Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-11-28 Minutes16 MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The Fayetteville Planning Commission met at 4:00 P.M., Tuesday, November 28, 1972, in the Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Members Present: John Maguire, Dr. Walter Brown, Christine Childress, Donald Nickell, Morton Gitelman, Roy Clinton, Ernest Jacks, Helen Edmiston, Al Hughes, Members Absent: None Others Present: Larry Wood, Marion Orton, Ray Trammell, Bill Storey, William �J Myers, Patti Carlson, Russell Purdy, Peter Petty, Mike Mullan, Tom Comley, Chairman Roy Clinton called the meeting to order. Chairman Clinton announced that if there was anyone present on the proposal to regulate garage sales in GARAGE the City of Fayetteville, Item Two (B) on the agenda, the Planning Commission SALES will not be hearing this item. It will probably go before the Board of Directors, The minutes of the November 14, 1972 Planning Commission meeting were approved as mailed, with one correction. On page 3 of the minutes, the 50 ft. setback MINUTES in the "C" districts changed to 40 ft. The minutes of the November 7, 1972 Planning Commission meeting were approved as mailed. The first item on the agenda was a proposal for an amendment to the Land Use AM�ND Plan for property along Highway 62 West, between Highway 71 By-Pa55 and the LAND USE City Limits line, tabled from November 7, 1972, Larry Wood gave a presentation Hwvo 6 to the Commission on this plan. Mr. Wood said that there were two alternatives on which he would recommend linear zoning along Highway 62. 1) The developers provide a service road 2) Stnictaccess control in terms of curb cuts. He told the Commission that'%dfter'talking with Mr. Ken Riley, with the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning don -mission, he had made some changes in his original proposal, Mr. Wood said he was not sure how one goes about getting the �egal right to cross another persons property internally to gain access. He suggested that it would be better to try to connect the parking lots adjacent to the front property line rather than farther back, because we know there will be no build- ings in this area. Mr. Maguire arrived at 4:20 P*Me Mr. Wood said that it appears the depth for any zoning on the north side of Highway 62 in the area of the Rutledge Subdivision should be about 250 ft. He was not sure about the depth on the south side, He also suggested that Rutledge Subdivision get its access off One Mile Road and that the streets leading to Highway 62 be vacated. Mr. Wood said he believed it is workable to have joint accesses, but he believed the Commission should check several other areas first. 1) Whether we get into any legal problems on this. In the past, the City has not assumed any control over state numbered highways in the issuance of driveway permits, In checking, Mr. Wood found that the City does have the right to superimpose their regulations over the state., so the City can come back in and establish some sort of highway control regulation, Mr. 1.00d suggested that this be taken out of the concept for Highway 62 at this time, and to consider developing some access control city-wide, for all state and federal numbered highways, This would amount to an amendment to our existing curb -cut ordinance, or a new one. 10 11/28/72 . 2 - Morton Gitelman asked Mr. Wood whether he would still recoimiiend ammending the Land Use Plan to permit linear zoning along Highway 62, if we cannot limit accesses as discussed. Mr. Wood said he would not. He said if we could not get some form of access control, in terms of commercial development, then I think we would be defeating our purposeein turning Highway 62 West loose in terms of strip commercial, Morton Gitelman said he did not think we could force the joint access requirem6nt, unless the properties are developed jointly. He further said that he foresaw the initial development out there to bethe conversion of existing buildings to commercial uses. At that point, he did not see how the Commission could regulate the access. Chairman Clinton said that they could go on and allow development with the condition that when neighboring property is developed, the two property owners would close their separate driveways, and share equally the cost of putting in a new driveway. Morton Gitelman said he felt they were putting the "cart before the horse". Before amending the Land Use Plan, he felt the Commission should have the access controls all worked out. And he felt they needed more time for study, Chairman Clinton said that if the Commission wants to adopt the sort of plan recommended by Larry Wood, we could turn this over to David Malone and have him see where the legal pitfalls would be. He felt it would either be the common access points and parking lots, or service road. Mr. Wood said that he could see some problems on the south side in terms of the commercial dev- elopment, Chairman Clinton instructed Mr. Wood to proceed on the property and lot line locations on both sides of Highway 62, and directed him to then turn it over to David Malone�/-to prepare what he considers a workable draft. Chairman Clinton felt the legal side of it needed to be considered also. Marion Orton asked whether the Planning Commission had decided that this linear commercial zoning is best along Highway 62. She did not feel that Highway 62 is a lost cause. The Chairman told her that there is a lot of it already which has just happened. Dr. Brown said that he was not in favor of stripping it. He wanted it to just stay commercial around the inter- sections. Ernest Jacks moved to have Larry Wood make the further studies suggested, then refer it to David Malone, as requested by the Chairman, Al Hughes se'conded the motion, which was approved unanimously. Chairman Clinton �opened the public hearing on a proposed ordinance to AMENDMENT TO amendmend the zoning ordinance #1747, to regulate liquor stores and taverns ZONING ORD. in the city of Fayetteville. Chairman Clinton asked whether anyone in the Liquor Stores audience had anything to say in favor of this amendment, Ray Trammell, Taverns legal counsel for the University of Arkansas, asked that it be kept in mind that this ordinance was initiated by the City dnd'fibt by the University. The University's response was one of disappointment,/swhen they saw the particular zones indicated, as there is a substantial amount of property on the boundaries of the University which would permit these uses. Chairman Clinton asked if there was any opposition to the ordinance. Bill Storey, an attorney, stated that he represented certain land owners which might be affected by this amendment. He asked whether the proposed ordinance would control the location of taverns, and whether it regulated private clubs within the particular area around the University. Also whether it regulated restaurants who might want to sell beer or light wines. He said as he read this2 it would not regulate grocery stores who might obtain a permit to sell beer or wine. He felt the area covered was arbitrary, and thought that a small ring around the University might be sufficient. If the- University is concerned about students walking to obtain liquor or beer, 11/28/72 . 3 - If they are concerned about students driving, the area bounded by Highway 71 bn the east, and by the by-pass on the north and south would be better. He called this a very extreme remedy for a problem that does not exist. He said there have been four (4) retail liquor permits denied within this area within a year, The Alcoholic Beverage Commission has acted according to the University of Arkansas' wishes on these. He suggested that the Commission make these types of uses a conditional use, and make the proposed permitee have to come to the Commission for clearance. William Myers also spoke against the proposal, and challenged Mr. Trammell to whether or not he represented the University of Arkansas as it is made up of faculty and students, He said it was inproper to try to limit this within certain areas. If they want it, they will still get' -it. And asked why do we make a problem for ourselves by sending them farther out,to obtain it, Al Hughes told Mr. Myers that these boundaries.were selected and finally agreed upon only because the University of Arkansas owned the majority of land in this area. Dr. Brown said that historically speaking, liquor stores and taverns were at one time were not permitted within 2 miles of the campus. Someone asked when "Georges". a tavern on Dickson St,, was originally established, and it was determined that it was in 1934. It was said that they went to court and had all prohibition laws repealed, and this was when the 2 mile limitation was lifted. John Maguire moved to table this matter, and refer this back to the City Attorney to include taverns, night clubs, strip joints, etc. that might dispurse or have other cause to.distribute alcoholic beverages in the area under the gentleman's agreement since 1934. Christine Childress seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously. Don Nickell said that he was opposed to having the University of Arkansas say we don't want them over, here;..put them elsewhere, He �fielt that,one segment of the population should not have the right, unless they all had it. Chairman Clinton opened the public hearing on an ordinance to amend Zoning Ordinance 1747 to permit expansion of owner -occupied, non -conforming residences. One of the Commission members asked Larry Wood his opinion AMEND ZONING ORD, of the proposed ordinance. He said he would certainly recommend against Non�conforming allowing any expansion of a non -conforming use. He said the theory of a Residences non -conforming use is that you have made the decision that the use does not belong and you are trying to encourage a change of use. To allow the expansion of a non -conforming use defeats the purpose of a non -conforming use, The issue is whether or not it is a valid non -conforming use in terms of the land use plan. If the land use plan is not correct, then you should make the plan correct and take it out of the non -conforming category, Patricia Carlson suggested it be Phrased to cover only those non -conforming residences where the owner was the same owner when the property became non -conforming. Al Hughes moved to approve the proposed amendment. Donald Nickell seconded the motion. Russell Purdy asked whether this would limit it to one expansion per non -conforming residence. The vote was taken; Maguire, Childress, Nickell, Gitelman, Clinton, Jacks, Edmiston, and Hughes voted "Aye." Brown voted "Nay." The amendment was approved, The Commission considered a conditional use request submitted by Washington - Madison Baptist Association for use of 'property on James Street. Peter 11-28-72 .4 - Petty was present to represent the appeal. The proposed use had been WASHINGTON—MADISON outlined to the Commission in an earlier meeting. The Commission had BAPTIST ASSOC. ruled that they had the authority to grant the use under the conditional James Street use provision but had required that the adjoining property owners be Conditional Use notified before they granted the use. This requirement had been met, There was no one present to oppose the proposed use, Dr. Walter Brown moved to grant the conditional use request. Helen Edmiston seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously, The Commission considered the conditional use req�uest of Carco Rentals, Inc., for permission to construct a new building on the City Airport property. This had been referred to -Bill Parette, County Sanitarian. Mr. Jacks CARCO RENTALS stated that Mr. Parette has signed the construction permit for a disposal Airport Prop. system. Al Hughes said he had talked to Mr. Parette himself and that Conditional Use since there are no body wastes involved and a percolation test had been L.S.Development made by an engineer, he would approve it. Helen Edmiston moved to approve the conditional use request which also involved more than an acre of land, and was therefore a large scale development also. Ernest Jacks seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. The Commission considered a conditional use request submitted by MichaelMICHAEL MULIAN Mullan for a "Christian Center" at 301 North University. Mr. Mullan was CHRISTIAN CENTE present. He said he hoped to make an "outreach" to the University of 301 N.University Arkansas. Also, they hoped to have a type of tutoring service to some Conditional Use of the younger kids. Chairman Clinton asked who the owner of the property is, Mr. Mullan said the center has the use of the property for one year if they resotre it and then have an option for the end of the year. They plan a place for kids with a lot of problems and kids that do not have a place to stay. They hope to have overnight place to stay for kids with drug problems. He said their main purpose is to reach people with the gospel, Al Hughes asked whether the ministers were ordained with some recog?lized church. Mr. Mullen said he was not but that David Parker was. Mr. Hughes asked what qualifications they posessed for counseling. Mr. Mullan said it was based on experience, He said he had had experience with drugs and had been in prison because of them. Mr. Hughes suggested they try to work through one of the student centers sponsored by the various churches already around the campus, Mr. Mullan said many young people "shy away" from denominationalism. Mr. Hughes asked about parking, since there is none shown. Mr. Mullen said they had permission to use the University's parking lot 16. Mr. Mullan said this would also be a place for prayer meetings and study for older people, Chairman Clinton said he had been contacted on behalf of the Parking Authority with a request that this be continued for a period of time, He said this is a high priority piece of property with them. Christine Childress left the meeting at 6:00 P.M. Al Hughes moved to table the request for approximately 60 days or until the parking authority or someone comes in with further inforemation or the applicants request it be brought back up. Helen Edmiston seconded the motion which was approved unanimously, The next item on the agenda was a large scale development plan for TOMa C. COMLEY Garland Avenue Apartments submitted by Tom C. Comley for property on the GARLAND AVE.AP East side of Garland Avenue and North of the Ken Claire Apartments. L.S.Development Ernest Jacks reviewed the proposal including the discussion on whether I 11-28-72 .5 - to require Mr. Comley to provide sufficient street right-of-way to widen the old Evins Farm reservation to a 50 ft. street or to barricade this drive through the existing parking lot and work with future developments toward getting a through street along the South line of the University Farm. Mr. Jacks said he believed it best to barricade the present drive. Ernest Jacks moved to approve the plan as revised with the inclusion of a 10 ft. dedication along Garland and with the barrier to be constructed. Helen Edmiston seconded the motion. Mr. Comley told the Commission that 7 or 8 years ago he had wanted to have Melmar Drive come straight through, but that the Planning Commission had required it to be curved. The motion to approve the plan was approved unanimously, The Commission considered a request to change a non -conforming use submitted by Jerry W. Johnson for property at 352 North West Avenue. Mr. Johnson JERRY JOHNSON proposed to change the use of the property from an antique shop to a 352 N* West tailor shop. Mr. Johnson was present. There was no one present to oppose Change non - the request. conforming Ernest Jacks moved to grant the request, Al Hughes seconded the motion use which was approved unanimously. The next item on the agenda was a memo from Don Grimes, City Manager, requesting the Planning Commission review the proposed growth area GROWTH AREA boundaries. A copy of a map showing these boundaries had been mailed BOUNDARIES to each Commission member. Larry Wood said it has become apparent that the City needed to set up areas which they will serve and restrict rural areas from serving those areas. Russell Purdy said the Board of Directors would like to have the Planning Commission agree with what they are doing. Al Hughes moved to concur with the proposed plan. John Maguire seconded the motion. The vote was taken, Maguire, Brown, Gitelman, Clinton, Jacks, Edmiston, and Hughes voted "Aye." Nickell voted "Nay." The plan was approved, The meeting was adjourned at 6:25 P -Me 40 RESOLUTION PC 35ol-72 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Fayetteville Planning Commission, Tuesday, November 28, 1972, fifteen (15) days after a notice was published in the Northwest Arkansas Times, a newspaper of general cir- culation; and WHEREAS, after the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to make a recommendation to the Board of Directors on a proposed ordinance to Zoning Ordinance #1747 to permit expansion of owner -occupied, non -conforming residences. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FMTTEVILLE, ARKANSAS, SECTION 1. That the proposed ordinance, attached hereto and made a part hereof, be adopted to amend Ordinance #1747 to permit expansion of owner -occupied, non -conforming residences. PASSED AND APPROVED this . 28th day of November 0 1972. APPROVED: ROY CLINTON, Chairman