Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-09-27 MinutesMINUTES OF A PLANNING. COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held at 5:00 P. M., Monday, September 27, 1976, in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Chairman John Power, Ernest Jacks, Bill Kisor, Jack Ray, Peg Anderson, John Maguire (arrived at 5:06 P. M.), Rita Davis, Donald Nickell. Keith Newhouse. Larry Wood, David McWethy, Attorney Bob White, Mr. $ Mrs. Kenneth C. Garton, Mr. John Cox, Dawn Dunnuck, Ron Foldvary, Evangeline Foldvary, Patty Martin, Kathy Dudley, Palmer Boggs, Chuck Hoffman, David Andrews, Ray Gilbrech, James Turner, Harriet Jansma, Bobbie Jones, Robin Northrop. Chairman Power called the meeting to order. Peg Anderson mentioned that Page 1 of the Minutes of the September MINUTES 13, 1976 meeting referred to signatures of 5 "adjoining property owners". She said that they are not "adjoining property owners" --they are "area property owners." She wanted her statement changed or deleted on Page 3 ("She wants no commercial! She said that she was not so definite.) She wanted it mentioned that she asked about the studies on Township Road and in the downtown business area, and that she is interested in the "home occupations." Following these amendments to the minutes of the September 13, 1976 Planning Commission meeting, the minutes were approved as mailed. Chairman Power opened the public hearing on Rezoning Petition R76-31, Kenneth C. and Diamond A. Garton, to rezone property located at 938 Rogers Drive, from R-1, Low Density Residential, to R-2, Medium Density Residential District. REZONING PETITION R76-31 KENNETH C. $ DIAMOND A. GARTON 938 Rogers Drive Attorney Bob White and Mr. $ Mrs. Kenneth C. Garton were present to represent this petition. Chairman Mr. Wood Chairman Power asked Larry Wood if he had any changes in his report. said that his recommendations remained the same. Power wanted Mr. Wood's statement read into the minutes in its entirety: "The property under consideration in this application was considered by the Planning Commission and City Board a little over a year ago for the same zoning district and was denied by both. Very little has changed in that years period of time to justify a planning reconsideration. The area is still predominantly single-family and sparsely developed. The General Plan recommends low density residential at this location with the medium density being recommended about 1000 feet to the West. The area is still without sewer service and the road is unpaved. Considering these factors there is no planning justification for establishing a medium density residential pattern at this location." Chairman Power said that the Planning Commission will hear this Rezoning Petition because it does meet the requirements given for rezoning petitions. It has not been • Planning Commission -2- September 27, 1976 given to the Planning Commission for one year's time. If the petitioners are successful .in rezoning this before the Planning Commission, it must go on to the Board of Directors. If it is denied, the petitioner can take this on, by appeal to the City Board. Attorney Bob White, 118 West Center, said that a study was made by Bill Parette on the septic tank and it was deemed satisfactory to them at that time. He said that it is noted that there is a duplex and commercial art studio in the neighborhood (not identified in appearance); there is a residence being occupied by two (2) families; and a house being rented to college students. He said that Mrs. Garton is now operating the beauty shop only four days a week, instead of five days a week. He said that there has been a proposal presented to the Planning Commission within the past 60 to 90 days to change the Zoning Ordinance -- it is to include home occupations in the Master Ordinance -like this one. It was not approved. This puts them in the position to try to change their zoning from R-1 to R-2. He said that they have no intention of turning this into a multi- family residence. It is necessary for Mrs. Garton to maintain her business in her home, in order to allow her to take care of her mother. He said that one cannot tell that there is a beauty salon in the house. Mr. Maguire said that there are six (6) other residences , besides the one in question, shown on the street. Mrs. Garton pointed out to the members of the Commission the various houses and owners. She said that they have 2 kitchens in her house --it was that way when they bought it. Mrs. Garton said that she put the beauty salon in there not knowing there was a law against this. She had been running it for about 1.11 years when she was told she was in violation. She said that she is State licensed. Chairman Power wanted to know if this is still being utilized as a beauty salon, at this time. Mrs. Garton said that it is. Mr. Jacks said that he wanted to know how she was -allowed to continue to operate this. Attorney White said that the decision of the City Board was appealed to Judge Butt's Court, and eventually there was a stipulation and a decision rendered in March of c� 1976. Attorney White suggested that the decision be written into the minutes in its entirety (a copy of the decision is hereby attached to the back of these minutes and made a part, thereof). Mr. White said that the original decision of the Board of Directors which upheld the Planning Commission's denial was appealed to the Chancery Court (Judge Butt). It was subsequent, that a new application was filed and a new request was filed with the Circuit Court, which granted a Writ of Supersedeas, extending until after the first meeting of the Board of Directors in October. Mr. White said that there was no need for that --it is on record. There is a copy of) Anderson wanted to know if Judge Lineberger's decision shouldn't be read into the minutes, also. Mr. White said that there was no need for that --it is on record. There is a copy of� his opinion in the Circuit Court. Dawn Dunnuck, 835 Rogers Drive, said that she called Mr. Parette in 1974 (February), to check the condition of a drainage area on her property (side yard). She said that the Health Department sent out Mr. Jimmy Richards and Mr. Parette showed up later. She said that there was a great deal of algae. She said that this drainage area was there for a period of ten years, and prior to this there was never anything, except precipitation, run off. However, Mr. Parette indicated that there were signs of effluent. She said that they told her that the tests he ran could not prove anything (were not conclusive). She said that this is a ravine --it is drainage for the mountain. She said that she believes that Mr. Hoffman has a letter on this. She said that the public sewer system has been denied. She doesn't believe a septic system would accommodate 3 people a day and certainly not 25 customers in business of operating a beauty shop. She said that this effluent has been seen bubbling up and it was bad in June. She said that she hears the sounds of a motor running at times and Planning Commission -3- September 27, 1976 the pools seem to dry up at those times. She said that there are various "pools" that run into it and go downhill very fast She said that the business has not cut down; there are at least 20 cars a day going there. It is not a home occupation. She said that it has at least 2 sinks and several dryers, from what she understands, and and she said that she knew that two people operated it (one, a daughter --licensed). She said that as far as the 111 year was concerned, in which Mrs. Garton was operating the business before being contacted, Mrs. Dunnuck had made three complaints before any were acted upon. She said that the pollution (cars, traffic) is bad --there is one driveway that extends into the street. She said that Mr. McCord had told her that after Judge Butt's decision they were supposed to close down within 30 days. Chairman Power said that Mr. McCord said that he was satisfied with the legal action that was taken and that all the legal requirements have been met. Chairman Power said that he would like -other people to speak. He said that they are hearing a rezoning petition. He feels that drainage is not really concerned. He said that they should keep this in terms of land use in R-1 and R-2. Mrs. Dunnuck wanted a letter, which follows in its entirety, which was signed by two people, read into the minutes as follows: "Fayetteville Arkansas September 24, 1976 The Planning Commission City of Fayetteville, Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 We, the undersigned, respectfully request that the petition of Kenneth C. and Diamond A. Garton for a change in the zoning of Lots 11 and 12, in Block 3 of Rogers' Place Addition to the City of Fayetteville, from R-1 Residential District to R-2 Residential District, be denied. We are property owners on Rogers Drive and Lighton Trail. /s/ "Mrs. George Walter, Rogers Drive 911-921 /s/ "Thomas G. Pucci, 890 Lighton Trail" Ray Gilbrech, 858 Rogers Drive, said that he is another single-family resident, he lives in the westernmost house (new residence). He said that he is not in objection to Mrs. Garton running a beauty salon, but he is against them rezoning this Mr Kisor wanted to know who is running the artist studio Mrs. Garton said that Ron Foldvary is. Mr. Maguire: wanted to know if that is a duplex. Mrs Garton said that it is not, he is living there with his mother. Mr. Maguire said that he is concerned about the duplexes in this area. He figures that there must be at least two (2) duplexes on the street. He wants to know if they are non -conforming uses. Mr. Larry Wood said that they could be. If they have not been approved by the City in the past. He doesn't know, but feels they are in compliance. If they were established after 1970, they could be in violation. Harriet Jansma, 900 Lighton Trail, said that the rezoning is for the purpose of use by right, rather than living in two-family dwelling --it seems that it is not appropriate for that location. The conditions are not such that they make it possible to have a hair dresser shop without disturbing the neighborhood. She thinks that a rezoning to R-2 would have a great impact on the neighborhood, as far as a hair- • • Planning Commission -4- September 27, 1976 dressing shop, as a use, is concerned). Mr. Maguire wanted to know about the other vacant lots (there is no pavement or sewer in this area). Mrs. Dunnuck said that there are only two vacant lots. Mrs. Evangeline Foldvary, 955 Rogers, said that as far as rezoning the spot of the two lots from R-1 to R-2, she is definitely against it, because spot zoning leads to deterioration of a neighborhood. The continued traffic problems are unsuited for their little dirt road. Keeping up an ad infinitum is very disturbing because they should not have to keep coming to the different Boards on this, time and time again. Attorney White said that the open area to the east has a water tower located there. This will effect future structures. He said that he wants to remind the Commission that even though the Commission would recommend this to R-2, the issue of conditional use would have to come up at a later date He said that the character will not change. (Planning Office Note: Home occupations are a use by right in the R-2 Zoning District). Chairman Power wanted to know more about the traffic and how many cars, for this beauty shop, present a problem. Mrs. Garton said that she has 14 cars a day at the most. She is open Tuesday through Friday Rogers is a dead-end and she doesn't want to get blamed for all the traffic that goes there --some people use her driveway to turn around in. The public hearing was closed. Peg Anderson said that it is unpaved there and no place for R-2 zoning. Peg Anderson moved that they deny the Rezoning Petition, R76-31, Kenneth C. and Diamond A. Garton. Rita Davis seconded the motion. The vote was five (5) in favor of denying the petition and three (3) against.. Anderson, Power, Nickell, Davis 8 Jacks voting "AYE"; and Ray, Kisor, and Maguire voting '''NAY." The petition was denied by a vote of 5-3-0. Chairman Power informed those present that this could be appealed to the Board of Directors. The next item for discussion was the Conditional Use Request, submitted by Mrs. John (Gladys) Cox, for child care in her home at 735 Lakeside Drive in the R-1 Low Density Residential District. Mr. John Cox was present to represent this request. MRS. JOHN (GLADYS) COX 735 Lakeside Drive Conditional Use Request Chairman Power said that there are four letters concerning this, two of which are attached to the Agenda. All of these letters are in favor of this request. Chairman Power said that he wanted the four letters read into the minutes in their entirety.(Copies of these four letters, two of which were mailed with the September 27, 1976 Agenda for the Planning Commission, and two of which were received at a later date, are attached to these minutes.) Mr. Cox said that they have 8 children that they take care of, Monday through Friday, ages 112- up to 4 years old. Mr. Jacks wanted to know if the adjacent property owners have been notified. Bobbie Jones said that the owners to the West, East, and North have been notified (immediately adjacent to the property). Mrs. Gary Black, 734 Lakeside, said that she had no objections. A man, who said that he lives on the corner of the street, said that he had no objection. Mr. Nickell moved that they approve (permit) this child care Conditional Use Request for Mrs. John (Gladys) Cox. Mr. Kisor seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously by a vote of 8-0. Chairman Power wanted to know if they should make a time limit on this. Mr. Kisor • • Planning Commission -5- September 27, 1976 said that he felt there was no need. Everyone concurred with Mr. Kisor. The next item for discussion was the approval of the Revised Preliminary Plat of Hyland Park, Phase 3, Block 6, located East of Crossover Road and South of Lovers Lane; Hyland Park, Inc., Developers. There was no one present to represent this. HYLAND PARK, PHASE 3 BLOCK 6 Revised Preliminary Plat Mr. Jacks said that they looked at this at the Subdivision Committee meeting, and they came up with six things that need to be approved. (1). Some of the street grades exceed 15 per cent= (2) Two cul de sacs that are over 1000 ft. (Bobbie Jones said that the Ordinance limits them to 500 ft. for "ordinary" terrain, and 1000 ft. for "hilly" terrain; (3) They need to enlarge the under - drain structures; (4) Approve pedestrian pathways instead of sidewalks; (5) Waive street light spacing over 300 ft.; and (6) Work out street along the North side (Lovers Lane -Canterbury Road). Ernest Jacks said that one lot --there is an access one way, but not another. He said that they feel this street is needed for access. He said that the grade is very steep. Peg Anderson wanted to know what a pedestrian pathway is. Bobbie Jones said that it is not along the street --it would be on the backs of lots on the South and West sides of streets, and Mr. Lindsey had said that they would be concrete. She said that this is a "greenbelt" area on the North side --they don't want it disturbed. Mr. Jacks moved that they approve the Revised Preliminray Plat of Hyland Park, Phase 3, Block 6, contingent on five things, and one recommendation: (1) Waive the maximum grade of 15 per cent; (2) Two.cul de sacs that are over 1000 ft.;(3) Require that they enlarge under -drain structures; (4) They approve pedestrian pathways, instead of sidewalks; (5) Approve street light spacing over 300 ft. The recommendation is that they approve, with stipulation, that he get more access into this, but it is not a requirement. Peg Anderson seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously by a vote of 8-0. The next item for discussion was the approval of the Final Plat of Hyland Park, Replat of part of Block 3, Phase 1, located East of Crossover Road and South of Lovers Lane; Hyland Park, Inc., Developers. There was no one present to represent this. REPLAT OF HYLAND PARK, BLOCK 3 PHASE 1 Final Plat Mr. Jacks said that they looked at this at the Subdivision Committee meeting and there are two notes: (1) Show existing street lights on the South side of the street; (2) Note pedestrian pathway (and utility easement) along the East side of Lot 17. Mr. Jacks moved that they approve the Final Plat of Hyland Park, Replat of part of Block 3, Phase 1, contingent on the two items mentioned above. Mr. Ray seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously by a vote of 8-0. Chairman Power said that he had spoken with City Attorney, Jim McCord, about the home occupations and asked that they table the. review of the uses listed in Use Unit 4 until the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission, which is scheduled for October 11, 1976. Mr. Kisor moved that they table this until the October 11, 1976 Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission -6- September 27, 1976 Mr. Jacks seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously by a vote of 8-0. Chairman Power told Bobbie Jones that this should appear last on the next Agenda. Ernest Jacks and Peg Anderson are to meet with Jim McCord before October 11, 1976, and have a recommendation for the Planning Commission, at that time. There was no further business to be discussed. OTHER BUSINESS The meeting was adjourned at 6:10 P.M. • • i • • • RESOLUTION PC 63-76 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Planning Commission, Monday,Septanber 27, 1976, 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 Kenneth and Diamond Garton, R76-31 for rezoning; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVUSF, 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: Lots 11 and 12 in Block 3 of Rodger's Place Addition to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, as per plat of said Addition on file in the office of the Circuit Clerk and Ex -Officio Recorder of Washington County, Arkansas, also known as 938 Rodgers Drive. SECTION 2. That the rezoning of the above described real estate would not presently be desirable. PASSED AND APPROVED this di day of 1976. , 1976. APPROVED: Join Power, Chairman RESOLUTION PC 64-76 WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on Monday, September 27, 1976, the Planning Commission voted to make a recommendation to the Board of Directors on the final subdivision plat dated , 19 , known as Hyland Park, Replat of part of Block 3, Phase I submitted by Hyland Park, Inc. and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVITJ.F, ARKANSAS: SECTION 1. That the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas accept the final plat along with the land dedicated for streets and other public uses in the Hyland Park, Replat of part of Block 3, Phase I described as follows: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the EA of the SE4 of Section 11, and a part of the WA of the SW4 of Section 12, part of which is known as Lots 5 through 11, Block 3 of Hyland Park Phase I, all in T -16-N, R-3041, Washington County, Arkansas, more particularly described as follows: From the NW corner of the SW4 of said Section 12 run S 01° 41' 56" E, 1082.52 feet to the point of beginning; thence S 88° 12' 57" W, 525 feet; thence S 02° 48' 02" E, 117.69 feet to the North right of way of Hyland Park Road; thence N 87° 11' 01" E, 150 feet along said right of way; thence 149.80 feet along a curve to the right having a delta angle of 70 12' 05" and a radius of 1191.85 feet along said right of way; thence S 850 36' 54" E, 49.79 feet along said right of way; thence 149.09 feet along a curve to the right having a delta angle of 15° 27' 19" and a radius of 552.70 feet along said right of way; thence S 70° 09' 35" E, 158.42 feet along said right of way, thence 66.60 feet along a curve to the left having a delta angle of 15° 53' 17" and a radius of 240.17 feet; thence N 010 13' 24" W, 152.76 feet; thence N 67° 11' 41" W, 201.99 feet to the point of beginning containing 2.2 acres, more or less. SECTION 2. That the developer show the existing street lights on the South side of the street, and note the pedestrian pathways (and utility easement) along the East side of Lot 17. ti PASSED AND APPROVED this a % day of C. , 1976. APPROVED: U John Power, Chairman ATTEST: Rita Davis, Secretary