HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-09-12 - Agendas - Final CITY OF
Fay -y� l'I'l� AGENDA
ARKNSAS
Final Agenda
Planning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2016
5:30 PM
113 W. Mountain, Room 219
Members: Kyle Cook (Chair), Ron Autry (Vice Chair), Matthew Hoffman (Secretary), Tracy
Hoskins, Janet Selby, Ryan Noble, Tom Brown, Leslie Belden, and Allison Thurmond Quinlan.
City Staff: Andrew Garner, City Planning Director; Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner; Quin
Thompson, Planner; Harry Davis, Planner
Call to Order
Roll Call
Consent
1. Approval of the minutes from the August 22, 2016 meeting.
2. ADM 16-5580: Administrative Item (542 W. DICKSON ST./YANCEY HOG DOGS-1 YR.
MOBILE VENDOR, 484): Submitted by CODY YANCEY for property located at 542 W. DICKSON
ST. The property is zoned MSC-MAIN STREET CENTER and contains approximately 0.57 acres.
The request is for a one year mobile food vendor permit. Planner: Jonathan Curth
3. ADM 16-5564: Administrative Item (1530 GOLF CLUB DR./THE LINKS PZD AMENDMENT,
400): Submitted by HUGH JARRETT for property located at 1530 GOLF CLUB DR. The property
is zoned R-PZD, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT and contains approximately 0.40
acres. The request is to amend R-PZD 07-2452 to add a clubhouse and swimming pool.
Planner: Andrew Garner
Old Business
4. LSD 16-5488: Large Scale Development (2900 BLOCK MT. COMFORT RD./MACEY DR.
APTS., 363): Submitted by SWOPE CONSULTING, INC. for property located at the 2900 BLOCK
OF MT. COMFORT RD. The property is zoned RMF 24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, 24
UNITS PER ACRE, and contains approximately 6.76 acres. The request is for a 58 unit apartment
complex with associated parking. Planner: Harry Davis
Mailing Address:
113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gav
Fayetteville, AR 72701
New Business
5. ADM 16-5581: Administrative Item (617 N. COLLEGE AVE./BIG SEXY FOOD-1 YR.
MOBILE VENDOR, 445): Submitted by BRENT HALE for property located at 617 N. COLLEGE
AVE. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately
0.44 acres. The request is for a one year mobile food vendor permit. Planner: Jonathan Curth
6. VAR 16-5577: Variance (137 E. SPRING ST./137 SPRING DRIVEWAY, 485): Submitted by
MASWORKS CONSULTING, INC. for property located at 137 E. SPRING ST. The property is
zoned RMF-24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, 24 UNITS PER ACRE and contains
approximately 0.14 acres. The request is a variance for driveway length.
Planner: Quin Thompson
7. VAR 16-5567: Variance (2241 N. WOODLARK LN./MENDENHALL, 324): Submitted by
DEBBIE MENDENHALL for property located at 2241 N. WOODLARK LN. The property is zoned
RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 0.36
acres. The request is a variance for driveway length. Planner: Jonathan Curth
8. VAR 16-5578: Variance (1820 N. MERIDIAN DR./MISSION HEIGHTS-LOT 35, 371):
Submitted by OSAGE CREEK DEVELOPMENT, LLC. for property located at 1820 N. MERIDIAN
DR. The property is zoned NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION and contains approximately
0.12 acres. The request is a variance for driveway length. Planner: Harry Davis
9. PPL 16-5447: Preliminary Plat (NW OF WEDINGTON DR. & HERITAGE
AVE./WOODRIDGE HOLLOW SD, 397): Submitted by ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. for
properties located NW OF WEDINGTON DR. & HERITAGE AVE. The properties are zoned RSF-
4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contain approximately 60.24 acres.
The request is for 163 single-family lots. Planner: Jonathan Curth
10. LSD 16-5547: Large Scale Development (SE OF FUTRALL DR. & MCMILLAN
DR./CROSS CHURCH, 441): Submitted by ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. for properties
located SW OF FUTRALL DR. & MCMILLAN DR. The properties are zoned P-1, INSTITUTIONAL
and contain approximately 12.13 acres. The request is for a 71,968 square foot church with
associated parking. Planner: Jonathan Curth
11. CUP 16-5553: Conditional Use (3695 E. HUNTSVILLE RD./SIEBERT, 529): Submitted by
BLEW & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at 3695 E. HUNTSVILLE RD. The property is
zoned NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION and contains approximately 0.33 acres. The
request is for a tandem lot. Planner: Jonathan Curth
12. CUP 16-5558: Conditional Use (3250 N. FUTRALL DR./FUTRALL DR. CELL TOWER,
211): Submitted by SMITH COMMUNICATIONS, INC. for property located at 3250 N. FUTRALL
DR. The property is zoned P-1, INSTITUTIONAL and contains approximately 5.56 acres. The
request is for a wireless communication facility. Planner: Harry Davis
13. RZN 16-5548: Rezone (1211 W. JAMES ST./HAVEN CAMPUS APTS., 404): Submitted by
BLEW & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property at 1211 W. JAMES ST. The property is zoned R-O,
RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 0.66 acres. The request is to rezone the
property to CS, COMMUNITY SERVICES, subject to a Bill of Assurance.
Planner: Harry Davis
2
14. RZN 16-5550: Rezone (2155 N. RUPPLE RD./HAZEN, 361/362): Submitted by
JORGENSEN &ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties SE &SW OF RUPPLE RD. & MT. COMFORT
RD. The properties are zoned RSF-1, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 1 UNIT PER ACRE, RSF-
4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE, AND R-A, RESIDENTIAL
AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 73.37 acres. The request is to rezone the property
to CS, COMMUNITY SERVICES and R-A, Residential Agricultural. Planner: Andrew Garner
15. RZN 16-5560: Rezone (103 N. PLAINVIEW AVE./MCMAHON, 213): Submitted by BATES
& ASSOCIATES, INC. for property at 103 N. PLAINVIEW AVE. The property is zoned R-O,
RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 3.34 acres. The request is to rezone the
property to RT-12, RESIDENTIAL TWO & THREE FAMILY. Planner: Quin Thompson
16. RZN 16-5543: Rezone (3434 N. CROSSOVER RD./VILLAGES ASSISTED LIVING, 216):
Submitted by ELIZABETH A. LINK for properties at 3434 N. CROSSOVER RD. The property is
zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY/4 UNITS PER ACRE and R-A, RESIDENTIAL
AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 21.40 acres. The request is to rezone the property
to RT-12, RESIDENTIAL TWO & THREE FAMILY, P-1, INSTITUTIONAL, AND CS,
COMMUNITY SERVICES. Planner: Quin Thompson
The following items have been approved administratively by staff:
• LSP 16-5559: Lot Split(3383 N. MANNA CT./HIGHLANDS GROUP, 212): Submitted by
CRAFTON TULL & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at 3383 N. MANNA CT. The
property is zoned R-O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 5.12 acres.
The request is to split the parcel into 2 lots containing approximately 2.50 and 2.62 acres.
Planner: Harry Davis
• LSP/PLA 16-5506: Lot Split (238 E. SOUTH ST./FLINTLOCK ARCHITECTURE, 524):
Submitted by BATES & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties located at 238 E. SOUTH ST.
The properties are zoned DG, DOWNTOWN GENERAL and contain approximately 1.29
acres. The request is to adjust and split the parcels into 6 lots containing approximately
0.62, 0.15, 0.14, 0.15, 0.16, and 0.11 acres. Planner: Harry Davis
• LSP-PLA 16-5561: Lot Split/Property Line Adjustment (NW CORNER OF BLOCK
AVE. & SPRING ST./HAMILTON, 484): Submitted by BATES & ASSOCIATES, INC. for
properties located at the NW CORNER OF BLOCK AVE. & SPRING ST. The properties
are zoned MSC, MAIN STREET/CENTER and contain approximately 0.35 acres. The
request is to adjust and split the 2 parcels into 3 lots containing approximately 0.17, 0.09
and 0.09 acres. Planner: Jonathan Curth
Announcements
Adjourn
NOTICE TO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE:
3
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.
4
CITY OF
Ta L MINUTES
ARKANSAS
Planning Commission
August 22, 2016
5:30 PM
113 W. Mountain, Room 219
Members: Kyle Cook (Chair), Ron Autry (Vice Chair), Matthew Hoffman (Secretary), Tracy
Hoskins, Janet Selby, Ryan Noble, Tom Brown, Leslie Belden, and Allison Thurmond Quinlan.
City Staff: Andrew Garner— City Planning Director, Jonathan Curth — Senior Planner, Quin
Thompson — Planner, Harry Davis— Planner, Jonathan Ely— Engineer, Cory Granderson -
Engineer, Blake Pennington —Asst. City Attorney, and Kit Williams —City Attorney
Call to Order: 5:30 PM, Kyle Cook
In Attendance: Kyle Cook (Chair), Ron Autry (Vice Chair), Matthew Hoffman (Secretary), Tracy
Hoskins, Janet Selby, Ryan Noble, Tom Brown, and Allison Thurmond Quinlan.
Absent: Leslie Belden
Staff: Andrew Garner—City Planning Director, Jonathan Curth—Senior Planner, Quin Thompson
— Planner, Harry Davis — Planner, and Kit Williams — City Attorney
1. Consent Agenda:
Approval of the minutes from the August 8, 2016 meeting.
VAC 16-5536: Vacation (S. END OF MARKS MILL LN./SUMMIT PLACE S/D, 329): Submitted
by MIKE BAUMANN for properties located at the SOUTH END OF MARKS MILL LN. The
properties are zoned NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION and contain approximately 0.09
acres. The request is to vacate portions of a utility, drainage, and access easement.
CCP 16-5531: Concurrent Plat (4148 N HUNGATE LN./HUNGATE, 141): Submitted by BLEW
& ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at 4148 N. HUNGATE LN. The property is in the
FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING AREA and contains approximately 5.61 acres. The request is to split
the property into 2 lots containing approximately 4.61 and 1.25 acres each.
Motion:
Commissioner Autry made a motion to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner Selby
seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0.
Mailing Address: Planning Commission
113 W. Mountain Street www.fayettevi1lember 12,em 1
Fayetteville, AR 72701 A2016 Minutes 1
Y 8-22-2016 Minutes
Page 1 of 11
2. Old Business:
ADM 16-5539: Administrative Item (MINIMUM STREET STANDARDS CHAPTER 6
AMENDMENT/PAVEMENT STRUCTURE & MATERIALS): Submitted by ALDERMAN
MATTHEW PETTY for an amendment to the Minimum Street Standards Manual. The request is
to modify CHAPTER 6, PAVEMENT STRUCTURE & MATERIALS to allow alleys to be
constructed of gravel in certain circumstances.
Matthew Petty, Alderman, Applicant: Presented a revised request to the commission hopefully
addressing all of the commission and staff's concerns that we discussed four weeks ago.
Chris Brown, City Engineer: We feel like this is simplified and uses our existing ordinances and
practices for utilizing unpaved driveways that have been used from many years. We will have to
come up with a way to designate these so it is known that these are driveways and not city-
maintained alleys.
Public Comment:
No public comment was presented.
Matt Hoffman, Commissioner: Discussed that he likes many of the things presented here. We
are being asked to vote here to make it easier to build a viable and desirable alternative to snout-
houses. It is really important for us commissioners to consider where we want this city to go. If we
want to make it easier to build snout-houses, which we have recently done, but not make it easier
to build alleys we really need to look at it. He discussed the ramifications of this type of
development pattern (alley loaded) that complies with our City Plan 2030 goals. I see this as an
all-around win.
Tracy Hoskins, Commissioner: Asked what part of this code states that this is relevant only to
residential single family.
Petty: Responded that this would apply to all development, residential and commercial.
Hoskins: Asked about the residential driveway standards and how this proposal would make
building snout-houses more difficult.
Petty: Responded about the current driveway standards. He discussed the policy decision of
creating traditional town form. This is not about making it more difficult to build snout-houses, it is
making our preferred development pattern easier.
Hoskins: Discussed why he has a problem with gravel driveways and alleys. Yes you could go
in there and put down base and proof-roll the alleys. He discussed in his experience when you
leave them open, these gravel alleys are pumping - the surface has been moving around. This
applies especially if the alley surface is not capped.
Chris Brown, City Engineer: Discussed that in steep slopes you will have erosion problems. It
really comes down to proper drainage and getting the water off so it doesn't saturate the sub
grade. In flatter areas you may have to install pipes or ditches to convey the water.
Hoskins: Discussed that he is not ready to vote for this tonight.
Planning Commission
September 12,2016
Agel Item 1
8-22-2016 Minutes
Page 2 of 11
Allison Quinlan, Commissioner: Stated reasons why she liked many of the elements of this
proposal. I think with the recent conversation of rear-loaded homes it should be a high priority.
She discussed her experience living on a gravel alley. I do agree gravel alleys need to be
designed. In the situation when the slopes and run-off is right, it is an excellent tool to allow for it
in appropriate situations. She discussed the success stories of living on the gravel alley adjacent
to her home. She compared the exponential cost to construct and maintain paved alleys to gravel
alleys. There are also water benefits to this. You are reducing the amount of paved asphalt -
reducing runoff, reducing the heat island effect. It is a tool we should allow to be used
appropriately. She discussed comfort with a slope of 5-10% slope if it drains adequately.
Hoskins: Asked about gravel alleys in a new neighborhood.
Chris Brown, City Engineer: Discussed that the city would not be accepting new private gravel
alleys for maintenance under this proposed ordinance.
Ron Autry, Commissioner: Discussed his son's home in Hyde Park, Austin, TX that all have
alleys that create a very nice area. They rear load their garbage and mail. He discussed the lack
of maintenance on the alleys and it still works very nice. Where we have a chance to implement
this we should. It can happen. You have very large neighborhoods that have been developed with
this pattern. It is a good positive step forward.
Hoffman: Described a number of neighborhoods in Fayetteville that have unimproved alleys and
it has worked well for a number of decades.
Tom Brown, Commissioner: Asked planning staff about including signs for the private
maintenance of alleys. He discussed that he would like to make an amendment to apply this only
to residential projects and also specify signage to be installed regarding the maintenance. I think
we need to specify where this would be appropriate. In commercial areas and high density
residential areas I do not think this would be appropriate. I think we need to add something
regarding signage requirements. Five years after the alley has been there, who is to say that they
don't think this is public right-of-way. This could be an unexpected cost associated with
maintaining the gravel alleys.
Motion #1:
Commissioner Brown made a motion to add the word: "in single family zones" in the first
paragraph after the 5th word, after rights-of-way. Then in the last paragraph that says the city
shall not be responsible for maintaining alleys, add that"...they shall be designated with signage."
Motion dies for a lack of a second.
Kyle Cook, Commissioner: Agrees that this will allow more affordable houses in this
development pattern. He also discussed the positive benefits of this for storm water. My issue
with this is that if we want to look at making things more affordable there are other ways we can
make alleys more affordable. It is really taking it off the city and putting it on the future owner.
Quinlan: Agreed that working out how the maintenance is done is a long-term goal. Maybe we
do need to figure out for the city to maintain these at some point. In a year or two, is there a
process for the city to accept these if they are working okay. If we could accept them it would be
a good long term goal.
Planning Commission
SeptembeJ2,2016
Agenda Item 1
8-22-2016 Minutes
Page 3 of 11
Petty: Asked the commissioners about the alley regulations and what they were looking for to
reduce cost.
Hoskins: Discussed the width of alleys being maybe too restrictive. He discussed the
undercutting and filling the alleys like a street when in many places it is not necessary. There are
alternatives available. This is just a step too far when we haven't looked at other regulations we
can modify.
Cook: Indicated that building alleys for back-loaded services is not necessary. An alley should
just be built for cars and pedestrians. To me it is more about the undercut and how wide it is.
Autry: Clarified that he was not trying to say that all alleys need to be built for services. He
responded to Commissioner Brown's comments regarding density. He discussed that he thinks
people will know to ask the question about maintenance of alleys.
Quinlan: There are cities in America that are starting to un-pave their streets, although she is not
advocating that practice in Fayetteville. The idea that it is unreasonable that the city cannot
maintain gravel, does not make sense.
Motion #2:
Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to forward ADM 16-5539 with a recommendation for
approval. Commissioner Quinlan seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed
with a vote of 5-3-0. Commissioners Hoskins, Brown, and Cook voted 'no'.
3. New Business:
LSD 16-5488: Large Scale Development (2900 BLOCK MT. COMFORT RDJMACEY DR.
TOWNHOMES, 363): Submitted by SWOPE CONSULTING, INC. for property located at the 2900
BLOCK OF MT. COMFORT RD. The property is zoned RMF 24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY,
24 UNITS PER ACRE, and contains approximately 6.76 acres. The request is for a 58 unit
apartment complex with associated parking.
Harry Davis, Planner: Read the staff report.
Chuck Henry, Applicant: Explains that the applicant has made changes to the elevation that is
believed to meet requirements. Roof styles and materials have been changed, and colors may
be changed as well.
Tim Brisiel, Applicant: Explains that the development has met the other requirements of the
city.
Eric Heller, Applicant: Addresses the flag lot situation for members of the public and
turnaround situation in relation to fire access.
Public Comment:
No public comment was presented.
Tom Brown, Commissioner: Asks for clarification on the project site and connectivity through
flag portion.
Planning Commission
September 2,2016
Agenda Item 1
8-22-2016 Minutes
Page 4 of 11
Heller: States that Brown is correct on location and explains the situation with no development
in the flag.
Brown: Begins a detailed account of Pine Valley Subdivision, where having increased traffic
through the development would be problematic for safety in that subdivision. Asks City Attorney
if part of approval process can stipulate a connection north.
Kit Williams, City Attorney: Explains how such a stipulation would not be constitution and
reasonable.
Heller: States this development is a good project for infill and staff has not recommended any
other improvements.
Ryan Noble, Commissioner: Asks Henry to explain the differences in architectural elevations.
Henry: Explains differences in elevations.
Noble: States that the only other problem is the turnaround.
Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: Completely agrees with staff's recommendation for the
architectural elevations. He discussed concerns about an already dangerous situation with the
existing subdivision and how more traffic from a new development would be a problem for
pedestrians and overall safety. They are recommending tabling for both the architecture and
traffic issues, pending a traffic study.
Ron Autry, Commissioner: Concurs with Brown and Hoffman.
Kit Williams, City Attorney: Addresses how a development reviewed by Planning Commission
may be viewed by the City of Fayetteville and how facts are needed to make a judgement about
traffic. Williams has suggested a traffic study initially, but increased congestion is not grounds to
deny development. Planning could use police reports in order to review a correlation between
increased traffic and accidents in the adjacent subdivision. Planning Commission has more
leeway with the architectural elevation.
Allison Thurmond Quinlan, Commissioner: Does not believe a traffic study is needed with
police reports, but the risk of said traffic allows the grounds to review the development for its
risk. Further expounds that Pines Valley subdivision has been designed with street problems
that would be worse with the proposed development.
Motion:
Commissioner Quinlan made a motion to table LSD 16-5488 for two weeks to address urban
residential design standards, police accident reports, and traffic safety analysis. Commissioner
Brown seconded the motion.
Williams: States that before a motion can be voted on, it would be defensible if the Planning
Department had facts in order to help the Planning Commission have a defensible argument.
Kyle Cook, Commissioner: States that with the surrounding street context of one-way-in and
one-way-out, it would create an obvious problem.
Hoffman: Concur with Cook. Asks staff it is possible to use other existing neighborhoods to use
as a measure for this neighborhood.
Planning Commission
September512,2016
Agenda Item 1
8-22-2016 Minutes
Page 5 of 11
Andrew Garner, Planning Director: Answers yes.
Janet Selby, Commissioner: Asks the Attorney is there is a maximum of buildings that may be
built with one-way in and out.
Williams: Explains how the fire department determines that requirement.
Brown: Is concerned that the solution to all the discussion is simply more connectivity, which
can be scheduled or worked into the development.
Autry: Requests Quinlan to modify her motion to include police reports.
Quinlan: Agreed to amend her motion to make the change.
Tracy Hoskins, Commissioner: Asks if it should be included to have a better turnaround. He
questioned if the Commission should help the architect understand what a significant variation
means for their elevations.
Cook: States that the development team should take note of all the comments of
commissioners.
Brisiel: Notes that the development team has met all other requirements of the City for this
development. The team is ready to work with the City on how to make the existing subdivision
safer, but requests quantifiable evidence in order to require said improvements.
Brown: Asks what the nature of the flag lot is for and its relation to a bridge.
Williams: Explains how that is not relevant to the proposal. Only what is before you can only be
reviewed. Off-site improvements must be part of the rough proportionality test for developers.
Asks for staff input on costs for a bridge.
Garner: Affirms that they are expensive.
Upon roll call the motion passed to table LSD 16-5488 for two weeks passed with a vote of
8-0-0.
LSD 16-5525: Large Scale Development (1780 N. CROSSOVER RD./PLANET FITNESS,
372): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at 1780 N.
CROSSOVER RD. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains
approximately 5.17 acres. The request is for a 15,040 square foot gym attached to the current
structure and utilizing the existing parking.
Harry Davis, Planner: Read the staff report.
Justin Jorgensen, Applicant: Explains that they are in agreeance with staff and happy to
answer questions.
Public Comment:
No public comment was presented.
Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: Wishes that this development could be in the middle of the
parking lot.
Planning Commission
Septemberd2,2016
Agenda Item 1
8-22-2016 Minutes
Page 6 of 11
Allison Thurmond Quinlan, Commissioner: States that are in support of approving this
development.
Ron Autry, Commissioner: States they are also in support.
Tracy Hoskins, Commissioner: States they are also in support.
Kit Williams, City Attorney: Explains history of this development and its relation to the parking
lot landscape ordinances.
Motion:
Commissioner Hoskins made a motion to approve LSD 16-5525 with conditions as
recommended by staff. Commissioner Autry seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion
passed with a vote of 7-0-1. Commissioner Noble `recused'.
LSD 16-5523: Large Scale Development (SE CORNER OF N. VANTAGE DR. AND E.
RAINFOREST RD./FOCUS FAMILY EYE CENTER, 175): Submitted by JORGENSEN &
ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at the SE CORNER OF N. VANTAGE DR. & E.
RAINFOREST RD. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains
approximately 1.17 acres. The request is for a 4,830 square foot eye care clinic with associated
parking.
Quin Thompson, Planner: Gave the staff report.
Justin Jorgensen, Applicant's representative: Said he was in agreement with staff conditions.
Public Comment:
No public comment was presented.
Tom Brown, Commissioner: Said he would prefer to see sidewalk connections to off-site
parking.
Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: Said it is unfortunate that we are designing a bridge to
service just a few businesses.
Kit Williams, City Attorney: Said that the bridge is intended to alleviate traffic congestion at
Joyce and College.
Hoffman: Said that the large infrastructure improvement should be serving more businesses on
the nearby property.
Tracy Hoskins, Commissioner: Said he had paid into the Mud Creek Bridge Assessment years
ago, and that there were no buildings there at the time.
Ron Autry, Commissioner: Said the adjacent properties made full use of their parking lots, that
they were full very often and not over parked.
Alison Thurmond-Quinlan, Commissioner: Said her biggest concern was with the large
number of empty parking spaces that one can see on a Friday afternoon in this area.
Planning Commission
Septemberjl2,2016
Agenda Item 1
8-22-2016 Minutes
Page 7 of 11
Motion:
Commissioner Autry made a motion to approve LSD 16-5523 with all conditions as
recommended by staff including the conditional condition stated by staff allowing off-site parking
as a Planning commission determination. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. Upon
roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0.
RZN 16-5535: Rezone (EAST END OF BORICK DR./CITY FIRE TRAINING CENTER, 683):
Submitted by CITY STAFF for property at the EAST END OF BORICK DR. The property is zoned
1-2, GENERAL INDUSTRIAL & R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL and contains
approximately 14.20 acres. The request is to rezone the property to P-1, INSTITUTIONAL.
Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner: Gave the staff report
Applicant: (City staff acted as applicant, no additional comment provided)
Public Comment:
No public comment was presented.
Tracy Hoskins, Commissioner: Questions staff about the recent clearing on the site and
whether this should adversely affect the development of the property.
Curth: Confirms that a portion of the property has been cleared of scrub brush recently, but not
of any significant trees or canopy.
Motion:
Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to forward RZN 16-5535 recommending approval.
Commissioner Hoskins seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote
of 8-0-0.
RZN 16-5521: Rezone (SE OF SOUTH ST. & S. COLLEGE AVE./FAYETTEVILLE RENTALS,
524): Submitted by THE INFILL GROUP for properties SE OF SOUTH ST. & S. COLLEGE AVE.
The properties zoned NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION and contains approximately 0.67
acres. The request is to rezone the property to RSF-18, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 18
UNITS PER ACRE.
Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner: Gave the staff report
Matthew Petty, Infill Group, Applicant's Representative: Expresses that there was no
intention to ignore the Walker Park Neighborhood Master Plan (WPNMP). Understood that the
plan was developed with the possibility for many different residential intensities. Although the
applicant intended to build missing middle and single family housing to the area, does not intend
to be a "stick in the mud." Understands the fear that neighbors have about non-single-family
development encroaching on their community, especially with a change of hands the property
may have to someone that wants to develop more intensely. Articulates frustration that there is
a gap in the available zoning districts to allow low-intensity commercial and low-density multi-
density development without higher intensity and density uses allowed. Requests to amend the
rezoning proposal to RSF-18, Residential Single-Family, 18 Units Per Acre.
Planning Commission
Septembergl2,2016
Agenda Item 1
8-22-2016 Minutes
Page 8 of 11
Kyle Cook, Commissioner: Solicits staff's thoughts on the amended request.
Andrew Garner, Planning Director: Contends that an RSF-18 zoning would be consistent with
citywide and neighborhood goals. Addresses the value of a neighborhood edge as seen here
and that the RSF-18 zoning district meets this.
Public Comment:
Nancy Kahanak, Neighbor: Requests clarification on what RSF-18 is.
Garner: Provides details about the RSF-18 zoning district.
Kahanik: Lives in the Walker Park neighborhood and appreciates all that the PC and staff do in
making informed decisions. Feels that going with the single-family homes would be preferable.
Russ Meyer, Neighbor: Listening to the amended request he feels comfortable with RSF-18. A
neighbor wanted him to add that his neighbor is fine with Downtown General, but only if it is
approved with single-family housing permitted.
Karen Muehler, Neighbor: Moved from Austin, Texas due to affordability and lives in this
neighborhood because of its access. Often walks around the Walker Park neighborhood and
does not want to see more businesses or multi-family in the area.
Tony Wappel, Neighbor: Is comfortable with the proposed amended request to RSF-18. It is
much preferable to a large multi-family development as proposed years ago.
No more public comment was presented.
Allison Thurmond-Quinlan, Commissioner: Acknowledges her love of Downtown General,
and sympathizes with the applicant's frustration at the gaps in the zoning code. Will abstain from
the vote considering her status as a nearby property owner.
Tracy Hoskins, Commissioner: Asks if Commercial Services would achieve the gaps in the
code.
Garner: Questions if Neighborhood Services may be what he means.
Hoskins: Inquires whether a solution to concerns would be a Bill of Assurance to limit the
permitted uses that may "scare the neighbors to death."
Garner: Yes
Hoskins: Asks why the adjacent DG doesn't justify this rezoning.
Garner: This is a notable property in that there has been a significant amount of neighborhood
input that has guided this zoning.
Hoskins: Has no problem with RSF-18 or DG, but recognizes that there are some permitted
uses in the DG zoning district that are not for this area.
Planning Commission
Septemberj2,2016
Agenda Item 1
8-22-2016 Minutes
Page 9 of 11
Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: Agrees with Hoskins about some of the DG uses not being
appropriate, and with the applicant about holes in the zoning code. Feels DG may still have
been appropriate with a Bill of Assurance limiting uses. Emphasizes the importance of
affordability and the inability of potential residents to buy land in the area. Feels that RSF-18
with other ordinances can create a good neighborhood that allows for affordability and makes
this a good proposal. Recommends approval.
Brown: Notes that some businesses can be located in an NC zoning district, but only with a
conditional use permit.
Motion:
Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to forward RZN 16-5521 recommending approval of
the applicant's amended request for RSF-18. Commissioner Hoskins seconded the motion.
Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-1. Commissioner Quinlan abstained.
ADM 16-5538: Administrative Item (2180 W. MOORE LN./SPRINGWOODS C-PZD
MODIFICATION, 286): Submitted by MORRISON-SHIPLEY ENGINEERS, INC. for properties at
2180 W. MOORE LN. The properties are zoned C-PZD, COMMERCIAL PLANNED ZONING
DISTRICT and contain approximately 12.50 acres. The request is to amend the SPRINGWOODS
C-PZD, COMMERCIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT to allow single family dwellings as a use
by right on the subject property.
Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner: Gave the staff report
Patrick Foy, Morrison-Shipley, Applicant's Representative: Has no further comment, and is
available for questions.
Public Comment:
No public comment was presented.
Tracy Hoskins, Commissioner: Notes that this is a PZD, and that despite the minimum lot
size mentioned by staff, how does the Planning Commission know what requirements the
development will be held to?
Andrew Garner, Planning Director: Although PZD was an early one without significant
clarification of the zoning requirements, the applicant has provided very clear bulk and area
zoning regulations for the proposed single-family use.
Hoskins: Questions whether it is, or is not the case that architectural drawings are typically
provided for a PZD
Garner: For a new PZD yes, but as this is an amendment to an existing one it was not deemed
necessary.
Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: Would ordinances not in this C-PZD apply to the PZD, like
the small lot infill requirements?
Garner: Yes they would apply.
Planning Commission
Septembeird2,2016
Agenda Item 1
8-22-2016 Minutes
Page 10 of 11
Motion:
Commissioner Selby made a motion to forward ADM 16-5538 recommending approval as
proposed. Commissioner Autry seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with
a vote of 8-0-0.
4. Reports: None
5. Announcements: None
6. Adjournment Time: 8:07 PM
7. Submitted by: City Planning Division
Planning Commission
Septembeir 12,2016
Agel Item 1
8-22-2016 Minutes
Page 11 of 11
CITY OF
■
ev
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO
le
ARKANSAS
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission
THRU: Andrew Garner, City Planning Director
FROM: Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner
MEETING DATE: September 12, 2016
SUBJECT: ADM 16-5580: Administrative Item (542 E. DICKSON ST.IYANCEY'S
DICKSON STREET HOT DOGS MOBILE VENDOR, 484): Submitted by
CODE YANCEY for property located at 542 E. DICKSON. The property is
zoned MSC. MAIN STREET/CENTER and contains approximately 0.58
acres. The request is for a one year mobile vendor permit.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of ADM 16-5580 with conditions.
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of West Avenue and
Dickson Street, approximately 200 feet east of the Frisco Trails crossing of Dickson. Within the
property is a brick courtyard of about 500 square feet connected by two pedestrian connections
to the adjacent public sidewalk. Yancey's Dickson Street Hot Dogs was previously issued a 6-
month mobile vendor permit for this location. No complaints have been filed with the City since
the September 2015 issuance of this permit. The 6-month permit expired in March 2016.
The applicant, Yancey's Dickson Street Hot Dogs, submitted an application for a one-year permit
to operate on the property and will open for business if the Planning Commission approves this
request.
DISCUSSION:
Request:The applicant requests a Mobile Vendor Annual Permit for location on private property.
The business (a food vendor) will be permitted to operate from September 12, 2016 through
September 12. 2017 if this permit is approved. The applicant may then apply for a 6-month permit
or another one-year permit year.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of ADM 16-5580. finding that the business meets the minimum
requirements and intent of Chapter 178.04, which states: The purpose [of the ordinance] is to
facilitate and control the ability of mobile vendors and mobile vendor courts to operate oil private
property while ensuring such use is compatible with nearby properties, fosters an aesthetically
appealing sfreetscape and does not create a dangerous traffic condition.
Mallin Address: Planning Commission
9 Setember 12,2016
113 W. Mountain Street www.[aye ttevHWAdbhb_avltem 2
Fayetteville, AR 72701 16-5580 Yancey's Hot Dogs
Page 1 of 13
Conditions of Approval:
1. The permit Shall be valid for 365 days and allow this business to remain in the proposed
location until September 12, 2017; and
2. If the business is found to impede pedestrian movement or otherwise create an dangerous
traffic condition the permit may be revoked.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required
Date: September 12, 2016 ❑ Approved ❑ Forwarded ❑ Denied
Motion: Second: Vote:
Notes:
FINDINGS OF THE STAFF
178.04 Outdoor Mobile Vendors Located On Private Property
(A) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to facilitate and control the ability of mobile vendors
and mobile vendor courts to operate on private property while ensuring such use is compatible
with nearby properties, fosters an aesthetically appealing streetscape and does not create a
dangerous traffic condition.
(C) Mobile Vendor Annual Permit. Mobile vendors are allowed to locate for one year in the
same location with approval of the Planning Commission as an administrative item. After the
one year period has expired the mobile vendor may move to another location or may request
a one year renewal from the Planning Commission.
(1) An annual mobile vendor permit may be issued by the Planning Commission after making
the following determinations:
(a) All of the requirements of 178.04(0) have been met. (See attached UDC section)
Finding: The applicant has complied with all requirements of 178.04(D).
(b) The applicant has established that the operation of the mobile vendor will foster an
aesthetically appealing streetscape and will not create a dangerous traffic condition.
Finding: This portion of the subject property has been utilized for by the applicant for the
tenure of their previous mobile vendor permit, maintaining a clean and orderly
appearance with no reports of impeding pedestrian or vehicular movement. In
Planning Commission
September 12,2016
G IETC1Develapment Services Review120161Development Revieml6-5580 ADM 542 W Dickson St. (Yancey Ha[Dogs-1 Yr Mobile Agenda Item 2
Vendor)484103 Planning Commission109-12-2016 16-5580 Yancey's Hot Dogs
Page 2 of 13
staffs opinion, this business can operate without creating a dangerous traffic
condition.
(c) The mobile vendor business shall not match or duplicate the primary food or beverage
offerings sold by permanent businesses located upon property immediately adjacent
to and on the same side of the street as the proposed mobile vendor, unless the mobile
vendor predates the aforementioned permanent businesses.
Finding: On the same side of Dickson and adjacent to the west of the subject property,
Deluxe Burger, a primarily hamburger-serving business has two hot dog
offerings on their menu- Neither are identical to the products offered by the
applicant, and are therefore not considered to be a match or duplication of a
primary food or beverage offering.
BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
• Chapter 178.04
• Request Letter
• Vendor Image
• Site Plan
• One Mile Map
• Close Up Map
Planning Commission
September 12,2016
G lETODevelopment Services RevieW20160evelopment Review%16-5580 ADM 542 W. Dickson St (Yancey Hot Dogs-1 Yr Mobile Agenda Item 2
Vendor)484103 Planning Commission109-12-2018 16-5580 Yancey's Hot Dogs
Page 3 of 13
UDC Chapter 178-04: Outdoor Mobile Vendors Located_On Private Property
(A) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to facilitate and control the ability of mobile vendors
and mobile vendor courts to operate on private property while ensuring such use is compatible
with nearby properties, fosters an aesthetically appealing streetscape and does not create a
dangerous traffic condition.
(B) Mobile Vendor Six Month Permit. Mobile vendors are allowed to operate on a temporary basis
for a maximum of six months in one location during a calendar year with administrative
approval of the Planning Division. Mobile vendors utilizing a six month permit may request to
relocate to a different site at least one quarter mile (1,320 feet)from the original location after
this—six month period has expired. However, a new mobile vendor application shall be
reviewed and approved by the Planning Division for every new location. This permit will expire
six months from the date issued and the mobile vending unit shall be removed from the
property. The mobile vendor owner also has the option of requesting an annual permit from
the Planning Commission at or before the end of their initial six month permit time period.
(1) A six month permit for a mobile vendor business shall be approved and issued
administratively by the Planning Division after making the following determinations:
(a) All of the requirements of 178.04(D) have been met.
(b) The applicant has established that the operation of the mobile vendor will foster an
aesthetically appealing streetscape and will not create or worsen a dangerous traffic
condition.
(c) The mobile vendor business shall not match or duplicate the primary food or beverage
offerings sold by permanent businesses located upon property immediately adjacent
to and on the same side of the street as the proposed mobile vendor, unless the mobile
vendor predates the aforementioned permanent businesses.
(C) Mobile VendorAnnual Permit. Mobile vendors are allowed to locate for one year in the same
location with approval of the Planning Commission as an administrative item. After the one
year period has expired the mobile vendor may move to another location or may request a
one year renewal from the Planning Commission_
(1) An annual mobile vendor permit may be issued by the Planning Commission after making
the following determinations:
(a) All of the requirements of 178.04(D) have been met.
(b) The applicant has established that the operation of the mobile vendor will foster an
aesthetically appealing streetscape and will not create a dangerous traffic condition.
(c) The mobile vendor business shall not match or duplicate the primary food or beverage
offerings sold by permanent businesses located upon property immediately adjacent
to and on the same side of the street as the proposed mobile vendor, unless the mobile
vendor predates the aforementioned permanent businesses.
Planning Commission
September 12,2016
G 1ETC1Development Services Reviewl20160evelopment Review\16-5580 ADM 542 W Dickson 5t.(Yancey Hot Dogs-1 Yr Mobile Agenda Item 2
Vendery 484103 Planning Commission109-12-2016 16-5580 Yancey's Hot Dogs
Page 4 of 13
(D) Mobile Vendor Permit Requirements. All mobile vendors located on private property with Six
Month or Annual Mobile Vendor Permits shall meet the following requirements and submittals
prior to approval:
(1) Each application for a permit to conduct a mobile vendor business on private property
shall be accompanied by a $100 permit review and processing fee. Mobile vendor permits
shall be issued to the owner of the mobile vendor vehicle.
(2) Application for a permit to conduct a mobile vendor business shall include the following
items in a format acceptable to the Planning Division:
(a) Name, address, contact information and signature of both the property owner and the
mobile vendor requesting to locate on private property.
(b) A valid copy of all necessary permits required by State and County health authorities
which shall be conspicuously displayed at all times during the operation of the
business.
(c) Proof of application for remittance of HMR tax to the City of Fayetteville, when
applicable.
(d) A detailed site plan roughly drawn to scale showing the location of the property lines,
each mobile vendor location, building setback lines, vehicle parking spaces, the
sidewalk location and any proposed dining or sitting areas.
(e) Written authorization, signed by the property owner or legal representative of record,
stating that the mobile vendor is permitted to operate on the subject property for a
specified period of time.
(3) The mobile vendor has the responsibility to dispose of all wastes in accordance with all
applicable laws. Mobile vendors are not permitted to dispose of their trash in public trash
receptacles.
(4) The mobile vendor permit issued shall not be transferable in any manner.
(5) The mobile vendor permit issued shall be conspicuously displayed at all times during the
operation of the mobile vending business.
(6) The proposed use must be a permitted use-by-right within the underlying zoning district,
(7) Mobile vendors shall maintain compliance with parking lot requirements for the existing
business and the proposed mobile vendor business. The number of required parking
spaces is determined by the use and size of the proposed mobile vendor business and by
the use and size of the existing business. The use of parking for a mobile vendor may not
reduce the number of spaces below the minimum required for other uses occurring on the
property. The location of the mobile vendor shall not impede traffic flow or create a
dangerous traffic condition, as determined by Planning Division upon review of the site
plan.
(8) Mobile vendors shall comply with the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
requirements if the public has access to the interior of any mobile vending unit.
Planning Commission
September 12,2016
G:IETODevelopment Services Review120161Development Review%16-5580 ADM 542 W Dickson 5t. (Yancey Hot Dogs-1 Yr Mobile Agenda Item 2
Vendor)484103 Planning CommisswM9-12-2016 16-5580 Yancey's Hot Dogs
Page 5 of 13
ADM 16-5580
Caper Letter
& Menu
2016 Sidewalk Vendor Application
Written description of the type of vendor business proposed including:
a. Type of product beingsoid.
-Hot dogs, polish sausages,chips
-Canned soda, bottled water
b. A description of the mobile vendor device being used with a detailed scale drawing, picture
or diagram with material specifications of the pushcart to be used.
-See attached pictures
c. Hours of operation.
-Primarily Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights around 8pm-3am
-Occasionally days during events and festivals
Planning Commission
September 12,2016
Agenda Item 2
16-5580 Yancey's Hot Dogs
Page 6 of 13
JI SA qac.R.r
y TOPPINGS:
4 a,
EST. 2008
0& ii00
HOT DOG . . . . . . . . .seas. .$3 .00
POLISH SAUSAGE. .. $4. 00
44�
IR
~�v COMBOS:
HOT DOG COMBO, . . $4. SO
(HOT DOG. CHIPS. DRINK)
POLISH COMBO. . . . . . $5. 50
(POLISH SAUSAGE. CHIPS, DRINK) .,,--,.
6 r
DRINKS...$ l CHIPS.....$ 1
Planning Commission
September 12,2016
Agenda Item 2
16-5580 Yancey's Hot Dogs
Page 7 of 13
ADM 16-5580
Vendor Image
Original New York City Street Cart
Pu111 HJndlc Hot C� ei Line Not $ Cold Runeidq
tall li0hls PP
6315 .;Watri H.,xd Sink
Ie+ed
y-,Ilon'.v.+.SL• t,.xk 1 I l� _S Cil.><rt?h
L Water Takik
T mou 1 :a Lr.
Cewtrel Propane
Knri I SM4 CWW To
eukiretla `bo Tow'Bar
�itll
Body
-
Two Sta}e
Ola lIA Re}Y 13t e�
Brrhar�
Shut on
valve
f rwder
Dooble Sided Pre}aratlen Area
I
I
l I
-.
SIDE VIEW
Planning Commission
September 12,2016
Agenda Item 2
16-5580 Yancey's Hot Dogs
Page 8 of 13
ADM 16-5580
Site Plan
s, & Images
20'
_ rR
_ `
t
Planning Commission
September 12,2016
Agenda Item 2
16-5580 Yancey's Hot Dogs
Page 9 of 13
Bank of Fayetteville Property
40_ loll
. . �. !�. .
1
I� r
f
L�
It
4
proposed location
Planning Commission
September 12,2016
Agenda Item 2
16-5580 Yancey's Hot Dogs
Page 10 of 13
Bank ofFayetteville Proposed Location
- +1
=proposed location
Planning Commission
1
s
■
September1
Agenda Item 2
:1 Yancey's Hot ■••
ADM 15-5580 YANCEY HOT DOGS - 1 YR MOBILE A&
One Mile View VENDOR NORTH
0 0.125 0-25 0.5 Miles j
++ A.
.....-...----- _.--.----1
Film
r
r_r �
Subject Property ■W
I
I
I
R-Q
R4IF-4 f
HII
RMF-24 IF
I.nng EXTRACTION
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY �!
Legend __-._ �...,a,- CDMMERC�Ay
ASF-;'
4 - ' Planning Area ns FFOORMRASEa O1sTRI CTs
� � _ - REF•e i Doxrew•can
Fayetteville City Limits ❑ =-n,e�,e_
Rkaloe�TIAI MULMA40LY �+,y,n sreM c.rr
�RI-•2 Rowena•t.w ern ilrn�.n•ry �Owrne.n G-.e..
Shared Use Paved Trail �� � „„.,•
•�ftlJF•e2 Meaneei•+.d S.rv�..
R �RMF.i. �Irrymyrgw Gn�.rvewr
111111+ Trail {Proposed} .__ RMF-=. PLA NNED ZOINNG DISTRICTS
} Planning Area r �wFw �.._...
IRDUVITUAL INs TIf UT 4 .
Building Footprint - - I•+,.-.,� .�nl,�.�.:.. Manning Co mission
Fayetteville City Limits --- :mn..I e„.
September J2,2016
Agenda Item 2
16-5580 Yancey's Hot Dogs
Page 12 of 13
ADM 16-5580 YANCEY DOGS - 1 YR MOBILE
Close Up View NORTH
WATSON ST
Lu
Q
F-
7 M1W
Q
F Ur
[[7
C7
LEY 91 e
Subject Property
DICKSONST
LU
w
0
x
LU
LU
d
Legend
RMF-40
_ Planning ArBa Feet Main Street Center
Fayetteville Cit
� ' ' � Y Limits 0 35 70 140 210 280 � Downtown General
Shared Use Paved Trail
Building Footprint 1 inch = 100 feet Planning Co mission
September 2,2016
gen a Item 2
16-5580 Yancey's Hot Dogs
Page 13 of 13
CITY OF
Tay •
-Ile PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO
ARKANSAS
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission
THRU: Andrew Garner, City Planning Director
FROM: Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner
MEETING DATE: September 12, 2015
SUBJECT: ADM 16-5581: Administrative Item (617 N. COLLEGE AVE./BIG SEXY
FOOD, 445): Submitted by BRENT HALE for property located at 617 N.
COLLEGE- The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL
and contains approximately 0.42 acres. The request is for a one year
mobile vendor permit.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of ADM 16-5581 with conditions.
BACKGROUND:
The subject parking lot is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Trenton Boulevard
and College Avenue, at the eastern border of the Wilson Park Neighborhood. Over the past five
years there have been a number of outdoor mobile vendors on this property, primarily operating
out of airstream trailers that the property owner leases to small and start-up businesses.
The applicant, Big Sexy Food, submitted an application for a one-year permit to operate on the
property and will open for business if the Planning Commission approves this request.
DISCUSSION:
Request.The applicant requests a Mobile Vendor Annual Permit for location on private property.
The business (a food vendor) will be permitted to operate from September 12, 2016 through
September 12, 2017 if this permit is approved. The applicant may then apply for a 6-month permit
or another one-year permit year.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of ADM 15-5581, finding that the business meets the minimum
requirements and intent of Chapter 178.04, which states: The purpose [of the ordinance] is to
facilitate and control the ability of mobile vendors and mobile vendor courts to operate on private
property while ensuring such use is compatible with nearby properties, fosters an aesthetically
appealing streetscape and does not create a dangerous traffic condition.
Conditions of Approval:
1_ The permit shall be valid for 365 days and allow this business to remain in the proposed
location until September 12, 2017_
Mailing Address: Planning Commission
113 W. Mountain Street www.tayette�,,,eAd 1�,ern 3
Fayetteville, AR 72701 Big Sex Item 3
16-5581 Big Sexy Food
Page 1 of 10
2. In accordance with Federal ADA law and City Code (UDC Section 178.04-D-8), the trailer
for this vendor does not meet ADA compliance, therefore the general public are not
permitted to access/dine in the interior of the trailer.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required
Date: September 12 2016 ❑ Approved ❑ Forwarded ❑ Denied
Motion: Second: Vote:
Notes:
FINDINGS OF THE STAFF
178.04 Outdoor Mobile Vendors Located On Private Property
(A) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to facilitate and control the ability of mobile vendors
and mobile vendor courts to operate on private property while ensuring such use is compatible
with nearby properties, fosters an aesthetically appealing streetscape and does not create a
dangerous traffic condition.
(C) Mobile Vendor Annual Permit. Mobile vendors are allowed to locate for one year in the
same location with approval of the Planning Commission as an administrative item. After the
one year period has expired the mobile vendor may move to another location or may request
a one year renewal from the Planning Commission.
(1} An annual mobile vendor permit may be issued by the Planning Commission after making
the following determinations:
(a) All of the requirements of 178.04(D) have been met. (See attached UDC section)
Finding: The applicant has complied with all requirements of 178.04(D).
(b) The applicant has established that the operation of the mobile vendor will foster an
aesthetically appealing streetscape and will not create a dangerous traffic condition.
Finding: The subject property has been utilized for several years for mobile vending and
maintains a clean and orderly appearance. In staff's opinion, this business can
operate without creating a dangerous traffic condition.
(c) The mobile vendor business shall not match or duplicate the primary food or beverage
offerings sold by permanent businesses located upon property immediately adjacent
to and on the same side of the street as the proposed mobile vendor, unless the mobile
vendor predates the aforementioned permanent businesses.
Planning Commission
September 12,2016
G:\ETC\Developmant Services Reviem20160eveloprnent Reviaw115-5581 ADM 617 N College Ave.(Big Sexy Food-1 Yr Mobile Agenda Item 3
Vendor)445%03 Planning CommissionM-1 2-201 6 16-5581 Big Sexy Food
Page 2 of 10