Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-09-12 - Agendas - FinalPlanning Commission Officers Matthew Cabe, Chair Porter Winston, Vice -Chair Sarah Bunch, Secretary aye evtlle ARKANSAS Tentative Agenda City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Planning Commission Meeting September 12, 2011 Planning Commissioners Chris Griffin William Chesser Kyle Cook Hugh Earnest Craig Honchell Tracy Hoskins A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission will be held on September 12, 2011 at 5:30 PM in Room 219 of the City Administration Building located at 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Call to Order Roll Call Consent: 1. Approval of the minutes from the August 22, 2011 meeting. Old Business: 2. CUP 11-3811: Conditional Use Permit (339 WEST AVENUE/ROCK BOTTOM, 484): Submitted by ZAC WOODEN for property located at 339 N. WEST AVENUE. The property is zoned MSC, MAIN STREET CENTER and contains approximately 0.75 acres. The request is for off-site parking as nine on-site parking spaces are proposed to be utilized during temporary events. Planner: Andrew Garner 3. RZN 11-3892: Rezone (FAYETTE JUNCTION MASTER PLAN, 599): Submitted by THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING DIVISION for property located WITHIN THE FAYETTE JUNCTION MASTER PLAN AREA. The properties are zoned RMF -24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY, 24 DU/ACRE; C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL; C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL; and I-1, HEAVY COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. The request is to rezone select properties within the Fayette Junction Master Plan area to NS, NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES; CS, COMMUNITY SERVICES; UT, URBAN THOROUGHFARE; P-1, INSTITUTIONAL; AND I-1, HEAVY COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. Planner: Dara Sanders New Business: 4. ADM 11-3948: Variance (INTERSECTION OF MT. COMFORT & OAKLAND AVE./OAKLAND COURTS, 405): Submitted by COMMUNITY BY DESIGN for property located at the intersection of MOUNT COMFORT ROAD AND OAKLAND AVENUE. The property is zoned CS, COMMUNITY SERVICES and contains approximately 1.75 acres. The request is for variances from Unified Development Code Chapters 166, Development, Chapter 170, Stormwater Management, Drainage, and Erosion Control, Chapter 172, Parking and Loading, and Chapter 177, Landscaping. Planner: Dara Sanders 5. ADM 11-3949: Variance (241 WEST DICKSON STREET/DICKSON STREET LIQUOR, 484): Submitted by ALBERT SKILES for property located at the southeast corner of DICKSON STREET AND LOCUST STREET. The property is zoned MSC, MAIN STREET/CENTER and contains approximately 0.22 acre. The request is for a variance from Chapter 172.08, Nonconforming Parking Lots, to bring only a portion of the existing nonconforming parking lot into compliance with the parking lot landscaping requirements. Planner: Dara Sanders 6. CUP 11-3917: Conditional Use Permit (2783 MT. COMFORT RD./FELLOWSHIP OF THE HILLS, 363): Submitted by BRIAN BROWN for property located at 2783 MT. COMFORT ROAD. The property is zoned P-1, INSTITUTIONAL and contains approximately 2.19 acres. The request is to utilize a temporary construction trailer, Use Unit 2, for Sunday school rooms. Planner: Andrew Garner 7. CUP 11-3918: Conditional Use Permit (510 W. 11TH ST. & 989 S. SCHOOL AVE./BARTHOLOMEW (SALE BARN), 562): Submitted by MORRISON SHIPLEY ENGINEERS, INC. for property located at 510 WEST 11TH STREET AND 989 SOUTH SCHOOL AVENUE. The property is zoned CS, COMMUNITY SERVICES and contains approximately 10.95 acres. The request is to utilize a trailer as a temporary leasing office, Use Unit 2, for an apartment complex. Planner: Jesse Fulcher 8. CUP 11-3921: Conditional Use Permit (401 W. WATSON ST., SUITE 203./LEGACY BLUES, 484): Submitted by JAMES LEFLER for property located at 401 WEST WATSON STREET, SUITE 203, LEGACY BUILDING. The property is zoned MSC, MAIN STREET CENTER and contains approximately 0.44 acres. The request is for Use Unit 29 (Dance Hall). Planner: Andrew Garner 9. RZN 11-3916: Rezone (SW CORNER OF SALEM RD. & WEIR RD./TTO, LLC, 245): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES for property located at the SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SALEM ROAD AND WEIR ROAD. The property is zoned R-PZD, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT (06-2281 HOLCOMB HEIGHTS I AND 07-2613 HOLCOMB HEIGHTS II) and contains approximately 19.24 acres. The request is to rezone the property to RSF-8, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY, 8 UNITS PER ACRE. Planner: Jesse Fulcher 10. ADM 11-3782: Administrative Item (UDC CH. 164: SUPPLEMENTARY DISTRICT REGULATIONS — COTTAGE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT): Submitted by THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING DIVISION. The request is to amend Chapter 164 of the Unified Development Code (UDC) to permit cottage housing development. Planner: Leif Olson 11. ADM 11-3932 Administrative Item (AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 178: Outdoor Vendors) Submitted by THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING DIVISION to clarify Sidewalk Vendor requirements and to add hood vent requirements for Outdoor Mobile Vendors that serve food. Planner: Leif Olson The following item has been approved administratively by City staff: LSP 11-3929: Lot Split (INTERSECTION OF W. WEDINGTON DR. & N. SALEM RD./FOREST HILLS, LOT 6, 440): Submitted by MORRISON SHIPLEY ENGINEERS, INC. for property located at the intersection of WEST WEDINGTON DRIVE AND NORTH SALEM ROAD. The property is zoned R-PZD, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT and contains approximately 24.31 acres. The request is to divide the property into two tracts of approximately 9.99 and 14.31 acres. Planner: Jesse Fulcher NOTICE TO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE All interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearings. If you wish to address the Planning Commission on an agenda item please queue behind the podium when the Chair asks for public comment Once the Chair recognizes you, go to the podium and give your name and address. Address your comments to the Chair, who is the presiding officer. The Chair will direct your comments to the appropriate appointed official, staff or others for response. Please keep your comments brief to the point, and relevant to the agenda item being considered so that everyone has a chance to speak. Interpreters or TDD, Telecommunication Device for the Deaf are available for all public hearings; 72 hour notice is required. For further information or to request an interpreter, please call 575-8330. As a courtesy please turn off all cell phones and pagers. A copy of the Planning Commission agenda and other pertinent data are open and available for inspection in the office of City Planning (575-8267), 125 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. All interested parties are invited to review the petitions. Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 1 of 16 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on August 22, 2011 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219, City Administration Building in Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN Consent: MINUTES: August 8, 2011 Page 3 Approved ADM 11-3926: Administrative Item (465 S. LOCUST AVE./SYCAMORE LOFTS, 523) Page 3 Approved Old Business: RZN 11-3866: Rezone (2013 E. MISSION BLVD./RUSKIN HEIGHTS, 370/371) Page 4 Forwarded New Business: 11-3896: Conditional Use Permit (4618 N. COLLEGE AVE./ARK HELICOPTERS, 096) Page 5 Denied CUP 11-3897: Conditional Use Permit (1236 S. SCHOOL AVE./KISOR, 562) Page 6 Approved CUP 11-3900: Conditional Use Permit (313 N. ROLLSTON AVE./TAVERN BAR & GRILL, 484) Page 7 Approved RZN 11-3901: Rezone (811 & 833 S. BEECHWOOD AVE./LOVE BOX, 559) Page a Forwarded RZN 11-3892: Rezone (FAYETTE JUNCTION MASTER PLAN, 599) Page 9 Tabled MEMBERS PRESENT Craig Honchell Sarah Bunch William Chesser Hugh Earnest Tracy Hoskins Chris Griffin Porter Winston Matthew Cabe Kyle Cook MEMBERS ABSENT September 12, 2011 Planning Commission PC Minutes 8-22-11 Agenda Item 1 Page 1 of 16 Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 2 of 16 STAFF PRESENT Andrew Garner Jeremy Pate Dara Sanders CITY ATTORNEY Kit Williams, City Attorney 5:30 PM- Planning Commission Chair Matthew Cabe called the meeting to order. Commissioner Cabe requested all cell phones to be turned off and informed the audience that listening devices were available. Upon roll call all members were present. September 12, 2011 Planning Commission PC Minutes 8-22-11 Agenda Item 1 Page 2 of 16 Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 3 of 16 Consent: Approval of the minutes from the August 8, 2011 meeting. ADM 11-3926: Administrative Item (465 S. LOCUST AVE./SYCAMORE LOFTS, 523): Submitted by JACOBS & NEWELL for property located at 465 S. LOCUST AVE. The property is zoned MAIN STREET CENTER and contains approximately 0.63 acres. The request is for a greenspace variance to permit a lot split of the developed property. Motion: Commissioner Winston made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Cook seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. September 12, 2011 Planning Commission PC Minutes 8-22-11 Agenda Item 1 Page 3 of 16 Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 4 of 16 Old Business: RZN 11-3866: Rezone (2013 E. MISSION BLVD./RUSKIN HEIGHTS, 370/371): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES for property located at 2013 EAST MISSION BOULEVARD. The property is zoned R-PZD, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT and contains approximately 28.93 acres. The request is to rezone the property to CS, COMMUNITY SERVICES; NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION; AND RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY, 4 UNITS/ACRE, subject to a Bill of Assurance. Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, gave the staff report. Justin Jorgensen, applicant, discussed reasons for tabling this item at the previous three meetings. He presented a signed Bill of Assurance to the Planning Commission and reviewed the Bill of Assurance in detail. Public Comment: JoAnne Kvamme, thanked the developers for meeting with the neighbors and stated that the developer has been listening to the neighbors. She read a comment from the Fayetteville Natural Heritage Commission discussing the value of hilltops and west facing drainages. The comment she read discussed that this wooded area is attractive to the general public. The property to the east, offsite, has had erosion and invasive species. She discussed erosion problems on the site. Please consider impacts to downslope neighbors. Will this Bill of Assurance be binding and enforceable to future land owners? Kit Williams, City Attorney, discussed the legal requirements of a Bill of Assurance and confirmed that the Bill of Assurance will affect future landowners. He discussed the Bill of Assurance' s relation to the zoning of the land and that the Bill of Assurance may be changed or removed only by City Council approval. Normally Bills of Assurances are never changed unless the zoning changes. He also stated that zoning is never locked in place forever and that it could change over time. Fred Sherman, 2134 E. Camelot, directly adjacent to the property. He discussed that they have discussed the zoning with Mitchell Massey and Jorgensen and Associates and stated that he thinks the zoning is adequate and that the developer has been willing to make some compromises. He discussed that when Ruskin Heights went through the first time the City Council changed the project substantially. He discussed the hillside ordinances and an inadequate parking situation for the Ruskin Heights development. He would like to see all parking off-street. He discussed impacts in winter weather. The historic grade is extremely important including the height limitation. We want to see engineered foundations. If you can pass this ordinance and tie it to the hillside ordinance I don't think we will have very many problems. Malcolm Cleveland, University of Arkansas professor, Bachelor and Masters in Forestry, PhD in Geosciences and work in watershed management. He walked the property. He described steep slopes on the property and that the City' s slope ordinance is not adequate for this property. Sometimes the ordinance is not enforced. He discussed density on steep slopes. Erosion has occurred and will get work when construction proceeds. There will be a lot of impermeable surfaces. The small area for runoff will be inadequate. It will take some really good hydrodynamic engineering to solve the problem but that will not occur. Traffic, a left turn off of Greenview is hazardous. Traffic will get worse with this project. The intersection at Crossover is already congested at times. The City has never hired a competent traffic engineer. Tamara Bishop, 1825 N. Cambridge, had questions about the Bill of Assurance. Are they similar to covenants? September 12, 2011 Planning Commission PC Minutes 8-22-11 Agenda Item 1 Page 4 of 16 Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 5 of 16 Kit Williams, responded that, no, they are not similar to covenants. He described the differences between a Bill of Assurance and covenants. Covenants are a private agreement. A Bill of Assurance is an agreement offered to the City Council or Planning Commission. He discussed that a Bill of Assurance is enforceable and the injunctive relief is possible. A Bill of Assurance is much stronger than a restrictive covenant and a Bill of Assurance is what the City will enforce. Tamara Bishop, asked about amending the Bill of Assurance. Kit Williams described how a Bill of Assurance can be modified only by the City Council. Tamara Bishop, thanked the developer and engineers have been very gracious in meeting with us and they seem very open to hearing our concerns. It sounds like they are accommodating our concerns. As a neighbor I understand that if you own property you have a right to use it and don't want to impede their responsible development of their property. This Bill of Assurance is a great way to address problems with developing this site. She discussed evaluation of the City' s ordinance to ensure good development. Mike Wiggleston, 2146 E. Camelot, he agreed with what Tamara said. Let's don't come here every month to grant developer variances to accommodate a developer. I'm a citizen of Fayetteville and if anyone deserves to be accommodated it's me. Don Conner, 1686 E. Shadow Ridge, directly adjacent to the property. I appreciate the developer's having worked with us; it's a nice welcome change. We've all learned more about the form -based development and we're a lot more comfortable with the density. He stated that he would like to see no money taken in lieu of trees. What is the status of the Fayetteville municipal improvement district #29 that was part of Ruskin Heights, where they sold bonds to build infrastructure? Is it still attached to this development? Commissioner Cabe stated that the improvement district is not a part or related to this rezoning. Kit Williams responded that you could go to the court and see who set up that district and who are the commissioners of that district. As the chairman commissioner indicated this is not something to be considered with this rezoning. Don Conner asked if future residents would have to pay into that district. Would this be a hidden cost? Kit Williams described the process for establishing an improvement district and discussed that the City doesn't get involved and the City Council has no authority one way or another on these improvement districts. It has not bearing on the rezoning of this property. Gale O'Donnell, 1960 N. Greenview Drive, am I right that no economic decisions can be considered regarding the rezoning of this property? Kit Williams discussed that the highest and best use of the property can be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council for a rezoning. There are many other considerations, primarily compatibility is the number one consideration, but you can consider the highest and best use of the property which would be an economic consideration. Gale O'Donnell, what does highest and best use mean? Kit Williams answered that the owner of the property could refer to the highest and best use of the property September 12, 2011 Planning Commission PC Minutes 8-22-11 Agenda Item 1 Page 5 of 16 Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 6 of 16 which could mean highest dollar value, or some other reason, that the owner would like to argue. Gale O'Donnell, what does compatibility mean? Kit Williams discussed compatibility in terms of adjacent and nearby neighbors that will not degrade or diminish the property. That does not mean that property cannot be developed. Gale O'Donnell asked about the economic interests of the Planning Commission related to this development or bank of this property. Kit Williams, discussed conflict of interest rules and that if any one had a direct financial interest they would recuse. He discussed various reasons why a commissioner would recuse or be required to recuse. Gale O'Donnell stated that comparison of future zoning to the defunct Ruskin Heights property should not be made. The previous development damaged the property because of so many variances. Please consider the hillside, trees, and highest and best use. Cathy Wait, 1775 Cambridge, thanked the developer and engineers for all of the time they took in listening to us, we are most appreciative. They did take our comments into consideration as obviously shown in the Bill of Assurance that was changed. People are concerned with height and the views that they have currently and they are concerned about their property value being diminished by a taller structure impeding their view. Is their something in the code that restricts height? Kit Williams discussed that if someone built a house next to yours; even if it was taller than yours if it was allowed under the zoning it would be permitted. Garner discussed that the maximum height for single family homes in the proposed zoning is 45 feet in height and 4 stories or 56 feet in height for multi -family or non-residential in the Community Services zoning. Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director, explained how height is measured to make sure it meets the requirement. Cathy Wait discussed traffic concerns along Mission Boulevard and the concern is that this will be putting a lot of traffic on a two-way highway that does not have curb and gutter or shoulders on Highway 45. Kit Williams discussed the previous improvements required with Ruskin Heights including a turn lane on Mission. He discussed a traffic signal and the warrants being met before a signal could be installed. Gale O'Donnell discussed that Highway 265 is being widened, which was not in consideration when this was originally approved. After a request for final comments by the Planning Commission Chair Matthew Cabe, no more public comment was presented and public comment was closed. Commissioner Earnest complimented this rezoning and public process that has resulted in a proposal that is moving towards something that is acceptable to the community. He described the compromises that resulted as a result of the meetings. Commissioner Winston asked how this rezoning and future development tied to the hillside ordinance. September 12, 2011 Planning Commission PC Minutes 8-22-11 Agenda Item 1 Page 6 of 16 Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 7 of 16 Kit Williams discussed that the hillside hilltop ordinance is tied to the development and he discussed and described the grading and tree preservation ordinances. That does not mean variances could not be granted. He discussed the development review process. He discussed the intent of the tree preservation ordinance. Commissioners Winston asked of the engineering department found that the foundation for construction on this site were not adequate can they require more. Kit Williams discussed that the hillside hilltop overlay district ordinance requires a foundation to be stamped by an engineer and if that is provided by a developer in accordance with ordinance then the City will likely approve the plan. Commissioner Winston asked about taking money in lieu of tree preservation. Kit Williams discussed the priority and intent of the tree preservation. The first priority is preservation of trees; the next step if it cannot be preserved is to plant trees onsite, the next step is to pay money in lieu or plant trees offsite. He discussed the hierarchy of the ordinance. Commissioner Hoskins asked about the infrastructure on the project. Pate discussed that the first phase has been installed but a majority of the site does not have infrastructure installed. Pate also described the improvements along Mission that were completed and the tree canopy that has been removed during the first phase. There was very little tree canopy removed during the first phase. Development of the southern areas of the site will be much more difficult to develop because of the higher tree canopy numbers. Fred Sherman, 2134 E. Camelot, asked to speak. Commissioner Earnest stated that he would allow Mr. Sherman to speak. Fred Sherman, 2134 E. Camelot, discussed the hillside hilltop overlay district ordinance. Commissioner Cabe officially closed public comment again. Commissioner Chesser asked about the tree preservation requirements in the HHOD. Pate responded that there is a 5% increase in tree preservation in the HHOD. He also discussed the minimum undisturbed area. Commissioner Chesser asked about on -street parking. Garner responded that on -street parking is permitted to count towards required parking spaces at the determination of the Zoning Development Administrator. Commissioner Chesser asked about a traffic study for the signal on Mission. September 12, 2011 Planning Commission PC Minutes 8-22-11 Agenda Item 1 Page 7 of 16 Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 8 of 16 Justin Jorgensen, applicant, discussed that the traffic study has not been updated. It may be required when it comes through for development. Motion: Commissioner Winston made a motion to forward RZN 11-3866 to the City Council with a recommendation of approval subject to the applicant's Bill of Assurance. Commissioner Earnest seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-1-0 (Commissioner Hoskins voting `no'). September 12, 2011 Planning Commission PC Minutes 8-22-11 Agenda Item 1 Page 8 of 16 Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 9 of 16 New Business: CUP 11-3896: Conditional Use Permit (4618 N. COLLEGE AVE./ARK HELICOPTERS, 096): Submitted by CAMRON MCAHREN for property located at 4618 NORTH COLLEGE AVENUE. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and R -A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 17.55 acres. The request is to allow helicopter rides year-round at Mae Farm, Use Unit 2, City-wide uses by conditional use, in the C-2 and R -A Zoning District. Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, gave the staff report. Camron McAhren, applicant, gave a presentation discussing the number of helicopter flights they completed this summer, demographic information about those that rode the helicopter, several statistics, and their overall proposal. Public Comment: Sharon Fergusen, 1524 Windsor, Arkanshire POA, Springdale. Discussed their neighborhood has completed a petition that says this application is not in their interest and discussed opposition to the application for several reasons including noise and property values. Don Mobley, 1454 Churchill, Springdale. Echoed the comments of the previous person, especially the issues about property values. Al Newton, 419 Oak Manor Circle, Springdale. Lives 700 feet away. He hates to speak against this but disagrees with the application. He discussed that this would be much safer and there would be less public comment if it was at an airport. Steve Clark, President Fayetteville Chamber of Commerce. There are lots of things occurring in this area of town, new businesses in this area. He encourages the Planning Commission to accept this request. Aubrey Shepherd discussed the helicopter rides would be a pain for people living in the area. Larry Agness, Southtown Sporting Goods owner stated that he hasn't noticed any problems with this business. Claudia Mobley, 1454 Churchill, stated that the helicopter flies over our house every 10 minutes. That is not why I moved to this area. Beverly Newton discussed that she is in favor of aviation education. She discussed the Botanical Garden, the park, and the beautiful setting. The helicopter rides are an attitude of pure recreation and enjoyment. You lose a certain continuity with these rides. I don't think it fits. Cynthia Hasselhoff, owner of the subject property, discussed that these helicopter rides have given Mae Farm an identity. There is a balancing act between the neighbor's needs and our needs. She discussed that the letter from the Parks Department made her angry and discussed problems with people from the park vandalizing her property. We are doing our best to be green. This is an urban lake. Donna Sparks, lives in the Fayette Junction area. Discussed helicopter rides during the BBBQ festival over her neighborhood occurs on Saturdays and Sundays on days off when you want peace and quiet. I hope you September. 12, 2011 Planning Commission PC Minutes 8-22-11 Agenda Item 1 Page 9 of 16 Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 10 of 16 don't renew the permit. Chuck Dickson, pilot for Arkansas Helicopters. Stated that there has got to be a way to sort this out. We fly at 500 feet over the homes. He described the operations of the business. Tim Cooper, discussed that the Fayetteville Airport flight path goes over the country club. Larry Agness, discussed that Medivac flies along Highway 71 between the hospitals. No more public comment was received. Commissioner Hoskins asked about the number of flights and frequency. McAhren and Hoskins calculated that over the summer the applicant did an average of about 48 flights per day or about a flight every ten minutes. Hoskins asked McAhren if he paid Fayetteville sales tax. McAhren stated `no'. Hoskins asked how much money these flights brought to Drake Field. James Nicholson, Finance Director Drake Field, stated that he was not sure how much. Kit Williams, City Attorney, discussed the finance structure for the airport. Commissioner Hoskins stated that there is nothing green about helicopters. He discussed concerns with safety and noise impacts that he experienced at his house this summer from the applicant. He can't think of a worse idea in a worse area. Commissioner Griffin stated that there was one thing that the applicant stated that he felt should be repeated: there are a lot of empty hangers in Drake Field. Commissioner Chesser discussed that the number of flights was not a flat average. He asked the applicant about locating this business at an airport. McAhren discussed that there is not traffic at the airport that would see the helicopter. Commissioner Chesser asked how to approach the Springdale citizens. Kit Williams, City Attorney, discussed that they should be considered in terms of compatibil Commissioner Chesser asked about regulation after the helicopter takes off Mcahren discussed that is regulated by the FAA and the respective air control tower in the particular air space of the flight. Commissioner Chesser asked about decibel levels. y. September 12, 2011 Planning Commission PC Minutes 8-22-11 Agenda Item 1 Page 10 of 16 Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 11 of 16 Commissioner Cabe discussed that decibels are exponential. Commissioner Chesser asked about the noise ordinance McAhren stated that they did not violate the noise ordinance. Commissioner Chesser asked about the Future Land Use Map. Garner discussed that this area was designated for mixed use. Commissioner Honchell asked about when they signed a lease with Mae Farm. McAhren stated about 90 days ago. Honchell asked if helicopters were anticipated as part of the Mae Farm CUP. Cynthia Hasselhof stated that, no, it was not anticipated. Commissioner Winston asked about boats having on Lake Fayetteville. Kit Williams, City Attorney, discussed boats are required to have no wake because it was a nature study area, to reduce noise, and to not disturbfisherman. Commissioner Cook confirmed that the no wake was also intended to reduce bank erosion. Commissioner Winston asked if Locomotion had a CUP. Garner stated yes. Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director, discussed that it was an old CUP that doesn't have any conditions. Commissioner Winston discussed that he cannot support this application. Commissioner Earnest read a quote from the staff report and indicated that the Police Department noise measurements indicate that this is not in violation of the noise ordinance. He stated that we should work with the applicant to increase the visibility of the site. Commissioners Cook and Chesser asked about the noise ordinance. Kit Williams, City Attorney, discussed that the issue is not the noise ordinance, but whether or not the proposed use is compatible with the neighbors. An application could comply with the noise ordinance but still not be compatible. Motion: Commissioner Griffin made a motion to deny CUP 11-3896. Commissioner Hoskins seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-2-0 (Commissioners Cabe and Chesser voting `no'). September 12, 2011 Planning Commission PC Minutes 8-22-11 Agenda Item 1 Page 11 of 16 Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 12of16 CUP 11-3897: Conditional Use Permit (1236 S. SCHOOL AVE./KISOR, 562): Submitted by ERIC KISOR for property located at 1236 SOUTH SCHOOL AVENUE. The property is zoned DG, DOWNTOWN GENERAL and contains approximately 1.50 acres. The request is for Use Unit 17, Transportation trades and services, for an auto detail shop, in the DG Zoning District. Dara Sanders, Current Planner, gave the staff report. Eric Kisor, applicant, introduced himself. No public comment was presented. Motion: Commissioner Winston made a motion to approve CUP 11-3897 as recommended by staff. Commissioner Griffin seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. September 12, 2011 Planning Commission PC Minutes 8-22-11 Agenda Item 1 Page 12 of 16 Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 13 of 16 CUP 11-3900: Conditional Use Permit (313 N. ROLLSTON AVE./TAVERN BAR & GRILL, 484): Submitted by TIM COOPER ARCHITECT for property located at 313 NORTH ROLLSTON AVENUE. The property is zoned MSC, MAIN STREET CENTER and contains approximately 0.21 acre. The request is for a parking variance and offsite parking lot. Dara Sanders, Current Planner, gave the staff report. Tim Cooper, applicant, discussed the application. No public comment was presented. Kit Williams, City Attorney, requested that the conditions of approval be modified to require that the parking agreement is "maintained" Motion: Commissioner Chesser made a motion to approve CUP 11-3900, finding in favor of the determination in condition of approval #1 including the language recommended by the City attorney that the shared parking agreement shall be maintained. Commissioner Winston seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. September 12, 2011 Planning Commission PC Minutes 8-22-11 Agenda Item 1 Page 13 of 16 Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 14 of 16 RZN 11-3901: Rezone (811 & 833 S. BEECHWOOD AVE./LOVE BOX, 559): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES for properties located at 811 and 833 SOUTH BEECHWOOD AVENUE. The properties are zoned I-1, HEAVY COMMERCIAL AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL and I-2, GENERAL INDUSTRIAL and contains approximately 16.24 acres. The request is to rezone the properties to CS, COMMUNITY SERVICES. Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Blake Jorgensen, applicant, was present for any questions. No public comment was presented. Commissioner Hoskins stated that he was the adjacent property owner and asked the applicant if they wanted him to recuse. Blake Jorgensen stated no. Commissioner Earnest discussed his initial concern in the conflict with this proposal and the Future Land Use Plan map, but after talking to Steve Clark (President Fayetteville Chamber of Commerce) he has no concerns. Commissioner Hoskins stated that he thinks it is great they will do anything with this brown field. Motion: Commissioner Hoskins made a motion to forward RZN 11-3901 to the City Council with a recommendation for approval. Commissioner Chesser seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. September 12, 2011 Planning Commission PC Minutes 8-22-11 Agenda Item 1 Page 14 of 16 Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 15 of 16 RZN 11-3892: Rezone (FAYETTE JUNCTION MASTER PLAN, 599): Submitted by THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING DIVISION for property located WITHIN THE FAYETTE JUNCTION MASTER PLAN AREA. The properties are zoned RMF -24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY, 24 DU/ACRE; C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL; C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL; and I-1, HEAVY COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. The request is to rezone select properties within the Fayette Junction Master Plan area to NS, NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES; CS, COMMUNITY SERVICES; UT, URBAN THOROUGHFARE; P-1, INSTITUTIONAL; AND I-1, HEAVY COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. Dara Sanders, Current Planner, presented the staff report and recommendation. Public Comment: David Druding owns property in the Fayette Junction Master Plan Area that is proposed to be rezoned from C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, to CS, Community Services. He discussed the Cato Springs widening project, and he expressed his concern that staff's proposal would eliminate the uses currently permitted on his property by the C-1 zoning district. Dawn Sparks owns property in the Fayette Junction Master Plan Area that is proposed to be rezoned from C- 1, Neighborhood Commercial, to CS, Community Services. She explained that she didn't understand the impact of this proposal on her property and requested clarification on the reason for rezoning large areas at one time. Marcy Benham -Bliss owns property in the Fayette Junction Master Plan that is not proposed to be rezoned at this time. She expressed concem with density, access, and flooding in her area of the Fayette Junction neighborhood. No more public comment was presented. Commissioner Cabe asked staff to address the question of large rezoning actions. Sanders discussed the neighborhood planning and implementation processes. Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director, explained further and stated that staff is not proposing to rezone property in the area located near Ms. Benham -Bliss' neighborhood. Commissioner Griffin compared the permitted use in the C-1 and CS zoning districts and explained that staff's proposal would provide more flexibility for Ms. Spark's property for the short- and long-term: Ms. Sparks stated that she did not have any objections to the proposal considering this information. Commissioner Griffin, Mr. Williams, and Mr. Pate discussed the issue of nonconforming uses with Mr. Druding Commissioner Chesser thought that some citizens might feel that more time is needed and preferred to table the proposal. Motion: September 12, 2011 Planning Commission PC Minutes 8-22-11 Agenda Item 1 Page 15 of 16 Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 16 of 16 Commissioner Chesser made a motion to table RZN 11-3892 until the next Planning Commission staff to allow more time for public comment. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 PM. September 12, 2011 Planning Commission PC Minutes 8-22-11 Agenda Item 1 Page 16 of 16 TaTateville ARKANSAS THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS PC Meeting of September 12, 2011 PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner THRU: Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director DATE: September 6, 2011 125 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 575-8267 CUP 11-3811: Conditional Use Permit (339 WEST AVENUE/ROCK BOTTOM, 484): Submitted by ZAC WOODEN for property located at 339 N. WEST AVENUE. The property is zoned MSC, MAIN STREET CENTER and contains approximately 0.75 acres. The request is for off-site parking as nine on-site parking spaces are proposed to be utilized during temporary events. Planner: Andrew Garner Findings: Property description: The subject property is located at 339 N. West Avenue, within the renovated Ice House building. Proposal: The applicant proposes to utilize the nine -space parking lot adjacent to the south of the building for approximately six special events throughout the year. These nine onsite parking spaces would be used for an outdoor eating area and bar during the events. These parking spaces are required under the City's Unified Development Code requirements for the minimum number of parking spaces for this property. The applicant proposes to use nine off-site parking spaces in the adjacent parking lot to the west of their property during these temporary events. A site plan indicating the location of the nine spaces that will be used for the events, and the nine off-site parking spaces is attached to this report. As described in the applicant's letter, the events that require the shared parking will be limited to Fridays or Saturdays from the hours of 8 PM — 2 AM, after neighboring businesses who share the private lot have closed. Parking: The off-site parking lot that will be providing the nine parking spaces during the events is a private, pay parking lot known as the Depot Parking Lot. A conditional use permit was approved in 2008 (CUP 08-3145) to permit more parking spaces than permitted by ordinance for the businesses on this property. There are more than enough spaces to accommodate the shared parking spaces and the parking needed for the existing businesses on that off-site property. Fayetteville Unified Development Code: (C) Off-site locations. If off-street parking cannot be provided on the same lot as G:IETCIDevelopnent Services Review120111Development Review111-3811 CUP 339 N West Ave. Ste 3 (Rock Bottmn)103 Pia, Comrnission109-12-I llCommenls and RedlinesU i-3811 PLNG RepmY.doc September 12, 2011 Planning Commission CUP 11-3811 Rock Bottom Agenda Item 2 Page 1 of 20 the principal use due to existing buildings or the shape of the parcel, parking lots may be located on other property not more than 600 feet distance from the principal use, subject to conditional use approval by the Planning Commission. (d) Shared parking. Parking requirements may be shared where it can be determined that the peak parking demand of the existing or proposed occupancy occur at different times (either daily or seasonally). Such arrangements are subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. Request: The applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit for off-site and shared parking. Public Comment: Staff and the planning commission received comment several months ago from members of the public that were concerned when this applicant was proposing outdoor music. However, the applicant has withdrawn the request for outdoor music Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of CUP 11-3811, the requested conditional use permit to allow off-site and shared parking within 600 feet of the subject property during temporary events, subject to the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: 1. Amplified music, microphones, or other speaker -system are not permitted outdoors associated with the temporary events. 2. The temporary events shall comply with the requirements of the City Fire Marshall and City Building Official including, but not limited to, establishing an occupant load prior to the events. 3. This permit is limited to a maximum of six (6) temporary events in one calendar year. 4. The events shall be limited to Fridays and Saturdays from 8 PM — 2 AM. 5. The finalized and executed shared parking agreement shall be provided to the City Planning Division prior to the first event. 6. The events shall comply with the applicant's liquor license. 7. This permit is subject to the City having a copy of a current executed shared parking agreement. Should the shared parking agreement expire this permit is void. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required YES ❑ Approved 0 Denied G:I ETCI Development Services Review120111Development Review111-3811 CUP 33911 West Ave. Ste 3 (Rock Botimn)103 Maiming Commission109-12-11 \Comments and Redlinest ll -3811 PLNG Reporl.doc September 12, 2011 Planning Commission CUP 11-3811 Rock Bottom Agenda Item 2 Page 2 of 20 Motion: Second: Vote: Date: September 12, 2011 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION: Downtown Master Plan Section 163.02. AUTHORITY; CONDITIONS; PROCEDURES. B. Authority; Conditions. The Planning Commission shall: 1. Hear and decide only such special exemptions as it is specifically authorized to pass on by the terms of this chapter. 2. Decide such questions as are involved in determining whether a conditional use should be granted; and, 3. Grant a conditional use with such conditions and safeguards as are appropriate under this chapter; or 4. Deny a conditional use when not in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter. C. A conditional use shall not be granted by the Planning Commission unless and until: 1. A written application for a conditional use is submitted indicating the section of this chapter under which the conditional use is sought and stating the grounds on which it is requested. Finding: The applicant has submitted a letter requesting conditional use permit approval to allow off-site and shared parking during the proposed temporary events. 2. The applicant shall pay a filing fee as required under Chapter 159 to cover the cost of expenses incurred in connection with processing such application. Finding: The applicant has paid the required filing fee. 3. The Planning Commission shall make the following written findings before a conditional use shall be issued: (a.) That it is empowered under the section of this chapter described in the application to grant the conditional use; and G.9ETCIDevelopment Services Review120111Development Review111-3811 CUP 339 N West Ave. Ste 3 (Rock Bottom)103 Pia Cornmission109-12-1IICornrnents and Redlines111-3811 PLNG Report.doe 8 September 12, 2011 Planning Commission CUP 11-3811 Rock Bottom Agenda Item 2 Page 3 of 20 Finding: The Planning Commission is empowered under §172.06(C) and §172.05(C)(3)(d) to grant a conditional use permit to allow off-street parking that can not be provided on the same lot as the principal use and for shared parking. (b.) That the granting of the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest. Finding: Staff finds that the proposed off-site and shared parking will not adversely affect the public interest. Six temporary events per year are proposed in the parking lot of the subject property. These events are proposed at off-peak times (Friday and Saturday from 8 PM — 2 AM) for the majority of surrounding businesses in the building. Additionally, there is a pay parking lot directly adjacent to the west that has a number of excess spaces. Pedestrians walking from the nine off-site parking spaces would be in immediate proximity of the subject property. Staff has recommend several conditions of approval to ensure that impacts such as noise and public safety are mitigated. (c.) The Planning Commission shall certify: (1.) Compliance with the specific rules governing individual conditional uses; and Finding: Section 172.06 (C) of the Unified Development Code (UDC) specifies that when off-street parking cannot be provided on the same lot as the principal use due to the existing buildings or the shape of the parcel, parking lots may be located on other property not more than 600 feet distant from the principal use. The parking lot offsite that will provide the nine required spaces is well within 600 feet of the principal use. Additionally this shared parking proposal is subject to Section 172.05(C)(3)(d) of the UDC that states that shared parking arrangements are subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. (2.) That satisfactory provisions and arrangements have been made concerning the following, where applicable: (a.) Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control and access in case of fire or catastrophe; Finding: As the parking lot onsite will be closed during the temporary events, G: I ETCI Development Services Review120111 Development Review) / 1-3811 CUP 339 N Wes! Ave. Ste 3 (Rock Bottom)103 Planning Connnission109-12-111Comrnents and Redlineslll-3811 PLNG Report.doc September 12, 2011 Planning Commission CUP 11-3811 Rock Bottom Agenda Item 2 Page 4 of 20 vehicular ingress and egress will not be provided directly to this site. Pedestrian ingress/egress will be modified as indicated in the attached site plan and has been approved by the City Fire Marshal. The ingress and egress to the nine offsite parking spaces will utilize the existing parking lot and drive aisles for the Depot Parking Lot. The nine offsite spaces in the Depot Parking Lot are directly adjacent to the subject property and adequate pedestrian access currently exists from this parking lot to the subject property. (b.) Off-street parking and loading areas where required, with particular attention to ingress and egress, economic, noise, glare, or odor effects of the special exception on adjoining properties and properties generally in the district; Finding: The applicant is requesting conditional use permit to allow for nine onsite parking spaces be replaced with nine offsite parking spaces on the adjacent pay parking lot to the west through a shared parking agreement. The actual temporary events (outdoor eating and drinking) that require the shared parking are permitted by right. However, staff has recommended some conditions of approval to ensure that the temporary events do not result in noise or other adverse impacts to surrounding properties. Finding: Not applicable. (c.) Refuse and service areas, with particular reference to ingress and egress, and off-street parking and loading, (d.) Utilities, with reference to locations, availability, and compatibility; Finding: Utilities are currently available to the building. (e.) Screening and buffering with reference to type, dimensions, and character; Finding: Screening and buffering is not required for the proposed shared and offsite parking in an existing parking lot. (f ) Signs, if any, and proposed exterior lighting with reference to glare, traffic safety, economic effect, and compatibility and harmony with properties in G:IETCIDevelopment Services Review1201 /IDevelopment Revie3/4111-3811 CUP 339 N West Ave. Ste 3 (Rock Bottom)103 Planning Commission109-/2-111Comnents and Redlines111-3811 PLNG Reportdoc September 12, 2011 Planning Commission CUP 11-3811 Rock Bottom Agenda Item 2 Page 5 of 20 the district; Finding: No new signage has been proposed. (g.) Required setbacks and other open space; and Finding: Required setbacks and open space have been provided. (h.) General compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district. Finding: The proposed off-site and shared parking is compatible with adjacent properties and uses. The temporary events that require the shared parking agreement could potentially result in adverse impacts if adequate measures are not in place. However, staff has included conditions of approval to ensure that noise to offsite property and occupancy load for the temporary events are mitigated. Additionally, as these events are only proposed six times a year, and are located within the Fayetteville Entertainment District as defined by UDC Section 163.10(D), these types of events and the overall use are not out of line with the character of the area. G:IGTCIDevelopment Services Review120111Development Review111-3811 CUP 339 N West Ave. Ste 3 (Rock Bottom)103 Planning Comnission109-12-111Comments and Redlinesll l-3811 PLNG Report.doc September 12, 2011 Planning Commission CUP 11-3811 Rock Bottom Agenda Item 2 Page 6 of 20 Fayetteville Unified Development Code 172.06 Parking Lot Location Standards The location of all required and nonrequired parking lots with five (5) or more spaces shall meet the location requirements below. All conditional uses hereunder shall be granted by the Planning Commission in accordance with Chapter 163, governing applications of conditional uses; procedures. (A)Permitted locations by right. Parking lots shall be located within the same zoning district as the use they serve. Required parking lots for uses allowed by right within a zoning district are allowed as a use by right in the same zoning district. (B) Permitted locations as a conditional use. (1) Parking lots located within residential zones which serve uses in nonresidential zones may be allowed as a conditional use by the Planning Commission. (2) Parking lots for uses allowed as conditional uses within residential zones must also be approved as a conditional use. A conditional use for a parking lot may be approved at the same time the use is approved or may be approved separately if additional parking lots are developed later. The Planning Commission shall make a finding based upon the size, scale, and location of these activities that the proposed parking lot will not adversely affect adjacent residential uses or the residential character of the neighborhood. Cross reference(s)--Uses Conditions, Ch. 163. (C) Off-site locations. If off-street parking cannot be provided on the same lot as the principal use due to existing buildings or the shape of the parcel, parking lots may be located on other property not more than 600 feet distant from the principal use, subject to conditional use approval by the Planning Commission. (D)Intermittent parking. Uses which generate only intermittent demand for parking, such as churches, may count available on -street parking within 600 feet of the building as part of required parking, subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. Se tember 12, 2011 G:IETCIDevelopnent Services Review120111Development Reviewll1-3811 CUP 339 N West Ave. Ste 3 (Rock Borsch rliA2 nRnission Commi.ssion109-12-111Comments and Redlines CUP 11-3811 Rock Bottom Agenda Item 2 Page 7 of 20 172.05 Standards For The Number Of Spaces By Use (C) Off-street parking. (3) Reductions. Developments may utilize the following reductions to the required off-street parking ratios listed in Table 3 when the following standards are met: (d) Shared parking. Parking requirements may be shared where it can be determined that the peak parking demand of the existing or proposed occupancy occur at different times (either daily or seasonally). Such arrangements are subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. (i) Shared parking between developments. Formal arrangements that share parking between intermittent uses with nonconflicting parking demands (e.g. a church and a bank) are encouraged as a means to reduce the amount of parking required. (ii) Shared parking agreements. If a privately owned parking facility is to serve two or more separate properties, then a "Shared Parking Agreementis to be filed with the city for consideration by the Planning Commission. (iii)Shared spaces. ' Individual spaces identified on a site plan for shared users shall not be shared by more than one user at the same time. Se tember 12, 2011 G:IETCIDevelopment Services Review120111Developnent Reviewil l-3811 CUP 339 N West Ave. Ste 3 (Rock Bolt`rif �iEieanission Commi.ssion109-12-1IIComments and Redlines CUP 11-3811 Rock Bottom Agenda Item 2 Page 8 of 20 WRITTEN NOTIFICATION FORM Project Description: Rock Bottom at West End is proposing a Conditional Use Permit for shared parking for the adjacent private lot on the east side of the business premises at 339 N. West Ave Suite 3. Lot usage will be limited to approximately six special events throughout the year. Usage of the lot will be limited to Fridays and/or Saturdays during events and from the hours of 8PM to 2AM after neighboring business who share the private lot have closed. During these hours the employees and patrons of the businesses sharing the private lot will be provided 9 parking spaces at Rock Bottom at West End's expense. Building/Land Use: Restaurant and Bar Zoning: MSC Size of Property: 0.67 Acres Density/Intensity: 3,500 Square Feet Public Hearings: Planning Commission; 5:30 PM; September 12, 2011; 113 West Mountain Street (City Administration Building Room 219) Fayetteville, AR 72701 Property Owner: W.V., LLC. Contact: Wes Cooper 479-841-8083 Developer: The Wooden Roof, LLC; D.B.A. West End Contact: Zac Wooden 479-313-9400 Review Location: The project information is available for public review at the City of Fayetteville Planning Division, 125 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, AR 72701 Monday -Friday 8AM-5PM; 479-575-8267. September 12, 2011 Planning Commission CUP 11-3811 Rock Bottom Agenda Item 2 Page 9 of 20 + t - ______ft -E 20u4S10JPtL SIR-? _roe_ u 63est E.' 4_ 6e-03 1 - 'l2e:evT , LU C, kat? _ --c.icke taa>1)! J _ . .50r .1_LC- _ Tis: PsL t> eTh lleS a.+. _ewteik-s- T - . L -aF} TlES p?J\S t E1 . tapcuzP< c + --(?Z-----) -ctl,c 6.3zobeo g,floF Li -A_ RECEIVED AUG 2 6 2011 amoliwa DIV. CUP 11 3811 Rock Bottom Agenda Item 2 Page 10 of 20