Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-06-22 Minutes• • MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the Planning Commission June 22, 1981 in the Directors Room, City Arkansas. was held at 5:00, P.M., Monday, Administration Building, Fayetteville, MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ernest Jacks, Morton Gitelman, Joe Wilson, Newton Hailey, David Williams, Elizabeth Crocker, Don Hunnicutt, Martin Redfern, Windell Cullers. MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: None. Bobbie Jones, Cynthia Stewart, Frank Farrish, Earle Young, Ervan Wimberly, Sid Noorbakhsh, Anna Eldridge, Elsie Johnson, Rev. Arnold J. Baughman, Gary Carnahan, David McWethy and other members of the press and audience. The minutes of the June 8, 1981 Planning Commission Meeting were approved as mailed. MINUTES The next item for consideration LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT was the approval of the Large Scale Development E -Z MART STORES, INC. Plan for E -Z Mart Stores, Inc. to be located HIGHWAY 62 WEST at 2012 West Sixth Street (Hwy. 62 West), South of Gabbard Avenue, East of Sang Avenue; E -Z Mart Stores, Inc., Owner and Developer. Zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District and R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Earle Young was present to represent. The Chairman asked for a report from the Subdivision Committee. Don Hunnicutt, Chairman, stated that this development had been passed on to the Planning Commission with the following comments: 1. Recommend for approval contingent upon all Plat Review Committee comments and requests being complied with. 2. Proper notification of property owners has been submitted. 3. Planning Administrator has adjusted the zoning line 50 ft. on the North and East sides of the site as allowed by ordinance. Hunnicutt moved that the development be approved with above comments. David Williams seconded. Ernest Jacks asked if the developer had any comments. Young stated he did not. There followed some discussion about location. The motion passed (9-0). /07 Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 1981 • Page 2 • • The next item of business was PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT the approval of the Concept Plat of Cambridge CAMBRIDGE EAST East located South of Highway 45 East and FRANK FARRISH West of Highway 265; Frank Farrish - Owner. Zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Frank Farrish and Ervan Wimberly were present to represent. The Chairman asked for the Subdivision Committee's report. Don Hunnicutt stated this concept plat had been passed on to the Planning Commission without recommendation. There had been no quorum present at the meeting, and no one to represent. Farrish stated that the Concept is basically the same proposal as submitted with the Rezoning Request. He said there had been some changes made in order to meet the 30% Green Space requirements of the PUD Ordinance. Under this ordinance, single family lots, where the lot on which the house is built is owned privately instead of in common, those lots are not allowed to be counted in that 30%. As a result, some of the single family areas that were incorporated into the plan submitted at the rezoning hearing had been eliminated. A waiver of the 250 ft. setback for structures other than single family from adjacent R-1 property will be requested. He said that all sides of the proposed PUD will encroach on the 250 ft. setback. Since this is a Concept Plat, the structures shown may be altered to some extent before the final plat is submitted. Farrish stated he would have liked to have incorporated more single family development in this PUD, but the penalization for green space did not make it feasible. McWethy asked if the proposed park would be public or private. Mr. Farrish stated that it was his understanding that the park would have to be maintained by the City in order for it to be accepted as a public park. He stated there would be covenants to the effect that all property owners within the PUD would contribute to the maintenance of the park. He said he would like the Commission's feelings on the park being private versus public, but at this point the Developers are going with a private park. There followed some discussion on location of the proposed single family development within the PUD. Newton Hailey asked if the property owners to the North, Zed Johnson and Oscar Harris, had any objections to the proposal. Farrish stated he had not spoken with them personally, but they had been notified of all public hearings. The }property owner to the South, Edmiston Prewitt has no objections. There followed some discussion pertaining to recent amendments to the PUD Ordinance and the liklihood of a waiver of the 250 ft. setback for other than single family structures being approved by the Board of Directors. Bobbie Jones read the recent amendment by Ordinance No. 2710 where the 250 ft. setback had been imposed on a PUD. Windell Cullers stated he had been on the Committee that had worked on the amendment to the PUD Ordinance. He stated he felt it was the feeling of the Board that a PUD may change the character of an R-1 neighborhood. The 250 ft. setback had been formulated so that a Developer could buffer around the structures other than single family with single family lots. Farrish stated that the Developers did not want to cut out any single family development, but had to do so to comply with the 30% green space requirements. Further, he said that the maximum density within a PUD in an R-1 Zoning District /o8 Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 1981 Page 3 is 7 units per acre. With this proposal there would be an average density of 3.7 units per acre. George Knight addressed the Commission. He stated he felt the PUD was a good idea. He said it seems incongruous that this development will have about 150 units when on the same amount of acreage, right across the street, you would find about 8 - 10 units on the same amount of land. He said this is simply not a dense area. Parrish stated that right across the street, the zoning is R-2, which could allow for 24 units per acre. - Knight stated he is on the Parks Board, that they had looked at this site for a possible public park and did not feel one was needed in this development. Knight stated he would like to come to the meetings where the final plat will be reviewed. Farrish stated this plan shows the maximum density of the development. However, the PUD may never be developed to maximum density. Windell Cullers moved the Concept Plat be approved. He stated the Planning Administrator should advertise the public hearing on the requested waiver of the 250 ft. sethack-for structures other than single family within a PUD located in RU, Morton Gitelman seconded. Ernest Jacks asked if the waiver should be sought at this level. Frank Farrish stated he would like to get this resolved at this time. Cullers' motion passed (9-0). Farrish asked how he could get more single family into the development. He said the more single family that is developed within the PUD, the more the green space will be cut down. Hunnicutt stated he would go along with trading green space for single family. The next item of business was the REZONING PETITION R81-11 Public Hearing on Rezoning Petition SID AND JUDIE NOORBAKHSH R81-11, Sid and Judie Noorbakhsh to rezone PORTER ROAD property located South of Sycamore Street, East of Highway 71 Bypass and West of Porter Road from R-1, Low Density Residential District to R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Sid Noorbakhsh was present to represent. In the absence of Larry Wood, Chairman Ernest Jacks read the Planning Consultant's report. The requested R-2 District is recommended for the following reasons: 1. Adequate public facilities and services currently in place to handle an increase in density. 2. The property is served by a designated Collector Street that has access to the interchange of Mt. Comfort Road and Highway 71 Bypass. 3. The property between Porter Road and Highway 71 Bypass is well suited for medium density residential development. Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 1981 • Page 4 • • 4. The area surrounding the applicant's property currently contains a mixture of residential uses NOTE: A special study was presented with rezoning application R81-2 (Gordon Houston) which recommended R-2 District for this area. That study was never adopted. The Chairman stated this is a public hearing and asked for comments in favor of the requested rezoning. Sid Noorbakhsh addressed the Commission. He stated he had looked at the proposed study and it includes a lot of R-2. He said he has owned this property for awhile and that R-1 is not really suitable in that area He said that due to economic trends, he needs to do something with the property. R-2 seems to be in demand. Porter Road has been paved, and has a Collector Designation. There has been a 12 inch water line installed to serve the area. The proposed interchange will also change the lifestyle in this neighborhood. The Chairman asked if the Planning Commission members had any questions for Mr. Noorbakhsh. Joe Wilson asked if all surrounding property owners had been notified. Windell Cullers asked if Mr. Noorbakhsh had ever lived in the neighborhood. Mr. Noorbakhsh stated he had not. The Chairman asked for comments in opposition to the request. Jan Parker, 1650 Porter Road addressed the Commission. She stated the property had been sold off the Old Porter estate. Mrs. Porter lives in the High Rise, and her children, who_live:'in :.Florida, manage the estate. She asked Mr. Noorbakhsh how long he had owned this property. Mr. Noorbakhsh stated he had owned the property about a year. Ms. Parker asked if Mr. Noorbakhsh maintains the property. Noorbakhsh said he has someone mow it and maintain it. He said he does not have any immediate plans for the tract. Ms. Parker stated that if this property is rezoned she will have R-2 both in front and in back of her property. Mr. Noorbakhsh stated he appreciated Ms. Parker's comments, but he did not think this rezoning would change the area that much as there is already R-2 out there. He said this whole area had been recommended for R-2. Cullers stated it could be 10 to 20 years before this area goes R-2, in the meanwhile there is only one corner of the intersection of Deane and Porter that is zoned R-2 and it is isolated. Cullers stated he would like to speak in opposition to the rezoning request. There is no R-2 on the street at this time. The reason Porter Road was paved is there were enough low income families to use HUD funds to pave that street. He feat that to say there is a trend towards R-2 was erroneous, the neighborhood is primarily R-1. Cullers felt that if this property were to be rezoned to R-2, it would drastically change the neighborhood. Mort Gitelman stated there is some existing R-2 in this area and pointed out the triangular area of R-2. He stated that if the study is adopted, it will create a large amount of R-2 in this area. David Williams stated he does not support the change as the study has not been adopted. He said this is an older neighborhood that is suffering from 'creeping R-2ism". He felt that rezoning this property before the study is adopted would be putting the cart before the horse. Williams moved that rezoning petition R81-11 be denied, Windell Cullers seconded. HP Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 1981 • Page 5 • • Joe Wilson stated he felt the Commission needs to study the whole area along the proposed interchange. Morton Gitelman stated that the study has been done and rather than turning down an application perhaps it should be tabled until the study has been resolved. If the petition is turned down, the applicant will be unable to reapply for one year. Cullers felt that the study does not take into account what surrounds that intersection. Noorbakhsh stated that he believes that Sycamore is being considered as a service road to the interchange. He said this area is not a well protected R-1 area. Noorbakhsh hoped that he was not being punished because a petition had been turned down in the past. He felt this area has every possibility for R-2. Hailey asked if a motion to table would supercede a motion to deny. Hailey felt that the Planning Consultant should be contacted before the next meeting and the study should be looked at again and put on the next agenda. Hailey made a motion to table rezoning petition R81-11 and Morton Gitelman seconded. The motion passed (7-2) with Williams and Cullers casting the "Nay" votes. Mrs. Parker and Mr. Noorbakhsh are to be notified of the meeting at which the study will be reexamined. The next item of business was REQUEST FOR EXTENSION a request by Hyland Park Assembly of FOR COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENTS God Church for another year extension on HYLAND PARK ASSEMBLY OF GOD paving their parking area and installing screening at 900 North Crossover Road. Sid Noorbakhsh was present to represent. He stated that the Church has tried to comply with the rules and has paved quite a bit of the parking area. Some of the parking spaces are still gravel. The Church plans to have professional landscaping done and a privacy hedge installed. The Church anticipates having this completed by September. The reason for the requested extension is economics. There is still some work to be completed on the Church building itself. Noorbakhsh stated that the Church plans on bringing the property into compliance within one year. Martin Redfern asked if there had been any complaints on the improvements being incomplete. Bobbie Jones stated, to her knowledge, there have been no complaints. David Williams moved that the request be granted. Mort Gitelman seconded. The motion to approve the requested extension passed (9-0).. The next item for consideration was the Conditional Use request submitted by Anna Eldridge to have child care at 1397 E. Huntsville Road, zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Anna Eldridge was present to represent. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST CHILD CARE IN R-1 ANNA ELDRIDGE Planning Commission Meeting • June 22, 1981 Page 6 The Chairman asked if adjacent property owners had been notified. Bobbie Jones stated they had. Ms. Eldridge stated that she took her petition around and had received no objections from neighbors. The building she proposes to use for child care was originally a plumbing supply house, and lately has been used for the Local Carpenters Union meeting place. It is presently vacant. The building contains 3000 square feet and the State would allow her to keep 57 children. The Chairman asked if there was anyone present in opposition to the request, there was no one present in opposition. Williams asked what the Planning Commission is supposed to do in a case like this. Morton Gitelman explained this is a change in a nonconforming use in R-1. Bobbie Jones stated it is also a Conditional Use in R-1. Gitelman stated this building has been operated as a union hall and a plumbing supply both nonconforming uses;, in R-1. Whenever there is a change in a nonconforming use it has to be approved to make sure that the nature of the nonconformity will not be bigger or made greater. Jacks stated that restrictionsmay be placed on the approval. Beth Crocker stated that the only restriction she could see would be in reference to the parking and the ingress and egress on Huntsville Road. There is a lot of traffic and it clips along at a fast pace. She would be concerned about that and would like to see proper facilities for dropping off and picking • up children. Ms. Eldridge stated there is 150 ft. with space for about 20 cars for on site parking. Also, there is a 35 ft. street adjacent to the property, that she will maintain with a neighbor, off Huntsville Road and persons will be using that street for ingress and egress. Mort Gitelman moved that the Conditional Use be granted. Windell Cullers seconded. The motion passed (9-0). • The next item of business was CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST a Conditional Use Request submitted by CHILD CARE IN R-1 Elsie Johnson to have child care at ELSIE JOHNSON 2016 Berry Street, zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. (Planning Commission approved Conditional Use July 14, 1980 to allow child care in home for no more than 10 children, approved for one year only, and parking is to be in Mrs. Johnson's driveway and not on the street.) Elsie Johnson and Danny Wright were present to represent. Danny Wright stated that there is nothing to add, the only restriction not complied with was the screening. An elderly center was approved next door where the required screening was to be placed. He stated there had been no complaints as far as the operation of the child care facility. The Chairman asked if adjacent property owners had been notified. Bobbie Jones stated they had. Beth Crocker moved that the Conditional Use be approved for another year. Don Hunnicutt seconded. The motion passed (9-0). 112 • • • L Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 1981 Page 7 Beth Crocker amended her motion to Bobbie Jones the authority to renew the are received about the operation. Don Hunnicutt agreed to second the approve the conditional use and giving conditional use yearly, unless complaints amended motion and it passed (9-0). The next item for consideration CONDITIONAL USE was a Conditional Use request submitted CHURCH IN R-2 by Reverand Arnold J. Baughman for a Church APPLEBY ROAD at 60S Appleby Road, zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Rev. Baughman was present to represent. He stated he is requesting the Conditional Use for a Church. The existing structure had been used for a Church a year and a half ago. During that time, it has been rezoned. He stated he will be leasing the structure from the owner. Windell Cullers moved that the Conditional Use for a church be approved contingent upon the site being inspected by a City Fire Inspector. David Williams seconded. The motion passed (9-0). The next item of business was the request by Gary Carnahan for a driveway at 2123 West 6th Street. When the Large Scale Development Plan for Parnell was approved by the Planning Commission, the Commission stipulated that there were to be no more than 2 driveways off Highway 62 into the entire development. Gary Carnahan was present to represent. He stated the owner has a chance to sell some of the real estate in the development for a gas station. The prospective buyer is not interested unless he can have a driveway off Highway 62 West. Jacks stated he felt that location was dangerous. He felt that one more drive would make the situation that much worse. Hailey stated that was the reason for restricting the development to two driveways when it was approved. Hunnicutt stated the separation would not meet the minimum safety zone requirement. Beth Crocker stated she had a problem with the additional traffic and the hazard this waiver would create. On that basis, she moved that the additional drive request be denied. Windell Cullers seconded. The motion passed (9-0). Carnahan stated that the Kentucky Fried Chicken people have been thinking about sharing their drive with the gas station in exchange for the use of their parking spaces. He wondered what the Planning Commission's feelings would be on an arrangement of this type. Jacks stated that would be between the Gas Station people and the Kentucky Fried Chicken people. REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL DRIVE LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT HIGHWAY 62 WEST 1 • • • Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 1981 Page 8 Jacks reported that the Committee REPORT ON COMMERCIAL had sent some notes to McCord for drafting SUBDIVISIONS ORDINANCE into ordinance form. The Committee wanted to attach some landscaping to the ordinance. Right now, the footprint ownership is being experimented with, development would be on the line of a Commercial PUD. A decision will have to be made as to which part of the ordinance it will be placed in. The Committee will examine McCord's draft, and then bring it to the Planning Commission. Jacks wanted the Commission's feelings on doing a minimum landscaping ordinance. It would be an amendment to the screening ordinance. Cullers asked if the purpose would be to make the developers make landscaping provisions. Jacks said it would be similar to Bentonville's landscaping ordinance and the following would be required to be landscaped: 1. Vehicular use areas. 2. Parking areas, 3, Perimeters. The general requirement would be 10% of the total area excluding,.' structures. It would include plantings, trees and shrubs. There would be a minimal requirement for actual landscaping. Plantings and ground cover would( be based on the total area involved. Cullers felt the Commission gets involved in too many extra ccurricular activities. It makes it harder for people to develop property. He thought that people ought to be given a chance to do their own thing and hope they do it prettily. Crocker was worried about the risk of talking about minimum requirements. Hailey agreed. Cullers felt that an ordinance such as this would deal with possibilities rather than the intent of the ordinance. Jacks stated that the committee had already done most of the work on the proposed ordinance. He wondered if the Commission was not interested in getting into a general landscaping ordinance. Newton Hailey stated he would read it. Jacks said he would take it to Committee and the Committee could decide what they would like the Commission to consider. Ernest Jacks stated that an OTHER BUSINESS item had come up under other business at the last meeting and there had been opposition on the part of some members of the Commission about voting on items of regular business nature under other business,. He wondered if .,7tion should be taken on items such as this or not. Or; should action be taken with the concurrence of the whole commission. Windell Cullers felt that if the whole commission was in concurrence it would be alright to vote on a matter of other business. The other members agreed. Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 1981 • Page 9 Gary Carnahan stated that Jim STRAIGHTENING OUT ZION ROAD Lindsey had some property rezoned, had dedicated 60 ft. of right of way and had straightened out Zion Road The City located a sewer line in that right of way. The road is now finished and the Street Superintendent will not accept the road because no plat has been filed for the property adjacent to it. The ordinance says use of adjacent property will be on the plat. The Developer does not have committments on all the property and if a plat was filed, he would probably have to replat when the property is actually developed. The Developer would incurr a lot more expense. The Developer will comply with zoning and would like the road accepted without a plat. Morton Gitelman suggested that Lindsey go to McCord and have him draw up an ordinance for the City Board to accept the dedication. According to the ordinance, the plat is required with subdivisions of property and he felt that in this particular case it did not apply. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:12, P.M. • • //S