Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-07-12 Minutes:41 MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ' A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at 5:00 P.M., Monday, July 12, 1982 in the Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ernest Jacks, Morton Gitelman, Barbara Crook, Don Hunnicutt, David Williams, Windell Cullers, Julie Nash, Newton Hailey, Jr. MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Melanie Stockdell Tom Hopper, Carl Russell, Mark Jackson, Wilford Osburn, Alice Payton, Marge Bury, Mike Rush, Larry Wood, Bobbie Jones, Suzanne Kennedy, members of the press and others. Barbara Crook asked for a correction to the Planning MINUTES Commission Minutes of June 28, 1982 on page three, paragraph 6, that the words "she does not see that we need a time limit" be changed to read "a time limit would cause a hardship. With this correction, the Minutes were approved. The next item on the agenda was consideration of approval of the preliminary plat of Mud Creek Addition, Unit 1, located south of Stearns Street, north of Sain Street and east of Highway 71 North; Arkansas Western Realty, owner and developer. Property zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Tom Hopper was present to represent Crafton, Tull and Associates, Engineers. Mr. Hopper informed the Commission members that he had turned in his notification of adjacent property owners to Bobbie Jones of the Planning Office. He said he had been unable to contact Ralph Goff and the receipt on the certified letter to Mr. Goff had still not been returned. Don Hunnicutt, Chairman of the Subdivision Committee, reported that the Committee at their meeting on July 9 had reviewed the preliminary plat and he moved to recommend approval with the stipulation this be subject to Plat Review comments and that the 13 street lights shown be spaced as evenly as possible, along with the understanding that an additional light will be installed at the end of Joyce Street at such time as the surrounding land is developed. The motion was seconded by Barbara Crook. Bobbie Jones wanted to clarify that the motion did not include any recommendation in regards to the vacation of the Sain Street right-of-way. She said that Tom Hopper was asked at the Subdivision Committee meeting to submit a written request and description of the portion of Sain Street he wishes to have vacated. The motion passed, 7-0. PRELIMINARY PLAT MUD CREEK ADDITION, UNIT 1 COLLEGE AVENUE F STEARNS STREET ARKANSAS WESTERN REALTY • • • Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1982 Page Two The next item for consideration was PRODUCTION CREDIT ASSOCIATION the approval of the Large Scale Development AND FEDERAL LAND BANK Plan for Production Credit Association and OFFICE BUILDING Federal Land Bank located west of Highway COLLEGE AVE $ MILLSAP ROAD 71 North, south of Highway 71 Bypass and north of the new service road; Production Credit Association and Federal Land Bank, owner and developer. Property zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Don Hunnicutt, speaking as Chairman of the Subdivision Committee, moved to approve the Large Scale Development Plan for Production Credit Association and Federal Land Bank as submitted, subject to Plat Review comments. The motion was seconded by Barbara Crook. Bobbie Jones said that she has prepared a memo to David McWethy, Assistant City Manager, asking for clarification of two items: (1) When the City named the 71 Bypass the Fulbright Expressway, they named the service roads to the west Shiloh Drive and the service roads to the east Futrall Drive. She is asking for clarification about whether Front Street between Stearns and Millsap and Frontage Road between Stearns and Zion were also intended to be changed to Futrall Drive, as this is not clear on our maps; and whether the portion of new street constructed in Steele Addition should be Futrall or Millsap; (2) Clarification of the Master Sidewalk Plan requirement for sidewalks on both sides of College north of Millsap Road intersection. The motion passed, 7-0. Newton Hailey, Jr., arrived at 5:07 P.M. The next item of business was a public REZONING PETITION R82-10 hearing on Rezoning Petition R82-10, Wilford 2818 W. SIXTH STREET and Serene Osburn, to rezone property WILFORD AND SERENE OSBURN located north of Highway 62 West and west of Oak Road, 2818 W. Sixth Street, from A-1, Agricultural District to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Larry Wood (who prepared the Rezoning Application Planning Report attached to the agenda) recommended the consideration of a change in zoning to C-2 for the following reasons: 1) The C-2 District is consistent with the General Plan as currently adopted recommending commercial use in this location; 2) There are water, sewer and public facilities necessary to support more intensive development; and 3) C-2 District is consistent with the nature of land use around the general area of Highway 62 West. Barbara Crook asked if there was some reason for no buffer being in existence between a C-2 and an R-1 District in this case. Larry Wood said this is a backing situation as opposed to the case further west where it was a siding situation. The next best thing to a buffer is a back-to-back situation. There is not enough depth in the land left between the platted property and Highway 62 to have both commercial and a transition. Ernest Jacks asked for comments from anyone in the audience in favor of the rezoning. The owner of the property in question, Wilford Osburn, said that he was also the owner of Lot 11 to the north which he states is a buffer between R-1 and the property in question. He said that Lot 11 is vacant. He lives on the lot that faces 62 West. Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1982 Page Three There was no one present to speak in opposition to the rezoning request. Morton Gitelman moved to recommend to the Board of Directors that the rezoning request of 2818 West Sixth Street from A-1, Agricultural District to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District be approved. The motion was seconded by Newton Hailey, Jr., and passed, 8-0. Bobbie Jones told Mr. Osburn that his rezoning petition must go before the Board of Directors at their meeting, Tuesday, July 20, at 7:30 P.M. The next item of business was CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST consideration of a conditional use request CHILD CARE submitted by LoVina Payton to have child 407 RED WING CIRCLE care for ten or more children in her home LO VINA PAYTON at 407 Red Wing Circle, zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District.. Bobbie Jones quoted from the City Code of Ordinances that there is a limitation of ten children for child care to be permitted in an R-1 District, although Ms. Payton's application does ask for permission to have ten or more children in her home. Bobbie Jones said that it was her understanding that all adjacent property owners had been notified. Alice Payton spoke on her mother's behalf and said that her mother, LoVina Payton, was on vacation. She said that her mother had a lot of help with the child care in the home (Alice and her sister, Dee). Marge Bury, a neighbor of Ms. Payton's, spoke in favor of the request. She said that the children are being cared for by two adult daughters of Ms'..Payton, ages 18 and 19, while Ms. Payton was on vacation. She said that several other neighbors were present at the meeting who are in favor of having the conditional use granted. She said that she leaves both of her children with Ms. Payton on a drop-in basis, and she can't think of any reason they shouldn't have their request granted. Another neighbor spoke from the audience and said that Ms. Payton takes good care of his son. Ernest Jacks said that the Planning Office had received a complaint from Mike Rush, one of Ms. Payton's neighbors, that children were getting out of Ms. Payton's yard and running around. According to the Planning Office, Mr. Rush said her home is near a very busy highway and that he was concerned for the children's welfare and believes Ms. Payton is keeping more children than originally requested and does not feel the children are receiving adequate supervision. Chairman Jacks asked for comments from anyone who wished to speak in opposition of the request. One of Ms. Payton's neighbors stated that he understands the incident referred to by Mr. Jacks involved a child who lives in the area and is normally allowed, when his parents are home, to go where he wants to. Mr. Jacks asked Alice Payton if Ms. Payton was aware that she is limited to caring for a maximum of ten children. Alice Payton stated that they have had up to 13 children, including drop -ins and other neighbor children who play with children at Ms. Payton's. 100 • • Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1982 Page Four Marge Bury said she believes Ms. Payton has allowed a certain number of regular children who are there for 8 hours each day or more and allows so many drop -ins who do not stay on a full-time basis. Bobbie Jones pointed out that, if Ms. Payton is keeping more than six children, she must obtain a license through the State, and for more than ten children receiving meals, she must have State Health Department approval. She also stressed that these State regulations do not apply to our consideration of the conditional use request. Mike Rush, who lives next door to Ms. Payton, said that he had made the telephone call which was reported by the Planning Office. He said that he and his wife have lived next door to Ms. Payton since before the original day care facility began in March of 1981. He said he is in favor of the conditional use request being granted, but he has questions to ask of the Planning Commission. He said he does not hold the Paytons liable for things he has seen as much as he holds the Planning Commission liable for approving the use of the property. He asked the Commission members if they had advised Ms. Payton to seek licensing through Washington County Social Services. Windell Cullers said that the Commission did not have to. Mr. Rush asked if the Commission had asked the Fire Department to inspect Ms. Payton's home. Alice Payton said that the home did have a fire extinguisher within easy reach. Ernest Jacks said that the Commission did not read Ms. Payton a bill of particulars. Mr. Rush stated that there have been more than ten children being cared for in Ms. Payton's home, and that this evening he knew of seven who were playing in the back yard unattended Alice Payton said that the children are not unattended; she said that because of the need to care for infants inside the house, sometimes the children playing in the yard are watched through the patio doors of the house by the adults inside the house. Mr. Rush asked the Commission if there is any follow-up regarding the limitation of ten children. He was told there was not, unless a complaint is filed. Mr. Rush said he is opposed to a blatant granting of approval when it involves the care of young children, when there is no follow-up or advising as to care. He is requesting that the day care be licensed by Washington County Social Services. Alice Payton said that her mother had attempted to obtain a license but that she was told that it would only be granted if there were a maximum of two children under the age of two. David Williams stated that he thinks the points being raised are citizen issues, and that the Planning Commission has jurisdiction over certain issues such as: 250 square feet minimum lot area per child; minimum outdoor play space of 80 square feet per child; a maximum of ten children allowable in the R-1 District; other things such as automotive and pedestrian guidelines which are automatically met within an R-1 District; or safety and emergency access guidelines normal for an R-1 District. Mr. Williams said these items check out, and he doesn't see any other issues the Planning Commission has jurisdiction over. Other items which are not under our jurisdiction can be referred to whichever proper authorities deal with them 10\ • • Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1982 Page Five Ernest Jacks stated that it wouldn't be possible for the Planning Commission to follow up on every change or approval they grant, and must depend on other channels of City government, and thus have to consider certain items on a routine complaint basis. David Williams brought up the fact that it is possible that some action taken by the Planning Commission does automatically put a routine fire inspection into effect. Bobbie Jones said that when a conditional use request is approved, the first step would be to obtain a certificate of occupancy, and the approval for this conditional use would not be valid until clearance is given through a fire inspection and a building inspection. She also said that the State or the county would not issue their licenses without a certificate of occupancy. She said that the inspection would cover things such as obvious physical hazards to children, open flame heaters and dangerous wiring situations. David Williams moved the approval of the conditional use request submitted by LoVina Payton to have child care in her home. The motion was seconded by Morton Gitelman. Julie Nash suggested the request needs to be reworded since it asks for approval for ten or more children. Bobbie Jones brought up the fact that approval had been granted last year with stipulated hours of from 6:30 A.M. to 5:30 P.M. and for a limited time of one year. David Williams said that he would agree to include the limited time of one year which was previously set and that the hours of operation be from 6:30 A.M. to 5:30 P.M. He said he did not intend approval for more than ten children since the Commission cannot approve more than ten. Bobbie Jones pointed out that the time limit of approval for one year was not necessarily a requirement. Morton Gitelman suggested thatit could be expensive for persons to come back every year for approval, and to have to notify adjacent property owners each time. He suggested that we could leave off the time limit and then, if there were complaints or problems, the Planning Commission could review it again. One of the neighbors stated that there are children being kept by Ms. Payton past 5:30 P.M., that having over 10 children was not a daily occurrence nor did they have up to ten children every day. Ernest Jacks explained that there should be some limit set on the amount of children being kept for day care in a residential area and the Planning Commission wouldn't want to grant a 24-hour babysitting service. One of the neighbors said that at times Ms. Payton does provide babysitting at night. Alice Payton said that Ms. Payton provides night babysitting both outside of and in her home for more than one child at a time. It was generally agreed, after further discussion, that babysitting in the home exists in the evenings in all residential neighborhoods and that this issue was not relevant to the request being considered. David Williams then stated he really had intended to stipulate the hours from 6:30 A.M. until 6:00 P.M. David Williams restated his motion as follows: Moved to approve the conditional use request by LoVina Payton to have child care for up to a maximum of ten children in her home at 407 Red Wing Circle, between the hours of 6:30 A.M. through 6:00 P.M. 02 Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1982 Page Six In response to a question from one of the neighbors, it was clarified that a rezoning application to allow more than ten children would most likely not be approved for child care in an R-1 neighborhood such as Ms. Payton's. Windell Cullers said that he would not vote in favor of approval of the request without a time limit of a year. He said his reason would be based on the fact that a neighbor could come back with a complaint three months from now, and he wonders if the Planning Commission would hear the complaint. Bobbie Jones explained that the Planning Office would ask for a written, signed complaint and would then turn it over to the City Prosecutor if the complaint cannot be visually confirmed from the street by the Planning Office. Windell Cullers said he thinks the Planning Commission should grant the approval but it should not be incumbent upon the neighbors to close the child care down if they have a complaint. He said that he thought it should be up to Ms. Payton to prove that she is in compliance. He said that it was his feeling that a conditional use should be conditional for some period of time. Barbara Crook said she thought the expense of having to come back each year for approval was enough reason to approve the request without a time limit, unless there is a complaint. Windell Cullers pointed out that Mr Rush's complaint was before the Commission now. Don Hunnicutt said the Planning Commission would probably not agree to hear a complaint from Mr. Rush again. The motion passed, 7-1, with Windell Cullers voting "nay". A member of the audience asked if the action of the Planning Commission meant that other children cannot play in Ms. Payton's yard if she is keeping ten children already. Ernest Jacks stated that the law does not speak to that issue. Morton Gitelman said it depends on whether she is being paid for the children being there. David Williams stated that that issue should be decided by proper authorities who monitor the health and welfare of children. Bobbie Jones said that the Certificate of Occupancy should be obtained within ten days to two weeks. Ernest Jacks said that he and Larry GROWTH AREA ZONING REPORT Wood had attended a County Planning Board meeting at which zoning for the Growth Area was discussed on a simple basis of four districts: Agricultural, Residential, Commercial and Industrial. He said that the question came up about the City requirement for 111 acres for any septic tank installation. Ernest Jacks said that he stated at the meeting that it seemed everybody at the City was happy with the 11 acre limitation. He said he thinks the County may decide to use that limitation. He asked Larry Wood to speak about what happened at the meeting after he had left. Larry Wood said the ordinance has a minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet in a Residential District. He said the question was not resolved when he left the meeting regarding all the other public facility type uses included in the districts as permitted uses. Apparently there had been a citizen complaint about not wanting all those uses. Bobbie Jones said that the 11 acres is in our subdivision regulations for any lot not on public sewer. The zoning ordinance permits smaller size lots in most districts. It depends on the date the lot was created and whether or not there is public sewer. 103 • Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1982 Page Seven The next item of business was consideration of a request submitted by Mark Jackson, President for American Biofuels, for variance or extension on paving of the parking area at 1860 Pump Station Road. Chairman Ernest Jacks read the letter of request submitted by Mr. Jackson. Mr. Jackson was present to represent American Biofuels. He stated that the company's financial problems make it impossible for them to pave the parking area now. David Williams moved approval of an extension on paving the parking area of American Biofuels until the property is sold and at such time as the sale is completed, that the parking requirement then be met. Bobbie Jones stated that if there is an existing commercial building the City would not recalculate the parking; if the motion is tied to either occupancy or sale, it would be agreeable to Mr. Jackson. David Williams said that he would reword his motion to approve an extension on paving the parking area of American Biofuels, but that the parking requirement be met at such time as the building is occupied or sold. The motion was seconded by Julie Nash and passed, 8-0. REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OR EXTENSION ON PAVING PARKING AREA 1860 PUMP STATION ROAD AMERICAN BIOFUELS OTHER BUSINESS The first item of Other Business ACCESS STREETS OFF ZION ROAD to be considered was a memo written on MEMO FROM CITY MANAGER July 7 to Chairman Ernest Jacks and the Planning Commission regarding access streets off of Zion Road. The memo was written by City Manager Grimes to indicate the desire of the City Board of Directors to see more access streets developed off Zion Road, to the south. The memo was read Mr. Jacks stated that he thought the Commission should ask Larry Wood to conduct a study on a collector road between Zion and Joyce Street. Bobbie Jones said there is a street extension begun near the Doctors Building but only a SO foot right-of-way. The next item of Other Business was a GENERAL PLAN report from Chairman Ernest Jacks regarding the possible update of the City's General Plan vs. the total revamping of the Plan. Jacks said that he had had a conversation on this subject with Jim Vizzier and Mayor Noland. He said the Planning Commission had started out with an update which kept growing broader because there were so many new members who weren't comfortable with the Plan as it was. He stated that there is approximately $10,000.00 allocated this year for the update and a promise of a similar amount for next year. Jacks said that Jim Vizzier had been talking to the City Board about an overall new Plan, and had come to the Planning Commission concerned that if we pursued only an update that this might jeopardize the possible revamping of the Plan. Mayor Noland didn't think the Board understood all that was involved and suggested a joint committee be appointed from the Board and the Planning Commission. • • • Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1982 Page Eight Julie Nash pointed out that the motion made by the Planning Commission when they last considered this item was to ask the City Board to consider Jim Vizzier's proposal along with any others that might come before the Board. Newton Hailey asked, if the existing Plan is merely updated, whether data that is no longer valid would be brought up to date. Larry Wood said that, if he did an update, it would be based on the 1980 census. He said he would not go into great depth in the update, but that basic population figures would be changed. Barbara Crook said that she had tried to compare Jim Vizzier's proposal with what we already had and felt they were similar except for the following differences: (1) Jim Vizzier planned to base his new Plan on updated studies (2) Jim Vizzier suggested a series of neighborhood studies be done She said that the main differences seemed to be in how much background study might be done before the updating was done on subdivisions and zoning David Williams suggested we ask both Jim Vizzier and Larry Wood to show us how much they can offer within our $10,000.00 budgeted this year and $10,000.00 next year. Ernest Jacks asked who would draw up a document to that effect. David Williams suggested this be done by Chairman Jacks. Ernest Jacks said that he just assumed the work would be done by Larry Wood but there seems to be a feeling that the Planning Commission is not looking enough at the total marketplace for getting the work done. Don Hunnicutt suggested the Planning Commission needs to have some defined criteria to be met. David Williams suggested 1) the Commission try to define its criteria and 2) build on the planning process and expand the staff. A member of the media stated that it was his observation that the Board of Directors wants to know from the Planning Commission how dissatisfied they are with the present Plan; do they want a major overhaul or do they just want it tinkered with. Windell Cullers said that he was not that dissatisfied with the Plan. Don Hunnicutt said that he did not think we would have that much to gain with a new plan. Ernest Jacks said that he felt the same way. Barbara Crook said that she thought the Planning Commission ought to be able to decide just what they want done. Julie Nash pointed out that it is up to the City Board to make decisions on hiring staff or people to do the study. Mort Gitelman suggested we ask Jim Vizzier to tell us what he thinks we need and how much it would cost. Bobbie Jones said she had heard concern expressed that neighborhood studies might be self-perpetuating. Ernest Jacks asked the Commission members if he should contact Jim Vizzier tomorrow about presenting us with a more detailed work program Julie Nash said that she did not think Mr. Vizzier's work program should be the issue before the Planning Commission, that the issue before us is to state what our criteria is. David Williams said that he was not sure the Commission is satisfied with the City Plan as it is. 105 • • • Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 1982 Page Nine Ernest Jacks said that apparently no one on the Commission is interested in appointing a committee. With no further conclusions being reached, Ernest Jacks stated that he would contact Jim Vizzier and ask him for a detailed work program. The meeting adjourned at 6:20 P.M. fob