Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-03-22 Minutes• MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at 5:00 P.M., Monday, March 22, 1982 in the Director's Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ernest Jacks, Morton Gitelman, Newton Hailey, Julie Nash, Barbara Crook, David Williams, Don Hunnicutt, Melanie Stockdell, Windell Cullers. MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: None. Dorothy Black, Christine Merton, Dale Christy, Roy Cordeen, Carl Osborn, Gerald Ward, Bill Laningham, Steve Wilcox, Charles Finn, Linda Fairchild, Claire Wizmond, Cynthia Stewart, Bobbie Jones, others. The first item of business was the MINUTES approval of the minutes of the March 8, 1982 meeting of the Planning Commission. Jacks asked that Page 4 of the minutes be changed, where they read: "at Director Sharps urging, the Landscape Committee went to the Parks and Recreation Board and discussed", the minutes should read: "At Director Sharp's urging, the Landscape Committee sent a letter to the Parks and Recreation Board addressing". The Landscape Committee did not meet with the Parks and Recreation Board, however they may in the future. Don Hunnicutt requested that he be shown as absent. With those corrections, the minutes were approved. The next item of business was the Public Hearing on Rezoning Petition R82-4, Lois Stratton, to rezone property located North of Highway 62 West, REZONING PETITION R82-4 LOIS STRATTON ONE MILE ROAD East of One Mile Road, and South of Velda Court from A+1, Agricultural District, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. There was no one present to represent. The Chairman asked the Planning Consultant to give his report. Larry Wood stated he is not recommending the requested C-1, but recommends R-0 District for the following reasons: 1. The property under application sides onto and faces single-family development, Wood felt it should be protected from abrupt commercial intrusion. 2. There should be a transition from residential to commercial consisting of less intensive uses such as offices, apartments or duplexes. 3. Wood felt the establishment of a transition use will discourage further expansion of commercial North into the residential. - Since there was no onepresent in the audience to represent the petition, the Chairman asked for comments in opposition to the petition. 3! Planning Commission Meeting March 22, 1982 Page 2 Dorothy Black, 1020 One Mile Road, addressed the Commission. She stated she is speaking for herself and her neighbors. They oppose the C-2 zoning requested because it would disrupt the single family neighborhood with noise, and traffic. She felt the commercial was just too close to their homes. Christine Merton, 3640 Old Farmington Road, addressed the Commission. She felt the rezoning of the subject property would change the nature of the neighborhood. Bobbie Jones stated the petitioners own property to the South and the East.in line with the North property line of the tract in question. She stated this is a little nitch out of the other properties owned by the petitioner that is not already zoned C-2. This is a small portion of property which is included in a larger development plan. This property is the North 112 ft. of that development. Windell Cullers stated that if the petitioner's stay with their approved plan, he did not see how rezoning this property would hurt. Larry Wood said he had discussed his recommendation with the petitioner the petitioner did not feel the recommendation was good planning as far as a commercial complex. Wood said in zoning principles, you try to avoid an abrupt change from commercial to residential. He was concerned about the residential property in this area as well as other residential properties close to the commercial properties along 62 West. He felt this particular question will come up several times while Highway 62 West is being developed. Cullers said that the development plan could be accomplished with different uses at the rear portion of the development from commercial uses Wood asked Ms. Jones if a setback requirement would be imposed within the development from R-0 to C-2. Bobbie Jones said she would not if the uses proposed were permitted in both zones. David Williams moved the rezoning petition be denied based on zoning principle and the opposition of the neighbors. Morton Gitelman seconded. Williams stated he would not recommend the R-0 zoning since he could not speak for the petitioner. The motion passed (8-1) with Gitelman, Crook, Hunnicutt, Williams, Jacks, Stockdell, Nash and Hailey voting "Aye" and Windell Cullers voting "Nay". Jacks stated the petitioners have the right of appeal to the Board of Directors. The next item of business was the REZONING PETITION R82-3 Public Hearing on Rezoning Petition R82-3, CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE City of Fayetteville to rezone property HIGHWAY 16 EAST BYPASS located North of Highway 16 Bypass, West of Curtis Avenue, and East of Shenandoah Mobile Home Park from R-0, Residential Office District, to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District or C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Dale Christy was present to represent. The Chairman asked for a report from the Planning Consultant. Larry Wood stated he is not recommending C-1 or C-2 but the retention of the present zoning; R-0. He stated this is his recommendation for basically one reason, the transition of land use. In 1974, the Planning Commission undertook a zoning study of this area and a larger area to the North and East. As a result, the General Plan was amended to recommend expansion of commercial South of Huntsville Road, along Happy Hollow Road. The amendment also established a land use transition and buffering by recommending service commercial on the property East of Curtis. 32 33� 1 • • Planning Commission Meeting March 22, 1982 Page 3 In 1975, this property was under application for C-1, at that time the Commission approved C-1 for everything East of Curtis and R-0 West of Curtis staying with the concept of C-2 for Happy Hollow Road, C-1 East of Curtis and R-0 West of Curtis, R-2 at the Mobile Home Park. Wood said he still thinks that zoning pattern is valid and recommended the Commission consider staying with the R-0. The Chairman opened the Public Hearing and asked for comments from the audience in favor of the petition. Dale Christy stated he represents the Industrial Park Commission which has the responsibility of marketing property in the Industrial Park. This property is a small area North of Highway 16 Bypass that does not belong to the Industrial Park. He said the commercial designation of all the property East of this property, but not this property has caused problems in marketing the property. There is a proposed buyer for the tract. Christy asked the Commission to recall that the property East of Curtis and this property were at one time, one piece of land. After giving right-of-way for Curtis, the property was split intwo.by Curtis. The zoning of the property has made it difficult to find a buyer for it. Christy said he would appreciate the Commission's consideration of C-1 zoning for the entire tract. Jacks asked if there was anyone present in the audience appearing in opposition to the request. Roy Cordeen, 1400 East 15th Street, addressed the Commission. He stated he owns the Mobile Home Park adjacent to this property. He said at this point, he is neither for or against the petition. He said he would like to know the proposed use of the property if the requested zoning is granted. Christy stated the purchaser wishes to locate a convenience grocery store there. Cordeen said he felt this would be a high and good use for the property. He wondered if as a condition of approval a privacy wall could be required between the store and his mobile home park. Jacks stated the ordinance provides for screening between Commercial and Residential uses. Cordeen stated he would not oppose a convenience store at this location, but would oppose some uses that could be located there. Jacks reminded Mr. Cordeen that if the property is rezoned to commercial there is a whole lot of uses that could come under that zoning. The petitioner will have to offer restrictions in order to be sure what will go there. Christy stated the petitioner would offer a bill of assurance that only a convenience store would be located on the tract. Windell Cullers moved that C-1 Zoning be recommended to the Board for approval with the stipulation that the property will be used for a convenience store, gas pumps and a car wash. Newton Hailey seconded. The motion passed unanimously (9-0). The next item of business was a request submitted by Jim Rose III, to have a public hearing on a petition to rezone property within less than 12 months ' REQUEST FOR REPETITION REZONING PETITION R81-14 JIM ROSE III from date of previous denial for property on the NE corner of Highway 265 (Crossover Road) and Highway 16 East (Huntsville Road). Petitionl;R81-14 to rezone from R-1 to C-1 was denied by the Planning Commission September 28, 1981, petitioner appealed to the Board of Directors; Board of Directors passed Ordinance 2773, November 3, 1981, rezoning property to Planning Commission Meeting March 23, 1982 Page 4 C-1. Jim Rose, III was present to represent. Jacks stated the petitioner should show some factual error, ommission, or change of some sort in order to justify a rehearing before the 12 months has elapsed. Bobbie Jones stated a new petition will have to be processed if permission for rehearing is granted. Jacks said the Commission objected to the petition when previously considered because of traffic hazards, flood plain problems and site distance problems. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked for comments in favor of the petition. Jim Rose addressed the Commission. He stated this is a request to resubmit a petition. In his request he outlined some specific items that might be considered applicable changes as far as the commission agreeing to rehear the petition in less than 12 months. 1. The petition was not denied outright, the Board granted C-1 zoning. 2. Ownership of the property has changed. 3. The owners of the property have been working with Harold Lieberenz in trying • to alleviate the flood plain problems. Site work is being performed. 4. The size of the tract requested for rezoning is substantially smaller than the site under petition last year. Instead of requesting rezoning of the entire 3.16 acre tract, the petitioner requests rezoning of the corner piece of property which will be about 170 ft. by 250 ft. • • (SaGARDM & WEAN 6)&0=4[G9i' David Williams moved the 12 month waiting period be waived and that the Commission rehear the petition. Don Hunnicutt seconded. The Chairman asked for comments from the audience. Carl Osborn, 1216 Stephens, addressed the Commission. He stated he represents the estate of Gladys Spillars. He said he is in opposition to the rehearing. He did not feel that change of ownership is relevant to rehearing the petition. He stated that even though a smaller area is proposed than in the previous petition, this portion of the property appears to be the only piece on the entire tract that can be utilized, there are two branches that criss cross the property making most of it impossible to develop. Also, he felt that realistically, there is only one place to enter the property from the road for any type of business. As far as extensive land fill work being preformed:on the site, he did not feel that fill work would alleviate the flood plain problems. Gerald Ward, 2598 East Huntsville Road, addressed the Commission. He stated it is his understanding that the owners of the property have interest in liquor stores around town, and he felt if the property is zoned C-2, a liquor store will be located on the property. He stated he did not want to see a liquor store on this property. Bill Laningham, 660 South Crossover Road addressed the Commission. He stated he is opposed to the rehearing of the petition for the same reasons as Mr. Ward, he does not want to see a liquor store located on the property. • • Planning Commission Meeting March 22, 1982 Page 5 B. B. Glass stated he is a property owner across the street to the South and that he would be opposed to a liquor store being located on the property also. Jacks said a special study had been performed by Larry Wood on this area and the recommendation was R-0 District. The Commission did not want either highway stripped commercial. Also, the flooding, -access and site distance problems at this location are considerations. Morton Gitelman stated that normally, he would not be opposed to a rehearing or resubmission. However, Gitelman stated in his memory, each application for C-2 on Highway 16 East has always raised the liquor store problem. This Planning Commission has never rezoned more intense than C-1 in this area for that reason. The Board of Directors granted C-1 zoning for this tract, he did not think the Board's feelings had changed. Cullers stated he would have to vote against the rehearing because, he felt it is unfair to make people have to look at the paper and come down to rehear this request when the ordinance specifically states that there shall be a 12 month waiting period for resubmission. Hunnicutt stated his major reason for being in favor of rehearing the petition:is that the property has changed ownership. He did not feel the presentiowner should be made to wait because of what a previous owner has done. Rose stated he has no idea of the intended use for the property, the owners have not discussed this with him. Rose said he would like to point out that this is merely a request for a waiver of the 12 month waiting period for resubmission, the arguments raised tonight can be raised again when another petition is submitted. Williams stated he is sympathetic with the granting of the waiver for basically the same reasons pointed out by Don Hunnicutt. He felt there is a deficiency in the ordinance. The Commission is not protected from property changing hands, nor is the landowner protected if he has a new plan. However, he felt this is a little different from a repeat of a former petition. The motion to rehear the petition failed to pass (2-7) with Hunnicutt and Williams casting the "Aye" votes and Gitelman, Crook, Jacks, Stockdell, Cullers, Nash and Hailey casting the "Nay" votes. The next item of business VARIANCE MINIMUM LOT SIZE was a request for a variance from FOR LOT SPLIT the lot size requirement applicable STEVE WILCOX to a lot split submitted by Steve Wilcox for property South of Wheeler (outside City Limits but within the Fayetteville Planned Growth Area). Steve Wilcox was present to represent. There was some discussion about the location of the property. Wilcox addressed the Commission. He stated he was not aware of the lot split ordinance nor that his property was located in the Growth Area.when he purchased it. In a conversation with someone he had learned about the lot split ordinance and proceeded to get his property in order and subsequently found himself requesting the waiver. Crook asked why the 20 ft easement was not extended to the East when the property was split. She felt access to the back portion of the remaining property may be awkward. Cullers stated if the property is ever split again, access would be a 1 • • Planning Commission Meeting March 22, 1982 Page 6 condition of approval. Newton Hailey moved the variance be approved. Windell Cullers seconded. Charles Finn addressed the Commission. He stated he sold the property from which this property was split to Turner's. He is being charged $105.00 for parks as provided in the green space ordinance. Finn said that in researching the ordinance, he could not find where this ordinance applies to parcels of land in the growth area. Bobbie Jones stated there is an amendment to the ordinance which is not codified in the code books yet making the green space provisions applicable to parcels in the growth area (ordinance 2755 dated September 1, 19811 Finn stated the amendment was passed 10 days prior to the sale of the property. He asked about a waiver. Bobbie Jones stated there is an appeal procedure through the Board of Directors. The motion to grant the variance from minimum lot size for a lot split was unanimous (9-0). The next item for consideration AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE TO was the public hearing to consider ALLOW ANTIQUE SALES IN an amendment to allow an antique R-0 shop as a permitted use in the R-0, Residential -Office District. The Chairman opened the Public Hearing and asked for comments in favor of the amendment. Linda Fairchild addressed the Commission in favor of the amendment. She stated that she really is not interested in an antique store in R-0, but rather a stained glass/handicraft shop with about 5% antique sales. She said she understood that the Commission was concerned about allowing antique sales in R-0 because of the storage of junk outside the shop. She assured the Commission that would not occur if she is allowed to operate her use. David Williams asked if people will be making the craft products. Fairchild stated she would be the only artist. Williams asked if this could be called a studio. Jacks stated the manufacturing portion of the operation could be considered a studio. Bobbie Jones stated she has approved another stained glass shop in R-0 where classes were given and the craft person works in the shop as a studio However, that person does not deal in antiques. The matter of antique sales is why the Commission is considering this. Hunnicutt stated that an antique store is a pretty broad term. Jacks stated he hated to introduce an activity like this into the R-0. Changing the ordinance is being considered, which could apply to anyone down the line. Cullers stated that R-0 is becoming a catch all He said he would rather not change the ordinance and wondered about a conditional use. Bobbie Jones stated the ordinance would have to be changed to allow this use as a conditional use in R-0. Jacks asked if this use could be interpreted as a studio. Bobbie Jones stated that it could be if antique sales are not carried on with the use. Any sign should not bear any reference to antique sales Claire Wizmond, 1923 Woodland, addressed the Commission. She stated that she lives close to the residential office district zoning. She failed to see why the Commission has a residential office district if that is not what they are going to use it for. She said the Green Acres Pharmacy is a regular drug store. Noc«d �r W' �, ; }QqnYry �355,poi i Planning Commission Meeting March 22, 1982 Page 7 Jacks said he had questioned himself whether there is nothing sold there but medicines. Ms. Wizmond stated when you drive up to the drug store, the first thing you see is hog hats for sale. She stated she has complained about this through the Planning Office and had also discussed it with the City Attorney, but so far, nothing has been done about it. Jacks said that the Commission is going to study the ordinance and that the R-0 Zoning is one of the things that will be updated. He said actually, R-0 has changed completely from what it was originally intended to do. Windell Cullers moved that no amendment be made to the ordinance to allow antique sales in R-0. Morton Gitelman seconded. He stated he felt it was terrible planning practice to have a permitted use in two different use units. Crook felt that antique sales belong in Use Unit 16. The motion passed (9-0). Bobbie Jones stated she could approve the studio use and the sale of items made within that studio in an R-0 District. The next item of business was EXTENSION OF PRELIMINARY a request submitted by Tom Mathias PLAT APPROVAL for a one year extension on the HAPPY'HOLLOW SUBDIVISION preliminary plat approval of the Happy Hollow Subdivision. There was no one present to represent. Newton Hailey moved to give a one year extension on the preliminary plat approval for Happy Hollow Subdivision. Windell Cullers seconded. The motion passed (9-0). Under other business, OTHER BUSINESS the Commission considered the revised site plan of the Large Scale Development Plan for Charter Vista Hospital. Bobbie Jones stated the developers wish to change the future expansion to the immediate construction, as they feel it would be the least disruptive way to develop the site. They also intend to change the angle of the structure. This pulls the closest point of the structure from 150 ft. to 195 ft. from the South property line. However, the 195 ft. will be the whole face of the structure, where only a corner of the structure would have been 150 ft. away.from the South property line. She felt because of this particular alteration, that she should get the Planning Commission's input. Hunnicutt stated that it should be stipulated that the setback from the South property line will be 190 ft. with the revision. There being no action required, the Planning;.Commission went on to the next consideration. Jacks stated there has been money allocated AMENDMENT TO GENERAL PLAN' for the updating of the plan. Larry Wood and he discussed it and Wood felt that the Commission should begin scheduling meetings of the whole commission to discuss possible changes. Once there is input, committees can be formed to work with Larry Wood. Bobbie Jones stated she had asked the Board of Adjustment to send some written 36 • Planning Commission Meeting March 22, 1982 Page 8 comments on to the Planning Commission. Jacks asked this be made an item on the next agenda to schedule the aforementioned meetings. Hailey asked that consideration MEETING TIME CHANGE of changing the meeting time of the FOR PLANNING COMMISSION • Planning Commission from 5:00 P.M. to CO 4:00 P.M. be made an item on the 0 U next agenda. tcp Windell Cullers asked that AMENDMENT TO • a report from the Committee consisting ZONING ORDINANCE 0.7 of himself and Morton Gitelman concerning C3 the amendment of the ordinance to allow E improvement of lots and houses created or constructed to standards prior to the • present requirements be placed on the next agenda. Cri Qn. . ED' There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:05 P.M. 0 0 0 • c U3 U3 c7 U 3?