Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-11-12 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 12, 2002 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN VAC 02-14.00 (1030): Vacation (Sanders, pp 214) Page 3 LSP 02-44.00: Lot Split (Walgreens, pp 135) Page 3 LSD 02-24.00: Large Scale Development (Walgreens, pp 135) Page 4 CUP 02-29.00 (1034): Conditional Use (Hudspeth, pp 526) Page 8 CUP 02-24.00: Conditional Use (Country Club, pp 680) Page 10 RZN 02-18.00: Rezoning (Mill District Neighborhood, pp 522/523) Page 12 RZN 02-19.00: Rezoning (Mill District Neighborhood, pp 522/523) Page 14 RZN 02-20.00: Rezoning (Mill District Neighborhood, pp 522/523) Page 17 RZN 02-29.00: Rezoning (Mill District Neighborhood, PP 522/523) Page 19 RZN 02-30.00: Rezoning (Mill District Neighborhood, PP 522/523) Page 20 RZN 02-31: Rezoning (Mill District Neighborhood, PP 522/523) Page 21 RZN 02-32: Rezoning (Mill District Neighborhood, PP 522/523) Page 24 Forwarded to City Council Approved Approved Approved Approved Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council Planning Commission November 12, 2002 Page 2 MEMBERS PRESENT Nancy Allen Bob Estes Lee Ward Alan Ostner Sharon Hoover Lorel Aviles Donald Bunch Alice Church MEMBERS ABSENT Loren Shackelford STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Kit Williams Renee Thomas Tim Conklin Shelli Rushing Dawn Warrick Matt Casey Sara Edwards Planning Commission November 12, 2002 Page 3 Aviles: Welcome to the Tuesday, November 12, 2002 meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were eight Commissioners present with Commissioner Shackelford being absent. Approval of Minutes: Aviles: Thanks Renee. The approval of the minutes from the October 28th meeting is the next item on our agenda. Do I have a motion for approval of the minutes? Ward: So moved. Allen: Second. Aviles: I have a motion and a second. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the minutes were approved by a vote of 8-0-0. VAC 02-14.00 (1030): Vacation (Sanders, pp 214) was submitted by Lewis Sanders on behalf of Karan Sanders for property located at 1385 Wimbledon Place. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.29 acres. The request is to vacate a 15' utility easement. LSP 02-44.00: Lot Split (Walgreens, pp 135) was submitted by James Koch of CEI Engineering on behalf of Whiteco Interra Ventures, LLC for property located at 3939 N. Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.97 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 1.74 acres and 1.23 acres. Aviles: Thank you Renee. This evening the first two items on the agenda, VAC 02- 14.00 and LSP 02-44.00 have been placed on the consent agenda. Commissioners, is there any Commissioner that would wish to pull this from the consent agenda or is there any member of the audience wishing to do so? Seeing none, we will go ahead and entertain a motion for the consent agenda. Allen: I move for approval of the consent agenda. Aviles: I have a motion by Commissioner Allen. Hoover: I will second. Aviles: A second by Commissioner Hoover. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the consent agenda was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Aviles: Thanks. The consent agenda passes. Planning Commission November 12, 2002 Page 4 LSD 02-24.00: Large Scale Development (Walgreens, pp 135) was submitted by James Koch of CEI Engineering on behalf of Whiteco Interra Ventures, LLC for property located at 3939 N. Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.97 acres with a 14,560 sq.ft. retail building proposed. Aviles: The third item on our agenda this evening is a Large Scale Development for Walgreen's. It was submitted by James Koch of CEI Engineering on behalf of Whiteco Interra Ventures, LLC for property located at 3939 N. Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.97 acres with a 14,560 sq.ft. retail building proposed. Tim, do you have the staff report on this? Conklin: Madam Chair and members of the Commission, this is a Large Scale Development for a 14,560 sq.ft. Walgreen's. It is at the location of where the Nelson Berna Funeral Home is currently located on Joyce at 71B. It is zoned C- 2. They are dedicating right of way along Joyce Blvd, 55' from centerline and 25' of right of way along Shiloh Drive. Staff is recommending approval subject to the conditions that are listed in your staff report. Thank you. Aviles: Thanks Tim. We do have ten conditions of approval. In addition to that there are five other standard conditions of approval. I will go ahead and read the special conditions. 1) Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards. The applicant is proposing a red -orange brick exterior on all four sides. At plat review, additional articulation was requested on the North elevation. The elevation was revised to include the addition of brick columns along the north side. 2) The development must comply with the Sign Ordinance with regard to freestanding/ monument signs. The current proposal is for a joint identification and a monument sign. Staff is support of the use of both signs. However, the signs as proposed do not meet the sign ordinance with regard to square footage, height, and setback. Staff will not be in support of a variance of the sign ordinance because there is nothing unique to this development which would cause a hardship. In addition to meeting the sign ordinance, the Planning Commission must make a determination that the signs are not large out of scale signs with flashy colors. The options which meet the sign ordinance are as follows: a. One freestanding or monument sign per lot which may not exceed 75 square feet. This 75 square feet would be the combination of the sign and electronic message board. The ordinance allows for a height based on setback and square footage. The maximum height is 30 feet with a setback of 40 feet and a maximum square footage of 75 feet. The setback decreases with height and square footage. The Subdivision Committee was not in favor of a single tenant pole sign and recommended the use of a monument sign. b. The use of a joint identification sign. Each business along Joyce Blvd. would be allowed signage on a joint identification sign if that business doesn't already have a freestanding sign which exceeds 32 square feet, and does not have signage on the existing joint identification sign for Spring Creek Center. If the joint identification sign were placed on the lot to the Planning Commission November 12, 2002 Page 5 Koch: north of the proposed Walgreen's, a monument sign not to exceed 32 square feet would be allowed on the Walgreen's site. The joint identification sign will be required to meet the setback based on height. The monument sign must meet a 10 foot setback and not exceed 6 feet in height. Staff supports the use of a joint identification sign and monument sign for this project. This is a regional commercial area and the City has approved joint identification signs for surrounding commercial developments (Northwest Village —Barnes and Noble, Toys R Us, Spring Creek Center- Home Depot, Wal-Mart, etc.) 3) No signs will be allowed to move or flash. Only stationary wording will be permitted on the electronic message board. 4) The development must comply with the sign ordinance with regard to wall signage. 5) Due to the existing street width at the intersection of Joyce and Shiloh, the sidewalk along Joyce at the intersection will be immediately adjacent to the curb. There is not adequate room within the 55 feet of right of way from centerline required by the Master Street Plan to allow for the typical 10 feet of green space. 6) Additional landscaping shall be added as follows: One landscaped island with a tree shall be added along the easternmost row of parking. One tree shall be added to the southeast corner of the site. One tree shall be added with a landscaped island at the northeast comer of the building. 7) The parking ratio table shall be revised to the correct number of spaces on the site. 8) A continuous planting of shrubs is required along front property lines. This is required in order to lessen the impact of the parking lot. 9) The tree on lot1B shall not be removed as this time. The removal of this tree will be reevaluated with large scale development review of lot 1B. 10) 25 feet from centerline shall be dedicated along Shiloh Drive and shown on the plat. Is the applicant present? Hello, my name is James Koch with CEI Engineering out of Bentonville representing our client, Tom Gamsjaeger with Whiteco Interra Ventures who is pursuing the Walgreen's as proposed. Aviles: Do you agree with the conditions of approval with the exception of the determination on the signage? Koch: Yes. Aviles: Do you have a presentation to make at this time or would you like to answer questions? Koch: Yes I do. I would like to make a presentation based on the sign issue. The signage that we would like to pursue an approval for at this time is the monument sign on our lot, not the pylon sign on the adjacent lot as well. We just want to go forward with the conditional approval of the monument sign as proposed and the according setback which would not exceed the ordinance that the City of Fayetteville has in place at this time. Planning Commission November 12, 2002 Page 6 Aviles: Ok, thank you. Is there any member of the public that would like to address us on the Walgreen's? Seeing none, I will go ahead and bring the discussion back to the applicant and the Commissioners for additional comment. Conklin- I just want to make sure that the Commission is aware, they are proposing, as you heard from Mr. Koch, the use of a monument sign. The monument sign that they are proposing will have to meet the sign ordinance. They are using the option to use a monument sign on the property and have it setback further from the right of way in order to get the additional height. We have the incentive for a 6' tall monument sign 10' setback from the property line. This monument sign is I believe 11' tall. Staff has worked with them, we recommend the use of the monument sign as long as the monument sign meets the sign ordinance setback staff is in support of the use of what has been proposed. I did want to make sure that you understand the difference between the monument sign that you've seen out there that is 6' tall, 10' from the street right of way and this monument sign, it will have an additional setback around 40'. Aviles: That does meet the sign ordinance as proposed with the new proposal? Conklin- Yes, they will meet the sign ordinance with what is being proposed. Aviles: Ok, thanks Tim. Ward: Tim, what kind of sign are they proposing on the other lot that they are splitting off? Has that been brought up yet? Conklin: Initially we discussed at the Subdivision Committee meeting about using a joint identification sign to allow a freestanding pole type sign to advertise for both businesses. At this time working with CEI and Walgreen's, the developer, they have come back and asked for a monument sign of this type for this lot and when that development does come through on the northern lot my guess is what you approve here we will probably be looking to approve that same type of sign on that lot to the north. Ward: Koch: Ward: If you would, why don't you give us a little break down on the type of materials that you are using on your building and what changes you had to make for us. Ok. The building of course is the brick as you see it. The sample here is the brick material to be used. There is also a white cap stone that goes to the top of the columns along the exterior of the building. The same architectural features that you see on this elevation drawing here will be incorporated onto the opposite side of the building with the exception of windows and awnings. I personally feel like it meets all of our commercial design standards. I love brick. I think you have met our commercial design standards and I think it is going to be a really nice looking building. Planning Commission November 12, 2002 Page 7 Aviles: I will go ahead and say that with the fact that the monument sign meeting the sign ordinance I would support that as well and be in favor of it I think it is an attractive design and will be a good addition to that corner and it seems to be fitting in with the commercial theme of the area too. Anybody else? MOTION: Ward: Since no one seems to have many comments about this everybody must be pretty satisfied with the final product. With that, I will go ahead and make a motion that we approve LSD 02-24.00 for a Walgreen's store at the corner of North Shiloh with all comments including the monument sign meeting all city sign ordinances. Aviles: Ok, thanks. I have a motion by Commissioner Ward for approval, is there a second? Bunch: Second. Aviles: There is a second by Commissioner Bunch. Is there any additional discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 02-24.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Aviles: Thanks Renee. The motion carries unanimously. Planning Commission November 12, 2002 Page 8 CUP 02-29.00 (1034): Conditional Use (Hudspeth, pp 526) was submitted by Charles & Staci Hudspeth for property located at 608 Ray Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.51 acres. The request is for a Home Child Care Facility (Use Unit §163.11) in R-1, district. Aviles: The fourth item on our agenda this evening is CUP 02-29.00 which is a conditional use submitted by Charles and Staci Hudspeth for property located at 608 Ray Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.51 acres. The request is for a childcare home occupation, Use Unit 8 in an R-1 District. Staff does recommend approval subject to eight conditions. Shelli, would you like to give us the staff report please? Rushing: Yes. This property is located north of Huntsville Road on the east side of Ray Avenue. Right near there there is a 1,600 sq.ft. house that sits on the lot. The previous owner of the lot had enclosed the garage for a daycare facility that operated for approximately three years. Staff did not receive complaints regarding that property. The rear property line does have an 8' wood privacy fence and the side and front property lines have chain link fences. The neighborhood is predominantly single-family residential and it is located just south of Happy Hollow Elementary School on Ray Avenue. The applicant is proposing to operate a home based childcare facility for ages two and older. She is proposing to accommodate six children between the hours of 7 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. using the converted garage as the childcare facility. Staff is recommending approval with the eight conditions listed in the staff report. Estes: Hudspeth: Estes: Thank you Shelli. The eight conditions of approval are listed in our materials. They are the child care home occupation shall accommodate no more than six children (other than the applicants own children), as proposed by the applicant. 2) Planning Commission approval of a waiver from § 163.09 Home Occupations (F)(2) to permit the applicant to open at 7 a.m. instead of 7:30 a.m. as required. 3) The applicant shall be the only employee. 4) No sign shall be permitted. 5) No exterior alterations shall be made. 6) The applicant shall complete the Home Occupation Permit Application and pay the required fee ($25 fee will be prorated for this year). The permit can be renewed annually for $12.50. 7) The applicant shall pay the fee for the conditional use permit. 8) The conditional use shall be applicable for one year. After one year, the City Planner shall review the conditional use permit and may renew the permit if no complaints have been received about the property or he/she may forward the request to Planning Commission for additional review. Is the applicant or a representative of the applicant present? If so, would you please come forward, introduce yourself to us. I am Staci Hudspeth, owner of 608 Ray. I am seeking a Conditional Use for a home daycare. Mrs. Hudspeth, do you have a presentation that you would like to make or Planning Commission November 12, 2002 Page 9 would you just simply like to be available to answer questions of your Commissioners? Hudspeth: Be available to answer questions. Estes: Is there any member of the audience who would like to provide comment on this requested Conditional Use? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the full Commission for questions of the applicant, motions, and discussions. Commissioners? Ward: Do we have signed conditions of approval? Estes: Mrs. Hudspeth, do you object to any of the conditions of approval as listed? Have you signed the conditions of approval? Hudspeth: Yes. Allen: Have there been any calls or emails or letters from neighbors? Rushing: Staff has received none. Estes: Thank you Commissioner Allen. Are there any other questions, comments or motions? MOTION: Hoover: I would like to make a motion that we approve CUP 02-29.00. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Hoover to approve CUP 02-29.00, is there a second? Allen: I will second. Estes: We have a second by Commissioner Allen. Is there any discussion? We have a motion by Commissioner Hoover to approve CUP 02-29 and a second by Commissioner Allen. Would you call the roll Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Estes: The motion passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Planning Commission November 12, 2002 Page 10 CUP 02-24.00: Conditional Use (Country Club, pp 680) was submitted by Mandy Bunch on behalf of Fayetteville Country Club for property located at 3335 Country Club Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 112 acres. The request is for a recreational use in R-1 district. Estes: The next item on our agenda is item number five. This also is a conditional use request. This is CUP 02-24.00 submitted by Mandy Bunch on behalf of the Fayetteville Country Club for property located at 3335 Country Club Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 112 acres. The request is for a recreational use in an R-1 District. Staff recommends approval subject to certain conditions of approval. Those conditions of approval are 1) Planning Commission of approval of a waiver from § 163.23 Nonresidential Use in an R District regarding structural spacing requirements for outdoor lighted areas. 2) Planning Commission of approval of a waiver from § 163.23 Nonresidential Use in an R District regarding structural spacing requirements for outdoor storage areas. 3) Outdoor lighting be shielded and directed downward, away from east side property line. The foot-candles at the property line, measured three feet above grade, shall not be higher than 1.5 foot-candles. 4) Dumpster shall be screened. Mr. Conklin, is there a staff report on this Conditional Use request? Conklin: Yes, I will have Ms. Rushing give that staff report. Rushing: Yes, this property contains a golf course, a pool, pool house and club house. The golf course was built in 1927. Our building permit records show that there have been numerous remodels and additions since 1966. The applicant is proposing to make some significant improvements to the existing pool area. The pool and the 1,715 sq.ft. pool house will be removed. A new pool will be installed and a new 1,423 sq.ft. pool house will be constructed. There is also a new dumpster location proposed. The existing club house is 14,402 sq.ft. It includes a kitchen, bar, dining room, locker rooms, administrative offices, a terrace and service court yard. The proposal is to remodel the existing structure as well as add a dining room. The proposed dining room is 1,485 sq.ft., it also includes a 600 sq.ft. outdoor dining area. The proposal does also include the addition of some minimal security and area lighting for after hours activities that take place in the pool area. This request is brought forward because the U.D.O. requires a Conditional Use for recreational uses in an R-1 district and we are recommending approval. I do want to point out that in front of you, you should have a memo from staff regarding a question that was brought up at the agenda session regarding parking lot landscaping. We did find that that landscaping is not required due to the size of the addition that they are proposing. The addition is 7% of the existing structure and our requirement is 10% before the parking lot landscaping is required. Estes: Thank you Shelli. Is the applicant or the applicant's representative present? Hoover: I will be recusing from this Conditional Use. Planning Commission November 12, 2002 Page 11 Estes: Thank you Commissioner Hoover. Would you introduce yourself to us and if you have a presentation to make provide us with the benefit of your presentation please. Bunch: Yes Sir. My name is Mandy Bunch. I am the engineer representing the Country Club this evening. I think Shelli covered just about everything that I could possibly present on this project. It is basically a remodeling of space, a very small dining room addition, an outdoor dining room addition, existing pool house to be removed and rebuilt. Right now we are even considering a possible alternative to taking out the pool, which will minimize the work actually occurring on site. The parking is adequate for all the uses. The Country Club has been there for quite a few years and we understand it is the policy of the Planning Department to require the Conditional Use when any additions are made. That is why we are here this evening. There are basically no changes whatsoever to the use of the property and it has been used that way for several years. I am here for any questions. There are also representatives of the Country Club here and the architect. Estes: Ward: Thank you Mandy. Is there any member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this requested Conditional Use? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the full Commission for questions of the applicant, motions and discussions. Commissioners? The old Country Club is sure needing some remodeling. The few times I have been up there the swimming pool and even the dining room and stuff is really kind of getting old and needs to be remodeled. This looks like it would be a great addition to that Country Club up there so I will go ahead and make a motion that we approve CUP 02-24.00 for the Fayetteville Country Club. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward to approve CUP 02-24.00, is there a second? Aviles: I will be happy to second that. Estes: We have a second. Is there any discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 02-24.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-1 with Commissioner Hoover abstaining. Planning Commission November 12, 2002 Page 12 RZN 02-18.00: Rezoning (Mill District Neighborhood, pp 522/523) was submitted by the City of Fayetteville Planning Division on behalf of the Mill District Neighborhood Association for property located south of Center Street, between University Avenue and Gregg Avenue to include 28 University Ave., 42 University Ave., 50 University Ave., and 102 University Ave. and 227 and 303 Gregg Ave. Approximately .19 acres is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and approximately 3 acres is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial, totaling 3.19 acres. The request is to rezone to R -O, Residential Office. Aviles: The final item on our agenda is seven rezonings. These are for the Mill District Neighborhood and this was I think a joint neighborhood and city effort. Shelli Rushing has put in considerable work on this matter and will be giving us a short presentation on the seven rezonings. We will be hearing those items individually and voting individually on those not as a group and will be taking public comment for each so bear with us. We will go ahead and get started with our presentation. Shelli, are you ready? Rushing: Yes Ma'am. I fust want to give you a little bit of background regarding this study. This was done as an effort to implement General Plan 2020. We have a policy in that plan that states "Identify and rezone inappropriately zoned Industrial areas to more appropriate uses." The Mill District neighborhood was selected due to some inconsistencies between the zoning ordinance and the existing land uses. We began this project in March, 2002. At that time we held a number of neighborhood meetings. We met with the residents to determine whether or not they wanted to move forward with this project. They also assisted us with conducting an existing land use survey. We also mailed a survey of some of the proposals that we had to get some feedback on that. At this time we are proposing seven areas for rezoning. What I would like to do is as we come to each one I will give you a little bit of background information on that just so that we can look at them individually. Aviles: The first rezoning is 02-18.00, it was submitted by the City of Fayetteville Planning Division on behalf of the Mill District Neighborhood for property located south of Center Street between University Avenue and Gregg to include 28 University Avenue, 42 University Avenue, 50 University Avenue, and 102 University Avenue and 227 and 303 Gregg. Approximately 0.19 acres is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and approximately three acres is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial totaling 3.19 acres. The request is to rezone to R -O, Residential Office. Rushing: Ok, this area again is south of Center between the University and Gregg. You mentioned the properties that it does include, I do want to point out the properties that it does not include. It doesn't include 32 and 38 University, 110 University and 37 Gregg. Part of that reasoning was either they were already zoned to what they should be or what they were being used as or the property owners were not interested in being rezoned. The area that is proposed for rezoning is used primarily as residential. The surrounding zoning is R-2 to the Planning Commission November 12, 2002 Page 13 east and west, C-1 and R-3 to the north and R-1 to the south. The neighborhood has expressed support of this particular request. Aviles: Thank you very much Shelli. Is there any member of the public that would wish to address on this particular rezoning? Seeing none, I will go ahead and bring this to the Commission for motions or discussion. Estes: This rezoning request has been researched extensively by staff and I thank Ms. Rushing for her work in addition to the other items. It is supported by the neighborhood and it is for those reasons that I would recommend and move that we approve RZN 02-18.00 and forward it to the City Council for their consideration. Aviles: Thank you Commissioner Estes. I have a motion, do I hear a second? Bunch: Second. Aviles: There is a second by Commissioner Bunch. Is there additional discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve RZN 02-18.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Aviles: Thank you. The motion carries unanimously. Planning Commission November 12, 2002 Page 14 RZN 02-19.00: Rezoning (Mill District Neighborhood, pp 522/523) was submitted by the City of Fayetteville Planning Division on behalf of the Mill District Neighborhood Association for property located between Center Street and Prairie Street, between Gregg Avenue and West Avenue to include 304 Gregg and part of 308 Gregg and 301 and 303 West Ave. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial and contains approximately 5.61 acres. The request is to rezone to R -O, Residential Office. Aviles: Our second rezoning is RZN 02-19.00 submitted by the City of Fayetteville Planning Division on behalf of the Mill District Neighborhood for property located between Center Street and Prairie Street, between Gregg Avenue and West Avenue to include 304 Gregg and part of 308 Gregg and 301 and 303 West Ave. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial and contains approximately 5.61 acres. The request is to rezone to R -O, Residential Office. Shelli? Rushing: This area is mostly vacant. There are a few single-family uses within this area. The surrounding zoning is R -O to the east, Low Density Residential and Medium Density to the west. The area to the north is being proposed for C-3, it is currently zoned I-1. The neighborhood is in support of this request. I do want to point out that we did receive a letter today in regard to 308 Gregg and the property owner has just recently purchased this property and what we are doing is proposing half of the property to be rezoned to R -O and the rest of the property is proposed for R-1 and the request was to go ahead and include the rest of 308. I believe at this time you would be able to include that property if you wanted to. We did not notify on that particular property but, and Kit may be able to let us know if there is any difference, but I think you would be able to include that property since there has been plenty of notification in that neighborhood. Aviles: Could you give us your opinion on that Mr. Williams? Williams: I don't think there would be any problem with the owner requesting this. I think you can certainly recommend to the City Council what the owner has requested. Aviles: Ok, thank you very much. Shelli, do you have anything else on this particular item? Rushing: That is all that I have. PUBLIC COMMENT: Aviles: Thank you. I will take public comment now. Madison: I am Sue Madison and my husband Bernie Madison is with me. We purchased this property a little less than a month ago. Prior to purchasing it I did visit the Planning Office because I was aware of the changes being proposed and I was told that the possibilities were R -O and R-2. I asked to be notified of all Planning Commission November 12, 2002 Page 15 meetings but the first notification I got was when the previous owner who lives out of county sent me the notice of this meeting and I promptly visited the Planning Office again last Thursday. We own lots 3 and 4. When I first visited the Planning Office I came to understand that both of these lots have a width of 50' and the minimum for both R -O and R-2 is 60' so I was glad we were buying two lots. Then I discovered that it sort of looks like spot zoning almost. Lot 3 that has a rental dwelling on it is proposed to remain R-1 and lot 4 is proposed to rezone to R -O and I would just like to respectfully request that you consider rezoning them both so they will be the same since in all probability they will have to be combined for any possible uses. Estes: Senator Madison, I have a question. You purchased 308 Gregg, is that correct? Madison: Yes. Estes: What is the adjoining lot, is it 306 or 310? Madison: It doesn't have a house number, it is vacant. It is lots 3 and 4. I think the city owns 5 and 6 on the corner. Aviles: Shelli, was this just an attempt to match what was in place? Rushing: There are two lots here. Lot 3 was already zoned residential. The goal of this project was to get things zoned to what they were being used as. This other lot was still I-1 so that is why it was included in the proposal. Staff has no concerns with rezoning the rest of 308. Aviles: Thank you very much. Do you all have any further questions or comments at this time? Madison: Not unless you do. Aviles: Thank you. Is there any other member of the audience that would wish to address us on this particular rezoning? Seeing no one, I will go ahead and bring it to the Commission for further discussion and motions. Hoover: I have a comment. I think that the R -O zoning in this area is totally appropriate but unfortunately our setbacks in R -O aren't really conducive to small lots so I am hoping maybe staff can take a look at that and how we can form those setbacks so that they better fit our downtown area. Conklin: That is something that we have talked with DDEP about the past few years. It is one of those work program items that we just have to get to. The first priority was to identify these industrially zoned areas that are being used as residential and get them rezoned or down zoned to a more residential use. That is something that we are looking at in our downtown area to reflect our historic subdivisions and lot sizes. Thank you. Planning Commission November 12, 2002 Page 16 Aviles: Commissioner Hoover, that is a good point. Tim, I would like to add something to that. Would our proposed PZD Ordinance take care of some of these issues as it goes forward? Conklin: The PZD ordinance would take care of a lot of these issues because we will be drafting individual ordinances for those rezonings establishing minimum lot area and lot width. However, in large areas I do think that we need to take an overall look and try to determine what is the appropriate minimum lot area and lot width sizes. It would take a whole ordinance to rezone a large area. A brand new ordinance to rezone a larger area. It is something that we are aware of. Once again, working with DDEP and the property owners in these areas. It is something that has been brought to our attention and the Commission is aware of it also. Aviles: Thank you very much Tim. Commissioners, is there any other discussion or motions? MOTION: Estes: For the reasons stated in my previous motion I would move that we recommend approval of RZN 02-19.00 to the City Council for their consideration and that lots 3 and 4 of the Gollaher Addition be included in that rezoning to R -O, Residential Office. Aviles: Thank you Commissioner Estes. I have a motion for an R -O zoning in its totality, do I have a second? Ostner: Second. Aviles: I have a second by Commissioner Ostner. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 02- 19.00 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Aviles: Thank you. The motion carries unanimously with a vote of eight. Thank you very much. Planning Commission November 12, 2002 Page 17 RZN 02-20.00: Rezoning (Mill District Neighborhood, pp 522/523) was submitted by the City of Fayetteville Planning Division on behalf of the Mill District Neighborhood Association for property located at 545 Center Street. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial and contains approximately .49 acres. The request is to rezone to C-3, Central Commercial. Aviles: Next on our agenda is RZN 02-20.00. It was submitted by the City of Fayetteville Planning Division on behalf of the Mill District Neighborhood Association for property located at 545 Center Street. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial and contains approximately .49 acres. The request is to rezone to C-3, Central Commercial. Shelli? Rushing: This property is located on the southeast corner of Center and Gregg. Right now it is an auto body shop. The property is surrounded by R -O and R-3 zoning. The area to the south was proposed and was just recommended for approval at City Council for the R -O zoning. The neighborhood is in support of this request. I do want to point out that we have had a call from the property owner that is concerned about the existing auto body shop being able to continue under the C-3 zoning. We have informed him that yes they would be able to continue as they are. If they propose any expansions, at that time they would need to come forward for a conditional use. Aviles: Ok, thank you Shelli. Is there any member of the audience that would like to comment on this? Bordeaux: My name is Tom Bordeaux. I am the owner of that lot, along with my partner. I just wanted to say that we felt that C-3 would be a good compromise zoning with the type of building that we have there which is a garage probably built in about 1917. The size of the lot is small and it is soon to be smaller because we are giving a sliver of land to the city for the bike path continuation along the western side of that property. The building's position on Center Street, which is a fairly busy street across from the bike path there, we just felt that because of the type of building we have there, the potential future use of the building, the present use of the building, and the location of the building on the lot, C-3 is really the best compromise zoning that we could come up with. I-1 is obviously not appropriate for that neighborhood. I just wanted to make those points. Aviles: Thank you very much. Is there any other member of the audience that would like to address us on this rezoning? Ok, seeing none, I will go ahead and ask Commissioners for motions or discussions. Planning Commission November 12, 2002 Page 18 MOTION: Estes: For the reasons previously stated I would move for approval of RZN 02-20.00 that it be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. Aviles: Thank you. I have a motion by Commissioner Estes, do I have a second? Church: I will second it. Aviles: There is a second by Commissioner Church. I have a question for Shelli. On the C-3, what was the reason not to go with R -O on this particular one? I know we have an existing commercial building could you enlighten us a little bit on that? Rushing: My understanding is that because of the existing commercial use that the property owner wanted to go to a Commercial zoning district as opposed to a Residential. That is my understanding when we originally talked to the property owner about this rezoning. Aviles: Thank you. That would be consistent with the other uses in the area with regard to the commercial uses? Rushing: Yes Ma'am. Aviles: Ok, I just wanted to make that clear. Thank you very much. Bunch: If this is rezoned at this point at time to C-3 that would be a non -conforming use for the auto body shop, would it be appropriate to do a Conditional Use at this time or should we wait until later to include Use Unit 17, which is Buildings and Trades, which would accommodate what is currently the use of the property? Conklin: I would prefer to leave it as a non -conforming use and if they change what they are doing out there to expand the business to look at it on a case by case basis, since we don't know exactly if the building is going to be sold and if the use is going to remain. I think it would be premature to approve a Conditional Use for that at this time. Aviles: Thank you Tim. Is there any further discussion on this item? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve RZN 02-20.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Aviles: Thanks Renee. The motion carries unanimously. Planning Commission November 12, 2002 Page 19 RZN 02-29.00: Rezoning (Mill District Neighborhood, PP 522/523) was submitted by the City of Fayetteville Planning Division on behalf of the Mill District Neighborhood Association for property located at 32 and 38 University Ave. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial and contains approximately .37 acres. The request is to rezone to R-1, Low Density Residential. Aviles: RZN 02-29.00 was submitted by the City of Fayetteville Planning Division on behalf of the Mill District Neighborhood Association for property located at 32 and 38 University Ave. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial and contains approximately .37 acres. The request is to rezone to R-1, Low Density Residential. Shelli? Rushing: This property is located south of Center Street. It is on the east side of University. There are two lots here. There is a single-family structure on each individual lot. There is C-1 to the north, I-1 to the east and south, and R-3 to the west. The surrounding area was proposed to be rezoned to R -O, which was just recommended for approval to City Council. The neighborhood is in support of this request and I do just want to point out that these individual property owners wanted to ensure that their property remained single-family, which is why they are requesting the R-1 zoning as opposed to the Residential Office. Aviles: Thank you Shelli. Is there any member of the public that would like to discuss this tonight? Seeing none, I will go ahead and bring discussion back to the Commission for motions and further discussion. MOTION: Estes: For the reasons previously stated, I would move approval of RZN 02-29.00 that it be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. Aviles: Thank you Commissioner Estes. Do I have a second? Bunch: Second. Aviles: Thank you Commissioner Bunch for the second. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 02- 29.00 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Aviles: Thank you Renee. The motion carries unanimously. Planning Commission November 12, 2002 Page 20 RZN 02-30.00: Rezoning (Mill District Neighborhood, PP 522/523) was submitted by the City of Fayetteville Planning Division on behalf of the Mill District Neighborhood Association for property located at 37 Gregg Ave. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial and contains approximately .67 acres. The request is to rezone to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Aviles: Next is RZN 02-30.00, which was submitted by the City of Fayetteville Planning Division on behalf of the Mill District Neighborhood Association for property located at 37 Gregg Ave. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial and contains approximately .67 acres. The request is to rezone to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Shelli? Rushing: This property is located south of Center Street. It is on the west side of Gregg. Right now there is an existing single-family structure. The applicant, the property owner is potentially considering building duplexes at that location. Right now that property is surrounded by R-2 to the north and R-3 to the south. The neighborhood odes support this request as does staff. Aviles: Thank you very much Shelli. Is there any member of the audience that would like to address us on this matter? Seeing none, I will go ahead and bring discussion or motions back to the Planning Commission. MOTION: Estes: For the reasons I previously stated, I would move for approval of RZN 02-30.00 that it be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. Aviles: Thank you Commissioner Estes. Do I hear a second? Ostner: Second. Aviles: Thank you very much. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 02- 30.00 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Aviles: Thanks Renee. The motion carries unanimously. Planning Commission November 12, 2002 Page 21 RZN 02-31: Rezoning (Mill District Neighborhood, PP 522/523) was submitted by the City of Fayetteville Planning Division on behalf of the Mill District Neighborhood Association for property located at 316 and 320 Gregg Ave and 510 and 512 Prairie St. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial and contains approximately 1.08 acres. The request is to rezone to R -O Residential Office. Aviles: RZN 02-31.00 was submitted by the City of Fayetteville Planning Division on behalf of the Mill District Neighborhood Association for property located at 316 and 320 Gregg Ave and 510 and 512 Prairie St. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial and contains approximately 1.08 acres. The request is to rezone to R -O Residential Office. Shelli? Rushing: This property is located on the northeast corner of Prairie and Gregg. Right now the properties are used as single-family uses. The properties to the south and west are zoned and used as industrial. The property to the north was proposed for Residential Office. The owners of the adjacent industrial uses have expressed some concern about the Residential Office zoning designation due to the potential impact of their required setbacks. An Industrial District near a Residential District, those were expressed at some of the neighborhood meetings that we did have and we do not have consensus from the neighborhood in regard to this particular request. However, staff is in support. Aviles: Thank you very much SheIli. Is there anyone from the audience who would like to address us on this rezoning? I will go ahead and bring it back to the Commission for further discussion, questions or motions. I will go ahead and throw my two cents worth in. I weighed in at agenda session but could you elaborate Shelli a little more on the impact of the setbacks regarding the adjacent industrial zoned property if this is zoned to Residential Office? Rushing: Right now with the Industrially zoned properties that are to the south of this property their existing setbacks apply. In our I-1 zoning district we have an additional setback if they are located adjacent to any type of residential zoning district and I believe Tim is looking up the setbacks. Conklin: Sure. From the street right of way when adjoining a Residential District it is 50'. From a street right of way when it is adjoining an Industrial District it is 25'. Pretty much I think you are going to just have the front but the sides go from 50' adjacent to a Residential to 10' adjacent to Industrial. Once again, the purpose of this project is to look at how land is being used currently and trying to find a zoning district that more reflects how it is being used. We do have some residential uses in these areas across the street, which will still remain Industrial. The one comment that I would like to make is that you still may need the additional setbacks and buffers if we downzone it and reflect how the land currently is being used. Aviles: Thanks Tim. My question is do we have the right to by a rezoning negatively impact an adjacent property that is not currently slated for development or Planning Commission November 12, 2002 Page 22 redevelopment and when I asked an earlier question about the proposed PZD ordinance, again, I would like to ask if that is an ordinance that might be employed in a situation like this to ameliorate the negative setbacks if the property is redeveloped and comes forward for Industrial uses. Would that be taken into account by staff assuming that we had a totally new set of faces, a different Planning Commission, different staff. If we have this other ordinance would that help these property owners with the setback? Conklin: With the PZD ordinance that is on the City Council agenda, the purpose of that ordinance was to look at each project on a case by case basis and determine how best to plan that development along with the rezoning. Yes, it could be utilized across the street and the Planning Commission and the City Council could look at that to how to make that development work adjacent to a residential neighborhood I think there is always opportunity and that is the purpose, one of the reasons why we are taking this PZD ordinance forward is because over the last couple of years we have seen developers come in and make promises through the use of a Bill of Assurance of how to mitigate a project so it is acceptable to a neighborhood. The PZD ordinance will create a law that will be enforceable by the city and allow city staff and the Planning Commission to work with the developer to determine how best to mitigate a project to make it the best project to fit in with the neighborhood and for the City of Fayetteville. The PZD ordinance keeps on coming up as an ordinance that can really help us. I think it really can help us because the past two years we have seen over and over again the use of a Bill of Assurance to help mitigate projects to make them acceptable in this community and I think there is a positive that is going to come out from that ordinance. Thanks. Aviles: Thank you very much Tim. Commissioners, are there any other questions? Bunch: We keep saying across the street, are we talking about across Gregg or across Prairie? Rushing: Across both. Bunch: One of these lots on Prairie looks like it might be a 50' lot and a 50' setback would kind of take in the whole lot. Conklin: In the downtown area we work with all development from the Three Sisters project to the Bakery Building project to Mr. Canfield's project on West Street. It is a unique area, our downtown area, it is not a Greenfield development. You are always going to have to work with the property owners and how the parcels are configured to make it work. I guess what I am trying to say is that there are always going to be cases. I think even if we go back and redraft an ordinance specifically for downtown we are not going to be able to catch every unique situation. These areas are part of the original town plat platted back in 1871 and it is unique down here and I think it is going to take probably some variances and some different approvals. It brought back a memory during one of our Planning Commission November 12, 2002 Page 23 working sessions with the neighborhood, we did talk about redrafting the regulations to try to make it closely fit with the minimum lot area sizes and that area. A lot of the neighbors came back and said "We would like to see the red public hearing signs posted on the property and the opportunity to have a public hearing when we have additional development and infill in these areas." They didn't want staff to go down that road and redraft regulations to try to catch some of those minimum lot area and frontage size things. That is kind of interesting that the neighborhood itself preferred different types of public hearings through the Board of Adjustment and Planning Commission. Aviles: Thank you Tim. Commissioners, are there any further questions or motions? MOTION: Aviles: I will go ahead and make a motion for approval of RZN 02-31.00, the request is to rezone to R -O. My motion is to recommend R -O to City Council is there a second? Hoover: Second. Aviles: I have a motion and a second by Commissioner Hoover. Is there any further discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 02- 31.00 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 7-1-0 with Commissioner Estes voting no. Aviles: Thank you Renee. The motion carries on a vote of seven yes and one no. Planning Commission November 12, 2002 Page 24 RZN 02-32.00: Rezoning (Mill District Neighborhood, PP 522/523) was submitted by the City of Fayetteville Planning Division on behalf of the Mill District Neighborhood Association for property located at 208 Gregg. The property is zoned R-1 Low Density Residential and contains approximately .25 acres. The request is to rezone to R -O Residential Office. Aviles: Our final rezoning this evening is RZN 02-32.00, it was submitted by the City of Fayetteville Planning Division on behalf of the Mill District Neighborhood Association for property located at 208 Gregg. The property is zoned R-1 Low Density Residential and contains approximately .25 acres. The request is to rezone to R -O Residential Office. Shelli? Rushing: This property is located just north of the rezoning that we just had. Right now it is zoned R-1, Low Density and the property owner has requested to rezone it to R -O, Residential Office for consistency with the property to the south that was also proposed for R -O. It is currently used as single-family. The properties to the north, south, and east are used as single-family residential but are currently zoned Industrial. As I mentioned the property to south was proposed for the residential office. At this point the neighborhood had not indicated a yes or no in regard to this request. However, staff is in support of this request. Aviles: Thank you Shelli. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address us on this particular rezoning? Seeing no one, I will go ahead and bring discussion or motions to the Planning Commission. Ward: I would like to commend the staff for all this hard work on doing this rezoning. I personally, if I would've owned that land in there, I probably would not have agreed to have it rezoned from I-1 to R -O or R-1 or whatnot. I think it takes away a lot of the value at times. Although, at this point anyone can see that some of the single-family homes in there should be zoned R-1. I am not sure that I personally would've been willing to sacrifice an I-1 zoning for an R -O or R-1. I think as a matter of record, I think that there is kind of a consensus among most of us that any future development down here, I think that future Planning Commissions or Aldermen and City Council should look at this as people are giving up quite a bit to do this that variances will be given without a lot of fight if good projects come up that need to be put in there. It is hard to say how this area is really going to develop in the next 25 years. We do have a lot of problems with very small lots and so on and R -O really doesn't fit a lot of this area I don't think. I don't see that there is much difference between changing it to R -O really. That is just my take on it. I have been voting for all of it but it is not like it is an easy vote. Aviles: Thanks Commissioner Ward. Commissioners, is there any further discussion or motions? Estes: This is a proposal to rezone from R-1 to R -O and it is the property owner that has requested this rezoning and of course staff is in support of this request. Is one reason it is before us this evening and it is for those reasons that I would Planning Commission November 12, 2002 Page 25 move that we approve RZN 02-32.00 and forward it to the City Council for their consideration. Aviles: I have a motion, do I have a second? Hoover: I will second. Aviles: I have a second by Commissioner Hoover. Is there additional discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 02- 32.00 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Aviles: That concludes the regular agenda for this evening. Meeting adjourned: 6:30 p.m.