Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-07-27 MinutesMINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at 5:05 P.M., Monday, July 27, 1981, in the Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Chairman Ernest Jacks, Morton Gitelman, Elizabeth Crocker, Newton Hailey, Windell Cullers. Don Hunnicutt, David Williams, Joe Wilson, Martin Redfern. Joseph William;Segers, Jr., Brian Disney, Judy Penquat, Emil Utecht, Dave Kelsey, Steve Miller, Dr. Brian Buell, Rod Anderson, Jim Lindsey, Randall Webb, Sid Noorbakhsh, Mel Milholland, Jim Potts, Cynthia Stewart, Bobbie Jones, and other members of the press and audience. The minutes of the July 13, 1981 meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. The second item of business was a request submitted by Joseph William Segers, Jr., Attorney, on behalf of Mission Boulevard Baptist Church for a determination on the Planning Administrator's interpretation given to the Church concerning the construction of buildings for other facilities and what constitutes "traditional church related activities". The property at 2006 Mission Boulevard was approved by the Planning Commission to be used as a "Church", a conditional use in R-1, Low Density Residential District, on May 12, 1980. Joe Segers and Brian Disney were present to represent. The Chairman stated there had been a lot of opposition to the Church at the May 12, 1980 meeting at which the Planning Commission granted the Conditional Use. The opposition had come from neighbors on Lisa Lane. He cited a letter to Mr. Disney from Bobbie Jones, Planning Administrator, dated May 22, 1980 in reference to the approval given May 12. Basically the letter informs Mr. Disney that approval granted by the Planning Commission was for a Church only, and that other uses such as schools will require permission from the Planning Commission. Mr. Jacks continued to explain that at the Planning Commission meeting of May 27, 1980, the neighbors had requested a rehearing. They had been worried that something other than a church would be located in the structures. The Planning Commission determined at that time that the approval of the Large Scale Development was for a "Church" use only. The Church has applied for a building permit for an additional structure, and Bobbie Jones sent another letter, dated July 10, 1981, to the Church detailing basically what had been covered in the May 22, 1980 letter. Bobbie Jones stated that she was presently holding up the building permit pending the Commission's clarification of Church related activities. However, the Church has been given permission to go ahead with footings and foundations. At this time, plans for the structure itself have not been submitted. Joe Segers, addressed the Commission. He stated he represents Mission MINUTES MISSION BOULEVARD BAPTIST CHURCH CLARIFICATION OF TRADITIONAL CHURCH ACTIVITIES Planning Commission Meeting • July 27, 1981 Page 2 • Boulevard Church. The Church wants a clarification of the permission granted by the Planning Commission last May. The Conditional Use was granted for a church. So far, only the Sanctuary has been constructed. Few Church's operate out of a sanctuary only. He stated that in the plans submitted to the Planning Commission for the Large Scale Development, the 3rd page shows "additional educational and fellowship facilities". Seger said these plans were presented to the Commission "and everyone else up the linen Seger said the hang up lies in that Mrs. Jones (Planning Administrator), desires that the Church sign a document or a letter saying these future structures will be used as "sunday school" buildings. Segers felt that the job of a Church goes beyond Sunday. Segers said that at the Subdivision Committee Meeting of May 12, 1980, the specific question is asked by Keith Newhouse if the Church would be used Sunday and Wednesday. Mr. Disney said he hoped the Church would operate daily. Mr. Segers said Disney had said he would not be interested in the Conditional Use if there was a restriction that the buildings had to be used only on Sunday and Wednesday. The hearing was held a year ago and the Planning Commission approved the Large Scale Development. Segers said that it is not the Church's intention to build anything on the site other than a Church and buildings where Church activities will be held. Church functions will be held and no alternatives to any other function. Segers felt it was unrealistic for the Planning Commission to approve construction of a one building, one -day -a -week Church. The Church's request is that the Planning Commission interpret what they did before, contrary to what Mrs. Jones interpretted the permission as being that the Church can have a sanctuary only. Segers said that considerable money had been spent on the purchase of the property and the building. He felt the efforts of the Church would be thwartedifc the Commission says that all the Church can have on the property is one building Beth Crocker stated that some of the statements quoted by Mr. Segers were taken from the Subdivision Committee Meeting minutes, and that meeting did not have the benefit of being heard by the entire Planning Commission. She stated she had been present at the Subdivision Committee meeting. Crocker felt that Mr. Disney's interpretation of a Church may be different from the ordinary person's definition of a Church. She stated she is not certain that Mr. Disney's definition of a Church is the same definition the members of the Subdivision Committee would conceive. Segers said he did not feel a Church's function should be limited to Sunday and Wednesday. Beth Crocker agreed, but stated there may be some differences in opinion about the activities of a Church. She stated that perhaps the Church's position has not changed. The way the plans were presented to the Commission perhaps had not been specific enough. Crocker said she is concerned about whether or not the Church will be engaged in something other than traditional church activities. Joe Segers stated that as of right now, there's nothing that's intended for those buildings other than church related activities. Beth Crocker asked Mr. Segers "what church related activities are". Crocker said there had been some concern that "education building" may be somewhat broader than religous. education. Crocker stated that if the Church plans to install something other than a traditional Sunday School, which children would attend in lieu of a public school, that it would be a different area than the permission granted for a church. '24 • • • Planning Commission Meeting July 27, 1981 Page 3 Segers said the function of this Church will not be any different than the function of the University Baptist Church or any other church that is fulfilling its duties. Jacks felt that the Commission approved the Church sanctuary, and that anything else would have to come back for approval. Jacks felt that the Commission had concentrated on the controversy involved with the neighbors' objections to the Church in their neighborhood. Cullers stated he expected the Church to build a Sunday School, he felt that was "normal". He further stated he had seen the drawing of the future buildings before. Emil Utecht asked what the Commission's definition of an "obscure view fence" was. He stated he could see through the fence the Church had constructed. Beth Crocker felt that discussion ought to be confined to the issue on the Agenda. Jacks agreed, and stated he did not feel that the fence should be discussed. Jacks felt the question before the Commission was whether or not the Church should be allowed to continue construction. Crocker stated that her impression of a church is somewhat like Windell Cullers'. She said that when she reviewed the plans last year that she was under the impression that other buildings would be constructed. Jacks stated there are churches in town that get into heavy activities such as college credit. Cullers said he did not feel the Commission should legislate what churches can and can't do. Jacks did not agree. Segers wondered if the Commission granted permission to construct other buildings. Cullers stated that permission had been granted to construct the buildings and carry on church related activities. If the Church does something in violation of the Conditional Use, then the questions will be administrative. Segers felt the Commission was overlapping into fields that may or may not come up. Segers said the reason the Church is taking offense, is that something may come up that they want to do. Morton Gitelman stated that under the ordinance, a church use and a school use are both listed under Use Unit 4, but they are different uses. If the Church intends to operate a school it is not included in the Conditional Use they have been granted. The Church will have to come back and obtain another conditional use if they plan to operate a school. Gitelman cited a similar case and the ruling by the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon. Basically, the Court found a Church use does not include a parochial school. He said the U. S. Supreme Court had refused to hear an appeal from the Oregon Supreme Court. He wanted to make that clear. Gitelman stated that he agreed with Cullers and Crocker that additional buildings for church related activities are okay, but a school as defined in Use Unit 4 will require a new conditional use permit. Judy Penquat, 2121 Lisa Lane, addressed the Commission. She stated that she had gotten word that the Church intended to have a private school on the site. She stated that she had understood that Sunday School would be held on the site, but that she would be opposed to a private school. Newton Hailey asked of the Church wants to install a private school. Segers said that if there is a developed need, and if there is a manifest interest, and if it can be afforded, there is a possibility. He stated that the school would have to be approved and accredited. In the distant future, there is a possibility. /3o Planning Commission Meeting July 27, 1981 Page 4 Beth Crocker asked if the Church intends to open a private school and, also, asked if it was operating a private school at this time. Brian Disney stated that whatever activities are conducted in the Church, it's a part of the Church. He said the Church does not view any of their activities other than Church activities. When a Church was requested, they were asking the City to give them the right to set out there and accomplish their biblical activities, and nothing other than that. Disney stated that in the last 3-4 years, the Church has taken its children from 3-5 years and provided them with disciple educational experience. The Church can't say where they will end up. Disney felt the Church had to be at liberty for the Lord to guide them. The Church is asking for facilities to carry on their function. He felt it was bad for the City to say we will not issue a building permit. The original request was for educational and recreational facilities, the language has not changed on the Church's part. Disney stated he saw the Planning Administrator as arbitrarily, without any indication from the Planning Commission refusing to issue a building permit. He felt the Planning Commission was saying that they will not grant a building permit on the basis of the application, that we want you to change so that you will arbitrarily restrict the operation to what you will or will not do. He felt if the City dictates what a church can and cannot do, it will be in a position to begin conjecture of what the Church cannot do in the future, rather than allow the church to continue what they have begun. In so doing the City would be able to make decisions on whether the Church can or cannot do something on the Planning Administrator's interpretations. The Church conducts a valid program of ministry of the Church. Disney said it seems inordinate to fail to grant a building permit on the basis of what's not said rather than on what's said. Disney said the church has done everything required. The plan submitted showed the immediate building as well as the future buildings. The Commission discussed where the buildings would be placed and the possible shifting of the buildings within the site. Disney stated he does not wish to lay down all the things the Church will not do. If it becomes necessary under the Church's charter, the constitution guarantees separation between the City and the State. Disney stated that if he agrees with Mr. Segers and with the Commission, if the Church enters into anything that's not, in someone's opinion, within the charter, we will do whatever necessary. The Church is pressed to get facilities for their ministeries. Morton Gitelman asked if the original application for Conditional Use was for a "Church" or a "School". Bobbie Jones replied the application requested a "church" in R-1. Bobbie Jones showed Mr. Gitelman the application which clearly stated the applicants were requesting a church. Mr. Gitelman in turn showed it to Mr. Segers and Mr. Disney. Segers said in other words, if the Church wants to start a parochial school, they will have to apply for a conditional use. Gitelman stated that is correct. A school is a different use and would need conditional use approval.to operate. Segers stated the Church does not differ in that opinion. However, the building will be used for vacation bible school. He stated the Church wants to use the building for other than Sunday School. Bobbie Jones stated she had overheard a conversation between Mr. Segers and Jim McCord, the City Attorney. Mr. McCord told Mr. Segers that the building permit would be issued if the Church would state in writing that the building will not be used for a parochial school. Bobbie said that has been her contention 131 • • Planning Commission Meeting July 27, 1981 Page 5 all along. Bobbie wanted assurance that the building would not be used for a nursery school, kindergarten, grade school or high school, and she would okay the permit. Mr. Segers stated he did not recall that conversation with the City Attorney. Bobbie Jones stated she had been sitting next to Mr. McCord when the City Attorney had made that call and that he had asked for Mr. Segers and addressed somebody named Joe. Windell Cullers moved that. the Church be allowed to continue with their building and to issue the permit. The motion died for lack of a second. Dave Kelsey addressed the Commission and stated that he runs the gas station next door to the church. He read an excerpt from Mrs. Jones' letter to Mr. Disney dated May 22, 1980. "The required view obscuring fence will be constructed as the property is improved." (The fence is required wherever the church property abuts R-1 property. The gas station is zoned R-1.) Kelsey stated that no fence has been constructed on the East side of the church property. There is also no sign of any intent to construct the fence. He also felt that the portion of the letter stating "no drives will be constructed within 12-1/2 ft. of the side property line" Kelsey said the drive is located 5 ft. from the property line. Kelsey said he had not attended the meetings last year. He said he would like to speak out in that the only things the Church is complying with are things that are being complained about. Kelsey stated the fence was required on both sides of the Church as well as the setback for drives. He said it appears to him that there has been a deliberate side stepping on the plans and on some things that have already been approved here. Kelsey said that over the last year he had talked to a number of participants and mambers of the Church and that they are all under the understanding that there will be a school, that will replace the public school. Kelsey said it is now summertime and school is out. Before school was out, it appeared to Mr. Kelsey and to his wife, that the Church is already operating a nursery school. There have been maybe 20 children playing in the parking lot, supervised. He did not feel the Church should be operating in such a manner without permission. He did not think a school would be that good of an idea right next to a gas station, and outlined some of the hazards, including the location of his fuel storage tanks. Windell Cullers objected. He did not feel this was the issue before the Commission. The Chairman suggested to Mr. Kelsey that he contact the City Attorney, if he felt the Church had not complied with what was required of them. Kelsey stated he had contacted the City Attorney, the Planning Office, and the Police and that nothing had been done yet. Beth Crocker stated that she had been a Baptist since she was nine years old. She wondered what the Church was requesting. In her mind, educational, in connection with a Church means Sunday School, G.A. and vacation bible school. She felt the gist of the argument was that the Church's concept of educational and the Commission's concept of educational are different. Crocker stated that just because something is called a Church does not mean it can carry on whatever activites it deems are church related. Crocker said she did not feel Ms. Jones was being arbitrary or capricious in asking the Church to be specific in determining what the Church's definition of educational is. Cullers stated that the Commission had spent an hour discussing this and they were no closer to a clarification. He felt the Commission could not keep Planning Commission Meeting July 27, 1981 Page 6 the Church from building the building if it was to be used for a Sunday School. Beth Crocker stated that if permission is granted and the Church believes that they will be able to conduct a parochial school, the Commission would be misleading the Church. The Church could go to a great expense. Crocker asked Cullers what he felt Church related educational activities include. Cullers stated, Sunday School, vacation bible school, and activities for children under school age. Beth Crocker stated the Commission had been asked to make an interpretation of what approval was granted along with the Conditional Use for Mission Boulevard Baptist Church. Her interpretation is as follows: 1. Approval was granted for more than just a sanctuary. The approval was for a sanctuary and additional buildings for educational and recreational activities. Ms. Crocker stated she believes educational as it was used and interpreted by the Planning Commission included such activities as a Baptist Church normally conducts; Sunday School, T -Union, G.A., R.A., and religious activities. 2. Approval did not include operation of a school which would be compatible to a public school in any function. Newton Hailey said he would second if Ms. Crocker would make that a motion. Jacks stated that Mr. Disney is asking if the interpretation given by Bobbie Jones is correct. Jacks said his understanding is that Ms. Jones required the signing of a document. Newton Hailey asked if Bobbie Jones still needed a written statement. Bobbie Jones stated that on other occasions she has asked the applicant to sign a statement that the structure would not be used for anything other than the use it has been approved for. She stated this practice is customary. Morton Gitelman stated that it could be revised to state that the building will not be used for a parochial school at this time. He stated he agreed that it's not the Commission's job to define religion. However, Mr. Gitelman stated he was a little concerned about the term "religious ministries". He asked if the Church agreed that the permit does not include a parochial school. Mr. Segers stated that the Church may come back and ask to have a parochial school. Windell Cullers stated there are churches all over the place with facilities for parochial schools. Morton Gitelman stated that the Commission is saying that this particular application is not for a parochial school. Segers stated the Church is tense about signing something of this nature. Jacks stated that when the Commission grants a Conditional Use, it needs to know specifically what is going to be conducted. Windell Cullers felt this item should be passed on to the Board of Directors. He then moved to allow the Church to continue the building with the understanding that traditional church activities will be -conducted in that building, and that does not include a parochial school at this time Morton Gitelman seconded. The motion failed to pass (4-1) with Ernest Jacks casting the "Nay" vote. Beth Crocker stated that she misinterpreted the Church's statement. She stated she understood that the Conditional Use and Large Scale Development were 113 J • Planning Commission Meeting July 27, 1981 Page 7 for a church and for buildings. Any other plans would have to come back for the Planning Commission's approval. Jacks stated that he understood that the Large Scale Development plan was approved for the sanctuary only and that other construction was planned along the way. He felt that for the entire Large Scale Development plan to be approved, the Church should submit a plan with exact dimensions for all buildings, contours, and distances between buildings. Nothing of that nature has been submitted. Windell Cullers stated that he felt the Chairman should declare that the Commission cannot take action. Jacks asked if there were any more motions. Beth Crocker stated she hates to send the Church away without a clarification. Bobbie Jones stated that Conditional Uses are only appealable to a court of law. Interpretations on the ordinance would go to the Board of Adjustment. The clarification of what the Conditional Use was granted for would come back to this Commission. Morton Gitelman moved that the Planning Commission direct Bobbie Jones to issue the building permit when she is satisfied that the Church does not intend to use it as a parochial school. Beth Crocker seconded. Windell Cullers asked what the Church would be permitted to do. Jacks said they can build anything there except a parochial school. Jacks said that when the Commission approves a Conditional Use, they usually know what they are giving permission for. The motion failed to pass (4-1) with Cullers casting the "Nay': vote. Windell Cullers moved this item be tabled until the next meeting and that the City attorney be requested to be present. Morton Gitelman seconded. Windell Cullers amended his motion to be: Table the request until the next meeting, request the presence of the City Attorney, and discuss and determine what traditional Church related activities are. All other information about whether the Church is complying will not be considered. Morton Gitelman seconded. The motion passed (5-0). The next item of business LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT was the approval of the Large Scale DR. BRIAN BUELL Development Plan for Dr. Brian Buell for SOUTH OF PENNEYS property located West of Highway 71 North, South of the Northwest Arkansas Mall and on the North side of the Penney's Access Road. This also includes a request for approval of off-site parking. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Steven Miller and Dr. Brian Buell were present to represent. The Chairman asked for a report from the Subdivision Committee. Beth Crocker, acting Chairman, gave the report. She stated the Committee approved the Large Scale Development with three contingencies: 1. Drainage will be constructed to the satisfaction of Clayton Powell. 2. Drives will be constructed 12.5 ft. from side property lines. Planning Commission Meeting July 27, 1981 Page 8 3. Grades on drives will be less than 15%. Crocker stated she would like to point out that this street was constructed and never accepted for City maintenance. The Committee felt that even though the proposed development would be coming off a private street, the development should comply with the 12-1/2 ft. safety zone for drives. Mort Gitelman seconded. Steve Miller addressed the Commission. He stated that the Developer intends. to comply with regulations as if the development were built on a public street. He stated that the intent of the safety zone is to insure 25 ft. separation between drives. He stated that even though the East drives is less than 12-1/2 ft. from the East property line, it will be 25 ft. from the next drive. He asked that the East drive be allowed to remain as proposed. Crocker amended her motion to read that the second condition of approval be that the West drive will be setback 12-1/2 ft. from the West property line. Conditions 1 and 3 will remain as originally moved. Morton Gitelman agreed to the amended motion. Bobbie Jones stated that Clayton Powell interprets the safety zone as beginning at the curb cut or the radius of the driveway. Steven Miller stated he does not interpret it that way, that he fells it is from the faces of the drives. Beth Crocker agreed with Mr. Miller, she did not think the Planning Commission had been interpreting the setback that way. The motion to approve passed (5-0). The Planning Commission considered OFF-SITE PARKING the off-siteparking request in regard to the Large Scale Development Plan of Dr. Brian Buell. The Chairman asked if the Subdivision Committee had any comments on the off-site parking request. Beth Crocker stated it is a separate request, and the Committee did not consider it. Steve Miller addressed the Commission, he stated the Development is short 11 parking spaces He stated that the property adjacent is owned by Perry's and they have given their permission to use 11 of their parking spaces to Dr. Buell. The spaces will be immediately East of the proposed development and they will be used by the staff. Newton Hailey asked if Perry's had 11 extra parking spaces. Bobbie Jones stated that she did not know if there are 11 extra parking spaces, but Perry's had had adequate parking for her to approve the expansion of its' building. Miller stated Perry's has 60 parking spaces. Beth Crocker moved that the requested off-site parking be approved contingent upon there being extra space available in Perry's parking area Newton Hailey seconded. The motion passed (5-0). Crocker moved that items 4 and 5 be moved to the end of the agenda. Newton Hailey seconded. The motion passed (5-0). /3s J Planning Commission Meeting July 27, 1981 Page 9 The sixth item on the agenda VARIANCE - MINIMUM LOT SIZE was a request for variance FOR A LOT SPLIT from the minimum lot size requirement CLYDE JOHNSON applicable to a lot split submitted by Clyde Johnson for property North of Highway 45 East lying West of Lisa Lane and East of Winwood Drive (1958 East Mission). Zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Rod Anderson of Anderson Bergen Real. Estate was present to represent. He stated this property is adjacent to Lisa Lane. He said the applicant has 5 acres and wants to sell of the 2 acres fronting on Highway 45 East. The owner would like access to the back three acres off of Lisa Lane. Bobbie Jones stated that the Planning Commission can waive the requirement that a lot have frontage on a public street. She further stated that Lisa Lane had been dedicated so that it can be extended to the East (into this property) or to the North. There is a 50 ft. right of way contiguous with the property in question and 70 ft. of frontage is required in R-1, with 80o to be at the right of way line. Gitelman stated in other words, the Commission would have to waive the frontage requirement. Gitelman felt there would be no possibility of subdividing with this particular situation. Beth Crocker moved approval of the requested variance of the minimum lot size for a lot split, and stated her motion includes a waiver of the required frontage on a public street. Windell Cullers seconded. Ms. Judy Penquat, 2121 Lisa Lane, asked for a clarification of the request. Jacks explained that the owner of the property wishes to divide his property into two parcels. He stated the property would be economically unfeasible to develop, as the required improvements would make it prohibitive. The motion to grant _the variance passed (5-0). • The seventh item of business was VARIANCE - MINIMUM LOT SIZE a request for a variance from the FOR A LOT SPLIT minimum lot size requirement applicable WAYNE BALL to a lot split submitted by Wayne Ball for property located in the City Planning Area lying West of Fat Gully Road (State Highway 156) and East of Oakland and Zion Road. This is a second split and the requirement is 5 acres per parcel. There was no one present to represent. There being no one present to represent, Beth Crocker moved that the item be tabled. Windell Cullers seconded. Mrs. Crocker said she was concerned about access. The motion to table passed (5-0). The eighth item on the Agenda was a request from Jim Lindsey for clarification of the date on which lot split approvals should be based. Jim Lindsey was present to represent. CLARIFICATION OF LOT SPLIT ORDINANCE - REQUESTED BY JIM LINDSEY 136 A Planning Commission Meeting July 27, 1981 Page 10 The Chairman stated that this item had been before the Commission a couple of times. He stated he had spoken to Jim McCord, City Attorney, on this item and has asked him to attend the meeting. McCord had stated the ordinance should be legally administered in this manner: If there is any evidence in existence that a piece of property was split before 1980 and a£ter,June 29, 1970, we have to count those splits, if there is evidence that there have been splits, they shall be counted on a first-come, first-served basis. Originally, he said the City Manager's Office was proposing counting splits from August 1980. Mort Gitelman stated that if a person bought a lot that had been split, he is entitled to a building permit. As far as counting the number of splits, they should be counted back to 1970 if they can be found. Jim Lindsey addressed the Commission, he stated that he had been on the original committee. At that time he felt that the ordinance would be difficult to administer. The size of the tracts were designed to stop somebody from subdividing. Lindsey said he did not discuss this with Don Grimes, but that he had a piece of land containing 75 acres and that his client wanted to sell 40 acres. He submitted his request in advance of the sale. Lindsey thought the letter from McCord to Bobbie Jones stating the date of administration would be August 1980 would supercede the ordinance date (June 29, 1970). As a result, Lindsey advised a client to buy the parcel thinking he would be able to divide it two more times. Jacks stated that legal precedent indicates that if a person bought a piece of property not understanding that it was part of a piece of property that had been split too many times, that was not cause to not issue a building permit. Lindsey asked if he should advise his client to submit a subdivision plat. Beth Crocker stated that there was a period of time when the lot split ordinance was under different interpretations, she thought that Mr. Lindsey's client probably submitted his request during that period. Bobbie Jones said she had discussed this particular case with McCord. She said she had approved Mr. Lindsey's deed based on what she had understood Mr. McCord to say. She said Mr. McCord knows that due to the misunderstandings involved, a mistake had been made. Lindsey said he believed, at the time, that the base date for lot splits was August, 1980. Jacks stated the enforcement date, according to the City Attorney, is the first date the ordinance appeared on the books, June 29, 1970. If a developer splits a piece of property three times from that date, he is not entitled to split it further without recording a plat. If the property is purchased prior to 19S0; and the purchaser did not know about the lot split ordinance, he cannot be refused a building permit. Beth Crocker stated she had read the memos, and she could see how Mr. Lindsey would have gotten his interpretation. She felt that most of the Commission members felt it had been procedural. Jim Lindsey stated he needed to be sure. He sold a piece of land on which three splits had been done, and was allowed to do another split on the property after the City Attorney talked to the City Manager. The Commission members agreed that the date of enforcement is June 29, 1970. No formal action was taken on Mr. Lindsey's letter. /3'7 Planning Commission Meeting July 27, 1981 Page 11 The ninth item on the Agenda CONDITIONAL USE was a Conditional Use Request HOSPITAL IN C-1 submitted by Jim Lindsey to have a JIM LINDSEY "Hospital" South of the Southwest corner of Highway 265 (Crossover Road) and the new Zion Road. Property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, and R-1 Residential Office District. Jim Lindsey was present to represent. Ernest Jacks asked if adjoining property owners had been notified. Bobbie Jones stated he had been given only the name of Harold Cornish as adjoining the property. Jim Lindsey stated that is correct, that he owns the remaining adjoining property. Lindsey addressed the Commission. He stated the proposal is by Charter Medical Corporation. They build hospitals and psychiatric hospitals. This particular hospital will contain 50-60 beds and will be located on 10 acres of land. A clinic is allowed in both of these zones, but a hospital, as a use by right, is allowed only in A-1. Lindsey felt that with the amount of acreage involved? landscaping, and the semi -rural setting of 265 and Zion, it would be a good setting for the hospital. Bobbie Jones stated that this use is a Conditional Use in R-1 and in C-1. Lindsey stated this hospital will not keep people for long periods of time, but it will not be strictly out patient either. He said he expects the building to be centrally located in the site. Newton Hailey asked if the Commission approves this Conditional Use, if Charter Medical Corporation will go to the state and say they have been approved. Lindsey stated the Medical Corporation would still have to meet state regulations. Windell Cullers moved to grant the Conditional Use. Morton Gitelman seconded. The motion passed (5-0). The next item of business CONDITIONAL USE was a Conditional Use Request submitted PLANT NURSERY by Randall Webb and James F. Freeman RANDALL WEBB to have a "Plant Nursery - Home Garden Supply" West of Highway 71 B (North College Avenue) and South of Longview Street. Property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District and R-1, Low Density Residential District. ("Garden Supply" is a permitted use in C-2 Zoning District; "Plant Nursery" is a conditional use requiring Planning Commission approval in all zoning districts.)' Randall Webb was present to represent. Randall Webb addressed the Commission. He stated that a portion of this property is zoned for the use However, the zoning line splits the existing house in half. Webb stated he would like to use the back portion of the lot for bedding and plat storage. He stated he is attempting to use all of the old house. Beth Crocker asked where the access would be. Randall Webb stated he would prefer to use Longview. Crocker stated she would not be in favor of the request if access is to be off Highway 71. Beth Crocker moved that the Conditional Use be approved subject to access coming from Longview. Windell Cullers seconded. The motion passed (5-0). /19 Planning Commission Meeting July 27, 1981 • Page 12 • Beth Crocker moved that Item 13 be considered at this time and Windell Cullers seconded. The motion passed (5-0). The Thirteenth item on the Agenda was a letter submitted by Sid Noorbakhsh agreeing to table Rezoning Petition R81-11, for more advertised public hearing. This property is located of Porter Road and Sycamore Street and lies East of Highway 71 petition to rezone from R-1, Low Density Residential District, Density Residential District was tabled July 13, 1981. Sid Noorbakhsh was present to represent. Morton Gitelman moved to accept the letter extending the time R81-11 and Newton Hailey seconded. The motion passed (5-0). LETTER FROM SID NOORBAKHSH EXTENDING TIME LIMIT FOR FOR CONSIDERATION OF REZONING PETITION R81-11 than 45 days after the on the Southeast corner By-pass. The to R-2 Medium limit on The next item of business AMENDMENT TO PLANNING AREA (Item 11 on the Agenda) was an JOHNSON/FAYETTEVILLE amendment to the Planning Area boundary between Fayetteville Planning Area and the Johnson Planning Area. First considered by the Planning Commission and recommended for approval on April 13, 1981. On May 19, 1981, the Board of Directors tabled this item so that the Chairman of the Johnson Planning Commission could be contacted about the Wooded Hollow Subdivision area and the area around Swimranch and Salem Road. The City Manager now informs the Planning Office that an agreement has been reached. Bobbie Jones passed out revised maps to the Planning Commission. She stated these maps have approximate boundaries on them. The change consists of a depth of about 660 ft. on the North side of Highway 112 West of the Hush Puppy this area would be kept in the Fayetteville Planning Area. Wooded Hollow Estates and perhaps Forrest Hill will be kept in the Fayetteville Planning Area. Those are the basic changes from what the Planning Commission sent the Board of Directors. Ernest Jacks asked if this was reasonable to the Planning Consultant, Larry Wood. Wood stated it is, and explained that where the map indicates a 3500 ft. dimension, Fayetteville will swap that back to Johnson in favor of the 600 ft. depth along 112 and Wooded Hollow Estates. Windell Cullers moved to recommend to the Board of Directors that they accept this proposal for amendment to the Fayetteville Planning Area Boundary. Beth Crocker seconded. The motion passed (5-0). The next item of business AMENDMENT TO GENERAL LAND was the public hearing on a proposed USE MAP amendment to the General Land Use Plan for the area generally described as lying West of Garland Avenue, North of Wedington Drive, South of Moore Lane, and East of Bird Haven Terrace and Giles Addition, tabled July 13, 1981. Beth Crocker stated she would propose a policy statement. She stated she could see both arguments. Not much has happened in this area as far as development. Planning Commission Meeting July 27, 1981 Page 13 Property owners in the area are caught in a bind; they don't know what's going in; and they are scared to build. They are scared to invest in single-family dwellings as you don't see many newer dwellings. Crocker said she is stuck. She felt that eventually, density ought to be increased in that area. However, she was not sure the present zoning takes care of what she would like to see go in that area. She felt a "bridge" should be developed between R-1 and R-2. She suggested something on the line of 12 families per acre. She did not think the single family areas could survive if apartments are constructed. She thought something along the line of townhouses no larger than a quadraplex. She felt the single family could exist with something along that line going in. Jacks said his main concern was the extent of the R-2, which was proposed in the original amendment. Jacks felt that Ms. Crocker's point was well taken. He stated there are large areas of undeveloped land out in this area and he felt it would probably stay that way for awhile. Cullers stated it is not unusual to have older homes on large tracts of land. He did not feel that had anything to do with the fact that it ought to be zoned R-2. Windell did not feel that the massive size of the proposed R-2 was in keeping with what the Planning Commission has done in the past Beth said something needs to be implemented that says apartments will not go in, that the development will be less intense. Hailey said he would like to see a verbal description of what's going to be going in the area. Hailey left the proceedings at 7:03, P.M. Windell Cullers moved that the proceedings be adjourned as there was no quorum present. Beth Crocker suggested putting items 4, 5, and 12 on the Agenda for the second meeting in August (August 24, 1981) as she will not be able to attend the August 10, 1981 meeting. Item 7 will be put on the next Agenda. Morton Gitelman stated he would not be present on August 10. There being no further business, and no quorum present to vote on Cullers' motion to adjourn, the meeting adjourned at 7:05, P.M. /go ,