Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-05-29 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on May 29, 2001, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED VA 01-4 00: Vacation (Wedington Place Phase II, Lots 4A & 4B, pp 401) ACTION TAKEN Forwarded to CC Page 3 VA 01-5.00: Vacation (University of Arkansas, pp 483) Forwarded to CC Page 4 LSD 01-12.00: Large Scale Development Approved (City of Fayetteville, Lewis Street Soccer Field, pp 406) Page 8 CU 01-13.00: Conditional Use (Islamic Center, pp 521) Approved Page 20 CU 01-14.00: Conditional Use (Central United Methodist Church, pp 484) Tabled Page 24 LSD 01-14.00:Large Scale Development Tabled (Central United Methodist Church, pp 484) Page 25 AD 00-46.00: Administrative Item (Definition of a Family) Forwarded to CC Page 26 MEMBERS PRESENT Nancy Allen Lorel Hoffman Sharon Hoover Bob Estes Alice Bishop Don Marr MEMBERS ABSENT Lee Ward Don Bunch Loren Shackelford STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Tim Conklin Dawn Warrick Ron Petrie Kit Williams Janet Strain Hugh Earnest Connie Edmonston • • • Planning Commission May 29, 2001 Page 2 Approval of the minutes from the May 14, 2001 meeting. Estes: Welcome to the Tuesday, May 14, 2001, meeting of your Fayetteville Planning Commission. The first item of business of the agenda is the approval of the minutes of the May 14, 2001, meeting. Are there any changes, additions, amendments, modifications to the May 14, 2001, meeting minutes? Seeing none, they will be approved. • • • Planning Commission May 29, 2001 Page 3 Consent Agenda: VA 01-4.00: Vacation (Wedington Place Phase II, Lots 4A & 4B , pp 401) was submitted by Robert Brown of Development Consultants, Inc., on behalf of Wedington Place Senior Apartments, LLLP for property located on Lots 4A & 4B of Wedington Place Phase II. The property to be vacated is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 0.74 acres. The request is to vacate one drainage easement and one utility easement. Estes: The first item of business on the Consent Agenda is Vacation 01-4.00 for Wedington Place Phase II, Lots 4A and 4B submitted by Robert Brown of Development Consultants, Inc., on behalf of Wedington Place Senior Apartments, LLLP for property located on Lots 4A & 4B of Wedington Place Phase II. The property to be vacated is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 0.74 acres. The request is to vacate one drainage easement and one utility easement Any member of the audience and any member of the Planning Commission may pull this item from the Consent Agenda if they desire to do so. Does anyone in the audience or any member of the Commission attending wish to pull this item from the Consent Agenda? Seeing none, will you call the roll please? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call VA 01-4.00 is approved by a unanimous vote of 6-0-0 and will be forwarded to City Council for consideration. Planning Commission May 29, 2001 Page 4 New Business: VA 01-5.00: Vacation (University of Arkansas, pp 483) was submitted by Edward Connell of the City of Fayetteville on behalf of University of Arkansas for property located east and north of 10 N. Garland Avenue, between Lots 17-24 Mcllroy's University Addition and Lots 400-402 of Oak Park Place Addition. The property is zoned R -I, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.409 acres. The request is to vacate undeveloped street right of way. Estes: The next item of business to come before the Commission is also a Vacation 01-5.00 University of Arkansas submitted by Edward Connell of the City of Fayetteville on behalf of University of Arkansas for property located east and north of 10 N. Garland Avenue, between Lots 17-24 Mcllroy's University Addition and Lots 400-402 of Oak Park Place Addition. The property is zoned R -I, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.409 acres. The request is to vacate undeveloped street right of way. Staff recommends approval of the proposed street right-of-way vacation. The University of Arkansas has recently purchased all tracts of land adjacent to this undeveloped street right-of-way. In exchange for this right-of-way vacation the University has agreed to provide "the City with a credit in the amount of $26,700.00 to be used by the City only in any future land negotiation between the two parties...." Is the applicant present? Petrie: Ed Connell is a Land Agent out of the Engineering Division. Mr. Connell is on vacation this week. I'll be glad to answer any questions or give a quick presentation if you like. Estes: Commissioners do you have any questions of Mr. Petrie regarding this requested vacation? Hoffman: Is the amount of $26,700 in credit, is that based on a square foot appraisal of the land being vacated? Petrie: It comes out to $1.50 per square foot. It's my understanding that figure was determined from the recent purchases by the University of Arkansas of the adjacent property, they used that to determine that amount. Estes: Any other questions of Mr. Petrie? Mr. Petrie, the credit in the amount of $26,700, is that something that is anticipated to be used sometime within the next six months? My concern is, if this is a credit that will exist in perpetuity and never be used, l would like to see cash in lieu of credit. What are the plans for the use of this credit? • • Planning Commission May 29, 2001 Page 5 Petrie: I think six months would be very unlikely. There are some ongoing negotiations which we certainly hope will come out in our favor in trying to acquire the land that the Lewis Park is on that we are presently leasing from the University and there are also some negotiations on Garland Avenue for additional widening for a boulevard and trails to be placed on that planned project on the University of Arkansas campus. Those are the two ongoing negotiations but the six months I really doubt. Estes: Would it be anticipated that this credit would be used by the City within less than two years? Petrie: It would certainly be hard to guarantee that but it would be our hope that it would. I've discussed this with University officials today and they could give me no other guarantee themselves about when it would be used. I'm sorry I really don't have any more information. Estes: Any other questions from Commissioners? Hoffman: If we are worried about keeping tract of it can we put it on the warranty deed that's filed and then have it removed after it's used? Petrie: I'm not too sure. Ed would be more familiar with that. Hoffman: I'm not real sure how the wording of warranty deeds is composed but if that could be an addendum that's put on the deed and then removed. Conklin: This is a recommendation to City Council and between now and City Council I'm sure we'll get with Ed and our City Attorney and see what can be placed on the deed. Marr: How often do we do land negotiations with the University, if you look at the last 5 years? Petrie: I don't have the history for the last five years. Marr: An estimate. Conklin: I can't think of any. Kit, can you think of any? Williams: No, I can't but in talking to Ed Connell about this, there are ongoing negotiations that • our City Engineering Department, Ron Petrie has told you about. I think the City does Planning Commission May 29, 2001 Page 6 anticipate doing some land negotiation with the University in a fairly near term. As Ron said, we can't guarantee it's going to be done in two years. We do think that the City will be using this credit within the next couple of years most likely. That's about as much as I know. I've talked with Mr. Connell about this but that's about as much as I know about it. PUBLIC COMMENT: Estes: Is there any member of the audience that would like to provide public comment or make a presentation regarding this requested vacation? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Estes: Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the full Commission for motions, discussions, any further questions of staff. MOTION: Hoffman: I'll make a motion to approve this vacation and forward it on to City Council with the further recommendation that we develop a strategy to keep track of the credit. Estes: There is a motion by Commissioner Hoffman, is there a second? Marr: I'll second. Estes: Is there any discussion? Marr. I hesitate to second it. I want to support City staff initiatives but it concerns me that we are going to take a credit for land that nobody can remember in the last five years having any negotiations with them. Assuming we'll use this against future, I'll support it. Williams: If you look at the map on page 2.3, you can see that this is undevelopable land if the City ever tried to do anything with it except build a street. Certainly it's best use will be to combine it with the University property and let them develop it in conjunction with other property they purchased. I think that was another reason that staff recommends that we go ahead and transfer or vacate it to the University for a credit because I don't think, in realistic terms, the City has any real use for this land. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman, second by Commissioner Marr, is there • • • Planning Commission May 29, 2001 Page 7 any further discussion? Would you call the roll please? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call VA 01-5.00 is approved by a unanimous vote of 6-0-0 and will be forwarded to City Council for consideration. • • • Planning Commission May 29, 2001 Page 8 LSD 01-12.00: Large Scale Development (City of Fayetteville, Lewis Street Soccer Field, pp 406) was submitted by the Parks & Recreation Division on behalf of the City of Fayetteville for property owned by the University of Arkansas located at 1515 North Lewis Avenue. The property is zoned P-1, Institutional and contains approximately 27 acres. The request is to develop 7.73 acres with parking for soccer fields. Estes: The next matter is a Large Scale Development 01-12.00 for the City of Fayetteville for the Lewis Street Soccer Fields submitted by the Parks & Recreation Division on behalf of the City of Fayetteville for property owned by the University of Arkansas located at 1515 North Lewis Avenue. The property is zoned P-1, Institutional and contains approximately 27 acres. The request is to develop 7.73 acres with parking for soccer fields. Staff recommends approval subject to certain conditions of approval Mr. Conklin, are there signed conditions of approval? Conklin: Yes there are. Estes: Those conditions of approval are: Planning Commission determination of the requested variance of interior landscaping requirements. The applicant is requesting not to provide landscaped islands for the parking spaces around the edges of this lot. The requirement is for 1 landscaped island for every 12 parking spaces. The proposal is to add additional trees around the perimeter. See letter from Kim Hesse, Landscape Administrator. Number two, Planning Commission determination of the requested variance allowing for a greater driveway width than that allowed by code. The applicant is requesting a driveway width of 27 feet. The maximum allowed is 24 feet. Staff is in support of the requested variance. Number three, there shall be no disturbance of existing tree lines along the east and north sides of the property. Number four, the City Parks and Recreation Division shall plant additional junipers along the northern property line to provide a vegetative screen adjacent to the residential homes. Number five, Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff continents provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communications) Number six, staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. Number seven, sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum ten foot greenspace with a minimum six foot sidewalk. Number eight, Large Scale • • Planning Commission May 29, 2001 Page 9 Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. If construction occurs in phasing, there will be a five year expiration for total completion. Is anyone present on behalf of Parks and Recreation Division? Would you please come forward and tell us who you are and provide us with your presentation and continents? Edmonston: I'm Connie Edmonston, I'm Superintendent of the Fayetteville Parks and Recreation Division. Our soccer program has grown immensely, even this past season. Our Parks Department took over total operations of our soccer program In our recreational league we went from 80Q players up to 1,300 players and then our traveling teams and all that use it, there is another 500 kids. We are talking about around 1,700 participants. They play basically at Asbell Park and across the street at Lewis fields. We are in desperate need of parking spaces there. People have parked everywhere they could find a spot possible there. We are requesting another parking lot. Our Parks Board seen the need for this, they moved it up in our CIP. It wasn't supposed to be done until next year but we moved it up in our CIP in 2001 instead of 2002 because of the needs that are there for parking. We do request two variances with that. One, so that the bigger vehicles can turn in the driveway to go from 24 to 27 feet and the other is the landscaping in the interior of the parking so we can have more parking and we would prefer to screen the parking lot on the perimeters of the parking lot to screen it away from the participants and the players. I'm here to address any questions that you all might have. Estes: Do we have any questions of the applicant? Marr: I know we talked a little bit about this in Agenda Session on Thursday. Was there any further consideration given to a crossing over this drainage culvert for the east end of this parking lot that would, in the future, access soccer fields 6 and 5? I heard from you Thursday that that ditch that's currently paved concrete is currently used as somewhat of a sidewalk I'm a little concerned about people crossing that if there were water in it or someone falls from a pitch of a slope or something and hurts themselves, what's the liability of the City? It seems that you might have a future connection to those two fields anyway. Edmonston: Our main concern was to make it ADA accessible. Most of the players hop out of the car and go straight to their field, whether it's jumping the culvert or whatever it is. That culvert, unless there is a rain or something, it s dry. There is not water in it by no means, it's dust a run-off. It's pretty dry in that area. Ron, do you have anything? • Petrie: That's exactly right. That culvert stays dry except during a heavy rainfall. Speaking for • • Planning Commission May 29, 2001 Page 10 Parks, if that's something that can be monitored during play and if they see that as a problem they will certainly add that. I know that is their history. They are under an extremely tight budget on this design. Additional bridges or culvert could possibly eliminate quite a few parking spaces. Edmonston: Also, many people head directly to the concession stand and restrooms. The schedules are posted there too. Many people, even if they are going to go up to field seven, they'll stop by the concession stand some nights. A few might not, they might run onto their game. I haven't foreseen it as a problem but if it's needed we could do it. Ron's right, we are on a very tight budget on it and we are just trying to provide as many parking spaces as possible. If it would become a problem, we would address it and build some type of a bridge or culvert in there. Allen: I have some concern about that becoming a gathering place on weekends and nights, when it's not in use, for teenagers and college kids because of it's location. I know the neighbors don't want big beacon lights but I wondered about some kind of unobtrusive lighting that could be used around the area to maybe prevent that sort of thing. Edmonston: There are a couple of light poles that are up, utility poles that we could put some flood lights of some sort on. To put lights up would really cut us back a lot. Because we don't have night games at Lewis and Asbell, we really haven't had a problem with that at night time. Allen: There's something about parking lots sometimes that seems to be a gathering place. I just thought if there was a little more light there rather than just a dark area, it might be safer for the neighborhood. Edmonston: We could do that. I would prefer, if possible, if we could have the utility company come in and put lights. Perry Franklin, our Traffic Superintendent who deals with streetlights and all, I talked with him today and he said that they could put lights that would shine into the parking lot on those two poles. That would help light it up somewhat if that would meet your approval. Conklin: I do understand that some of the neighbors have concerns regarding lighting of the soccer fields and parking lot also. Any lighting that we do propose for this project, I think we should limit it to just street lighting. If we add more, I think we would want to give additional notification of the neighbors. • Allen: I agree. I was talking about something rather unobtrusive not big spotlights. I think big • • • Planning Commission May 29, 2001 Page 11 lights would signal to the neighbors that night games were coming and that would be a concem to them too. I meant something just for safety for the neighborhood like streetlights. Edmonston: Would it meet your need on those two existing poles to put some kind of a floodlight on that to shine on the parking lot? I'm not sure you want to use the term floodlight. That concerns me. A Light that points at the parking lot. Conklin: Edmonston: Conklin: Edmonston: Conklin: Estes: I still think if the parking lot is going to be lighted we should come back to Planning Commission. If you approve it without the lighting, you can approve it tonight, but if you do want to change it and require it have lights, I think we need to bring it back to Planning Commission. From looking around the community and we are currently working on an outdoor lighting ordinance, I think the last thing we want to do it to have some type of floodlight. I know you didn't mean to say that but the public is listening. Streetlights. If you put one of those floodlights that you can purchase from SWEPCO or Ozark Electric pointing out towards the parking lot, I think we'll get a tremendous amount of complaints. Connie, with regard to the lighting issue on the south perimeter of the property on Mount Comfort Road, are there existing streetlight poles in place? Edmonston: There are two poles noted on this, they are little circles. Estes: Do they have streetlights mounted on them or attached to them? Edmonston: No, but there could be. Estes: Is that was Perry Franklin was talking about doing? Edmonston: Yes and I talked to Jim Beavers about it this morning too. Estes: Would these be the standard City streetlights that we find throughout the City? • • • Planning Commission May 29, 2001 Page 12 Edmonston: Estes: Probably. I'm certain that's what they were talking about, like they normally have. Because of the location of the proposed soccer fields, security is a concern to me also. Is it just a matter of installing the streetlights on existing streetlight poles, is that what we are talking about? Edmonston: Yes. The utility company would do that for us and, of course, we would have utility bills for it. Conklin: There are existing streetlights over Mount Comfort Road. If you basically installed streetlights you would go to the north instead of your south with the light hanging down. Estes: -Mr. Petrie is that something that is feasible and practical considering the budget? Petrie: As far as I know. Connie would be the expert on the budget but as far as I know. Edmonston: That would be much more than putting them actually inside the parking lot. If we had night games I would definitely want to light up the area well so that people could return to their vehicles safely. Hoffman: Hoover: Edmonston: I understand you have a budget and this is a pretty low budget deal. I really do agree with Commissioner Marr that we should have a crossing because we would not normally, I don't feel like we would approve a private developer with just access across a ditch, to a recreational facility. I have a suggestion. I would like to show this on the plan to be constructed as a part of this large scale development but that it be turned into a scouting project and that maybe we could go ahead and suggest that the Scouts come forward and volunteer to build the east bridge. If that doesn't happen then I would say in a different budget funding year you could appropriate some funds to put the bridge in next year. I would imagine that we could put the word out and somebody might want to make an Eagle Scout project or something out of it. If that would be agreeable to you, we would like to add that as a condition. What are the hours of operation? Our parks, by ordinance, close at 11:00 p.m. They basically open at daylight. We have a few parks that have gates like Lake Sequoyah, Lake Fayetteville, Lake Wilson and Finger Park. They are open at daylight and close at sunset. They are just a little bit different but all the parks close at 11:00 p.m. • • • Planning Commission May 29, 2001 Page 13 Hoover: Edmonston: Hoover: Edmonston: Hoover: Edmonston: Hoover: Edmonston: Hoover: Edmonston: Allen: I was reading a letter in here from a neighbor about Sunday morning. What time do you plan on starting on Sundays? We don't normally play on Sunday. They are mostly pick-up games or there are some tournaments that outside groups have used our fields for. They might start as early as 8:00 a.m. Most of the time they try to start later. It Just depends on how many teams are entered and where they are from. Normally they will start anywhere from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and that's just a couple of times. Last year we had a couple of times that we had tournaments on those fields. This was brought to our Parks Board. We did talk about revising the ordinance at the request of a citizen and they approved for us not to change the ordinance. There is no way to patrol it unless we had someone out there at an earlier time. There are a group of people that like to play early in the morning, before it gets hot, especially in the summer and spring. They'll go out to the fields at a pretty good time in the morning and have pick-up games. That's like any of our parks. You have no games on Sunday? When do you normally have games? Normally they are during the week and on Saturday are our late games. When do they start on Saturdays? I believe they started at 9:00 a.m. What time do they go until? About 3:00 p.m. or 4:00 p.m. What about on the weekdays, how late would they go? During the fall we have a hard time getting in one game before it gets dark on us. They go from 5:30 p.m. until 6:30 p.m. or 7:00 p.m. During the spring they go until they can't see out there. They go until it's dusk. We don't schedule games at that time but teams are practicing at that time. Usually our games are over by 7:00 p.m. or 8:00 p.m. depending on what night. From one of the letters that I read, it said that the person that left this property to the University, left it with a clause precluding any further development. I wondered what you knew about that? • • Planning Commission May 29, 2001 Page 14 Edmonston: I did ask our contact person about that and they did not know of any clause of that nor did the Agri Department who actually owns that piece of land, they didn't have any record of that either. I don't know where that came from. I did visit with the University about that. Estes: Did you visit with Mr. Williams regarding any restrictive covenant that may be on the deed? Edmonston: No but I can. Williams: I have not seen any deeds on this. Edmonston: We lease this property so we don't really have a deed to it. We've leased it from the University for 25 years We don't really have a deed at hand. PUBLIC COMMENT: Estes: Is there any member of the audience which would like to comment on this requested large scale development? If so, please come forward and give us your name, address and the benefit of your remarks. Guadagnini: My name is Robert Guadagnini, I live at 1718 W. Lawson. I'm not adjacent to the Lewis Fields itself but my concern is the drainage that runs off through there. My property abuts the park, that part where the little natural creek runs through Asbell Park. Last year that water overran into my property and knocked a tree down. That happened twice. My concern is, if we lay more parking lots and more development in that area, is that going to be a bigger problem? Conklin: As soon as Ron gets back in here, I'll have him answer that drainage question, what they are planning on doing with this parking lot. Estes: Robert, maybe we can get an answer to that question. Connie, can you help us out on that? At agenda that was one of my concerns was the topographical features of the property where the new proposed fields are and in response to my question I believe you explained some dirt was going to be moved from one place to another. Could you explain that to Robert? Guadagnini: You know that stream that runs right through Asbell that goes down Mount Comfort • and crosses over Lewis and then kind of angles and goes right through my property? • • Planning Commission May 29, 2001 Page 15 Estes: When Ron gets back maybe we can get his answer but you and I had a discussion about this at agenda and you answered my questions to my satisfaction. Robert, why don't I ask you to do this, if you have any further questions or comments, please provide us with the benefit of your remarks and then maybe you and Connie can sit down and go over this and when Ron gets back in the room we'll get an answer for you. Is there any other member of the public which wishes to comment on this requested large scale development? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Estes: Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the full Commission for motions, discussions or questions of the applicant. Hopefully Mr. Petrie will return to answer Robert's question. Hoover: I guess I would like to get comments from other Commissioners. I have an issue with the hours of operation and I would find it offensive myself if I lived next door to a facility that started at 7:00 a.m. on Sunday or went until dusk. Dusk in summer could be 9:30 p.m. and it's still light out. I'm having an issue with that. Estes: Did I understand correctly that there will be no activities on Sunday, no games but it's a public park and it will be open, is that a correct statement? Edmonston: We do not have recreational games on Sunday but there are a couple of tournaments that are played then. There are the Jr. Highs and the High School that utilize our fields for pick-up games, Ramey Jr. High and Woodland Jr. High utilize our fields. The traveling teams, they have teams that come in and play them on Sunday. The earliest I've ever known of a game is at 8:00 a.m. but that's basically the philosophy of playing fields, we want them to be used. We want people to be active and using their spare time in a good realm. I don't know how loud, I've never heard them being real loud in the morning. I have been there early and I've never heard them being excessively loud by no means. If you had your window open, possibly so. Hoover: I wouldn't have a problem but it's right next to R-1, single family dwellings and that becomes an issue of adjacency here. Walker Park is adjacent to residential but it's a whole different animal. I just want to be sensitive to the neighbors. I have been on property adjacent to this and heard the soccer fields. Hoffman: I know we have a noise ordinance in the City and I was wondering if it would apply • from before 10:00 a.m. Sunday morning that there would be a violation of the noise • Planning Commission May 29, 2001 Page 16 Conklin: Hoffman: ordinance. I know that you can go from construction activity noise and so on and so forth but I don't remember what hours. I'm not sure what the noise ordinance standards would be for a recreational facility. We have the bar closing ordinance and I think it's in that. That's enforced by the Police Department. It's my understanding this is already functioning and we just have people parking on the street. I did read there were certainly several letters from neighbors with questions and concerns about litter, will there be trash cans be placed as a result of this? Edmonston: We do have them and we do have people working weekends, especially during our busy time of year, to pick up trash It's never-ending. Sometimes it isn't always from soccer players, it's from just general We pick up trash all the time. We try to get the participants to help us pick up too. Hoffman: Is there going to be a planting of more juniper trees along the east property line this fall? • Edmonston: Definitely. • Hoffman: It sounds like what was promised was not done originally and you need to be more responsive to the neighbors concerns about screening. Edmonston: I agree. We are definitely going to continue that juniper tree row. Estes: Petrie: Estes: Mr. Petrie, during public comment there was a question regarding pre -development flows and post -development flows, with particular attention to the creek that is through Asbell Park. Have you made a determination with regard to pre -development and post -development flows? Yes sir. The actual drainage design is being designed by the City Engineer, Jim Beavers. I've seen his calculations and he has studied the flows in this ditch, pre and post with this parking lot. Those calculations show no increase in post -development flows over pre -development flows. In addition to the parking lot, on the plat papers that we've been provided, there are, to the east, additional areas of development for additional soccer fields Have the drainage issues been determined? Planning Commission May 29, 2001 Page 17 Petrie: I can tell you they have been studied on a preliminary basis. We do not have a final design on this on drainage and grading. We've got a little more information to develop. Those flows show all of the drainage to be running back to the west so our only real issue we have remaining, from the adjacent property owners, is if we berm up the side of this property line, we are not blocking up a bunch of water. We need to provide adequate measures to prevent that from happening. It should all drain directly to the existing ditch in that area We looked at the preliminary calculations to determine if we needed detention on this site so we still have the design left to do. Estes: Commissioners, any other questions, motions, comments or discussion? MOTION: Hoffman: I'll make a motion to approve this large scale development subject to all conditions of approval with the addition of condition number 9 to provide an eastern bridge to be constructed to City specifications by volunteers or within one year of completion of the project. Estes: Commissioner Hoffman, does your motion also include the requested variance of the interior landscaping requirements and the requested variance allowing the greater driveway width than allowed by code? Hoffman: It does. We have a memo from Ms Hesse in our materials. I will support the variance request on the landscaping because of the additional landscaping street side. Do I need to incorporate in my motion that the Parks Department has promised to construct a berm on the eastern side of the fields this fall? Estes: That is not in the conditions of approval. With regard to the additional junipers, that is contained in condition of approval number four but there is no condition regarding the berm nor is there any condition regarding installation of standard City streetlights on existing poles. Hoffman: Item number ten, provide the lowest wattage standard streetlight bulbs possible for security purposes on the existing pole. Number eleven, to provide engineers certification that the berms will not block the upstream water from flowing freely through this project and that the City Engineer sign off on the plan prior to construction. Marr: Second. • • • Planning Commission May 29, 2001 Page 18 Estes: Is there any discussion? Hoffman: And to provide for the variance for the wider driveways which I am in general support of because of the long vehicles that are going to be using them. Estes: Is there any discussion? Hoover: I was wondering if Commissioner Hoffman would consider a condition number twelve that a sign be posted that no game play before 9:00 a.m. on Sunday? Hoffman: I don't have any problem with that, I don't know if we can legally do it. Williams: If you look in your ordinances on how the Planning Commission might be able to refuse a large scale development you don't see any condition like that restricting the hours of operation. Even though I understand your concerns, I think that would be a policy matter to be decided by the City Council as opposed to Planning Commission trying to put this through as a condition of approval of a large scale development. I would think that it would be inappropriate to try to put as a condition of approval for a large scale development some sort of restriction on the Parks and Recreation Department of the City or something that currently does not comply with City policy at this point. Of course, City policy is primarily done and enacted by the City Council not the Planning Commission. I would, with due respect to Commissioner Hoover, think that that is probably not a good idea to try to include that as a condition of approval. Hoffman: I think I could dust incorporate though that we would require that they comply with the City noise ordinance and there is an avenue for complaint if it's a problem because we do have an existing ordinance on the books and that will put everybody on notice that they should be quiet on Sunday morning. I think it's really in place for situations like this and people need to know that it's available to them. With that being said, number twelve will be that the noise ordinance would be applicable to this project and any complaints should be forwarded to the Fayetteville Police Department Marr: Is that really necessary? Isn't it applicable whether it's on there or not? Conklin: Yes. Estes: There is an amendment to the motion, does the second accept the amendment? Hoffman: I can take it off, just as long as people know about it. I really would like to make sure • Planning Commission May 29, 2001 Page 19 that everybody knows. Marr: That's fine. Conklin: I think if it became a problem, the elected officials would hear about it and they amend the ordinance and change what's currently allowed for parks operations and put a provision in there to limit soccer games on Sunday. I don't currently think there is a problem though. I haven't heard any complaints with regard to that. Hoffman: I will just go ahead and remove item twelve. Estes: We have an amendment to the motion which has now been withdrawn by Commissioner Hoffman. We have the underlying motion by Commissioner Hoffman and seconded by Commissioner Marr, is there any further discussion? Seeing none, would you call the roll please? ROLL CALL: • Upon roll call LSD 01-12.00 is approved by a unanimous vote of 6-0-0. • • Planning Commission May 29, 2001 Page 20 CU 01-13.00: Conditional Use (Islamic Center, pp 521) was submitted by Fadil Bayyari on behalf of the Islamic Center of NW Arkansas for property located at 1420 W. Center Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 0.67 acres. The request is build a 9,264 square foot Islamic Center (use unit 4) with 14 parking spaces on-site. Estes: The next item on the agenda is a conditional use for the Islamic Center submitted by Fadil Bayyari on behalf of the Islamic Center of NW Arkansas for property located at 1420 W. Center Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 0.67 acres. The request is build a 9,264 square foot Islamic Center (use unit 4) with 14 parking spaces on-site. This is a conditional use request which requires 5 affirmative votes of the Commission and there are 6 participating members attending the meeting this evening, does the applicant wish to proceed? Bayyan: Yes sir. Estes: Is the applicant present and would you like to make a presentation? What would you like for us to know? Tell us your name please. • Bayyari: My name is Fadil Bayyari. I represent the Islamic Center for this project. The Islamic Center was formed about 5 years ago in order to meet the spiritual needs of the Muslims in Northwest Arkansas. Most of the Muslims in Northwest Arkansas consist of students, about 80%, the rest are families that live all over Northwest Arkansas. These students were worshiping in a Mosque in rented houses here and there and finally they were able to buy this property on 1420 West Center in order to be close to the University. Most of them live on campus, some live off campus and it's within walking distance, very conducive and very close. The site, like I said, is .67 acres. We've got an old house, we are constantly repairing it. There was, at one point in time, a conditional use approved by the City and when we looked at it we found out it was too expensive, too large and not practical. We decided to redesign the whole building. Now we are coming before the Commission requesting a re -approval of the conditional use. If you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer them. Estes: Thank you Mr. Bayyari. Staff recommends approval of this conditional use subject to certain conditions of approval. Mr. Conklin, are there signed conditions of approval? Conklin: Yes there are. Estes: Those conditions are. Number one, the applicant shall maintain all existing trees on-site. • Modification to the proposed parking area along the west property line may be • • Planning Commission May 29, 2001 Page 21 necessary to preserve the existing trees along this fence line. The Landscape Administrator must approve final site plans prior to the issuance of a building permit. Number two, wooden privacy fences along the north and west property lines shall be repaired (as needed) and maintained in good condition to provide a screen between the proposed use and the child care facility and single family home. Number three, on-site parking spaces shall be developed in compliance with the City's adopted UDO. A maximum of 35% of the spaces provided on-site may be compact. A revised site plan will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Number four, parking permits to accommodate those members who are not able to park in the on-site parking lot shall be obtained from the University of Arkansas Transit Office. No vehicles shall be parked on the site in areas outside of the established parking lot. Number five, construction of sidewalks along Razorback Road and Center Street in accordance with current City standards. Number six, setback between the parking lot and the Center Street right-of-way (min. 15') shall comply with §172.01 Parking & Loading of the UDO and a row of shrubs shall be installed to screen the parking area from the street. Number seven, no freestanding lighting shall be installed in the proposed parking lot. Outdoor lighting shall consist of wall lights and landscape lights, all of which shall be shielded and directed away from adjacent residential property. Number eight, trash pick up shall be arranged with the Solid Waste Division. If a dumpster is required, a suitable pad shall be installed at the north end of the parking lot and screening shall be provided on three sides of the dumpster pad. If residential bag pick up is used, trash shall be stored in an area which is screened from the public view at all times except when it has been placed at the curb on the day of pick up. Number nine, this conditional use shall only apply to the proposal described in this application and shown on the submitted plans. Any future addition or modification to this development shall require a new conditional use application and public hearing. PUBLIC COMMENT: Estes: Is there any member of the audience which wishes to provide comment or to make a presentation regarding this proposed conditional use? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Estes: Seeing none, I will bring this conditional use request back to the Commission for discussion, motions and questions of the applicant, if any. Marr: At the agenda session, you talked about the compact car percentage. I know that the condition reads the way that you wanted It to be. Is the plan reflective of that? • • • Planning Commission May 29, 2001 Page 22 Warrick: Estes: Bayyari: Conklin: Bayyari: Allen: Bayyari: Estes: Allen: Estes: MOTION: Marr: Allen: Estes: Hoffman: Hoover: The current plan is not. The current plan will have to be modified to reflect the requirement of a maximum of 35% compact spaces. Sooner or later, when we deal with a use unit 4, it seems invariably we deal with a child care issue. Does the applicant have any problem with an additional condition of approval that there be no for fee child care in the facility? We are not planning to have a child care facility. What do you mean? Pre-school where you take your child and pay for daycare during the day. We have no intention of having a daycare facility within the center. I think it would be good to include as item number ten, no child care facility be used, if that's acceptable. There might be a class. May I suggest no for fee childcare? Sure. Any additional comments? I would like to move for approval of conditional use 01-13.00 subject to the ten conditions, the tenth being the childcare addition. I'll second. We have a motion by Commissioner Marr and a second by Commissioner Allen to approve conditional use request 01-13.00. This does require five affirmative votes of the full Commission. Is there any further discussion? Commissioner Hoover, at Subdivision Committee did you guys talk about the Commercial Design Standards and are you satisfied with those? We didn't have this at Subdivision. • • • Planning Commission May 29, 2001 Page 23 Conklin: This is under an acre. He did bring an elevation in and you have one in your packet. Fadil probably can better go over those elevations if you would like him to. Hoffman: The only question I have about the elevations is the north one because it's a metal building. What does the north elevation contain? Bayyari: We consider the north side the back of the building. Right north of it is the childcare facility, the kindergarten. There is a six foot fence. Hoffman: I understand now. Bayyari: We are planning to have these three elevations on the east, west and south. Hoffman: Those look fine. Conklin: On page 4.20 you can see the north elevation in the photograph. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Man to approve conditional use 01-13.00 and a second by Commissioner Allen, is there any further discussion? Would you call the roll please? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call CU 01-13.00 is approved by a unanimous vote of 6-0-0. Planning Commission May 29, 2001 Page 24 CU 01-14.00: Conditional Use (Central United Methodist Church, pp 484) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Central United Methodist Church for property located at 346 N. St. Charles. The property is zoned R -O. Residential Office and contains approximately 0.30 acres. The request is for a church (use unit 4, cultural & recreational facility) in a R -O district. Estes: The next item on the agenda is item number five, a conditional use request 01-14.00 Central United Methodist Church submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Central United Methodist Church for property located at 346 N. St. Charles. The property is zoned R -O. Residential Office and contains approximately 0.30 acres. The request is for a church (use unit 4, cultural & recreational facility) in a R -O district. Commissioners, are there any recusals? Allen: My church affiliation is with Central United Methodist so I think it's appropriate that I recuse. Estes: Mr. Jorgensen, there are six in attendance, one has recused. That leaves five participating and on a conditional use request it requires five affirmative votes. Does the applicant wish to proceed? Jorgensen: We would like to table it to the next meeting for that reason. We thought maybe it would be a good idea to have everyone present for that reason. Estes: That is your privilege and it will be pulled. Mr. Conklin, it will be calendered at the next regularly called meeting, is that correct? Conklin: That's correct. Planning Commission May 29, 2001 Page 25 LSD 01-14.00: Large Scale Development (Central United Methodist, pp 484) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Central United Methodist Church for property located at 346 N. St. Charles The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 0.30 acres. The request is to build 31 additional parking spaces. Estes: Jorgensen: Estes: Mr. Jorgensen? The next item is the large scale development which is the companion to the conditional use, you have six Commissioners present, one has recused. The large scale development will require a majority of those present but will be dependent upon the approval of the conditional use. Does the applicant wish to proceed on it's application for the large scale development? We would also like to pull that from the agenda. That is your privilege and will be done. This will be heard at the next regularly called meeting. Planning Commission May 29, 2001 Page 26 AD 00-46.00: Administrative Item to Amend the Definition of a Family in the UDO. Estes: The remaining item is item number seven. This is an administrative item to amend the definition of a family contained in the Unified Development Ordinance. Mr. Conklin, what background information do you have available for us as we consider this administrative item? Conklin: At the April 9th Planning Commission meeting, which was a very long meeting, the Commission directed staff to bring forward an ordinance that would leave the number of unrelated individuals at three in single family zoning districts and then increase the current number which was at three to four in all zoning districts that allow other than single family homes. That's what we are bringing forward to you this evening. On page 7.3 we have a proposed recommended definition and I'll read that at this time. Family. (Zoning) In single family residential districts, a family is no more than three (3) persons unless all are related and occupy a dwelling as a single housekeeping unit in the RE (Residential Estate), RA (Residential Acre Lot), RL (Residential Large Lot), R -I (Low Density Residential), and RS (Residential Small Lot) zoning districts. In all other zoning districts where residential uses are permitted, a family is no more than four (4) persons unless all are related and occupy a dwelling as a single housekeeping unit. A family is when all persons are related by blood, marriage, adoption, guardianship or other duly -authorized custodial relationship. The definition offamily does not include fraternities, sororities, clubs or institutional groups. Staff is also recommending that we add a definition for single housekeeping unit as follows: Single Housekeeping Unit. (Zoning) A dwelling unit with common access to and common use of all living and eating areas and all areas and facilities for the preparation, serving and storage of food within the dwelling unit. Another amendment to the definition of a family is the removal of the provision for domestic servants. Prior to this recommendation, domestic servants were not counted against the number of unrelated individuals in a family. Staff is proposing that the domestic servants provision be eliminated altogether. That is our recommendation. We started out with subcommittee meetings and went to Planning Commission on April 9th and this will be our second Planning Commission meeting on this item. Estes: Tim, does the staff recommendation also include allowing a maximum number of three unrelated individuals in residential estate, residential acre lot, residential large lot, low • • • Planning Commission May 29, 2001 Page 27 density residential and residential small lot zoning districts and to allow a maximum number of four unrelated individuals in all other districts that allow residential uses? Conklin: That is correct. For clarification for the public and Commission, staff is not changing the number of unrelated individuals that currently exist. The current number is three. We are expanding that to allow four in multi -family and non single-family zoning districts. We are actually increasing the number in those zoning districts where we may have apartment type complexes where you may have four bedrooms with four individuals living in one dwelling unit and that will help take care of that situation. PUBLIC COMMENT: Estes: Is there any member of the public who would like to comment on this administrative item 00-46.00 definition of a family? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Estes: Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for discussion, motions. MOTION: Marr: I was recalling the minutes from the last meeting and I think this recommendation is in line with what I recalled and reread through the minutes. I' 11 move for approval of administrative item 00-46.00 as submitted by City staff. Hoffman: I'll second with a question for staff Just for clarification. Do we have a provision or do we need a provision in this if we are creating any existing non -conforming structures that are used presently as sorority houses, as an existing non -conforming use with a certificate of occupancy, does this in any way affect their ability to continue to function or will they have to come back to the Planning Commission to get a conditional use to continue those functions? Conklin: This ordinance is not changing the situation where you may have that type of use. We are keeping up to three unrelated individuals in the single family zoning districts and we are allowing four unrelated individuals in other zoning districts that allow duplexes, triplexes and apartments. If there is a situation that they are in violation of the ordinance, of course we would go out and investigate and request that they cease using that structure in that manner. If that doesn't work, we would send them over to the City Prosecutor. Planning Commission May 29, 2001 Page 28 Hoffman: I think we've got at least four or five of those type with the domestic servants and there are sororities. Not that I'm advocating that we have a conditional use for them but I just wondered what their course of action would be. Conklin: If there is a complaint and they are in violation of our ordinance, they'll receive a violation notice. Hoffman. That answers my question and my second stands. Conklin: We did receive information from Lindsey apartment communities on what their current policy is. I would like to read that since they took the effort to get that to staff today. "Occupancy is limited to no more than two persons per bedroom. Children under the • age of two at the time of the lease or extension or renewal is executable not be counted toward this limit. Three adults may occupy an apartment only if related to each other by blood or marriage. Occupancy by more than three adults is not permitted." Lindsey Management already has in place similar restrictions on their rental units. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Marr to approve administrative item 00-46.00 and a second by Commissioner Hoffman, is there any other discussion? Marr: I would just like to make a comment. I think it's appropriate to thank the 100 hours of committee work, a lot of research and I appreciate the time that they put into that. The analysis from City staff that we got on town comparisons, I thought the work was excellent. Estes: Any further discussion? Would you call the roll please? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call AD 00-46.00 is approved by a unanimous vote of 6-0-0 and will be forwarded to City Council for consideration. Planning Commission May 29, 2001 Page 29 Estes: Conklin: Earnest: Is there any other business to come before the Commission? Mr. Hugh Earnest has an announcement to make. My name is Hugh Earnest, I'm the Urban Development Director for those of you that haven't met me or I haven't had the opportunity to meet you and I apologize for that. It's been a hectic couple of weeks. As this Commission knows, there has been a Master Parks Plan that has been voted on and adopted by the Parks Advisory Committee. It's my suggestion along with Mr. Conklin and Ms Edmonston that we have a joint meeting between this Commission and City Council to have an in depth discussion of this plan that would be presented by the consultant Lose and Associates. I made this same announcement to the Council earlier this meeting. The dates that are possible from the consultants perspective and that's who we need to get over here from Tennessee are June 26 or July 16 or 17. No action would be contemplated by the Council at that time. It would be the opening of what I hope would be a further discussion of what is a large and very complex plan and something that will drive this City for the foreseeable future and where we are going on our parks. I think it's certainly important. I have a certain interest in this having served for close to 6 years on the Planning Commission in Little Rock. I certainly think it's an issue that needs to be brought to as many different venues as possible and I think this is a good attempt for us to bring everybody together and discuss it. I think we might want to poll everybody tomorrow by phone to see what date is preferable. My bias would be as early as possible, which would be the June meeting because we would need to take some action, if possible, on some of those changes in the Parks Master Plan in the next budget cycle. That would be my preference but we want to get as many people to this meeting as we possibly can. We'll hold it in some venue and provide food and refreshments. Sometime on that evening on any one of those three dates. Estes: Any other business to come before the Commission? Conklin: There is no other business. Estes: We are adjourned until the next regularly called meeting. 5-29-01 PC Mtg. Minutes of the 5-14-01 PC Mtg. VA 01-4.00 Wedington Place Phase II, Lots 4A & 4B, pp 401 VA 01-5.00 University of Arkansas, pp 483 MOTION fob C5 fes Es 4-e-s lfellmu..-- SECOND rau,ti D. Bunch o w+ 0 v-4- o w} B. Estes y c `f L. Hoffman Y S. Hoover y Y N. Allen Y Y D. Marr 1 k( i hi- A�. Bshop Y Y Shackelford o „a+ 0 0 (At L. Ward p ,a— O O Lk ACTION PrP Pro ue-a PagsEd 'RPPm`t4 VOTE 1 -b to-D • • • 5-29-01 PC Mtg. LSD 01-12.00 City of Fayetteville, Lewis Street Soccer Field, pp 406 CU 01-13.00 Islamic Center, pp 52t CU 01-14.00 Central United Methodist Church, pp 484 MOTION i tta,.,, ill &ru SECOND CYV R D. Bunch © - o vi etj B. Estes Y i L. Hoffman Y Y S. Hoover \( 1 N. Allen `( •Y .A.).1\u.a.a. D. Marr Y. Y . A. Bishop Y Y Shackelford 6 ouj - o L. Ward p ( otA a wrt ACTION Paseo! Ya55ed \Qd 1 &\ VOTE 6,- a lQ-a • • • 5-29-01 PC Mtg. LSD 01-14.00 Central United Methodist Church, pp 484 AD 00-46.00, Definition of a Family . _ '^ �q,,' a vlu L,(, _ i1 h earn% MOTION ITl SECOND 4.6410-ma,vi. D. Bunch n ow+ to o B. Estes r L. Hoffman S. Hoover Y N Allen s e._J Y rc D. Marr # l( A. Bishop \1 Shackelford 0 id-+ 0 ,j o,,ji L. Ward 0 Q,,,_j1- 0uf ACTION t e L Pgs Sed. j cL b VOTE tg, —0 F