A transcript of Theta Tau's appearance before the Fayetteville Planning Commission is presented below. For reference, here is the proposed plan for the property.
FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Monday, September 27, 2004 at 5:30 p.m. in room 219 of
the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
(…non-relevant sections deleted by the Upsilon Gnome…
Commission Members Present: Alan Ostner, Nancy Allen, Loren Shackelford, Jill Anthes, Christine
Myres, Christian Vaught, James Graves, and Candy Clark.
Commission Staff Present: Jeremy Pate, Matt Casey, Kit Williams, Suzanne Morgan, Renee Thomas, and
Tim Conklin.
For Theta Tau: Ron Homeyer - Project Civil Engineer, Ken Emanuelson - Project Architect, and
Richard Smith - Upsilon Housing Corporation President.
…)
CUP 04-1158: Conditional Use (THETA TAU HOUSE, 443): Submitted by RON HOMEYER for property located at 1322
WEST CLEVELAND. The property is zoned RMF-24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.93 acres.
The request is to approve additional parking for the large scale development.
LSD 04-1128: Large Scale Development (THETA TAU HOUSE, 443): Submitted by RON HOMEYER for property located at
1322 W. CLEVELAND AVENUE. The property is zoned RMF-24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately
1.93 acres. The request is to approve 6,000 sq.ft. fraternity house with 12 rooms and 26 parking spaces
proposed.
Ostner:
Our next item is CUP 04-1158 for the Theta Tau House. If we can have the staff report please.
Pate:
I am going to discuss the next two items together if it pleases the Commission. The first item, as you mentioned
is the Conditional Use for the Theta Tau house located at 1322 W. Cleveland. Item number seven is LSD 04-1128
also for the Theta Tau house at 1322 W. Cleveland. The property is zoned RMF-24 and contains approximately 1.93
acres. Currently it is the site of an existing wood frame house serving as the fraternity house for the house
corporation of Theta Tau. The property is located on Cleveland Street surrounded by single family homes and
University of Arkansas property as well as multi-family property to the east. As I mentioned, the property is
zoned RMF-24 in which a fraternity house developed in this matter under Use Unit 26 multi-family dwellings is a
use permitted by right. The applicant is proposing to construct a new 6,000 sq.ft. fraternity house comprised of
12 rooms and 26 parking spaces. Each room is intended to house two students for a total of 24 students on site.
26 parking spaces proposed number more than that which is allowed by ordinance and thus, the request for a
Conditional Use for additional parking spaces. For 12 bedrooms a maximum of 16 spaces is allowed.
With regard to the Large Scale Development, some additional information, the applicant is requesting this
Conditional Use based on the demand expressed in their letter by the number of students living on site as well as
the potential for future expansion, which is best noted on your landscaping and tree preservation plans. There is
a dashed area that shows the potential for future expansion. We are not reviewing that as of tonight. With regard
to findings on the Conditional Use, staff finds in favor of this Conditional Use request. Granting the
Conditional Use with the provisions of screening from adjacent properties will not adversely affect the public
interest, rather, it will improve a non-conforming situation as part of the Large Scale Development adding trees
and shrubs in this area. Additionally, with 24 students living in the proposed facility and Cleveland Street not
designed to allow for on street parking there is the potential that exists for disruption of the surrounding
neighborhood without adequate parking for this parking.
Additionally, staff recommends screening along both sides of this parking lot to ameliorate the potential
negative affects of the 26 space parking area on adjacent single family residences. You do have letters in your
packet from at least one of those property owners who is very supportive of the project and has been in support
of this use for a number of use as the Theta Tau property. However, this property owner is requesting additional
screening for the additional parking. Staff is recommending a vegetative screen to be planted in that area as
well as surrounding the property where adequate screening does not currently exist. Determination of that
adequate screening shall meet the approval of the Landscape Administrator and a detailed plan submitted prior to
building permit.
Staff is recommending approval of the Conditional Use request for additional parking with five
conditions. Number one, Planning Commission approval of the accompanying Large Scale Development plans with the
conditions of approval as stated. Item number two deals with the Planning Commission determination of adequate
screening of the parking area. I just went over the recommended screening there. Item number three also addresses
screening surrounding the property where adequate screening does not exist. Items four and five deal with parking
lot lighting and trash enclosures to be screened. With regard to the Large Scale Development that is a tandem
item to this request, staff is also recommending approval of that item. The Parks and Recreation Board recommends
accepting money in lieu in this area in the amount of $1,965 which is condition number four.
Also, as shown on your tree preservation plans, the developer shall be required to protect existing trees
directly north of the proposed development, those trees are listed as 202 through 206, until such time as removal
of these trees is deemed necessary and unavoidable due to future expansion. Essentially, the plans show that
those trees are to be removed and staff is requesting that they be protected and preserved until such time as
there is an expansion. The applicant has indicated that that might not occur in the future, it is really just a
matter of showing us where that could occur.
Ostner:
Is the applicant present? If you would introduce yourself and give us your presentation.
Homeyer:
I’m Ron Homeyer with Civil Engineering. I submitted this Conditional Use and Large Scale so I don’t know if I can
blend the two or if we need to be real specific on the Conditional Use here.
Ostner:
You can blend the two but we are going to vote on them separately.
Homeyer:
As he said, we are going to upgrade the facility by replacing the existing wood frame building with a new one
with paved parking. This paved parking is an attempt to accommodate both existing and future needs as well as
trying to comply with the zoning code and also have adequate parking for the meetings and such that are held
there. We had a little problem with the screening to protect the adjoining properties from the headlights of the
vehicles that are going to park in the parking lot. I guess I will be open to any questions you all might have on
that.
Ostner:
At this point I am going to open it up to the public if anyone would like to speak to this issue. We are going to
hear the Conditional Use and the Large Scale all at once so if you have comments on either of those we can hear
them now. Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. We can discuss these
together but we are going to make motions and vote independently.
Shackelford:
Staff, do we have signed conditions of approval on either one or both of these?
Pate:
I have not received those as of yet.
Shackelford:
My question to the applicant then, have you had an opportunity to review the conditions of approval that staff is
recommending on these two items?
Homeyer:
Yes we have reviewed the conditions.
Shackelford:
Are you in agreement with all of these conditions as they are stated? If not, which ones do you have issues
with?
Smith:
My name is Richard Smith and I’m the president of the corporation for Theta Tau. I haven’t really had a chance to
look at the actual signage rules but I’m pretty certain that we won’t have any problem complying with whatever
you need. I know in the past we kind of stepped on some toes when we painted a bit Theta Tau on the roof and that
didn’t go down very well. That was mostly just ignorance on our part but now we know. I think any signage that we
are going to put up we will go through the right channels and find out what can and can’t be done so we don’t
have any problem complying.
Shackelford:
Do you have any trouble with the proposed screening?
Smith:
No, that is great. We want to do everything we can to make our neighbors feel confident and good about it.
Anything we do is going to be way better than what is there right now.
Vaught:
Staff, this deals with the possible future expansion. Is that something that we will see back or is that
something that they would have by right to be able to do?
Pate:
The use is allowed by right if they meet their density requirements under 24 units per acre. I believe I
mentioned in this that they are developing at 6.2 dwelling units per acre so they are well under their density.
As far as the development regulations go, regardless of whether it comes back before the Planning Commission,
they have to comply with the exact same requirements that we see. It really depends on how much expansion there
is.
Ostner:
With that expansion, of course, they would need more parking and they would have to do more parking I’m assuming.
I know we are not seeing an expansion tonight, I’m just wondering.
Emanuelson:
I’m Ken Emanuelson. I’m the project architect. We have submitted the plans for the whole project and again, I
don’t know whether or not we will ever build that. We just want to make everyone aware that we have done our tree
planting and everything oriented around the fact that we may go ahead and expand the house. The future expansion
calls for another twelve rooms which would give us 24 total rooms with 26 parking spaces. I think we will have a
better feeling once they get moved in and everything, whether or not we will actually need some more parking
other than this parking now. My sense is that we probably will and we have an idea of where that will go.
Ostner:
On the layout that I saw in our packet there is a big area at the north end of the parking lot that is not
delineated, is that parking?
Homeyer:
No, that is a hammerhead turn around that was requested by the Fire Marshall. We actually moved the building
closer to the south property line than initially planned to meet the setback requirements for a fire access. That
area is reserved as a no parking zone, it is a fire lane so that fire vehicles can get in there and turn around
to get back out.
Anthes:
You eluded a moment ago to the fact that you had some ideas where excess parking would go if the building was
added onto, can you elaborate on that a little bit?
Emanuelson:
We would probably be parking along the east side of the property. We would have a parking lot there for whatever
number of spaces we would need there. We are trying to keep a big greenspace in the back there for the
fraternity. When they do that addition they may find that they don’t have to have any more parking and that would
be great. They could find out for instance, that the spaces that we built originally for the house would
accommodate the future addition, at that point what we are doing would be for the entire house. That would be
great. If not, we will have to add some spaces along the east.
Anthes:
That is interesting because the thing that kind of frustrates me a little bit about this project is that the
house is a vast improvement over what is there and I think the neighborhood is really going to be interested in
seeing that. Cleveland, however, is this very uniform street of large houses. Even the apartment buildings that
are there are set back a standard distance from the street and this deviates quite a bit from that by pushing the
house way back and putting a parking lot in the front. Even the rendering that you guys have submitted doesn’t
show a parking lot in the front. It shows a curb line. Obviously, the parking lot does not contribute to the
elevation of the building as well as you would like. I was hoping that this much of a Conditional Use request for
quite a bit of percentage over what we would allow to me, if that parking was built on the east side where you
are talking about the expansion parking and reducing that parking on the front of the building would actually be
more compatible with the neighborhood. Have you explored that idea?
Emanuelson:
Not really because the fact that you are requesting that we do for instance, all of those houses that you are
talking about are on very short lots. This has two acres that is a very deep lot. We are not building a house, we
are building a pretty decent size structure. It is my job to utilize the property as efficiently as I can and if
I didn’t have to provide that additional parking on the east side I wouldn’t do it. In my opinion, the fact that
there is one house there and there isn’t a house on the west so there isn’t any streetscape there really. There
is one house there, the fraternity house and an empty site so I don’t think that really occurs. If we were, for
instance, to put the house up near the front of the lot we would have to provide a service road back to the back
of the property, there would be no way to expand the house. It is just not a viable alternative. It just really
doesn’t work at all.
Anthes:
That is not what I was asking you. I was asking if you had considered that the parking spaces that you are
allowed by right would remain where they were and had you considered putting the excess that you are asking us to
grant you a Conditional Use for in the overflow area that you have designated for the future in order to
contribute more positively towards the street?
Emanuelson:
I think that we are going to contribute greatly positively to the street honestly.
Anthes:
Have you considered taking the excess parking that you are requesting…
Emanuelson:
I honestly have analyzed this thing until I’m green and this is a very efficient way to do this and it is the
most attractive.
Vaught:
Along those lines, I would prefer that it not go that way at all because there are several significant trees in
that area that we would be losing. It looks like keeping the parking in the front we lose two significant trees
where if they ever go east you’ve got several significant trees in that overflow parking area. That worries me
and I would rather keep those for screening. Those are rather large trees.
Emanuelson:
What we have done is put the parking area almost on the footprint of the existing house so that it doesn’t affect
the trees that are there. There is a lot of thought that has been put into this.
Ostner:
I just wanted to add that I believe this Conditional Use is warranted. I read in here that the neighbors would
actually appreciate the proper amount of parking instead of people parking out on the street and what not. I
wanted to request that a berm be built just adding to the front landscape buffer along Cleveland, just adding a
berm right under it 3’ tall because many times the shrubbery and greenery can get really cut back and we are left
with flat dirt and trees and I think that would benefit. I would be willing to grant the Conditional Use request
if a berm were to be added along Cleveland Street.
Anthes:
I respectfully disagree with that. I believe that the berm is a suburban development landscape pattern and it is
not an urban condition that you see on Cleveland.
Ostner:
So is 26 parking spaces in front of a house.
Anthes:
Not on a residential street.
Emanuelson:
Please consider the fact that across the street from this property there is like a 600 car parking lot there. The
parking is not that objectionable.
Anthes:
I understand. It is also a University property that this Planning Commission does not review their development
and has no jurisdiction over it.
Emanuelson:
It also needs to be there. I don’t have any trouble with that and it is something that we can easily do.
Ostner:
Thank you.
Clark:
In the Large Scale Development packet there was a letter from the neighbor that talked about screening, which I’m
very comfortable with but it also talked about drainage on the east. Matt, is this development going to affect
this resident to the east with drainage?
Casey:
Currently the site drains to the east and the proposed development is keeping the drainage the same. The site
follows the retaining wall down, the proposal is to require the water not to increase and they are going to be
discharging the water to the same point so they will not be increasing the water discharge.
Shackelford:
As you stated earlier, I think this type of development calls for that sort of increase in parking so I am going
to go ahead and make a motion that we approve CUP 04-1158 as stated.
Allen:
I will second.
Ostner:
Is there further discussion? Would you call the roll please?
Roll Call:
Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 04-1158 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0.
Thomas:
The motion carries.
Ostner:
The next item is LSD 04-1128 for the Theta Tau house. We have already heard the staff report. Is there anyone
from the public who wants to talk about this issue? Seeing none, I will close it to the public. Would the
applicant like to add anything to their presentation?
Homeyer:
No.
Shackelford:
We have had a lot of conversation about future development and future parking lots and those sort of things but
none of that is on the table before us tonight. I think that we owe it to the applicant to have a finding on the
specific project as it was drawn and presented to us tonight. I am agreeing with staff on all of their findings
of fact. I think that this project is a significant improvement to this neighborhood. Right or wrong there is a
600 car parking lot across the street and there is RMF-40 to the east. This is, in my mind, a buffer between the
university and a very nice neighborhood. I think that the architect has done a good job in drawing it in a way
that it is going to be a benefit to the neighbors. With those statements, I am going to make a motion that we
approve LSD 04-1128.
Allen:
I will second.
Ostner:
Is there further discussion?
Myres:
I just had a question about signed conditions of approval. Those will be in hand regardless of how we
vote?
Pate:
Yes Ma’am, by your approval those conditions are binding.
Ostner:
Is there further discussion? Renee?
Roll Call:
Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 04-1128 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0.
Thomas:
The motion carries.
(…)