Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-04-08 Minutes• • MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING i97s A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held at 4:04.P, M, Tuesday, April 8, 1975, in the Board of Directors- Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: John Maguire, John Power, Donald Nickell, Ernest Jacks, Chairman Morton Gitelman, Helen Edmiston, Bill Kisor, Rita Davis. MEMBERS ABSENT: None. OTHERS PRESENT: Leon Edens, Richard Osborne, Paul Mattke, Thomas B. Burke, Dr. and Mrs. Brandon,Sidney Davis, Billy Osteen, Bobbie Jones, Larry Wood, Russell Purdy, David McWethy, Janet Bowen. Chairman Morton Gitelman called the meeting to order. MINUTES The minutes of the March 25, 1975 meeting were approved as mailed. REZONING PETITION R75-6 Chairman Gitelman opened the public hearing on Leon G. Edens Rezoning Petition R75-6, Leon G. Edens, to rezone Wedington-•Drive property located on the North side of Wedington Drive between Cabinet Lane (formerly Giles Road) and West End Avenue from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Larry Wood gave the Planning Report and recommended the approval of the rezoning since it was in keeping with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Mr. Edens was present to represent, but did not have anything more to say on behalf of the rezoning petition. There was no one present in opposition to the request. The public hearing was closed. Ernest Jacks asked about the proposed density of this and Mr. Edens replied that it was to be used for duplexes. Donald Nickell stated that he felt that this rezoning would be in good keeping with the Land Use Plan. Mr. Nickell moved to recommend to the Board of Directors that Rezoning Petition R75-6, Leon G. Edens be approved to rezone from R-1 to R-2. Ernest Jacks seconded the motion which carried unanimously. REZONING PETITION R75-7 The public hearing was opened on Rezoning Petition R75-7, Donald W. Johnston Richard P. Osborne, Attorney for Donald W. Johnston, to 1245 N. Garland rezone property located at 1245 North Garland from C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District, to C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial District, or C-3, Central Commercial District. Larry Wood gave the Planning Report and recommended the requested change since it was in keeping with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. He pointed out that this was more inclined to be used for C-2 uses. Attorney Richard Osborne was present to represent. He said he had nothing more to add to what Planning Consultant Larry Wood had already said. In answer to Mr. Purdy,s question, Mr. Osborne said this was being rezoned for retail sales of beer and wine. He told the Planning Commission that he had stated on the petition what the use would be and thought they would already be aware of this. No one was present to oppose the request. The public hearing was concluded. • i • -2- Donald Nickell asked if the adjoining property owners had been notified; Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said that Mr, Johnston owned all the property to the North., Northeast, East, and Southeast and the two immediately adjacent property owners had been notified, and that the sign was posted on the property March 24. Mr. Nickell asked if this was not supposed to be zoned residential, There was no further discussion. Ernest Jacks moved that Petition R75-7 be approved. Helen Edmiston seconded the motion. The motion was approved with Maguire, Power, Jacks, Gitelman, Edmiston, Kisor, and Davis voting "Aye"; Donald Nickell abstained. ORDINANCE TO AMEND ARTICLE 5 The public hearing on a proposed ordinance to amend to Article 5 of the Zoning Ordinance 1747 (Appendix A- Zoning Ordinance 1747 Fayetteville Code of Ordinances),Article 5 (VIII) District I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial, (B) Uses Permitted by adding Unit 12 Offices, studios, and related services and Unit 25 Professional offices. Chairman Gitelman gave a short history on the proposed amendment stating that this had first been brought to the Planning Commission's attention when the Orthopaedic Clinic tried to get the property by Arkansas Western Gas rezoned for medical offices. At that time it was discussed whether or not there was any reason for not allowing Use Unit 12 or 25 in the I-1 Zone. The Planning Commission had asked the City Attorney to draw up an amendment to that effect. There was no one present to either speak for or oppose the proposed amendment. The public hearing was closed. Ernest Jacks moved to recommend the approval of the proposed amendment to the Board of Directors. Helen Edmiston seconded the motion which was voted upon and approved unanimously. Rita Davis left the meeting at 4:25 P. M. CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE Conditional Use Request The next item was the Conditional Use Request submitted by Township Road the City of Fayetteville for an elevated water storage tank to be located on Township Road East of Highway 71B, tabled from the March 11 and March 25 Planning Commission meetings. (This is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential.) Ernest Jacks moved to take the conditional use request submitted by the City of Fayetteville off the table. John Power seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. City Engineer Paul Mattke was present to represent the City of Fayetteville. Mr. Mattke said the City had been planning some water and sewer improvements in the City of Fayetteville for several years. He said one of the areas where they have a tremendous problem is along Township on the higher elevations where present water service is inadequate and that the only solution was an elevated water storage tank at this location. He said they were considering two types of tanks -- a pedestal type tank or one very similar to the one on Mt. Sequoyah except smaller. In answer to Bill Kisor's question, Mr. Mattke said it would be 102 feet high. Attorney Sidney Davis was present to represent Dr. and Mrs. Bob Brandon who were present in opposition to the request. Mr. Davis handed to the Planning Commission members a map that they had been working with showing elevation lines around Township hill. He pointed out a 1500 foot elevation line at the Guy Berry property where he said the City originally had planned to put the water tank; but Mr. Berry did not want the tank there and priced the property at a price which the City refused to pay. He said the City then purchased the property pointed out by Mr. Mattke which abuts the Brandon property. He felt that he did not need to explain how the tank would look being viewed through the Brandon's living room window, and as far as the Brandons were concerned it would be "an eyesore".if it was located at the site pointed out on the map. • • • Planning Commission -3- April 8, 1975 Mr. Davis said the Brandon residence was an expensive one and this tank would "diminish the value of their property". He said that the Brandons were "heartsick" about the proposed location of the tank. Mr. Davis said the Brandons would drop their protest if the City would be willing to move their site location around 225 feet South of the proposed location shown on Mr. Mattke's map; they would still be within their 1500 foot elevation. The Brandons (even though they would not -like it) felt that they could live with it in this location since it would be hidden by trees around 6 months of the year, he said. He said at the Water and Sewer Committee hearing on March 3 he talked to Mr. Carl Yates (who is working with Mr. Mattke on this) who said it would be feasible to build it at the alternate location,and he had come up.•with acost estimate of some $5,000 more than it would cost to put it at the location preferred by the City. He said the City told the Brandons if they would pay the $5,000 the City would move it. He said the Brandons had decided not to contribute to the moving of the tank because they felt it was not their place to do so. He said the City had one or two thousand dollars leeway on which tank to put up and in the interest of the property owners who were there before the City purchased this property, they should use their extra money to move this tank further South. He also pointed out that they would have less road and pipe to build and maintain if they built it closer to Township Road. He asked the Planning Commission to deny this request if the City did not give them a committment to place the tank further South. Director Russell Purdy spoke on behalf of the City and asked that the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use Request. He said the City had been trying for years now to find a place to put the water tank on the hill (Township). He said as it stood today a good fire up there could not be handled for lack of water pressure. (Mr.'Mattke had indicated that at times during the summer, water pressure was negative at the Clark McClinton residence which is right across from the Brandons.) He said the tank could be moved but when it is moved,if you require a certain elevation of the tank,when you move down the hill so many feet you have to add that many feet to the height of the tower. He believed4a close figure would be approximately $1,000 for every foot that has to be added. In addition, he said this would add to the cost of the maintenance and painting of the tank. He said the Water and Sewer Committee was prepared to recommend to the Board of Directors the approval of the tank at the proposed location. In answer to Helen Edmiston's question, Mr. Mattke said there was 14 feet difference in the two locations. (This would mean $14,000 more for cost of the tank, minus the difference in the road and pipe.) Mr. Maguire wanted to know why this had to be an elevated tower; Mr. Mattke said this was the height needed to provide pressure to serve this area Some of the Planning Commission members wanted to know if the more expensive tank was better than the other one, and if not, why the City couldn't get the less expensive tank and move it farther South. Mr. Mattke said either tank would serve the purpose but the more expensive tank had some nice features, such as an internal Stairway which would make it virtually impossible for children to climb, and there were also maintenance features involved. In answer to John Maguire's question, Mr. Mattke said it took 100 feet of water to produce 43.3 lbs. of pressure at the base of the tower, and that a minimum of 30 lbs. pressure should be kept. Chairman Gitelman pointed out to the Planning Commission that on Conditional Uses the Planning Commission had the power to approve, deny or approve it with a condition. City Attorney Jim McCord stated that under the general rule of law a municipality is not subject to its own zoning laws when it is acting in a governmental capacity and that he was not sure what would be done if the Planning Commission should deny the request. Mr. McCord felt that if the Planning Commission should deny it, there was a possibility that the Board of Directors could go ahead and say "yes". Sidney Davis said he had thoroughly researched this point and felt that if it was denied he could make it "stick". The public hearing was closed. 1 Planning Commission -4- April 8, 1975 John Maguire moved that the Conditional Use Request he approved with the condition that the water tank. site be moved to the 1505 foot elevation as noted on the map presented by Mr, Davis at no cost.to the Brandons, Bill Kisor seconded the -motion, After further discussion the motion was voted on. Maguire, Power, Edmiston, Kisor, Nickell voted "Aye", Chairman Gitelman voted "Nay" and Ernest Jacks abstained. The motion was approved. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST The next item to be considered by the Washington Regional Medical Center Planning Commission was the Conditional Use Rockwood Trail Y, Ruth Avenue Request submitted by Thomas B. Burke, Attorney for Washington Regional Medical Center to place a radio antenna and related building on property located South of Rockwood Trail and West of Ruth Avenue, on property zoned R-1, Low -Density Residential. Attorney Thomas Burke was present to represent. Mr. Burke said they wanted to place a 5' x 7' metal structure on a concrete slab as indicated on the drawing to house an emergency power source and that this radio antenna would serve 311 counties. He said Arkansas Western Gas had agreed to permit the antenna to be placed on their tower which is already there. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones stated that they did not show a separation from the building to the property line and there was a minimum setback to be met. Mr. Burke said if the existing building met the setbacks then the proposed structure would also meet the required setbacks. Mrs. Jones stated that the present building did not meet setbacks; Mr. Burke promised that the proposed building would meet the required setbacks. There was no further discussion. Ernest Jacks moved that the conditional use request be approved with the provision that it meets all the City requirements. Helen Edmiston seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. The next item to be discussed was the conditional use CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST request submitted by Billy and Sissy Osteen and David and Osteen & Peters Becky Peters to construct a greenhouse at 436 Mission 436 North Mission Blvd. Boulevard on property owned by Lillie M. Lehman and zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial 4 Light Industrial District. There was no one present to represent the request. Donald Nickell moved to table the request and also to request that the property owner or applicants set out in writing what their intentions are and appear at the next meeting to answer questions. Ernest Jacks seconded the motion. It was unanimously approved. Larry Wood (Planning Consultant) recommended instead, having a public hearing on this to rezone the I-1 tract to R-2 and maybe some C-1. Ernest Jacks moved to initiate a rezoning of the entire I-1 tract on the East side of Mission to R-2 between Lafayette and Maple. Morton Gitelman seconded the motion. It was voted upon and approved unanimously. WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS The last item for discussion'..was an appeal to the Earl and Jack Gibson Planning Commission for a waiver of subdivision Huntsville Road requirements (Lot Split) for property lying North of Highway 16 East (Huntsville Road) and East of an undedicated roadway known unofficially as Cunningham Lane, submitted by Earl and Jack Gibson. There was no one present to represent. Ernest Jacks gave the Subdivision Committee Report. He said the original owner • • • -5- Planning Commission April 8, 1975 had built houses on the lots and divided them off without going throughan actual lot split procedures and that he had retained a 2 foot strip between the houses and the road. Mr. Jacks told the Planning Commission that Street Superintendent Clayton Powell and City Engineer Paul Mattke wanted 50 foot of right-of-way dedicated and Mr. Powell wanted this Cunningham Lane constructed to City street standards before a lot split was approved. He said the Subdivision Committee was ready to recommend the approval of the lot split and let Mr. Gibson go ahead and maintain this as a private drive and then if this area is ever properly subdivided they could request that a street be constructed at that time. John Power felt that Mr. Gibson was not to blame for this but that the Planning Commission would be "stretching" their authority by a waiver when this was not actually a subdivision waiver at all. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said the Planning Commission would not only be waiving the requirement for the preliminary and final plat requirements but also the requirement for the street dedication. John Power moved that, based on the way Item 8 (Waiver of Subdivision Requirements --- Earl and Jack Gibson) the Planning Commission deny the waiver of subdivision requirements. The Planning Commission felt that Mr. Gibson should come back to them with an easement and try to work something out before waiving subdivision requirements. Ernest Jacks seconded the motion. The motion was voted on and approved with Power, Nickell,Jacks, Maguire, Edmiston and Kisor voting "Aye" and .Gitelman voting "Nay". Mr. Osteen (Item 7) appeared at the meeting at this point. He told the Planning Commission that the greenhouse would be used partially for commercial use as well as for their own private use. The Planning Commission members told Mr. Osteen they had already tabled this and that a public hearing would be held on this to rezone the entire I-1 tract to R-2. The Commissioners indicated that they did not want to take any action on this request until after the public hearing. There was no further discussion. The meeting was adjourned at 5:40 P.M. • RESOLUTION pc 13,75 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Planning Commission, Tuesday, April 8, 1975, fifteen (15) days after a sign was erected on the property and after a notice was published in the Northwest Arkansas Times, a newspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, after the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to make a recommendation to the Board of Directors on the petition of Leon G. Edens, Petition R75-6, for rezoning. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS. SECTION.1. That an ordinance be adopted for the purpose of rezoning from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to R-2, Medium Density Residential District, said real estate. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SE; of the NE; of Section 7, T -16-N, R -30-W, described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of said 40 acre tract, and running thence North 610 feet; thence East 110 feet or to the Center of a branch as it now runs; thence in a southeasterly direction with the center of said branch 611 feet or to the South line of said 40 acre tract, said point being the center of a bridge as same is now located, which point is 156 feet East of the point of beginning; thence West 156 feet to the point of beginning, containing 2 acres more or less. SECTION 2. That the above-described property be rezoned from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to R-2, Medium Density Residential District, so that the property owner may construct multi -unit dwellings. PASSED AND APPROVED this 8th day of April , 1975. APPROVED: Morton Gitelman, Chairman • • • RESOLUTION PC 14-75 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Planning Commission, Tuesday, April 8, 1975, fifteen (15) days after a sign was erected on the property and after a notice was published in the Northwest Arkansas Times, a newspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, after the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to make a recommendation to the Board of Directors on the petition of Richard P. Osborne, Attorney for Donald W. Johnston, Petition R75-7, for rezoning; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That an ordinance be adopted for the purpose of rezoning from C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District, or C-3, Central Commercial District, said real estate. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SW' of the NWQ of Section 9, T -16-N, R -30-W, being more particularly described as follows, to -wit: Beginning at a point on the East line of Garland Avenue which is 585 feet South and 30 feet East of the NW corner of said 40 acre tract, and running thence East 120 feet; thence South 100 feet; thence West 120 feet to the East line of Garland Avenue; thence North with the East line of Garland Avenue 100 feet to the point of beginning, being situate in the City of Fayetteville, County of Washington, State of Arkansas, also known as 1245 North Garland. SECTION 2. That the above-described property be rezoned from C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District, or C-3, Central Commercial District, so that the petitioner may lease the property to a leasee for a retail liquor sale business. PASSED AND APPROVED this 8th day of April APPROVED: , 1975. Morton Gitelman, Chairman RESOLUTION PC 15-75 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Planning Commission, Tuesday, April 8, 1975, fifteen (15) days after a notice was published in • the Northwest Arkansas Times, a newspaper of general circulation; and • L.) WHEREAS, after the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to make a recommendation to the Board of Directors on a proposed amendment to Zoning Ordinance 1747 (Appendix A - Zoning, Fayetteville Code of Ordinances). NGW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That the proposed ordinance, attached hereto and made a part hereof, be adopted for the purpose of amending Article 5 of Zoning Ordinance 1747 (Appendix A - Zoning, Fayetteville Code of Ordinances, Article 5 (VIII) District I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial, (B) Uses Permitted by adding Unit 12 --Offices, studios, and related services and Unit 25 --Professional offices. PASSED AND APPROVED this 8th day of April , 1975. APPROVED: Morton Gitelman, Chairman RESOLUTION PC 16-75 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Planning Commission of Fayetteville, Arkansas, that a public hearing be called for the purpose of considering rezoning from I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial District, to R-2, Medium Density Residential District, all that property presently zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial & Light Industrial District, lying East of Mission Boulevard, North of Lafayette Street and South of Maple Street. HE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Administrator is hereby ordered to provide notice of such meeting by publishing a notice in the Northwest Arkansas Times at least fifteen (15) days prior to said public hearing, by erecting signs giving notice of said public hearing on the properties, and by providing notice by mail to property owners within the area to be considered. PASSED AND APPROVED this 8th day of April , 1975. APPROVED: Morton Gitelman, Chairman