Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-02-14 Minutes1 • • MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held at 5:07 P. M., Monday, February 14, 1977, in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Faeytteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman John Power, Vice -Chairman Ernest Jacks, Keith Newhouse, Bill Kisor, John Maguire, Donald Nickell, Jack Ray, Peg Anderson, Rita Davis. MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: None. Bobbie Jones, Angie Medlock, Larry Wood, Scott Van Laningham, David McWethy, Greg Dowers, Nancy Henderson, Neal Albright, Jim Lindsey, Bruce Kendall, Marshall Carlisle, City Attorney Jim McCord, Russell Purdy, Conrad Waligorski, Jim Moore, Kay DuVal, Harold Duggar, R. D. Riggs, Russell Fox, Jack Kreie, "Skip" Holland, and other unidentified persons. Chairman John Power called the meeting to order. Peg Anderson pointed out that on Line 6, Page 1 of the minutes MINUTES of January 24, 1977, under Paul Marinoni, "went over" should read "reviewed". Keith Newhouse said that on Page 4, Line 24, he had said "mobile homes" instead of "prefabricated houses". With these two corrections, the minutes were approved as mailed. The first item for discussion was the approval of CLEAR SPRINGS ACRES the preliminary plat of Clear Springs Acres, Preliminary Plat located East of Highway 265 (Crossover E. of Hwy. 265 and NE of Lake Fayetteville Road) and Northeast of Lake Fayetteville; Jim Lindsey, Developer. Vice -Chairman Jacks told the Planning Commission that this would be all septic tank property. He said it has not been the policy to require roads outside the City Limits to be curbed and guttered as Larry Wood suggested. He stated that they don't have the power to withhold this development until sewer is available. This will, of course, have to be percolation tested. Vice -Chairman Jacks moved to approve the preliminary plat of Clear Springs Acres with four stipulations: (1) Name and (2) dimension the abutting roads on the drawing; (3) Submit the protective covenants to the Planning Office; and (4) show the results of the percolation tests on the plat. Chairman Power mentioned that the Planning Commission will have to see the final plat. Peg Anderson asked Jim Lindsey if he was aware of the law now trying to get through the State about septic tanks which will allow both anaerobic and aerobic type septic systems; and also encourages group types of systems, including lagoons. She said she hopes he will look into those when they come. She said she feels Fayetteville should have a growth area policy which doesn't permit this kind of thing. Jim Lindsey showed the Planning Commission members the flood plain map Neal Albright had prepared and explained the setback requirements he proposes. He said if he could be convinced this would pollute Lake Fayetteville, he would go to another approach Peg Anderson said he could not be sure of this but she hoped he would look into the different kinds of septic systems. Keith Newhouse moved to approve the preliminary plat of Clear Springs Acres, Bill Kisor mentioned that a representative from the City Parks and Recreation Board. was planning on coming to the meeting and asked if the Planning Commission could wait • • • Planning Commission Meeting February 14, 1977 -2- until the end of the hour to make the final decision since the agenda listed this as Item 9. Everyone agreed with Mr. Kisor that action should be deferred until later in the meeting. The next item for discussion was the public WADE BISHOP hearing on Rezoning Petition No. R76-41, Rezoning Petition No. 76-41 Wade and Peggy Bishop, to rezone property E. of Mission Blvd. F, N. of Viewpoint located East of Mission Blvd. (Highway 45 East) and North of Viewpoint Drive, from R-1, Low Density Residential District to R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Petition was tabled at the January 17, 1977 meeting. Chairman John Power read a letter from Wade Bishop asking the Planning Commission to table his request for the rezoning until March 14, 1977. Mr. Power said since the request was in writing it could be tabled with the Planning Commission approval. Bobbie Jones said the Zoning Ordinance provided that when the Planning Commission did not take action on a petition within 45 days of the public hearing, it automatically went to the Board of Directors as though recommended for approval unless the petitioner agreed in writing to have it tabled for a longer period of time. Rita Davis said she felt that tableing an item once is enough. Bobbie Jones confirmed that the first request to table the rezoning was a phone call and was not in writing. Chairman Power said the Bishop's needed to table this time because of some personal problems. He mentioned that the Planning Commission has not in the past, really looked at the problem of tableing more than once. City Attorney Jim McCord said he believed that the adjacent property owners, as well as the petitioner, should also agree to table the petition. Peg Anderson stated that the adjacent property owners should then be notified. Chairman Power asked if those in opposition would allow the Planning Commission to hear this rezoning petition on February 28. Those present agreed to do this. Chairman John Power asked Bobbie Jones to notify Wade Bishop and the adjoining property owners that this would be heard on February 28, 1977. Bill Kisor made a motion to table the Rezoning Petition No. R76-41 until February 28 and notify the Bishop's and all adjacent property owners of that meeting. Keith Newhouse seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously. The next item was a discussion with the City REHEARING OR NEW REQUEST Attorney about what constitutes a rehearing and what constitutes a new request. Chairman Power said there have been several cases where the Commissioners felt they needed some clarification about when a case can and when a case cannot be reheard. City Attorney Jim McCord summarized his letter to the Commissioners. He said there is no clear-cut law. He said he prefers to handle this on a case by case factor situation. In his opinion the difference between a request for a rehearing and a reapplication is that the purpose of a rehearing is to bring to the attention of the Commission an error or oversight that the Commission might have made; whereas the purpose of a reapplication is to bring to the attention of the Commission changed circumstances that .have occured since the previous hearing on the matter. He said the Zoning Ordinance prohibits reapplication for a zoning amendment within a year; there is no similar prohibition for a conditional use application. He suggested that the Planning Commission consider whether the Ordinance should be amended to have a similar prohibition for a conditional use application. Chairman Power asked about the Pete Estes Rezoning Petition --they came in the first time and requested C-2, which the Planning Commission denied, then they came back and asked for C-1. He asked if this would be a legitimate changed circumstance. Mr. McCord said Mr. Estes had asked him if this would constitute a different petition completely and at that time he had told him he thought it would. Mr. McCord added that since that • • • Planning Commission Meeting February 14, 1977 time he has heard about a case in another jurisdiction which said that the mere fact that they change the zoning request does not mean the Planning Commission has to hear the request. Jim McCord said the Commission would have to handle this on a case -to -case basis and decide what constitutes a changed circumstance. Chairman Power mentioned the case of Paul Marinoni, where the Commission failed to hear his request. He said he felt that Mr. Marinoni may not have gotten his "Day in court". Vice -Chairman Jacks said anything they have made a final decision on before cannot be reheard without unanimous consent of the Commissioners. The City Attorney may need to change the By -Laws to read 3/4 of some other number rather than the unanimous consent. He said he felt this is very severe. John Maguire said he felt the conditional use issue with duplexes was an oversight. He said a person doesn't build a single- family dwelling and then expect a duplex next to him. He said if they are going to rehear that type of thing, they need to tighten the restrictions. He said Mr. Marinoni was trying to accomplish that. Rita Davis said some of the conditional uses for duplexes in R-1 are just ways to avoid going before the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors on a rezoning request. She said one request had 6 or 7 duplexes and she doesn't feel that the Ordinance ever intended to have that sort of thing in R-1. Bill Kisor asked if the City Attorney could be present at future Planning Commission meetings. Jim McCord said the Ordinance states that the City Attorney would be present at any meeting where the Chairman requested him to be. Rita Davis said on conditional use requests, they could possibly grant a rehearing in 6 months instead of a year, especially since they don't go to the Board of Directors. Their only other avenue of appeal would be to go before a Court of Law. Peg Anderson asked if they have the option of changing the unanimous consent; she stated that they could change this to 5 or 7 members out of 9 and leave the period of timeat one year. Chairman Jacks moved to ask the City Attorney to draft some revisions to the Zoning Ordinance and Planning Commission By -Laws for the Planning Commission's consideration. There was no second nor vote on the motion, but the other Commission members indicated their agreement with the motion. The next item for discussion was a proposed ordinance INDIVIDUAL LOTS to amend the Zoning Ordinance on individual lots in a IN A MOBILE HOME PARK mobile home park. A public hearing has been advertised for February 28, 1977. Bobbie Jones said Mr. Jim Ogden, Developer of Villa North, had asked to sell some of the lots in his mobile home park and she didn't think he could unless the lots were made the minimum lot size for the R-2 zone in which it is located. Vice -Chairman Jacks said what is under consideration is a revision to the Zoning Ordinance to establish a smaller lot size in a mobile home park than is in the R-2 zone. He clarified that a mobile home is a temporary structure which does not conform to building codes; a prefabricated house does conform to building code standards. Peg Anderson stated that they shouldn't have any problems with this in a very large mobile home park, but in a very small mobile home park they may have problems. Vice -Chairman Jacks said the whole idea of a mobile home park is to allow the smaller lots. He said a mobile home outside the park should conform to the zoning requirement for the zone in which it is located. Attorney Marshall Carlisle said the reason behind this is that it is very difficult to find low-priced housing. He mentioned that the lending institutions now will finance a mobile home and lot and this allows the lower income people to obtain their own permanent type residence, where they couldn't before. He said they felt they should amend the Zoning Ordinance so the future mobile home courts may be sold in the same way. Donald Nickell asked if there would be protective covenants to maintain the open area. Marshall Carlisle said there should be a covenant, or Bill of Assurances, guaranteeing • • Planning Commission Meetings February 14, 1977 that the recreation area would be maintained. This needs to be done for the protection of the people who live there and the people of the City. Vice -Chairman Jacks asked Bobbie Jones if there is anything which prohibits Mr. Ogden from selling the lots. Bobbie Jones said this is a matter of interpretation because the Ordinance is vague. She said they should clarify the Ordinance to say what is required for them to sell it. Larry Wood said the minimum single-family lot area in R-2 is 6,000 square feet. Under the mobile home park if you allow 4,200 square feet, you can only replace a mobile home with a mobile home because it won't conform to the minimum lot size for construction in R-2. He said what they are doing is setting up a sub=standard lot. Vice -Chairman Jacks said he felt they had already done this. The next item for discussion was the conditional NANCY HENDERSON use request for a duplex submitted by Nancy Conditional Use Request Henderson, located West of Garland Avenue and W. of Garland 4 N. of Deane North of Deane Street, Property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Nancy Henderson and Greg Dowers were present to represent. Chairman Power asked someone to explain why they have put in the request for a condi- tional use and a request to table the rezoning petition. Bobbie Jones said the reason for the two requests is that they have the rezoning petition which cannot be left on the table any longer without it being in writing. The conditional use request for the duplex is something they will accept and then they may want to withdraw the rezoning request if they are permitted to build the duplex as a conditional use. Conrad P. Waligorski, 1753 Janice, said he had looked at the plot plan and he was unclear whether they were planning on building one, two, or three duplexes. Greg Dowers said they are just asking for one duplex at the moment. He said there are no homes right adjacent to the property; they do have a letter from the property owners to the South and East and they approve of the duplex. He said they are planning to have all off-street parking. Chairman John Power asked City Attorney Jim McCord if the Planning Commission had the power to stipulate that only one duplex be built and Mr. McCord said "yes". Jim Moore, 1758 Janice, said he was speaking for nearly everyone on the street who had signed the petition, and they don't want the property rezoned to allow duplexes. Kay N. DuVal, 1807 Janice said it is obvious that there is room for at least two more duplexes. Even though this would face on the East=West portion of Janice rather than the North-South portion they all live on, she felt as a mother, this would be a very unsafe street for children. If they have two or three duplexes it would change the street completely. Mr. Waligorski said that right now this street is isolated. To introduce a duplex would destroy the homogenous area. The duplex would de-emphasize home ownership. He said he would oppose any conditional grant for putting in a duplex on the property because of what it would do on the street. Harold Duggar, 1754 Janice, said he bought his property three years ago because it was zoned R-1 and said he doesn't see any reason to change that now. At the request of R. D. Riggs, 1900 Janice, 10 people showed that they were there in opposition. He said he had purchased his home there because this was a quiet neighborhood. If they put a duplex on this lot, they are going to spoil the neighborhood. He said he is very much opposed to the idea. Greg Dowers said the adjoining property owners do not oppose. He stated that this lot has been for sale for at least 5 years and duplex lots are getting harder to find. He stated that Mrs. Henderson would like to appeal more to young families than to college students and is planning on putting in a nice duplex with a fireplace. • • Planning Commission Meeting February 14, 1977 -5- Peg Anderson stated that the lot is 190 x 90 so they could subdivide it and build two single-family houses on it without Planning Commission approval. She said the people of the neighborhood might like to think about whether they would want two houses or one duplex. Rita Davis said this is a conditional use and one of the conditions that the Planning Commission is to consider is that other people in the area do not object. She said she felt that is a very real condition that the Planning Commission places on an intrusion and she does feel that rental property in R-1 is nearly always an intrusion. If the neighbors are opposed, she would be opposed. Rita Davis made a motion to deny the conditional use request of Nancy Henderson for a duplex. Jack Ray seconded the motion which passed 8-0-1, with John Maguire abstaining. Next was the public hearing on Rezoning REZONING PETITION NO. R76-43 Petition No. R76-43, Nancy A. Henderson Nancy A. Henderson to rezone property located North of Deane N. of Deane $ W. of Garland Street and West of Garland Avenue (Highway 112) from R-1, Low Density Residential District to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Petition was tabled at the January 17, 1977 meeting. Greg Dowers and .Nancy Henderson were present. Although a letter had previously been submitted asking to table this petition, Greg Dowers asked that this petition be withdrawn at this time. Keith Newhouse moved to approve the withdrawal of Rezoning Petition No. R76-43. Rita Davis seconded the motion, which was passed 8-0-1, with John Maguire abstaining. The next item was the conditional use CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST request for a church in the R-1, Low Russell Fox Density Residential District, submitted W. of Sang, Across from Asbell School by Russell Fox for property on the West side of Sang Avenue, across from Asbell School. Russell Fox was present to represent. Mr. Fox said he represents the Washington -Madison Baptist Association who own the property. He stated that there is a sponsoring church which wishes to "start a work" there. They need to see if the property can be used for that purpose. No one was present to oppose the request. Donald Nickell questioned why Mr. Fox had asked for a conditional use instead of rezoning to P-1. Bobbie Jones said rezoning to P-1 is an alternative but the setbacks are a little larger from the street right-of-way. Usually, she said she suggests that they try a conditional use request rather than rezoning because it is quicker and cheaper. Donald Nickell pointed out that a person would always have to come back to get permission each time he wanted to do something under the conditional use whereas, if it was rezoned to P-1, he could do as he saw fit. Chairman Power agreed with Donald Nickell that Mr. Fox should look at P-1 zoning because a conditional use is more temporary. He mentioned that if the church wanted to add on, they would have to come back before the Planning Commission. Bobbie Jones mentioned that if they have an approved large scale development plan to be done in phases, they would issue permits as each phase is done. If they changed the plan they would have to come back to the Planning Commission. Donald Nickell said that the P-1 would put the church into its proper zone. In answer to a question, Bobbie Jones said churches are permitted on appeal to the Planning Commission in R-1, R-2, R-3, A-1, and C-1 zones. They are permitted by right in R-4), C-2, C-3, and P-1 and I-1. They are not permitted at all in the I-2 zone. Most of the other churches in the City are in residential zones. Planning Commission Meeting February 14, 1977 -6- Mr. Fox stated that they have contacted all the people on Lawson except two and none of those contacted were in opposition. He said they need some indication that a church can be built there. Vice=Chairman Jacks asked if the adjoining property owners have been notified and Bobbie Jones said "yes". Peg Anderson moved to grant the conditional use. Bill Kisor seconded the motion, which was passed unanimously. The next item was for further discussion on the approval of the Preliminary Plat of Clear Springs Acres, located East of Highway 265 (Crossover Road) and Northeast of Lake Fayetteville; Jim Lindsey, Developer. Planning Consultant Larry Wood said he recommends that the engineer plot out the 5 or 10 year flood frequency and that the flood line representing that be shown with 100% development of the upstream portion. He said septic tank lateral lines should be kept out of reasonable flood lines. Neal Albright stated that the orange line on the map he had prepared represents the 100 -year flood line. Larry Wood said the soil maps indicate a much stronger flood potential than the orange line shows. Jack Kreie was present representing the Fayetteville Public Schools in regard to an Environmental Study Center they have near Lake Fayetteville. He said they are quite concerned with the possible change in the characteristic of the lake due to pollution. He stated that percolation tests can tell them how fast the effluent gets away, but cannot tell them where it goes. Peg Anderson asked if he would recommend a dye test. Mr. Kreie said he would recommend extreme caution. He stated that they are not interested in what happens to the lake now, but what happens 10 or 20 years from now. He stated that you can kill a lake and Fayetteville has a very good lake which he would like to maintain. Vice -Chairman Jacks recommended to approve the preliminary plat of Clear Springs Acres. He said there is no way legally to not approve it. Skip Holland, Chairman Of the Parks and Recreation Board, said he had citizens who are concerned about Lake Fayetteville attend a meeting his group held Thursday. He said the Board had asked him to call the Commission's attention to the possibility of pollution to Lake Fayetteville. He said another flood like the one in 1970 would carry the effluent all the way to Johnson. The acreage around this subdivision is a large watershed area so the water coming down Clear Creek would go to Lake Fayetteville. He said that after Lake Fayetteville becomes polluted, it would kill the Park which the City has there. Chairman John Power said that this is a preliminary plat and in this particular case the Subdivision Committee has looked at this and recommended approval. Jim Lindsey stated that if the City had sewer there, he would hook on. He said he has no alternative. Bill Kisor asked Skip Holland why everyone said this will dump into Lake Fayetteville. Mr. Holland requested the Planning Commission delay action until after a Mr. Davies with Pollution Control from Little Rock and a representative of the Corps of Engineers have been up later in the week. Mr. Holland said they couldn't guarantee that it wouldn't go into Lake Fayetteville. Jim Lindsey said the land could be used for any other purpose, he could put 150 cows and several chicken houses on it, without even coming before the Planning Commission. Chairman Power asked Mr. Lindsey if he would have the information from the before the final plat comes through. Mr. Lindsey said he would. Bruce Kendall said the County Planning Commission feels that they developer to wait 10 or 15 years until they can get sewer to them. in a position to control where a developer can build. CLEAR SPRINGS ACRES E. of Hwy 265 F, NE of Lake Fayetteville Preliminary Plat percolation tests can't tell any The County isn't • • • Planning Commission Meeting February 14, 1977 Jim Lindsey said with the regulations given he feels he is going overboard by restricting development to 100 feet from the creek or the floodplain, whichever is greater. Keith Newhouse asked if the percolation tests would be made by the State and asked if they were the same ones who did the percolation tests for (around) Beaver Lake Bill Kisor stated that there were no tests done on (the properties around) Beaver Lake. Keith Newhouse seconded Jacks' original motion to accept the preliminary plat of Clear Springs Acres, which passed by a vote of 7-2, with Davis and Anderson voting "Nay". Next was a report from the nominating committee and ELECTION OF OFFICERS the election of officers. Nominating committee members were John Maguire, Keith Newhouse, and Peg Anderson. John Maguire said the Nominating Committee suggested that John Power be re-elected Chairman, Rita Davis Vice -Chairman, and Keith Newhouse, Secretary. Donald Nickell moved to accept these nominations. Ernest Jacks seconded the motion, which was approved 9-0. Peg Anderson invited the Planning Commission members and those from the City who attend the Planning Commission meetings to her house after the February 28 meeting for dinner and an informal discussion. The Planning Commission members should submit any topics they wish to discuss to the Planning Office in time for a list to be mailed with the February 28 agenda. Chairman John Power asked the Commissioners if they felt they CITY ATTORNEY would like to have City Attorney Jim McCord at the Planning Commission meetings. Keith Newhouse said he feels it is the concensus of most of the Commissioners that they would like to have Mr. McCord present and moved that he be required to attend effective February 28. Peg Anderson seconded the motion. Chairman John Power stated that beginning with the February 28 meeting, it is the feeling of the Commission that the City Attorney be present at the meetings. The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 P. M.