Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-10-08 MinutesMINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the City Planning Commission was held on Monday, October 8, 1979, at 5:00 P.M. in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ernest Jacks, Elizabeth Crocker, Newton Hailey, Peg Anderson, Bill Kisor, Keith Newhouse, Morton Gitelman, Rita Davis, and Windell Cullers. MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: None. Bobbie Jones, Michelle Hale, Larry Wood, Cynthia Johnson, Chester House, Ervan Wimberly, Harry Gray, James Kinzer, Hiram Brooks, Denver Hutson, Ann Grammer, Dr. Frank Grammer, Loris Stanton, Don Elliott, City Manager Don Grimes, Don Hardgrave, Claude Prewitt, Bill Bonner,.and other unidentified members of the audience. Following two corrections; Page 1, MINUTES last paragraph change "sue" to "use" and Page 2, 3rd paragraph change "cooperation" to "corporation", the minutes of the Sept. 24, 1979, meeting were approved as mailed. The first item for discussion was the CEDARWOOD ADDITION approval of the final plat of Cedarwood Add. Final Plat located East of Brookside East Subdivision, West of Crossover Road West of Crossover Road, and North of the proposed extension of;:Township Road; Chester House, Owner, Atlas Construction Co. Inc., Developer. Ervan Wimberly, Harry Gray, and Chester House were present to represent. Chairman Jacks asked Mr. Newhouse to report on the Subdivision Committee recom- mendations. Mr. Newhouse stated the 6 contingencies on which their approval was recom- mended and moved that it be approved with the following contingencies: 1. There will be setbacks shown on the plat from Azalea Terrace (street) on Lots 111 and 112. 2. Lots on the cul de sac must have a 70' width at the setback line. 3. They must show on the plat the easements to be given by Mr. House and Mr. Sutton. These easements must be given by a separate written instrument and it should be so noted on the plat. 4. A contract be entered into in lieu of the improvements. 5. Written approval of the plans for the streets, curbs, gutters, drainage, water, and sewer by the City Engineer and Street Superintendent must be submitted to the Planning Office. 6. Flood Plain must be shown on the plat. Mr. Kisor seconded it, which passed 9-0. The next item for discussion was the public hearing on Rezoning Petition R79-30, Danny Johnson, to rezone property located South of the SLSF Railroad, West of Hill Ave., REZONING PETITION R79-30 Danny Johnson 712 West 6thL and North of Sixth Street (712 W. 6th) from I-1, Heavy trict, to R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Mr. Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, was asked by the recommendation. Mr. Wood said he recommended approval of the reasons: 1. The requested R-2 District is consistent 2. Public facilities are available to serve 3. The R-2 District is more consistent with I-1 District. Commercial Light Industrial Dis- Commission to state his ,petition for the follow- ing with the intent of the General Plan; the potential land use; and, the surrounding uses than the existing • • • Planning Commission Meeting October 8, 1979 Page 2 Cynthia Johnson stated that most of the area around the property was R-2. She added that they were wanting to make a duplex out of an old house existing on the property. There was no one present to oppose the petition. Mr. Cullers moved to recommend to the Board of Directors that the petition be approved. Mrs. Anderson seconded it, which passed 9-0. The next item for discussion was the REZONING PETITION R79-31 public hearing on Rezoning Petition R79-31, James E. Kinzer James E. Kinzer to rezone property located S. of Elm Street 4. E. of Gregg Ave. South of Elm Street and East of Gregg Avenue from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Mr. Kinzer was present to represent. Mr. Wood reviewed the Planning Report and recommended to the Commission that it be approved for the following reasons: 1. The requested R-2 District is consistent with the General Plan recommendation; 2. Public facilities are available to serve the potential development in the R-2 District; and, 3. Some form of multi -family development at this location can serve to buffer the single-family development to the east from the traffic on Gregg Avenue, the railroad tract and future development west of the tracks. Mr. Kinzer stated that it was a program that he has worked toward for 2 years. He.added that they wanted to place townhouses there similar to those already built on Gregg Avenue. Mrs. Anderson asked him where the (driveway) access would be from. Mr. Kinzer said it would be from Gregg. He stated that the adjoining properties were duplexes. Hiram Brooks (131 W. Elm) (occupant of the subject property) stated he felt it would be the highest and best use for the property. He said Elm, at the present time, was 2/3 rental property. He added that it would be a good buffer from traffic on Gregg and that he was in favor of it. Denver Hutson (108 W. Elm) asked how the facilities would be situated on the pro- perty and how it would have access to any buildings in the Southern portion. Mr. Kinzer said Gregg Avenue is to be widened to North Street and Gregg would be the access. Mr. Kinzer added that the road (driveway) will have to be concrete or blacktop. Chair- man Jacks asked if the property line extended all the way to Gregg Avenue. Mr. Kinzer told him that the City had taken additional right-of-way for Gregg Avenue and that his extreme West property line is now the East right-of-way line for Gregg Avenue. Mrs. Davis said the area residents were concerned that the entrance may be from Elm Street instead of the traffic going onto Gregg Avenue. Mr. Hutson stated this would become apartments behind apartments. Ann Grammer (140 W. Popular) said this would be in her back yard and stated her opposition to the rezoning. She said they do not need this for a buffer with more noise, and students moving into the apartments, what they need is fences. She added that the neighborhood is being eroded on both sides. Frank Grammer added that there are already apartments on one side and more apartments mean more traffic, noise, and people. Mrs. Davis said she had been fighting the battle of Elm Street for a long time and she is still not ready to give it up. She added that Elm was and still is a nice street. Mr. Gitelman questioned Mr. Wood as to how this petition conforms to Amendment #7 to the General Land Use Plan. Mr. Wood said that he thought that the medium density residential on that plan covered not only the subject property, but a little more pro- perty to the East as well as the property across Elm Street from the subject property. Mrs. Anderson said she agreed with Mrs. Davis and she thought "they" have intruded enough already Mr. Kisor stated that he agreed also and thereupon moved to deny the rezoning • • • Planning Commission Meeting October 8, 1979 Page 3 petition because he felt there was enough buffer. Mrs. Anderson seconded it, which passed 8-1, with Jacks, Davis, Crocker, Hailey, Kisor, Anderson, Gitelman, and Newhouse voting "Aye" and Cullers voting "Nay". The next item for discussion was the CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST conditional use request submitted by Fayetteville Public Schools the Fayetteville Public Schools to con- 1001 W. Stone struct a radio Broadcasting Station and antenna at 1001 W. Stone zoned P-1, Institutional District. Chairman Jacks asked if surrounding property owners had been notified. Mrs. Jones said they had Mrs. Anderson questioned why the Planning Commission was hearing this because the school property was in a P-1 zone now. Mrs. Jones told her radio broadcasting stations and antennas were conditional uses City wide. She said she did not think they want to construct a new building for the station, but they do want to put an antenna tower up. There was no one present either to represent the request or to oppose it. Mr. Kisor moved to approve the conditional use. Mr. Cullers seconded it, which passed 9-0. The next item for discussion was the CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST conditional use request submitted by Loris Loris Stanton Stanton to construct a dupj)ex (townhouse style) 318 E. Cleburn at 318 E. Cleburn, zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Loris Stanton was present to represent. Chairman Jacks asked if all adjacent property owners were notified. Mrs. Jones said they were. Mr. Stanton stated he wanted to withdraw his request. He said the units he had planned to construct would have been expensive rental apartments and he felt it was not economically feasible. He said there was a lot of opposition to the duplex. Mr. Stanton pointed out that apartments and duplexes aren't as bad as everyone thinks. He added that he was in real estate and there is a growing need for housing and people wanting an apartment. Mr. Stanton said he will probably build a single-family dwelling on the property. Chairman Jacks mentioned the petition in opposition of the request, which was sign- ed by 8 neighboring property owners and mailed with the agenda. He also read a letter from Dale Millen who voiced opposition to the request also. Mrs. Davis moved that the Planning Commission grant Mr. Stanton's request to withdraw the conditional use request. Mrs. Crocker seconded it, which passed 9-0. Mrs. Anderson added that Mr. Stanton had some very good points. She said she would have voted in favor of the request had it not been withdrawn. The next item for discussion was the conditional use request submitted by Loy g Pauletta Frederick to operate a restaurant located North of Hwy. 16 East, East of Stone Farm Road, and West of Paradise Lane, zoned R-0, Elliott, Attorney, was present to represent. Chairman Jacks asked if adjacent property owners they had. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST Loy $ Pauletta Frederick East of Stone Farm Road Residential -Office District. Don: had been notified. Mrs. Jones said Mr. Elliott stated that 2 months ago he had asked to rezone the property from A-1 District to C-1 District. The Planning Commission recommended 9-0 to rezone it to R-0. Mr. Elliott stated the Planning Commission said it wouldn't be hard to get a conditional use for a restaurantin the R-0 District. There was no one present to oppose the request. • • • Planning Commission Meeting October 8, 1979 Page 4 Mrs. Davis moved to approved the conditional use request. Mr. Cullers seconded which passed 9-0. The next item for discussion was the CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST conditional use request submitted by the City of Fayetteville City of Fayetteville to operate a solid South of Hwy. 62 waste disposal facility (incinerator) with steam generation located South of Hwy. 62, East of Razorback Road, and West of Rose Avenue, zoned R-0, Residential -Office District, and R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Don Grimes, City Manager, was present to represent. Mr. Grimes stated that the City holds a one-year option on 10 acres with a clause to extend the option for another year. The City has received a study on a Northwest Arkansas Waste Management Plan. Mr. Grimes said they are anticipating that this is the best possible spot to build it. Mr. Grimes said the steam would be sold and the facility needs to be located by a potential steam user. He said it would be located back in the trees and could hardly be seen. Mr. Grimes pointed out this would probably serve several cities and a large rural area of Northwest Arkansas and that there would be some central collection sites throughout the county. He said the trucks would be huge, possible holding up to 20 residential truck loads each. He added that a decision must be made from the start of which cities and counties will participate. The only undesirable aspect would be the volume of traffic to and from the site. Mr. Gitelman stated the thing that bothered him most was the potential traffic off of Hwy. 62. He said if some of the traffic could be brought from the South by way of Razorback Road it would be better. Mr. Grimes said most of the traffic would be coming from the North. Mr. Grimes added that Hwy. 62 was on contract for construct- ion (widening). Mr. Gitelman asked about the trucks that would be going to and from the site. Would the City be able to require that they be covered? Mr. Grimes said the new pollution control regulations would rule out land fills in Northwest Arkansas. Mr. Cullers asked Mr. Grimes what time element was involved. Mr. Grimes stated it would take 2 to 5 years before operating. Don Hardgrave (859 California Blvd.) asked if there has been any visitation to other facilities in operation from anyone other than the City (private citizens). He questioned the volume of traffic using the road. Mr. Hardgrave said he had children walking to school on Highway 62 and they already had to walk in the mud. He stated that more study should be done.at this times Mr. Grimes said that based on the smoke emission and noise he did not think anyone could tell when the plant was in operation. It is a very wooded site and probably the "stack" would be the only part of the struct- ure that would be very visible. Mrs. Anderson told Mr. Hardgrave that the Quorum Court Waste Committee had been holding hearings throughout the County. They were very concerned and interested and are in favor of it. She said there has been a. lot of work done and he could get a copy of the study from the NW Arkansas Regional Com- mittee. Mr. Newhouse moved to approve the conditional use request. Mr. Hailey seconded it, which passed 9-0. The next item for discussion was the conditional use request submitted by Helen Edmiston to remodel and enlarge Bassett's Mountain Inn,Arcade Building.and Mountain Inn into apartments for the elderly, located on College, Mountain, zoned C-4, Downtown Commercial District. Claude Prewitt was present Chairman Jacks asked if the property owners had been notified. there were only three but they had been notified. Mr. Prewitt stated it would be a HUD financed project for the elderly. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST Bassett's Mountain Inn College, Mountain, $ Center Streets and Center Streets, to represent. Mrs. Jones said Mr. Bassett Planning Commission Meeting October 8, 1979 Page 5 has allowed Edmiston-Prewitt to check into the feasibility of it. Mr. Prewitt said there wasn't a formal study on it but the preference was to have it located downtown. The old Downtown Motor Lodge will not have to be changed too much, but the other buildings will require extensive remodeling. Mrs. Jones stated the Inn was in a C-4 zone and does require Planning Commission approval for a residential use. She added that the problem of parking wouldn't have to be reviewed unless they added to the building and increased the floor area of the building or decreased the existing parking spaces. In that case, Mrs. Jones added, the Board of Adjustment is the only one with jurisdiction to waive the parking space requirements. Mr. Prewitt said the parking garage would be attendant supervised in- stead of an open parking garage as it is now. He said they want 1 parking space per apartment instead of the required 1.5. He said that there will be some rent subsidy, but it will be mixed and not necessarily low income. Mr. Gitelman asked if they planned to have any kind of facilities, such as retail shops or meeting halls, located within the building for the residents. Mr. Prewitt said they plan to have some retail shops in the Arcade. They will also have gathering spaces for the residents and a kitchen and restaurant. They will have to have some storage places and may have a place for the Community Development programs. Mrs. Anderson moved to approve the conditional use request. Mr. Newhouse second- ed it. iMr.. Gitelman pointed'but that this type of project is required to provide access to grocery stores, medical, and dental facilities within reasonable walking dis- tance which could cause some of these to relocate in the downtown area. The motion passed to approve the conditional use request 9-0. The next item for discussion was AMENDMENT the public hearing to consider an amendment Planned Unit Development Regulations to Appendix A (Zoning), Article 8, Section 12 of the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances to amend the City's Planned Unit Development Regulations. (This item had been tabled and continued at September 24 meeting.) Mr. Gitelman moved to continue the hearing until October 22 after they got the original Committee's response to the comments of Bobbie Jones on the proposed ordinance. Chairman Jacks set the time for the meeting at 3:00, Tuesday, October 15, 1979. The Committee is composed of : Ernest Jacks, Elizabeth Crocker, Newton Hailey, Larry Wood, Ervan Wimberly, and Helen Edmiston. The next item for discussion was the public AMENDMENT hearing to consider an amendment to Appendix C Subdivision Regulations (Subdivision Regulations) to the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances to clarify off-site improvement requirements in the City's Subdivis- ion Regulations. (This was tabled and continued at September 24 meeting.) A memo prepared by Mr. Gitelman concerning lot splits had been mailed with the agenda. Mr. Gitelman stated before going ahead with the off-site improvements ordinance, the Commission should address the question of lot splits. Mr. Newhouse asked Mrs. Jones what you would gain by leaving out Section 2 of the proposed ordinance. Mrs. Jones said you will be getting off-site improvements on subdivisions and large-scale develop- ments. She said she had talked to Bud Allen from the County, and he agreed with Mr. Gitelman's memo. Mrs. Jones said he told her he would be in favor of cutting back the number of lot splits permitted to one. Mr. Gitelman said when he talked to Mr. Grimes and David McWethy they saw problems with inter -family splits and did not wish'. to restrict those to one. Mr. Wood asked about a case where a small portion is given from one owner to another to allow a driveway or such as that. He and Mr. Gitelman did not think this should be considered the same..as a lot split to create a new lot; however, Mr. Gitelman pointed out that even these should be checked so that minimum setbacks, lot width, and Planning Commission Meeting October 8, 1979 Page 6 lot areas are not violated. Mr. Wood said he would recommend cutting lot splits down to one. Mr. Gitelman said the lot splits in the Planning Office were already getting to be a burden. He said the Commission could go ahead with Section 1 on off-site improvements for subdivisions and large-scale developments and tighten up on the lot splits later. It was decided that the original Committee composed of Newhouse, Gitelman, Kisor, and Jim Lindsey would meet with representatives from the County, City Manager's Office, and City Planning Office to study the lot split question further. Mr. Newhouse moved that the Planning Commission recommend the ordinance for approv- al to the Board of Directors excluding Section 2 of the proposed ordinance and changing Section 3 to Section 2. Mr. Gitelman seconded the motion, which passed 9-0. The next item for discussion was the AMENDMENT public hearing to consider an amendment Subdivison Regulations to Appendix C (Subdivision Regulations) of the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances to amend the procedure for subdivision plat approv- al, and for other purposes. Mr. Wood explained that it had come out during the study of the PUD Ordinance that there are some conflicts. This ordinance builds in a fore -step process. It gives the developer a concept plat as a mechanism to come before the Planning Commission and gets into the public hearing process on reviewing and advertising at the concept stage. The preliminary stage will be the same. The developer can chose whether to go concept or preliminary. The final plat stage has 2 alternate steps: (1) if he has come through both the concept and preliminary, he can simply bring the final plat to Mrs. Jones to be checked and recorded then put on the Planning Commission agenda for ratification, or (2) he brings it in and it goes to the Plat Review then comes to the Planning Commission before recording. He added the Planning fees shown are the same as the recent changes made by the Board of Directors. Mr. Wood said he had changed the name "informal plat" to "concurrent plat". He said the only other change was the signing of the plats could be signed by any of the officers of the Commission instead of the secretary. Mrs. Jones said she thought there was a typing error on Page 4. She said the scale should be 1" to 100' instead of 1" to 200' in both instances on Page 4. Mr. Kisor said that on Page 1 they shouldn't leave anything open on the scale size. Mrs. Jones said it should say 1" to 100' or 1" to 200' under concept plat on Page 1. Mr. Gitelman asked if the preliminary and concept plats went through the same people. Chairman Jacks said the concept plat was to foresee any problems before going too far and will go directly to the Planning Commission before being reviewed by the Plat Review Committee. Although,copies of the concept plat would be sent to the Plat Review Committee members before the Planning Commission meeting in case they saw a particular problem which should be addressed. Mr. Prewitt asked when the adjoining property owners would come in. Mr. Wood told him at the concept plat stage Mrs. Jones asked that on Page 4, the plat size be shown as 18" x 23" as this is the size the plat binders come in. Mr. Kisor moved to recommend approval to the Board of Directors with these 3 changes: 1. Under the concept plat on Page 1, the scale is to be 1" to 100' or 1" to 200'. 2. Sheet size is to be 18" x 23" on Page 4. 3. Page 4, change scale for final plat to 1" to 100'. Mr. Newhouse seconded it, which passed 9-0. • • • Planning Commission Meeting October 8, 1979 Page 7 The next item for discussion was the Committee Reports on Planning Area Land Use and Green Space. Planning Area Land Use COMMITTEE REPORTS Mr. Hailey said his Committee had taken a trip through the planning area with some representatives of the County and he asked that the City Planning Commission now approve 'or amend the Committee's recommendation before they go to Quorum Court with it. Bill Bonner, member of Washington County Planning Board, stated he was concerned with: 1. Setbacks from county roads 2. Construction in flood hazard areas 3. Adequate water supply and sewage disposal 4. Access to county roads S. Drainage 6. Utility cuts in country roads 7. Incompatible land uses and nuisances (land use management controls) 8. Construction standards 9. Administration of the system Mr. Gitelman said the City Planning Commission was interested in some of these things which the County has jurisdiction over. Mr. Gitelman said the City cannot "zone" property outside the City in the planning area; but the County can "zone" selected areas in the County. A City must "zone" the entire City if it adopts a zoning ordinance, but the County does not have to "zone" the entire County. Chairman Jacks asked Mr. Bonner how he was going to address the Quorum Court. Mr. Bonner said they were on the agenda. He said one thing that should be carefully reviewed is whether a building permit can be issued if it wasn't in compliance with the plan. Mr. Bonner said he wanted the City Planining Commission to endorse the system and work with the County Planning Board Mr. Gitelman moved that the Planning Commission send a resolution of support for the Washington County Planning Board in its presentation for a recommendation for a County permit system for use in designated growth areas of municipalities in the county. Mr. Kisor seconded it, which passed 9-0. Green Space Chairman Jacks said he and Mr. Wood had gotten together and decided 411 incentive ordinance would be difficult to -enforce. He :had also talked to Jim Lindsey and he feels his Committee needs to have another meeting before reporting to the Commission. The next item for discussion was the AMENDMENT public hearing to amend the Community Community Facilities Plan Facilities Plan as contained in Volumes I $ II of General Plan 1970-1990 by incorporating "FAYETTEVILLE PUBLIC PARKS AND RE- CREATIONAL LAND NEEDS, An Inventory and Assessment" into the Community Facilities Plan. After some discussion,Mr. Gitelman moved to recommend to the Board of Directors to approve this plan. Mrs. Davis seconded it, which passed 9-0. Chairman Jacks read a memo from OTHER BUSINESS Bobbie Jones on a conversation shehad with City Attorney, Jim McCord, on the Court's overruling the Commission on the Julia Rogers • • • Planning Commission Meeting October 8, 1979 Page 8 tandem lot request. Mr. Gitelman said the City needs to set standards for approval to be in the Ordinance. Mr. Jacks asked that Mrs. Jones request the City Attorney to meet with the Commission on October 22 on this matter. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:15 P.M. o'clock.