Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-06-11 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on June 11, 2001, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN Minutes of the May 29, 2001 meeting Page 2 CU 01-14.00: Conditional Use (Central United Methodist Church, pp 4841Denied Page 3 LSD 01-14.00: Large Scale Development (Central United Methodist Church, pp 484) Moot Approved Page 27 CUP 01-15.00: Page 27 ADM 01-24.00: Page 28 ADM 01-25.00: S. Page 32 • Conditional Use (DeWeese, pp 369) Withdrawn by applicant Administrative Item (Lindsey, pp 175) No Action Administrative Item (Amendment to Chapter 156, "Variances, Section 156.03(c)(5) MEMBERS PRESENT Nancy Allen Sharon Hoover Bob Estes Alice Bishop Don Marr Lee Ward Don Bunch Loren Shackelford STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Dawn Warrick Ron Petrie Kit Williams Sheri Metheney Hugh Earnest Tabled MEMBERS ABSENT Lorel Hoffman STAFF ABSENT 1 • • • Planning Commission June 11, 2001 Page 2 ROLL CALL and Approval of the minutes from the May 29, 2001 meeting. Estes: Welcome to the June 11, 2001, City of Fayetteville Planning Commission meeting. The first order of business will be to call the roll. Sheri, would you call the roll please? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call there were 8 Commissioners present with Commissioner Lorel Hoffman absent. Estes: The next order of business to come before your Commission is approval of the minutes from the May 29, 2001, meeting. Are there any additions, amendments, modifications or changes to the minutes resulting from the May 29, 2001, meeting? Seeing none, they will be approved. 1 • • Planning Commission June 11, 2001 Page 3 Old Business: 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 31 space parking lot for a church (use unit 4, cultural & recreational facility) in an R -O district. Estes: Before we go to the first item of business let me say this, item number three under new business, the conditional use 01-15.00 has been pulled by the applicant. If anyone is here to participate in agenda item number three, that item has been pulled by the applicant and will not come before us this evening. Item number one of old business is Conditional Use 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 31 space parking lot for a church (use unit 4, cultural & recreational facility) in an R -O district. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use subject to the following conditions: Number one, Planning Commission approval of the accompanying large scale development for the construction of additional parking spaces for this facility. Number two, compliance with all conditions placed on the associated large scale development (LSD 01-14). Number three, all further parking lot development or expansion will require additional conditional use approval Tim, do we have signed conditions of approval? Conklin: We do not have signed conditions of approval Estes: As to condition of approval number three, that all further parking lot development or expansion will require additional conditional use approval, Mr. Williams, may I ask you to opine as to this condition number three and in particular please opine as to the following: Is it permissible to place as a condition of approval on a requested conditional use a requirement for an additional conditional use approval for a previously approved large scale development? Williams: Mr. Chairman and Commission, my basic answer to that is that it should not be a requirement. A previous large scale development that has been approved by the Planning Commission, for this particular land, should be binding if no one has objected to it. It hasn't gone and been appealed anywhere. Therefore, that large scale development which was approved back in 1995, which would allow for development of a couple of different parking lots is permissible at this point in time. I think it would be improper for the Planning Commission or the Planning Division to condition a • Planning Commission June 11, 2001 Page 4 Estes: Conklin: Estes: Conklin: Estes: Hoover: • Allen: Estes: • Jorgensen: Estes: Jorgensen: previously approved large scale development as a condition for approving the new application for a parking lot. Thank you Kit. Tim, with that said, does staff have any amendments or changes to the conditions of approval? Based on the City Attorney's opinion, condition number three for conditional use 01- 14.00 will need to be removed from that staff report. The two remaining conditions of approval are the previous conditions that I've read is condition one and condition two, and condition three is deleted, is that correct? That is correct. Is the applicant present? I'm going to need to recuse from this CU 01-14.00. I am a member of Central United Methodist and I think it's appropriate to also recuse. There are two recusals, there are eight present and that leaves six remaining to participate. This is a conditional use request and will require five affirmative votes. The two recusals will be counted as absent. Does the applicant wish to proceed? Yes, we do. Dave, tell us what we need to know. My name is Dave Jorgensen and I'm representing the church on this matter. As you know it's a 31 space parking lot that's been requested and }rou all have seen the drawing of this parking lot and I put it up here for everyone's review. I colored the surrounding area green so you can see the greenspace that we are preserving. You will notice down in the southeast corner there is a fairly substantial area that we are preserving and there are two other locations. In fact, on this particular lot we are preserving every tree except one in the southwest corner which is required to construct the sidewalk. You can see that there is a fair amount of greenspace and in fact we've lost about 8 or 9 spaces because of working around the trees and everything. Our parking lot, in this particular case, is five feet away from the nght-of-way and we are requesting that this five feet space be bermed up higher than the normal level and • • • Planning Commission June 11,2001 Page 5 planted with what we called red tipped Photinias so that we could provide some kind of a border between the parking lot and St. Charles Street. We are thinking with those red tipped Photinias it will provide an adequate barrier between the parking lot and St. Charles Street, especially since the grade separation is five or six feet We feel like there is going to be an adequate barrier right there to more or less screen the parking lot. That's part of the reason for our request. The other reason for our request that we go to this five foot greenspace is that we have already gone from about 39 or 40 spaces and now we are down to 31 spaces and we are trying to make the best use of this. We were called in originally to try to help out on a serious parking problem at the church. We park over at the Auto Zone parking lot almost every Sunday morning and this is just on normal Sundays. This isn't Easter, Christmas and other holidays. It's gotten to be a serious situation and we are trying to preserve the area as much as we possibly can. We felt like we've done a pretty good job on this and we would like to just say that it's simply a 31 space parking lot that's under consideration here. PUBLIC COMMENT: Estes: Is there any member of the audience that would like to provide public comment on this conditional use request and if so, let me ask you to do this, please keep your comments brief, to the point and relevant to the agenda item being considered, so that everyone will have a chance to speak and please do not be repetitious or redundant. By that I mean, do not repeat what a previous speaker has said. If you would come to the podium and give us your name and address and tell us what you think we need to know. Alexander: Rick Alexander, I live at 231 East Dickson Street. I also own property across the street from this proposed Conditional Use. I wasn't really looking forward to coming up here and arguing against this and I want to make clear from the start, this is not an anti -church issue as far as I'm concerned. Personally, I know many of the parishioners in this church and they are all good people and I'm sure the church does good work. What I am concerned about, as a property owner and as somebody who lives and works in downtown Fayetteville, I'm concerned about the proliferation of parking at the expense of our architectural and historic heritage. In the last ten or fifteen years as I have been paying attention to these issues, we've lost a lot of our downtown character and heritage to parking. I guess one of my concerns is where do we stop and draw the line at more parking to accommodate uses that ultimately will gobble up our downtown. If all of the churches in the downtown area had all of the parking that they think they need, we would have no downtown area, we would have parking. I live in the histonc district. I live Just down the street from St Joseph's. If St. Joseph's had solved it's • • • Planning Commission June 11, 2001 Page 6 parking problem over the years by buying up the houses adjacent to St. Joseph's, you would have no historic district, you would have St. Joseph's and a parking lot. Let me say, I enjoy having St. Joseph's in the neighborhood. I enjoy the good work that they do, I like having a school there, I like having a church there, I like having this church there. They built a fine facility that my son has used but, there is a tremendous trade-off happening here and I'm really concerned we are going to end up with more parking and no downtown, at some point, if we satisfy our parking needs in this fashion and that is by without building decks. I would also just like to point out that with this particular project, most Sundays the parking lot and deck at the County Courthouse sits empty. The parking lot at the library is largely unused on Sunday's, I know because I live next to it. By my odometer, it's as close from that parking lot to the front door to United Methodist as it is from the front door of United Methodist to this house on St. Charles. I think that there are parking solutions available that we canlook to and at some point we are going to have to lookat as a City. Maybe this isn't the one, maybe we pass this one but at some point we are going to have to address this issue if we want to have a downtown. I would like to call the Board's attention to your planning regulations at 172.01(e)(2)(b) "Parking lots for uses allowed as conditional uses within residential zones must be approved as a conditional use. A conditional use for a parking lot may be approved at the time the use is approved or may be approved separately if additional parking lots are developed later. The Planning Commission shall make a finding based on the size, scale, and location of these activities that the proposed parking lot will not adversely affect the adjacent residential uses or the residential character of the neighborhood." I will submit that if you tear down all the houses to make parking, you have adversely affected the residential character of the neighborhood. It is my understanding that this parking lot is to be expanded to Lafayette Street and encompass most of that block between Highland and St. Charles, all the way from Dickson to Lafayette, further taking more of our buildings and residential structures and architectural heritage. I don't know what the solution is. Certainly DDEP has looked at the parking situation and has determined that there is a lot of parking that is unused at various times in the downtown area. Maybe the solution is to utilize the trolley to ferry churchgoers from unused parking on Sunday's to the various churches. Again, I live across the street from this structure. I was in hopes that this structure would be redeveloped as residential or some other use that kept the character of the neighborhood in tact. It's a hard decision. I would suggest, with all due respect to Kit who I know is a good attorney, that this is a conditional use, I don't know why it would be inappropriate to put whatever conditions on the granting of this conditional use insomuch as those conditions might concern the later development of parking in this area. Maybe there is a trade-off. Maybe we do St. Charles and don't do all of Lafayette. I don't know if that's a good trade off but that's what Commissions • • • Planning Commission June 11, 2001 Page 7 Marinoni: Estes: Mannoni: Estes: Marinoni: and elected officials are put here for, to make those tough decisions. Again, I didn't relish coming up here, but I live here, I work here and I'm deeply concerned about the loss of our downtown heritage. Thank you. Paula Marinoni and I am the founder and president of the Washington County Historic Preservation Association I have been actively involved in preservation in Fayetteville for six years since I returned here. I have been actively involved in the preservation of west Lafayette Street. I have been working on this issue for 51/2 years and have logged a considerable amount of time. I have a new petition that was circulated, you have one in your packet, it's from the residents of Boles' Rollston, that area, the neighborhood to the west, there are about 25 signatures on that. This petition was circulated to the Mount Nord area Don they probably thought that might be a conflict to ask you. This is not in your packet, it is most of the people on Lafayette Street and Mount Nord. Can I submit this? Yes. Submit that to Sheri please and she'll publish it to the Commission. I have been actively working on this since it came up, since I saw the little red sign go up. I found out that I missed the Subdivision Committee and I came to the agenda session with information that the church already had approval in their large scale development of 1995 for the parking lots in question that go all the way to Lafayette Street. I have to say at this point that I'm a little perturbed that that was not presented in your original packets. It was not in the minutes of that Subdivision Committee meeting at all It talked about the large scale development that was approved in 1995 but it didn't mention anything about this parking that had already been approved, is already lines on paper and they continue to say that they have no plan for this. It has been alluded to in the newspapers and editorials that I'm not telling the truth. At this time I would like to settle this if you would. May I? I don't want to limit your comments in any way but please do keep your comments brief, to the point and relevant to this one agenda item. If your comments are relevant to this one agenda item being considered, please proceed. I1' they are not, I would ask you to go to some comments that are relevant to the agenda item. The relevance that I'm getting at and as a neighbor, resident and someone who cares about the plan for this block that's being turned into a parking lot, is that the Planning Commission and the planners don't seem to see that all this parking that's already been approved and all the houses that have already been removed are not relevant. Would you allow Jim Lindsey to come in here with adjacent properties and have one that has • • • Planning Commission June 11, 2001 Page 8 already been approved and come with another one that is part of the same development and allow him to present without showing how it would relate to the other? I can't imagine that and I don't see why a church should get special consideration. Do you not think this is relevant? Estes: I'll accept that as a rhetorical question and you may answer it and proceed with your comments. Marinoni: The green house at 353 Highland that is a late 1800's house, is already approved for parking. It is already lines on paper. The gravel parking lot at the comer of Lafayette and Highland is already approved for a parking lot. The Brown's grocery store at 111 West Lafayette, the site of the Bonnie and Clyde Gang robbery is already approved for a parking lot, the vacant lot to the west of 113 West Lafayette, the Treece home, is already approved for a parking lot. I don't see why you are letting them come and ask for another parking lot when they are not coming back in review and telling you what their plans are for these other properties. That's been six years and nothing has happened. What I'm asking you to do is refuse this today, make them come back and show how the whole thing fits in together. If you deny a conditional use, they can not bring it back for one year unless a major change has been made. A major change could be showing how it works with other properties. The neighbors and the residents would like to work with them. I have put forth extensive efforts in the last three or four weeks to find out today that all of that has been for not. There was never really any intention of doing anything that we talked about which is upsetting to me. We would like to work with the church and help make available to them the parking that they need and leave the historic structures on Lafayette to be redeveloped. A conditional use is not a right, it is a privilege. If it was a right, they wouldn't have to come and ask you for it. One of the conditions in your packet for approving a conditional use, it says under 3B "The granting of a conditional use will not adversely affect the public interests. Finding - The granting of the conditional use with recommended conditions and safeguards, etcetera, etcetera... will not adversely affect the public interests" Who says? Is tearing down our neighborhoods not adversely affecting the public interests? That is one solid reason why you can say no to this. The parking lot ordinance that Richard Alexander mentioned, that is another solid reason why you can say no to this. They said that they are using the area parking lots. They may have an agreement to use it but on Sunday's there are about five cars parked in Auto Zone. Another reason why you can say no is, usually in a conditional use, that conditional use is not granted unless they have performed everything that they said they would do in the past. In the last parking lot approval they left out islands that were supposed to be in that parking lot. Technically they have not performed what they have promised to do in the last approval • • • Planning Commission June 11, 2001 Page 9 Swain: of parking lots. That is three solid reasons why you can send this back and ask them to come forward with a total plan. You are the Planning staff, you are the Planning Commissioners, we are asking you to plan. This bringing in one house at a time that they are moving off before they even ask, is not appropriate at all and is not giving the neighbors consideration for living in midtown. In closing, I just want to say that I'm a little shocked, I have had a lot of dealings with a lot of people and a lot of times it was an adversarial negotiating process. I feel like I have been out and out lied to, I feel like they are lying to the people when they buy these houses and as I was coming out the door I said to my husband "Well it looks like they lied". I said "It looks like the church lied" and my son said "A church lied?" I asked them all along, last year with the tree issue was so hateful and harmful to this community, I believe personally. I told them from the beginning, we have an opportunity here to set an example for positive conflict resolution. We can work this out, we can work together. I was just led along until the last minute of the last day. I want to ask them something. They said they need to bring people to the Lord, I say this in all respect and I want them to think about this, is this about bringing people to the Lord or is it about egos, money and power? Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Brian Swain and I have the privilege as serving as the administrator of Central United Methodist Church. First of all, I want to thank you for the opportunity to come before you today and present this item and ask that you give it full consideration. Central is simply requesting that you approve the addition of 31 parking spaces on a parcel along St. Charles. Central currently has 178 parking spaces that are constructed adjacent to our activity center which was constructed from 1995 to 1997. Back in 1995 Central had two weekly Sunday morning services, an 8:30 a.m. and 10:50 a.m. service. With the addition of our activity center we added a third service at 9:40 a.m. Our average weekly attendance in 1995 was approximately 950, now we are averaging several hundred more than that with a peak weekly attendance each year of 2,500. Central has been in downtown Fayetteville since 1832. Since that time our church has had several additions that we believe have enhanced the downtown area. We believe that our properties are some of the best maintained in the downtown area. Our history and our track record has always been to make improvements each time we've undertaken a development throughout our history. The addition of our activity center in 1997 is an example of that. I want to pass around to you two pictures, one is a before picture and an after picture from the same location. I think that you will find by reviewing these that this most recent development which was a 4% million dollar investment in the downtown at that time, has been done very well. In early 2000, Central acquired property located at 346 St. Charles, which is the property you have before you today concerning the conditional use request. After a decision to explore placement of parking on the • • Planning Commission June 11, 2001 Page 10 Estes: Swain: property, we sought buyers for the house located on the property. We did that for almost a year. Finally in December of last year an agreement was signed with a young couple here in Fayetteville that purchased the home, which has now been moved. We believe that this property represents the best option for current development of parking that we have available to us. According to the parking lot ordinance we are allowed one parking space for every four seats in our warship center. Central is unique in which we have two worship centers on our premises. Our main sanctuary seats 900, our activity center seats 800. In total that represents 1,700 seats which equates to 425 allowable parking spaces. As I said earlier, we currently have 178. We have attempted to put off the physical addition of parking by utilizing shared agreements with nearby organizations as well as using available on -street parking. We have grown to the point that these remedies are no longer adequate. I want to address a couple of concerns that were brought forward by City staff and others. First of all, I wantto indicate that we want to provide adequate separation to the north of the proposed parking lot, particularly in regard to Mr. Boyett's house. I've read his letter and I've heard his comments and we are committed in trying to keep that a barrier so that he doesn't get infringed upon or have disruption in his home value. Second, we believe we've gone to great lengths to preserve the existing trees on the property to such a point of sacrificing potential parking spaces. Thus, we ask that you agree to our request for the 10 foot waiver to the west along St. Charles. If we are not granted the waiver we would be sacrificing two other possible parking spaces. Brian, excuse me for interrupting but the matter that is before us now is your conditional use request and we are now taking public comment. I've been lenient with your remarks but I think you are speaking as an advocate of the applicant and not as a member of the public providing comment. Please limit your remarks to this conditional use request that is before us. The waiver is contained in the LSD. The agenda item that is before us is the request for 31 parking spaces, a use unit four in an R-0 district. If you have some public comment, I don't want to preclude public comment in any way but it seems to me that you are speaking as an advocate for the applicant and not providing us with public comment but please continue. My final comment is to indicate to you that we are only proposing development on the St. Charles property at this time and believe that discussion about other properties is not really pertinent to our request. We hope that you will take all of the presented information into consideration and that you will approve the proposed 31 spaces. We believe many lives are being affected by what's going on at Central United Methodist Church and we appreciate your consideration. Planning Commission • June 11, 2001 Page 11 • • Olszewski: Joanne Olszewski, 616 Reagan I am a property owner at 345 St. Charles Avenue. I was raised a Methodist, I attended a Methodist college, I also grew up in Chicago and outside of Chicago and I've seen what unplanned development can do. I chose to set up an accounting practice, my CPA firm, in the downtown area. To do so, I bought a house in close proximity so that I could walk to work. I did not want to commute. That was my choice. I have thoroughly enjoyed walking to work. It's a beautiful walk in front of Old Main to downtown. There is one parking lot that I have to go through and sometimes it is unbearable in the summer. I actually have to drive because it is too hot to get across. That's not what I'm here to say. When Holly McKewn, the woman that owned that piece of property sold it, she was thrilled because she was under the impression it was going to be a youth center. I was thrilled because I love where I work and I love how beautiful it is. I feel so incredibly privileged to live and work in a beautiful area. I feel safe here. You don't feel safe in Chicago. I feel safe. I totally appreciate what people do. As an accountant, I'm a stickler for the law. I have to be. I would more than appreciate following the law. I watched them move the last half of that house today, I saw the tree that they cut down, I'm assuming that's the only one they are cutting for the sidewalk, and I'm heartsick about it. What I would like to ask you to do is to think about the overview of it all. I actually argued that it was not true, that there could be more parking spaces. I used the Subdivision Committee meeting notes of May 17`s, in which it stated at that Subdivision Committee meeting, that the "Ordinance requirement is for one parking space for every four seats and there are 225 parking spaces requirement with an additional 45 allowed. Currently there are 232 on site." I did not believe that another 90 parking spots could go in there because I had it in writing. I called downtown to talk to Sara Edwards who told me it was an error, that actually they went and counted and there are only 178 parking spots on site. I was flabbergasted. That error was from a letter, according to Sara, that came from David Jorgensen which alluded to there being 232 on site. I was bothered by that. Now I understand. As an accountant I get real picky. I always say to people when they come into my office that I would rather ask the hard questions here than later. There is an old saying "You can beat the wrath of the IRS but you will never beat the ride " I feel the same way about courts and things. What I want to say to wrap it up and I do want to thank the church for moving that house, if you are going to take it down, thank you that you moved it. You sold it to a really nice young couple and I know they've had some difficulties lately but their baby is fine and I was really glad to see it go out and be used. But, a waiver for a 15 foot bermed area between what I look at every day, I don't know that that's enough. No offense to you sir but, you didn't lost any parking spaces because you didn't have any yet. I would just ask you to look at the entire plan, rethink it. I would ask everyone to think of something creative where we can all benefit. It's been noted in Subcommittee reports that some people believe that businesses are really Planning Commission June 11, 2001 Page 12 Pettus: happy there are more parking spaces there I am limited to three but I knew that when I bought the property I bought. If I need more, I will have to think of something else. I thank you for your time. I would Just like to ask you to really think about this. I'm not happy with it. If you must have these 31 parking spaces, I would like you to think about the other 60. Thank you so much. Lamar Pettus. I am a member of Central. I think we do need the parking and I think we are making an effort to try to do it in a way that preserves as many trees as possible. I have two other comments, as Donna and I, through a trust, own a property right across the street and about two houses down from where the house was moved We have invested quite a bit of money in that property in the last five years. We are looking for more property in the area to invest. We are trying to bring people downtown because it's a good concept that started with people like my good friend Rick Alexander and it's working. If you'll go by the churches in this area, just about every night of the week from the spring to the fall, you've got people there. There is difficulty finding parking on Wednesday nights, there is difficulty finding parking on Sunday's, anytime there is a special event. I think the parking is needed. I would encourage you to go ahead and grant the parking request. The only other comment that I would have is, I am sometimes concerned even when my good friend like Rick gets up here because he forgot about three years ago, we took a conditional use parking request that abutted right up against the neighbors houses and he wanted me to lease it for him and we did for 20 years He paved it, water ran across it of it, we had a little lady down in the holler screaming and crying, that wasn't an issue because we had a parking lot there. You really need to look in perspective where people are coming from, but this parking is needed and we have put a lot of money and a lot of improvements into the downtown area through Central Unil:ed Methodist Church. You have the Episcopal Church doing the same thing. We share parking, we don't fight about it but we need more. Thank you. Boyett: For those who were clapping earlier, they certainly don't have a parking lot going in their backyard. I'm Jeff Boyett. My family and I own the property directly north of the proposed lot on the eastern side, 125 West Lafayette. Basically, we are being run out of the downtown area because we are going to be completely surrounded by parking. I went to the Subcommittee meeting where nothing was said about Lafayette Street. My main concern was our lack of privacy. Skateboarders use the post office parking lot, the existing church parking on a nightly basis and I've got nothing against skateboarders at all, I just don't want them right in my back yard. The increased heat of a parking lot is unbearable in the summer time. We also have a decrease to property values. It's all something that we face living downtown. Two years ago we refinanced Planning Commission June 11, 2001 Page 13 and we had an appraiser come out that would not even value our property because we were not using it for it's best use, which was an office. We live there, it's been a house for 100 years. We chose the whole. It's a big house. It needs a lot of work, we are working on it day by day. To be completely surrounded by parking is just not something anyone in this room would say "Yes, I want to be surrounded by parking." If they say that, they are lying. It's just simply not a place that you would want to raise a family. The Subcommittee meeting, everything was fine, we were fighting against 31 parking spots. Well, I come to the meeting two weeks ago and find out the vacant lot next to us has already been approved five or six years ago. Things have changed since then, people have changed, the situation has changed. The City has come to realize that we have a historical value, that we have places that we want to look at other than just black pavement. It's not right that they have approval for that. Regardless of what the law is and I understand that but, it's not right that they can just sit on that and do nothing with it. It's basically now looming over our heads. My greatest fear, once they've got this 31 spaces they are going right to the vacant. lot. If all they need is 31 spaces, park up at the elementary school, there are 31 spaces there. Park on Lafayette Street, no one parks there, I live there, I know. They have a parking problem two hours a week, 9 to 11, 10 to 12 or whatever. It's two hours a week. They have services on Sunday night, they have services on Wednesday night. They have things throughout the week but only on Sunday morning is there trouble finding a parking lot. If they have more trouble than that, they are looking at one too close to the door. Look around on Lafayette and walk through the vacant lot, they do mow it occasionally to where people could walk it if they chose to but they don't. There is parking all around. They haven't even looked at the parking. They say, the editorial said it's a vacant lot, it was just vacated today or yesterday. It's not been a vacant lot long. It's just simply not acceptable to be paving our downtown area For them to have approval that is not revisited is wrong. You are not looking at 31 spots, it's wrong to look at that because it's a whole grand scheme of things. You can't just look at one piece and say "Yes, we'll give it to that", because that directly ties into everything else that they are doing up there. You have to, as a Planning Commission take that into account or there is no way you can make a rational decision based on that because it's part of a punk, you can't just look at one piece of it. They say that they are out of parking. There is lots more parking that they have not utilized at all The photos that were passed around, you'll notice that they put the activity center covering up all their parking lot. They created their own problem but then they got the approval for the vacant lot. We've lived there close to 4 years, my daughter is 4 years old. She's spent all but about 4 months of her life in that house. I have a daughter coming in a week and I hoped to raise her in this house. My wife pretty much was raised in the house after her grandparents bought it in 1970. We beg you to look at the whole picture. It's not 31 spaces, it's the whole Planning Commission June 11, 2001 Page 14 development, it's the whole block. If you approve it, you are giving them the whole right to pave everything. They can make everything look fine, it's a parking lot. The green area, that's fine. If you look at it now, it's all green. There is not a parking lot there. You have to consider the whole picture, it's the only way to do it. Thanks. Estes: Jeff, is your home at the corner of St. Charles and Lafayette? Boyett: No. I am between the vacant lot and Mason Law firm. We are directly north on the eastern side. Holifield: I'm Tony Holifield, the senior pastor at Central United Methodist Church. The question is, after instructions to Brian, am I permitted to make public comment and also, is it permissible to correct what I feel is misinformation that's been presented to you already tonight in public comment? Estes: Let me respond to that in several ways. As we opened this item, the applicant had an opportunity to speak. I would expect the applicant to present a full and complete presentation to the Commission at that time. The part of the item where we now find ourselves is public comment. I don't want to preclude your right to provide public comment but I do take issue with sometimes the strategy of an applicant to bifurcate their presentation to make opening remarks and then through the public comment section to come back time and time again and in affect make the applicants presentation. I would ask you not to do that. At the close of public comment the applicant will have an opportunity to abut fully and completely each and every item of discussion that has taken place during the public comment section. Holifield: I think that we did not really understand exactly how you would want that. We probably had three parts to our initial presentation without realizing that we could bring all of that to you at the same time and that was David Jorgensen's comments, Brian Swain's comments and then mine. We thought we should bring it during public comment. That's misinformation on our part. Estes: I don't want to preclude you from making any remarks. Please go ahead but I do take issue with the strategy of dividing up the applicants presentation and presenting part of it during the public comment section. That is not appropriate. Holifield: I assure you that was not our intent but if you would like for me to wait until the end of the session or when we have a chance for rebuttal, I would be glad to do that because there are at least four or five points that I would like to speak on. • • • Planning Commission June 11, 2001 Page 15 Estes: I think that would be more appropriate because I will give you an opportunity to rebut each and every item of discussion that has developed during the public comment section. Holifield: This is not my normal forum. Estes: Thank you pastor. Harrison: I'm Martha Harrison. I have a letter I would like to read to the Reverend Anthony Holifield, members of Central United Methodist Church and members of the Planning Commission. I want to express the following objections to the additional parking planned by my church. One, thanks to the large number of concrete and asphalt parking lots now surrounding the residents of Lafayette, St. Charles and Highland Streets, there is a temperature difference of five to ten degrees between our area and a short five blocks to the east of College Avenue. Number two, one church has already tumed the west end of Lafayette into a concrete wasteland and we don't need another. Number three, children attending the preschool at Central are now playing in full sun surrounded by asphalt. The residents on Lafayette, Mount Nord, St. Charles and Highland are wondering the following: Number one, why not make arrangements with Washington School and Auto Zone to use their Lots on Sunday mornings. If the congregation objects to a short block walk, why not use Central's buses to shuttle them from and to existing parking lots? Why not utilize the street parking that already exists on Lafayette between St. Charles and Highland? Number three, why not use the vacant lot next to 125 West Lafayette as a play and teaching ground for the preschoolers? Finally, I would ask each member of Central how they would respond should this be occurring in their own neighborhoods? We in our neighborhood would like to protect and defend rather than destroy and demean our homes and our living environment. Thank you. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Estes: Is there anyone else who would like to provide public comment? Seeing none, I will close the floor to public comment and bring it back to the applicant for comments and rebuttal. Jorgensen: I started to say, we have a three -headed applicant here and I can't help you. There is a lot of things I would like to say but I'm going to let the pastor say what needs to be said here. • • • Planning Commission June 11, 2001 Page 16 Holifield: Let me simply respond to some of the comments that have already been made. I will say that I sat here in the meeting two weeks ago, on Tuesday night rather than on Monday and we did at that time table bringing this project before you. Afterwards, Paula Marinoni asked me, Brian and several others out in the hallway if we would be amenable to getting together and discussing the situation prior to this meeting tonight. I think that Paula has had numerous discussions with Brian. In fact, Brian and I had agreed on setting up a meeting the week before with Paula and anyone that she wanted to have come and visit with us and he was unable to set that up because they were not ready to meet with us. That was not something we were able to accomplish. As far as the Auto Zone parking that's been brought up several times in discussion, I would remind the Commission this evening we are currently in what we consider a summer lull as far as church activities and every other activity. We have over 200 students from the University that worship -with us during the school year As a result, we don't have as great a need during these lull months as we do from September through March. Anybody who's counting parking places during the past two weeks, from Memorial Day on to now would probably discover that there are some parking spaces up on Auto Zone or places like that but I can assure you that is not true most of the year. As far as the islands in the parking lot that were referred to that were supposed to have been put in, we did some research on that to find out why. We were a little puzzled ourselves because there was a plan evidently at one time that showed them and another plan that didn't. What we discovered was that evidently the EPA found some kind of monitoring wells underneath of our existing parking area, the area that was going to be used. As a result would not allow some of those things to take place. As far as those trees and the island was concerned, planting trees in those areas was not being permitted. Evidently that came to the Commission at that time, it was approved and signed off on at that time. Paula has indicated that she feels she has been lied to. There was nothing specific that she said. We would be glad to, where there was information she feels specifically lied to, an innuendo though seems inappropriate to me Just to simply say that we have lied to her because I don't know that anything specific has come forth. We would be glad to respond to that if we could but I don't think that we have in any way. We have tried to meet with her as she asked us to do and that was not accomplished. As far as the promise to the lady that lived in the house about her house becoming a youth center, I don't know where that comes from. Those of us who are officials of the church who were working on that project at the time, that was not ever said. We did indicate to her that we did not know, at that time, what our plans would be and she did express some concerns about the future of the house but we purposely did not have any plans for a parking lot at that time. We purposely said to her that we did not know what our plans were, we had no specific things in mind at that particular time. Let me just say that at Central United Methodist Church we really like • Planning Commission June 11, 2001 Page 17 to believe that we are and have been an integral part of downtown Fayetteville. We've maintained a presence here since 1832 which I think helps to make us a part of the historical entity that is a part of Fayetteville. We hope that you as a Planning Commission also believe we are an integral part of downtown Fayetteville. On several occasions in our history we have had opportunities, could have relocated to other parts of the City, the outskirts of the City, as some churches have done. They are built perhaps on a much larger area where we would never had perhaps to look for additional parking or looking for room to grow. Each time, as a church, we have rejected that notion believing that staying in downtown and central to the City was not only important for us as a historic entity in the community, but also an important part of the City as well. Most of the cities where churches have moved out, I think you will discover a dying downtown urban area and the kind of environment that most citizens would not like to have as part of their community or to see at the heart of their City. In ,. Fayetteville it is still safe, as someone has already alluded to be able to take an evening stroll in the center of town. That's not true everywhere, as has been indicated to us We believe, and we hope you do to, that the presence of Central and other churches in the downtown area are helping to make a difference for good and for the quality of life in our city. Here's the enigma, churches are like living organisms and they are made up of people. People as they increase in number need more space and large facilities to adequately minister to their constituency and also to the community which we are a part. We feel like we do minister to the downtown area of Fayetteville. Because they are like living organisms, for the most part, they are either living and growing or they are dying and dwindling. At Central United Methodist Church we have chosen to be alive and to be growing. Thanks to the publicity that we've received in recent days, I think that most of northwest Arkansas knows that Central is alive and well and a growing congregation. We believe that that stance is in the best interests of the ministry to which we feel called by God and to the growing needs of a growing city like Fayetteville. We are the church that we need to be, the best that we can be, to serve the City of Fayetteville and also the members of our congregation and we need to be given some room to breath and grow as a living organism. As the pastor of Central I believe that you will give our project to add 31 new parking spaces a fair look and that's really all that we can ask, a fair look. We believe that as you give us that, you will also agree that our project is one that you can heartily support and we ask for that tonight. Thank you. Estes: I'll bring the item back to the full Commission for discussion, motions, questions of the applicant. • Bunch: Often times when we have disputed questions of parking there have been parking • • • Planning Commission June 11, 2001 Page 18 Jorgensen: Conklin: Bunch: Jorgensen: Bunch: surveys made, have you made one and do you have any figures to give us? It seems like there is a considerable question of the various parking lots that are available and it seems that some think they are over -utilized and some think they are under-utilized. I have not personally gone out and counted the spaces. That number came from staff. Tim, didn't you go out and count the spaces? Staff did go out and count the spaces. I can go through the numbers really quickly here. The spaces that were shown on the original plan in 1995 were 176. Spaces included on that plan up on Lafayette Street were 50. Total parking spaces was 226. Somewhere the number documented on the plan, the 226 that were shown, was incorrect. It stated 232 spaces so that's where that came from. The number that we counted on site, existing, are 178 parking spaces. The total proposed are 31,'however staff is recommending that they remove two which would bring it down to 29. The total number of spaces, if this conditional use is approved, will be 209 with 31 or 207 with 29, plus the 50 that are existing up on Lafayette Street that were approved in 1995, that brings it up to 259. Maybe I wasn't quite clear enough in my question, one of my concerns is the how many parking spaces and shared parking agreements and what level of utilization is made of those. Does anyone know how many parking spaces are in the post office that are available, how many are in Auto Zone that are available and apparently within a reasonable distance behind the Washington County Courthouse how many are there and what level have those been used, particularly in association with this application? I don't know how many spaces are in the post office but I have personally been in there and it's been packed where I couldn't park and, in fact, I hear now that we are overusing the spaces such that it's hard for people to actually get into the post office. That's been a little bit of a problem. Also, up on the Auto Zone parking lot, it's about half full even during your non -holiday type season. We park up there now. Also, across Dickson Street on the Pettus property, that's all being utilized, to what extent I'm not sure, I haven't parked over there. The actual number of that I'm not sure. Also, in our packets there is a letter from Tim DeNoble over his title as acting Director of University of Arkansas Community Design Center and he indicates also that he is a member of this congregation and he has spoken before us at Subdivision Committee. He has alluded to searching for other possible solutions. Have you, as the applicant or the congregation, taken advantage of their offer to utilize the community design services? • • • Planning Commission June 11, 2001 Page 19 Jorgensen: Brian Swain can address that a lot better than I can. I know that we've made attempts to use the City trolley and 1 guess that's been deemed illegal to use for such purposes. Is that correct Kit? Williams: It does present a lot of constitutional problems. There is a April 2001, Attorney General's opinion that does call into question the ability of the City to furnish trolley service to non-profit or churches The Attorney General said "I believe loaning out vans to churches or private non-profit organizations would be flatly unconstitutional." There are problems with attempting to use the City trolley to carry people to churches. Bunch: That was one possible solution. What I was thinking of is, this a community problem and we are looking at more than just one Methodist church, we are looking at two Baptist churches, an Episcopal church, a Christian church all within the same downtown area and all in the same downtown area and all with the same problem. We have a community design center at our disposal that has offered to work with these various groups to reach a possible solution from a community standpoint. My question is, have we taken that opportunity? Swain: Marr: Swain: Marr: Conklin: I haven't actually taken Mr. DeNoble's comments as an offer to do the work for us. He's presented some comments to us in writing, I saw in your agenda packet, concerning the development. I took that as a neighbor. I think he is in fact the Director of the center as you indicated but I haven't had him formally, to my knowledge, offer to do that work. We have not sought him out to do that either. I guess to answer your question would be no, we haven't done that. I want to make sure I understand this shared parking arrangement. Are there actually shared parking agreements in place with the businesses you've listed or is are they currently being used as shared parking? We did have shared parking agreements with the post office, it's a reciprocal agreement. They can use our parking lot during the week and they do use it during the week for some of their postal workers to park there. We do have a shared agreement with part of the Auto Zone parking lot on Sunday mornings and also with a law firm down the street. Do we know what that total is? Those shared parking agreements were done outside the City. • • • Planning Commission June 11, 2001 Page 20 Marr: They are not a part of our current shared parking agreements that we use at the City? Conklin: No, they did not come to the City and ask to build something and use a shared parking agreement to waive parking. That's something they received on their own. Marr: One other question for the applicant. There are really two things I look at on conditional use and one of them is that it will not adversely affect the public interest. I certainly heard arguments about why it will. The other is general compatibility with adjacent properties and properties in the district. Could the applicant speak to those two points on your particular interpretation of those two items? Jorgensen: I think we have a fairly reasonable request We are talking 31 spaces here. We are talking about a parking lot extension off of the existing parking lot that is presently in place for the church and we are preserving every tree that's on that lot like I said, except for the southwest corner where we've got to build a sidewalk. I really think that we are fitting in very well with the neighborhood. You can see from that greenspace that's circled around that parking lot that the whole thing is going to be covered up with trees and greenery. It's not, in my opinion, going to be obtrusive at all. It's not going to be that out of place really. We have, like I said, the room for 40 spaces and we are down to 31 now. We still have that problem about the five foot greenspace between the parking lot and right-of-way. We feel like we are fitting in really well with the neighborhood. Swain: I think one of the things that has to be taken into consideration is not just the lot itself but the church. I think what we have to do to be able to keep growing and thriving is to provide ministry to our community and to our congregation. They are analyzing enigma too, as Reverend Holifield mentioned earlier, I think we have to try to balance the needs of parking, which is a need and fact of life that you have to accommodate the people that are coming there with the programs and ministries that are going on at the church. That's what we have tried to do historically and I think the design that has been submitted was complemented at the Subdivision meeting by the Landscape Administrator and said we are doing all we could do if we were going to make it aesthetically pleasing. I think we've tried to that as best we can but in order for Central to continue growing and being the church it can be, I think the parking is a necessary part of that. Bunch: The question was raised in public comment about the pre -approved parking from 1995. What plans do you have to utilize that or what statements do you have about that and how does it tie in with this project? • • • Planning Commission June 11, 2001 Page 21 Jorgensen: This 31 space parking lot stands alone completely from this project right here. As of right now, I don't know of any plans to develop this other parking lot. All we know is that we have been approved for the other parking lot as stated by Kit. Bunch: Since you are the engineer that's been hired for this specific 31 space lot, it might be better to have a representative of the church answer that question please. Swain: I'll be as clear as I can be. We have no current plans for development on the north hill. There is nothing in the process other than what you have seen in the 1995 proposal. If there is any trustee or any other official from the church that knows different, they can correct me but, I'm not aware of any plans to do anything on Lafayette at the present time. That would be dictated, I think, by future needs. Right now, that's what we are doing with the parking right now. We think this is a less obtrusive project. We did not have these 31 spaces available to us back in 1995 when thatwas originally approved. We think this is a very good use of the property. It's interior to the block to some extent and we feel it's a very good use of it. Bunch: Is there anyone here that could possibly speak to your long range plans because that's what we are being asked to do is to look at long range planning? Do you have anyone that has any idea what long range planning is for the north hill? Swain: Marr: Sir we don't have a long range plan for the north hill. We have plans to continue growing and doing what the Lord leads us to do and that's as simple as I can be. We don't know what we are going to be doing up there. There is just nothing in place and as I understood it was not a requirement to bring forward the 31 space lot. I'm sorry I can't give you a clear-cut answer on that. The fact of the matter is we don't have a plan for the north hill at the moment. We don't own all the property on the north hill either. I understand that you don't have plans for that but when the church did their expansion to their activity center that took the parking, what was the planning process of the church? How was the church planning to handle parking by putting the building in existing parking spaces to handle the growth from that building? Swain: First of all I'll say this, there is actually more parking there now than there was before the activity center was built. There was some design concerns put into that. I was not the administrator of the church at the time so I might not be the best person to speak to that. I think in the plans that were submitted there was parking surrounding the facility as you see now plus the plans for the north hill. The fact of the matter there is that at • • • Planning Commission June 11, 2001 Page 22 the time that was built back in 1995 and 1997, it wasn't as needed as it is now. Basically, we've put off bringing forward additional parking by doing the shared parking agreements which were referred to earlier, which were not in place prior to 1995 either. That's bought us some time if you will and then we have been given the ability to purchase this property on St. Charles and we believe that to be a better and less intrusive use now. I guess you could almost view it as we are trying not to do anything up on the north hill at the moment and in order to get a clear-cut view of what we can do up there. That's something that will be going on over the next few years as we discuss it at our Board of Trustees meetings. We don't have a plan for that at present. Bunch: I'm still having a real problem with this I'm looking at a stamped drawing from an architect that apparently was paid for by Central United Methodist Church that shows long-term plans and shows parking lots in the areas that we are questioning. Apparently six years ago someone had enough foresight to be able to come up with the money to pay an architecture firm to design these parking lots and now we are saying we have no idea what the future plans are, six years after the fact. That's one of the problems I'm having in looking at this. We are looking at an auxiliary parking lot adjunct to this and no one seems to know if there is any desire to utilize something that has already been purchased and designs that have already been paid for. We talk about future growth, we talk about following whatever the church is going to be doing but we have something on paper in black and white, filed with the City, that shows parking places replacing existing buildings and yet we have denial of any knowledge of future plans. Holifield: Those plans were made and approved in 1995. We are not aware, at this particular time, whether we will follow through with the plans as they were drawn. It would be nice if we knew that exactly. As has already been pointed out, we really don't even own all of the property up on the north hill and so obviously any plans in that area would need to be delayed until we were able to see what we can do. That's the reason why we feel that this particular parking area is the very best that we can do at the present time. We are grateful we have that approved but we don't know that will be the plan that we go with. It might be. We just don't know, I wish we could give a definitive answer on that. It was designed, it was planned at the time. We are, as you say, several years down the line and we are doing the best we can to try to be the best stewards that we can be of the property that's there. Bunch: On this drawing, I understand it is showing some parcels of land owned by others. Could you please tell me if the locations that show parking lots as part of your project from 1995, if you own those pieces of property? I understand you don't own the • Planning Commission June 11, 2001 Page 23 whole north hill but this drawing that we are looking at that is stamped by an architect and filed with the City, does show parking lots on other parts of the property on the north hill. Are those reflecting pieces of property that the church owns? Holifield: The drawing that you are looking at has two parcels of property in that north hill area that has houses on them, those would be the areas that we do not own. Are there more than two? Bunch: I see two and possibly something that is not really clear about the Arkansas Western Gas Company. Holifield: I don't have that in front of me so I'm not sure what you are looking at. I would be glad to look at it if you would like for me to. Bunch: If you would. The question I have is not so much who owns the pieces of property that don't have parking lots on them but does the church own the one's that show parking lots? • Holifield: I believe what you see here is property that we own. Bunch: Anything that shows parking you own. Thank you. • Estes: Two of the findings of fact that we must make are general compatibility with adjacent properties and other properties in the district as Commissioner Marr has articulated, and second that the granting of the conditional use will not adversely affect the overall public interest. Staffs finding was that the granting of the conditional use with recommended conditions and now that we have removed one of those conditions, does staff's recommendation remain that the recommended motion is to approve the conditional use? If so, what is your thinking on these two specific findings of facts that we must make when staff made the finding that the granting of the conditional use with recommended conditions and safeguards and now one of those has been removed from the conditions of approval? Conklin: Staff originally did make the condition number three as part of the staff report to require that the additional parking lots on Lafayette Street come through as a conditional use for the Planning Commissions consideration. Talking with our City Attorney, the Planning Commission did approve those plans in 1995 and they do have that approval Therefore, we cannot modify those approved plans for those 50 parking spaces. With regard to staff's recommendation, staff does recommend approval subject to that they • • • Planning Commission June 11, 2001 Page 24 meet the 15 foot landscaping along St. Charles. Their plans that are before you this evening do not show that 15 foot landscaping. It's staffs opinion that if you do landscape it and provide that screening, that it would be compatible. One other finding that was brought up this evening that staff did not include in their staff report is, the finding that the granting of the conditional use will not adversely affect adjacent residential uses or the residential character of the neighborhood. You do need to make that finding also when you do make a motion to approve this conditional use permit request. Bishop: I realize that Brown's Grocery is not included in the property that we are being asked to approve the conditional use for but, I have a question of the applicant as to who owns the Brown's Grocery property? Is that owned by the church? There has been a lot of discussion that particular property and it's historical value, are there any plans to restore that property to redevelop it? Swain: Estes: That's where parking is platted for right now but we don't have plans to do restoration or parking, either one, at the present time up there. I think basically anything could be on the table but we don't have plans for that particular property at this time. We do own it. We have had some discussion with regard to shared parking and from what I understand, for lack of a better description, there are some off balance sheet shared parking agreements In other words, shared parking agreements exist with the post office, Auto Zone and I presume the Pettus Law firm, although it wasn't identified as such. Has there been any effort made to develop shared parking agreements and if so, why not? Swain: With who? Estes: With neighbors. My question is just simply I understand there are, for lack of a better description, off balance sheet shared parking agreements exist but we really don't know to what extent and how many spaces there are. Has there been any effort by the congregation to develop shared parking as an alternative to building additional parking spaces. If not, why not? Swain: Again, we do actually have three formal agreements and that's the ones you have alluded to there. We have not sought additional agreements due to proximity and access. That's all I can say. We have used alternative transportation on some peak Sunday's, Palm Sunday and Easter, we have rented or leased the City trolley for use • • • • Planning Commission June 11, 2001 Page 25 and utilized the West Avenue parking lot across the street from the Walton Arts Center but that's a very costly avenue for us to do on a weekly basis. Pettus: I will have to say that I love my church but there may come a day when I want to develop our property there on Dickson Street. If we do, then the church is not going to be able to utilize any or very few of those parking places. You can't count on us to forever provide parking to the church even though we would love to do that. Estes: That is the nature of a shared parking agreement, it doesn't exist in perpetuity. Pettus: MOTION: Ward: I'm just telling you that while it may be available to the church now, next year or the year after it might not be. I would not want you to consider that in your counting the parking places. - I think property values have continued to go up there. I think one of the main reasons is because of the positive impact with all the churches in that area They have all continued to grow. They have become a big part of our downtown historic area. They provide a lot of benefits for everyone. We have continued to allow restaurants, night clubs and businesses down on Dickson Street, our entertainment area, with no parking or no consideration for parking because we have these churches parking lots to rely on. I think that's been a real impact of development of our entertainment district because of the church lots like UBC, the Methodist parking lot, the Baptist parking lot and so on. We do require an extensive landscaping of these parking lots today compared to the old days. We have ordinances in place that has a positive impact as far as the future for our parking lots. I really believe that your church needs more parking. They provide at so many times during the week that church is being used for, not only religious but non secular type of activities. With that I'm going to make a motion that we approve CU 01-14.00 for a conditional use. Shackelford: I'll second. Bunch: On a conditional use, it takes five affirmative votes? Estes: That is correct. Bunch: If it does not receive five affirmative votes, what is the time period for reapplication? • • Planning Commission June 11, 2001 Page 26 Estes: One year. Bunch: In faimess to the applicant, I cannot support this conditional use request. I don't know how many other people can or cannot. Before we vote, if they would care to pull this item. Since there has been no apparent utilization of the Community Design Center and other community functions that are available and since this is a larger problem as a community problem, the church is part of the community, the residents are part of the community and the businesses. I would personally, since this is not necessarily something that has to be done right now, I would like to see it removed and a further look taken at it to possibly work up a larger scheme that encompasses more of the community, more of the business, more of the churches and to prevail on the skills and talents of the University Design Center. In view of that, I will not be supporting this conditional use request. Marr: I guess the first thing I would like to say is, I am a neighbor of Central Methodist. I live in downtown. I think that they are an excellent neighbor. I have personally a problem with the residential character being affected by this. It's hard for me to say that there is compatibility with the neighborhood. I think that I've heard several people speak and the one that stands out most to me is Mr. Boyett. It definitely affects the compatibility of his property. I can't get comfortable with that. I think the other thing is I do believe, I'm torn because, I said this at agenda session, quite frankly I like the location of the proposed lot better than I like what is already approved but since we don't have the ability to make that a condition to be revisited, I don't want to see an entire block of a parking lot, trees or not. I won't support the motion. Shackelford: If we vote on this and it is denied tonight, what process does the applicant have to appeal our decision, does this go to City Council? Conklin: It goes to Circuit Court. Estes: Any other discussion? Sheri, would you call the roll? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call the motion fails on a vote of 4-2-0 with Commissioner Marr and Bunch voting "No". • Planning Commission June 11, 2001 Page 27 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: The next item before the Commission is LSD 01-14.00. This was the request to build an additional 31 spaces. Because the conditional use failed, this item becomes moot and we will move forward to what is listed as item number four on your agenda with item number three having been pulled by the applicant. CUP 01-15.00: Conditional Use (DeWeese, pp 369) was submitted by John DeWeese for property located at 2075 N. College. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 0.28 acres. The request is for a 860 sq. ft. storage building (use unit 21) in a C-2 district. • • • Planning Commission June 11, 2001 Page 28 ADM 01-24.00: Administrative Item (Lindsey, pp 175) was submitted by Kim Fugitt on behalf of Lindsey Company for property located east of Mcllroy Bank Building on Joyce Blvd. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 0.46acres. The request is to review and approval of Commercial Design Standards for a proposed 75' tall, six story office building. Estes: The next item for consideration is Administrative Item 01-24.00 submitted by Kim Fugitt on behalf of Lindsey Company for property located east of Mcllroy Bank Building on Joyce Blvd. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 0.46acres. The request is to review and approval of Commercial Design Standards for a proposed 75' tall, six story office building. No action is being requested by the Commission at this time. This is on your agenda for a discussion item only. Kim, do you have a presentation that you would like to make at this time? You may proceed. Fugitt: I'm Kim Fugitt and I represent Lindsey Company on this proposal. Today we are asking for a simple opinion or to be able to put one decision behind us and that is the height issue in the proposal. In the C-2 zone, it states that we are allowed to either build six stories or 75 feet high building which this offers. It's a six story building, approximately 9,600 square feet per floor and the height of 75 feet. That height is the question that Tim and I discussed. Height according to the Southern Standard Building Code, Section 202 says "The vertical distance from grade to the highest finished roof surface in the case of a flat roof." Based on that definition we've reached the 75 foot height on this building as well. There is a typo on your agenda, it says .46 acres. I'm not sure the exact acreage but I know it's in excess of five acres that the piece falls on. I think we are well within our area allowance here. As you can see, the design incorporates a six story office tower but it also has two wings that go to the north and south of the tower that are approximately 8,000 square feet each, single story wings that will be commercial retail type space. We feel like we fall within the guidelines of both zoning and Southern Standard Building Code. We have one other issue and that is the areas around or to make some comparisons about that, this building, the grade elevation is at 1,211 feet above sea level, with the 75 feet above that makes it 1,286. The mall elevation to the top of those buildings is well in excess of 1,290. Also, the structures there, the development across the street from the mall to the east is in excess of 1,290 to the tops of those buildings, we have a five story building with the possibility of six with the new hospital, that elevation will be in excess of the highest elevation of this building as well. We feel like there is a precedent made in that area for buildings of this height. Today we are asking to get some feedback and a decision, if possible, about the acceptance of the height of the building. We are on the agenda to present this for large scale development approval at a later meeting but before we spend a lot of • Planning Commission June 11, 2001 Page 29 time, energy and engineering fees and being tied down to this height, we wanted to get the height issue behind us. Estes: Commissioners, any discussion or questions9 Hoover: Is the post office directly to the east or what's adjacent? Fugitt: There will be a piece of property between us and the post office. There is a row of trees directly to the east of this which we have preserved. We won't get into any of those at all. That's due east of that. This property falls due east of Mcllroy Bank, the branch bank there and then it makes a jog to the south and then goes back to the post office. Hoover: There is a dirt road behind there now, does it go to that dirt road9 Fugitt: Yes, it does. Conklin: I do have a larger site plan which doesn't show the current post office, I'll just write it • on there. • Estes: The southeast corner of the building and, I presume the northwest and northeast appear to be unarticulated glass, is that correct? Fugitt: The tower, yes sir. What we are trying to accomplish there is kind of blending the old with the new. Where the tower itself will be a contemporary office block with glazing there but then we've tried to develop a facade of more traditional means using masonry and precast concrete to develop that. Estes: That can be attractive in my experience depending upon what is reflected. You said there is a greenspace to the east that you will preserve? Fugitt: Along the east property line there are some mature trees thcre, we've had that surveyed and we have pulled the parking lots to the west far enough to stay out of the canopy line of those existing trees there. Marr: If I understand what I'm being asked to look at, okaying the height of the building, based on this location, based on the development there and for what I see on this presented in front of me, I certainly think it's a very good design I would support it both in height and attractiveness of the building. I certainly believe that it would be • • • Planning Commission June 11, 2001 Page 30 something that I would like to see in Fayetteville. Bishop: I would just like to say I tend to look at things from a developers standpoint but I think that we lost a lot of, specifically vendors for WalMart that choose to operate north of Fayetteville in the Rogers area, because we don't have office buildings like this to offer them. I think there is a definite need in Fayetteville and I applaud Lindsey for coming up with this concept. Fugitt: Two of those floors will be for Lindsey Real Estate, management will be on the upper floors and two of those floors immediately for lease space. Hoover: I would like to add I am definitely for higher density type projects. I think it will be a nice addition, especially to the area out there. The only concern I would have would be shadow lines as far as shading, when you have the building blocking an adjacent property owner but since it's zoned commercial I don't see an issue with that. It's usually an issue if you were right next to residential properly where you could be blocking their sunlight. I don't see any problems for it at all. The only thing I would ask is that there be a lot of landscaping along the road as opposed to parking lot. Fugitt: I don't know if that site plan shows it but we'll be required to have retention basins for the drainage on the parking lots. Three or possibly four of those basins will be located along the street. We'll design those so that they can have water in them full time and the excess will bring them to a crown so we'll be able to do some water features there. Hoover: Have you considered that those could be wetland detention ponds? Fugitt: No. Hoover: If you would consider that, you might talk with the City about that, if you would rather have that. Allen: I too think this is an appropriate location for a building of this nature and it's very aesthetically pleasing. Bunch: Since the purpose of having this on the agenda in the form that it was to get discussing on the concepts, a general poll of the Commission, I too feel this is appropriate in size. As long as we stay within the concept that is proposed here, I think I will be able to support it in the future as long as it also have adequate landscaping and those types of amenities and buffering to the neighbors. • • • Planning Commission June 11, 2001 Page 31 Estes: Kim, I concur with the remarks that have been made and that will be the extent of my very brief comment. Shackelford: I usually don't like development but I believe I can support this one. It's a good building. We've talked about going up instead of out. I think it's a great design and I would like to see many more buildings like this to Fayetteville over time. Estes: Does that satisfy what you need? Fugitt: I hope so. Planning Commission June 11, 2001 Page 32 ADM 01-25.00: Administrative Amendment to Chapter 156 "Variances, Section 156.03(c)(5)" Subdivisions creating only one new lot (lot splits) of the Unified Development Ordinance to grant the Planning Commission the right to grant a waiver of preliminary and final plat requirements only when no additional public improvements are required. Estes: The remaining item is an administrative item, administrative amendment to Chapter 156 "Variances", section 156.03(c)(5), subdivisions creating only one new lot (lot splits) of the Unified Development Ordinance to grant the Planning Commission the right to grant a waiver of preliminary and final plat requirements only when no additional public improvements are required. Tim, why is this before us and what do we need to consider? Conklin: Staff has brought this amendment ordinance to you to help manage subdivisions and lot splits that are occurring in Fayetteville, in our growth area. This amendment will remove the administrative authority for lot splits from me and it will require the Planning Commission to approve those. It also requires a preliminary plat for any subdivision of land that requires any infrastructure or public improvements. What we are running into, we do have lot split requests where we have streets, water and other types of public improvements being planned and put in however, they are not going through a preliminary and final plat process, which means the planning office has to keep tract to make sure those deeds are not being recorded over at the County Courthouse prior to that infrastructure being placed in that development. Staff is trying to get a handle on that so, any time we have a subdivision of land that requires the need for utilities, water, sewer, roads, streets, that type of utility or infrastructure, that they come to the Planning Commission. Estes: Tim, how are new lot splits handled at this time? Conklin: Currently, if you have a parcel of land or a lot that has not been split more than three times, they are allowed to seek a waiver of preliminary and final plat requirements from the City Planner. We typically grant those waivers and allow them to apply for a lot split. However, what we are finding is the water lines and sewer lines have not been extended which requires these public improvements and detailed plans What staff is trying to do is allow lot splits to only occur when you have a piece of property with the required street frontage, utilities are in, you've got public water line and sewer line in front of the property or in back of the property and you split it and there is no additional requirement for them to go hire an engineer, design it, get the improvements installed and past and through a lot split process. We are trying to put that into a preliminary plat and final plat process. • • Planning Commission June 11, 2001 Page 33 Estes: Conklin: Is there any reason that staff cannot make those required determinations? We are trying to get any property that is subdividing into a standardized process where engineering and different divisions, utility companies take a look a the property before it's subdivided and how they are going to serve additional lots. For example, Fort Smith, they require all property that requires infrastructure to go through preliminary and final plat requirements, Springdale allows one administrative lot split and then the rest have to be approved by the Planning Commission. What we have been seeing are lot splits which are basically taking a raw piece of land and actually building all the infrastructure and once it's approved by Planning Commission it never comes back to you. One of the problems that we've seen is that anybody can draw up a deed and go file it over at the County Courthouse, which means land can be sold without those improvements in and houses could be started without those improvements in. We are trying to tighten up this process. If you do have a piece of land and it requires the public improvements, you need to go through a two step process. Get approval by the Planning Commission, which could be at Subdivision Committee level, once you are approved do your detailed construction drawings, get those approved by engineering, install your infrastructure and, once your infrastructure is installed and inspected, come back with the final plat and then record that and sell the lots. Right now that's not happening. We have lot splits that have streets, water and sewer being planned on a lot split and Sara Edwards in my office has to keep track of all that, it doesn't go through a system through our Engineering Division with a Public Works Inspector to inspect those type of improvements. MOTION: Allen: I move for approval of Administrative Item 01-25.00. Bunch: I'll second. Estes: There is a motion by Commissioner Allen and second by Commissioner Bunch, is there any discussion? Ward: Tim, why couldn't the City Planner still keep the responsibility because so many of these come through that's like a family situation? It's like the father is giving the son five acres and they are going to build a house on it. Conklin: I'm not trying to push this onto the Commission but those are some of the more difficult • divisions of land that we have. Every lot we want to try to make sure it has public Planning Commission June 11, 2001 Page 34 access, water and sewer. Ward: You are still having the same finding of fact on each of these. We are requiring you to make a finding of fact before it comes to us anyway. Nothing is going to change. Conklin: I think it's important, when we are subdividing land and the infrastructure is not there, to see a plat that shows the planned improvements. Ward: You are requiring that anyway. Conklin: We are requiring it now but it's very hard to keep up with when deeds can be filed over at the County after the lot split. Ward: The only difference would be from the standpoint that City Engineering would be involved in it once it came to Subdivision? Conklin: Transfer of property would not occur until the streets are in, the water is in and some type of sewer or septic system has been approved. I call it good planning, before someone goes out and buys a piece of property that your basic infrastructure is on the ground and in the ground. By the way, I did look at how many administrative lot splits we've looked at, we had six in 2000 and three this year. It's not a huge work load. My impression is that when they do come through with their final plat, those could be approved at Subdivision Committee fairly easily. Ward: I wouldn't mind doing that. I Just think you are just trying to add more steps and too much bureaucracy for someone just trying to give five acres to his son to build a house on next door. We are just adding that much more red tape. Conklin: What's happening on those situations is that, they don't have the street, they don't have the public waterline. Ward: They are still having to come to you. They are still having to provide surveys with all those findings or you don't allow it. Conklin: We do have a set process where those infrastructure improvements can be approved at the City and that's through the preliminary plat and final plat process. It kind of holds them up. Once they get done through Planning Commission at lot split level, they are done. Then we have to keep track if those conditions are met. If you do preliminary plat/final plat, you give them preliminary plat approval and that tells them exactly what Planning Commission June 11, 2001 Page 35 they have to do, what they have to install, what they have to get approved over at Engineering and they can't sell those Lots until it's all said and done and they get that final plat to us. I'm trying to put that extra approval in there to help get those projects that require infrastructure and improvements into the system to make sure that they are installed correctly and that the infrastructure is there before people go out and buy lots for sale. When you see a lot split, it would be nice to consider that you actually have a lot that has infrastructure already there instead of a raw piece of land. I think the original intent, just reading and looking at the ordinance in the past few weeks, when I look at the word lot split you would already have a lot with infrastructure in place. What's occurring is we have pieces of land that don't have any infrastructure in place which basically, when you start building that infrastructure and go through the lot split process, we are not looking at grading, drainage, tree preservation, stormwater management and when you are building streets and putting sewer lines and waterlines in, I think it would be better to put them through that process where all the ordinances can be complied with and that we make sure that we are not getting anything that would harm neighbors lands in the City or our growth area. Estes: When I look at pages 5.5, 5.6 and 5.7, I see what I presume is the ordinance that we are being asked to approve and forward to City Council, is that correct? Conklin: That is correct. Estes: In part C5(a)(1) "determination", the language "the Planning Commission shall determine whether said subdivision interferes with the future subdivision of surrounding land", that seems to me to be the salient provision and I find it again over in part B "will not interfere with future subdivision of the original parcel or future subdivision of surrounding land". I'll tell you what troubles me is that seems so ambiguous and lacks such definition that I'm very reluctant to vote to approve this and send it on to Council. I don't know what that means. Conklin: That's the current language that I'm charged with trying to make sure is complied with also. Estes: You do administratively. Conklin: That's correct. Estes: You do it ministerially and administratively and we would be asked to this as the Commission. I don't understand, I'll just be very plainspoken about this, it seems to Planning Commission June 11, 2001 Page 36 me you are trying to shift to us something that you find difficult. I'm not going to vote for that. Conklin: What lot splits you would see are lot splits that have infrastructure in place and if you cannot make the finding that it was not going to interfere with the future subdivision of land. I think what they are asking you there is if you let this lot split occur, should there be a road there or a street for future access? That's a decision that I'm currently making. I you think they can subdivide this land and that the 20 acres to the east of it are not going to be impacted, you can go ahead and not require a preliminary plat. When I read that statement, in my own mind, is telling me that a lot split really is a lot that has the infrastructure in place and that all you are doing is creating another lot out of that existing lot and you are not building roads, sewer lines or waterlines. If you would like some more time on this. Estes: I'm ready to vote no right now. Ward: Out in the county a person has to go to the County Planner to get a lot split approval Conklin: They come to us first. Ward: I can understand in town it should be pretty simple, they have lot three and they want to split that lot in half, pretty much the utilities and stuff are in but out in the county it's a whole different story. Conklin: What I have seen occur from lot splits troubles me because they are building streets, extending waterlines and the lots have been transferred already and we have additional property that they are going to subdivide and there is no streets that are already in, no waterlines that are already in and that concerns me. If this troubles you, I can probably go ahead and make an interpretation and change how the City has handled lot splits without amending the ordinance. I was trying to amend the ordinance to make it clear for everybody the policy that I'm going to look at when it says waiver of preliminary and final plat requirements, I'm going to look at that a little differently now. If you are building streets and utilities, I'm not going to wave that. Marr: Of the six that came through last year, three this year, is there anything you think would have been different about how those were resolved under what we currently do versus this? Conklin: The lots wouldn't have been sold on some of those and houses wouldn't be going up • • • Planning Commission June 11, 2001 Page 37 Ward: Marr: without infrastructure in place. That's basically what I'm trying to do is make sure the infrastructure is in place and that they go through this formal process of preliminary plat and final plat. That's really what I'm trying to say, if you are required to have infrastructure, streets, water, sewer lines, that you should go through the subdivision process and go through the process of where Engineering looks at stormwater and grading and Kim looks at tree preservation. You are building, in my opinion, a subdivision, you are not doing a lot split. You are building roads and infrastructure. When somebody brings to you a simple lot split, the roads and utilities are already there, you can administratively, I don't see any reason why you should pass that on and make them go through other steps. They have to provide you a survey, they've got to show on a survey where the utilities, easements and roads are. You've already got the information in front of you. Finding of fact comes from you. Is there a current process that is written up, if I'm an applicant and I come in and say "If I'm going to do this then I'm not going to be able to move further" versus the description that Lee... Why can't it be handled from a process branch, if you go down this road it requires this, if you go down this road we can do it administratively. Conklin: We do include flow charts with all of our applications. I was trying to take those developers that are subdividing land to go through the lot split process, that are building streets and utilities to go through preliminary plat and final plat. That's what I'm trying to do. If you don't have to build any utilities then the Planning Commission can approve the lot split. I guess what Commissioner Ward is saying maybe you should hold onto that if all the utilities are there and the street you go ahead and you can administratively approve certain lot splits or have the Planning Commission approve that. If that's the desire of the Commission, I recommend that you table this this evening and then I'll bring back something different in two weeks. Marr: That would be my desire because I think that helps both. I'm going to read your report and do what you say which seems like that's the process we've got today. Conklin: I can break it out where not everybody has to come to Planning Commission. I'll work on that language that troubled our Chairman with regard to what does that mean because it is sometimes difficult to make those findings on a day to day basis. • Bunch: Tim, if you come back to us with some additional information or maybe you can answer it now, what would be the difference in cost to the applicant and the number of times that they have to come before different organizations? I'm usually resistant to adding an • • • Planning Commission June 11, 2001 Page 38 extra layer of bureaucracy particularly if there is a cost involved. What would be the, as it stands now versus the change, the difference in cost to the individual? Conklin: There would be an additional $200 fee for the final plat and then there may be additional fees associated with grading and tree preservation because it's going to kick them into that process to consider if they are building streets and utilities. $120 for tree preservation, $200 for grading. Bunch: Under the method that Mr. Ward suggested, would they have to go through those additional expenses if it was something that you determined administratively that the Commission would have to hear or the Subdivision Committee, would those fees then be incurred? Conklin: I'm trying to distinguish between a lot split that requires no public improvements and one that does require public improvements. Ones that do require the public improvements, to build the street to get the frontage, building the road, those would incur additional costs. Bunch: If one were to come before you under the current system and you looked at it administratively and said "You are going to have to go through this branch of the flow chart", they would occur those expenses anyway whether this proposal goes through or not, right? If this proposal does not go through and you use a method that Commissioner Ward described, where you have the option administratively of taking care of it on your desk or sending it before the Subdivision Committee or full Commission, which apparently is what you have now, are there any additional costs incurred if you say "If you go beyond this level that I can do administratively, you need to go here", do they still have to make the additional payments? Conklin: I think right now they save money because they are not going through the two-step process and submitting grading and drainage and tree preservation plans, under the current process. If we do what we are talking about on the administrative side, those lots splits I only approve a certain size, the Subdivision Committee routinely sees lot splits, that's a $200 fee so the additional cost would be if we change it to require those to have preliminary plat, that would be $200 more. Bunch: Do you anticipate, as we grow and looking towards the future, seeing more of these than the six that you had last year and, since we are half way through this year, probably six this year9 • • • Planning Commission June 11, 2001 Page 39 Conklin: I've seen a lot of activity with regard to lot splits. It seems like there is a trend to have larger lots, especially in our planning area. That's what concerns me is we end up with private drives and we have another subdivider adjacent to there that there is no public road access. That's what concerns me. Then they are extending their water lines and sewer lines and we want to make sure that when they are extended that they are extended to the property lines so when the next person develops they can go ahead and tie on. We are going from what a traditional lot split was with a platted lot within a subdivision that can meet our zoning requirements to something a lot different that we are seeing today. MOTION: Marr: I like Commissioner Ward's recommendation and I would move that we table administrative item 01-25.00 and look at bringing it back with the process tree that would take you down those different routes. Conklin: I can put something together. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Allen to approve administrative item 01-25.00 and a second by Commissioner Bunch. We'll need to vote on the primary motion. Allen: I will withdraw my motion. Bunch: I guess it's kind of a moot point, I will concur. Estes: Now we have a motion by Commissioner Marr to table administrative item 01-25.00 pending a second. Hoover: I'll second. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Marr and second by Commissioner Hoover to table 01-25.00 pending further staff input and research, is there any discussion? Williams. Does the motion then allow the staff to bring it back at their pleasure? Estes: Yes, it does. Any discussion? Perhaps I spoke out of turn, does your motion allow that? Marr: Absolutely. • • Planning Commission June 11, 2001 Page 40 Estes: Sheri, call the roll please. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call the motion to table 01-25.00 is approved by a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. Estes: Tim, is there any further business to come before our meeting? Conklin: There is no additional business. With regard to the Master Parks Plan, you should be receiving a letter from the Mayor announcing that meeting in July. We originally talked about a meeting on June 26th and that's been moved to July. You'll get the time, date and location pretty soon. Marr: I had a chance today to visit with the City Attorney and one thing I would like, through that discussion I thought he gave me a good piece of advice, I was looking at the time periods of approval from the time a Large scale is completed and I would like to have something that we could draw up and send on to City Council that looks at some time period that LSD's are good for as opposed to leaving it open-ended, or as just a department practice Something that's actually outlined Conklin: Staff is in favor of that. All the large scale developments for the past four or five years have a condition on there that they expire within one year so, staff is already trying to address that through a condition on the large scale development. Yes, I think it would be a good idea to have that by ordinance. I'm dealing with one large scale development that was approved in 1993 and they are coming in right now to build. We have as staff allowed those large scale developments that have received approval without that condition to go ahead and build. Hoover: If they make any variances in that plan does it have to come back to us? Conklin: I have a policy that I have implemented in my office to allow those large scale development approvals to stand as long as they can meet our current development regulations. With regard to landscaping and parking lots, I require them to landscape those parking lots and with regard to stormwater, drainage and grading, I have them work with Engineering to meet those, Commercial Design Standards, I get elevations and make sure that the backs of the buildings are adequately screened and materials are appropriate. • Estes: Mr. Williams, would you be agreeable to drafting a proposed ordinance at Planning Commission June 11, 2001 Page 41 Commissioner Marr's request for our consideration? Williams: Yes, I'll work with Tim about that and see if we can come up with something to present to you. Estes: Any other business? We are adjourned until our next regularly called meeting. • • • PC Mtg. 6-11-01 ROLL CALL Minutes of 5-29-01 meeting CU 01-14.00 Central United Methodist Church, pp 484 MOTION Ward SECOND Shackelford D. Bunch present N B. Estes present Y L. Hoffman absent absent S. Hoover present recuse N. Allen present recuse D. Marr present N A. Bishop present Y Shackelford present Y L. Ward present Y ACTION approved denied VOTE 4-2-0 PC Mtg. 6-13.01 ADM 01-25.00 Amendment to Chapter 156 "Variances, Section 156.03(c)(5) table MOTION Marr SECOND Hoover D. Bunch y B. Estes Y L. Hoffman absent S. Hoover Y N. Allen Y D. Marr Y A. Bishop Y Shackelford Y L. Ward Y ACTION tabled VOTE 8-0-0