Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-11-13 MinutesMINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the City Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 13, 1979, at 5:25 P.M. in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ernest Jacks, Rita Davis, Mort Gitelman, Elizabeth Crocker, Bill Kisor, Windell Cullers, Newton Hailey, Peg Anderson, and Keith Newhouse MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: None Bobbie Jones, Michelle Hale, Larry Wood, Jim McCord, Jim Lindsey, Mr. $ Mrs. Zara Lee Thomas, Gary Carnahan, Tom Hopper, Debbie Muruaga, Peter G. Estes Jr., Bill Meadows, Lynn Wade, Warren J. Dugas, and other unidentified members of the audience. Chairman Jacks called the meeting to order. The minutes of the October 22, 1979 MINUTES meeting were approved as mailed. The first item of business was a DISCUSSION discussion with City Attorney Jim Conditional Uses/ Tandem Lots McCord to discuss the basis on which the Planning Commission may deny approval of conditional uses and/or tandem lots, etc. under the Zoning Ordinance. Jim McCord stated that the question came up because of a tandem lot request which was denied by the Planning Commission and the record before the Court did not show that the Planning Commission had made sufficient findings of fact to deny it. The Court felt thec.applicant had met all the requirements contained in the ordinance. Mr. McCord said the Planning Commission needs to follow the standards set out in the ordinance; and the minutes need to reflect the findings of the Planning Commission i(whether the applicant meets each requirement of the ordinance). Mrs. Davis asked if the same conditions for a conditional use apply to tandem lots. Mr. McCord said they do not; and he would encourage the Planning Commission to reflect in its motion the basis for their decision being made, whether approved or denied. Chairman Jacks asked if we need to go back to the tandem lot Ordinance and write in some basis for denial. Mr. McCord said the tandem lot section also needed to be reworded, so that it did not conflict with the recent amendment to Art. 8, Sec. 6 dealing with lots having frontage on a public street. He said the conditional use section lists re- quirements, but the Commission needs to check those requirements on each request. He said he would prepare a draft of the proposed changes to the tandem lot section for the Planning Commission. Mrs. Anderson asked what written findings would entail. Mr. McCord said having their findings in the minutes would be sufficient. Mrs. Davis said it would be better to put it in written form after the meeting. Chairman Jacks said their findings should go with the motion when it is being made. Mrs. Crocker pointed out that with each conditional use we need these findings either for or against. The next item for discussion was the POND ADDITION approval of the preliminary and final plat North of Hwy. 16 West of Pond Addition located North of Preliminary and Final Plat Hwy. 16 West and approx. 1 mile West of Ruppell Lane; Herbert Pond, Sr., Owner g Developer. No one was present to represent. • • • Planning Commission Meeting November 13, 1979 Page 2 Mr. Newhouse reported on what the Subdivision Committee had recommended. He said they had approved it with these 2 contingencies: 1. A note on the plat that there will be no building on Lots 6 $ 7 until City water is supplied to them; and 2. A correction on Page 2, Paragraph 8, in the Covenants to change "raided" to "raised". He stated with these 2 contingencies he moved the preliminary and final plat of Pond Addition be approved. Mr. Kisor seconded it. Mrs. Anderson referred to the comments from the Plat Review Committee; and said she didn't like having 5 lots each with a driveway directly onto Highway 16 West. She said they are trying to use existing County and State roads without making any improvements. Mrs. Jones said this had not been before the Commission earlier because they were waiting for a letter from the State Board of Health. The motion passed 5-4, with Newhouse, Crocker, Davis, Hailey, and Kisor voting "Aye" and Jacks, Anderson, Gitelman, and Cullers voting "Nay". The next itemmfor discussion was the BLACK OAK ADDITION approval of the preliminary replat of Black Preliminary Replat Oak Addition located SW of Black Oak Road SW of Black Oak Road and 1 mile NE of Lake Wilson; Norman $ Cindy Simco, Owners & Developers. Gary Carnahan and Tom Hopper were present to represent. Keith Newhouse stated the Subdivision Committee recommended approval of the pre- liminary replat with 2 things to be noted: 1. The new road is named Oak Mountain Road, and it needs to be shown on the plat. 2. Waive the scale from 1" to 100' to 1" to 60'. Mr. Carnahan was asked about the 0.75 acres. He read the note on the plat which stated "We Hereby declare that the portion of Tract N. 1 of Black Oak Addition, lying Northeast of the proposed County Road will not be sold separate from the remainder of said Tract No. 1 without the Planning Commission's approval!'. Mr. Newhouse moved to approve the preliminary replat of Black Oak Addition with the 2 above mentioned contingencies. Mr. Kisor seconded it, which passed 9-0. The next item for discussion was the approval of Union Special Subdivision located E. of Hwy. 112 (Garland Avenue) and S. of Agri Park; Union Life Insurance Co., Owner $ Developer. Recommended for approval by Subdivision Committee Commission. UNION SPECIAL SUBDIVISION Preliminary Plat East of Highway 112 on October 22, but tabled by Planning Mr. Newhouse stated that the Subdivision Committee had talked with City Manager Don Grimes and it is their recommendation that the City go along with the developer; with the developer building a 31 -ft. wide street to the East radius of Bryan Road; and the City, if they decide to go to a 36 -ft. wide street, would pay the additional cost He said the Subdivision Committee recommended approval of the preliminary plat with these 8 contingencies: 1. The scale be 1" to 100' on the final plat; 2. Extend the sidewalks in front of the existing duplex; 3. Put a street light on the NW corner of Lot 2; 4. Waive the street light spacing on Bryan Road and the new arterial street as shown; 5. Designate the 10 ft. on the East and South side of the Subdivision as alleys since the Eviin'S Farm plat is not clear; 6. The arterial street will have to be renamed on the final plat from Elm Street to a name which does not conflict with any other; • • • Planning Commission Meeting November 13, 1979 Page 3 7. The developer will dedicate a right-of-way along the North side of the entire Subdivision of 54 ft. and there will be a 31 ft. or 36 ft. street to be con- structed to the East radius of Bryan Road If a 36 ft. wide street is required the City will participate with the developer by paying the additional cost in excess of the cost of a 31 ft. wide street; 8. There is to be no split of property to the North of this street unless the owner constructs the street to the East property line. Chairman Jacks asked if the Master Street Plan had been changed. Mr. Newhouse said it hadn't. There was some discussion about the letter Bob J. Mayes had written in L973 giving the City a one-year notice on the Master Street Plan. Mrs. Jones said Mr. McCord had indicated that in some cases such notice may not be considered to alter the Master Street Plan; however, she did not know on what his statement was based Mrs. Zara Lee Thomas (920 West Elm) said she had 660 ft. across from (East of) the Mayes' property. She wanted to know how this would affect her. Chairman Jacks said the Master Street Plan stays as it is and nothing has changed on her part. Mr. Newhouse pointed out that Mr. Mayes was at the Subdivision Committee meeting and he was satisified with the outcome. Mr. Newhouse made the motion to approve it with the 8 above-mentioned contingencies. Mrs. Anderson seconded it. Mr. Cullers asked if there was going to be sidewalks around the cul de sac. There will be. Mr. Lindsey asked if there was any question about what the pavement width of the street is going to be in the future to keep from having to rebuild the sidewalk in the future. The motion passed with the 8 contingencies 9-0. The next item for discussion was the SUMMERHILL RACQUET CLUB request to revise the conditional use and Revise CU $ LSD large scale development submitted by Summerhill 1399 Masonic:cDrive Racquet Club, 1399 Masonic Drive, Bill Meadows, Developer. Mr. Meadows proposes to leave the 2 existing tennis courts on the SW corner of the property as fenced, outdoor courts and to construct 2 new indoor courts on the East side of the development, zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Mr. Newhouse said the Subdivision Committee recommended approval of the revision because it made good use of the property to the West. Mr. Newhouse moved to approve the revision of Summerhill Racquet Club. Mr. Cullers seconded it, which passed 9-0. The next item for discussion was the public hearing on Rezoning Petition R79-34, Fulbright Invest- ment Co./'Fort Smith Chair Co., to rezone property located South of Hwy. REZONING PETITION Fulbright Investment Co./Fort S. of Hwy. 62 West $ W, of R79-34 Smith Chair Co Razorback Rd, 62 West and West of Razorback Road from I-2, General Industrial, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Lynn Wade, Attorney, was present to represent. Mr. Wade stated that Fulbright Investment Company owns the property but is under contract to sell to Fort Smith Chair Company, and Fort Smith Chair Company has contracted to sell to the Woodward's (The Parts Store). The Woodward's have an auto parts store located on the corner of Hwy. 62 and Eastern, but want to move across the street when the road is widened to 4 -lane. The Highway Department will be taking their present store when the road is widened. Mr. Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, stated he recommended approval of a C-2 District for the following reasons: 1. The C-2 zoning district is consistent with the General Plan recommendation of commercial; • • Planning Commission Meeting November 13, 1979 Page 4 2. The property fronts on Highway 62 and is a logical place for commercial activity; 3. Public facilities and services are available to the property; and, 4. Commercial development along Highway 62 will help buffer the more intensive industrial activity to the South. There was no one present to speak in opposition to the rezoning. Mr. Kisor moved to recommend to the Board of Directors that Petition R79-34 be approved as requested. Mr. Hailey seconded it, which passed 9-0. The next item for discussion was the conditional use request submitted by Debbie Muruaga to have a daycare center with a maximum of 24 children on property owned by Cumberland Presbyterian Church at 2451 Residential District. Present to represent Mrs. Anderson asked if any fencing was was fenced. was CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST Debbie Muruaga 2451 W. Wedington Drive W. Wedington Dr., Debbie Muruaga. involved. Ms. Muruaga zoned R-1, Low Density said the playground Mr. Newhouse asked if there was plenty of parking. There is adequate parking space Mrs. Davis asked if we were going to classify day care centers as home occupations if the center is in a residential zone. Mrs. Jones said she had treated this as being under Use Unit 4 "child care center and nursery school" because it was not done in a home. Mr. Cullers stated there was adequate parking and fencing. He moved to approve the conditional use request because he sees no connection between this request and home oc- cupations. Mrs. Anderson seconded it. Mrs. Davis said if it was done in the home she would like for it to be considered by the Planning Commission under home occupations and meet those requirements. Mr. Gitelman reminded the Commission of the case where someone rented a home and used it for a day care center. Ms. Muruaga said it was her, but it wasn't done intent- ionally. Chairman Jacks asked her;,if she has begun babysitting before getting permission. Ms Muruaga said she has already started babysitting, but she wasn't aware she needed a conditional use. She said the reason they moved is because of the expansion in enroll- ment. Mr. Newhouse asked her the dimensions of the playground. Ms. Muruaga said it was at least 50' x 50', although the drawing showed 50'x 75'. Mr. Cullers amended his motion to show that all of the provisions of the Ordinance pertaining to this conditional use were met. Mrs. Anderson seconded it, which passed 9-0. The next item for discussion was the conditional use request submitted by Homer Copeland to have a green house to grow plants for selling and own use at 3850 Huntsville Road, zoned A-1, Agricultural District. No one Mrs. Anderson that there used to Bait Shop. Mrs. Anderson moved to approve the request because it meets of the Ordinance for a conditional use. Mr. Kisor seconded it. Mr. Hailey asked if he is going to use the property for commercial the Commission request that he build the greenhouse inside the poses. Mrs. Jones said they wanted it inside the City limits; use approval would not have been required. The motion passed 9-0. was present to represent. said she could not see any problem with it. be a slaughter house on the property, but it CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST Homer Copeland 3850 Huntsville Road District $ R-1, Low Density Residential Mrs. Jones pointed out has been changed to a all of the requirements purposes, could City limits for tax pur- otherwise, a conditional • • • Planning Commission Meeting November 13, 1979 Page 5 The next item for discussion was CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST the conditional use request submitted Fayetteville Baptist Association by Fayetteville Baptist Assoc. to have 959 €, 9591 California Blvd. a Christian student center at 959 $ 9591 California Blvd., zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Warren J. Dugas was present to represent. Mr. Newhouse asked if they were going to pave the back of the lot. Mr. Dugas said they hoped to do it to meet the parking regulations. Mrs. Anderson asked what access they would use. Mr. Dugas said they would use the former Delaware Avenue. Mrs. Anderson said this would create a lot of traffic on this street. She added the street was narrow and it is hard to get into the driveway. Mr. Gitelman asked if they planned to have anyone living in the back of the duplex. Mr. Dugas said he would be there most of the time during the day because he is the dir- ector, but there would be no one living in the back. There would be someone living in the front. Mr. Newhouse asked what the meeting hours were. Mr. Dugas said they meet once a week on Tuesday evenings. Occasionally they will have a prayer breakfast. Mr. Hailey moved to approve the conditional use request. Mrs. Anderson, Mr. New- house, and Mr. Kisor questioned if all of the conditions for a conditional use are met in this case. Mr. Gitelman pointed out that off-site parking wasn't necessary at this stage because most of the students are walkers not drivers. Mr. Newhouse seconded the motion, which passed 9-0. The next item for discussion was the AMENDMENT request that the Planning Commission call Zoning Ordinance a public hearing to amend the Zoning John Michael Hopkins Ordinance for the purpose of permitting an automobile car wash in the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District, submitted by Peter G. Estes, Jr. Attorney for John Michael Hopkins. Present to represent was Peter G. Estes, Jr. Mr. Estes stated the property with which they are concerned is presently zoned C-1. His client wants car washes put in the Zoning Ordinance under Use Unit 18. The problem came up when they wanted to have a self-service car wash in the C-1. The property is appropriate for self-service gas stations, and they are asking the Planning Commission for a public hearing to amend the Ordinance to allow self-service car washes. The auto wash is presently listed in Use Unit 17,but is more consistent in Use Unit 18. Mr. Kisor stated we need to stipulate what kind of car wash (whether automated or self-service). Chairman Jacks said his objection to it is that they are impossible to keep clean. Mr. Estes pointed out that all he was asking for is a public hearing to be held. Mr. Wood said he would leave auto car washes in Use Unit 17 as well as add it to Use Unit 18. Mrs. Davis moved to call a public hearing to include self-service car washes in Use Unit 18. Mr. Cullers seconded it, which passed 9-0. Mr. Cullers left the meeting at 6:35 P.M. The next item for discussion Was COMMITTEE REPORTS the Committee Reports on Lot Splits (a draft of possible ordinance to amend regulations governing lot splits was enclosed in the agenda) and Green Space. Mrs. Jones stated since we have altered Lot Splits this somewhat from the Ordinance drafted on off-site improvements, it needs to be advertised for public hearing again. • • • Planning Commission Meeting November 13, 1979 Page 6 Mr. Newhouse said the lot sizes in this draft practically eliminate any lot splits in town. He said he would like people in town to be allowed one split. One of the Commissioners felt that there should be an allowance in the ordinance to enable neighbor- ing property owners to adjust their property line without having a lot split charged against them. Mr. Gitelman said he would not really consider that a lot split because no new lot is created; however, there is a need for such adjustments to be checked for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Mrs. Jones suggested this shouldn't be treated as a split, it should be treated as a survey to be signed by the Planning Office as com- plying with Zoning Ordinance if it did not create any new lots. Someone asked if this could be handled under the Planning Commission variances paragraph. Mr. Gitelman stated the language allowing for the Planning Commission to hear requests for variances is the same language the Board of Adjustment uses for hardship and he did not think it applicable to those situations. When you are not creating new lots, we need to put a sentence in here that clears it up. Mrs. Jones said the ordinance would apply not only to residential property, but to commercial as well. She said the Subdivision Committee had felt that the commercial areas should be handled differently. Mr. Gitelman said that was a whole new area because theiPlanning Commission has never gotten into commercial subdividing. Mr. Gitelman said they do not want people coming in asking for variances. It would make more work for the Planning Office and for the Planning Commission. Mrs. Crocker said the wording under the "first division" could be read as if you could divide the lot 10 times. She added there was a need to set down how many splits you can create. Mrs. Jones said we could add "Each division shall create only one new lot". Mrs. Gitelman also suggested adding the sentence "Transfers or adjustment of property lines between adjoining neighbors,which does not create a new lot, does not constitute a lot split, but must be checked by the City for conformance with existing zoning require- ments". Mrs. Anderson moved to advertise for a public hearing on the amended Ordinance. Mr. Kisor seconded it, which passed 8-0. Mr. Jacks read a letter from City Attorney Green Space Jim McCord stating it was not legal to tie contributions of cash or land (for park purposes) to building permits. Mr. Jacks said the only way he thought this could be done would be to require it of subdividers as a condition of subdivision plat approval Chairman Jacks said he will need to get with the Committee on Green Space again at a later date. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:55 P.M.