Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-01-22 MinutesMINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the City Planning Commission was held on Monday, January 22, 1979, at 5:00 o'clock P.M. in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Rita Davis, Keith Newhouse, Morton Gitelman, Beth Crocker, Ernest Jacks, Newton Hailey, Bill Kisor, Peg Ander- son, and Windell Cullers. MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: None. Bobbie Jones, Larry Wood, Gail Biswell, Scott VanLaningham, Rick Briggs, Beth Smith, David McWethy, Carl Russell, Gary Carnahan, Ernest Stobaugh, Joe Segers, Troy Woodward, A. G. Holland, John Kinsey, Clayton Barnhart, Ralph Barnhart, Jim Parish, Max Pinkerton, Roger Widder, Nancy Richards, Mr. $ Mrs. Lowell Bailey, Jack Hanchrow, Dawn Reese, George Faucette, Jr., C. Odell Taylor, and Debbie Muruaga. Chairman Davis called the meeting to order. Peg Anderson commented that she would like MINUTES the record to reflect that, although she had stated (second paragraph, page 5 of minutes of the meeting of January 8, 1979) "this was an 'impossible situation'" that the quotation sounded "so perfectly foolish in there unless you go on to say what the rest of it was, that no action of the.Planning Commission can improve the situation, and therefore, I moved to deny the request --and that we could do something that would make it worse." Rita Davis noted thatthe third setence of the last paragraph on page 5 should read: "He also contended that Mr. Bishop's opposition was with merit" instead of reading 'without merit.'" Keith Newhouse noted a typographical error on the third line from the bottom of page 5 iri which the word constructed was typed "contractued." With those additions and corrections, the minutes were approved as mailed. The second item on the agenda was the con- sideration of the final plat of Colt Square, located South of Township and.West of College Ave.; Johnie Bassett, owner and developer. Gary Carnahan was present to represent. Mr. Jacks moved to approve the plat with the contingencies stated by the Subdivision Committee, which were as follows: 1. Protective covenants being required and submitted; 2. Section numbers being shown on the plat. to Mrs. Jones' satisfaction; 3. Colt Drive renamed to read "East Colt Drive"; 4. Contract being furnished to the City for incomplete improvements; 5. Sidewalks labeled on the plat. After a short discussion, Keith Newhouse seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. COLT SQUARE Final Plat South of Township and West of College Ave. i • • Planning Commission Meeting January 22, 1979 Page 2 The third item on the agenda was the con- SHANDERA ESTATES sideration of the informal plat of Shandera Informal -Final Plat Estates, located on the East side of Stonebridge Stonebridge Road Road, North of Wyman Road; Otis Stobaugh, devel- oper. Otis Stobaugh, owner, and Joe Segers, attorney, were present to represent. Mr. Jacks moved to approve the plat upon the contingencies as stated by the Subdivision Committee, which were: 1. A 25' building setback from the high pressure gas main being shown on the plat; 2. Notation on the plat stating that "no further division of this lot can be made without submission of a subdivision plat therefor." 3. No off-site improvements will be required; and 4. All Plat Review comments are met. After a short discussion, Bill Kisor seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The fourth item on the agenda was the VIDA DRAKE Conditional Use Request submitted by Vida Conditional Use Request Drake in order to expand an existing restau- 504 East 15th Street rant at 504 East 15th Street; property zoned R-0, Residential -Office District. Troy Wood- ward was present to represent. Chairman Davis noted that the Board of Directors had approved the rezoning request Mrs. Drake had made at the last meeting and therefore, this conditional use request could now be considered. Ernest Jacks moved to approve the request. Peg Anderson seconded the mo- tion, which passed unanimously. The fifth item on the agenda was the REZONING PETITION R79-4 public hearing on Rezoning Petition R79-4; A. G. Holland A. G. Holland, petitioner; property located East of Dinsmore Trail East of Dinsmore Trail approximately one- quarter mile North of Hwy. 62 West, from A-1, Agricultural District, to R-1, Low Density Residential District. Mr. Holland was present to represent. Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, recommended consideration of the change to R-1 zoning for the following reasons: 1. The request is consistent with General Plan recommendations; and 2. Water and sewer are available to support a greater density. Mr. Holland stated that the only thing he wanted to do on the property was to build a house. Ernest Jacks moved to approve the petition. Bill Kisor seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Planning Commission Meeting • January 22, 1979 Page 3 • • The sixth item on the agenda was the REZONING PETITION R79-5 public hearing on Rezoning Petition R79-5; Daniel L. $ Reba Epperly Daniel L. $ Reba Epperly, petitioners; 1319 Garland Avenue property loated at 1319 Garland Avenue, to rezone from R-1, Low Density Residential Dis- trict, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial Dis- trict. No one was present to represent. Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, stated that he would not recommend consideration of the change to C-2 for the following reasons: 1. The request is not consistent with General Plan recommendations; and 2. Approval of the rezoning would encourage eventual "stripping out" of Hwy. 112 to the North. Chairman Davis commented upon the letter which Mrs. Jones had passed out before the meeting which came from the Leverett School P.T.A. in opposition to the rezoning application. Mrs. Davis noted that the P.T.A. members felt that rezoning to allow more businesses could only lead to more traffic in an already congested area. She said they felt that more congestion would be hazardous for the many children who pass through the area going to and from school. Ralph Barnhart stated that he was present to represent Clayton Barnhart, an adjoining property owner who had also presented a letter stating his oppo- sition to the rezoning. Mr. Barnhart felt that rezoning "would have a most deleterious affect upon my property and seriously impair its use as a family residence because of increased traffic, noise and activity such commercial development would bring." Chairman Davis stated that the Commission would defer any action upon this request until later in the meeting, at which time she hoped that a repre- sentative of the petitioners would appear at the meeting. Mrs. Davis stated that the meeting would REZONING PETITION R79-6 continue on to the next item on the agenda, Kenneth $ Geraldine Dennis Rezoning Petition R79-6; Kenneth M. $ Geraldine 1317 N. Garland Avenue Dennis, petitioners; property located at 1317 N. Garland Avenue; to rezone from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to C-2, Thorough- fare Commercial District. No one was present to represent. Bobbie Jones stated that it was her understanding that this petition and the Epperly petition were related and that Mr. Epperly had intended to repre- sent both petitions. She stated that it was her understanding that Mr. Epperly would be present at the meeting. Jim Parish, 1245 S. Maxwell, stated that he was a neighbor present in op- position to the petition. He also presented a petition containing 24 signatures of neighborhood persons who were opposed to the rezoning petition. Ralph Barnhart noted that he and Clayton Barnhart were present to oppose this rezoning petition, also. Chairman Davis stated that action on this request would also be deferred until later in the meeting in order to await an appearance by the petitioners or a representative therefor. Planning Commission Meeting 411 January 22, 1979 Page 4 The eighth item was consideration of a tandem JOHN KINSEY lot request submitted by John Kinsey for property Tandem Lot Request located at 1606 f, 1610 Markham Road; property 1606 F, 1610 Markham Road zoned R.1, Low Density Residential District. John Kinsey was present to represent. Mr. Kinsey stated that he understood there were several persons in his neighborhood present at the meeting in opposition. He stated that he did not wish to cause any hard feelings and would not want the request approved if that were to happen. Peg Anderson commented that, by his statement, he made it "beautifully easy." Several people were present in opposition, namely: 1. Roger Widder, 1660 Markham; 2. Max Pinkerton, 1511 Markham; 3. Nancy Richards, 1652 Markham; 4. Alice and Lowell Bailey, 1513 Markham. Mr. Widder spoke for the group, stating that the area•is presently very low density and that they did not want anything to happen which would be an "opening wedge" to make any higher density. Keith Newhouse asked tdr. Kinsey whether, in light of his statement concern- ing his desire to not cause any friction in the neighborhood, he would want to withdraw his request. Mr. Kinsey stated that he felt "it would be more proper for the Board to take action which would be in the best interest of the community." A discussion was had concerning whether this request conformed to the in- tent of the tandem lot ordinance. Mr. Widder also asked for a definition of a tandem lot, which Chairman Davis furnished. . Windell Cullers stated that he understood the neighbors' concern that the area not become high density, but that a tandem lot did not necessarily down- grade an area. He stated that Mr. Kinsey proposed to build a house behind his own house, situated at the end of a dead-end street, in a secluded area which would not necessitate any additional streets, water or sewer lines. He stated that this would simply add another piece of property to the tax rolls and he felt it would be in the best interest of the city to use the tandem lot ordinance to create an asset. Morton Gitelman stated: "I am terribly offended that this Commission has turned down at our last meeting, and apprently is going to turn down at this one, a tandem lot request that meets the requirements of the ordinance simply because the neighbors object, while this same Commission has approved tandem lots by developers who have no neighbors there to object (such as upon Township Road). The developers use the tandem lot ordinance to put in less streets (private drives) to work out subdivisions with tandem lots and deny the owners of a single lot somewhere else in the city whose neighbors object to it, permission to use the tandem lot device. I'm going to vote for the applicant, rather than defer to his neighbors." Newton Hailey stated that he agreed with Mr. Gitelman's comment. Bill Kisor, however, stated: "Where you have development, you have no neighbors and no people to object. People go in and buy property, the house is already built, and then they buy the house and someone comes along next door and makes a tandem lot behind them. What I object to is when there's people living next door." • Peg Anderson stated that she would abstain from this voting "since the corner of this property is the corner of our property." • • • Planning Commission Meeting January 22, 1979 Page 5 After further discussion, Ernest Jacks moved to deny the request on the basis that it did not conform to the intent of the tandem lot ordinance. Beth Crocker seconded the motion. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Crocker, Jacks, Kisor and Davis. Nays: Gitelman, Newhouse, Hailey and Cullers. ( The Chairman declared that the motion to deny had failed ori a 4-4 vote for the reason that 5 affirmative votes are needed for a motion to pass.; Morton Gitelman then moved to approve the request, and Newton Hailey seconded the motion. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Gitelman, Newhouse, Hailey and Cullers. Nays: Crocker, Jacks, Kisor and Davis. The Chairman declared that the motion to approve had failed. The Chairman stated that she would now re- REZONING PETITION R79-5 sume the public hearing on Rezoning Petition Daniel L. 4 Reba Epperly R79-5, Daniel L. F, Reba Epperly. Still no one 1319 Garland Avenue had appeared to represent. Ralph Barnhart stated that he was present to represent Clayton Barnhart who owns property that borders the Epperly property. He said that Clayton Barnhart opposed the petition for the basic reasons set out in Mr. Wood's Plan- ning Report as well as for the fact that rezoning would "destroy the peaceful occupancy of the property." Jim Parish, 1245 S. Maxwell, stated that the petition he had presented earlier also pertained to this rezoning application. He stated that a petition had been brought in the past to rezone this property and had been turned down even by the City Board for the reason that they felt the property was "strictly residential." Peg Anderson stated that "you have to draw a dividing line somewhere. Although I might consider something like an R-0 for a buffer zone, I would not look at anything like C-2. As I stated before, we may not be able to do anything about the situation as it is, but we might be able to keep it from getting worse." Mrs. Anderson moved to deny the rezoning petition. Morton Gitelman seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Keith Newhouse moved to also deny the Dennis REZONING PETITION R79-6 rezoning petition (R79-6) for the same reasons as Kenneth $ Geraldine Dennis were set out in the discussion of the closely re- 1317 N. Garland Avenue lated Epperly petition. Peg Anderson seconded the motion. Chairman Davis noted that Planning Con- sultant Larry Wood had made the same recommenda- tion on this petition as on the Epperly petition, that is, that the zoning change not be considered. After a vote having been taken, the motion to deny this petition passed unanimously. • • • Planning Commission Meeting January 22, 1979 Page 6 The next item was the Conditional Use re- quest for a child care nursery school for 100 children at 49 N Razorback Road, submitted by Robert Cole; property zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District. George Faucette, Jr. was present to represent Mr. Cole. Also present were Dawn Reese and Jack Hanchrow, representa- tives of KinderCare, Inc., the company which would be operating the nursery school. Mr. Faucette stated that there is not a building presently on this site and that plans were made for a very nice masonry building. He said he had pictures of buildings which would be used to pattern the one to be built on the site. These were pictures of some of the over 300 locations in this country operated by KinderCare, Inc. Mr. Faucette stated that he felt this would be an ideal location for the nursery school and that it could conveniently serve both students and faculty of the University. He stated the zoning was compatible to the surrounding area. A short discussion ensued concerning the amount of square footage area required per child for play areas and inside school areas. After discussion, Bill Kisor moved to approve the request. Ernest Jacks seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. ROBERT COLE Conditional Use Request KINDERCARE NUSERY SCHOOL 49 N. Razorback Rd. The tenth item on the agenda was consid- C. ODELL TAYLOR eration of the off-site parking request for a Off -Site Parking Request building at 204 N. East Avenue; C. Odell Taylor, .204 N. East Avenue applicant; property zoned R-0, Residential -Office District. Mr. Taylor was present to represent. Mr. Taylor stated that, after reading the pertinent ordinance, he was not thoroughly convinced that he needed this Commission's approval, since he was not going to enlarge the building or construct a new one. Mrs. Jones stated that the approval was necessary for the reason that he was changing the use of the structure. Mr. Taylor stated that, according to the area of the building, he would need 4.4 parking spaces. He said that 2 spaces were available on-site and diagonally across the street was a city parking lot consisting of 32 spaces. He stated that directly across the street were 2 city parking spaces. A short discussion ensued concerning whether the city parking -lot could be used to meet the remaining parking requirement. It was decided that the parking lot could be used. Ernest Jacks moved to approve the request. Keith Newhouse seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The eleventh item on the agenda was the COMMITTEE REPORT report from the Committee studying proposed re- STUDY OF PUD REGULATIONS visions to Art. 8, Sec. 12, Zoning Ordinance regulations governing Planned Unit Developments. Ernest Jacks reported that a meeting had been held in conjunction with Larry Wood, Ervan Wimberly and Helen Edmiston. He said they held a two-hour discussion and decided to continue discussion at another meeting. He said that the Commit- tee did not yet have an official report to present to the Commission. A • • • Planning Commission Meeting January 22, 1979 Page 7 The next item was consideration of a re- DEBORAH MURUAGA quest from Deborah Muruaga to amend the approval Request to Amend Approval of a day care facility at 201 Louise Street. of Day Care Facility Use Mrs. Muruaga requested that she be able to in- crease the number of children cared for from 10 to 18, as well as to remodel the upstairs of the facility in order to serve as a dwelling unit for one of her teachers. No one was present to represent. Bobbie Jones_stated that she had received a telephone call from Lois Mor- ris, 210 Ila, who stated that she lived within the block and would be opposed to the granting of Mrs. Muruaga's request as she did not want any increase in the children because of traffic problems. Peg Anderson stated that she had received a call from Mr. Martensen, 208 Ila, who stated that he was opposed and that he would bring a petition from several others in the neighborhood who were opposed,if necessary. Newton Hailey read an excerpt from a letter he had received from Barbara Crook, 309 Louise Street, which said: "The sketch accompanying the original request and her request for an amendment indicates parking over the entire area from the lot lines to the house. The increase in the number of children might call for utilization of all this parking area and would change the residential character of the facility and of the neighborhood." Other than that, he stated, Mrs. Crook had no "qualms" about the apartment remodelling. Peg Anderson noted that she did not approve of the request for the reason that the day care center had been initially approved for what she considered a "home occupation" in Mrs. Muruaga's home. Later, she stated, it was discovered that she was not living in the residence, but using it only as a business place. A discussion was had concerning whether either of the requests could be approved. After considerable discussion, Bill Kisor moved to deny both requests. Newton Hailey seconded the motion. Mr. Hailey commented that he would vote against approving the first request, but that several of the neighbors would like to see the structure occupied at night. Chairman Davis stated that the motion and second to deny had been for both parts of the request, and the vote would be taken in that manner. After voting, the motion to deny the request passed 8-1 with Newton Hailey casting the "nay" vote. The next item was a discussion concerning DISCUSSION CONCERNING contracts to guarantee development of off-site CONTRACTS FOR improvements on developments. The discussion was OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS requested by member Ernest Jacks. Mr. Jacks stated that he had discussed this with City Attorney Jim McCord and Mr. McCord stated that he felt such contracts could be used. He said that Mr. Grimes had also considered contracts to be a good solution and Mr. Grimes had suggested that the City Attorney be asked to draft an ordinance requiring such contracts and then have a public hearing held on the proposed ordinance. Mr. Jacks stated that he had brought this subject up at the committee meeting on PUD regulations and that Helen Edmiston and Ervan Wimberly had felt this to be a fair solution. • • • Planning Commission Meeting January 22, 1979 Page 8 Bobbie Jones stated that Mr. McCord had previously told her he didn't think such contracts would be fair in that he felt the developers should bear the full costs of such improvements. He stated that iffthe improvements were not made at the time the subdivision is put in, the lots would ultimately be released and sold and it would probably end up that only the owners of lots fronting on the streets would pay the full costs of'paving, curbing, guttering, etc. A lengthy discussion ensued concerning pros and cons of adding restric- tive clauses to the deeds of lot owners stating that street improvements would be required on the call of the City; and discussion also ensued concerning the advisability of requiring developers to post cash deposits, etc. in order to guarantee off-site improvements. Bobbie Jones stated that she would put this on the agenda for another meeting, perhaps a special meeting, and ask the City Attorney to come and contribute his thoughts. It was the general concensus of the members that this be done. Beth Crocker also stated that perhaps they should ask the City Board for their thoughts on the matter, also DEBORAH MURUAGA arrived at the meeting at 6:55 o'clock P.M. When she learned that her request had already been taken up and denied, she stated that she had not appeared earlier for the reason that she had attended two other such meetings in which she was scheduled close to the end of the agenda and had been forced to sit until 9 or 10 o'clock before her turn came. She stated that she had assumed that coming about 7:00 o'clock would be sufficient and apologized for being late. The last item on the agenda was a public hearing on a proposed amendment to Art. II, Sec. B of the Subdivision Ordinance which would require subdividers to give notice to adjoining property owners prior to submission of a prelimi- nary plat to the Commission for its approval. A discussion ensued concerning the wording of the proposed ordinance It was the concensus of the members that developers should be given the option of notifying adjoining property owners either by personal service in order to obtain signatures OR to notify them by registered or certified mail. It was also the concensus of the members that property owners across the street from subdivisions should be notified. Beth Crocker commented that she would like the City Attorney to define the words "adjoining" and "adjacent" and decide on the correct wording so as to ensure that the ordinance would require all sur- rounding owners to be notified, including those across any street or road. After further discussion, Beth Crocker moved to ask Jim McCord to redraft the proposed ordinance in order to incorporate the following: 1. Reword the paragraph immediately following the heading "NOTICE RE- QUIREMENT" to state "Prior to placement on the agenda of" instead of reading "Prior to submission of". 2. Give the subdividers the option of either notifying property owners by (a) registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, or (b) personal service obtaining signatures upon a copy of the plat. 3. Define the words "adjacent" and "adjoining" and use whichever word or words will mean that everyone surrounding the development will be notified, even those property owners across the street or road from the subdivision. Ernest Jacks seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING Proposed Amendment to ART. II, SEC. B of the Subdivision Ordinance The meeting adjourned at 7:08 o'clock P.M.