Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-09-09 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, September 9, 2002 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN VAC 02-8.00: Vacation (Belden, pp 486) Page 4 VAC 02-9.00 & 10.00: Vacation (Calloway, pp 571) Page 4 ADM 02-31.00: Administrative Item (Nickle, pp 440) Page 4 RZN 02-26.00: Rezoning (Calloway, pp 571) Page 5 RZN 02-27.00: Rezoning (Edens, pp 436) Page 7 ADM 02-28.00: Administrative Item (City Council Resolution -Zoning Study) Page 13 ADM 02-29.00: Administrative Item (Large Scale Development Ordinance/Expiration) Page 23 ADM 02-30.00: Administrative Item (Outdoor Music Establishments) Page 28 Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council Approved Tabled Forwarded to City Council PKW 02-1.00: Parking Waiver (Fennel, pp 484) Approved Page 31 Planning Commission September 9, 2002 Page 2 MEMBERS PRESENT Nancy Allen Lorel Hoffman Donald Bunch Sharon Hoover Bob Estes Loren Shackelford Lee Ward Alice Church STAFF PRESENT Kit Williams Renee Thomas Tim Conklin MEMBERSABSENT Alan Ostner STAFF ABSENT Dawn Warrick Matt Casey Planning Commission September 9, 2002 Page 3 Hoffman: Welcome to the September 9th meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. On tonight's agenda we have nine items. If you don't have the most recent copy of the agenda, the first three items are on consent. Renee, go ahead with the roll call please. Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call there were eight Commissioners present with Commissioner Ostner being absent. Hoffman: Thank you Renee. The second item would be the approval of the minutes from the August 26th meeting. Do I have a motion? Shackelford: So moved. Hoffman. There is a motion by Commissioner Shackelford. Ward: Second. Hoffman: A second by Commissioner Ward. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the minutes of the August 26th meeting was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission September 9, 2002 Page 4 Consent Agenda: VAC 02-8.00: Vacation (Belden, pp 486) was submitted by Carole Jones of McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc. on behalf of Ted Belden for property located at 485 Vinson Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.02 acres. The request is to vacate a utility easement. VAC 02-9.00 & 10.00: Vacation (Calloway, pp 571) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of Chuck Calloway for property located at 1429 & 1430 Deerfield Way which are lots 2 and 34 of Deerfield Subdivision. The request is to vacate two sections of utility easements. See the attached maps and legal descriptions for the exact locations of the requested easement vacations. ADM 02-31 00• Administrative Item (Nickle, pp 440) was submitted by Charles Nickle and Robert Nickle for property located between Marvin Avenue & Betty Jo Drive south of Wedington Drive. The requirement is for a 55' street right of way dedication from Wedington's street centerline and 35' dedication on Betty Jo Drive. The request is to reduce the required right-of-way dedication to 40' on Wedington Drive (15' reduction) and 23' on Betty Jo Drive (a 12' reduction). Hoffman: Thanks Renee. The minutes will stand approved. Next I have items one, two and eight on the consent agenda. I will go ahead and read those into the record. If there is anyone from either the public or the Planning Commission that would like to remove these items from the consent agenda you can let me know after I've read them. VAC 02-8.00, which is a vacation that was submitted by Carole Jones of McClelland Consulting Engineers on behalf of Ted Belden for property located at 485 Vinson Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.02 acres. The request is to vacate a utility easement. Item two is VAC 02-9.00 and 10.00 which was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Chuck Calloway for property located at 1429 and 1430 Deerfield Way which are lots 2 and 34 of Deerfield Subdivision. The request is to vacate two sections of utility easements. See the attached maps and legal descriptions for the exact locations of the requested easement vacations. Item number eight is ADM 02-31.00, an Administrative Item which was submitted by Charles Nickle and Robert Nickle for property located between Marvin Avenue and Betty Jo Drive south of Wedington Drive. The requirement is for a 55' street right of way dedication from Wedington's street centerline and 35' dedication on Betty Jo Drive. The request is to reduce the required right of way dedication to 40' on Wedington Drive, which is a 15' reduction and 23' on Betty Jo Drive, which is a 12' reduction. Is there any member of the audience that wishes to remove or discuss any of these items? Seeing no one, Commissioners? Renee, would you call the roll please? Planning Commission September 9, 2002 Page 5 Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the consent agenda was approved by a vote of 8-0- 0. RZN 02-26.00: Rezoning (Calloway, pp 571) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Chuck Calloway for property located at 1429 and 1430 Deerfield Way. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 0.45 acres. The request is to rezone to R-1, Low Density Residential. Hoffman: Our first item of new business is RZN 02-26.00, which is a rezoning. It was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Chuck Calloway for property located at 1429 and 1430 Deerfield Way. This property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 0.45 acres. The request is to rezone to R-1, Low Density Residential. Tim, would you like to fill us in on this one please? Conklin: Sure. This is a request to rezone property from R -O, Residential Office to R-1. The subdivision was developed with single-family homes except for the lots at the very front of the subdivision on Huntsville Road. Actually, two of them were developed as single-family homes even though they were zoned R -O. At the time the building setbacks that were used reflected R-1 and not R -O, which resulted in the homes being built in the setback and within a utility easement. On the consent agenda this evening you did approve a recommendation to the City Council to vacate those portions of those utility easements. In order to clean up the situation and to get the houses to comply with setbacks we are rezoning these lots from R -O to R-1. Thank you. Hoffman: Thank you Tim. Is the applicant present? Jorgensen: Yes. Planning Commission my name is Dave Jorgensen and I am here to answer questions and basically just like Tim said, this is to bring these lots into compliance. They were R -O, the builder put Single -Family on there and didn't realize they were 30' setback and a 25' setback is what the request is for and that is the vacation that you had on your agenda and then the rezoning to bring them into compliance. Hoffman: Thank you Dave. Yes, I see someone here from the audience. If you would like to come up and tell us your name please. Lake: I am Ken Lake, I live at 412 Assembly Road and I misunderstood the order of business. I wanted to speak to the first item on the agenda. Hoffman: I'm sorry. I did call for public comment twice. A vacation does go to the City Council so you will have an opportunity. Tim, when will this be heard by the City Council? Planning Commission September 9, 2002 Page 6 Conklin: Hoffman: Lake: Hoffman: Lake: Conklin: Lake: Hoffman: Lake, L: Hoffman: Williams: I'm not sure the exact date. Two or three weeks. This is not a final approval. It goes on upstairs so you will have a chance to speak. With no discussion and no information I felt as though we didn't have an opportunity to raise the issues that needed to be considered. I'm sorry, we have already passed a vote on it. The Commission voted on it but you are welcome to come back to the City Council when they hold a public hearing on it. If you could write your name and number down and give it to Tim I'm sure he would be happy to call you and give you that date. What can we do to get information on this? You can come to the Planning Division. We are open from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and we can go through the application with you for the easement vacation. Just any day ask for the VAC 02-8.00 and they will bring that file out for you. This will be going to the City Council and there will be an opportunity at the City Council to raise any issues or concerns you may have. Ok, for the record, we have objection until we have information and we have no information. So noted and we will make sure that you get informed before the next hearing on it. Thank you very much. Is there anybody here that would like to speak regarding RZN 02-26.00, which is the rezoning on Deerfield Way? If you would come forward and tell us your name please. My name is Lori Lake, I also live at 412 Assembly Road and I would like to respectfully request that you reopen agenda item number one. When you did call for public comment it was unclear whether your comment was about the particular of addressing the agenda. It was not clear to the public that you were asking for public comment on the agenda items. I would like an opportunity to address this item this evening if possible. I do understand that the City Council will be addressing this later but I wanted it to be on the record that while there was a call for public comment, it was not clear to the public when and what you were calling for. Ok, let me refer this question to our City Attorney. Kit, could you help me out here? Certainly anyone that voted in the majority can move to reconsider and the motion to reconsider can be if it is passed then you would reconsider your consent vote and then you can have public comment if you chose to do that. Planning Commission September 9, 2002 Page 7 Hoffman: Thank you very much. Would anybody like to make a motion to reconsider item number one? I have called once for a motion. Is there anybody? Ok, Ma'am to be responsive to your question all I can say is that since the time for public comment has passed we will be happy to let you guys know about the next public hearing. This is not the final approval so you will have an opportunity to speak. Thank you very much for coming down and I'm sorry you didn't get to speak. Back to RZN 02-26.00 is there anybody that would like to talk about that one tonight? I will go ahead and bring discussion back to the Commission and to the applicant. Dave you are up. Jorgensen: Basically like I said, I'm just here to answer any questions. The request is to go from R -O to R-1. Hoffman: Ok, thank you. Motion: Ward: Since this is basically going to clean up what was a mistake, there's actually a home out there. I will go ahead and make a motion to recommend approval for RZN 02-26.00 for the Calloway rezoning. Hoffman: I have a motion by Commissioner Ward. Allen: I will second. Hoffman: A second by Commissioner Allen. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward RZN 02-26.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission September 9, 2002 Page 8 RZN 02-27.00: Rezoning (Edens, pp 436) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Lenwyn Edens for property located southeast of Wedington Drive and Brook Lane. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 6.10 acres. The request is to rezone to RMF -6, Low Density Multi -Family Residential. Hoffman: Item number four is also a rezoning, which is RZN 02-27.00 it was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Lenwyn Edens for property located southeast of Wedington Drive and Brook Lane. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 6.10 acres. The request is to rezone to RMF -6, Low Density Multi -Family Residential. Tim, would you please fill us in on this one? Conklin: This property was developed approximately 26 years ago. It was annexed into the city in 1982. At the time it was brought in as A-1, Agricultural. The applicant would like to rezone the property to RMF -6, which allows up to six units per acre. One of the original twelve duplexes that were built many years ago burned down. She proposes to rebuild the burned duplex, remodel the existing structures and build three four plexes on existing vacant lots. Staff is recommending approval. In your packet you do have information from different departments. Thank you. Hoffman: Thanks Tim. Shackelford: Madam Chair, before we go any further I need to recuse from this item. I have a business relationship with the applicant so I am not going to be voting on this issue. Hoffman: Thank you very much. Ok, Dave, you're up. Jorgensen: As Tim mentioned this property was brought into the city in 1982 as A-1. The reason for the request is to bring it into compliance with the same type use and you will notice RMF -6 is the lowest use we could come up with. The plan is to sell the property and the prospective buyer is Marsha Beard who also bought some duplexes over on Betty Jo Drive. I don't know if you recall but a while back she purchased some duplexes on Betty Jo and had them rebuilt, did a face lift on them, cleaned them up and basically cleaned up the neighborhood. That is what the plan is right here. In fact, Marsha here is in the audience with us and brought some pictures to show the before and after of several of the units that she has taken over and we think that this is going to be an improvement of the neighborhood and make for a much more improved area right there. On page 5 of the staff report on findings, I don't know if you have the same staff report as I do, you probably do, probably the thing that is most important to me that I read on item 5 is that it would be impractical to use the land for any other use permitted under this zoning classification. In other words, A-1 doesn't work Planning Commission September 9, 2002 Page 9 very well. That is the reason for the whole deal. We are trying to go to RMF -6 and get the proper zoning for this use. Hoffman: Thank you. Would you like to pass the pictures around? Jorgensen: That would be great. She is the one that purchased those on Betty Jo. Beard: The before is definitely on top. If you can't tell that I'm in trouble. Hoffman: Thank you Ms. Beard. Do you want these back or do you want to leave them for the records? Beard: I will take them back but if you need copies I can get those. Hoffman: We will just pass them along, thank you very much. Is there any member of the audience that would like to speak? PUBLIC COMMENT: Miller: My name is Hally Miller. I own the property at 6040 Wedington Drive. That is across Wedington. It is a single-family home currently occupied by my mother who is 83. I am not against per say the rezoning. Anything that would make an improvement I am for. Brook Lane is a gravel single lane that goes up through the duplexes. This duplex area has been a problem from the inception in that there has been domestic violence, loud music, things that you yourself would not want to live around, multi -problems. I have had lawnmowers stolen; I've had my mother's car almost stolen. I am not saying that the residents per say maybe did it; I'm just saying that it has been a problem area. The duplexes are in disrepair, weeds. The one that burned down has never been cleared off and rebuilt. Many of the duplexes are not currently occupied and there could be some real improvement here. I would like to see curb, gutter, street, the same thing as many other roads in this area. I know that you are already addressing some of these problems that we have had with developments that do not have curbs, gutters and infrastructure and this would be a great time to fix this problem. The traffic on Wedington has always been a problem in this area. If you are ever out there the four lane ends at the Gardens and so this is a two lane highway that goes through there and traffic early in the morning at school time because the school bus system comes from Farmington to get the kids in this location. It is a real problem if you are trying to get onto Wedington from right or left it is a problem. I am wondering if maybe a lane that could be fixed so that they could turn in in this area, I don't know what that is called, accel, deaccel lane or something to handle some of the problems. I would really like to see a nice area across from my property. Who knows, I might want to develop mine someday. Thank you. Planning Commission September 9, 2002 Page 10 Hoffman: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to address us on this rezoning? Beard: I would. As far as her concerns about the type of tenants that will be there if I purchase this property, as everybody knows, when I purchased, I now own ten four plexes on Betty Jo Drive. I purchased the majority of them two years ago and at that time it was drug haven, I mean there were stabbings and shootings and the place was in very much disrespect, disrepair. Within six months I had it up and going good. We have very little problems out there at all. The worst problem I've had lately is a dog went in somebody else's house and she wouldn't give it back. We have very minor, minor problems. I believe in bringing it up to standards. I will plan on these duplexes renting for about $500 a month with the water paid. As I build additional units, I'm planning on building some two bedroom townhouses to break the flow of all the single level places and I will have it professionally landscaped, like I do all my properties. They are very well managed. I am the sole owner and take full responsibility for all of it and we do a great job. If you have any questions I would be glad to answer them for you. Hoffman. Thank you very much. Ward: Have you got any ideas for improvement of the road itself and what are you going to do for the duplexes that are out there now? Beard: The old duplexes that are out there now will be totally remodeled. My first stage would be to go out and do painting and minor repair work that needed done. Then I will do some landscaping and then start putting small touches in like ceiling fans and dishwashers and renting out the ones that are rentable and then start totally remodeling the other ones that are not rentable. As far as building new places it will probably be at least a year before I would even start looking at building anything. As far as the road, I haven't made any final decisions on the road. One of the things that I do is I do things in different themes like the Betty Jo Drive, that is called Beard Theme Homes and each one of them look different but they all compliment each other. One looks like an old country store, another looks like a French quarters and I would do something similar with these and give each one of them their own unique identity but make them all a little bit different where it just doesn't look like an apartment complex and I want to build on that it is totally surrounded on all sides by trees and I want to build on it is a country place. I don't want it to look like you're living in town so that is why I haven't made all the decisions yet. Ward: I am very familiar with the four plexes on Betty Jo and I know that you have done a major revitalizing on those. They are really nice looking. In fact, because of what you did, Betty Jo is much better than what it used to be so I appreciate it. Planning Commission September 9, 2002 Page 11 Conklin- Madam Chair, I just want to make sure the applicant is aware that our Fire Department did respond to this rezoning. They stated that the estimated response time is 7-10 minutes. A solid drive surface would be needed for this project. Access to buildings with proper turning radius or a U shape street. Additional fire hydrants will be required. The property was built 26 years ago. We do have existing units out there at the time of development those additional improvements will be required based on the Fire Departments information. Beard: Arkansas National Bank is the bank that is going to do this if it all gets approved and they had one question as far as if it all got through tonight or when I started the building process, would I have to go through Large Scale Development or would it be regular building permit? Conklin: Since I haven't reviewed your plans I am not sure if this would have to go through the Large Scale process. Hoffman: Tim, help me out here. I thought if it was over an acre on the site area then she would have to go through Large Scale. Conklin: When I say I haven't reviewed your plans I'm not sure how the property is currently split up. Beard: It is one parcel, 6.10 acres. Conklin: Anything over an acre would have to go through Large Scale Development. Beard: Even on an older existing development? Conklin: Yes. Even an old subdivision that is split out. Since it is over an acre all the departments will look at this with regard to whether or not to allow additional development. At this time today our Fire Department is stating that a hard driving surface and proper turning radius and additional fire hydrants will be necessary for additional development. Hoffman: Ok, thank you. This is a recommendation to City Council for rezoning. It is not really a condition of approval but the Fire Department has said in order for the rezoning to be granted that that would be a requirement at the time of rezoning or before they build it? Conklin: They did not go into that much detail. I will ask that prior to City Council. Keep in mind that this property is currently being used in this manner. It limits the owner with regard to renovations and remodeling the structure because it is a legal non -conforming use at this time. Rezoning this property actually enhances the ability of the owner to be prepared to do maintenance on the Planning Commission September 9, 2002 Page 12 structures. Plus I would like to find out if the response in general is with regard to what the Fire Department would like to see at this time. Motion: Allen: I think this is an appropriate rezoning so therefore I move for approval of RZN 02-27.00. Hoffman: Thank you Commissioner Allen. I have a motion for approval of RZN 02- 27.00. Bunch: I'll second. Hoffman: Is there anybody else? Ward: Let's go back over this one more time. I think that we are allowing at this time the gravel road to stay if the owner does no other units, there is no other condition put on top of them with no large scale development. At this time we can pretty much assure that there will be curb, gutter and streets if there is any other development at all. Is my take your take? Conklin: Typically on a rezoning we would not require to go in and place conditions on infrastructure improvements. However, we did initiate a Fire Department review with regard to requirements for them to respond to this rezoning. I do have this one statement from the Fire Department which doesn't clarify at what time. It talks about the time of development, that is something that the City Planning Division also would agree with and that is typically done at the time of development but I am not going to say that is 100% accurate since the Fire Department is not here this evening. Ward: Does the Fire Department go out there now as is? Conklin: The Fire Department goes out there now, that is correct, as is. Ward: If she doesn't change anything except the looks of the property. Conklin: I am not going to speak for Chris Bosch; I will let him speak to the Council with regard to what that means. I can't give a guarantee with regard to what our Fire Department is going to say to our City Council. Sorry. Bunch: Tim, on the capital improvement program for the state highways, what are the current plans for the extension of the highway on Hwy. 16 West, Wedington Road. Is that phase supposed to go to Double Springs Road and also is that on a time line, do you have an approximate time for when that work will be done? Planning Commission September 9, 2002 Page 13 Conklin: It is not on any short time line at this point in time. It is not within the next five years. That is a state highway. The City of Fayetteville participated with the State Highway Department to widen Wedington, I think we spent 1.3 million dollars for a 50/50 cost share, 1.3 million dollars for approximately one mile of Wedington Drive. That is as much money as the Highway Department had and the City had and that is pretty much why it ended there. I think the original plan had it going out to Double Springs Road. At this time it is not on any current plan. Bunch: Thank you. Hoffman: Thank you Tim. Is there anybody else before we call the roll? I would just like to add that I think this is a needed neighborhood improvement that has been an eye sore and I would like to thank you for undertaking this project. Thank you very much. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve RZN 02-27.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-1 with Commissioner Shackelford abstaining. Hoffman. The motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Planning Commission September 9, 2002 Page 14 ADM 02-28.00: Administrative Item (City Council Resolution -Zoning Study) A rezoning study and zoning map amendment to consider changing the zoning classification of areas shown as R-2, Medium Density Residential to R-1, Low Density Residential for those areas that have 15 percent or greater slope as depicted on the slope analysis map in General Plan 2020 and including other areas zoned R-2 where recorded platted subdivisions exist with substandard infrastructure. Hoffman: Next on our agenda is ADM 02-28.00, which is an administrative item. It is a rezoning study to amend a change in the zoning classification in areas shown as R-2, Medium Density Residential to R-1, Low Density Residential for those areas that have 15% or greater slope as depicted on the slope analysis map on the General Plan 2020 and including other areas zoned R-2 where a recorded platted subdivision exist with substandard infrastructure. Conklin: Madam Chairman and the Commission, I placed this item on your agenda this evening to inform the Commission and also get input from you with regard to a City Council Resolution 9130-02 that directs the Planning Commission and the Planning staff to consider looking at areas zoned R-2 that have slopes over 15% and those areas that have a recorded, platted subdivision where the infrastructure has not been built. This evening we are not here to change the zoning map. We are here to let you know what the resolution is asking to propose a work program and process a time line. I put that together into seven different tasks to be completed. Task one is collect data, identify study boundaries. Task two is to conduct an existing land use study to see what is developed in these areas. Task three is existing infrastructure study to look at what infrastructure is available within the study boundary. Task four would be an internal review by Fire, Police, Public Works, Urban Development and the City Attorney to take a look at what data we have collected. The Fire Department would be with regard to fire protection, adequate fire flows, that type of issue also, Police, Public Works, etc. Task five would be to locate the property owners. City Council did ask several members to make sure that we do notify each property owner by certified mail so putting together a mailing data base so we can do notification, also, other public and other organizations. Task six would be recommendation or findings from the zoning study. Task seven would be public hearings. It is outlined in this resolution that we would have numerous public hearings prior to the City Council and making any final ordinance amendment if they choose to make an ordinance amendment. Once again, this is going to take some time. Just to give you an idea, we have been working with the Mill District for six or seven months now. We have had numerous meetings. It is going to be time consuming. The idea here is to involve the public and begin this process. As you are aware, the Planning Division is currently understaffed at this time and we don't plan on undertaking this until the end of October. However, I did meet with a neighborhood association and there are some volunteers that are willing to help out, create the data base, and do some existing land use studies. We used the neighborhood in Planning Commission September 9, 2002 Page 15 the Mill District to actually collect data and once that data is collected we put that into our system so we can do some analysis with regard to what is currently existing, how the property is zoned and how based on current zoning it would change your existing land uses. I would like to also invite Alderman Brenda Thiel, she is here this evening. She drafted the resolution that was passed by the City Council asking the Planning Commission and staff to take a look at this and she may have some comments this evening. Thank you. Hoffman: Thank you very much. Brenda, would you like to come on up and talk to us about your baby here? Thiel: Actually I wasn't prepared to comment. I just wanted to come and see how it went and if there were any questions. You know this is an issue that came before Council just recently. We basically had to turn down something that was this exact same situation where you had R-2 zoning where it was not really compatible with the neighborhood and with what has developed. You know the last time a city wide rezoning was done there was some concern about Mount Sequoyah and Markham and they were all largely undeveloped and most of the existing development there consisted of low income housing. A lot of things have changed in the last thirty-two some odd years since the last rezoning so I think this is something that we are going to have to look at. I know that the neighborhood association on Mount Sequoyah was going to approach Tim Conklin about doing something similar based on what they have done with the Mill District and we are just kind of putting it more on the forefront and advanced it a little bit faster. Of course, as Tim said, his office is you know but I think if Mount Sequoyah group has volunteered to help with his staffing deficiency right now so if you have any questions I would be glad to answer them. Conklin: Madam Chair, I just would like to briefly go over the resolution. The resolution starts out with WHEREAS, General Plan 2020 identifies slope as an important factor in supporting development; and WHEREAS, General Plan 2020 states that lower density on steep slopes is desired as a city policy; and WHEREAS, General Plan 2020 Implementations Strategy 9.16.b states: "Define and protect areas of significant floodplains, hillsides, trees, and other environmental resources through cluster development provisions, density controls, protective easements and other new and existing development standards and regulations," Keep in mind with regard to floodplains, we did amend our flood damage prevention code a few years ago and did require a one acre minimum lot size if your parcel is in the floodplain and you can achieve a buildable area. With regard to trees, I think everybody is aware of what the city of Fayetteville has done recently with our updated tree ordinance so this goes along with trying to protect hillside slopes. It goes on to say that Whereas, General Plan 2020 Implementation Strategy 9.16(H) states minimize intense forms of urban development on steep slopes. The last Whereas talks about subdivisions that Planning Commission September 9, 2002 Page 16 were drawn up, filed of record over at Washington County, no infrastructure was ever installed. Those are areas that we have had some struggle with as we have had increased pressure for infill development occurring in these areas without infrastructure actually being within these areas. That is the resolution. It is tied back to policies that were previously adopted by the Fayetteville City Council as part of our comprehensive plan, the General Plan 2020, it does support those rules and policies of the General Plan. Thank you. Hoffman: Thank you Tim. Commissioners? Church: I just had a question. I know at our agenda session we talked about if there were other cities that had adopted this type of ordinance. I guess I was just wondering if you were able to get that information. Tim? Conklin: If there are cities that have changed their zoning map? Church: That have an ordinance similar to this or if we would be the first Planning Commission ever or City Council ever to adopt this kind of ordinance. I just wondered if there are others like this in the country somewhere. Conklin: We have done research on cities that have started to look at zoning maps that were adopted many, many years ago and that have changed the zoning to reflect their comprehensive General Plan. We are not alone doing this. This is something that is not new for Fayetteville. We have a situation where in 1970 we had parts of different hillsides zoned R-1 and parts of different hillsides zoned R-2. This study basically will look at back in 1970 we rezoned these areas with Multi -Family Residential, 24 units per acre. After 32 years what do we have today? I think that is the first question we must answer. I think we all have our own opinions on what we currently have today on our hillsides. Actually doing the study and looking at what the existing land use is we will be able to say after 32 years is it 24 units per acre or is it something different? I think if we can answer that question then we can move forward and start looking at what densities do we currently have in these areas and can our infrastructure handle 24 units per acre. Once again, the zoning allows a maximum of 24 units per acre. That is what we are trying to look at is zoning. I am trying to answer your question directly. Cities all across this country have adopted zoning with established land use. In 1951 the City of Fayetteville had their first zoning ordinance. Prior to that you could build anything anywhere, and you sued your neighbors over nuisances. Zoning is established to create compatible land uses within a city. We are not alone on this. I would be more than happy to try to find information from other cities that have gone through this process. When you do adopt a plan, a comprehensive plan, part of implementing the plan is to amend your ordinances. Thank you. Planning Commission September 9, 2002 Page 17 Williams: Madam Chairman, if I could add something to that. In fact, what this ordinance would be doing is lessening the density. It is not changing anything, it would still be residential, it would be lessening the density. This has been done before, it has been challenged and taken all the way up to the Supreme Court in a case that I did site to you in the memo, Agens v. City of Tiburon, which is was a 1980 Supreme Court case. In that particular case the city passed an ordinance to preserve open spaces and someone had a five acre lot and because of that ordinance they were only going to be able to build five houses on there so they reduced the density for the public purpose of creating open spaces. They were challenged by the owner of that lot who said that you are taking my property because I want to build a lot of houses on this lot and not just five. The Supreme Court said no, it is constitutional, it is a legitimate state interest and they did not take all of the value of your property, you still have value to your property. This has been done at least since 1980 and has been sanctioned by the Supreme Court as something that a city can do. That is just the legality. That is not whether or not a city should do it. I think it is fairly clear from the Supreme Court decisions that a city does have a right to do it if they see fit. PUBLIC COMMENT: Hoffman: Thank you Mr. Williams. I will go ahead and accept public comment at this time. Is there anyone here from the audience that would like to address us on this? Yes, if you will tell us your name please. Jansma: My name is Harriet Jansma. I live at 900 Lighton Trail and I am here to speak very briefly on behalf of the Mount Sequoyah South Neighborhood Association. It was our association that asked our Tim as the City Planner to come join us at our last meeting. We also invited the City Attorney and I will explain first that over the summer that some members of our association had a meeting to prepare a formal request to submit to the city to do a study like the one that the City Council has now requested in this resolution. We are very glad to see the Council take a lead on this important issue and urge you as the Planning Commission to give the study your full support and help expedite it. Last Thursday evening we invited Kit Williams and Tim Conklin to meet with our association membership. We had a very good meeting. Kit discussed with us the resolution and the study and his understanding of its implications and Tim presented the same list of tasks to us and explained to our full membership, as he had previously to me, how short handed he is in the coming months in his office staff. Our membership was very quick to volunteer to help with this study. I would say that of the 36 members that were present at least half volunteered some of their time to help to expedite the study. Many will be gathering information block by block for the current land use of our hillside and probably other hillsides that would be part of this study if we are needed. One of our members has taken charge of the task of producing a data base of property owners in all the areas to be studied and another has offered to help Planning Commission September 9, 2002 Page 18 take charge of the preparation of the mailings to the property owners and both of those tasks are very important to insure the greatest possible public participation in this study. We believe our volunteer effort will help to move this study forward during a time when the Planning staff is very small and we believe our willing participation from numerous unpaid volunteers tells you how important it is to us as a neighborhood association. Hoffman: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to talk about this? Ok, I will go ahead and close public discussion and bring it back before the Planning Commission. Shackelford: Madam Chair, I have a question for staff. Tim, Thursday at agenda session I made it a point that this item had been talked about at City Council and asked if we could get a copy of the minutes from that meeting regarding this item. Is that going to be available to us at some point? Conklin- Sure, I can get that to you. I apologize, I forgot to get those into your packets. Shackelford: I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. Conklin: No, I recall you asking me for those. Motion: Estes: Our City Council has requested that we conduct a rezoning study and consider a rezoning map amendment to consider changing the zoning classifications of the areas shown as R-2, Medium Density Residential to R-1, Low Density Residential for those areas that have 15% or greater slope. It is for that reason that I would move for approval of ADM 02-28.00 to consider changing the zoning classification of the areas shown as R-2, Medium Density Residential to R-1, Low Density Residential for those areas that have 15% or greater slope and this of course is in compliance with our requirements set forth in Ark Code Ann. 1456.422 and 423. Hoffman: Thank you. I have a motion by Commissioner Estes. I will go ahead and second to move this along. I would like to preface with some comments that I'm about to make and possibly if I can get Brenda to come back up and answer a couple of questions. I think that regulation of hillside development is one of the natural areas of beauty that we can preserve about the city and we can still have development on hillsides but do it in a manner that makes good sense. You and I talked some time back about possibly implementing a hillside development ordinance. I am wondering why we have taken this task to downzone things instead of not changing the zoning but just putting together a separate ordinance that has to do with hillside development because some Planning Commission September 9, 2002 Page 19 people may be adversely affected by the down zoning of their property that they have had as R-2 for a while. Thiel: As opposed to us going ahead with a hillside development study? Hoffman: Just doing a hillside development ordinance, a separate ordinance. Thiel: Well, I think we have some things in place already that address some of the drainage problems. That is a good question, that would be another approach. At this time I felt like because of some of the recent decisions by this Planning Commission and the Council about development that was on a steeper slope, you know we continuously put the Planning office in a position of they are approving something and then the Planning Commission and the City Council are then turning it down. If you will recall the Schmitt development, the density there. I think that, the pressure of that, combined with the Mount Sequoyah Neighborhood Association who has wanted a similar study that was done, and a zoning study. I see what you are saying about the R-2, just down zoning but that is the major problem that we are seeing. If you will look at, once you do study the zoning map, you will see that there is a great deal of the south slope of Mount Sequoyah and Markham Hill that is zoned R-2 and these are on 15% or greater slopes. I think we are going to continue to see the density problem so that was one way to address this issue this way, very directly. I think once we get it into public hearings and the study we can look at that. Hoffman: Thank you very much Brenda, I appreciate that. Allen: Thiel: Madam Chair, I was interested since obviously not every parcel of land on a 15% or greater slope that is R-2 wouldn't be appropriate, it might be appropriate to use it for more than one single-family home; maybe an approach would be just to look at changing R-2 uses on a hillside slope. That might be something to consider. That is the whole purpose of having the study. I think you know that there may be compromise in the process and the public meeting process. Conklin: I was just going to add to that, task six talks about areas to remain as currently zoned. The study is to look at it, ask questions, make findings, and then make recommendations. I don't think that we are talking about changing every piece of property that is zoned. I made sure that was in there also; task number six to recommendations to rezone, recommendations to leave. Keep in mind zoning establishes density. It is a basic tool for establishing density and land use. If there are other issues beyond drainage and grading then there are issues with regard to the numbers of units you are putting in on a piece of property. Zoning is a basic tool to regulate land use and density. Planning Commission September 9, 2002 Page 20 Ward: I understand what you are trying to do. I would pretty much be adamantly against just rezoning something from R-2 down to R-1 just to be doing it. I feel like if it is already R-2 then we would have to do some kind of unique compensation to those particular owners to justify rezoning it to R-1. I do believe a lot in the idea of having a hillside development ordinance. I believe that some of the R-2 zonings that we have the RMF -6 we just approved on some stuff a while ago, which is like six units per would be that is still R-2 is a better way of doing that and not just down zoning something to R-1. I am not sure, I don't own any of that kind of property but if I did I think it would be unconstitutional to take it unless you were willing to pay me some kind of compensation for that. I see a lot of problems in my mind why I would not be voting for this particular ordinance the way it is right now. I haven't really thought through it that much. It has got a lot of good merit; it is just that I don't think we went the right direction on it. Hoffman. Thank you Commissioner Ward. Bunch: Similar to what Commissioner Ward said, my concern when I looked at this was that it just categorically from R-2 to R-1. I understand that when the zonings were put in in 1970 we did not have the interim zoning districts. Now we have RMF -6, 12, 18 and R-1.5. The question I have is why, since I don't have the minutes at our disposal, why is it immediately from R-2 to R-1 without consideration of the interim zoning districts? It seems like if we are going to have a study to look at this then we are limiting the study in itself because it states right at the first to go from R-2 to R-1 rather than say a lesser density zoning district, it is predetermined, according to the ordinance, from R-2 to R-1. I cannot support that but I can support going to a lesser zoning district as the terrain and the neighborhoods dictate. Thiel: Right, you brought up some good points that probably should've been debated on the Council level but they weren't. In other words, that is not something that was suggested. As I said, I feel like this whole process of the public comments, I think that the issues you brought up about varying the types of the R-2, Multi - Family zoning will definitely come up. I think the main direction of this is to identify a slope and slopes in areas that this all falls under. All the zoning is R- 2. I think to me that is what we are doing right now. Basically, we are initiating a study to locate the areas that fall under the 15% slope or that fall under the subdivisions where infrastructure is not complete. I think once we get to that point, start having public meetings, then I think we will see where we will adjust this. I think the main thing, and we probably could've directed this a little differently, but this is the way it was done and this is the way it was accepted by the Council. Hoffman: This is good dialogue to start. Planning Commission September 9, 2002 Page 21 Thiel: Bunch: Hoffman: Williams: Hoffman: Shackelford: Right. The question I still have is that the resolution calls for a study, I have no problem with the study and taking a look at but it does call categorically to go from R-2 to R-1. So really the direction that we are given by the Council and that we in turn give to the Planning Department is to approach it strictly from that standpoint from R-2 to R-1. Do we need some way to express how we can get a little more latitude, have the City Council revise their ordinance or what would be the process? We can sit here and talk all day long about as the process goes on we can consider all these things but the directive that we have specifically states from R-2 to R-1. It does not say consider any of the others. Mr. Williams, do you want to respond to that? I think we need to remember what position the Planning Commission is. It is an advisory board to the City Council. You certainly should feel like you have all kinds of power to make any kind of advice you want to. The City Council by this resolution, it is not an ordinance; it is just a resolution has asked you to conduct a study on hillsides to examine the validity or the advisability of reducing the density. I would say not only from R-2 to R-1 but whatever this Planning Commission would recommend to the City Council. They want to hear from you. I don't think that this Planning Commission is in any kind of a straight jacket. It might be on very, very dense slopes you might want to go to less dense than R-1. You might say this is such a steep slope that it should be R -L or something like that. I think that the City Council just wanted to refer this issue to you so that you all could conduct a study with the help of the Planning Department and recommend, because of your experience in this area, what you believe should be done with this hillside land. Please don't feel like you're bound by either R-2 or R-1. I think you should use the entire number of residential zonings that we have now and feel free to recommend whatever you believe is best for Fayetteville. That is, I'm sure, what the City Council wants to hear from you. Thank you Mr. Williams. Commissioner Shackelford? Obviously I have some pretty strong philosophical differences with this as well. I understand what we are trying to do but I feel like we are kind of painting a broad brush on this by looking at all property with this slope and looking at down zoning it. I feel that this would personally penalize property owners and other citizens of Fayetteville. There are folks out there that purchase property depending on the current zones that were approved by the City of Fayetteville and any sort of down zoning would definitely have an adverse affect on that property that they purchased. If we do go forward with this study I would like to recommend that we have some sort of section of the study that addresses that Planning Commission September 9, 2002 Page 22 issue and looks at a loss in value from these property owners having a down zoning put upon them against their will through comparable sells in the area to try to figure out what sort of loss in value we're talking about by going from R- 2 to R-1 or any other zoning. If we can, I would like to make that part of the study as well if we go forward. Hoffman: I think that sounds like a question for staff'. Is that something that we can get our hands on by comparing with other case studies or how do we find that information? Shackelford: Real Estate sales are public record and you could compare the sells in the market place in the difference in per acre value for R-2 to R-1. I think that would give us a pretty good consensus or a pretty good feel in that area. We are talking about approaching something that is going to have a pretty significant impact on some of our residents and I would just like to have a better feel of what that financial impact is if we go down this road. Hoffman: Tim? Conklin- Yes we can see what the property is being sold for. With regard to the impact, I'm not sure that staff is qualified to make those judgments. I remember the Overlay District trial; we hired an appraiser to be a witness to talk about value with regard to land use and regulation. I think you would have to have someone specialized to give you information that was valid other than trying to look at comparable sells. Hoffman: I think we do have many competing interests or hopefully common interests in these discussions as they go forward. I'm sure that is something that can be addressed along the way and should be. I would say that as we form committees and go forward with this we will make sure that all the sides are heard from and are accounted for. Williams: Madam Chairman, this is already going to be a very difficult and long task. To attempt to put dollar values on everything would be extremely difficult and expensive. Now Commissioner Shackelford surely has the right to say he doesn't believe any compulsive down zoning is justified and I think that is certainly a position that many people have taken and will probably be taking in front of the City Council but I would counsel you all against trying to make that part of your study to try to put dollar figures on everything. I think that is beyond the competence really of our staff, would take an unbelievable amount of time, be very subjective, and would probably not be in the best legal interest of Fayetteville to try to start coming up with something like that. I would urge you not to try to include that as part of this study and certainly it is not something that the City Council has asked you to do when they referred to you the advisability of whether or not you believe any down zoning should occur. Planning Commission September 9, 2002 Page 23 Hoffman: In hearing Tim I think it is clear that staff could not put those numbers together but I think we can certainly hear from interested parties their opinions or if they have some data to back them up. I have mixed feelings about it because I think that anytime that you enact an ordinance to preserve and protect our natural environment in some ways it could be viewed to be detrimental economically but in a long haul it has proven to uphold and increase property values in areas that were generally considered to be desirable. Church: I would just like to know what happens once the study is done. Will it come back to the Planning Commission? Conklin: Yes, the study is going to come back to the Planning Commission. Staff will put it together with findings and recommendations I think overall, even if we do the study and we go through this whole process and we go to the City Council and we do not downzone any piece of property, I think it will be valuable to really understand what kind of densities we do have on our hillsides over 15% slope. I am not sure if it is 24 units per acre. I don't think it is 24 units per acre. I have a feeling it is a lot lower density and I think it would be beneficial to take a look at we have had a zoning map since 1970, how have these areas that have been zoned 24 units per acre developed? It is just like the Mill District. You have I-1, Heavy Commercial, Light Industrial zoning but you go into a neighborhood and you don't see any light manufacturing or warehousing going on. I think there will be some areas that we will see where predominant land use is probably not 24 units per acre but something substantially less, whether it is single-family homes, four units per acre or some type of multi -family with a little higher density but I would be somewhat surprised to see after thirty two years that it is really 24 units per acre on these steep slopes, paper subdivisions where we are seeing this pressure for additional development occur. Estes: I of course was the movement on the motion and the reason is that the request first of all with City Council is mandated by statute, it is required by statute and that is why it is before us. The request, simply stated, is that we conduct a rezoning study to consider a rezoning map. One of the tasks that will then be before us, should the motion pass, is that we make certain findings. Those findings may be that a hillside development ordinance is appropriate. There may be any number of findings. The reason that I made the motion is because number one, for this to be undertaken and for this process to begin statutes mandate that the resolution be before us before the City Council and that we in turn conduct the study and consider the amendments. Should the motion pass, I would counsel the Chair to appoint Commissioner Shackelford to the subcommittee. Planning Commission September 9, 2002 Page 24 Hoover: Thank you Commissioner Estes. That being said, does anyone else have any comments? Allen: I just wanted to make certain before we call for the question here that a vote to proceed with the study doesn't limit it only to being a study of whether or not all the hillsides should be downzone to R-1. Hoffman. I would say not. Hoover: I have all the same similar concerns if this said to study a hillside ordinance I would be all for it. Commissioner Estes, I guess my concern is when it keeps referring to changing all the R -2s to R-1, should we not be concerned about that? I know that this is a study, but because it is in print several times, that we are looking at doing that. Estes: Commissioner Hoover, we are an administrative administarial board that is appointed by the City Council. We are not restricted by the language in this resolution. We are advisory to the City Council and I suppose that we could include in our findings that it would be appropriate to enact a hillside development ordinance if we choose. We are in no way, and I want to disabuse everyone from the notion that we are limited, or restricted, or fettered, or bound, or chained to this notion that we are to consider only this issue of down zoning from R-2 to R-1. That is simply not the case. What it is requested that we do is conduct a rezoning study and consider zoning map amendments and we will make findings then to the City Council. Would you like to be on the subcommittee also? Hoover: No thanks. Hoffman: I'm sure you would. Thank you Commissioner Estes. Is there any further comment before we call the roll? Bunch: Do we have a second? Hoffman: I have seconded it. We have a motion and a second. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to approve ADM 02-28.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Hoffman: Thank you very much. The motion carries unanimously. Brenda, we will be talking with you soon. Thiel: I'm sure. Planning Commission September 9, 2002 Page 25 ADM 02-29.00: Administrative Item (Large Scale Development Ordinance/Expiration) To amend the Unified Development Ordinance to require the development of any lot(s) in a previously approved and recorded subdivision, where required infrastructure such as sewer, sidewalks, streets, street lighting, or water is lacking or incomplete, or in the judgment of the City Planner is otherwise inadequate to serve the proposed development, shall be processed in accordance with the requirements for a large-scale development, regardless of the size or number of lots. Hoffman: Our next item on the agenda is ADM 02-29.00, which is another administrative item for Large Scale Development Ordinances and Expiration dates. This item is to amend the Unified Development Ordinance to require the development of any lots in a previously approved and recorded subdivision where required infrastructure such as sewer, sidewalks, streets, street lighting or water is lacking or incomplete or in the judgment of the City Planner is otherwise inadequate to serve the proposed development shall be processed in accordance with the requirements for a Large Scale Development regardless of the size or the number of lots. Secondly, to amend the Unified Development Ordinance to require all approved undeveloped or discontinued Large Scale Developments, Planned Unit Developments, Conditional Uses and Lot Splits that have not received all required permits to begin construction, have not begun construction, have not been established or recorded to meet all current Unified Development Ordinances. Then thirdly, to amend the Unified Development Ordinance to set time limits for application, plan, and project approvals by staff, Planning Commission and the City Council. Conklin: Madam Chair and members of the Commission I would like for you to review this ordinance this evening however I would like to bring back to the next Commission a final version of the ordinance and there may be some people here tonight that would like to also offer comments but I think it would be valuable for staff to hear from the Commissioners if we need to make any changes. The City Attorney and I can get together and we can produce a final draft. Basically we are trying to bring forward an ordinance that would amend our Large Scale Development requirement and place that Large Scale Development requirement for development that is occurring within or adjacent to what is called like a paper subdivision where the infrastructure has not been placed or installed. Also, within this ordinance we are trying to establish an expiration of a previously approved plan or permit. We currently have Large Scale Developments that have been approved by the Commission in the early 90's, maybe even in the 80's that are existing that currently do not meet our current standards for tree preservation, commercial design standards, parking lot landscaping. This ordinance revision would require that they either build their development within 90 days from the date of passage of the ordinance or they be required to meet all current city ordinances. I have been fairly successful in getting these developments to meet our current ordinances, especially with commercial design standards. There were some metal buildings that were Planning Commission September 9, 2002 Page 26 approved a while back prior to our commercial design standards. You have some very prominent visible intersections in Fayetteville. However, it would be helpful to have this ordinance in place so I don't have to sit there and ask them to voluntarily comply with these standards. We have a commercial development on Hwy. 265 and Huntsville Road, right behind the gas station, a commercial shopping center that currently doesn't have landscaping within the parking lot. Also the back of the building will be visible from the back of the street. I am working with them to try to get into compliance as much as possible. There was no expiration. The commercial development at Rupple Road and Wedington Drive that went in, several of you asked about when we approved this. Well it was approved many, many years ago prior to probably anyone on this Commission. Once again, staff had to work with them to at least bring it up as close to compliance with our current standards. That is the second part of the ordinance. The third part is to make sure any future approvals for the different things that the City of Fayetteville approves has an expiration date on them and we have a one year time limit and we have conditions for the projects once they are approved to begin construction or renovation, receive their Certificate of Zoning Compliance, record the lot split deed and file it over at the County, receive all the permits from the city, state, and federal regulations. Basically once we approve a project we want to make sure that that project is going to be built and it is going to be built within a time frame. After the permits are issued I also proposed a three year time limit. If you get your permit and you are under construction that within three years you need to complete construction. I have some projects out there that are many, many years old that have not completed construction. Certain things they have not complied with, it is more of an enforcement issue. I want it in writing in the Unified Development Ordinance to state that all your approvals will be voided if you don't start your project and complete it. I am not going to name the project but just a couple of Planning Commission meetings ago after Planning Commission approved the project I met with the developer and at that time we talked about meeting the conditions of approval by the Planning Commission. They talked about years, taking years to meet these conditions. That concerned me when we talked about screening, commercial design standards, landscaping. They were talking about doing this piece meal. I think it is very hard to keep up with as staff and we just need to clarify that in the ordinance. Those are the three major changes that are proposed with regard to Large Scale Development. Requiring that all previously approved development after 90 days will meet all of our current ordinances and setting up a three year time limit. Thank you. Williams: Madam Chairman, I just wanted to tell you that one reason we did not want you to go forward tonight is that there were some suggestions made at your Thursday evening agenda session. We have not been able to get all that down in black and white. We are pretty close and will be getting you what we believe are more finished ordinances so don't waste too much time studying the ones you have in your packet now because we are going to incorporate the Planning Commission September 9, 2002 Page 27 Hoffman. Bunch: Williams: Hoffman: Shackelford: Williams: Shackelford: suggestions that the Planning Commission made at it's agenda session and we will be getting you new clean copies of ordinances which I think are slightly improved from your suggestions. Thank you Mr. Williams. Is there any member of the public that would like to address us on these proposed ordinances? Seeing no one, I will bring it back to the Commission for discussion and motions. Just a quick question for Kit and for Tim also I guess, in those revisions that you are contemplating do they include some system of extensions and also to accommodate phased jobs? I have drafted some language concerning the extensions. I haven't drafted anything specifically about phased jobs. Both of the extensions would have to come before the Planning Commission and the developer would have to show good cause why they could not complete the tasks within the time period originally allowed. It would be their burden and they would have to appear before the Planning Commission prior to their time period expiring and then the Planning Commission would have the power to grant an additional year in the first one and I tentatively have put an additional two years on the completion of the project. If you think that we need something else in a phased project then I welcome any sort of language that might incorporate that idea. I have not included anything in relation to a phased project. Thank you Mr. Williams. I was also someone who brought up a couple of points in the agenda session that I want to go ahead and get on record. The points that I made Thursday were that as this proposed ordinance is currently written that regardless of the size of the development or the lot in which this development is on something as minor as an incomplete sidewalk or a missing street light could force a project through the Large Scale Development process. My concern was that you have a small business owner, and we have seen several of these in my time on the Planning Commission, a very small building on a lot that he or she may own that this could be very cost prohibitive for that developer to the tune of 15, 20 or 30% additional cost just for the process to go through Large Scale Development. I would ask that the City Planner be given a broader discretion in the enforcement of this ordinance or some other situation which we can address I have some proposed language and I am going to get with our City Planner that should take care of that situation I hope. Tim has been understaffed and with the lateness of the suggestions we just weren't able to get everything together for tonight. I understand, I just wanted to get that on public record. Planning Commission September 9, 2002 Page 28 Motion: Estes: Hoffman: Shackelford: Hoffman: In accordance with our City Planner, Mr. Conklin's request and in conformity with our City Attorney, Mr. Williams comments, I move that we table ADM 02- 29.00. There is a motion by Commissioner Estes, do I have a second? I will second it. A second by Commissioner Shackelford. I would like to add a comment that I agree about the smaller projects, I would like to see specific exemptions for smaller projects but don't necessarily exempt them from our ordinances. They will still have to comply with parking lot, commercial design standards and so forth but to avoid a public hearing is sometimes a big thing for a smaller project, small additions, utility line extensions and things like that. Can we add those to the wish list? Conklin- I certainly can work with our City Attorney. What I am trying to do here is address a problem also where I have had developers request property line adjustments to create .9999 acres to avoid any site plan review process by the Planning Commission. I will definitely work on that. What I want to make sure, and you as a Planning Commission can help me, is that we don't create an exemption where I have the developers back in my office asking to create parcels that meet the exemption and that is the only difficult part of that ordinance. Hoffman: Conklin: Hoffman: Allen: Hoffman: I think that can be made fairly restrictive that would discourage that practice. I agree with Loren Shackelford with regard to a single-family home but I think we need to come up with some language, especially when you own more than one lot that is contiguous to each other, I think we need to be careful because we have areas where you can't even get a fire truck down a street and turn around and even on a single-family home that concerns me putting one more home down that street but we will come up with something for our next meeting. Thank you Tim. Is there any further discussion? I just wanted to comment that I see that it needs some tweaking but I think the basic premise of this ordinance is excellent. Thank you. Renee, would you call the roll please? Planning Commission September 9, 2002 Page 29 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table ADM 02-29.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Hoffman: Thank you. The motion to table carries unanimously. Planning Commission September 9, 2002 Page 30 ADM 02-30.00: Administrative Item (Outdoor Music Establishments) to approve an ordinance creating Use Unit 35 (Outdoor Music Establishments in Chapter 162 Use Conditions) and adding Use Unit 35 to C-1, C-2, C-3, and C-4 zoning districts in Chapter 161 Zoning Regulations of the Unified Development Ordinance. Hoffman: The next item on our agenda tonight is ADM 02-30.00, which is an administrative item for outdoor music establishments to approve an ordinance creating Use Unit 35 (Outdoor Music Establishments in Chapter 162 Use Conditions) and adding Use Unit 35 to C-1, C-2, C-3, and C-4 zoning districts in Chapter 161 Zoning Regulations of the Unified Development Ordinance. Conklin: Madam Chair and members of the Commission, this ordinance will create a Use Unit for outdoor music. It will be called Use Unit 35, Outdoor Music Establishments. The actual ordinance for the outdoor music was passed on August 6, 2002 by the Fayetteville City Council. It allows outdoor music establishments within C-1, C-2, C-3, and C-4 zoning districts. Our zoning code is organized into zoning districts that list Use Units that establish what type of uses are allowed within each zoning district. Because outdoor music is associated with many different types of uses it is difficult if we don't amend our zoning code and we just interpret where those outdoor music establishments exist. Those will clarify that making Use Unit 35. Thank you. Hoffman: Thank you Tim. Is there any member of the public that would like to address us about outdoor music? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for motions. Oh, excuse me, yes Sir. Fennel: I didn't come here to address this issue this evening, I will be up next. I have been on Dickson Street since... Hoffman: Could you identify yourself? Fennel: Pardon me? Hoffman: What is your name? Fennel: Joe Fennel with Jose's, I'm sorry. This issue doesn't apply to me directly because I don't make my money with music, I make my money in the taco business, but it does affect a lot of people. I think one of the problems that we have created in Fayetteville is that we have listened to a real small minority of people who have changed the way they see Dickson Street in the future. Dickson Street is a different breed ok, it should always continue to be a different breed. I think if we look at Dickson Street as what we want the rest of the city to look like we are looking at it backwards, ok. There is only one place that certain things happen in this city and they happen because they have always happened there. They happened there when Jug Wheelers was there, they Planning Commission September 9, 2002 Page 31 happened after Jug Wheelers. They happened before Jose's was there and they have happened since 1980 since I've been there. Mardi Gras parade, it is held in one place, it is held on Dickson Street. Spring Fest is held on Dickson Street ok. Autumn Fest is held in Downtown Fayetteville, ok. When we won the big football game a couple of years ago, they didn't rip the goal post up and take it out to Hwy. 71, they didn't take it up into Wedington Woods, they brought it to Dickson Street because that is the appropriate place for the goal post. Bikes, Blues and BBQ, which is going to create the biggest income producer that the city has ever seen in the last three years, where is it going to be held? On Dickson Street. I think one of the things that we need to understand in this city is that Dickson Street is Dickson Street. Until people wanted to create a mixed use development area of Dickson Street this was never an issue. Until a gentleman opened his own bars all of the sudden he had a conflict with another bar that happened to be across the street, that is what started the whole thing. Guess what? That one guy has won the battle so far. Ok, I bought a sound meter and I am conducting a survey on my own and guess what, the 75DBs that we have as a law in Fayetteville as an ordinance, guess what, that doesn't hold up. A Harley Davidson going up Dickson Street it DBs at 95 to 100, it doesn't matter if it is 3:00 in the afternoon, midnight or whatever. I hope we don't arrest every Harley rider in town because he is wrapping his pipes at 95DBs at 12:00 at night because it happens. Some guy playing his stereo real loud coming down Dickson Street, guess what, no one says anything to him, and he drives away. Now you have operators down there who are trying to run a business, pay their taxes, provide jobs and guess what, they get picked on. They get picked on because they are in a sole location and someone can go raise Cain with them and someone can go write them a ticket and someone can go cause them a lot of grief and I think that is wrong. Ok, it says here, finally it is being addressed properly, I've always heard it as a sound ordinance, it has nothing to do with sound, you can walk down Dickson Street at 12:00 at night, I don't care what part of Dickson Street from he 200 block to the 500 block with the same sound meter that the police use and I don't care where you pull the trigger on that thing, you will break the law, the law will be broken. All of the sudden we are going to pick on a few people down there who are trying to run legitimate businesses. Like I said, this whole problem started because one guy couldn't compete with the guy right across the street so he changed the rules so his bar could stay in business and that is where this whole thing started and I think it is wrong. I don't know if we need to visit this issue here or if we need to visit the issue at the City Council, but we need to revisit this issue because the 75 DBs, we are all kidding ourselves, it doesn't work. We are working on a study right now and we are going to put some data together on that, it has nothing to do with Jose's, it has nothing to do with Powerhouse, it has nothing to do with George's, it has to do with Dickson Street. Dickson Street is an animal all to its own. It is one of the last great things that we have in this city and if we keep tearing it down and breaking it down guess what, the people that come from Little Rock for football games, Dickson Street won't mean anything to them Planning Commission September 9, 2002 Page 32 anymore. Why not go to Benton County. It is one of the last things that we have to fight Benton County with. There is no other place like it in the state. There is no other town in the state of Arkansas that has that down there, no other place. Little Rock spent how many millions of dollars on the River Market down there, how many millions of dollars have they spent in the last ten years trying to recreate what we have here and what we are doing here is trying to tear it down. It is here, all we have to do is work with it and make it work. Dickson Street was never meant for people to live on. Dickson Street has always been the entertainment capital for this town and it should always be that way. If we as a city are giving more preference to mixed use then I think we are looking at it wrong. That street was there long before mixed use development ever became a popular word in this city and I think that if they are given the priority in this instance then we are going to ruin what they even came down there for. Those people are coming to Dickson Street because of the establishments. They are coming there for the entertainment, the people that are building those condos down there, the people that might want to live in those condos want to live in that section of town because the restaurants are there, the clubs are there, and the downtown is there. Ok, let's not forget why they are doing what they are doing but what we are doing, which we are listening to three or four people out there that are screaming loud and screaming clear but they are screaming about the wrong thing, and I hope that the people that are making decisions are not fooled. That is all I have, thank you. Hoffman: Thank you Mr. Fennel. Just to clear this up, this is an administrative item that is adding Outdoor Music as a Use Unit to the Unified Development Ordinance. The Outdoor Music Establishments ordinance has already been approved by the City Council and this is just merely adding outdoor music as a use unit. MOTION: Bunch: Since this is a city wide ordinance that involves several zoning districts and it is more of a housekeeping item, I will move that we approve and forward to the City Council ADM 02-30.00. Hoffman: I have a motion by Commissioner Bunch, do I have a second? Ward: Second. Hoffman: There is a second by Commissioner Ward. Is there any further discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward ADM 02-30.00 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Hoffman: Thank you. This housekeeping motion carries unanimously. Planning Commission September 9, 2002 Page 33 PKW 02-1.00: Parking Waiver (Fennel, pp 484) was submitted Joe Fennel for property located at 310 W. Dickson. The request is for a parking waiver of all parking (58 spaces) for an 11,500 sq.ft. proposed restaurant. Hoffman: Now we are down to our final item Which is PKW 02-01.00, which was submitted by Joe Fennel for property located at 310 W. Dickson. The request is for a parking waiver of all parking spaces, 58 spaces for an 11,500 sq.ft. proposed restaurant. Shackelford: Madam Chair, before we go any further, I need to announce that I do have a business relationship with the applicant and will be recusing from this vote as well. Hoffman: Thank you Commissioner. Tim, could you fill us in please? Conklin: This is a parking waiver. Staff is recommending a preliminary approval of the parking waiver I think the actual number is 52, not 58 with the conditions that we have listed in our staff report. We are not prepared this evening to make a recommendation on which option should be approved until further information is provided to staff and to the Commission. That would include a signed shared parking agreement or a plan for a proposed new parking lot. Staff is in support of the in lieu of fee amount for 52 spaces for a total of $62,400. The four conditions we have placed on this are as follows: 1) If the shared parking option is used the applicant shall request Planning Commission approval of a shared parking agreement pursuant to § 174.01(E)(4) of our UDO. 2) If the new parking lot option is used the applicant shall request Planning Commission approval of a parking lot permit. 3) A minimum of 52 parking spaces identified for use by the subject property. 4) Shared parking or new parking lot is located within 600' of the subject property. This evening what you have is a request by the applicant to find out from the Commission if you will grant a waiver for the 52 parking spaces and staff is in support of the applicant going out, finding a piece of property, building 52 parking spaces. Going out beyond the site and finding a parking lot that has 52 parking spaces where you can get a signed shared parking agreement with the site plan identifying the spaces to be shared that won't be used at the same time. At this time the request is to determine whether or not you are in agreement to utilize what is allowed under our code. To allow him to go build a parking lot, get shared parking or pay in lieu of that parking at $1,200 per space. Thank you. Hoffman: Thank you Tim. These four conditions of approval, has the applicant seen these and do we have signed conditions? Conklin: I am not sure if Mr. Fennel has reviewed these and I don't believe we have any signed conditions. Once again, these conditions are basically stating that the question was `Would the Planning Commission approve a parking waiver?' Planning Commission September 9, 2002 Page 34 that is the question you are going to answer tonight. Whether or not it is a shared parking agreement, that has to come back before the Planning Commission and be approved. If he finds a piece of property to build a parking lot, the parking lot will need to come back and be approved by the Commission. Ward: Can that be anywhere? Conklin- 600'. The Planning Commission would consider that. This is a little unusual because typically we would have in hand a shared parking agreement with a site plan showing the spaces or a request to pay $1,200 per space. I will let Mr. Fennel, the applicant, explain why he is asking for this preliminary approval this evening. Thank you. Hoffman- Thanks Tim. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Fennel: Hi, my name is Joe Fennel. Basically what I am doing here tonight I am asking for one space per 200 square feet, it is 58 parking places, I think we have a waiver of six. I went through this process back in 1998. There are a lot of familiar faces up there that probably remember when I was here and we didn't go through with the project. There are pieces of that project that are still viable, there are other pieces that aren't. We are still researching some of the options that are there. We have a shared parking arrangement with UBC on that project and we are going to continue to work on that. We are willing to build or share or pay or a combination of the above to come up with the 52 parking places. This evening all we are asking for is the request for one space per 200 sq.ft. Really what I don't want to do is go back through the process of spending $20,000 with an architect and then not going ahead with my project. What I would like to know is how many parking places am I actually going to have so I can work that into the cost factor of building my building. That is the reason we are coming backwards tonight. Conklin: The correct number is 58, I apologize for having two numbers this evening. Hoffman: 58 with a credit of six for the existing structure? Conklin: 58 with a credit for the six, yes. Hoffman: Ok, thank you. Conklin: That is why we have the two numbers, yes. Hoffman: Got it, is there any other member of the audience that would like to address us? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for discussion or motions. Planning Commission September 9, 2002 Page 35 Motion: Bunch: This is a little unusual for the restaurant requests that we have because normally we get requests for at least the 20% overage, the maximum number plus some. I guess economic situations kind of change things. We are having a minimum request for parking this time. With that being said, Joe has done some very good reinvestment in Dickson Street and has improved it considerably. It is a viable economic sector of our community. I will move for approval of PKW 02-1.00, parking waiver for Jose's. Hoffman: Thank you Commissioner Bunch. Do I have a second? Allen: I will second. Hoffman: There is a second by Commissioner Allen. Is there further discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PKW 02-1.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-1 with Commissioner Shackelford abstaining. Hoffman: Thank you Renee, the motion carries with a vote of seven and one abstention. Tim, is there any further business before us tonight or announcements? Conklin: Just a couple of announcements. The American Planning Association will be holding an audio conference. We have signed up for that through the Planning Division, City of Fayetteville. The conference session will be "Paying For Growth", that is October 2nd at 3:00 in Room 326. You can RSVP with Renee so we can make sure we have a large enough room. They are fairly good audio conferences. They bring in experts from around the country and you can submit questions and they will answer questions at these conferences. The second announcement is the American Planning Association Four State Planning Conference will be held in Fort Smith, Arkansas. That will be towards the end of October. We will be getting announcements and registration information out. It should be a very good conference. We have some speakers coming in from around the country to discuss issues of growth and development. If you are interested please contact the Planning Division and we can get you that information also. Thank you. Hoffman: Thanks Tim, that being said we will adjourn. Meeting adjourned: 7:15 p.m.