Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-02-25 Minutes• • MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the City Planning Commission was held on Monday, February 25, 1980, at 5:25 P.M., in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ernest Jacks, Peg Anderson, Elizabeth Crocker, Morton Gitelman (arrived at 5:50), Newton Hailey, Keith Newhouse, Don Hunnicutt, Windell Cullers, and Robert Redfern. MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: None Bobbie Jones, Michelle Hale, Larry Wood, Ervan Wimberly, Karl Tehl, J. B. Hays, Frank Farrish, Gail Brown, Claude Prewitt, Dr. Ed Whiteside, Wayne Jarvis, Danny Wright, Mildred Brooks, Chip Wright, Sally Stone, Bernice Siccardi, Roy Clinton, Bill Bequette, Jim Witt, ':Charles. Hoffman , Wade Bishop, Terry Tucker, Dr. Richard Ezell, and other unidentified members of the audience. The minutes of the February 11, 1980 MINUTES meeting were approved with these 2 changes: (1) under MEMBERS PRESENT delete Newton Hailey's name once and add Keith (2) on Page 8, in the 3rd Paragraph of the discussion on storage of fuel Mr. Redfern asked that the last sentence be changed to read "Mr. Redfern possibility of arson was a problem". Newhouse, and wood, hay, etc. wondered if the Because of the relationship of Item 2 (Cambridge Place) and Item 3 (Rezoning R80-3), the Planning Commission decided to hear Item 3 first. The first item for discussion was the REZONING PETITION R80-3 public hearing on Rezoning Petition R80-3, Frank.'Farrish . 1J..:B..Hays Frank Farrish and J. B. Hays to rezone Hwy. 45 East ? Crossover property located South of State Highway 45 East and West of Crossover Road from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Present to represent were Dr. J. B. Hays, Frank Farrish, Ervan Wimberly, Karl Tehl, and Claude Prewitt. Mr. Wood stated he recommended the R-2 Zoning for the following reasons: (1) The property under application for R-2 District is proposed to enlarge a fairly narrow piece of property recently zoned R-2 District, and the en- largement of the zoning district should provide for better design alternatives. (2) The R-2 District will provide a buffer from the Hwy. 45 traffic and noise, and also serve to begin to better define the limits of future commercial develop- ment east of this property. Mr. Wimberly stated this property is an extension of that property approved for rezoning to R-2 by the Planning Commission on January 14, 1980. At that time a request was made for R-0 Zoning but the Planning Commission implied that a larger area at a less intense zoning would be more acceptable. He added they didn't want R-2 across the street from R-1. Mr. Redfern asked what kind of covenants they will use to restrict the development in the R-2 Zoning. Mr. Wimberly said the area will be subject to the same covenants as the Subdivision and will be restricted to the number of units we have now. Mr. Wimberly said they have not completely worked out the covenants yet. Chairman Jacks asked if they will restrict access from Hwy. 45? Mr. Wimberly said yes,, there will be no drive- way access from Hwy. 45. Mr. Wimberly said with the filing of the plat it will be set up on this. r' • • • Planning Commission Meeting February 25, 1980 Page 2 There was no one present to oppose the rezoning although Dr. Ed Whiteside did question the proposal for only one street entry into the entire subdivision. Mr. Newhouse moved to approve the rezoning request. Mrs. Anderson seconded it, because she felt it is in keeping with the deeper lots and would allow more design possibilities. The motion passed 9-0. The next item for discussion was CAMBRIDGE PLACE the approval of the preliminary plat (Village East Add.) of Village East Addition to be located Preliminary Plat South of Hwy. 45 East and West of Hwy. Hwy. 45 East F, Hwy. 265 265; J. B. Hays and Frank Farrish, Owners and Developers, zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District, and R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Present to represent were Dr. J. B. Hays, Frank Farrish, Ervan Wimberly, Karl Tehl, and Claude Prewitt. Dr. Ed Whiteside stated he was concerned with the proposed access to Hwy. 45. He said with 90 homes going in the subdivision, and only one entrance to the subdivision, the traffic would be a problem. Mrs. Anderson said it was a legitimate concern but 1 entrance was better than 5 or 6 entrances to Hwy. 45. Dr. Whiteside agreed with her and added that maybe an access should be worked out back to Crossover Road. Mr. Farrish stated that another access back to Crossover Road would create more of a traffic problem with people using it as a shortcut. Mr. Cullers asked if there might be another entr- ance in the future. Mr. Wimberly said there would be one to the South later. Mr. Wimberly said it was up to the Planning Commission to make sure the street continues when the other phases are started. Mr. Newhouse stated the Subdivision Committee had recommended approval to the Planning Commission of the preliminary plat of Cambridge Place and moved to recommend approval (to the Board of Directors) with these contingencies: (1) The name of the subdivision be changed from Village East to Cambridge Place. The main street be named Cambridge Road, Street A be named Bristol, Street B be named Chesterton, Street C be named Lensfield, and Street D be named Revere. (2) The radius on the street right-of-way will be bigger on the cul de sac to attain the required lot width at the setback line. (3) The street light spacing at 2 places be waived. (4) If there is going to be "No Parking" signs on the road, the two 18 ft. lanes with a median are O.K. if there is no parking on Cambridge Road and no drive- ways to it from the R-1 lots. If this is not complied with the developer will have to go back to two 21 ft. lanes. (5) The determination of whether they will build a cul de sac at the South end of Cambridge Road will be worked out between the developer and the Street Super- intendent. Mr. Hailey seconded it. Mr. Newhouse stated the sidewalk waiver requested by the developer will have to come from the Board of Directors. Mr. Newhouse moved to amend the motion for approval to include that as long as the road stayed as was on the plat, if it doesn't we would recommend the sidewalks go around the cul de sac. Mr. Wimberly stated the opposition is with the direct access to Cambridge Road and that parking would be done on the cul de sacs. The developer would like to allow a driveway from these corner lots to Cam- bridge Road. The developers are willing to ask the Board of Directors that there be no parking on Cambridge Road but allow the possibility of a driveway. He said they just feel like there could be a case that someone would want a driveway coming into the side of the house. If we allow no access to Cambridge Road, they are going to end up with the house facing the main drag although the developer's intentions are to face the house toward the cul de sacs. Planning Commission Meeting February 25, 1980 Page 3 Mr. Hailey stated if the Board does not agree that no parking be established on Cambridge Road then we're stuck with 18 ft. driving lanes; however he agreed to second the amended motion. Mr. Prewitt said they were willing to have approval contingent on stating that the street would be 18 ft. with no parking permitted and 21 ft. with parking permitted. Mrs. Crocker said without a restriction on parking there would be a tendency to park on the road, but she feels that people are going to obey the law if it is posted. Mr. Cullers asked if it was likely Cambridge Road would eventually go through to Manor Drive and wouldn't it be better to build the lanes 21 ft. wide. Mr. Wimberly said it would eventually go through. Mr. Wimberly added that the 18 ft. one-way lanes were actually more paving than was required. He said they only have to build a 31 ft. street if they leave out the medians, but they are proposing a 36 ft. wide street. The motion for: approval of the preliminary plat passed 8-0-1, with Gitelman ab- staining from voting and all the other Commissioners voting "Aye". Mr. Newhouse stated the motion from the majority of the Subdivision Committee is to take the sidewalks as proposed on the plat. Put one on bothsides of Cambridge Road but not on the cul de sacs. Mr. Hunnicutt seconded it, which passed 6-2-1 with Jacks, Anderson, Redfern, Hunnicutt, Crocker, and Newhouse voting "Aye", Hailey and Cullers voting "Nay", and Gitelman abstaining from voting. The next item for discussion was the public hearing on Rezoning Petition R80-4, Mr. and Mrs. J. A. Pool and Mr. and Mrs. E. M. Pool to rezone property located North of Sycamore Street and East of State Highway Density Mr. (1) REZONING PETITION R80-4 Mr. $ Mts. J.,Ad..Pool Mr. F, Mrs. E. M. Pool Sycamore $ Garland 112 (Garland Ave.) from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to R-2, Medium Residential District. Present to represent was Ervan Wimberly. Wood stated he recommended the requested R-2 Zoning for the following reasons: The property in question is located at the intersection of an arterial street and a collector street and single-family development does not seem to offer the most practical long term use of the property in light of surrounding cir- cumstances. (2) The property to the North and East is platted so that the lots back up to the property under application which isolates their property from that single- family development. There are single-family houses facing this property on the West side of Garland Ave. but most of those houses are older, on fairly large lots and eventual conversion to multi -family can be expected. This area is characterized by a mixture of single-family houses, duplexes, and multi -family units and the introduction of multi -family at this location is not inconsistent with the current trend. Mr. Wimberly stated the whole area in general is single-family but the neighborhood to the East is multi -family. He said this is probably the one tract of land remaining on Garland. He stated that 3 acres is just not feasible to develop into single-family. He stated he feels like this type of development should be developed where there is existing water and sewer facilities. Mrs. Anderson asked if development of this area would require off-site improvements. Mr. Wimberly said at this point there are no de- velopment plans. He pointed out that Garland is a State Highway. He stated if the re- zoning were approved he would come back with a Large Scale Development and probably off-site improvements would be required on Sycamore at that time. Wayne Jarvis (Pastor of Trinity Methodist Church on Garland Ave.) stated he was not opposing this rezoning but he was concerned with improvements on Sycamore because the Church is in the process of paving its parking lot. He added that if it is develop- ed into medium density there will be a lot of traffic on that corner. Danny Wright, Attorney (1731 Oakland) stated he is an adjoining property owner (3) • Planning Commission Meeting February 25, 1980 Page 4 on the East. Mr. Wright spoke on behalf of 11 of the other property owners opposing the rezoning. Mr. Wright had brought in 3 petitions signed by people living in the area opposing this request. Mr. Wright said his back yard backed up to where the proposed apartments were to be constructed and he added most of his living and social activities take place in his back yard. He stated that within the immediate area there have been no changes to multi -family, it is further North. Mr. Wright added the rezoning is opposed for the following reasons: (1) It will destroy the integrity-- of the single-family housing district. (2) The additional population density will greatly increase the noise levels in the area and be a nuisance to the existing single-family district. (3) There are severe drainage problems currently existing in the area and a large development of the area would add to this problem. (4) The existing streets are inadequate to handle the increased load, and the pro- posed improvements are uncertain as to date at best, and there remains the very likelihood that they could be revised before actual implementation. (5) The area could be developed as a single-family housing area without the re- quirement of rezoning and destroying the existing integrity of the neighborhood. Mildred Brooks (1015 Bel Aire) stated she was against the rezoning because of the drainage, traffic, noise, and children. Mr. Redfern asked if it would be possible to have a street running down the middle of the development. Mr. Wimberly said no because with the setbacks and street right-of- way you wouldn't have enough room for more than 2 rows of lots. The lots on the West side would have to have frontage on Garland and also on any new street put in and this is not advisable. Mr. Wimberly stated there has been no change in the neighborhood but there were duplexes on the SW corner of Sycamore and Oakland which are now multi -family. He stated with any development on this property the developers will have to come back with a Large Scale Development Plan and will have to have drainage and off-site improvements shown. Mr. Hailey stated he could see it if it was helpful to the R-2 buffer. He looks at Sycamore as a natural breaking line and if it is rezoned they could get a maximum of 82 units. Mr. Hailey said he did not think it is the Planning Commission's duty to always assure the property owner of the highest and best use. He pointed out a PUD could get 36 units in R-1 and at this time he would oppose the rezoning because it could be developed into a PUD nicely. Mr. Hailey moved to deny the rezoning. Mr. Newhouse seconded it. Mrs. Crocker stated she agreed with Mr. Hailey and would be inclined to vote for the rezoning if they didn't have the option to put in a PUD. Mr. Wimberly asked if the intent of the PUD Ordinance was units for sale or rent. Mrs. Jones said it could be either. Mr. Wimberly stated he felt the PUD was developed for sale. Mr. Wimberly stated even though the R-2 allowed 24 units per acre you couldn't get anywhere near that. The motion to deny the rezoning request passed 8-1, with Jacks, Crocker, Hunnicutt, Newhouse, Redfern, Anderson, Hailey, and Cullers voting "Aye" and Gitelman voting "Nay". The next item for discussion was the CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST conditional use request submitted by Gail Gail Brown Brown to have a Home Occupation to babysit 29031Inwood Cane a maximum of 6 children at 2903 Inwood Lane, zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Present to represent was Gail Brown. Mrs. Brown asked to reserve her comments until after other comments. Sally Stone (2939 Inwood Lane) stated her opposition to the conditional use. She said the children run around the neighborhood without supervision and had gotten into neighbor's pools. She said in July she and 2 other women in the neighborhood went to Mrs. Brown and asked her to stop babysitting. She said Mrs. Brown said she wasn't go- ing to stop. One of the neighbors then got up a petition but nothing happened until ;O Planning Commission Meeting February 25, 1980 Page 5 September. In September Mrs. Brown went before the Planning Commission and they denied her use request with a vote of 6-3. Mrs. Stone stated after that she found an ad in the paper for babysitting and it contained Mrs. Brown's phone number. Mrs. Stone added that in Mrs. Brown's letter to the Planning Commission Mrs. Brown pro- mised the kids would be confined to her deck but, Mrs. Stone said, her word has not been reliable in the past. Mr. Hailey asked Chairman Jacks if this was a public hearing. Chairman Jacks said it was not. Mr. Hailey then stated the Planning Commission is not here to listen to people complaining and attacking each other. Chip Wright (2930 Inwood Lane) stated the Ordinance said after being denied by the Planning Commission for a conditional use request the applicant had to wait 1 yr. before returning again, but could return within the year if there was evidence of changed conditions or new circumstances which justify reconsideration submitted to the Planning Commission. He said in Mrs. Brown's case there are no changes and he couldn't understand how she got to come back before the year was up. Mrs. Anderson said her understanding was that in the first instance it came in as child care and now the Ordinance was amended and.:involved 6 children and it was coming back under a different provision. Chairman Jacks stated the Ordinance was amended because they found it wasn't enough. Mr. Wright said under Home Occupations certain requirements have to be met and he feels Mrs. Brown doesn't meet them. Bernice Siccardi (2850 Inwood Lane) stated her opposition to the conditional use request was with the traffic and noise of the children. Mrs. Brown stated the reason she came to the Planning Commission the first time is because she saw an ad in the paper stating a fine of up to $1,000 could be placed on people who didn't have the permission to babysit. She said she then called Nonnie Vance, who came out to look at her home and told Mrs. Brown she was fine to watch 6 children. Mrs. Brown pointed out Mrs. Vance did see the condition of her yard and the fenced deck. Mrs. Brown proceeded to tell the Commisssioners that the Fire Inspec- tor came to her home and she complied with all the requirements. Mrs. Brown said she went to a doctor who said she was mentally and physically capable to watch children. Mrs. Brown stated Mrs. Stone said she ha&acnmmercialenterprise going. Mrs. Brown said she did have outside helpers coming in to help her earlier but they weren't there now. Mrs. Brown stated the opposition to the traffic shouldn't be; because the people she will babysit for only have to drive by 3 houses Mrs. Brown stated if she could babysit, her income tax return would be used to fix up the lawn but if she was denied a conditional use she wouldn't be able to afford to fix up the yard. Mrs. Brown had several letters which she read. These letters were from property owners in the area and from people who know Mrs. Brown testifying to her character. Mr. Wright stated Mrs. Brown was a nice lady but a Home Occupation was not com- patible in this neighborhood. Mr. Wright said the R-1 Zone was to protect property owners from this type of thing and the Planning Commission was their guardian. Mr. Gitelman moved to approve the request on the basis that children are compatible in the R-1 Zone. Mr. Hailey seconded it. Mrs. Anderson pointed out to Mrs. Brown that if this was approved the children could not arrive earlier than 7:30 A.M. and have to leave no later than 5:30 P.M. She also asked Mrs. Brown for an explanation for the ad in the paper. Mrs. Brown stated she had lost her 6 previous children and just wanted to see if there were 6 more children she could get. Mrs. Anderson stated she is in favor of Home Occupation's. She stated the children could be there between 7:30 and 5:30 and no one in the yard only on the deck. She added she is disturbed because of the difficulty the City has enforcing this Ordinance. Mr. Hunnicutt stated, if this was approved, the number of children could go up with- out anyone knowing about it. He said the letters Mrs. Brown had should be brought in for the records. Mr Cullers stated in a Home Occupation there is no way for the Com - • Planning Commission Meeting February 25, 1980 Page 6 mission to find out whether anyone is complying with the Ordinance without going back and checking them. He said it seems the people in the neighborhood should have some say. Now, he added, we are arbitrating a neighborhood problem and he is highly opposed to this conditional use. Mrs. Brown questioned the number of children. She asked if it was 6 paying children or 6 children altogether. Mrs. Crocker asked Mrs. Anderson how the Committee came up with 6 children Mrs. Anderson said that was the limit for the number of child- ren you can watch without being licensed by the State. She added it was 6 paying child- ren. Mr. Hunnicutt stated he was going to vote against it because of the opposition from the neighboring property owners. The motion to approve the conditional use request failed to pass with a vote of 3-5-1, with Crocker, Gitelman, and Hailey voting "Aye", Jacks, Anderson, Hunnicutt, Newhouse, and Cullers voting "Nay", and Redfern abstaining from voting. The next item for discussion was the CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST conditional use request submitted by Bequette-Perry.,Construction Bequette-Perry Construction Co., Inc. 320 Crossover Rd. to construct a duplex at 320 Crossover Rd., zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Present to represent was Bill Bequette. After some discussion Mr. Cullers moved to approve the conditional use request. Mrs. Anderson seconded it, which passed 9-0. The next item for discussion CONDITIONAL USE REOUEST was the conditional use request submitted Central Christian Church by Central Christian Church to construct 1481 Crossover Rd. a church at 1481 Crossover Rd., zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Present to represent was Or. Charles Hoffman. Mr. Cullers asked where the Church was presently meeting. Mr. Hoffman said at 419 W. Rock. Jim Witt, Jr., property owner to the South of this request, stated he would like to oppose the request. He said there was a bad drainage problem because of the creek that runs through that area. He said there was a bad traffic problem and there is a curve at which there has been one death. He added that there was no sewer on that side of the road and no way to get to sewer without going uphill. Mr. Roy Clinton stated he was not against a church going in on Crossover Road but he is against the gradual encroachment going on South of Hwy. 45. He said there are 38 acres of undeveloped C-2 on the SE corner of Highway 45 and Crossover Road which has been zoned C-2 for a long time. He asked what is going to go inbetween this church and the Seventh Day Adventist. He added it would be O.K. if the property between would stay R-1. He asked that it be looked at from that standpoint,before zoning land out there, since we already have these 2 buffers. Mr. Redfern asked Mr. Clinton his reaction to the Hays and Farrish development with R-2 and R-1 behind it, is that a problem in his area? Mr. Clinton said it was a problem on Hwy. 45, the speed has been reduced to 35 mph and has created an extremely bad intersection. Mr. Clinton said coming off of Hwy. 45 he would like to see the R-2 more lateral. Mrs. Anderson asked where the Commission stood with the sewer situation. She said it seemed to her that until the sewer situation was taken care of, it isn't suitable to be developed. Mr. Witt stated there was a low pressure sewer line between Lover's • Lane and Whipporwill. Mr. Cullers stated he would think a church would be the last thing to go in that would cause any objection. He pointed out that a church is not used all the time. Mr. Cullers then moved to approve the conditional use Mr. Newhouse seconded it. Mr. Hunnicutt asked if all churches are conditional uses. Mrs. Jones told him A Planning Commission Meeting February 25, 1980 Page 7 they are conditional uses in the residential zones. Mrs. Anderson stated several proposals had been turned down in that area because of the unavailability of sewer. Mr. Gitelman stated in an ideal situation from land use perspectives, churches should probably learn how to get together and build in a concentrated fashion prefer- ably along with shopping centers because of the parking situation. Mr. Gitelman said in some cities, churches in the single-family zones are not considered compatible. He went on to say we have a policy that makes churches a conditional use in a single-family district, and until we change that policy he thinks the only consideration for approving or disapproving a conditional use is the nuisance impact on the surrounding property owners. If it is a high density single-family area where there is going to be a lot of traffic problems and not much land for parking for other facilities then we have a real concern. But, when the proposed church is not surrounded by homes and is a fairly open area, the Commission really doesn't have much choice, under our existing City policy, but to grant the conditional use. He said it would be more sensible to some day get around to a policy position that would put churches, which consume a lot of land because we are now getting more concerned about energy and landwasteage, with neighborhood shopping centers, theaters, etc. confined to a similar area. He added that Fayetteville is not ready for that yet. Mr. Gitelman then said he is in favor of the conditional use The motion to approve the request passed 8-1, with Jacks, Gitelman, Crocker, Newhouse, Redfern, Anderson, Cullers, and Hailey voting "Aye" and Hunnicutt voting "Nay". The next item for discussion LOT SPLIT VARIANCE was the request for a variance Lot 1, Block 5, Regency North --Phase 1 from the lot size requirement Wade Bishop applicable to a lot split submitted by Wade Bishop for property at 576 Village Drive and 3021 Malinda Drive (Lot 1, Block 5, Regency North, Phase 1); zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Present to represent was Wade Bishop. Mrs. Jones stated the lot split required 3 acres in the latest amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance. She then read the Ordinance on lot splits to the Planning Com- mission. Mr. Bishop stated the lot is 177.78 ft. in length and he had planned to put a four-plex there. Some property owners had requested he not do that so he now needs the lot split to construct 2 single-family units on each lot. Mr. Cullers moved to approve the lot split variance. Mrs. Crocker seconded it, which passed 9-0. The next item for discussion was the COMMITTEE REPORT Committee Report on Tandem Lots. Morton Tandem Lot Gitelman and Elizabeth Crocker were on the Committee. Mr. Gitelman stated he had been out of town and was unable to meet with Mrs. Crocker. He asked that this discussion be tabled until a later date so that the Commit- tee could bring back a written report. The next item for discussion was WAIVER OF SCREENING the request from Dr. Ezell that the Dr. Richard Ezell Planning Commission not require screen- 2017 Green Acres Rd. ing of the West property line between the property at 2017 Green Acres Road (zoned R-0, Residential -Office District) and the residen tiallyzoned (R-1, Low Density Residential District) property to the West. Pre- sent to represent was Dr. Richard Ezell. • Planning Commission Meeting February 25, 1980 Page 8 Dr. Ezell stated the Board of Adjustment had granted a variance for screening on the North and South sides of his parking lot. He asked the Planning Commission to vary the screening on the West side because it was a pasture for horses and he did not see the need. Mrs. Jones stated that the Ordinance was changed after Dr. Ezell's Building Permit was issued, but still required the screening that was required before the Ordinance change. She said screening of the West property line was not required when the building permit was issued, but that in her opinion the Board of Adjustment could have required it as a condition of granting a variance from the screening that had been required. The Board voted to leave the question of whether to require screen- ing of the West property line to the discretion of the Planning Commission. Mr. Gitelman moved to approve this variance with the owner signing a contract to put in the required screening in the future if the property to the West does develop to R-1 uses. Mrs. Crocker seconded it, which passed 9-0. The next item for discussion was OTHER BUSINESS the conditional use request submitted Razorback Transportation Co. by Razorback Transportation of Fayetteville, Conditional Use Inc. to construct an antenna tower at 1827 1827 N. College N. College, zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commer- cial District. Present to represent was Terry Tucker. Mr. Tucker stated this is a communications tower just like the one the Police Department has. He stated it would be 75 ft. high. The base would be a triangle measuring about 1 ft. in each direction. Mr. Hailey stated he is basically opposed to towers because of the imposition on the area, appearance, and because of the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Newhouse moved to approve the conditional use Mr. Hunnicutt seconded it, which passed 9-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:45 P.M.