Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-03-24 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The Fayetteville Planning Commission met at 5:00 P.M., March 24, 1980, in the Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Chairman Crocker, Cullers, Ernest Jacks, Morton Gitelman, Elizabeth Keith Newhouse, Martin Redfern, Windell Newton Hailey, Jr. D on Hunnicutt, Peg Anderson. G ary Dandy, Dale Chri Steve Adams, Allen B. B enton, John Schweitz Richard Keating, Carl of the press, and oth sty, Peter Geraci, Robert Eoff, Reynolds, Joel Freund, Ish C. e r, Harmon Remmel, Lloyd Hays, Osborn, Bobbie Jones, members e r unidentified persons. Chairman Ernest Jacks called the meeting to order. Keith Newhouse moved that the minutes of the March 10, 1980 MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting be approved as mailed; Martin Redfern seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously, 7-0. The first item of business was the approval of the DANDY OIL COMPANY large scale development plan of Dandy Oil Company Township Road to construct a car wash on the South side of Township Large Scale Development Road, West of College Avenue, and West of the Chevrolet Truck Sales Lot. Dandy Oil Company is the owner -developer. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. This item had been referred to the Planning Commission for action by .the Subdivision Committee because of a recommendation to waive the requirement that sidewalks be constructed along Township Road. Keith Newhouse reported that the Subdivision Committee had recommended waiving the requirement for sidewalks because the two driveways into the property will take up 80 ft. of the 210 ft. lot width and the area between the driveways will be paved. Mr. Newhouse then moved that the large scale development plan of Dandy Oil Company be approved with the following conditions: (1) Waive the requirement that a sidewalk be constructed along Township Road where this property abuts Township; (2) The previous property owner furnish the City a quitclaim deed for the additional right-of-way needed between this property and the centerline of Township Road to meet the Master Street Plan; (3) Developer meet all other Plat Review Comments. Newton Hailey seconded the motion. Windell Cullers called to the attention of the other Commissioners that the copy of the Board of Directors Minutes included with the Planning Commission agenda contained some comments as to why the requirement for sidewalks was not enforced even on commercial developments. Mr. Cullers stated that if the Commission continually waives the sidewalks, then it takes the teeth out of the ordinance. Mr. Cullers said he realized the driveways would take up 80 ft. of the lot width, but that this left another 130 ft. outside the driveways which will not have sidewalks. Mr. Newhouse said that this will be paved with asphalt between the driveways in this case. Mr. Cullers asked if the Subdivision Committee was recommending that a bond be posted. Mr. Newhouse said the Committee had not recommended a bond. Mr. Cullers said he would prefer that the sidewalks not be waived. Mr. Newhouse pointed out that sidewalks had not been required on Colt Square when it was platted r Planning Commission March 24, 1980 Page 2 and he did not know if they could be required when the lots were built upon. Mr. Cullers asked if the State Highway Department would put in sidewalks along Township if and when it were to be widened. Bobbie Jones stated that it was her understanding that the State did not construct sidewalks as a matter of policy when the street pavement is widened. Mr. Cullers then said that if the Commission does not decide at one point that we will have sidewalks in Fayetteville and require each developer thereafter to have sidewalks on his drawings, then we will never have a very good network of sidewalks in the City. A vote was taken on the motion to approve the large scale development plan with 3 conditions cited above. The motion failed to pass with the following votes recorded: "Ayes," Crocker, Newhouse, Redfern, Hailey; "Nays," Gitelman, Jacks, Cullers. The By-laws of the Planning Commission require 5 favorable votes to approve any matter before the Commission. Elizabeth Crocker then moved that the large scale development plan of Dandy Oil Company be approved with the following conditions: (1) The developer be required to post a bond for the delayed construction of sidewalks across this property (cash in escrow); (2) The previous owner of the property furnish the City with a quitclaim deed for the property between the subject property and the centerline of Township Road to meet the Master Street Plan; (3) Comply with all Plat Review Comments. Windell Cullers seconded the motion. It was approved 6-0-1 with the following votes recorded: "Ayes," Gitelman, Crocker, Jacks, Redfern, Cullers, Hailey; "Nays," none; and Newhouse abstaining. Chairman Jacks opened the public hearing on Rezoning REZONING PETITION R80-6 • Petition R80-6, Fayetteville Industrial Development FAYETTEVILLE IND. DEV. CORP. Corporation to rezone property located as follows: City Lake Road - Pump Station Tract "A" located on the South side of Pump Station Road - Black Oak Road Road and on the East side of City Lake Road; Tract "B" located South of the Industrial Park on both sides of Black Oak Road. All of the above properties are requested to be rezoned from A-1, Agricultural District, to I-2, General Industrial District. Planning Consultant Larry Wood reviewed the Planning Report and recommended that the petition be amended to rezone the tract facing on Morningside Drive (City Lake Road) I-1 for a depth of 300 ft. lying East of City Lake Road and the balance of the property under petition be rezoned I-2 as requested. Dale Christy, of the Chamber of Commerce, was present to represent the petitioner. He stated that the petitioner had no objection to the amendment proposed by Mr. Wood. Mr. Christy said the petition was based on a logical expansion of the Industrial Park area within the General Plan of the City for future industrial use He said it is the intent to develop an industrial area that would be an enhancement of the general area. Mr. Christy said there are three small parcels on the East side of City Lake Road which the petitioners do not own. Mr. Newhouse stated that he agreed with Mr. Wood's recommendation, but was wondering what would happen to those three parcels which were not included in the petition. Mr. Hailey moved to recommend to the Board of Directors that the Petition R80-6 be amended as recommended by Larry Wood and thBtthe petition be approved to rezone the West 300 ft. of Tract A to I-1, Heavy Commercial & Light Industrial District, the balance of Tract A and all of Tract B be rezoned to I-2, General Industrial District. Mr. Newhouse seconded the motion. Peter Geraci, City Lake Road, inquired if the Fayetteville Industrial Development Corporation owned other property to the South which was not included in the petition. Mr. Christy said they do not. The motion to approve the amended petition was approved unanimously, 7-0. • • • Planning Commission March 24, 1980 Page 3 The next item on the agenda was the conditional use J. W. EOFF request of J. W. Eoff to construct a 100 ft. self- 608 South Crest Drive supporting tower to rent 2 -way antenna space. The Conditional Use Request property in question is located at 608 South Crest Drive and is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Robert Eoff was present to represent his father, J. W. Eoff. Mr. Eoff said that his father has had several requests from different companies to rent space in this area. He said it was suited for this purpose because of its high elevation and central location. He said they want antenna space to provide service to professional and business people in the area. He said the proposed tower would be a self- supporting, galvanized steel tower much like the supports of a TV antenna It would be on the back corner of Mr. Eoff's lot and would be close to Southwestern Bell Telephone's microwave tower. Mr. Eoff said he thought the height of the proposed tower would be about the same as that of the Southwestern Bell microwave tower and that it would not have any guy wires on it. Steve Adams stated he was an attorney representing Hayden Mcllroy who lives at 632 Crest Drive. Mr. Adams said this proposed 100 ft. tower would be the highest structure to be placed on top of that mountain. He said he had talked to an engineer with Southwestern Bell Telephone and had been told that their microwave tower is from 75 ft. to 85 ft. tall. Southwestern Bell's tower is also slightly to the East side of the crest of the hill, so it is a little lower still, comparatively. Mr. Adams said the area property owners question the aesthetics and the safety factors associated with this proposed tower. He asked whether it would be a hazard to air navigation, whether it would have any beacon lights on it, and whether it would cause any electro -magnetic interference with household appliances, CB radios, UHF or VHF antennas, AM or FM radios, or unshielded portions of cable television. He said that he understood that a radio broadcasting tower erected on Dinsmore Trail had been required to furnish certification by an Arkansas licensed engineer to show the safety of the structure and had had to have more land large enough to contain the tower if it should fall. Mr. Adams said the application in the agenda does not state the section under which it is sought, nor the grounds on which it is requested. He asked that the request be denied. Bobbie Jones stated that the Planning Office normally fills in the Article and Section under which a request is sought and had failed to do so in this case. She handed to Chairman Jacks copies of the structural plans for the tower which did bear the stamp of an Arkansas Registered Engineer. She advised the Commission that this request was submitted under Article 6, Section 3, Public Protection and Utility Facilities, as a transmitting tower. Mr. Adams asked if this request had been submitted by a public service corporation. Chairman Jacks said, to his knowledge, it had not been. Allen B. Reynolds, 580 Crest Drive, objected to the request. He stated that this area has been residential and that he believes this request to be a commercial one. He said neither he nor the neighbors he had talked to were in favor of the request and asked what would keep Mr. Eoff from putting up a third or fourth tower if this one were approved. He said it would not help his property (value). Joel Freund, 1408 Rockwood Trail, stated he lives across the street from the Southwestern Bell microwave tower. He said he did not wish to have to look at another tower. Ish C. Benton, 1353 Rockwood Trail, opposed the request. He said he would not object if it were for an amateur radio as he had 42 years experience in amateur radio himself. He said this is a commercial use proposed in a R-1 zone. He also asked about possible interference with television and radios. He mentioned the "radiation sickness" with which personnel in the U. S. Embassy in Russia have been bothered in past years. • • Planning Commission March 24, 1980 Page 4 He said with today's power requirements, they could go 10 or 15 miles outside town and find a hill to put a tower upon. He also asked the Commission under what authority and with what permits the present antenna on the Eoff property was erected. He asked to see a copy of such a permit. Chairman Jacks stated that the Commission could not answer that question today. John Schweitzer, 1411 Rockwood Trail, said the existing microwave tower is in his back yard and he objects to that. He said he felt it is a health hazard. He further objected to anything additional being built up there. Ernest Jacks noted that Use Unit 3 (Article 6, Section 3) does say "facilities of public service corporations". Elizabeth Crocker questioned if this request could come under that. Morton Gitelman stated that the description of that use is public service oriented. Martin Redfern commented that since he has been on the Commission they have had two requests for antenna towers: one for a television station and one for the taxicab service. However, he said both of those were in commercial areas. Bobbie Jones stated that there are other towers on that same mountain; the Hospital uses one and Arkansas Western Gas has one. Mrs. Crocker stated that both of those are public service corporations. Harmon L. Remmel, 625 Crest Drive, stated he did not think the proposed tower was the proper thing to put in a residential district. He said the residents have had one or two other requests in the area which would have altered the basic R-1 status of the area and they have all been opposed to them. Keith Newhouse moved to deny the conditional use request of J. W. Eoff for a rental antenna tower on the basis that it will have interference in the private television and radio reception up there; it would be unsightly to have a 100 ft. tower there; it would have to have flashing lights from an aviation standpoint; and because it is not really a public utility request. Martin Redfern seconded the motion which was passed 6-0-1 to deny the request with Crocker, Newhouse, Jacks, Redfern, Cullers and Hailey voting "Aye" and Gitelman abstaining. The next item of business was a request for a variance from LLOYD L. HAYS the lot size requirement applicable to a lot split submitted Double Springs Road by Lloyd L. and Joan C. Hays for property on the East side of Lot Split Waiver Double Springs Road (Tipton and Farmington Road), four-fifths of a mile South of Highway 16 West, and approximately 2 and one-fourth miles West of the Fayetteville City Limits. Lloyd Hays was present to represent the request. He said the 9 acre tract of land he is proposing to split has a house on it and he would like to sell the house with 11 acres of land. Mr. Jacks asked if there were likely to be any more splits on this property. Mr. Hays said the property is on a blacktopped road and the remaining 71 acres would have 125 ft. of frontage on that road He said he thought they could sell the remaining 71 acres without splitting it. The nine acres is only 260 feet wide and 1,320 feet deep and there aren't many waysthe property can be split up. He said there are chicken houses on both sides of it and he did not think anyone would want to build on the back part. He said his immediate plans were to keep the 71 acres for pastureland, but that he has a buyer for the 11 acres with the house Elizabeth Crocker stated that she had no objection to the requested waiver since it is on a blacktopped road and City water is there; but she would not be in favor of any further splits without improvements to the property. Keith Newhouse moved to approve the request of Lloyd L. Hays for a waiver of the minimum lot size requirement from 3 acres to 11 acres for this first split. Newton Hailey seconded the motion which was approved unanimously, 7-0. Planning Commission March 24, 1980 Page 5 The next item on the agenda was the request for a RICHARD KEATING variance from the lot size requirement applicable to a Sheridan Avenue lot split submitted by Richard Keating for property on Lot Split Waiver Sheridan Avenue, South of Peel Street and North of Overcrest Street. The subject property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Chairman Jacks inquired if the adjacent property owners had been notified. Bobbie Jones stated that they had not been, as it has not heretofore been a policy to notify adjoining property owners on lot split waiver requests. Mr. Keating was present to represent the request He said the existing lot is 160 feet by 122 feet and he is presently restoring a 100 year old house on the South 80 feet of the lot. He said it would be financially impossible for him to restore the existing house to the caliber he desires and sell it without losing money. He said he wanted to build another house next door. He said that even though the property to the rear of his does not appear so on the maps, it is actually 3 separate lots. He said the property owner to the rear has given him an easement so he could run two sewer yard lines to the sewer main in Brairwood Lane. The existing house has been on a septic tank. He said the requested 80 ft. wide lots compare to other lot sizes in the area; the streets are all paved; water is accessible from Sheridan Avenue, and the neighbors are all in favor of what he is doing because the lot has been a blight. Crocker stated that she thought the request was in the spirit of the development of property in the City Limits. She then moved to approve the request of Richard Keating for a waiver of the lot size requirements applicable to a lot split. Windell Cullers seconded the motion. Newton Hailey asked if there are any sidewalks along Sheridan Avenue. Mr. Keating said there are none. Several Commissioners confirmed that there are no sidewalks in the neighborhood. Mrs. Crocker stated that this is one case in which there should be a waiver because all the property up there is developed. The motion to approve the request passed unanimously, 7-0. Windell Cullers and Martin Redfern stated that their COMMITTEE REPORT committee did not have a written report ready yet on Driveway Standards their study of driveway standards. They advised that it would be ready for the April 14 agenda. Under "other business" Bobbie Jones passed out copies OTHER BUSINESS of a petition bearing 110 signatures requesting a hearing Request for Hearing on the proposal to construct apartments in the 1300 block Proposed Apartments of Wedington. Bobbie Jones confirmed that she had Stephens & Wedington discussed with Gary Carnahan a proposal to construct 20 one -bedroom units on 1.1 acres of land at the Northeast corner of Stephens and Wedington. She advised that the property lying on the East side of Stephens between Mt. Comfort Road and Wedington has been zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, since June 29, 1970. Carl Osborn, 1216 Stephens, was present to represent the petition and area property owners opposed to the construction of the apartments. He said the developer plans a driveway onto Wedington and within approximately 150 feet there are two street entries onto Wedington. Mr. Osborn stated that the entire area was zoned for single family residences when he purchased his home in 1968;and that the covenants of the Garner-Larimore Addition restrict it to single family. He said the neighbors were unaware it had been changed to R-2. He said the area property owners were of the opinion that nothing could be built on the lot in question. Windell Cullers stated that he felt that abstracts, at the time of purchase, should contain information advising the buyer of the zoning, planning, and Master Street Plan. Planning Commission March 24, 1980 Page 6 Chairman Jacks stated that before the Zoning Map and Ordinance were adopted June 29, 1970, the Planning Commission had held a number of public hearings on both of them. There were meetings held at various schools, including Asbell School, and they were well attended. Morton Gitelman said he could understand the neighbors being upset; however, he wondered how many people there were who had bought property out there, knowing it was zoned R-2, thinking the property values would go up. Mr. Gitelman stated he would object to the Planning Commission rezoning only this small parcel; however, he would be in favor of studying the whole area and deciding whether the zoning and land use should be changed there. Mr. Cullers stated that he was bothered by the fact that each new concerned group of people who come before the Planning Commission in such cases do not understand the function or limitations of the Planning Commission in these matters. Newton Hailey suggested that each Planning Commission member and Larry Wood look at the property between now and the April 14 meeting and then decide whether to ask Larry Wood to do a study. It was observed that this probably would not help the neighbors in this particular situation. Mr. Redfern and Mrs. Crocker agreed with Mr. Gitelman's comments about persons who might have purchased property knowing it was zoned R-2 and with some future plans in mind for it. Mrs. Crocker stated that this would be a factor in the cost of the property. The Commission declined to take any action on the request of the area property owners. Bobbie Jones advised that when and if a large scale development plan were processed on the property in question, her office would notify all the persons who had signed the petition. • The meeting was adjourned at 6:15 P.M.