: We've been asking them to shield the lights but they don't seem to be having the desired affect I suppose. Conklin: The height of outdoor lighting adjacent to R-1 neighborhoods is also an issue. We don't have a height standard. Even if they are shielded, if they are 50 or 60 feet tall, they are still shining in the backyards if they are right on the property line. The location of the light poles, the height of the light poles, those are the type of issues that we want to discuss. Those are the areas where we've had some problems where we have allowed office complexes to go in and you have light poles right in the backyards of single family homes. Hoffman: I want to coordinate the scheduling through Tim so everybody knows. Conklin: Lunch meetings was the idea. Estes: Any other business? We are adjourned until our next regularly or special called meeting. • • • Planning Commission April 23, 2001 Page 50 Bunch: These will be public meetings and the press will be notified? Conklin: That's correct. Thank you. 4-23-01 PC Mtg. CU 01-9.00 Camp Mountain Brook, pp 399 AD 01-11.00 Dandy, pp 524 RZ 01-8.00 WHM Land Investments, pp 439 MOTION Ward Marr Shackelford SECOND Shackelford Allen Allen D. Bunch Y Y Y B. Estes Y Y Y L. Hoffman Y Y Y S. Hoover Y Y Y N. Allen Y Y Y D. Marr Y Y Y A. Bishop Absent Absent Absent Shackelford Y Y Y L. Ward Y Y Y ACTION Approved Approved Approved VOTE 8-0-0 8-0-0 8-0-0 • • • • 4-23-01 PC Mtg. AD 01-17.00 Bandy, pp 484 CU 01-1.00 Gohn, pp 525 CU 01-8.00 McElveen & Rush, PLC, pp 445 MOTION Hoffman Marr Marr SECOND Bunch Shackelford Hoffman D. Bunch Y Y Y B. Estes Y Y y L. Hoffman Y Y y S. Hoover Y Absent Y N. Allen Y Y Y D. Marr Y Y y A. Bishop Absent Absent Absent Shackelford Y Y y L. Ward Y Y Y ACTION Approved Approved Approved. VOTE 8-0-0 7-0-0 8-0-0 • • • 4-23-01 PC Mtg. Reconsider denial of Cricket Communications CU 01-3.00 MOTION Hoffman SECOND Allen D. Bunch . Y B. Estes N L. Hoffman Y S. Hoover Y N. Allen Y D. Marr Y A. Bishop Absent Shackelford Y L. Ward Y ACTION Approved VOTE 7-1-0