HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-11-25 Minutes•
•
•
MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held at 4>00 P; M.
Tuesday, November 25, 1975, in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration
Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
John Power, Ernest Jacks, Bill Kisor, Donald Nickell,
Helen Edmiston, Jack Ray, Rita Davis.
Chairman Morton Gitelman, John Maguire.
•
Jerry Sweetser, Attorney Willam Storey, Jim Vizzier, Zeek Taylor,
Dick Titus, Mrs. Bushey, Mrs. Wilkes, Dave Tourtelot,
Ervan Wimberly, Mrs. B. W. Miller, Mr. Robert A. Jacobs,
David McWethy, Bobbie Jones, Janet Bowen.
In the absence of Chairman Morton Gitelman, Vice -Chairman John Power
called the meeting to order.
The minutes of the November 11 meeting were approved as
distributed.
MINUTES
REZONING PETITION R 75-21
Sweetser, Sonnemon, & Schultz
Vice -Chairman John Power opened the public hearing Lawson Street
on Rezoning Petition R75- 21, Jerry D. Sweetser, Gladys Sonnemon, and Sarah Sonneman Schultz
to rezone property located on the South side of Lawson Street between Gregg and
Vandeventer Avenues from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to R-2, Medium
Density Residential. The public hearing was originally scheduled for October 14, but
was tabled at the request of the petitioner's attorney. On October 28, 1975,
the Planning Commission tabled the petition until November 25 at the request
of persons opposing the petition. The Planning Commission has to take action
on this petition November 25, or the petition goes to the Board of Directors as
though recommended for approval unless the petitioner agrees in writing to have
it tabled for a longer period of time.
In the absence of Planning Consultant Larry Wood, Vice -Chairman Power requested that
Mr. Wood's recommendation from the Planning Report along with the supplemental information
for this rezoning petition (contained in this agenda) be read into the minutes, contents
which follows:
" RECOMMENDATION:
"The rezoning request is not in conformance with the General Plan
recommendations and is not recommended for the following reasons.
"1. The R-2 District request is breaking into a block where the
the greatest portion of three sides is already developed as single-
family.
"2. Duplex development is possible under the existing zoning.
"3. The R-2 District with multi -family development could put
of pressure on the area to the north to develop in a similar
creating the potential for a multi -family,: single-family mix
due protection for the existing single-family."
a lot
manner,
without
Planning Commission
November 25, 1975 -2-
"Supplemental Information For Rezoning Petition R75-21, Jerry.D. Sweetser,
• Gladys Sonnemon and Sarah.Sonnemon.Schultz.
"The accompanying map and this text supplements the recommendation
made on the rezoning petition R75-21.
'The position taken in my recommendation to the Planning Commission
is, what I would call a traditional planning approach.
'Discouragingthe mixing of single-family and multi -family development
and pockets of zoning which allow that mixture has long been a
recommendation by many planners. However, this grew out of an era
when the whole character of multi -family development was considerably
•11' different than it is today. It is not uncommon today for the two
n to be constructed side by side with very little impact one on the other.
//
"Among the early reasons for discouraging the mixing was the economic
impact on both existing development and undeveloped land. In some
cases the multi -family development would depreciate the single-family
property values. I do not believe this is as true today as itu,:was
in the past. Developers have become very sensitive about this situation
and have developed a much greater sophistication in design techniques.
The impact on undeveloped property has gone in the other direction
and has intensified. The factor that has contributed the most to this
is the increased cost in all aspects of the housing industry.
"Mixing multi -family and single-family development isnot uncommon
in Fayetteville as indicated by the property north of this application
and the area between Leverett Ave. and Hwy 112, north. of North St.
Other examples could be cited, but I think the Commission is familiar
with them. The questionbefore the Commission is a matter of policy
at this point. The General Plan recommendation has been modified
by the R-2 District, that is north of the property under consideration.
The economic impact on land value has already started. The question
now is, should any more land be committed to medium density residential.
and if so, where should it be stopped.
"As I have said before, I do not believe we can continue to sprawl
across the countryside at R-1 District standards and survive the cost.
On the other hand we cannot totally disrupt our existing single-family
neighborhoods in the name of greater density or economy."
Attorney William Storey was present to represent the petitioners.
He said before they filed this rezoning petition, they visited with Planning Con-
sultant Larry Wood at which time he felt that this property should be rezoned.
After the petition was filed, he made a report that had been read into the record
recommending against the rezoning. Mr. Storey said in the report contained in
this agenda, Mr. Wood was not taking any position. Mr. Storey said they felt
this was a planning decision and that they had employed Jim Vizzier to present
a report to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Vizzier presented a map from which he made his report. He said there were
several undeveloped properties along Gregg and that some of the properties were
substandard,• and was not feasible for single=family dwellings.
He said the only improvements that had taken place in this area since the
Comprehensive Plan was the R-2 developements. He said there were some -new
single-family dwellings beyond this, but that it was apparently not feasible for
single-family development.
Planning Commission
November 25, 1975
He felt this area needed some incentive for upgrading the substandard properties and
that what Mr. Sweetser had planned to do would be an incentive,
He pointed out on the map where the water and sewer lines were and_. felt that they
were sufficient to handle the R-2 use He said Mr. Wood had pointed out in his
report that this was already developed single-family and that duplex development was
possible under the existing zoning (R-1). Mr. Vizzier said that this was true but
that it would require 12,000 square foot lots and 80 feet wide rather than the 8,000
square foot lots and 60 foot wide. He pointed out that this would be difficult with
the terrain in that area.
Zeek Taylor, 1342 North Gregg, said he had moved to that address in March and during
that time had spent.a few thousand dollars remodeling this house. He said they had no
money and had no one to speak for them. He said they liked the neighborhood and they
liked their privacy.
Dick Titus, also of 1342 North Gregg, felt this area had not been developed because it
had belonged to Mrs. Seamster. He said Mrs. Seamster finally gave this to her daughter
who had sold it and this was part of the reason this was just now coming up to be
developed. He said the realty people told them when they bought the property that
this was to stay in the Seamster estate and would not be sold except as a unit and they
were upset when they found that Mr. Sweetser owned it.
He said once Mr. Sweetser had it rezoned he could do what he wanted to with it.
He told the Planning Commission that all but about two people in the area had signed
the petition against the rezoning and one of these knew Mr. Sweetser or worked for him
and did not want to sign it and,the other person worked for the Sonnemons.
Mr. Titus said the small houses in this area were substandard. He said they were
remodeling their house and three others were being remodeled at the present time.
He said some of the older people living in the area could not afford to do the work.
He felt these houses would be redeveloped as the older people died and other families
bought them. He said they liked it there and that it was nice and quiet . He said the
only noise they had in the summer is the "beer busts down at the apartment complex that
Mr. Sweetser built" (Delmar Apartments). He said they were "quite noisy and if there
was another one on the other side of them they would be in the middle of stereo".
He said he also objected to the additional traffic and also the type of poeple
that the apartment complex would create.
In answer to Vice -Chairman Power's question, Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones
said that everyone that had signed the petition had been notified of this hearing.
Attorney William Storey said he had found that some of the people signing the petition
were not aware of what they were signing at the time.and that people objected when
Mr. Sweetser built the other apartments and later came around to apologize and say they
wished they had not objected.
Jewell Bushey, 330 Holly, said she and her husband were retired after having lived
for 43 years in a large and noisy city. She said they bought this property 2 years ago
because it was a pleasant neighborhood. She felt that the traffic and noise would
increase if apartments were to be built in the area.
Mrs. Wilkes, 319 Holly, in response to Mr. Storey's comment about people objecting
to the other apartment complex of Mr. Sweetsers, said that they had objected to the
Commercial he requested and not to the apartment complex. She said Planning Consultant
Larry Wood had changed his recommendation when he found he had been working from an
outdated map and, therefore, she felt that the initial endorsement would be considered.
She disagreed with Mr. Wood's comment that apartments would encourage single-family
development. She felt that it would discourage it.
Mr. Titus commented that he could not understand why Mr. Storey did not contact
the people that were in opposition and give them individual explanations.
Mr. Storey said that he had attempted to contact Mr. Titus.
John Power explained to those present in opposition that if the Planning Commission
decided to approve the rezoning petition it would go on to bhe Board of Directors
and they would have an opportunity to be heard at that meeting also. He also explained
that if the petition were denied at this meeting, the petitioner could have this appealed
to the Board of Directors within a period of 15 days.
Mr. Jacks said he was under the impression that this would make a good R-2 property
-3-
•
•
Planning Commission
November 25, 1975
-4-
but not this far down. He said it seemed that just about everybody objecting to this
petition lived along Gregg,.
Bill Kisor said he drove by this property and he personally felt the R-2 was a good
idea
Mr. Kisor then moved to approve Rezoning Petition R75-21.
Rita Davis seconded the motion.
Kisor, Davis, Ray and Edmiston voted "Aye"; Power, Jacks, and Nickell voted "Nay".
The 4-3 vote failed to carry the motion because the Zoning Ordinance requires
5 affirmative votes to approve a rezoning petition.
HARDING GLASS
Next was the large scale development plan submitted by 1766 North College Avenue
Harding Glass, 1766 North College Avenue. Since Conditional Use Request
Harding Glass specialized in installing glass in both automobiles and buildings, this
use can be classified at least partially as a conditional use permitted on appeal
to the Planning Commission in the C-2 Zoning District.
Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said Use Unit 21 (Warehousing and Wholesale) which
is a "conditional use" in the C-2 Zone, lists building material establishments and
subtopic under that deals with glass. She said there also was "Contract Construction
Service" which does not specifically list glass but it does list such things as
electrical, painting, plumbing, roofing, etc. and that is a "conditional use" in the
C-2 Zone requiring Planning Commission approval. She said Use Unit 17 includes automotive
sales, service, and repair including body shops and other automotive related repairs
and uses. She said this was a "use by right" in the C-2 Zone. She told the
Planning Commission that Mr. Tourtelot (who was present representing Harding Glass)
had mixed uses.
Mr. Tourtelot made no comments and there was no further discussion.
Ernest Jacks moved to approve the conditional use.
Helen Edmiston seconded the motion.
The motion was approved unanimously.
Next was the large scale development plan submitted by
Harding Glass.
Mr. Jacks gave the Subdivision
was controlling the on-site drainage.
Mr. Jacks then moved to approve the large scale development plan
providing they satisfy City officials on drainage.
Helen Edmiston seconded the motion which was approved
HARDING GLASS
L.'S. D.
Committee Report in which he stated the only problem
of Harding Glass
unanimously.
WINWOOD II SUBDIVISION
Replat of Lots 4,5, & 6
Of Block 2
submitted by
The next item was the preliminary plat of the proposed
replat of Lots 4,5, $ 6 of Block 2, of Winwood II Subdivision,
Fayetteville Land Company, Incorporated.
Ernest Jacks gave the Subdivision Committee Report. He pointed out on the map how they
had originally planned to take the street stub off Winwood Drive on through to the West
to Old Wire Road, but that it was now their intention to leave that as is and take the
access from lots 3, 4, 5 and 6 (Boston Place) South then Westward toward Old Wire Road,
rather than crossing the creek.
Mr. Jacks said the City Engineer was strongly opposed to this traffic pattern.
Mr. Jacks said property along there had been platted piece by piece without anybody worrying
about the other and he felt that the Planning Commission had not controlled this very well.
In answer to Mr Jacks' question, Mr. Wimberly said he did not know about the street
a lights and sidewalks.
Mr. Jacks said fire protection needed to be provided and Mr. Wimberly said he was
aware of this.
Mr. Jacks said that the Subdivision Committee did not have a recommendation on the
replat.
They felt that it needed to be discussed with the Planning Commission.
Planning Commission
November 25, 1975
John Power pointed out Mr. MattkOs comments contained in the Plat Review Committee
minutes and said this situation did not appear to be acceptable.
After further discussion, Ernest Jacks moved to refuse the preliminary plat of the proposed
of Block 2, Millwood II Subdivision.
otion.
unanimously approved.
replat of Lots 4, 5, 5 and 6
Donald Nickell seconded the m
The motion to disapprove was
Next was a request for approval of a tandem lot, a conditional use
permitted on appeal to the Planning Commission, for property
located on the North side of Township Road, submitted by . .
B. W. Miller.
Ernest Jacks said the Subdivision Committee had looked at this item and recommended
that it be tabled until they knew exactly where the lot lines would be. The drawing
submitted showed only the one lot and did not indicate how the property would be
divided and did not show where the proposed house would be or where the existing
dwelling was located.)
Mrs. Miller was present to represent. She told the Planning Commission there was
presently a small house there that was rental property. She said they would like to
build a private home on the property and said they would meet all therequirementsof
the City ordinance concerning tandem lots.
She said they had not decided where the proposed house would be located on the
property.
Helen Edmiston told Mrs. Miller that they needed to know where the driveway would be,
and Mr. Jacks felt the Planning Commission should have a drawing indicating the
division of the property.
He said they could not approve a tandem lot without knowing how th�lots would be
divided. ``
He definitely felt the Millers should decide what they were going to do and then bring
the plans back to the Planning Commission.
Rita Davis asked that the distances on the front be shown as well as the width
of the lot.
Helen Edmiston moved to table the tandem lot request submitted by B. W. Miller.
The motion was seconded by Jack Ray and approved unanimously.
B. W. Miller
Township Road
Tandem Lot Request
The last item on the agenda was a request for an . USE UNIT INTERPRETATION REQUEST
interpretation of use units to determine in what zoning district a "canning center"
to which individuals may take their foods and can them themselves should be located.
Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said that Use Unit 17, among other uses, listed
frozen food lockers, packing and crating and uses such as that. She said Use Unit 17
was a conditional use in the C-3 Zone and a use by right in the C-2 and I=1 Zones.
She said she included copies of Use Units in this agenda that she felt this usage could
possibly be considered as being under. That is Use Unit 16 Shopping Goods which includes
libraries, post office, and dry cleaning, etc. Also Use Unit 23, Heavy Industrial which
is permitted only in the I-2 Zoning District and includes meat slaughtering and
packaging plants.
Mrs. Jones said this was a new use and was not thought of when the ordinance was written.
Ernest Jacks felt that this use should fall under Use Unit 17 which is Trades and
Services.
Mr. Robert Jacobs was present to represent. He said this would be a non-commercial
operation with a maximum of about 800 or 1,000 quarts per day that people would do
themselves. He said the parings, cores,,etc. would be hauled off since some of the
people involved in the Farmers Market wanted it for compost. He said the location was
not on a major street but that it sort of dead -ended between SWEPCO and the back
of Polk Furniture Warehouse. He said there was sufficient parking and he felt that
this use would not be any more intensive than a laundry. He said steam would be used.
He told the Planning Commission there were 4, 16 quart units which is about double the
household size.- He said this would be seasonable, being used approxiamtely 6 months out
of the year, (May to October or November).
Planning Commission -6-
November 25, 1975
Helen Edmiston and John Power agreed with Mr. Jacks in that this use should come
under Use Unit 17.
There was no further discussion.
Ernest Jacks moved to interpret this particular type of operation as being in Use Unit 17.
The motion which was seconded by Mrs. Edmiston was approved unanimously.
Bobbie Jones asked the Planning Commission if they could give Mr. Jacobs some
guidelines as to how they felt about the location of this.
The Planning Commission felt the public should be advised of this before any
conditional use was granted.
The Commissioners discussed the meetings to be held in December, and OTHER BUSINESS
•
it was decided to hold only one Planning Commission meeting during that month and that
would be December 9.
Rita Davis moved to hold only one meeting (December 9) in the month of December.
The motion was seconded by Helen Edmiston and approved unanimously
There was no other business.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 P. M.
•
•
•
•
RESOLUTION P C 61-75
WH REAS, a public hearing was held by the City Planning Commission,
Tuesday, October 14, 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 on Tuesday, November 25, 1975, the
Planning Commission voted to make a recommendation to the Board of Direc-
tors on the petition of Jerry D. Sweetser, Gladys Sonnemon, and Sarah
Sonnemon Schultz, R75- 21, for rezoning;
NU'I, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVIIS.F, ARKANSAS.
SECTION 1. That the petition requesting the rezoning of property
described as follows, from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to
R-2, Medium Density Residential District, be denied.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Located on the South side of Lawson Street between Gregg and Vande-
venter Avenues. More specifically: Lots nine (9) through seventeen
(17) conclusive, Country Gardens Addition to the City of Fayetteville,
Arkansas and part of the SW-,, NE4, of Section 9, T -16-N, R -30-W,
more particularly described as beginning at the Southwest corner of
the SW4, NE4, Section 9, T -16-N, R -30-W, Proceed North 0° 13' West
1161 feet; thence East 167.5 feet to the Northeast corner of lot
eighteen (18) of Country Gardens Addition for a point of beginning,
thence East 400 feet; thence South 0° 13' East 125 feet; thence West
400 feet; thence North 0 degrees 13' West 125 feet to the point of
beginning, containing 1.14 acres, more or less. LESS AND EXCEPT
beginning at the NE corner of the above described tract and running
thence South 0° 13' East 50 feet; thence West 60 feet; thence North
0° 13' West 50 feet; thence East 60 feet to the place of beginning.
SECTION 2. That the rezoning of the above described real estate
would not presently be desirable.
PASSED AND APPROVED this
day of , 1975.
APPROVED*
Morton Gitelman, Vice -Chairman