Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-02-28 Minutes• • MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held at 5:00 P. M., Monday, February 28, 1977, in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Chairman John Power, Vice -Chairman Rita Davis, Ernest Jacks, Peg Anderson, Keith Newhouse, Bill Kisor, John Maguire, Jack Ray. Donald Nickell. Bobbie Jones, Angie Medlock, Larry Wood, Scott Van Laningham, David McWethy, Wade and Peggy Bishop, Elvie Heiney, Mr. and Mrs. Bob Hutson, Dan Epperly, Beverly Culwell, J. L. Parkerson, Russell Purdy, City Attorney Jim McCord, and other unidentified persons. Chairman John Power called the meeting to order. The minutes of the February 14, 1977 Planning Commission meeting were approved as mailed. MINUTES First was the public hearing on Rezoning REZONING PETITION NO. R76-41 Petition No. R76-41, Wade and Peggy Bishop, Wade Bishop to rezone property located East of Mission E. of Mission $ N. of Viewpoint Blvd. (Highway 45 East) and North of Viewpoint Drive, from R-1, Low Density Residential District to R-2, Medium Density Residential District. The petition was tabled at the January 17 and February 14, 1977 meetings at the request of the petitioners. Wade and Peggy Bishop were present to represent. Wade Bishop said he is asking for a Rezoning on this lot which faces Highway 45 and a cemetery, and has an older home both to the North and to the South. He said they have owned the lot for about 15 years and would like to build a house comparable to the houses on Viewpoint, but are afraid to because it faces the cemetery. They have plans to build a nice townhouse that would cater to those who could pay about $250 per month. He said he feels that people recognize that Highway 45 is not the same as Viewpoint. He doesn't feel there would be any added traffic on Viewpoint. Mr. Purvis, who owns the property to the North, has also filed a petition asking for a rezoning on his property. Mr. Bishop said he had hoped to contact the people who own the property to the immediate south but the lady has recently deceased. Mr. Lewis, Administrator of her estate, said the bank would not want to get involved in the rezoning. Mrs. Linda Middlebrook, who owns the property across from Dillons does approve of the rezoning request. Mr. Bishop said he feels the best interest of all would be to build something nice that would enhance the beauty of the community. Chairman Power recognized the following petition against the rezoning: "We the undersigned of the Harter's Fairview - Subdivision and adjoining neighborhood of single family dwellings request the Planning Commission and the Fayetteville Board of Directors to deny the rezoning of Petition Number R76-41 from R-1 Low Density Residential to R-2 Medium Density Residential. This denial is based on: (1) The neighborhood consists of established single family residents. (2) The area is zoned R-1 Low Density Residential except for one commercial zone. (3) The rezoning of the parcel would also constitute spot zoning. (4) The neighborhood consists of families working in Fayetteville and surrounding areas who are concerned with their neighborhood and the future of Fayetteville. (5) The approach to Hwy 45 East from this parcel would constitute a very hazardous situation. Planning Commission Meeting February 28, 1977 NAME -2- ADDRESS i7 12 1 la 2E i j SIL --0'! +I 5,kZ� r-'ta44-4.4_sc� 1),_ %t � 1W 6le tnvica/ /2 !%r 4 1. 1 6' 1 r 9 �Y ewof s -s • • of /�i/✓'J �%�.Ce�.�L e %f.-a—egasq / 11Ea;p2uQL .7h2_ 712E-1 ©J /ii h h< . .`'r . ; t5;7!/ r 2 ) 77' 59C ) -S /8/2 142,��oz.)1/ Chairman Power also noted that Planning Consultant Larry Wood is recommending denial of the petition. Rex Thompson, 1832 Viewpoint, said his property adjoins Mr. Bishop to the South. Their main objection is that this is a single-family community. There is only one commercial lot in the community which is Dillon's. The lot is located on a slight curve on Highway 45 East which would be a traffic problem. The community is families which bought homes in the community to live in. Townhouses would instigate transient families and the community does not want this. At the request of Chairman Power, five people showed they were there in opposition. Dave Purvis, who owns the property to the North, said he feels what Mr. Bishop is proposing to build will enhance the property. What Mr. Bishop is planning will certainly not be detrimental to the neighborhood. He said he doesn't feel Mr. Bishop's property is part of Viewpoint. He wanted the Planning Commission to know he is in favor of the rezoning. The public hearing was concluded. Jack Ray asked Mr. Bishop if ingress and egress would be on Highway 45. Mr. Bishop said it would be. Jack Ray asked if any of the homes on Viewpoint faced the Bishop property. Mr. Thompson said the back of his house faces the Bishop property. Peg Anderson stated that Wade Bishop was not planning on building in the back 40 feet. John Maguire asked if this would be a quadplex or duplex and Wade Bishop said it would be a quadplex. Wade Bishop said he had suggested to Rex Thompson that he would be willing to build a screened fence along Mr. Thompson's west side which would help give him privacy. John Maguire stated that the quadplex wouldn't be as offensive as the 7-11 Grocery which is now there. Rex Thompson said his house is the second house off of Viewpoint. They are not in back of the grocery store. He stated that the majority of people in their community bought there because they wanted to be in single-family dwellings. He is afraid that the Commission will set a precedent by allowing multiple -housing. Vice -Chairman Rita Davis stated that the Commission did not have a favorable report from the Planning Consultant and that is not a good place for the quadplex because of the traffic. Ernest Jacks mentioned that the Commission may be opening the door to something they don't want. The biggest problem he sees is the curve in Highway 45 which will beused for ingress and egress. He said it seems the Commission is looking at the possibility of more intense development from Dillons to the 7-11 Grocery. A 1. • 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. -11. 12. • • • • Planning Commission Meeting February 28, 1977 -3- Peg Anderson said that the duplex seems to be better than commercial. It seems to be a good buffer. John Maguire said it would best suit the community if it had a Doctor's office or something like that on it. Everytime someone tries to do something there that would benefit the area, the neighbors object.. He thinks it might be better suited as R-0 but not commercial. Planning Consultant Larry Wood said he based his decision primarily on the piece -by - piece rezoning. He said he could see a duplex or multi -family development in there but when you convert on a piece -meal basis, you would establish a precedent. You would be looking at most vacant pieces of property along Highway 45. Also, the comprehensive plan indicates single-family. Bill Kisor made a motion to deny the petition, No. R76-41 because he agreed with the Planning Consultant. Ernest Jacks seconded the motion. The vote was 4-4 with Jacks, Kisor, Maguire, and Davis voting "Aye", and Power, Anderson, Ray, and Newhouse voting "Nay". City Attorney Jim McCord said it would take a majority of the quorum to pass anything so the motion failed to pass. Peg Anderson moved to approve the rezoning request. Jack Ray seconded the motion. The vote was 3-5, with Ray, Anderson, and Power voting "Aye", and Davis, Kisor, Jacks, Newhouse, and Maguire voting "Nay". The motion to approve the rezoning request failed, thereby denying the petition. The third item for discussion was the request for a OTTIS WATSON ruling on the required improvements to Fourth Street Ruling on Improvements in order to develop the property North of Fourth to Fourth Street Street, lying between Happy Hollow Road and Ray Avenue, submitted by Ottis Watson. Ernest Jacks said the Subdivision Committee brings this to the Planning Commission without a recommendation. Fourth Street was originally opened only to serve Happy Hollow School. Bobbie Jones said they are not being asked to approve a preliminary plat, just to make a ruling on the improvement of Fourth Street. Elvie Heiney said Mr. Watson couldn't afford to blacktop, curb and gutter, and put sidewalks in on Fourth Street. He can only use the lots on one side. He is going to build a new street from Fourth Street. It would cost him $3,170 per lot to build the sidewalks; if he has to pay for half of Fourth street and sidewalks, it would be $3,560 per lot, if he has to blacktop, curb, and gutter all of Fourth Street, it is $4,000 per lot, before he even finishes the lot. He will not be able to use the South side of Fourth Street, nor will he have any lots facing Fourth Street. Jim McCord said the street is outside the platted subdivision. The Board recently amended the Subdivision Ordinance to say that off-site improvements can be required when the need is created in whole or in part by the Subdivision. The developer can only be required to bear that portion of the cost of off-site improvements which shares a rational nexus to the need created by the subdivision. Mr. McCord said it wouldn't be fair to require the developer to bear the whole cost since the entire need for the paving of the street wasn't created by the developer's activities. Peg Anderson asked if Happy Hollow is paved and Elvie Heiney said "yes". The school faces Ray Avenue so Mr. Heiney said he doesn't know who Clayton Powell is talking about as the adjoining property owners. Elvie Heiney said that Ed Connell owns the property South of Fourth Street. Mr. Watson has an option on the subject property. They have to have a determination of what will be required of Ottis Watson before he will buy the property, and submit a subdivision plat to the Planning Commission. John Maguire asked if this is just a tract of land now and Mr. Heiney said "yes". Ernest Jacks asked Jim McCord how much of the burden should be placed on the developer. Mr. McCord said the practical problem in cost-sharing is who picks up the difference. You have to have the property owners consent to require their participation. 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 28, 1977 -4- Ernest Jacks said if the Planning Commission could arrive at some proper division of this, the developer should be required to do his share when and if it is required. Bill Kisor suggested that they could get a bond. Ernest Jacks moved that the Planning Commission go on record as requiring the developer to bear his proper share of 1/2 the cost of paving Fourth Street and put up bond or other arrangement to insure that when a street could be built, he will help. Bill Kisor seconded the motion. Ernest Jacks amended his motion to require that the developer post a cash bond for 1/2 the cost of paving Fourth Street. Bill Kisor seconded the amended motion. John Maguire questioned who makes the estimate, for the cost of building the street. Bobbie Jones said it would be the developer's consulting engineer, but must be approved by the City Engineer and Street Superintendent. The motion passed unanimously, by a vote of 8-0. The fourth item for discussion was the request for the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th waiver of Subdivision Regulations (lot splits), for BOB HUTSON Waiver of Subdivision Regulations NE of Joe Fred Starr Road property located Northeast of Joe Fred Starr Road, submitted by Bob Hutson. Mr. F, Mrs. Bob Hutson were present to represent. Ernest Jacks said that this comes to the Planning Commission with a favorable recommendation from the Subdivision Committee. The proposed lots are 5 acres and one is larger. This is outside the City. No one was present in opposition. Ernest Jacks moved to approve the waiver for the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th lot splits. Bill Kisor seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Next was a conditional use request for DAN EPPERLY greenhouses submitted by Dan Epperly, Conditional Use Request for property located West of Porter Road, W. of Porter $ S. of Mt. Comfort and South of Mt. Comfort Road, property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Ernest Jacks said the Subdivision Committee looked at this as a Large Scale Development and everything seems to be in order. The only question was the provision of half of the right-of-way which is defined as 30 feet from the centerline of Mt. Comfort Road. Ernest Jacks moved to approve the conditional use request for greenhouses, submitted by Dan Epperly, contingent on the 30 feet of right-of-way being provided. Keith Newhouse seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The next item for discussion was a conditional use JERRY SWEETSER request for duplexes submitted by Jerry D. Sweetser Conditional Use Request for property located at the East end of Sharon End of Sharon Street Street (a new street in Sweetbriar #2 Addition), property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Chairman Power acknowledged a written request from Jerry Sweetser for this conditional use to be permanently withdrawn. Ernest Jacks made a motion to accept the withdrawal. Bill Kisor seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The seventh item for discussion was a conditional BEVERLY CULWELL use request for a duplex submitted by Beverly Conditional Use Request Culwell for property located East of Crossover E. of Crossover F, S. of Wyman Rd. Road and South of Wyman Road, property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Beverly Culwell was present to represent. Beverly Culwell said she wanted to build a duplex, about 2,000 square feet, which will face north. She plans to live in one end and rent the other end. • • Planning Commission Meeting February 28, 1977 -5- Chairman John Power asked Bobbie Jones what notification had adjoining property owners. She said the Planning Office has property on February 17 and Beverly Culwell had notified by three adjoining property owners. There was no one present to oppose the request. Peg Anderson moved to grant the conditional use request Crossover Road and South of Wyman Road. Keith Newhouse passed unanimously. been given to the posted a sign on the certified letter, for a duplex seconded the east of motion, which The next item for discussion was the conditional J. L. PARKERSON use request for duplexes submitted by Conditional Use Request J. L. Parkerson, for property located South S. of Rutledge $ E. of Oak Road of Rutledge Lane and East of Oak Road, property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. J. L. Parkerson was present to represent. Mr. Parkerson said he would like to build one duplex now and possibly two more in the future. He mentioned that all city utilities do come by this property and it would be a good location for the duplexes. Chairman John Power acknowledged the following petition in opposition to the conditional use: 2/18/77 "Dear Commissioners: We, the undersigned residents of the Rutledge Subdivision wish to express our opposition to the proposed duplex conditional use request to be considered at the Planning Commission meeting on February 28, 1977. The Rutledge Subdivision is a small community composed entirely of single family homes. We homeowners were attracted to this area because it is zoned R-1 and it is our desire that it remain so. By approving a duplex conditional use request, the population density of this area will be greatly increased and thus destroy much of the solitude that attracted us initially. The construction of duplexes on Oak Street and Rutledge Lane will have the following detrimental consequences on our neighborhood: 1) the family density will be greatly increased, 2) motor vehicle traffic will be greatly increased on the two narrow streets, 3) the single family home atmosphere of the neighborhood will be destroyed, and 4) the cohesive quality of the neighborhood will be destroyed by the potentially rapid turnover of tenants in the rental properties. The above consequences can only have a detrimental effect on the quality of life of we the undersigned home owners and lower the value of our home investments. For the reasons outlined above, we the undersigned residents of Rutledge Lane stand in opposition to the duplex conditional use request. a: Sincerely, a 755 tat ft;tr'' Lair - 123 arAActi at. /G R„ledge LA. Fes. 1 fiB 221971 • • • Planning Commission Meeting February 28, 1977 -6- Marc Linit, 2816 Rutledge Lane, was present in opposition. He said the people on Rutledge are opposed to the duplexes. They bought homes in that area because R-1 is single-family. All of the people on the street pay on the homes they live in and building duplexes would introduce transient people. It would also increase traffic on the two narrow streets and decrease the property value. They are not talking about just one duplex. They are talking about three and the people on Rutledge are concerned that this may set a precedent for some of the other vacant lots on Rutledge. Presently, there is no rental property in the area. Ernest Jacks said he is impressed by the fact that these are gravel roads. Chairman Power asked Mr. Parkerson if he has any plans to do any paving to the street, and Mr. Parkerson said "no". Bill Kisor moved to deny the conditional use for duplexes submitted by J. L. Parkerson. Vice -Chairman Rita Davis seconded the motion. Peg Anderson stated that she would be against duplexes in this case since Mr. Parkerson would have to cut down trees, and this is on a gravel road The motion to deny the request passed unanimously. The next item for discussion was the public AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE hearing on the proposed ordinance to amend the ON SIZE OF MOBILE HOME PARK LOTS zoning ordinance on the size of mobile home park lots. Attorney Marshall Carlisle was present to represent Jim Ogden of Villa North but said he had no comments to add to those he had made at the previous meeting. City Attorney Jim McCord said he had no additional comments to the ordinance he had drawn up. Chairman Power said this had been advertised as a public hearing, but there was no one present in opposition. Russell Purdy said it is his personal opinion that the purpose of the Mobile Home Park Ordinance is to separate mobile homes and permanent residences but he can see no harm in selling a mobile home lot for a mobile home. He said prefabricated permanent homes are "coming" and he feels they should meet the setback and other requirements of:the ordinance for other homes in the zoning district they are in. It seems the more valuable permanent home would not be put in a mobile home park for economic reasons, so that would be self-limiting. He said an addition should be made which says the home should meet the setback restrictions and other restrictions for homes in the area, in which the mobile home park resides. Mobile home parks are only allowed in R-2 and R-3 and then only on appeal to the Planning Commission. Ernest Jacks said Mr. Purdy is saying that it should meet setbacks as well as lot size and lot area requirements. After some discussion, Peg Anderson moved to recommend to the City Board of Directors that the Ordinance be passed with the change in Section 5, Paragraph 2, to read: "No single family, two family, or multi -family dwelling unit may be erected or placed upon any lot within a mobile home park unless said dwelling and lot meet all requirements of the zoning ordinance applicable to the zoning district where the mobile home park is located". Keith Newhouse seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. Next was a discussion of the difference between City Subdivision Regulations and County Subdivision Regulations concerning subdivision waivers on tracts of property containing 5 acres or more in the growth City Attorney Jim McCord said the County subdivision acres of more, but the City does require a plat. He Rock regulations and they do exempt 5 acre tracts als Ernest Jacks stated that what this would mean is that piece of property into 5 acre tracts without building CITY AND COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS area. regulations exempt tracts of 5 said he had checked the Little o. a person could subdivide a streets or providing utilities. • • • Planning Commission Meeting February 28, 1977 -7- Peg Anderson questioned if this fit into the idea of a growth policy. John Power said they are trying to make it clear when the County can have jursidiction. Jim McCord said he doesn't feel it is a jurisdiction question. The County doesn't regulate tracts of 5 acres or more. Chairman John Power said he felt the Planning Commission should keep some control. Jim McCord said the question being asked is does the Planning Commission want to regulate 5 acre tract subdivisions. Ernest Jacks said he doesn't feel this causes a burden on the Planning Commission. Peg Anderson said she does feel they should look at them. Bobbie Jones said there is a general misconception about what does have to be approved outside the City. Peg Anderson suggested that a letter be sent to local abstractors stating that the Planning Commission does look at tracts of 5 acres or more within the growth area. John Maguire asked what the growth area is defined as. Bobbie Jones said it is generally understood to be the planning area boundary outside the city limits. Jim McCord said it was up to 5 miles outside the City limits and about a year ago the Board amended it to coincide with the water and sewer growth area, which averages about 21 miles outside the City limits. Chairman Power said he felt they should leave it as it is. The Planning Commission members confirmed that they do not want to amend the subdivision ordinance as it now applies to 5 acre tracts or more in the growth area. The last item for discussion was the approval of the AMENDING OF BY-LAWS resolution amending Article III, Section I of the By-laws of the Fayetteville Planning Commission to prescribe requirements for rehearing. City Attorney Jim McCord said the Commission may want to add "A request for rehearing must be filed with the Planning Administrator within (a specified number of) days within the date of the final action of the Planning Commission". Rita Davis suggested that if someone requests a rehearing they could go ahead and consider that request for a rehearing at a different time than they have the rehearing. Chairman Power agreed that it is awkward to have the people involved at the meeting while the Commission considers whether or not to rehear. He stated that he felt the Commission has been very restrictive in the past by having to have unanimous approval for a rehearing. He feels they need some basic guidelines as to what constitutes a rehearing. They need to decide on a number which is fair to the people, and suggested a majority of those present. Peg Anderson made a motion to amend Section 1 of the proposed Resolution to amend Article III, Section I of the By-laws to read a "favorable vote by a majority of the members of the Planning Commission present" and to add Section 3 to the proposed. Resolution, said Section 3 to read that "a request for a rehearing must be filed with the Planning Administrator within -30 days froth -the date of the final action on. the original request".and that.the'amended Resolution be approved. Bill Kisor seconded the motion, which was passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 6:23 P. M. • • • RESOLUTION PC 7 - 77 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Planning Commission, Monday, February 28, 1977, 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 Wade and Peggy Bishop, R76-41 for rezoning; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CTTY OF FAYETTEVILLE, 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: Part of Lot 2, Harter's Fairview Subdivision to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, as shown upon the recorded plat thereof, on file in the Office of the Circuit Clerk and Ex -Officio Recorder of Washington County, Ark- ansas, and being more particularly described as follows, to -wit: Beginning at a point 275 feet West and 96 feet North of the Southeast corner of said lot and running, thence North 17 feet; thence North 21° 02, East 41.78 feet; thence East 70 feet; thence North 40 feet to the North line of said Lot; thence West along the North line of said Lot 236 feet, more or less, to the East right of way line of Highway 45 East; thence in a Southwesterly direction along said right of way line to a point 140 feet, more or less, due West of the point of beginning; thence East 140 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. SECTION 2. That the rezoning of the above described real estate would not presently be desirable. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 1977. APPROVED: John Power, Chairman • i RESOLUTION PC 8 - 77 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Fayetteville Planning Commission, Monday, February 28, 1977, fifteen (15) days 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 a proposed ordinance to amend Ordinance 1747 (Appendix A, Code of Ordinances, City of Fayetteville, Arkansas) to set forth minimum lot widths and minimum lot areas for lots within a mobile home park which are intended for individual ownership; NOW, 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 to amend Ordinance 1747 to set forth minimum lot width and minimum lot areas for lots within a mobile home park which are intended for individual ownership. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 1977. APPROVED: John Power, Chairman • • • RESOLUTION NO. PC 9-77 • A RESOLUTION AMENDING ARTICLE III, SECTION I OF THE BY-LAWS OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION TO PRESCRIBE REQUIREMENTS FOR REHEARINGS. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1. That Article III, Section I of the By -Laws of the Fayetteville Planning Commissionis hereby amended to read as follows: I. A favorable vote by a majority of the members of the Planning Commission present shall be required before any matter upon which decisive action has been taken may be reheard. A rehearing shall be for the sole purpose of calling attention to a factual error, omission or oversight in the first consideration. A request for a rehearing must be made in writing and must state the factual error, omission or oversight asserted as the basis for a rehearing. Section 2. That all resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. Section 3. A request for a rehearing must be filed with the Planning Administrator within thirty (30) days from the date of final action on the matter by the Planning Commission. PASSED AND APPROVED THIS DAY OF ATTEST: SECRETARY APPROVED: , 1977. CHAIRMAN •