Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-05-14 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the City Planning Commission was held on Monday, May 14, 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 Ernest Jacks, Morton Gitelman, Beth Crocker, Keith Newhouse, Peg Anderson, Bill Kisor and Windell Cullers. Rita Davis and Newton Hailey. Larry Wood, Gail Biswell, Harold Lieberenz, David McWethy, Chester House, Ervan Wimberly, Lois Cunningham, Charles Atkin- son, Dean Whillock, Robert Beall, members of the press and unidentified members of the audience. Chairman Jacks called the meeting to order. The Chairman questioned whether there were any corrections, additions or deletions to be made to the minutes of the previous meeting of April 23, 1979. Peg Anderson noted that on page 6, second paragraph, the lady's name "Mona Benedict" should be changed to read "Lona Benedict." With that cor- rection, the minutes of the meeting were approved. A public hearing was held on Rezoning Petition R79-17, Chester House, to rezone property located West of Crossover Road, South of Old Wire Road, and East of Brookside East Subdivision from A-1, Agricul- tural District, to R-1, Low Density Residential Dis- trict. Chester House and Ervan Wimberly were present to represent. Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, recommended consideration of approval of the R-1 zoning for the following reasons: 1. The requested R-1 District is consistent with the General Plan recom- mendation; and 2. The development potential of the R-1 District is consistent with the existing development in this area. Discussion ensued concerning possible entrance cuts into Highway 265. It was noted by Mr. Wimberly that there would possibly be two cuts into 265. After further discussion, Keith Newhouse moved to recommend to the Board of Directors that this property be rezoned from A-1 to R-1. Bill Kisor seconded the motion, which passed unanimously (7-0). MINUTES CONSIDERATION OF REZONING PET. R79-17 Chester House W. of Crossover Road (Cedarwood Addition) A public hearing was also held on Rezoning Petition R79-16, City Planning Commission (peti- tioner), to rezone property located at 710 N. Frisco from I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Indus- trial District, to R-2, Medium Density Residential District. CONSIDERATION OF REZONING PET. -R79-16 City Planning Commission 710 N. Frisco • • • Planning Commission Meeting May 14, 1979 Page 2 Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, recommended consideration of approval of the requested R-2 zoning for the following reasons: 1. The requested R-2 is consistent with the General Plan recommendations; 2. The predominant surrounding land use is residential; and 3. The existing I-1 constitutes spot zoning. Chairman Jacks noted that the property adjacent to this had very recently been rezoned to R-2 and that at the time the property was rezoned the Commission had discussed the possibility of rezoning all the presently zoned I-1 in the area to R-2 also. He stated that the Commission had then asked Mrs. Jones to call a public hearing to consider rezoning these remaining I-1 lots and that was why the present hearing was being conducted. Present in opposition to the request was Mr. Charles Atkinson, attorney for Mrs. Lois Cunningham, owner of the subject property. Mr. Atkinson stated: "In the first place, I want to lodge a formal objection to any pro- ceedings before this Board, because under the Statutes this Board is not authorized to initiate a rezoning petition. The Commission has only the specific powers which are specifically granted to it --none by inference. I think that can be verified by a law member of this Commission, but be that as it may, it has been only a very short time since you rezoned, at Mrs. Cunningham's request, the two lots to the North to Industrial. I don't know what has prompted this reaction on the part of the Board, ex- cept that the man who bought those lots didn't want them Industrial, he wanted to build an apartment house on them, but you wouldn't grant him that permission. "Now, there's another objection to this. Since the Planning Commis- sion itself originated the petition, which I think is thoroughly illegal, I doubt that we can obtain an impartial hearing before this Commission. I realize that we have a full right to go before the Board of Directors, but I think the first hurdle you've got to answer is whether or not you can initiate a rezoning petition. "With respect to the facts regarding the property, all of you are familiar with the presentation we made to you here before when the two lots to the North were rezoned. This has never been residential, it has always been industrial. There is nothing to the West of it except the Frisco Railroad track and a bulk oil storage tank. The street is only a block long, has never been improved, and according to your ownership map filed with your petition, you've even got onerof the lots out in the street. Mrs. Cunningham now has title to that lot --legal title which was obtained from the Ziscrs wlio operated a handle factory there for many, many years. 5F'Ges c' "Now, your petition recites that the property is vacant. That is erroneous, although Mrs. Cunningham did tell Bobbie the property is vacant. She did so under a misapprehension of the facts. She had leased it. She thought she had it on a lease -option and the man refused or failed to pay the rent. She notified him to get out. Although I admit there is no one in the office right now, the property is under contract. Of course, if the action of the Commission and ultimately of the Board is adverse to the owner, it will amount to a taking of her property without just compensation at a substantial financial loss for which the City will be liable." • • • Planning Commission Meeting May 14, 1979 Page 3 "Unless the Board has some questions, I do not care to go into any further great exposition on the matter because, as I have alluded, I think the Board is familiar with the situation from the time you rezoned the two lots to the North." Chairman Jacks stated that he was very surprised that Mr. Atkinson had stated the Commission's action of initiating the rezoning petition was 'illegal.' "We've been doing it for years," Mr. Jacks stated. Mr. Atkinson replied that that did not make it legal and Mr. Jacks countered that he understood that. Mr. Atkinson stated that the question was not whether the Commission had the authority to rezone property, but whether or not it had the authority to INITIATE ACTION to rezone property. Mort Gitelman rebutted: "I don't think there's anything that prohibits us from initating a rezoning. All we do anyway is make a recommendation to the Board of Directors. The zoning district is an ordinance that the Board passes. I don't think we have to sit and wait for the property owner to ask for their property to be put into a different zone. I think we can make a recommendation anytime to change the Zoning Ordinance. The Board certainly has power to put property into a different zoning district. I don't think there's anything in the Statutes that prohibits us from initating any kind of rezoning or zoning. Even when a City doesn't have any zoning and adopts its first Zoning Ordinance, it is obviously done by the Planning Commission and City Board, or some other legislative body." Peg Anderson stated that this Commission has been asked several times by the City Board to initiate such action. She stated that she once again felt that the City Attorney should be present at meetings to help them in these situations. Mr. Atkinson stated: "This Commission has, under the ordinance that cre- ated it, only the powers granted to it by the State Legislature. The State Legislature does not grant this Commission power to petition for rezoning. That's the reason I say it is illegal I don't say that you can't take action after a petition has been filed, what I'm saying is that you can't petition it. Had Mrs. Cunningham petitioned it, or some other interested person, you would have a perfect right to proceed. But, you can't proceed on your own motion because that's a summary proceeding and that's exactly the reason the Legislature didn't give you the power to do it." A discussion ensued concerning the zoning history of the subject property and the other adjacent property thereto. There was considerable confusion about what zoning and rezoning had been done for the area over the past few years. Windell Cullers moved to table the request until the Commission could get an opin- ion from the City Attorney regarding its right to initiate rezoning procedures and until the Commission could be provided with an accurate history of the area. Peg Anderson seconded the motion. She then asked the Chairman if it would be proper for the Commission to request the presence of the City Attorney at the next meeting. Chairman Jacks stated that such request would be included in the motion. After a vote was taken on the motion to table, same passed unanimously (7-0). Planning Commission Meeting May 14, 1979 Page 4 Consideration was had on the Conditional Use request submitted by Dean Whillock to allow storage of a building contractor's construction tools (no DEAN WHILLOCK Conditional Use Request 3222 School Street lumber or flammable materials) at 3222 School St., property zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Mr. Whillock stated that there would not be any flammable materials stored on the premises. After a brief discussion, Bill Kisor moved to approve the re- quest. Windell Cullers seconded the motion, which passed unanimously (7-0). Consideration was had on the Conditional Use request submitted by Paul Burnett for a locksmith shop at 424 W. Poplar; property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. No one was present to represent. Chairman Jacks questioned whether the adjacent property owners had been notified of this home occupation request. Gail Biswell responded that she had received proof of such notification. Discussion ensued concerning the requirements for a home occupation. Bill Kisor then moved to approve the request for a period of one year. Beth Crocker stated that she felt this business was not really a home occu- pation and that to call it such was "stretching" the definition. She said that the locksmith shop was really just another business and that if the request had been made for any other residential area she would have "said no to the whole thing." Harold Lieberenz stated that the Commission should keep in mind that such approval is renewable each year only if there have not been any complaints from neighbors or others during the past year. Windell Cullers stated that he had not been in favor of the Home Occupation ordinance when it was first passed and that he still did not favor it since "there is no way we can get enough information to know how much traffic the business is going to generate." He stated that he might be in favor of allowing the request for a period of less than one year. Mr. Newhouse stated, however, that he felt the one year provision was more fair since it allowed the business to be oserved during the different seasons of the year Mr. Newhouse seconded Mr. Kisor's motion to approve for a one-year period. After further discussion, a vote was taken on the motion to approve. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Jacks, Gitelman, Newhouse, Anderson and Kisor. Nays: Crocker and Cullers. The Chairman announced that the motion to approve for a one-year period had passed 5-2. PAUL BURNETT Conditional Use Request. 424 W. Poplar Consideration was had on the Conditional Use request submitted by Robert Beall for a tandem lot at 3275 S. Morrow; property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Mr. Beall was pres- ent to represent. Mr. Beall stated that he had been told that he would as a tandem lot before he could get a building permit to ROBERT BEALL Conditional Use Request (Tandem Lot) 3275 S. Morrow need his lot designated add onto the house. • • • Planning Commission Meeting May 14, 1979 Page 5 He stated that the house was very small (18' x 30') and had been purchased for his daughter and son-in-law to live in while they attended the U of A. He said that his children now have a one -year-old son and that the house is just too small. for them. He said they wanted to add 11 ft. on one side. Chairman Jacks stated that he felt this request was really not in keeping with the intent of the tandem lot ordinance, such intent being to provide for lots having topo problems. Mr. Beall responded that topo problems were very much involved since the lot is very steep and can only be approached from one direction, thereby making it difficult to do anything with. It was noted that Mr. Beall has obtained a 25 ft. easement to the public road in order to meet access requirements. Discussion ensued. Windell Cullers moved to approve the request. Keith Newhouse seconded the motion, which passed unanimously (7-0). The Commission then reviewed the outline PUD REGULATIONS of the proposed new PUD regulations with Inspec- tion Superintendent, Harold Lieberenz. Mr. Lieb- erenz had submitted a marked -up copy of the regulations which contained his comments. Dis- cussion ensued on the various comments and aspects of the proposal. After much discussion, Keith Newhouse moved that_ Larry Wood be directed to prepare a more detailed outline of the proposed regulations and then submit same to the City Attorney in order for him to put into final form. Mr. Newhouse added that the Planning Commission would then review the final draft before it took any action thereon. Peg Anderson seconded the motion, which passed unani- mously (7-0). Next, consideration was had on the Condi- ERIC T. LLOYD tional Use request submitted by Eric T. Lloyd Conditional Use Request for a carry -out chicken service at 352 N. West 352 N. West Street Street; property zoned R-0, Residential -Office District. No one was present to represent. Chairman Jacks noted that the Zoning Ordinance permits "Eating Places", without dancing or entertainment, in the R-0 District on appeal to the Planning Commission. He noted that drive-in restaurants are not permitted in R-0. Before any discussion commenced, Peg Anderson moved to deny the request, stating: "I don't think I want it under any circumstances --one thing we don't need at this particular point is more carry -out situations." Mr. Jacks questioned whether the request was for the house on the corner or for the other vacant building. He stated that he had discovered from past experiences that walk-in or carry -out eating places are hard to control. He cited two instances where such businesses had begun with only carry -out service and before long they were providing benches and stools for patrons to eat on the premises. Keith Newhouse seconded the motion. Windell Cullers said he did not feel a carry -out service at that place would be inconsistent with the surrounding area. He stated that there are commercial businesses on the other three corners of the intersection. "Lord knows," he said, "that it's hard enough to find a place for small businesses • Planning Commission Meeting May 14, 1979 Page 6 to do business in this town." "It's very difficult," he continued, "and I think that's one reason we've come up with this ordinance to let people do things in their homes, which I have already said earlier that I'm completely opposed to." "The little green building that's a gift store is across the street --I just don't see why this is so inconsistent with that." He asked Mrs. Anderson why she thought it would be. Mrs. Anderson responded: "We've already got all those things there, why do you need another one?" Mr. Cullers replied: "That's just like saying that since we've got lots of service stations and lots of grocery stores why would we need another one." "What I'm getting at," he said, "is that we shouldn't just summarily dismiss a particular project like this by saying 'that's probably just going to be a little business anyway, I don't like fried chicken that well and I certainly don't like the smell of it.' Is what this man wants to do consistent with the area, is the question we should be answering and the point we should be making. To me, what he wants to do is VERY consistent with the area." Beth Crocker commented, "Other people are interested in that property around there. She stated that it boiled down to either keeping it "on the tax rolls" or taking it off. Peg Anderson stated: "I guess I would say that for other business uses, that particular facility would be o.k., but I just don't approve of this. I just can't see a carry -out chicken in that spot with the papers all over the place and everything else. I guess in this case I am being very prejudiced against what they are requesting for. That doesn't mean I would be against others, though. I don't think it's a good business for that place That's all." Mr. Cullers questioned whether there was ANY place which Mrs. Anderson would vote for a chicken place. After a short pause, Mrs. Anderson replied: "In certain areas, yes." Mr. Gitelman stated that he felt it would be best if the request until the petitioner could be present and explain more fully what he do and with which of the buildings. Bill Kisor seconded the motion. Mrs. Anderson withdrew her first motion. A vote was taken on Mr. motion to table and same passed unanimously (7-0). were tabled plans to Gitelman's A public hearing was held on the proposed MAJOR STREET PLAN amendment to the Major Street Plan which would AMENDMENT reclassify Cleveland Street from a minor arterial to a collector between Garland Avenue and Gregg Avenue. There was no one present. to speak either in favor of or against the proposed amendment. After a brief discussion, Peg Anderson moved to recommend approval of the amendment to the City Board Keith Newhouse seconded the motion, which passed unanimously (7-0). Planning Commission Meeting May 14, 1979 Page 7 COMMITTEE REPORTS: Chairman Jacks reported that he and Mr. Cullers PLANNING AREA had attended the joint meeting between this Commit- LAND USE CONTROL tee and the Springdale and County Planning Commis- sion committees. He stated that the meeting had gone well and that he felt that Springdale -now felt better about the whole project. "I think that Springdale had smelled a whiff of collusion between:.Fayetteville and the County and the meeting helped alleviate their fears:" Mr. Jacks stated that the joint Committees had agreed to work from the Land Use Plan and noted that Mr. Wilford Thompson of the County Committee had ex- pressed an opinion that County zoning may not meet with qUite as much opposition from County residents as had earlier been thought. After a general discussion, Mr. Jacks stated that another meeting has been temporarily set for the Committees for sometime during the first week of June. He promised to keep the Planning Commission informed of.the progress made at that meeting. Keith Newhouse reported that the Committee studying Off -Site Improvements had met on May 3rd. Mr. Newhouse stated that Mr. McCord and Mr. Gitel- man would be meeting the next day in order to consolidate their thinking and the thinking of the Committee at that meeting. He said that they would submit a written .report to each of the Committee members concerning the May 3rd meeting for the members' review. OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS Beth Crocker stated that she felt Jerry Sweetser had offered a valid com- plaint at the last meeting and wondered if this would be a good time to discuss his problem. Chairman Jacks reviewed the fact that Mr. Sweetser had come to the last meeting and complained that the utility companies were asking for ex- cessive easements and felt the Planning Commission should require the utility companies to agree on standards which they could all abide by and which devel- opers could depend upon their asking for. Mr. Sweetser also wanted companies to provide as -built plot plans to developers showing the locations of the lines after they have been installed. Ervan Wimberly stated that the problem occurred most often for developers of commercial large scale developments. He noted that the negative side set- backs in most of such developments can create real problems for getting utility service in as well as for providing adequate construction area in such "high- priced" property. A discussion ensued. Larry Wood recommended that the Plat Review Committee "get together and come up with standards they can all live by." Chairman Jacks requested that the Plat Review Committee do so and then submit their standards to the Subdivision Committee and Planning Commission for review. • • Planning Commission Meeting May 14, 1979 Page 8 A discussion ensued concerning standard sizes PARKING SPACE SIZES of parking spaces. Chairman Jacks noted that he had researched the question and had found that the general size for parking spaces is usually 9' x 19' for standard parking lots and approximately x 19' for parking garages. He noted that some parking garages have made certain parking rows available for compact cars only, and these spaces usually ran about 71/2' x 15'. After further discussion, Chairman Jacks stated that he would like to meet with Mr. Lieberenz and Mrs. Jones in order "to settle some thinking to bring back to the Commission later." He requested that Mrs. Jones schedule such a meeting for some time in the following week. OTHER BUSINESS: Chairman Jacks noted that at the last meeting BOARD OF DIRECTORS of the City Board the rezoning request for 10 par- cels of property on S. Gregg St. was heard. The Planning Commission had sent the petitions to the Board with an R -L recommendation and had tried to make it clear to the Board that the R-1 recommendation should not reflect that the Commissioners had changed their minds as to the R-2 recommendation made for the Ault rezoning petition which was pending. Mr. Jacks stated that he had attended that Board meeting and had tried to express the Commissioners' feelings. However, he stated, the City Board chose to turn down the R-2 recommendation. Mr. Jacks stated that the attorney for the R-1 petitioners, Mr. Lynn Wade, had spoken strongly against the R-2 proposal and had evidently "swayed" the Board to some extent. As a result of the City Board meeting, Mr. Jacks stated, the Directors sent a resolution back to the Planning Commission asking them to hold a public hearing on the remainder of the Gregg St. property. Mr. Jacks stated that he had asked the Board what they wanted the Planning Commission to do since it already had a Land Use Plan calling for high density multi -family for the area. "Still," he stated, "everytime we send something down there to the Board, they don't take our recommendation." Mr. Jacks said he asked the Board whether they wanted a re -study of the Land Use Plan and they had told them they did not. Mr. Jacks said he told the Board: "You mean you like the Land Use Plan but you don't want us to work toward it?" Mr. Jacks stated that the Board had replied that they wanted to conform to the Land Use Plan, "but not now." Bill Kisor questioned whether Mr. Jacks felt there were any "politics" in- volved. "No," Mr. Jacks replied, "but then I don't know what you consider 'politics.'" Windell Cullers stated: "I think we ought to refuse to do anything they (the City Board of Directors) ask us to do until they start voting like we ask them to!" He continued, "I'm especially talking about the property around the mall." Peg Anderson stated that she "would like to make a motion or do something or the other to express my displeasure at the City Board's overturning that one (Duane Nelson's rezoning petition)." She stated that she would like to go on record as follows: • • Planning Commission Meeting May 14, 1979 Page 9 "First, the news reports and the City Board minutes do not reflect one of the major reasons we all gave for our decision with regard to the Duane Nelson property, which was, that the Planning Commission is supposed to be commissioned to plan for the orderly growth of the City and we de- cided that this was not the time and the place for additional commercial areas. What I really resent, however, was that Chip Wright, in his dis- cussion, indicated that the Planning Commission did not give fair treatment to Duane Nelson and his request. I really resent that particular segment. Mr. Wright is a good lawyer and he persuaded everyone on the Board to think on his terms. Obviously, the Board listened tohim rather than to what our minutes said. I thought our minutes were pretty clear. Doesn't the City Board get our minutes?" Mr. Jacks replied that the Board gets a synopsis of the minutes. Mrs. Ander- son replied: "They get a synopsis alright, and I would say that it was a rather weird synopsis." Gail Biswell commented that the City Board' gets full copies of the Planning Commission minutes, as well as a narrative background of each item from Administrative Assistant McWethy. Mrs. Anderson said "Goodness., we bentioverkbackwards to give Mr. Nelson a fair hearing and I resent anyone inferring otherwise." Chairman Jacks stated that Mayor Malone had delivered quite a speech in favor of the rezoning, but that other members of the Board had felt just as strongly against it. Mrs. Anderson stated that Chip Wright's inference that if the street situ- ation could be cleared up that the Planning Commission would go ahead and ap- prove the rezoning was totally wrong. "What we said was that we won't even consider this situation until the road situation is in order. We even gave him the opportunity to table the petition until that time when the road situation could be more clearly drawn and he refused to do so." 1,. Mr. Jacks stated that he still was in a "quandry" over what to do about Gregg Street. He stated that he did not think another public hearing or land use study should be held. "We have a resolution from the Board that says we are to hold a public hearing, but I don't think we should." Mort Gitelman said: "Why don't we send the resolution back to them and tell them 'Mr. Atkinson says we can't!'" Peg Anderson noted that the Commission has accumulated a lot of information on the area in the last year or so. "Why don't we just get a stack of that material we've already got and send that to them?" she added. Beth Crocker said: "What they really want us to do is come back and rezone, or recommend that all the other property be rezoned, to R-1, but I think that's silly." Mr Jacks stated he would like to send the City Board a resolution "asking them just what it is that they want us to do." '.'They already have our recommendations and the Land Use Plan,"_he.said. Considerable discussion ensued, but no motions ever came to the floor. The meeting adjourned at 7:20 o'clock P.M. Planning Commission Meeting May 14, 1979 Page 10 PAGE.? OF THE FOREGOING MINUTES SHOULD BE AMENDED TO INSERT THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH BETWEEN PARAGRAPHS 2 AND 3 THEREOF: Chairman Jacks led a short discussion con- SUBDIVISION APPROVAL cerning the outline submitted by Ervan Wimberly PROCESS for a 4 -step subdivision plat approval process. (A copy of this outline is included in the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of April 23, 1979.) Harold Lieberenz, Inspection Superintendent, commented that he felt Mr. Wimberly's outline was very good. After discussion thereof, it was decided that Step #2 should be eliminated from the outline. It was the concensus of the Commissioners that Larry Wood should work out a more detailed procedure (using the outline referred to above) and then submit same to the City Attorney for preparation of the proposed ordinance which the Commission will later review.