Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-07-09 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on July 9, 2001, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED Minutes of the June 25, 2001 meeting Page 2 LSD 01-21.00: Page 3 CUP 01-19.00: ACTION TAKEN Approved Large Scale Development (Merit Electric, pp 642) Approved Conditional Use (City of Fayetteville P.V.F.V., pp 600) Page 6 RZN 01-10.00: Rezoning (McDonald, pp 329) Page 8 ANX 01-2.00: Annexation (Cross Creek Subdivision, LLC, pp 359) Page 10 RZN 01-11.00: Rezoning (Cross Creek Subdivision, LLC, pp 359) Page 13 RZN 01-12.00: Page 19 Rezoning (Reindl, pp 484) MEMBERS PRESENT Nancy Allen Sharon Hoover Bob Estes Alice Bishop Don Marr Lee Ward Lorel Hoffman Loren Shackelford STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Dawn Warrick Kit Williams Sheri Metheney • Hugh Earnest Approved Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF ABSENT • • • Planning Commission July 9, 2001 Page 2 ROLL CALL and Approval of the minutes from the June 25, 2001 meeting. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call there were 9 Commissioners present. Estes: The next item of business is approval of the minutes from the June 25, 2001, meeting. Are there any changes, additions, modifications or amendments to the June 25, 2001, meeting minutes as presented? Seeing none, they will be approved. Before we begin the agenda, let me make this announcement, item number two LSD 01-19.00 and item number three ADM 01-28.00 have been pulled by the applicant and will not be heard this evening. That was done at the applicants request and the applicant has requested that they be heard at the next regularly called meeting of your Fayetteville Planning Commission, which is scheduled for July 23, 2001. • • • Planning Commission July 9, 2001 Page 3 LSD 01-21.00: Large Scale Development (Merit Electric, pp 642) was submitted by Milholland Company on behalf of Merit Electric for property located south of Pump Station Road and east of City Lake Road. The property is zoned I-1 and 1-2, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and General Industrial and contains approximately 2 acres. The request is to build an 8,460 sq.ft. warehouse. Estes: The first item is large scale development 01-21.00 submitted by Milholland Company on behalf of Merit Electric for property located south of Pump Station Road and east of City Lake Road The property is zoned I-1 and 1-2, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and General Industrial and contains approximately 2 acres. The request is to build an 8,460 sq.ft. warehouse. Staff recommends approval of this large scale development subject to certain conditions of approval Tim, do we have signed conditions of approval? Conklin: We do not have signed conditions of approval. Estes: Condition of approval number one, Planning Commission determination of the requested waiver from §172.01(C)(3) which requires that a one-way parking lot aisle be 12 feet wide. The applicant is requesting to provide a 27' aisle in order to facilitate the movement of large truck traffic. Your attention is directed to a request from applicant that is made a part of your materials. Staff is in support of this request. Number two, Planning Commission determination of the requested waiver from § 172.01(F)(2)(a) which requires that "all landscaped islands be protected from potential damage by vehicles by placing concrete curbs or wheel barriers adjacent to the landscaped area." The applicant is proposing to curb the area around the landscaping between the two curb cuts. However, they are not proposing to curb the area on the outside of the driveways. Please see attached request from applicant. Staff is not in support of this request and is recommending that both sides of the driveways be curbed in order to protect all required landscaping. If this waiver is not granted the applicant will need an appropriate stormwater plan. Number three, Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and al] comments from utility representatives - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communications). Number four, staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. Number five, sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum six foot • • Planning Commission July 9, 2001 Page 4 Milholland: Estes: Milholland: Conklin: Estes: Conklin: Estes: sidewalk with a minimum ten foot greenspace. Number six, Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year Number seven, approval of this project does not guarantee that sewer capacity will be available at the time of construction. Number eight, prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits, b. Separate easement plat for this project, c. Project Disk with all final revisions, d. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by §158.01 "Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements" to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Is the applicant present? Yes. Mr. Milholland would you tell us who you are and give us the benefit of your presentation? Melvin Milholland, Milholland Engineering, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Mr. Chairman and Commission, I do agree with all the items that were read on condition of approval, including the staff's desires on item two which I talked with them today. We'll go ahead and put curb and gutter on the outside of each driveway to protect the landscaping. That waiver was not requested on item two. All the rest we agree with. I do have a plan dated July 9, 2001, showing a concrete curb and gutter around landscaped areas. That's part of our file now. It does comply with that condition number two. Staff wanted to make sure that the landscape was protected from vehicle traffic entering and exiting this development. Has any work been done on the appropriate stormwater plan now that the curbs have been put in place? The stormwater plan will need to reflect this change and be approved by our Staff Engineer, Ron Petrie. Anything further Mr. Milholland? Milholland: I respectfully request your approval. PUBLIC COMMENT: • • • Planning Commission July 9, 2001 Page 5 Estes: Is there any member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this large scale development 01-21.00? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Estes: Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the full Commission for discussion, comments, motions. MOTION: Marr: I would like to move for approval of large scale development 01-21.00 allowing for the waiver which would provide a 27 foot aisle to facilitate the movement of trucks, condition one and all of the conditions as stated by staff. Shackelford: I'll second. Estes: There is a motion by Commissioner Marr and second by Commissioner Shackelford, is there any discussion? Sheri, would you call the roll please`' ROLL CALL: Upon roll call LSD 01-21.00 is approved by a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. • • • Planning Commission July 9, 2001 Page 6 CUP 01-19.00: Conditional Use (City of Fayetteville P.V.F.V, pp 600) was submitted by Jamie Highfill on behalf of the City of Fayetteville for property located at 1932 S. Garland. The property is zoned I-1 and R-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and Low Density Residential and contains approximately 5.15 acres. The request is to allow parking in a R-1 district. Estes: The next item of business to come before the Commission is conditional use 01-19.00 submitted by Jamie Highfill on behalf of the City of Fayetteville for property located at 1932 S. Garland. The property is zoned I-1 and R-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and Low Density Residential and contains approximately 5.15 acres. The request is to allow parking in a R -I district. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use subject to certain conditions. Tim, do we have signed conditions of approval? Conklin: Yes, we do. Staff is in agreement with the conditions. Estes: Those conditions of approval are: Conditional use shall be subject to all conditions of the large scale development approved by the Subdivision Committee at their regular meeting on June 28, 2001. Number two, installation of a 6' tall wooden privacy fence along the western edge of the driveway near the west property line and along the northern edge of the parking area which is closest to Garland Ave. Number three, any outdoor lighting shall be shielded and directed downward and away from adjacent residential properties. Is anyone here on behalf of the applicant of the City of Fayetteville? Foster: I'm Jim Foster, the architect. We also have Jamie Highfill, Executive Director here to respond to any questions that you may have. Estes: Commissioners, are there any questions of the applicant on this requested conditional use? PUBLIC COMMENT: Estes: Does any member of the audience wish to provide public comment on this conditional use request 01-19.00? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Estes: Seeing none, I will bring it back to the full Commission for discussion, motions. • • • Planning Commission July 9, 2001 Page 7 MOTION: Shackelford: I'II make a motion that we approve CUP 01-19.00 subject to the three conditions of approval as stated. Allen: I'll second. Estes: There is a motion by Commissioner Shackelford and a second by Commissioner Allen, is there any discussion? Marr: Has there been any opposition from the neighborhood in any way relative to this rezoning? Conklin: The discussion with the neighbors included a six foot high wood privacy fence they requested to be installed along the western edge of the driveway that goes into the parking lot. That is a condition of approval that as part of this project a six foot high wood board fence would be located along that western edge of the driveway. This is a City project. City staff has worked with the consultant on this project and they are in agreement to build that fence. Williams: Do I understand your motion also to adopt all the findings as stated within the report of the staff? Shackelford: Yes sir. Estes: We have a motion by Commission Shackelford and a second by Commissioner Allen to approve Conditional Use 01-19.00, is there any further discussion? Sheri, would you call the roll please? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call CUP 01-19.00 is approved by a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. • • Planning Commission July 9, 2001 Page 8 RZN 01-10.00: Rezoning (McDonald, pp 329) was submitted by George Faucette on behalf of James & Judy McDonald for property located at 461 E. Township. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.42 acres. The request is to rezone to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Estes: The next item of business to come before your Commission is item number five on the agenda, this is rezoning request submitted by George Faucette on behalf of James & Judy McDonald for property located at 461 E. Township. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.42 acres. The request is to rezone to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning based on the findings included as a part of this report. Is the applicant present? Mr. Faucette do you have any presentation you would like to make regarding this requested rezoning? Faucette: Over half this lot is already zoned C-2. It's not the entire lot. It's just to flush out the zoning that's there already. I wasn't able to determine exactly how much of it was looking at the City zoning maps but it's not the entire lot. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Estes: Are there any questions for Mr. Faucette? PUBLIC COMMENT: Estes: Is there any member of the audience that would like to provide public comment on this requested rezoning request? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Estes: MOTION: Marr: Allen: Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Commission for discussion and motions. I'll move for approval of rezoning 01-10.00. I'll second. Estes: There is a motion to approve by Commissioner Marr and second by Commissioner • Allen to approve rezoning request 01-10.00, is there any discussion? Sheri, would you • • • Planning Commission July 9, 2001 Page 9 call the roll please? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call RZ 01-10.00 is approved by a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. • • • Planning Commission July 9, 2001 Page 10 ANX 01-2.00: Annexation (Cross Creek Subdivision, LLC, pp 359) was submitted by Philip Humbard of Engineering Services Inc. on behalf of Cross Creek Subdivision, LLC for property located east of Sunshine Road and south of Mount Comfort Road. The property is in the Planning Growth Area and contains approximately 14.47 acres. Estes: The next item of business to come before the Commission is item number six on the agenda, this is an annexation for Cross Creek Subdivision submitted by Philip Humbard of Engineering Services Inc. on behalf of Cross Creek Subdivision, LLC for property located east of Sunshine Road and south of Mount Comfort Road. The property is in the Planning Growth Area and contains approximately 14.47 acres. Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation based on the findings included as a part of staffs report. Is the applicant present? PUBLIC COMMENT: Estes: Seeing no representative on behalf of the applicant, let me ask if there is any member of the audience who wishes to provide public comment on this requested annexation? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Estes: Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission. Conklin: I did speak with the applicant and the applicant's representative this morning and they were aware of this meeting. They did bring by, this morning, the Confirmation of the Order of Annexation that was signed by the County Judge. That has approved by the County Judge this morning. It's up the Commission whether or not to proceed without applicant. Staff is recommending approval of this 14 plus acre annexation. It's directly north of an annexation we just completed a couple of months ago. We do have a preliminary plat that is going through the process right now, this 14 acres plus that previous annexation has been to Parks Board with regard to land dedication versus money in lieu. Basically what I'm indicating is that I would recommend that we do proceed on with this if the Commission is comfortable with proceeding on with recommending this annexation to City Council. Estes: Commissioners, we also have a companion item on the agenda which is a rezoning. Let me suggest this, because the applicant is not present, is there a motion to proceed with the annexation request? • • • Planning Commission July 9, 2001 Page 11 MOTION: Shackelford: I'll make a motion we proceed. Hoffman: I'll second whit this comment: I would proceed with the annexation but then not recommend that we proceed with the rezoning because there are always questions of the applicant that I find are useful and necessary. Would that be possible to reschedule the rezoning hearing for the next meeting? Estes: I would think it certainly would be. We have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford and a second by Commissioner Hoffman to proceed with the annexation request, is there any discussion? Sheri, would you call the roll? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call the motion to proceed with annexation request 01-2.00 is approved by a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. Estes: The matter is before the full Commission for discussion, motions or comments. MOTION: Shackelford: I'll make a motion for approval of annexation 01-2.00. Hoffman: I'll second. I Just wanted to ask staff if we've received any telephone calls about this proposal? Conklin: I have not heard from any of the adjoining neighbors or other areas in that vicinity. Hoffman: There has been proper notification? Conklin: Yes, notification did go up. Because it's also a rezoning we did place a sign up there 15 days prior to the meeting. Under annexation law they are required to publish notice in the newspaper three times, once every week. 30 days ago they did file the Petition For Order of Annexation and I have not heard anything from any of the surrounding property owners. Estes: Any other questions or comments? Planning Commission July 9, 2001 Page 12 Marr: On these zoning maps, when we are looking at an annexation, how would do I tell from this where the current City boundary is and how far out into the planning area would this location would be? Conklin: On page 6.6, if you look under the legend, Fayetteville City limits, it's the dotted line that shows the city limit line. Marr. Conklin: Marr: It's already included within the limit? No it adjoins that line. We also have the Master Street Plan that shows a minor arterial street for Sunshine Road. Just a suggestion, we could make something that's more distinctive between those two. When I was looking at it I really thought it was already in it. I certainly support this annexation. Conklin: We will work on providing a map that's easier to understand. We have the capability to show as much information and change line types and shade in areas. Any suggestions to improve our product, we welcome that in the Planning Division. Estes: Any other questions, discussion? We have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford to approve annexation request 01-2.00 and second by Commissioner Hoffman, would you call the roll Sheri? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call ANX 01-2.00 us approved by a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. • • • Planning Commission July 9, 2001 Page 13 RZN 01-11.00: Rezoning (Cross Creek Subdivision, LLC, pp 359) was submitted by Philip Humbard of Engineering Services Inc. on behalf of Cross Creek Subdivision, LLC for property located east of Sunshine Road and south of Mount Comfort Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 14.47 acres. The request is to rezone to R-1, Low Density Residential. Estes: The next item of business to come before the Commission is rezoning request 01-11.00 Cross Creek Subdivision submitted by Philip Humbard of Engineering Services Inc. on behalf of Cross Creek Subdivision, LLC for property Located east of Sunshine Road and south of Mount Comfort Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 14.47 acres. The request is to rezone to R-1, Low Density Residential. This is a companion item to the annexation request that we just heard. Is the applicant now present? Seeing that the applicant is not present, let me say this, staff does recommend approval of the requested rezoning based on finding included as part of the report. However, before we proceed further is there a motion by any member of the Commission to hear this rezoning request without the applicant present? Hoffman: 1 believe it's proper to make a motion to table the item pending the appearance of the applicant. Estes: Is there a motion to table this rezoning request pending the appearance of the applicant? MOTION: Hoffman: Marr. I'll second. Shackelford: That's my motion. Estes: Shackelford: Estes: Just because I don't like to table any item, it is my understanding that this would strictly be a recommendation to City Council if it was approved at this point, correct? That is correct. I'm going to vote against tabling the motion basically because I think the hearing with City Council would give the public to comment at that level. There is a motion by Commissioner Hoffman and second by Commissioner Marr to table rezoning request 01-11.00 pending appearance of the applicant, is there any other discussion? • • • Planning Commission July 9, 2001 Page 14 Bunch: Since the preliminary plat is already in the system, what effect would tabling this have on the progression of the preliminary plat? Conklin: The preliminary plat was originally submitted showing this 14 acres, however, staff required them to remove that from their preliminary plat since it was not annexed into the City and not zoned. Right now we do have a phase of Cross Creek Subdivision, which is now called Fairfield, coming through the process which is in the City. There is one issue that still needs to be resolved outside of this annexation and that is any development that contains over 100 dwelling units has to plan for a park. In this situation the applicant has acquired this 14 acres and the Parks Board has recommended that there be land dedication. If they don't annex this in and rezone it, they will have to get permission to not provide parkland and pay the in lieu fee. We are trying to get it all together in a timely fashion. We probably would hold up the preliminary plat until the Council decided on the parkland issue prior to approving that at Planning Commission. I'm not sure where those dates fall in right now. Once again, the applicant was aware of the meeting tonight. I'm not sure what happened. Estes: Any further discussion, questions? We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman and motion by Commissioner Marr to table rezoning request 01-11.00 pending the appearance of the applicant. Sheri, would you call the roll please? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call the motion to table RZ 01-11.00 passes by a vote of 6-3-0 with Commissioners Ward, Shackelford and Bishop voting "No". LATER IN THE MEETING: Shackelford: Is there any opportunity that we can see if the applicant is present and hear item number seven that was tabled at this time? Estes: This meeting was noticed for 5:30 p.m. this evening. When item number seven was called there was a motion by Commissioner Hoffman and a second by Commissioner Marr to table the rezoning request 01-11.00 until the applicant was present at the next regularly called meeting. I suppose that if one of those making the motion would like to move for reconsideration of that motion, that could be done. • • • Planning Commission July 9, 2001 Page 15 MOTION: Hoffman: I would so move to hear the item now, although we would have preferred to have heard it when it came up in it's order. In order to not hold up the applicant and be helpful in this process, I would like to move that we reconsider and hear the item tonight. Marr: I'll second. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman and a second by Commissioner Marr to reconsider the motion to table item number seven, the rezoning request 01-11.00. Is there any discussion of the motion? Sheri, would you call the roll please? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call the motion to reconsider rezoning request 01-11.00 is approved by a vote of 8-1-0. Estes: We will now, for the second time, call item number seven, rezoning 01-11.00. This is rezoning request submitted by Philip Humbard of Engineering Services Inc. on behalf of Cross Creek Subdivision, LLC for property located east of Sunshine Road and south of Mount Comfort Road The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 14.47 acres. The request is to rezone to R-1, Low Density Residential. Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning based on the findings included as part of this report. Is the applicant now present? Williamson: Yes. My name is Len Williamson and I represent Cross Creek, LLC. I apologize for the imposition on your time, I wasn't planning to even be here but I'm glad I came and I appreciate the opportunity of doing this tonight. What happened to Mr. Humbard, 1 don't know, if I knew I would tell you. We would just like to, as we did with the adjacent 40 acres just a few months ago, this 14.74 acres would be additional property included in the previous rezoning request that we made. We ask for your approval. Thank you. PUBLIC COMMENT: Estes: Is there any member of the public now present who would wish to provide public comment on this rezoning request 01-11.00? Let me say this for the purpose of the record: When this item was previously called, there was no member of the public present who wished to offer public comment and now there is no member of the public • • • Planning Commission July 9, 2001 Page 16 present who wishes to offer public comment. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Estes: Seeing no public comment, I'll bring it back to the full Commission for discussion, motions. Hoffman: The reason I did want the applicant present is, I do have some questions about the circulation to and from the proposed site. By the acreage, 1 believe, 57 units would be the maximum allowed in an R-1 district. Is Adams the only paved road that this property abuts? I've got Jess Anderson as being a proposed minor arterial and Sunshine as being a proposed street. Those are the only two other streets besides Adams that I see that reach this property, is that right? Williamson: This property of which about 5 acres is below a bluff area on the north. The south portion of this property, approximately 9 to 10 acres, joins the 40 acres to the south which is accessed to the Bridgeport Subdivision. The Bridgeport Subdivision thoroughfare comes through this proposed subdivision. This is just an appendage on the original 40 acre parcel. I think that I might appeal to Mr. Conklin to help me here but I believe that we have submitted our preliminary plat for the property that has already zoned and then we tied this property up and started the rezoning process. You are right, Sunshine Road would be the major arterial and I believe that is 110 foot right- of-way, for that property to the west of that subdivision. Hoffman: But it only joins this particular part of the subdivision for just a real short area and it doesn't above the property. The problem is, I've got the maps on page 7.5 and 7.6 that really show a very small portion of the property being adjacent to a street, we show chicken houses where development is. In the preliminary plat do we have a better idea of what's happening? Conklin: The chicken houses are no longer there. On the preliminary plat, we'll do better with our maps I promise you that, Sunshine Road is paved from Mount Comfort and does adjoin this property on the west and it also joins the 40 acre tract that we annexed two or three months ago. If you look at page 7.6, you find the word Mount Comfort and follow Sunshine Road, that street is paved and does adjoin that property, that's shaded in, on the west side. It also stops there and is gravel south of there, which the City of Fayetteville is recommending that the developer improve one-half that street to City standards and the other half to County standards, paved. • • Planning Commission July 9, 2001 Page 17 Hoffman: Jess Anderson would be a part of that improvement as well, on the south side which completely abuts his property? Conklin: What's called Jess Anderson completely on this side, that's not a road through the south side on our Master Street Plan, that's a city limit line. They also have access through Newbridge Road through Bridgeport Subdivision through a stub -out. MOTION: Hoffman: With that being said and if the Parks Department and everybody are working out those issues, I'll make a motion to go ahead and approve this rezoning subject to any staff comments. Shackelford: I'll second. Marr. I read the staff report that the findings are that the zoning will alter population density and are we comfortable that there is no undesirable increase in the load of public services, water and sewer facilities specifically for this? Have we made the applicant aware of that may be an issue of development? Conklin: The applicant does now sign a waiver form with the understanding that the City of Fayetteville is planning a new wastewater treatment plant and future growth and development is contingent on us being able to provide additional capacity. They are aware of that. With regard to infrastructure improvements, at the time of preliminary plat approval, that is something that City staff does make recommendations with regard to streets, water, sewer and other types of infrastructure. Once again, with regard to the road along the westem boundary line, we are asking them for 14 feet from centerline, curb and gutter, storm drainage, sidewalks plus meeting County standards on the west. There are two or three additional streets to the back east they can use on Newbridge Road Through the Planning Commission's efforts, we do have stub -outs that will provide future connections through Fieldstone Subdivision and Willow Springs Subdivision through Bridgeport Subdivision. We do have three subdivisions that have been planned, built to provide access between Mount Comfort and Wedington Road. There will be additional ways in and out of this subdivision through those access points. With regard to schools, I have contacted the school district over many years, their response to the Planning Division is that they will plan for future increases in the school children. In this area, if you look at page 7.6, just north of Mount Comfort Road, there is a new middle school and elementary school That's been the official response from the school district. On the previous 40 acre annexation that was approved two months • • • Planning Commission July 9, 2001 Page 18 Estes: ago, all the departments were contacted and there were no negative responses. We were not able to get that on this 14 acres but we do feel comfortable that since this adjoins this annexation that those comments would be applicable to this 14 acres, that they are able to provide service for this future annexation and development. Any further questions or discussion? We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman to approve rezoning request 01-11.00 and a second by Commissioner Shackelford, Sheri would you call the roll please? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call RZ 01-11.00 is approved by a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. • • • Planning Commission July 9, 2001 Page 19 RZN 01-12.00: Rezoning ( Reindl, pp 484) was submitted by Robert Sharp, Architect on behalf of Brian Reindl for property located at 509 W. Spring Street. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 1.91 acres. The request is to rezone to C-3, Central Commercial. Estes: Sharp. Estes: Sharp. The next item on the agenda is rezoning request 01-12.00 submitted by Robert Sharp, Architect on behalf of Brian Reindl for property located at 509 W. Spring Street. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 1.91 acres. The request is to rezone to C-3, Central Commercial. Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning based on the findings included as a part of the report. Is the applicant present? Yes. Mr. Sharp, would you give us your name and the benefit of your presentation please? My name is Robert Sharp, I'm here on the behalf of Brian Reindl. The project is located at 509 Spring Street and it's approximately 2 acres. Right now it's zoned I-1 and we would like to rezone it to C-3. About two years ago Brian bought the building and since then he's painted the exterior, he's installed new windows and fixed the roof. He would like to continue to maintain and renovate the building, particularly the second floor. Right now it's being used for storage. He would like to accommodate some office tenants up there. In order to do that we feel like we should get the property rezoned. We have two reasons for this, one is that if we can get it rezoned to C-3, it will more nearly match the existing setbacks of the building, C-3 has much less setbacks than the Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial zoning. Also, it meets the City's parking requirements for the C-3 district. The parking requirements assume a certain amount of shared parking in the proximity to public parking down there. Also, there are just more pedestrians in that area so the parking requirements are less. We also feel that the rezone is appropriate because it more nearly matches Fayetteville's 2020 Plan which was developed after numerous public meetings and City staff input and they have designated this area as Historic Commercial, which provides for a mixture of uses and is more compatible with the downtown area. We feel this C-3 zoning would also help fulfill the City's 2020 Plan. Another reason we feel rezoning is necessary, if there was a rail spur in the area which served the industrial concerns, the rail track has been pulled up and the right-of-way is sold. Modern industrial and storage areas required heavy truck access which this area doesn't provide. In order to keep this area commercially viable we think the rezone makes sense. Also, the adjacent properties are primarily they are either Historic Commercial in zoning or use. There is the Walton Arts Center • • • Planning Commission July 9, 2001 Page 20 adjacent, the Nadine Baum Learning Center is adjacent to the property and also across the tracks is the Powerhouse Restaurant. We feel that with these neighboring uses the C-3 zoning makes more sense. I would like to answer any questions you have and thank you for your time. Estes: Commissioners, do you have any questions for Mr. Sharp? Hoffman: How many parking spaces exist on the site now and would there be a parking shortage with the addition of the office tenant? Sharp. Right now the parking is unstriped, it's a little bit of a free-for-all. We are trying to organize the parking a little better. When we apply for permitting we'll have a parking plan in place. We think that the area that's currently used for loading is going to be adequate for our parking needs. Our main parking strategy is that the Walton Arts Center parking, during the day, it has numerous vacancies. We think that's going to cover any kind of overflow parking situation. Hoffman: My second question is for staff. If this remains zoned I-1, really because of this location, does the I-1 require them to add parking if they remodeled the building but not add to it or would the C-3 accomplish that? Conklin: The C-3 zoning will resolve a lot of issues that we have down in the Planning Division when they do come in and want to renovate the space. A lot of the space historically was used for warehousing and light industrial uses which didn't require as much parking. When they come in and convert that into retail space and office space, it does require additional parking. A couple of years ago I went out there and 1 physically went around the building and counted the number of spaces just to get some retail use into the building and make it work. This is going to allow a lot more flexibility, it's an existing building. It would be treated like all the existing buildings that were not retail that have been converted to allow them to be renovated and be used for retail, restaurants, office, without having a penalty of trying to provide that parking with the existing large buildings in our downtown area. Hoffman: Do you agree that the Arts Center parking lot being right next door is going to be available for their use during the day? Conklin: I believe there is adequate parking in that area. • • Planning Commission July 9, 2001 Page 21 PUBLIC COMMENT: Estes: Is there any member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this rezoning request 01-12.00? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Estes: Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the full Commission for discussion, comments, questions, motions. Marr: One of the determinations or findings that we need to make is the proposed zoning is justified and needed at the time. Do we know what the current availability of C-3 zoning in this area already, how much is vacant roughly, or is it pretty much all taken space? Conklin: I do know there has been some buildings that have been renovated recently that haven't been fully leased out. One of them is Three Sisters which is slowly going up and another one is the project Cal Canfield did or the Icehouse project on West Street. With regard to appropriateness of the zone change, I would rather see it rezoned as C- 3 than 1-1 with the ability to leave that property with light manufacturing/heavy commercial type uses that could be inappropriate in that area I believe it would be beneficial of the City to bring in that type of use into this area that's been transformed from what the bomb center used to be, the McBride Distribution Warehouse to an art type center and this being right next door I think will be beneficial to have offices and potential restaurants and retail within the center. MOTION: Marr: With that comment, I'll move for approval of rezoning 01-12.00 subject to the findings in the report. Bunch: I'll second. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Marr and a second by Commissioner Bunch to approve rezoning request 01-12.00, is there any discussion? Sheri, would you call the roll please? ROLL CALL: • Upon roll call CU 01-12.00 is approved by a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. • • • Planning Commission July 9, 2001 Page 22 Estes: Conklin: That concludes our agenda. Are there any announcements? Yes. I would like to remind the Commission of Monday, July 16, 2001, at 6:00 p.m. at Genesis, down off of South School Street, the Master Parks Plan meeting. Each of you should have received an executive summary of that master plan and I do encourage each of you to attend that meeting. It's a joint meeting with City Council and Parks Board. It will be a good opportunity to have a understanding of the Master Parks Plan which includes the actual future facilities needed to serve future growth and development in Fayetteville. Please let me know if you are not able to attend that meeting next Monday. Hoffman: I don't know that the meeting date is confirmed but I think we are set for an August 1s` meeting for the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance at 12:00 p.m. Estes: Any other announcements? Any other business? We'll stand adjourned until the next regularly called meeting. • • • PC 7-9-01 ROLL CALL Approval of the minutes of the June 25, 2001, meeting LSD 01-21.00 Merit Electric, pp 642 MOTION Marr SECOND Shackelford D. Bunch Present Y B. Estes Present Y L. Hoffman Present Y S. Hoover Present Y N. Allen Present Y D. Marr Present Y A. Bishop Present Y Shackelford Present Y L. Ward Present Y ACTION Approved Approved VOTE 9-0-0 • • • PC 7-9-01 CUP 01-19.00 City of Fayetteville, P.V.F V, pp 600 RZN 01-10.00 McDonald, pp 329 Consider ANX 01-2.00 Cross Creek Subdivision, LLC, pp 359, without applicant present MOTION Shackelford Marr Shackelford SECOND Allen Allen Hoffman D. Bunch Y Y Y B. Estes Y Y Y L. Hoffman Y Y Y S. Hoover Y Y Y N. Allen Y Y Y D. Marr Y Y Y A. Bishop Y Y Y Shackelford Y Y Y L. Ward Y Y Y ACTION Approved Approved Approved VOTE 9-0-0 9-0-0 • • • PC 7-9-01 ANX 01-2.00 Cross Creek Subdivision, LLC, pp 359 motion to table RZN 01-11.00 Cross Creek Subdivision, LLC, pp 359 - applicant not present RZN 01-12.00 Reindl, pp 484 MOTION Shackelford Hoffman Marr SECOND Hoffman Marr Bunch D. Bunch y y y B. Estes Y Y Y L. Hoffman Y Y Y S. Hoover Y Y Y N. Allen Y Y Y D. Marr Y Y Y A. Bishop Y N Y Shackelford Y N Y L. Ward Y N Y ACTION Approved Tabled Approved VOTE 9-0-0 6-3-0 9-0-0 • • • PC 7-9-01 motion to reconsider hearing RZN 01-11 00, Cross Creek Subdivision, pp 359 RZN 01-11.00 Cross Creek Subdivision, LLC, pp 359 MOTION Hoffman Hoffman SECOND Marr Shackelford D. Bunch Y Y B. Estes N Y L. Hoffman Y Y S. Hoover Y Y N. Allen Y Y D. Marr Y Y A. Bishop Y Y Shackelford Y Y L. Ward Y Y ACTION Approved Approved VOTE 8-1-0 9-0-0