Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-01-08 MinutesMINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the City Planning Commission was held on Monday, January 8, 1979, at 5:00 o'clock P.M. in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Chairman Rita Davis, Keith Newhouse, Morton Gitelman, Beth Crocker, Ernest Jacks, Newton Hailey, Bill Kisor, Peg Ander- son and Windell Cullers. None. Bobbie Jones, Larry Wood, Gail Biswell, Rick Briggs, Scott VanLaningham, Beth Smith, Angie Medlock, George Faucette, Jr., James Armour, Wade Bishop, Tom Hopper, Ed Piper, Neal Albright, Leo Peel, Helen Edmiston, Vida Drake, Donald Johnston, Jim Parrish, Oma Blackwell, Harry Vandergriff, James lawson, Homer McBroom, Bob Martin, Charles Atkinson, George Handy, Lamar Pettus, Mr. & Mrs. Jerry Hart, Julia Rogers, Wade Bishop, Peggy Bishop, Marie Eoff, David Stewart, George Moore, Linda Apperson, Eula Apperson, and other unidentified members of the audience. Chairman Rita Davis called the meeting to order. Beth Crocker called attention to an error on page 3 of the minutes of the previous meeting of December 11, 1978. She noted that the last three words of the next to last paragraph on that page should be deleted. With that correction, the minutes were approved as mailed. The Chairman noted that Item #2 on the agenda (Shalott Acres) had been postponed and therefore, the first item for consideration would be Item #3, the preliminary plat of "The Meadows", a subdivision lo- cated outside the City Limits but within its Planning Area, more particularly located 2.25 miles East of the City Limits, approximately 0.5 miles North of Hwy. 45 on Ark. Hwy. 156; developers and owners are George Faucette, Jr. $ Rosemary Faucette, James McDonald II & Ann Marie McDonald, G. Harrison Butler $ Patricia Butler, George Shelton $ Carole Shelton, and Edgar Piper Y, Jane Piper. George Faucette, Jr., Edgar Piper and James Armour (Milholland Engineering) were present to represent. Ernest Jacks reported that the Subdivision Committee had voted to recommend approval of the preliminary plat upon a 3-1 vote contingent upon: 1. Plat Review comments being met in full; 2. Double chip and oil seal to be required for the proposed road, and No requirement for extension of the proposed road to the east property line (termination to be in a cul-de-sac). Ernest Jacks moved that the Planning Commission approve the plat upon the contingencies above stated, and Keith Newhouse seconded the motion. MINUTES THE MEADOWS Preliminary Plat (Outside City) • Planning Commission Meeting January 8, 1979 Page 2 A discussion ensued concerning the desirability of approving the plat upon those contingencies. Peg Anderson stated that she felt the county standards should be applied and that if the county required paving then the City should require paving. Mr Jacks commented that the County Planning Board representa- tive, General Kendall, had stated at the Plat Review meeting that the County would defer to the City's desires on this matter. Bill Kisor stated that he did not feel the developers should be required to pave the road considering their desires to leave the lots in a rural atmos- phere and considering the fact that the sole access road to the proposed road was not paved. He also stated that the extra burden of requiring expensive paving should not be added to the already prohibitive costs of building homes. Windell Cullers questioned whether it was just a question of whether to pave "now or later." George Faucette responded that he did not feel that was the question at all since there were no plans to develop the adjoining property at anytime in the foreseeable future. He stated that there were also no plans to pave Hwy. 156 in the foreseeable future due to the fact that recently the property owners in the area had not all been willing to give the necessary rights- of-way needed to have the road paved at a time when money was available. Ernest Jacks commented that he had felt that a contract requiring paving upon t:sc City's call might solve the problem, but he had been informed by Mrs. Jones that the City Attorney had advised her that such contracts could not be used for subdivisions. Bill Kisor called for the question, and after a vote having been taken, Mr. Jacks' motion to approve the plat upon the three contingencies above stated passed unanimously. The next item for consideration was the final plat of Phase I of Regency North subdivi sion located North of Appleby Road and West of Hwy. 71B; Wade Bishop, owner and developer. Wade Bishop and Tom Hopper (Crafton F, Tull) were present to represent. Ernest Jacks reported that the mend approval of the final plat upon follows: 1. Plat Review comments being met in full; 2. Contract being executed between developer and the City for all incomplete improvements; and 3. Easements necessary for utilities and easements necessary for drain- age being worked out to Mrs. Jones' satisfaction. Mr. Jacks moved to approve the final plat upon the foregoing contingencies, and Keith Newhouse seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. REGENCY NORTH - PHASE I Final Plat N. of Appleby Road F, W. of Highway 71B Subdivision Committee had voted to recom- a unanimous vote with contingencies as The next item for consideration was the final plat of Grandview Place, located at the SE corner of West 24th St. and Hwy. 71 South; Leo Peel and Mildred Peel, Owner/Developer. Neal Albright and Leo Peel were present to represent. GRANDVIEW PLACE Final Plat Hwy. 71 South Planning Commission Meeting January 8, 1979 Page 3 Ernest Jacks moved to approve the final plat upon the contingencies stated by the Subdivision Committee, which contingencies are as follows: 1. Dedication of any additional right-of-way needed for Hwy. 71 to be made upon the call of the Hwy. Department; 2. Flood plain to be shown on the plat; 3. Dedication of any additional right-of-way needed for 24th Street when City determines required amount and upon City's call; 4. All Plat Review requirements being met. Keith Newhouse seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The next item was the public hearing to be held on Rezoning Petition R79-1 (Helen Edmis- ton) to rezone property located East of Chestnut, West of S.L.S.F. Railroad and North of Sycamore from R-3, High Density Residential District, to I-1, Heavy Commercial & Light Industrial District, or to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Helen Edmiston was present to represent. Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, reported that he would favorably recom- mend I-1 for this property, but would not recommend C-2. He noted his reasons were based upon: 1. Approximately two years ago he had recommended that the general area be considered light industrial and this recommendation has been carried out since that time; and 2. I-1 zoning would be in keeping with the other developments in the area. Helen Edmiston stated that she would rather the property would be rezoned C-2 as "the setbacks in I-1 are miserable." A discussion ensued concerning setback requirements in I-1 zones. Ernest Jacks moved to recommend to the City Board approval of the rezoning request from R-3 to I-1. Keith Newouse seconded the motion, which passed unani- mously. The Chairman asked Larry Wood to review the setback requirements in I-1 and give the Planning Commission a recommendation The next item for public hearing was REZONING PETITION R79-2 Rezoning Petition R79-2 (Vida Drake) to rezone Vida Drake property located at 504 East 15th Street from 504 East 15th St. R-2, Medium Density Residential District, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Mrs. Vida Drake was present to represent. Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, recommended that the rezoning not be approved for the following reasons: 1. The request was contrary to general plan recommendations and was not in keeping with the desire the Planning Commission has expressed over the past few years that the North side of Hwy. 16 East not be "stripped out commercial." 2. Changing to C-2 would set a precedent for additional commercial property along the highway. Mrs. Drake stated that she did not care to have the property rezoned in any particular manner, except that she just wanted it zoned to something which would allow her to add a storage room and inside bathroom to her cafe. REZONING PETITION R79-1 Helen Edmiston East of Chestnut, West of S.L.S.F. R.R. • • • Planning Commission Meeting January 8, 1979 Page 4 Bobbie Jones explained that the cafe had been a nonconforming use in this R-2 zone for many years and that a nonconforming use is not permitted to expand unless the property is rezoned. A discussion ensued concerning the desirability of rezoning the property. Larry Wood commented that he felt there would be justification for a lesser rezoning which would allow for a buffer zone in the area. Peg Anderson stated that an R-0 rezoning would allow Mrs. Drake to add to her cafe and would still be in keeping with the area. Keith Newhouse moved to recommend to the Board of Directors that Mrs. Drake's cafe property be rezoned from R-2 to R-0. Ernest Jacks seconded the motion; which passed 8-1 with Mort Gitelman casting the "nay" vote. Chairman Davis explained to Mrs. Drake that the City Board would hear her request for rezoning on the 16th of January and if they approved the rezon- ing then Mrs. Drake could come back to the Planning Commission on January 22nd and ask for a Conditional Use permit which would allow her to add on to her building. The next item was the public hearing to be held on Rezoning Petition R79-3 (Donald Johnston) to rezone property located East of Hwy. 112 (Garland Avenue), West of Oakland, and North of Mt. Comfort Road from C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District, to C:2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Donald Johnston was present to represent. Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, recommended that the property be rezoned to C-2 for the following reasons: 1. The existing shopping center contains at least one other C-2 business; 2. C-2 would be in keeping with General Plan recommendations; and 3. He stated that he could not see any adverse effects on the surround- ing neighborhood in rezoning to C-2. Mr. Johnston stated that he has had to turn away several possible tenants because there are at least 60 different types of businesses which are allowed in C-2 but are not allowed in C.1. Jim Parrish (Maxwell Drive), Homer McBroom, and James Dawson were present in opposition. They felt that creating opporunities for more diverse businesses would draw additional traffic to an already hazardous traffic area and would increase hazards for children who walk to and from school through the shopping center. Oma Blackwell, principal of Leverett School, and Harry Vandergriff, superintendent of the Fayetteville School System, were present in opposition. Ms. Blackwell stated that over 40 children from her school crossed the shopping center on their way to and from school. She stated that she had "explored every possible way" to avoid the necessity of crossing the shopping center to get these children back and forth to school but had not come up with a better solution. She felt that for safety reasons the rezoning should not be made since she felt that increased business would increase traffic hazards for the children. Mr. Vandergriff noted that the school system "has gone on record" that they will oppose any liquor stores in areas near school buildings. He noted that liquor stores are allowed in C.2 zones and not in C-1 zones. REZONING PETITION R79-3 Donald W. Johnston (Parcel of Oak Plaza Shopping Center) Planning Commission Meeting January 8, 1979 Page 5 Mr. Parrish presented a petition bearing approximately 30 signatures of area people who were opposed to the rezoning. After further discussion, Peg Anderson stated that she felt this was an "impossible situation" and moved to deny the rezoning request. Windell Cullers seconded the motion, which passed 8-1 with Morton Gitelman casting the "nay" vote. The next item for consideration was a BOB MARTIN request from Bob Martin for an amendment to Request for Public Hearing the zoning ordinance to allow "picture framing, to Amend Zoning Ordinance retail" as a use permitted in the C-1, Neighbor- hood Commercial Zoning District. Bob Martin was present to represent. Mr. Martin stated that he felt picture framing was a neighborhood business and would not be out of line with other businesses in C-1 zones. A short dis- cussion ensued and then Ernest Jacks moved to advertise a public hearing for the request. Peg Anderson seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The next item for consideration was the rehearing of a Conditional Use request for a tandem lot at 524 N. Sequoyah Drive which was submitted by Julia Rogers; property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Julia Rogers, Mr. and Mrs. Jerry Hart, and attorney Charles Atkinson were present to represent. Mr. Atkinson presented the request by reviewing the history of the item as it had developed over -the past few months. He stated that this Commission had denied Mrs. Rogers' initial request which was made at its November 27, 1978, meeting; that at its December 11, 1978 meeting the applicant had petitioned for a rehearing on the basis that she "had not fully understood the events of the first meeting." The request was granted. Mr. Atkinson stated that Mrs. Rogers believes that she has complied with all requirements of the ordinance (one such requirement being that the lot should be legally severed, which he stated has been done). Mr. Atkinson countered that the several written objections filed with the Planning office were unwarranted and without merit. He presented a letter from George Shelton (400 Williams Drive) which had not been written on First National Bank stationery in which Mr. Shelton stated that he had no objec- tions to allowing the tandem lot. Mr. Atkinson stated that there must be a lack of communication between Mr. Shelton and Mr. Dennis Smith, Trust Officer of First National Bank, who had written a letter objecting to allowing the tandem lot for the reason that it would decrease value of Mr. Handy's property (which is held in trust by the Bank). Mr. Lamar Pettus, attorney for Wade Bishop (an opposing neighbor) stated that the applicant had not complied with all city requirements in that Art. 7, Sec. 21(c) of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the driveway must have a safety zone. Mr. Pettus contended that the driveway being proposed was within 18" of a neighboring drive and not within the 31' required. He also contended that Mr. Bishop's opposition was without merit for the reason that his property abuts Mrs. Rogers' and that another house contractued on the Rogers' lot would decrease the view from his home, as well as its value. Mr. Pettus stated that the hedge Mr. Bishop had planted was less than 30" high and could not be considered a REHEARING JULIA ROGERS Conditional Use Request 524 N. Sequoyah Drive • • Planning Commission Meeting January 8, 1979 Page 6 permanent view obscursion like Mr. Atkinson had inferred. Mr. Pettus also rebut- ted that Dennis Smith had written the opposing letter because he held a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interests of the trust with which it was his duty to administer. He stated that Mr. Shelton had no such direct fiduciary responsi- bility and had simply written his letter stating that he had no opposition as a private citizen. Mr. Handy commented that he had initially supported his sister-in-law, Mrs. Rogers, and had tried to help her obtain approval but that he was now oppos- ing the request since he felt his efforts had been grossly unappreciated and mis- interpreted and that any additional building on her lot would greatly reduce the value of his who adjoining property. Peg Anderson noted that the area is definitely single-family and that the tandem lot ordinance had been written to encourage development of lots which have topographical problems. She said that she didn't feel this request metthe in- tent of the ordinance. Mrs. Anderson noted that perhaps one solution to the problem would be for Mrs. Rogers to build an addition onto her home to provide room for her nephew, Mr. Hart, to reside with her in order to care for her. She stated that the addition would enhance its value and would not leave any possibility that another home built upon her property might detract from values of property in the neighborhood. Mr. Jacks agreed that the intent of the tandem lot ordinance would not be met with this request. A discussion ensued. Peg Anderson moved to deny the request and Bill Kisor seconded the motion. Mort Gitelman commented that he could see nothing wrong with the request. He stated that the neighbors seemed to be objecting mainly because they didn't want a lot smaller than their large lots in the area He stated that he didn't feel the City should support the neighbors' desires to have everyone else around them live on large lots like they do, unless their were some deed restrictions. The Chairman called vor a vote. Beth Crocker, Ernest Jacks, Keith Newhouse, Peg Anderson, Bill Kisor and Rita Davis voted "aye" and Mort Gitelman, Windell Cullers and Newton Hailey voted "nay" The Chairman announced that the 6-3 vote for the motion had passed and the request was denied. The next item for consideration was the WAIVER REQUEST request for a waiver of the 25 ft. safety zone Sweetbriar Addition required between individual driveways. The re- quest was submitted by Paradise Valley Dev. Co. for the replat of Block 3 of Sweetbriar Addition. Neal Albright was present to represent. Mr. Albright explained the drawing which accompanied the agenda and a short discussion ensued concerning the feasibility of waiving the safety zone requirement. Ernest Jacks stated that he did not feel the request was unreason- able and moved to approve same. Keith Newhouse seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Item #12 on the agenda was the conditional EULA APPERSON use request submitted by Eula Apperson for a Conditional Use Request home occupation (beauty salon) at 3195 Mt. Com- 3195 Mt. Comfort Road fort Road; property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Eula Apperson and Linda Apperson were present to represent. Planning Commission Meeting January 8, 1979 Page 7 Linda Apperson presented the request stating that she had prepared all the required information and that she felt all requirements had been met. She noted that one of the three basins on the drawing would not be installed. A short discussion ensued concerning licensing for the beauty shop by the State. Mr. F, Mrs. John Dockery, neighbors of Mrs. Apperson, were present and stated that they were not opposed in any manner to the granting of the conditional use. Newton Hailey moved to approve the request for a one-year period. Bill Kisor seconded the motion, which passed 8-1 with Morton Gitelman casting the "nay" vote. The Chairman reviewed the proposed ordinance which would amend Article 7, Section 21(b) of Appen- dix A to the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances to provide that the minimum frontage requirement for tandem lots could be a perpetual, private easement instead of ownership in fee simple of the required frontage. A short discussion ensued concerning the desirability of increasing the required frontage from 25 feet to 33 feet in order to provide an additional 8 feet setback from buildings. Mr. Gitelman stated that he did not feel the City should ask for the additional 8 feet for the reason that the person who would be giving the 25' easement should have the option of allowing the 25 feet road- way to "come right up to his bedroom window" if he should feel so inclined. Keith Newhouse moved to recommend approval of the ordinance to the Board of Directors. Ernest Jacks seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE Art. VII, Sec. 21(b) The Chairman then reviewed the proposed amendment to Article II, Sec. B of the Subdivi- sion Ordinance which would require subdividers to give notice to adjoining property owners prior to submission of a preliminary plat to the Plan- ning Commission for approval. A discussion was had concerning various methods by which notice could be given to adjoining property owners, i.e., by certified mail, personal service asking for signatures, or by notices in the newspaper. Chairman Davis' state- ment that she felt the method of giving notice by certified mail to be best "since you at least get something back" seemed to be the concensus of the Commission members. Beth Crocker noted that she felt the words "unplatted land" should be omitted from the fifth line of the paragraph following the heading "NOTICE REOUIREMENT" She stated that she assumed notice should be given to owners of all adjoining land, not just unplatted land. She also noted that the signature space for the Subdivider should be located immediately preceding the paragraph entitled "Section 2." Peg Anderson moved to table the adoption of this amendment to the Subdivi- sion Ordinance until it could be rewritten by the City Attorney. Bill Kisor seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The Chairman authorized Mrs. Crocker to contact the City Attorney with regard to having the Ordinance rewritten. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SUBDIVISION ORD. Art. II, Sec. B Planning Commission Meeting January 8, 1979 Page 8 The Chairman stated that she had been informed by the Committee studying the proposed revisions to the regulations governing develop- ment of Planned Unit Developments that their report was not yet ready. She noted that the report would be tabled until a future meeting. STUDY OF PUD REGULATIONS The Chairman appointed a Nominating Com- NOMINATING mittee to make recommendations for new officers COMMITTEE for the Planning Commission. Those appointed to the committee were Morton Gitelman, Windell Cullers and Bill Kisor. She noted that the election of new officers would be held at the February 12, 1979 meeting. Bobbie Jones stated that she would like the NON -CONFORMING LOTS Commission to make a recommendation concerning a problem she has been having with a portion of paragraph 2 of Article IV, Section 2 of the Zoning Ordinance (which is found at page 811 of the City Code). She stated that this section "does not make any exceptions for lots with existing structures." She stated that she could see not allowing someone to build on a 50' vacant lot, but that if the lot has an existing structure she did not feel the City could not allow the owner to divide it from another lot he might also own in order to sell it separately. She asked the members for their opinions and it was the concensus of the members that the ordinance should be amended to allow lots with existing structures to be divided, even if the resulting parcels created would have lesser widths or areas than the minimum ordinance requirements. Mrs. Jones stated that she would discuss the matter with the City Attorney and ask him to draft an amendment to the ordinance. She said she would then call for a public hearing on the matter. There being no further business to come before the meeting, said meeting adjourned at 7:20 o'clock P.M. DATE PLANNING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1979 Keith Newhouse Ernest Windell Peg Jacks Cullers Anderson Bill Rita Davis Kisor ,6ket . Beth Crocker Newton .Morton Hailey Gitelman January 8, 1979 X X X X X X X X. X January 22, 1979 X X X X X X X X X February 12, 1979 X X X X X Abs. X X X February 26, 1979 X X X X X X X X Abs. March 12, 1979 X X Abs. Abs. X X X X X March 26, 1979 X X X X X X X X X April 9, 1979 X X X X X X X X X April 23, 1979 X X X X X X X Medical Abs. X May 14, 1979 X X X X X Abs. X Medical Abs. X May 2S, 1979 << X X X X Abs. Abs. X X X June 11, 1979 X arv'd 6.00 X X X X X X - X June 25, 1979 Abs: X X X X X X/ Medical Abs. X July 9, 1979 X X X Abs. Abs. X Abs. X X July 23, 1979 X X X Abs. X X X M&fiscal Abs.(il August 13, 1979 X X X X X X X X X August 20, 1979 X' X.% X Abs.' X X X X Abs. August 27,41,979 Abs. -:'`:X - •` X. X `` X X X X X September 40;-497 . Abs. -4X . >_:X Abs. X Abs. X X X September 244 19:9 -X X ". X: " _ X s X.; X X X X October 8, 1979 X^ X X X X X X X 01,9) /47'9 x' X..,:' X ; fir_ 1 . A November 13, 19.79, X . X X X. X X X X X November. 26; 4979 X. . X X X: X X X X X December 10,1979 X X X. X X X X X X 1)