Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-01-14 MinutesPLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, January 14, 2002, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN CUP 02-3.00: Conditional Use (Olive Garden, 212) Page 3 LSD 02-1.00: Large Scale Development (Olive Garden, pp 212) Page 7 RZN 02-1.00 Rezoning (Schmitt, pp 404) Page 12 RZN 02-2.00: Rezoning (Bethell, pp 177) Page 25 RZN 02-3.00: Rezoning (Cathcart/England, pp 558) Page 27 CUP 02-1.00 Conditional Use (Lloyd, pp 484) Page 29 CUP 02-5.00: Conditional Use (Donner, pp 292) Page 33 ADM 02-3.00: Administrative Item (Liquor Store) Page 38 MEMBERS PRESENT Alice Church Bob Estes Lee Ward Lorel Hoffman Nancy Allen Donald Bunch Loren Shackelford Sharon Hoover Don Marr Approved Approved Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Approved Approved Approved MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Planning Commission January 14, 2002 Page 2 Kit Williams Tim Conklin Dawn Warrick Ron Petrie Hugh Earnest Renee Thomas Planning Commission January 14, 2002 Page 3 Roll call and approval of the minutes from December 10, 2001. Estes: Welcome to the Monday, January 14, 2002 meeting of your Fayetteville Planning Commission. The first order of business will be to call the roll. Renee, would you do so please? ROLL CALL: Upon the calling of roll eight Commissioners were present with Commissioner Shackelford arriving at 5:45 p.m. Estes: A quorum being present, the next item of business will be approval of the minutes from the December 10, 2001 meeting. Are there any changes, additions, modifications or comments regarding the minutes from the December 10, 2001 meeting? Seeing none they will be approved. CUP 02-3.00: Conditional Use (Olive Garden, 212) was submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Company on behalf of Darden Restaurants for property located at the northeast corner of Mall Avenue & Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.35 acres. The request is to allow 103 more parking spaces than allowed by ordinance. Estes: The first item on the agenda is a conditional use request submitted by Mr. Mel Milholland of Milholland Company on behalf of Darden Restaurants. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.35 acres. The request is to allow 103 more parking spaces than allowed by ordinance. Staff recommends approval of this conditional use request for a total of 151 parking spaces as shown on the revised site plan submitted to the Planning Division on January 10, 2002 subject to the following conditions. The first condition is compliance with all conditions of the accompanying large scale development. Is the applicant present and if so would you like to come forward and make a presentation? Milholland: Melvin Milholland, Milholland Engineering and I represent Darden Restaurants who are the developers of this Olive Garden site. We have a representative here who also in your packet has a letter writing justification for the 151 spaces. If you have read that and you have any questions he could respond to that. Estes: Commissioners, do you have any questions of Mr. Milholland or the representative from Darden Restaurants at this time? Seeing none, Mr. Milholland does that conclude your presentation? Milholland: For that part, yes. Estes: Is there any member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this conditional use request? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for Planning Commission January 14, 2002 Page 4 discussions, questions of the applicant or motions. Motion: Ward: This is just a conditional use, the first part of this. I will recommend that we approve CUP 02-3 for the Olive Garden. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward to approve CUP 02-3.00 is there a second? Hoffman: I will second with a little explanation. I think there are some members of the audience that were questioning why a conditional use is required to allow more parking spaces than required by ordinance. It is my belief that our ordinance does not properly address the parking space situations for large restaurants like this and that Commissioner Marr had in the past sent an ordinance forward to the City Council that was subsequently turned down. I think that I speak for the majority of the Planning Commission in saying that we do see the need for these additional parking spaces and that our parking lot ordinance requiring green space and vegetation will certainly improve the looks and we wont have miles of pavement. For that reason, I am going to second, with that explanation. Estes: Marr: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward and a second by Commissioner Hoffman to approve CUP 02-3.00 is there any comment or any discussion? I guess at the meeting tonight we have a hand out. If I could just have someone from the City walk me through and make sure I understand what this is saying. Conklin: Sure, at your agenda session you asked what other restaurants* parking spaces numbers were. What I put together this evening for you was to look at a total of seven restaurants, Chilis, Golden Corral, Rio Bravo, Ryan.s, Olive Garden, Red Lobster and Dixie Cafe. We looked at the number of seats, the maximum number of employees, the square footage of the restaurants, what is allowed for the minimum required and the maximum allowed under ordinance. I looked at the one per four, one parking space per four seats, the ordinance that we brought to the council with 20% over. I also looked at what the ratio would be based on the number of seats and the number of actual provided parking spaces for each restaurant. Chilis, the first one, they have 5,196 sq. ft. They are providing 180 parking spaces, that ratio of how many parking spaces or one space per number of seats is 1 per every 1.56 seats within the restaurant. Golden Corral, they have 390 seats, a maximum employee shift of 40, 152 parking spaces provided. That ratio was one parking space per 3.48 seats. Rio Bravo was 210 seats, 59 employees maximum shift, 156 spaces provided, 2.16 seats per parking space. Ryans was 392 seats, 10,065 sq.ft. building, 40 employees maximum shift, 214 spaces provided, 2.25. Olive Garden this evening is Planning Commission January 14, 2002 Page 5 asking for a parking space ratio of one parking space per two seats. Red Lobster is at 2.26 seats per parking space and Dixie Cafe is at 6.47. The Dixie Cafe is probably the most out of line with the rest of the restaurants in this area. However, they have shared parking with the Home Depot development. The rest are close to two, one parking space per two seats. The employee numbers jump dramatically between the restaurants at their maximum shift, that changes these ratios also. It is pretty much in line with what we see out in this area at these restaurants is about one space per around two seats within the restaurants. Estes: Thank you Mr. Conklin. Commissioner Marr, do you have anything additional? Marr: One other question for Tim. How many of these would have been approved prior to our current ordinance requirements, do we know? Conklin: Four out of the seven were done prior to the ordinance. Marr: Can you tell me which four those are? Conklin: Chilis, Ryans, Red Lobster and Dixie Cafe. The ones that we have looked at and have approved the additional parking have been Golden Corral and Rio Bravo. I have seen Rio Bravo people parking next door at another development before within that parking lot just to give some observation. That parking lot has been full at times where they have shared parking with an adjacent development. It depends on how popular the restaurant is. Even at that ratio, one space per 2.16 seats, they have run out of parking before too. It is going to be very important when we look at these restaurants and one of the things that Olive Garden has stated at Subdivision Committee and within their letter is that this is an area where there is no opportunity to share parking spaces at this time and that it is critical, in their opinion, that they need 151 parking spaces to build this restaurant at this location. They have also stated that they have looked at other sites in other communities and in other areas and this is really the minimum when there is no opportunity to share. At this time there is no opportunity to share parking in this area. Marr: Mr. Chair, my comment is I think this is a great example of why we really need to reevaluate our parking requirements for restaurants on just this table alone. I know that you are sick of me saying that but it seems like we get into this I think this is a great example. The other thing, I think that it is important that the city be cognizant of things that we know are successful recipes of businesses. Obviously, I think the restaurant business understands what parking is needed in order to be successful. We see it both in their document dated December 19th as well as in what we have been willing to approve. I am certainly in support of this. Planning Commission January 14, 2002 Page 6 Estes: Commissioner Ward, did you have a question or a comment? Ward: No, actually Mr. Marr hit all the points. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward and a second by Commissioner Hoffman to approve CUP 02-3.00 is there any further discussion, questions of the applicant or comments? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 02-3.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Estes: The conditional use request passes by a unanimous vote of eight to zero. Planning Commission January 14, 2002 Page 7 LSD 02-1.00: Large Scale Development (Olive Garden, pp 212) was submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Company on behalf of Darden Restaurants for property located on the northeast of the corner of Mall Avenue and Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.35 acres with an 8,077 sq.ft. restaurant proposed. Estes: The second item on the agenda is the accompanying large scale development, 02- 1.00. This is a Targe scale development for Olive Garden submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Company on behalf of Darden Restaurants for property located on the northeast corner of Mall Avenue and Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.35 acres with an 8,077 sq.ft. restaurant proposed. Staff recommends approval subject to certain conditions of approval. Mr. Conklin, do we have signed conditions of approval? Conklin: We do not have signed conditions of approval. I would like to bring to the attention of the Commission that condition number six has been satisfied by the applicant to the satisfaction of the city. Estes: May we delete number six from the conditions of approval? Conklin: We would like that left in but it has been satisfied. Estes: The conditions of approval are 1) Planning Commission approval of a conditional use to allow the proposed 151 parking spaces. The ordinance allows a maximum of 50 parking spaces. Of course, that is the conditional use request that you just heard and it passed by a unanimous vote of eight to zero. 2) Planning Commission determination of compliance with Design Overlay District Regulations and Commercial Design Standards including signage. 3) Planning Commission determination of a waiver request to allow additional signage. The applicant is requesting that wall signage be allowed on three sides of the building. Pursuant to the Design Overlay District one wall sign may be installed per business. Sign area shall not exceed 20% of that wall area or 200 square feet, whichever is less. A second sign may be allowed if it is determined that the structure has more than one front facing a street or highway right-of-way. Staff has determined that this development will have two fronts facing a street or highway. Therefore, two wall signs are allowed by code. One additional wall sign is being requested. This additional sign will be facing east. 4) The right of way between the south property line and the Fulbright Expressway right-of-way shall be maintained by a POA or the Olive Garden Restaurant and successors until the future road has been constructed. The applicant has agreed to said maintenance. 5) The north curb cut shall be relocated to the north/south parking lot aisle at the time a private or public street is extended east of Mall Ave. 6) In accordance with the Final Plat of CMN Business Park II, Phase II, .Each individual tract developer shall employ an Environmental Specialist to insure that the Planning Commission January 14, 2002 Page 8 spirit and letter of the 404 Permit from the Corps of Engineers will be complied with in the development of the lot.. The Corp of Engineers shall determine if the Environmental Specialist to be used for this project has the appropriate credentials for this verification. 7) Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives. 8) 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 Cityas current requirements. 9) Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. 10) Approval of this project does not guarantee that sewer capacity will be available at the time of construction. 11) Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. Project Disk with all final revisions c. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by .158.01 SGuarantees 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 applicants representative present and if so do you wish to make a presentation? Milholland: Mr. Chairman, Planning Commission members, we concur with all those conditions. My client does have some concerns on Item 10. It may be well that he stand here and approach you on this. He is representing the investors on this piece of property. I have explained to him all that I know. I know that we have had it on other plats, previously other projects but he has a concern and I think it might be best if you allow him to address you on that issue. That is the only thing we have a concern about. Estes: Would the applicants representative like to make a presentation at this time regarding condition of approval number 10? Milholland: Yes Sir. Estes: Please state your name and tell us who you represent. Terwilliger: My name is Neil Terwilliger and I represent Darden Restaurants, the owner and operators of the Olive Gardens. My question about item number ten is at what point and where can I go if the Planning Board is not in the position to guarantee sewer Planning Commission January 14, 2002 Page 9 capacity? Where do I need to go to establish that guarantee? My concern is that I dont want to start construction and spend the millions of dollars that it is going to take to build this facility and the grounds that are associated with it and then find out that I dornt have the ability to tie into the system or to turn on the system. I am just wondering does it come during the building permit process, is there a separate sewer agency that I need to go to? By virtue of paying fees, does that guarantee me sewer capacity or approval of plans? Estes: Let me direct your attention to either Mr. Petrie or to Mr. Conklin. Conklin: Basically, condition number ten is to advise all applicants that our treatment plant is nearing capacity. The voters approved a 3/4 cents sales tax and we are in the process of building the new west side waste water treatment plant. At this time as projects come before the Commission we have not been advised that there is no longer any sewer treatment capacity. These projects will be able to tie onto our sewer system. Basically, the condition reads that at the time of construction, if you come in, we get your project approved, you get your permits and you are on your way going you will have the ability to tie onto the sewer system. If you wait three years there is no guarantee. Basically, our plant is nearing capacity. The city has been working with the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality and we are working towards resolving our capacity issues. There has been no development that hasnat been able to tie onto our current facilities. Terwilliger: Ok, the risk at this point in time, if I understand what you are saying, is that between now and the time that I get a permit there is a possibility that something could happen and eliminate capacity but once Iave got a permit that guarantees me. Conklin: That is what the Public Works Department of the City of Fayetteville has indicated to me. Once we allow these developments to go forward and we permit them that they are theoretically on our system. Terwilliger: Ok, thank you. Estes: Mr. Milholland, does that conclude the presentation on behalf of the applicant, Darden Restaurants? Milholland: Yes it does Thank you Sir. Estes: Is there any member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this requested large scale development, 02-1.00 on the Olive Garden? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for discussion, comments or motions. Planning Commission January 14, 2002 Page 10 Motion: Hoffman: I would like to make a motion to approve LSD 02-1.00 with the specific addition of the granting of the waiver request for the additional sign. In my motion I would like to state that I am making this motion rather enthusiastically. At our last meeting we saw another development that I felt had met rather minimum standards with regard to our commercial design and overlay standards. I feel that the Olive Garden has gone far and beyond those minimum standards and has presented a very attractive and wonderful development that will be good for this city and that will be good for our regional retail area that we are in the process of developing. I want to say thank you for that. With that, I make my motion for approval. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman to approve LSD 02-1, is there a second? Allen: I will second. Estes: We have a second. Is there any discussion or comments? Let me just say this briefly. In the past I have been critical of what I have described as the large box like, unarticulated structures that we see coming into this development. I would particularly like to take a moment and thank you Mr. Milholland and thank Darden Restaurants for what I consider to be an outstanding project. I have commented in the past that in my opinion this project could be a jewel of Northwest Arkansas. This certainly will be a jewel of this development and I thank you and I compliment you and I will of course vote in favor of the LSD. Any other discussion or comments? Marr: I would just add to that that it is sure nice to see a building that is attractive on all four sides. Thank you. Allen: I concur. Estes: Is there any other discussion? Ward: As you had said previously, unless we do get this approved, you can not go home. Estes: I did make that remark to you but it was not in a public forum. It is now. Bunch: Just one additional note. In addition to the architectural designs on the landscaping and even though we did approve a conditional use for additional parking, the applicant did go ahead and get an oversized lot so that the overlay district requirements for greenspace are more than met. I just wanted to throw that in. Even though we approved the additional parking space there is more than adequate Planning Commission January 14, 2002 Page 11 landscaping opportunities and open space. Estes: Are there any other comments? Hoffman: Two thumbs up. Estes: Renee, please allow the record to reflect that Commissioner Shackelford is now in attendance and would you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 02-1.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Estes: The request for LSD 02-1.00 passes by a unanimous vote. Thank you Mr. Milholland. Planning Commission January 14, 2002 Page 12 RZN 02-1.00 Rezoning (Schmitt, pp 404) was submitted by Robert Schmitt for property located at 1140 Hendrix and 110 Garland. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 1.36 acres. The request is to rezone to R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential. Estes: The next item on the agenda is item number three, this is a rezoning request submitted by Mr. Robert Schmitt for property located at 1140 Hendrix and 110 Garland. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 1.36 acres. The request is to rezone to R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential. Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning based on the findings that are included as a part of your report. Is the applicant or the applicants's representative present? Osborne: Yes Sir, we appreciate the opportunity to appear and we are very happy with the staff recommendation and we stand on it. I am Rick Osborne representing Bobby Schmitt. Estes: Thank you Mr. Osborne. PUBLIC COMMENT: Estes: Is there any member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this rezoning request 02-1.00? Davidson: Yes Sir. My name is Sharon Davidson, I live on Rogers Drive in Fayetteville. Actually, I would like to start with, I have heard the unfortunate news that Commissioner Estesaterm is about to expire on us and I consider that a big loss to us in Fayetteville. I have watched him handle these meetings and people and projects and he has done it extremely well in my opinion. I am a little concerned that we won4 have his great expertise in the years ahead dealing with the very reason why I'm standing up here right now, Mr. Schmitt. Inappropriate R-2 zoning is one of his issues. We have issues all over the place with Mr. Schmitt and actually I haven -4 had enough time to research this newest one myself. I notice again he is wanting a favor from us while he is costing us exorbitant amounts of money to accommodate him. His newest thing we can get to, I didn4 hear much about it here. We don4 usually hear much about it because they don4 want to tell us much about it. Lets know that you can go to each one of his existing projects and find problems everywhere, complaints everywhere. I am only aware of four projects that this man is involved in. I guess this makes the fifth and there could be some hidden ones and I9n just coming familiar with it. The first major problem was on Markham Hill with this gentleman. He chose to insert a house in an area on a lot which he knew well was not zoned. Excuse me if some of my terminology is incorrect here. He knew what he was doing when he put this house in. We have situations from contractors that the Planning Commission January 14, 2002 Page 13 house is already taking in water in the basement. We have those types of issues with his projects. I believe that this is the gentleman who had students sign papers stating they were domestic servants for other students so that he could make money in an area that was not supposed to be treated that way. I think that was the first I heard of him. Now we are coming up to Olive Street. He has got this hill, it is sort of like a pock mark situation. Estes: Ms. Davidson, this is a request for rezoning property. Davidson: Ok, bring me back in line but the whole point is it is a request for something. We are having issues with Mr. Schmitt up on the hill. I'm asking you is if we have to address this issue. Estes: Ms Davidson, do this for me, stay focused on the agenda item that is before us. It is a request to rezone property located at 1140 Hendrix and 110 Garland. Please focus on that issue and if you have any comments that you feel would edify us or educate us in that regard please provide them. Davidson: That is what I thought I was doing and that is our problem with this situation Sir. These are relative to this situation and the fact that our city is at capacity or almost capacity for our sewage system. The fact that there are a lot of inappropriate projects going in and the fact that this man has a tract record for inappropriate projects leads me to say that I dont trust this project. I would like to know a whole lot more about his plans for this project and I would also like to say some good faith from this man in any of his actions or intentions with the city. Here is a suggestion Mr. Schmitt. You want a favor here, every project wants a favor, every project also circumvents our rules with deliberate actions. You would like this zoned up. We are fortunate that we have gotten, and I thank you for that as well, the R-1.5 zoning to try and have a little stop gap while we deal with our major issue in Fayetteville as Commissioners now need to know is inappropriate R-2 zoning. This is very indicative of how our city can be degraded within a few years as far as our neighborhoods. Here is the deal, if he wants to show good faith in what he is doing in our area, how about voluntary downgrading, downzoning that piece of property on Fletcher Mr. Schmitt? Youwe shown such ill will to every neighborhood you have inserted yourself in, how about that 1.5? Estes: Mrs. Davidson.. . Davidson: You can downzone right? Can I not request that be considered that he do that? Estes: Mrs. Davidson, please keep your comments brief, keep them to the point, keep them focused on the agenda item. Planning Commission January 14, 2002 Page 14 Davidson: It is all on the point, it is a very big point and it is the point. I say please do this man no favors, please research what he is saying he wants to do. You well know Sir, he says he wants to do one thing and he ends up doing another. This is where we need to start addressing it. I ask you to please address the issue with the problem of this man and his developments. Do not grant him any favors, variances or waivers. Please do not grant this request for rezoning. Good day. Estes: Thank you Mrs. Davidson. Is there anyone else who would like to provide public comment on this issue? If so, please keep your comments brief, to the point and relevant to the agenda item being considered so that everyone has a chance to speak and we may continue with the meeting. Please tell us who you are, where you live and provide us with the benefits of your comments. Sawyer: My name is Valerie Sawyer, I live at 1224 W. Hendrix. I represent myself, my son and a couple of other property owners on my street. I have three concerns. One is that I do realize that in Fayetteville there is always going to be a housing shortage. We keep growing, we have got a college. I realize that we need more apartments but I still have some concerns. One is traffic. There is already a lot of traffic on Garland. It needs to be wider but there is just no way to make it wider. Secondly, the apartments that are already in that neighborhood bring in a lot of crime and there was an article in the paper recently about the crime in those neighborhoods but my biggest problem is drainage. The ditches that come from both directions down Garland go down at the back of this property down a ditch that is parallel and between Hendrix and Maxwell. The ditch goes and eventually ceases to be a ditch and it is just a big flood area that is behind my property. I also represent the owners of my property. They were hoping that they would be back in town in time to be at this meeting but they couldn4 be here. After it rains, the yard to the side of my house is a swamp. I signed a lease because I wanted my son to have a yard to play in but after it rains for several days we cant play in that yard. I dont mind because the birds like it and I like the birds but there is a pond behind my house for days after it rains and if they pave that... some apartments were built, two triplexes were built down my street and they just paved the whole thing because drainage is so bad in that area that once they realized that they were just going to have mud for people to park in they just paved this entire lot front to back and took out a lot of trees. I just hope that someone, some of you could come look at that property site after the next rain because my son and I walk across it sometimes taking a shortcut to a friends's house and after it rains it is really swampy over there. I hope that someone will come look at it and walk on it after a rain and look at the ditch that suddenly ceases to be a ditch and becomes a pond before you allow this type of project to happen. If you could figure out a way to make it drain in a responsible way then I wouldn't be quite so against it though I would prefer that my neighborhood stay a neighborhood Planning Commission January 14, 2002 Page 15 and not turn into apartments. That is all I have, thank you. Estes: Thank you Ms. Sawyer. Richards: My name is Joyce Richards and I did forward to Ms. Strain a copy of my comments. I will read them, I don't know if you got them. Conklin: They are on page 3.6. Richards: Ok. My family and I have lived at 1673 N. Stevens for many years, since 1974 when we bought that property at 1231 S. Maxwell which backs up to the two triplexes which were put in last fall. My son and his family live there and my concerns are number one, a lot of traffic already goes up and down Hendrix. In part because that street is used as a cutoff to get to Mount Comfort because of the bottleneck that is there at Faulk Plaza if you have ever gone through there in the morning, the afternoon, anytime of day, it is bad. Many people walk up and down Hendrix or they ride their bicycles up and down there. There are no sidewalks on that street if you are going to put more traffic through there it is going to be a greater danger. Number two, Garland already has complexes up and down between Oak Plaza and Agri Park, Magnolia Place, Garland Gardens just to name a few and they are also not very far away from College Park over there on Mount Comfort. Multiple dwellings would increase that traffic problem that is already there. I know that Garland is scheduled to be widened but that doesn't help us right now. It doesn't mean that it will help us if you put more apartment buildings up and down that street. Number three, the apartment complexes on Garland are in or near that high crime area which was in the Gazette. I put December 10th but it is really December 9th. I think if you put more people in that area that you are only going to increase the possibility of more crime. The more people in an area the greater the crime rate. I just don't think we need to expand that problem anymore to the west or I would ask you not to. Number four, there were two triplexes that were built down there. I guess my question to you is if we start rezoning here does that mean that that is going to become an apartment strip all the way down Hendrix? If it is going to go all the way down, will it come down my street, turn the corner a domino effect? Does this start a precedent that means that we aren't going to be able to come back to you to say please no more of this? She talked about the drainage but there is also a problem with the sewer and water system because I know that there have been water breaks up and down Garland because we have gone and watched them with my grandsons where they come and fix it. I don't know if those even actually hook up to there but I would assume that they would have some effect on it. I just ask you please don't do this. Estes: Thank you Mrs. Richards. Is there any other member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this rezoning request? Planning Commission January 14, 2002 Page 16 Lane: Good evening, my name is Jarod Lane. I live at 1227 S. Maxwell. I am just going to ask you guys to please not pass this. I like to have my house I bought six years ago, I have two small children and I like to have that Norman Rockwell effect. I like my yard, I like to be able to go up and down my street, I like to sleep at night. If we do this and we start passing this and building these, Ms. McBroom owns a lot of property in the back of my house, she is probably going to be able to build some more back there. All the college kids like to stay up late and we have already got College Park up there and it makes a lot of noise so please dont pass this. Thank you. Estes: Thank you Jarod, is there anyone else in the audience that would like to provide public comment on this requested rezoning? Richards, A.: My name is Allison Richards, I live at 1231 S. Maxwell. I guess I would like to start out briefly with waking up one morning to chainsaws and bulldozers on Hendrix bulldozing the lot and putting in two triplexes in what has normally been a single family dwelling residence. I have two small children, we ride bikes, we run. There aren't any sidewalks in that neighborhood. The crime rate is high, we watch police cars go up and down the streets and I would just like to ask you not to rezone, make more apartments in a residential neighborhood. Estes: Thank you Ms. Richards, is there anyone else that wishes to provide public comment on this requested rezoning? Seeing none, I41 bring it back to the applicant's representative, Mr. Osborne for any comments. Osborne: Thank you Mr. Estes. The two triplexes to which they refer are Marc Crandall-ts project. It is west of this. It is three or four lots down Maxwell Street. This property is on Garland. The young lady had some good points, the first one or the second one I guess it was. Traffic is a problem in that area, I think we all know it. We are contributing land to widen Garland. I don4 know what else we can do besides that. We have committed to that. We, of course, will have a drainage plan which the city will have an opportunity to approve. Crime, I think they are talking about College Park. We are talking about one triplex, three or four parks from College Park. I admit, College Park is noisy and there is probably crime over there. There is probably less crime on this site with this triplex than there would have been before. This was a mechanicas garage used as a C-1 nonconforming use in an R-1 zone. Mr. Schmitt, I think you know this, Mr. Schmitt bought this having been advised by the city that it was R-1.5. Thus, he bought it having his plans for the triplex. We thought we were kind of downzoning when we bought it. We were going to put a triplex there from day one. As I said, it was a mechanics garage and I think these people would prefer a triplex to a mechanicas garage in that place. That is about all Planning Commission January 14, 2002 Page 17 Iave got to say. If you have any questions I will be glad to try and answer them. Estes: Thank you Mr. Osborne. Richards: Can I respond to that? Estes: No Ma'am, the floor is closed for public comment, thank you. Mr Conklin, could you provide us with some background? We have our packet and have our material and have read and studied it but that is exclusive to us and of course hasn4 been distributed to those people that are concerned about this rezoning request. Would you give us some background explaining to us why this item is on our agenda tonight and why it is before us? Conklin: Sure. This item is on your agenda due to a series of events that have occurred over the past several years. Back in 1995 our zoning map was changed from a hand drawn map that was colored in with crayons to a digital zoning map. At the time that the map was digitized or put into a digital format this area was shown as R-1.5. The applicant this evening that is before you, looked at our zoning map that is on our website and on our wall in our office that was redone into a digital format and it did show R-1.5. He applied for what is called a property line adjustment. At that time I asked my staff to go back and do a zoning history of this particular piece of property to identify the ordinance that rezoned it to R-1.5. At that time it was discovered that there were no ordinances that we could find in our offices or the City Clerkas office that showed that property to be rezoned. We asked the applicant to meet with us and we discussed the situation and advised him that a rezoning request would have to be applied for and brought forward to the Planning Commission and the City Council. That is where we are at today. I do not know when exactly that drafting error occurred on our zoning map. I think it has been there for many years. However, it has now been changed. It shows as R-1 and on the internet it has been corrected as well. We took a couple of other steps a couple of years ago, we transferred all of the official mapping down to our geographic information coordinator who keeps up our zoning map. It is no longer done within the Planning Division. There are some safeguards that have been implemented. This is one of the situations where we had no idea that there was an error in the map until I had my staff go back and research this particular piece of property and they could not find that. That is the main reason why we are here tonight. It is true that the applicant did come to our office and did look at a map that showed R-1.5 on this piece of property. Estes: Mr. Conklin, did a drafting error occur during the process of converting the official city zoning map from a hand drawn graphic to a digital document and is that the reason that this item is before us this evening is to correct that error? Conklin- That is correct. To the best of my knowledge that is the only logical reason that I can Planning Commission January 14, 2002 Page 18 Estes: think of why it was shown that way. The person that digitalized our map misread a hand drawn map and put R-1.5 on the map in that area. I have looked back and I have not been able to find any other ordinances or documentation with regard to that. Once we did discover that, it was our duty to make sure that the applicant was aware that that piece of property was not zoned R-1.5, as was shown on the map and that the only way that property could be rezoned is to go through this process through Planning Commission and City Council. That is where we are at today. My memory is the same as Mr. Osborncs. Every since I can remember for the last forty years there has been a mechanics garage on that property, would that be a C-2 use? Conklin: Yes, C-2. Estes: Would R-1.5 be a downzoning from C-2? Commissioners, are there any other questions? Marc Mr. Chair, I guess I have a question for Tim. Tim, I apologize that I dons have my land use map with me tonight. Could you maybe at least, in looking at the property maps on 3.7 and 3.8, on our land use plan it refers in our back ground information that it is consistent with the land use plan and allows us a transition from commercial to residential or from R-2? Conklin- We do have R-2 zoning immediately to the east. Our land use plan does show this as residential land use. Marr: It says a mix of housing types within the area and we will provide a transition from R-2 zoning across Garland. How far back on our land use plan does the R-1.5 go? Conklin- We do not show individual zoning districts on our land use plan. Marr: You just show it as residential. Conklin: We show as residential with the policy being, we encourage mixed use type developments where appropriate and allow flexibility for developers and individuals to live in communities that have an opportunity for mixed residential housing types. Marr: Is there a typical transition geographic area that is done in planning that says R-2 is this much, R-1, R-1.5. How do you transition to that? Is it blocks, is it multiple blocks, is it sections? I am just trying to get a feel. One of the concerns I heard was in this area now becoming with this rezoning would we see this whole area develop into a multi unit as opposed to single family unit zoning? Conklin: Typically, in newer developments you will see a transition between commercial and then you may have a block of multifamily that can step down to some townhouses and some single family. I have seen that. In these areas you typically find a mixed use type of residential housing types in some of these areas. I think you have to look Planning Commission January 14, 2002 Page 19 Marr: at it on a case by case basis and make your recommendation based on whether or not the findings can be met and the bylaws. One other question. On the determination of whether it would alter population density and in my mind that is an increase in traffic, etc. I drive through this area quite a bit and I certainly understand the comments about the increased traffic and the increase in potential danger. As a result of that, it says slightly. When does it become moderately or more because we are going from a five unit capacity, if I read this correctly, to twelve units per acre or sixteen in this case. That seems more than slightly to me. I guess maybe in terms of we already have just three streets up a back log of people trying to turn onto Sycamore and Deane and Garland at rush hour time periods. What I dont want to do is create another situation because of our zoning a hundred yards down. Conklin: Garland Avenue is on our Master Street Plan as a principal arterial street. In the future it is planned to be widened to that standard. The standard is designed to carry large volumes of traffic, anywhere from 16,000 to 18,000 vehicles per day. When we look at traffic we are looking at what the streets are, our Master Street Plan classifications and what these streets are designed for. In the future what they are designed to handle. That is what we are looking at in this location. Allen: Looking at the map on page 3.7, is basically all of the property that is visible on this map east of Garland R-2 and west of Garland R-1? Conklin: Yes, that is pretty much true. College Park Apartments is zoned R-2. All to the east and north on Garland is zoned R-2. Marr: Where is the triplex, the current ones? Not the one proposed with this zoning on this particular drawing we are looking at. Conklin: If you look at Addington Avenue it goes north it would be on that lot, those two triplexes right there. Marr: Ok, thank you. Hoffman. I have a question for our City Attorney. In reading the background, it looks like the applicant purchased the property with the understanding from our map at the time that it was R-1.5 and I think that has been established. If for some reason the zoning were not to pass at this level or the Council level, would the city be responsible, could they be sued for this or would that be something that the title company shouldave picked up on and it would go to the title company? Planning Commission January 14, 2002 Page 20 Williams: I wouldn't want to advise an applicant whether or not he should sue the city. Hoffman: I'm not after that, I'm just curious. Williams: Obviously, the city does have its statutory immunity for negligent actions that we would attempt to assert in any sort of suit if that happened. I am not telling you that that would be an absolute bar to any potential liability that we would have. The applicant also might look toward a title company or something like that that might have missed this. The title company would be saying that they relied on the official map that was put on the website and that we had. You are just making a recommendation to the City Council. City Council has to make the final decision and they will be the ones deciding the liability question also if it has to come up there. They certainly rely a lot upon your recommendations. I think they usually follow what the Planning Commission does here so it is very important to them. I think that a lot of the motivation probably from our Planning staff was the fact that we did make a mistake and we acknowledge that mistake. It was inadvertent, we did not want to make it, but it was made and it did put all of these parties in an awkward and difficult position and I think that is why they encouraged them if they wanted to go forward that they did have to come before the Planning Commission and the City Council in order to rectify this problem. Even though we did make a mistake we have to rely upon the actual ordinance and the ordinance said this is R-1. Hoffman: Thank you. I absolutely agree that it puts everybody in a difficult situation. I have one more comment about the former use of the property having been for a mechanical garage. In my mind that use is, although commercial in nature, not so much of an impact on the neighborhood as an additional sixteen units might be because its hours of operation are only during the daytime. I have heard a lot of concern expressed about night time activity and a lot of activity happening after hours. The last question I have is for the applicant I guess. I have heard the word triplex with regard to your proposal for this and I know that we don't have a site plan or anything other than the rezoning in front of us but did you plan on developing to the full sixteen units? If you don't mind talking about that if you could tell us how many units you are actually going to propose on this. Pim just asking, let me reiterate. Osborne: We don't mind. We are just asking for eight additional units and there is a house that we intend to leave there which will make a total of nine units. Hoffman: Thank you very much, that is all I had. Estes: Are there any other questions or comments? Planning Commission January 14, 2002 Page 21 Bunch: Yes Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions. One for staff. On the widening scheduled for Garland, is that portion of Garland State Highway 112 and is that tied up in state problems or will it be on the city capital improvement program and if so when? Conklin- It is on the transportation improvement plan for the state highway. I dont have the exact date, I think it may be ten years out. Bunch: It will go to a four lane at some point in time and that portion of Garland is State Highway? Conklin- Yes, it is State Highway. That is subject to change every three years as they do the transportation improvement program. For example, Garland Avenue wasn't even discussed prior to a few years ago with regard to between Maple and North Street but that can change over time. Bunch: One other question. The term lot line adjustment has been interjected into the mix. This is 1.36 acres is that going to become two lots or what has transpired? That was an administrative decision on the lot line adjustment? Conklin: Those are administrative decisions. It is basically moving the existing lots lines around. As long as it met the R-1 zoning we approved it based on R-1 zoning. What is the current status? Is it one lot, two lots, three lots? Ian not sure, it did not increase the number of lots. It moves the lot lines around. Bunch: Conklin: Osborne: Bunch: Osborne: Estes: Shackelford: Osborne: Estes: It is two. It would be one lot for the existing structure and then a second lot for the proposed structures? Yes. Are there any other questions or comments? The existing structure is a mechanics garage and that is a C-2 permitted use. Some of the other things.. . There is also a house. We are leaving the house and tearing down the garage. Right. The garage is on the corner of Garland and Hendrix and that is a C-2 use. Other C-2 uses that are permitted by right are adult live entertainment, clubs or bars. Planning Commission January 14, 2002 Page 22 Richards: Estes: Hoffman: Estes: Hoffman: Estes: Motion: Ward: Estes: Shackelford: Estes: If it was my property I would much rather something other than a C-2 and would much prefer 1.5. As I look at the Commercial Thoroughfare of Garland it would seem to me that from a planning perspective the appropriate use would be C-1. Again, I would much prefer it if I was a property owner. Wouldnat the school keep the live entertainment out? The school could keep it from becoming a bar but it could not keep it from becoming a live adult entertainment facility. That is a permitted use as a matter of right in a C- 2 zoning district. It cant be within a thousand feet of the school. I think it is to serve alcohol. I don't know but I don't think we are talking about a strip bar though. Well, just to reveal to you a little bit of my thought process, Ian going to vote in favor of the rezoning request and the reason is because I consider it a downzoning. I consider it much less intrusive and offensive than other possible zoning and the permitted uses that fall within that zoning. Are there any comments? My thoughts on that particular piece of property is that everything along Hwy. 112 and Garland Avenue probably should be zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Pretty much everything that is left along there has already become everything from convenience stores to restaurants to rental properties all up and down Hwy. 112 now. It is not a highly desirable area for a single family home anymore. The traffic has become too dense out there along Garland Avenue. In some ways, the first 300 feet to the west there should be zoned commercial, C-1. This R-1.5 is a very moderate density residential which I think is a much easier thing to live with if I had residential back in there on Hendrix or any of those other streets back there. I am going to go ahead and make a motion that we forward RZN 02-1 for this 1.36 acres. We have a motion by Commissioner Ward to recommend approval of RZN 02-1 is there a second? I41 second. We have a second by Commissioner Shackelford. Is there any other discussion? Planning Commission January 14, 2002 Page 23 Hoffman: I can4 vote for the rezoning in the absence of a Bill of Assurance limiting the number of units to the proposed 8. I feel that 16 is too dense for the residential traffic along Hendrix Street. I am in agreement with what Commissioners Ward and Shackelford say about the traffic on Garland. However, I do believe that this will negatively impact the single family character and use to the single family neighborhood to the west. If there were something like that... Osborne: We would make that offer, eight units plus the house that is already there. Hoffman: For the total of nine? Osborne: Yes. Hoffman: I want to make it clear that INn not asking for that, you are offering it. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward and a second by Commissioner Shackelford to approve.. . Ward: Iall make a motion to amend my motion. Estes: We have an amendment by Commissioner Ward which incorporates the Bill of Assurance now offered by the applicant, does the second concur? Shackelford: Sure. Bunch: On this lot line adjustment, a question for the applicant. Does the 1.36 acres include both the proposed duplexes and the existing house that will remain? There has been a lot line adjustment and we don4 have that before us so we don4 know how many acres the existing house sits upon and whether or not this project would come through as a large scale development. That is one of the questions that would also have an effect with the neighborhoods concerns if we could see this project again. If it comes through as a large scale development there would be a little more over site on it. Could the applicant please tell me what the breakdown is on the size and whether you anticipate bringing this through as a large scale? Conklin: These were existing lots when we looked at the lot line adjustment. Because they are existing and individually they are less than an acre we can not require them to go through large scale development. Bunch: Now what we have presented to us is a 1.36. Conklin: It is more than one tract. Planning Commission January 14, 2002 Page 24 Bunch: Just for the record, that is two tracts and would not have to go through the large scale development process. Conklin: We-ve looked at it and yes, the ordinance reads that anything over an acre is required to go through large scale development. Bunch: Thank you. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward and a second by Commissioner Shackelford to recommend approval of this rezoning request subject to a Bill of Assurance that the project will not exceed nine units. Is there any other discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward RZN 02-1.00 was approved by a vote of 5-4-0 with Commissioners Marr, Hoover, Allen and Bunch voting against it. Estes: The motion passes by a vote of five to four. That is a recommendation only to the Fayetteville City Council for approval of the rezoning request. RZN 02-2.00: Rezoning (Bethell, pp 177) was submitted by Craig Hull of Nickle-Hill Group, Inc. on behalf of Andy Bethell for property located at the northeast corner ofJoyce Blvd. and Crossover Road. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately 1.94 acres. The request is to rezone to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Estes: The next item on the agenda is item number four RZN 02-2 a rezoning submitted by Craig Hull of Nickle-Hill Group, Inc. on behalf of Andy Bethell for property located at the northeast corner ofJoyce Blvd. and Crossover Road. The property is zoned C- 1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately 1.94 acres. The request is to rezone to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning subject to the Bill of Assurance offered by the applicant which restricts the uses allowed on this property to those permitted in the C-1 zoning district and including the use of the property for a liquor store and based on the findings that are included in your report. Is the applicant present? Hull: Yes. Estes: Would you state your name and give us the benefit of your presentation please? Hull: Mr. Chairman, my name is Craig Hull with the Nickle Hill Group. I am representing Andy Bethell where he has applied for a liquor permit for this site. The subject property is a triangular shaped piece of ground just to the east of Crossover Road at Planning Commission January 14, 2002 Page 25 Estes: Motion: Marr: Joyce Street and a high traffic area. The C-2 designation requested would allow the applicant to do the drive in window necessary for his business. We do not at this time have a full definition of the other uses but they would conform with the C-1 zoning district for the remainder of the project and is certainly subject to all of the large scale development process ahead of it. The surrounding property to the west is all turned commercial. There is no doubt that this is a commercial corridor so if there are other questions I will be glad to answer them. Thank you Mr. Hull. Is there any member of the audience that would like to offer public comment on this rezoning request 02-2.00? Seeing none, I41 bring it back to the Commission for discussions, comments and motions. I will recommend approval for RZN 02-2.00 because this is the only method today under which we can deal with this. I do want to reiterate, I think at agenda session one of the things that I asked and I think that you actually formally requested it that we address this as an agenda item tonight to have the ability to draft something to present to the City Council with our City Attorney that allows us to do conditional use liquor stores in a C-1 so we don't have to change the zoning to be able to do that. Since this is our remedy today and I certainly think it is appropriate in this corner I will move for approval. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Marr to recommend approval of RZN 02-2.00 is there a second? Hoffman: I41 second. Estes: We have a second by Commissioner Hoffman is there any discussion? We have a motion by Commissioner Marr and a second by Commissioner Hoffman to recommend approval of RZN 02-2 are there any comments, questions for the applicant or any further discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward RZN 02-2.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Estes: The motion passes by a unanimous vote and will be forwarded onto the Fayetteville City Council for its determination and consideration. Thank you Mr. Hull. Williams: I will say that when this does go before the City Council I will also pass on your recommendation that this can be done by a conditional use and if the City Council seems to be of the mind to do that then we will present an ordinance to that effect. Planning Commission January 14, 2002 Page 26 Estes: Thank you Mr. Williams. Planning Commission January 14, 2002 Page 27 RZN 02-3.00: Rezoning (Cathcart/England, pp 558) was submitted by Bob Hill of Nickle-Hill Group on behalf of Al & Lucile Cathcart and Cecil & Anne England for property located at 2684 W. Sixth Street. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 4.75 acres. The request is to rezone the entire tract to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Estes: Item number five was submitted by Bob Hill of Nickle-Hill Group on behalf of Al & Lucile Cathcart and Cecil & Anne England for property located at 2684 W. Sixth Street. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 4.75 acres. The request is to rezone the entire tract to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Staff recommends approval of this rezoning request based on the findings included as a part of your report. Is the applicant or applicantas representative present? Hill: Yes, I am Bob Hill with the Nickle Hill Group. Estes: Mr. Hill do you have a presentation that you would like to make? Hill: No I really don4. I will be here if anyone has any questions. I believe staff recommended approval so if you have any questions Isom here. Estes: Thank you Mr. Hill. Is there any member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this rezoning request? Seeing none, 141 bring it back to the Commission for motions, comments and discussion. Motion: Marr: I would like to move for approval of RZN 02-3.00. I believe that this is consistent for regional commercial at this location with our 2020 Master Plan. It is certainly consistent with our adopted future land use plan. I also think it allows the opportunity for this area to refurbish I think is the word that is used in our document and I certainly want to support that in the city so I will move for approval. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Marr to recommend approval of RZN 02-3.00 is there a second? Bunch: I41 second. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Marr and a second by Commissioner Bunch to recommend approval of RZN 02-3.00 is there any discussion, any comments or any questions for the applicant? Renee, would you call the roll please? Planning Commission January 14, 2002 Page 28 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval to the City Council for RZN 02-3.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Estes: The motion to recommend RZN 02-3.00 to the Fayetteville City Council passes by a unanimous vote. Thank you Mr. Hill. Hill: Thank you. Planning Commission January 14, 2002 Page 29 CUP 02-1.00 Conditional Use ( Lloyd, pp 484) was submitted by Neal Hefner of Neal Hefner Construction Co. Inc. on behalf of Eric & Charlene Lloyd for property located at 492 N. West Avenue. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 0.08 acres. The request is for the Limited Neighborhood Commercial use of a retail shop in the R -O district. Estes: The next item on the agenda is item number six, this is a conditional use request. It is submitted by Neal Hefner of Neal Hefner Construction Co. Inc. on behalf of Eric & Charlene Lloyd for property located at 492 N. West Avenue. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 0.08 acres. The request is for the Limited Neighborhood Commercial use of a retail shop in the R -O district. Staff recommends approval of this conditional use request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Conklin, do we have signed conditions? Conklin: Yes. Estes: Those conditions of approval are 1) Board of Adjustment approval of substantial improvements to an existing non -conforming structure. 2) Any outdoor lighting shall be residential in nature and shall be shielded and directed away from all surrounding residential uses. No pole lights shall be permitted. 3) Sidewalk improvements as necessary according to the Sidewalk Coordinator. Specific requirements shall be made at the time of building permit application. 4) All structural improvements shall be in keeping with the character, colors and materials of the existing building. 5) Hours of operation shall be Monday thru Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. as proposed by the applicant and in accordance with the shared parking agreement offered by the University Baptist Church. 6) The applicant shall arrange for appropriate solid waste pick up and any receptacles shall be screened at all times and brought to the curb only on pickup day. 7) One wall sign shall be allowed with a maximum area of 4 sq.ft. The color of the sign shall be compatible with the colors of the structure and only indirect external lighting is allowed. 8) On site parking for this facility shall be located under the existing canopy at the front of the structure. No additional parking on the site shall be constructed. Additional parking is provided through a shared parking agreement and with available on street parking on nearby locations on Lafayette Street and N.West Avenue. 9) This conditional use approval shall be valid for one calendar year. If substantial progress has not been made at that time a new conditional use application shall be submitted for Planning Commission consideration. 10) Water shall be turned off immediately and the shop shall not operate if any of the conditions are not met. 11) The conditional use shall be automatically revoked if any condition is not met. Is the applicant or the applicantas representative present and if so do you have a presentation that you would like to make? Hefner: My name is Neal Hefner with Hefner Construction and I represent the Lloyds. The Lloyds have basically agreed to all of the conditions. I would like to Planning Commission January 14, 2002 Page 30 Estes: add that they have a great opportunity here to renovate and repair that piece of property and they are very interested in maintaining the historical value of it also. Thank you Mr. Hefner. Is there any member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this conditional use request? Seeing none, Ill bring it back to the Commission for discussion, comments and motions. Warrick: Mr. Chair I did receive a written comment from a nearby property owner today. We made copies of that to distribute but the commentator would appreciate it if I could read this into the record and I41 do that at your discretion. If you prefer to just have your written comments that is fine. Estes: You may go ahead and read it into the record. Warrick: .4. 4. 4,: 4o44rr v444Q 4 o4• ‘;`a•4. 4-4o ,24694.4 ,4-40 644 4,r® 4F� 4.4• 46.-4••46 tra t.44 tJu4trtr4tro lao04•64604,• 4tr:• t`,444 T 04.0C o w).4 !a _'®4Q4a 4:> a•4 41,, 4>44 s46•)a-4o *a ,kw,er044 44no4tro ti*,4au u1/24t3s 4F, `,.4 ®6^e4- *4 C 44•4F,\.*4 60sA •4•t 1,,,;)-4,;• se; C4.4u4 *4 .4 4 _'o ti`s4 -4•4434,7~. *4 ti`44 404.•,-) (-40644,,\3 tt,- 4,) o4• ,* --4C4 440.`;*.*6410k 4 **.uo u4 c)* ti`s4 es i.& ttaw >4 4,. ;-4o nua.• 4a- w%s44- o4c• .44^• *4 )44,7o ono 044osc.,11•„ ,rfu a4 F,.4 ^a44-,44• F,.4, F,s4. a•trA 4F, F,44 4w4 -•46k, *4 444.44 ; 4 4,7e 4,4t 1--2-‘44,• 4-4 .4.*:4-4o *-7-4,e,)•416 Cs 44 464,*-4,4tc 60�.a-• 4t .41,,a-46 440sC6-06s4 i,ua•®• ra-o 44. *41-0'! ~`41464 4{-a4 -?44• 4t -441t304 •.444 4u'6 40 4 u'4**• 4*; c+406C6".6649 Cra•< 404 44 4,:ti4-4•<4q 4 . s4 tOco ti`.4 cz,ta.•• ,r)6 C;4 4Y04 t,a •t,4 4.-4 ,*4164 L,1^a44$:444• 4o 4 *4 C:44t, cerC`4 _•4. 4 a oao4u4o4:r)? y 4 ,r44a.Ca-sa610 4,r• 4. 44, 4;:o44;s;:. 4.4-414tro 46- F,.4 Gua..•.° 414.4>^a4j,0 .416 449014 time C440 464® 4?a 164,-(-404 (.4 a4oa3,a-saa 4 •4 ,741 44•4c •41a )414 4,.64,6.40 .04 •a•u. 06, 4 44 -644144~= 64 oatr•4'':460;• -4••4•,)4aao C* • ?444 4, • raoo4,,\' 44 $r444C`*4 4 ***two 4e» 4 -4.•4•x, Qat) tis ;.4, @aoob'®44u 43•644,J^ )4 6164s 4t, 4* 44-4444 :: 44.:4,7© w'' .4) 4t k,4444 4.-%4`4t.o4^ 0440C o!4 Y4'e4�o a•:t0 `,4 aoo640;44e at,; •4, 4 0;.4tr •.4 •a• 4.4 4u:r444400 5114a6114•4) -t• ax 004 x* -:;)s •444 •4C`.::4,r••o4Y4,ro a;r (.4 •a•ti?s •4e4 044 44 4 40 640s4 r)4406* L44ut,4* Q ci*O04s4- .4 4^414 -ti`. 4• o•^^Sc,,,) :. 04S,44 4c .4-4k)414r4,t Tto4•,*- *4 041V,a--4® s: u4641,- s4• •*;4 .* •4• ®aoY4e$940 C. F,.4 u4•t, c.4 S• o$ 4 ‘;>a v.4 44004po .4• ra•e• C4 o*-:-- Cs,`40 4c• 4u4140o4a 4r C;'.4 -4oa04u 44.4-40 E,49 r4s4t,16 44 4:44c$):t4 441- 444,)44c• ;.4() 4ar::460Q.4 o64et:4,;4•f 1-41c<16 4- 4414,:4Qo4 Planning Commission January 14, 2002 Page 31 4s© as J,444*p *s.-, Q; Q **oris n4i;sna 1 +*Q©soc4,4 Q1 •s$c444o34*N a:8-)s•as 444 S*NIu t(4'( rto4)* ®Is 4m14rt1:-a4 .4 Q*4 **4© 04:3* 4 a4t *4® 44* o(; *0 ;a4 447444ict g1(4*a1t: 1441.4- *cogs* 4• 44.4 o otac942* 4c® Ias *4 (:)*4*4 *L(4*4,s •*so• (4 4)4'4c* Q*4 *Sty *4 ()a4 **ATI, (* 44*•s4 L>IP **coo -4 4 *©Q4c) <* asck *** $ <.`*43 *toot Qat* 4* 4 s4SA4® 4>^14 &)e 4o 4a to -41*44css 4 * `e (> *4*C *-4 o44r*3* *** >*4 4}(444 's •4car.r N* •*i- ° 01: cr444© east c* *s€ -74®4 44 4; 4* S 4rto at*Qtro to Q*4 D&4*.1u 14e 4IK`4- *4 04+*(* 4c 0460 1 • Q*4 eaI-4 4—' *4 Q*4 444 4* o44a-14aQ.,` **sir.• 44*s -4 ' 4•',a4k; ):a4 *n ©4* • 4(4*c c* * s ®4n 14csr:&(4*c *4 `*4 ;-e10•4* a ( k) 14 ,,o(4^*p tt;1u oslo4c)tc *©4of :4oe 14 srt4 4*4'*` 4o4 tot* h Rureureureu •*4a*_ *44* Q*4:7 $c:* .r 4-3-*•+. 0� *;* 4 Q4o-e• *Sot * y*•4 •p,4*•c,"Art44a ?a cr by 44; scoe© c*4 £*o4 *4 (3.4-4© T4osc$'(4*c•o !41 4(` •$e Q*1, oas 'Q, ae* Qeeto *s *4 04 -e ;4044,4, Rn`IlR RC6 4-4 e*a*$s ' 40774C0444•u .4 er:* * **.o® *444 Q* 4*o*** `*4 a*Q44424)4*4 4ss4 9 (4 4* s :; Planning Commission January 14, 2002 Page 32 SRC O+�,."s SRC • os•ti` 44 •• cc** w`*4•1e •4• e4e4o4 4 4.4 •sem CYO 4F? 044• •4-4 4 Dig *4.4•Qs,..4-c •4 444 4404 62. C o44:D4 4.v® 4w% •414 4::os•ti` C46so4 4 64,0,47, 447, Q*4 r4006;34Q.0 r 6 44741c, 43 •444*04r ,4 43t4 cr)* o$s'4 4 •4e4os D*Q4 .4,0400 0411044 474o-404 •444 Sc *471 40440-1A, 4•*Q 4040 4w *AO c Oa clteQfY. •4 *404 4 o*Q44; N ssoo4••4sck, :;r:.•4o 4o. 4 •4@4,44 C• ii4o44••44a - •4 4434^sc4 ks; j 4• Q.474 4e Let, •4•t•N4s: s o•ools.c•, 4•4•Q440 467, Q•4 4E,d,�*4a4:Q ,s;:'e. c,k0 4v, 4•••4 Q*4c *4* 744.444 to- ,•r 4^4;:404444 :f47 ,'4- 4C44Q •c 4Q4s* sa' Q*4 00 clicelk • •s• j s• •*4 ',?•4,i 4a744347i7. •4. 4c449474* ••4Q4 4 40 .44-• 4O4 •4.4 Q*44.4 Q4;.'0• 4040414, *474 *4* 4,:,4 ,)4;.0 4s *4 4 4,ri® *4 •9l•47•Q4,e Qa4Q *4 4-'O4O*• *too o4,44, gi n4oso4 4'7 •• „sQ 4 4-'C40a• •4Q44Q4*u 4. 4Q, othS,Rc L Q 4• ttt cipto0 Q•4 4&-l0ri4. Qat-) *4 474 •4 40444042 4• (,',42 t24-4 •4. 04 71144 Q*4t,�� • 4 • 4 , 4d,ir44• 47,447.**** 4`) •0 Q! 4 Q4O4v '. X RC *400 *4F 74 Q•424 4 • *Q•47 ••4•w`4s; • s,-, csoo4 'c4k 4,4 •&04 4 0*Q440 C• lsoo4••4. 4- 1ucr4* 4t 4 •401u* 4• lsoo4••44a4- •4 • Qs 44'44'740is,, •s•:4 •s• O*t 7*4 Clha* T4u44. Tian 1400 si.?4, k7*4 04ok: , 44a 44 ,.,*c.,c; o4*c: 4`*4 o*Q4sj� Q4 4« -• R *4* 44�43�so c • 4 0E 4� 44 uR`x"tix"ts •? • *4 otQ440 434••4• <. 4 4a4a4o4•# 4Q4;` *4o0 •s• �c 4- Planning Commission January 14, 2002 Page 33 CUP 02-5.00: Conditional Use (Donner, pp 292) was submitted by James Key of Key Architecture on behalf of Don Donner for property located at 2327 Old Wire Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.69 acres. The request is to allow the Limited Neighborhood Commercial use of a law office (163.21) in the R-1 district. :.1111C4Isac 24•sR� *4 .4(txD 4 )4o to Q,`*4 40404 0* 4 0*as4 4*;.4c= •*4 4*Q *.0S 3QM 4• : 4 CDts of Key Architecture on behalf of Don Donner for property located at 2327 Old Wire Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.69 acres. The request is to allow the Limited Neighborhood Commercial use of a law office (163.21) in the R-1 district. A.Q*44 rt* 4;.s* 4$4-<t *4 Q*4 o*;.s4()4*a4rt •*4 *std` wt* c47344a 0406441o* *4 4S-, -'c9 s* +4 *4o4 *kap,* e*astc)t*a• *4 4E 4;a*,,4a, 440 *4 s* ito.s41 4*a 4 3 :44Q*44a. *_,{ R Q#kt� Wg1 aF Vn�ty Sas 4•440.9014‘;'.44,74,44* **C 44 7* 4s4s 4. 944 4**o**taco ®4.,a:4 qac ROe 0; os ***Sow 44o4e• 44:,o4 •*$** 4 4,'a*Q$**4s 4**r€. 944 *4w-) 4474447'4• *4*4 to * 7 ,'* •v7440 Q•4 4'4Q 4;.s 4.4*.s4ao 4740474®4 Q 74* aa ;• 7441•t+a044* 0. 9•4 ;.'44 4*h QS },.4 a.*7'0 tc 4 A -T 4.F$ *Moe *Ant 44 to•C***4 4**oto'0.4 ; * ` : 4 7*4474• *4o4 4a *(71,47 ,0* Lr*(1)4 s. ^44a 4*.7 ';•4 4s4*4atao 4•464,1[��®�4�� j•tk;•*•, ' e 44', 4ao • t'47O4 4.*** 4 ns 4U* N4 ;A44•* 4*7'0.4 Y'7*'T'4*• *0N47'0 Q•4 oinciikg •4 44 c4 4 s 4:• : 434344 •1/4, 44 4cn ®t4744.* •*C.4,. 44 4;o4c46 to * 4 **ca 4* DE-) Q* 4464 04.4&•aF47 s()744p o4•444o4'• **too *..s •4= T*4s *7 **a**44 , 4 *ea* t ***cm 4 4*,F**4s ►4 , 4 ®494®•® 0744 *4 4*•7 •••474 444' - , .4 **o*7 *4 Q.4 •4c, •.4t.0 44 e*si4Q44,.4 •44• X0.4 *:.*.4 *4 Q•4 *CO3. r4 00% 'ha 0* 4aat ; 49?47a40 CAS: ADO 4* 4t:a **4au Any outdoor lighting shall be residential in nature and shall be shielded and directed away from all surrounding residential uses. No pole lights shall be permitted. 4) Site shall be developed as shown on the plans and material samples provided as a part of the application. Setbacks for the structure and for the required sidewalks will be based on the right of way necessary to comply with the city's Master Street Plan. 5) Sidewalk construction in accordance with city standards shall include the installation of a 6' sidewalk with a minimum 10' greenspace along both Township Street and Old Wire Road. 6) The access drive for this development shall comply with fire code requirements of a 20' clear lane of surface capable of Planning Commission January 14, 2002 Page 34 handling the weight of a fire engine. 7) Parking shall be provided as shown on the submitted site plan. A total of eight parking spaces shall be installed with at least one space being ADA accessible. An accessible path from this space into the structure shall be provided. 8) A final tree preservation and landscape plan shall be submitted to the Landscape Administrator for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. 9) This facility shall have a maximum of three professionals and a maximum gross floor area of 2,000 sq.ft. as requested by the applicant. No additional professionals, square footage or parking spaces shall be permitted without Planning Commission approval. 10) The applicant shall obtain from the Solid Waste Division appropriate receptacle for waste disposal. This receptacle shall be placed at the curb on pick up mornings and shall be stored within a screened enclosure at all times. 11) Access to the structure shall meet ADA requirements. 12) This conditional use approval shall be valid for one calendar year. If substantial progress has not been made at that time a new conditional use application shall be submitted for Planning Commission consideration. 13) Water shall be turned off immediately and the office shall not operate if any of the conditions are not met. 14) The conditional use shall be automatically revoked if any condition is not met. Is the applicant or applicantas representative present and if so would you like to make a presentation? Key: Yes Chairman Estes and Commissioners, my name is James Key and I am here on behalf of the owner Mr. Don Donner and I don*. have a formal presentation to make. I think you are all familiar with the conditions, circumstances regarding this project and the staffls report has been fairly comprehensive. I will be glad to answer any questions that you might have explaining why we have come back to you if that is necessary. Estes: Thank you Mr. Key. Is there any member of the audience that would like to provide public comment on this conditional use request? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for discussion, motions. Warrick: Mr. Chair, I do have two things that I would like to add to the conditions as they were stated originally. The first is concerning condition number one, the second bullet item, with regard to screening to the north. Staff would recommend that that condition state that a 4' tall hedge and fence be installed. That is at the property owner to the northas request. The second piece of information is in regard to item number nine. At agenda session the Planning Commission had asked me to find out in addition to the maximum of three professionals proposed by the applicant what the total number of employees may be within the development if it was fully staffed. That information would be three additional employees so no more than six total. Planning Commission January 14, 2002 Page 35 Estes: Is that an additional condition of approval? Should it now read this facility shall have a maximum of three professionals and not to exceed six? Warrick: Yes Sir. The three professionals is mandated by ordinance. The additional three employees would be support staff to those professionals. Estes: Thank you Dawn. Commissioner Marr, did you have a comment? Man: I was actually going to see if we had the information we requested at agenda session. Hoffman: I would just like to know from staff if we have heard from any of the neighbors. I know the answer was no at our agenda session but has that changed any? Conklin: One of the neighbors was here earlier tonight and asked that the fence not be 6' or 8' tall but be reduced down to 4'. Hoffman: On the north side? Conklin: Yes, on the north side. Actually, that condition was revised, it used to be a fence, we went to the 4' shrub and then we talked earlier this evening about a fence so that is where that came from. She seemed to be satisfied with a 4' tall hedge of shrubs and a 4' fence. Warrick: I haven4 spoken with any other adjoining property owners. I have answered some questions with regard to people calling in and questioning the sign at the site but no other adjoining property owners. Marr: Has there been or was there any further discussion? Obviously the only thing that concerns me on this was the access in and out of the property because of its location and this particular intersection. I still dont feel real comfortable so I guess I►m trying to get more comfortable that we aren►t creating any type of safety issue in a very busy intersection and an entrance that is not that far from a stop light that is already difficult to manage because people understand where lanes are and the width of them. Was there any further discussion or anything else that may explain to me why we feel good about the staff position that that is not a proposed safety issue? Estes: Mr. Key, did you want to respond? Key: Commissioner Marr, at the time that this was heard two years ago, almost to the day, we were here in January of 2000 when we initially submitted this Planning Commission January 14, 2002 Page 36 and came before the Commission for a conditional use we had met with Perry Franklin, Traffic Superintendent and Chuck Rutherford to talk about sidewalks, access, various things. In the report from the original submittal, Mr. Franklin had commented that the trip study or the staff had made a report based on discussion regarding that the trip study for an office of this nature would be about 23 trips per day verses a residence on a lot of this nature being about 10. In essence, slightly over double the amount of trips are generated for this type of business. It was also stated at that time due to the minor arterial and the collector status of those two streets they didn►t think that would be a problem considering the proposed improvements to those streets and the Master Street Plan over the coming development over that portion of town. That is still our feeling is that even with three professionals we really dont anticipate a trip generation that high. In fact, Mr. Donner stated that he is likely not going to be occupying that business right away with three professionals. In any event, we felt that with the proximity to our drive to the intersection, the nature of that intersection with the signal that is located there that there should be enough breaks in traffic to allow for a safe ingress and egress of the users and their clientele. That is all I wanted to add. I had gone through the file previously and knew that it had been discussed previously extensively even so much as having a single curb cut into the property off of one or the other of the streets. We felt that this was a reasonable request and the staff supported at that point a drive from both main streets would actually probably be safer in terms of allowing people to access the site without having to go through the intersection depending on what direction they were traveling from. Donner: If I might add, I am Don Donner the property owner. I have been in and out of the property quite a bit over the past couple of years. There are currently two accesses. There is a dirt road that tracks along the north side of the house down to Old Wire Road and the main access coming off of Township. I have seldom had difficulties getting on either of those roads although the Township Road seems to have more. Occasionally, I will go down to the Old Wire Road. What we propose doing is moving the one on the north quite a bit further back to the north for that and hopefully that will avoid any stacking at the lights. Marr: Thank you. Estes: Commissioner Marr, does that answer your question? Marr: Yes Sir. Bunch: A question for the applicant. Are you in agreement with the revised conditions of approval? Planning Commission January 14, 2002 Page 37 Key: Yes. It is my belief that the conditions that we signed and returned were the revised conditions that included the amended condition one that included the 4' screening along the north and if that has been revised to now include a fence also I wasnt sure of that. It is my understanding that Mr. Donner is very willing to work with the neighbors to the north. In fact, he had started putting a 6' fence up there when she came to him and asked him if he would please not do that. He recommended that she contact the city and talk to them about possibly compromising on that 6' screening. He is very willing. I don4 think I+m speaking out of turn to say that he is agreeable to both of the amended conditions of approval. Donner: The other one that we might not have gotten was the maximum of six employees and Iim acceptable to that. Estes: Are there any other questions or comments? Allen: Is this conditional use limited to just this one R-1 use? Key: That is my understanding. It is our intent or our understanding at this time that it is specifically limited to a type three professional office. Warrick: This conditional use is specifically stated as a neighborhood commercial use of a law office at this location. That is the only thing we expect to see operating at this location under this conditional use. Key: That is agreeable. Motion: Ward: About a year ago I think I made the motion to approve this law office and my comments back then were the same things that they are today. It is that those corners have all become eye sores. No one is going to build a nice residential home with all the traffic and the noise that is there now. I feel like this would be the best thing to enhance the neighborhood and make it a better place to live for the whole neighborhood. It hasnat changed in a year. I will go ahead and recommend approval of CUP 02-5.00 for the property located at 2327 Old Wire Road for a law office. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward to approve CUP 02-5.00 is there a second? Hoffman: I41 second it. Estes: We have a second by Commissioner Hoffman. Is there any discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 02-5.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission January 14, 2002 Page 38 Estes: The motion passes by a unanimous vote of nine to zero. Thank you Mr. Key and thank you Mr. Donner. ADM 02-3.00: Administrative Item (Liquor Store) was submitted by City Planning staff for Planning Commission consideration of a resolution directing staff to bring forward an ordinance allowing liquor stores to be located within the C-1 zoning district as a use permitted on appeal to the Commission (conditional use). Estes: The last item on the agenda is an administrative item. This is submitted by our City Planning Staff for Planning Commission consideration of a resolution directing staff to bring forward an ordinance allowing liquor stores to be located within the C-1 zoning district as a use permitted on appeal to the Commission (conditional use). This is in response to Commissioner Mantis suggestion and request made at the agenda session. Tim, is there anything that we need to know about this administrative item? Conklin: This administrative item will be brought forward to the Commission if you do vote and direct staff to bring forward an ordinance amending our zoning code. Our idea is to remove liquor stores from use unit 16 which is a group of uses that probably contain about thirty different uses and create a separate use unit in order to separate that out and make this a conditional use in a C-1 zoning district. We would work with the City Attorneyas office to bring forward an ordinance that would amend our zoning code and create a new use unit for a liquor store. Estes: Is there any discussion? Commissioner Bunch. Bunch: The use unit would remain as a use by right in C-2? Conklin: Yes. Bunch: It would just be by conditional use in C-1? Conklin- Yes. If we dont break it out from Use Unit 16 it would include all the uses allowed in Use Unit 16. This is one way to accomplish amending our zoning code without allowing all of these other uses as conditional uses. Marr: One of the reasons that we talked about it at agenda session is I thought it was important as a Commission if we all supported that or the majority supported that. I thought we needed to basically present it in that manner Iam uncomfortable with just one single use like that that I think we tend to make some exceptions. We are giving an ok for all the uses in a C-2. There are certain situations where I think it should be more limited to uses in a C-1 which was the premises for my original comments. Ward: Tim, do you feel like there was any other uses that we see coming to us quite a bit other than liquor stores that would fall under the same? Planning Commission January 14, 2002 Page 39 Conklin: Recently we amended our C-1 zoning use, excuse me, let me backup. We amended Use Unit 15 and added additional uses within Use Unit 15 which are the uses allowed under a C-1 zoning district. That has resulted in fewer rezonings for clothing stores and other types of retail that was only allowed in C-2. I think that this liquor store will probably result in fewer rezonings too with regard to liquor stores. We haven4 really seen any other rezonings that have been applied for based on a use that may be appropriate in C-1 but is now only allowed in C-2. Estes: Is there any other discussion? Hoffman- Iam definitely in support of this change to our zoning ordinance and I think that when we look at a conditional use in a C-1 zone for a liquor store that that gives us much more control over those uses on those sites and we don4 have to rezone large tracts of land that could let other uses in besides liquor stores. I don4 want to call it spot zoning because that is an unpopular term but I do think we need this. I would like to thank Commissioner Marr for bringing it up. Estes: Ok, is there any other discussion? Is there a motion? Hoffman: Do we need one? Estes: Do we need a motion? Conklin: Yes, I would like the Commission to vote on that and direct staff to bring that forward. Typically, within any of our ordinances, this past year I found myself having one or two individuals, Commissioners or non -Commissioners bringing issues forward. I want to have some clear direction that there is a consensus on the Commission that this is something that we want to study and bring forward so we don4 spend a lot of time on an issue that maybe the rest of the Commission doesn4 think it is important for us to amend the ordinance or add an ordinance. Motion: Estes: Let me make a motion that we direct staff to bring forward an ordinance allowing liquor stores to be located within a C-1 zoning district as a use permitted on appeal to the Planning Commission and that such ordinance be put before this Commission for determination. Marr: I41 second. Planning Commission January 14, 2002 Page 40 Estes: We have a motion by the Chair and a second by Commissioner Marr. Is there any other discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve ADM 02-3.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Estes: The motion passes by a unanimous vote of nine to zero. Tim, is there any other business to come before the Commission? Conklin- I would just like to keep the Commission informed with the ongoing impact fee study. Our consultant will be back on Wednesday, February 6, 2002. I will have information to you. Our City Council has asked that the consultant bring forward the water and waste water study ahead of road impact fee and the analysis of our park land dedication. I do intend, or the consultant intends to provide to the city mid-January, in a week or so, a draft road impact fee study. We will have Jim Duncan, the principal of Duncan & Associates here. Right now we are looking at possibly a joint meeting with the Planning Commission and City Council to look at wastewater and we will have more information on that. I just wanted to give you a heads up on something that is coming up and that is that our impact fee consultant will be here Wednesday, February 6, 2002. Thanks. Estes: Are there any other announcements? We will stand adjourned. Meeting adjourned: 7:15 p.m.