Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-07-26 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Monday, July 26, 1982 in the Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Chairman Ernest Jacks, Morton Gitelman, Newton Hailey, Don Hunnicutt, Melanie Stockdell, Barbara Crook Windell Cullers, Julie Nash, David Williams Tim Lum, Mrs. Page, Mr. Folinger, Ray Mitchell, Don Elliott, Dolores Dillon Kirby, Dan Campbell, Ray Russell, Jo McConnell, Clyde McConnell, Charles Springer, Rawlie Sullivan, Clayton Spencer, James Cramer, B. L. Lewis, Jim Vizzier, David McWethy, Bobbie Jones, Larry Wood, Suzanne Kennedy, members of the press and others The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of MINUTES July 12, 1982 were approved as mailed. The next item to be considered was approval of the preliminary plat of Winchester Square Subdivision located south of Highway 16 West and east of County Road #650 (outside City); Johnie and Ora Bassett, owners and developers. A waiver of minimum distance in jog at street intersection is requested. James Cramer was present to represent C $ F Surveyors. Don Hunnicutt, as Chairman of the Subdivision Committee, reported that the committee recommends approval of Phase One only. Bobbie Jones reported on information she received from the County office regarding Winchester Road. She said the County had approved the plat but did not consider the question of jog distances. She said the County does not normally accept a road until after it is constructed to the standards required, and she could not find any confirmation of the road having been dedicated from the County officials she contacted. She said the jog distance where Rifle and Tyler intersect Winchester measures 41.05 feet and the ordinance requires a minimum distance of 150 feet for minor streets. She said that the jog distance where Winchester and Ruple intersect Highway 16 measures 20 feet and the ordinance requires a minimum distance of 200 feet for collector (or higher designated) streets. After further discussion, Don Hunnicutt moved to table the request so someone could check further with the County on the street dedication and jog. The motion was seconded by Barbara Crook and passed, 6-0. There was some discussion regarding the possibility of requesting a waiver of the 11/2 acre lot size requirement if the street jogs are remoVed. Bobbie Jones said this request would have to go before the Board of Directors. Mr. Cramer was asked to contact the County and report back to the Planning Commission in time for consideration at the next meeting on August 9. PRELIMINARY PLAT - PHASE ONE WINCHESTER SQUARE SUBDIVISION HIGHWAY 16 WEST JOHNIE AND ORA BASSETT 107 • • • Planning Commission Meeting July 26, 1982 Page Two The next item on the agenda was a public hearing on rezoning petition No. R82-11, David and Lisa Lum, to rezone REZONING PETITION R82-11 GILES ROAD AND ANNE STREET DAVID AND LISA LUM property located at the northwest corner of Giles Road and Anne Street from A-1, Agricultural District, to R-3, High Density Residential District. Tim Lum was present to speak on behalf of his brother, David Lum, who was not present. Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, reported on the Rezoning Application Planning Report he prepared on this petition. He stated that he does not recommend the change to the R-3 district for the following reasons: 1. The change to the R-3 district is not consistent with the General Plan recommendations; 2. The property under application is considered an interior neighborhood location and higher density development should be located toward the exterior of the neighborhood; and 3. The public facilities (water and sewer) are inadequate to support high density development. Tim Lum stated that the main reason for wanting to rezone the house is to open up the doors of their collegiate ministry. The house is presently a 4-plex and some doorways are simply boarded up with plywood. They would like to convert the house so that 5-7 adults and maybe some children can live in a boarding-house situation. Bobbie Jones said she had told the petitioners that they could request either a rezoning or a change of non -conforming use. Melanie Stockdell said that she had gone by the house and that the public notice was not posted so that it could be seen, or the notice had been taken off the sign. Don Hunnicutt agreed that the location of the sign made it hard to see. Mrs. Page, who lives directly across the street at 2941 Anne, said she didn't understand fully the three reasons against the rezoning. She said she didn't understand the difference between the amount of people entitled to live in the existing 4-plex and the number of people who would live in the house if it were rezoned. Mr. Jacks explained that the General Plan for that neighborhood calls for low-density population and, even though there are duplexes in existence now, the rezoning would allow for 40 units per acre and this would not conform to the zoning in that neighborhood. Mrs. Page said she thought most of the neighbors were not against Mr. Lum having the property rezoned. Bobbie Jones explained that the reason Mr Lum asked for R-3 rather than R-2 was because R-2 allows for apartments but not for dormitories or boarding houses Ernest Jacks said he would prefer to have Mr. Lum request a change of non- conforming use rather than a rezoning. Chairman Jacks explained to Mr. Lum that a non -conforming use applies only to the owner who requests the use, and does not apply to the property, regardless of who lives there. Bobbie Jones explained that Mr. Lum would have to file a new application in order to request approval of a non -conforming use Barbara Crook moved to recommend denial of Petition R-82-11 for the reasons listed in the Planning Report. The motion was seconded by Mort Gitelman, and passed, 6-0. lo$ • • • • Planning Commission Meeting July 26, 1982 Page Three The next item was a public hearing on REZONING PETITION R82-12 Rezoning Petition R82-12, Raymond D. and RAYMOND D. $ DAPHINA D. MITCHELL Daphina D. Mitchell, to rezone property MOUNTAIN ST. located south of Mountain Street, west of Locust Avenue and east of School Avenue from R-0, Residential -Office District to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Ray Mitchell, Don Elliott and Mr. Folinger were present as representatives. Larry Wood read from the Rezoning Application Planning Report he had prepared on this petition and stated that the C-2 District is recommended for the following reasons: 1. Mountain Street from the Square to School Avenue is spotted with commercial uses that have been there for a number of years and is an area in which the Commission has previously approved changes to commercial zoning; 2. There exists commercial districts to the east and west of the property, and 3. The property contains a building that has been used for commercial purposes in the past Attorney Don Elliott stated that he represents Central Tire which has been using the building in question for thirty years. He said the building has two levels and a lot of square feet and in his opinion the property cannot be used for any other use but C-2 without having to tear down the building. There was some discussion about the shape of the lot and the surrounding zoning, as well as the amount of daily traffic carried by Mountain Street. Bobbie Jones said that, although the map shows a northeast corner of that intersection zoned C-2, she thinks this is an error. There was no one present to oppose the petition. Morton Gitelman moved to recommend approval of Petition R82-12. The motion was seconded by Melanie Stockdell and passed, 6-0. The next item was a public hearing REZONING PETITION R82-13 on Rezoning Petition R82-13, Mrs. HIGIHWAY 71 NORTH AND JOHNSON ROAD H. R. Saxon, to rezone property MRS. H. R. SAXON located at the southwest corner of Highway 71 North and Johnson Road from A-1, Agricultural District, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Larry Wood reported from the Rezoning Application Planning Report he had prepared on this petition and stated he recommended the change to C-2 District for the following reasons: 1. The zoning district is consistent with the General Plan recommendations; 2. The surrounding uses are commercial, although at some distance; 3. The property is located at the intersection of two major streets and is suited for commercial purposes; and 4. The public facilities and services are available to support a more intensive use of the property. Melanie Stockdell stated that property to the west and slightly north is residential. Bobbie Jones said Mrs. Saxon did not present the rezoning proposal but that it was brought to the Planning Office for her by Gerald Bowman who is associated with the real estate company across the street. Planning Commission Meeting July 26, 1982 Page Four Larry Wood said that Springdale has zoned the property to the north C-2, Commercial District; Johnson's zoning map shows residential, which is basically similar to Fayetteville's R-1. He said that the property basically lines up with the back of Casa Montez Restaurant. There was no one present to oppose the petition. Morton Gitelman moved to recommend approval of Petition R82-13. The motion was seconded by Barbara Crook and passed, 6-0. The next item to be considered was a OFF-SITE PARKING request for approval of off-site parking NORTHWEST NATIONAL BANK for a 45,000 square foot building to be MEADOW AND COLLEGE constructed on the southwest corner of Meadow Street and College Avenue; submitted by Northwest National Bank, zoned C-4, Downtown Commercial District. Chairman Ernest Jacks said that the Planning Office had received a letter from William Greenhaw, attorney for the Bank, requesting the tabling of their appeal until such time as their building plans are more firmly established. Ernest Jacks pointed out that, according to the Board of Adjustment minutes which were distributed with the agenda, it appears that the Bank hasn't cleared itself yet with the Board of Adjustment. Morton Gitelman moved to table the request for off-site parking. The motion was seconded by Newton Hailey, Jr., and passed, 6-0. It was clarified that the Board of Adjustment must take action on the Bank's request before it comes back to the Planning Commission. Ernest Jacks said that the Planning Commission has a limitation in that development plans on property smaller than one acre do not come before the Planning Commission for review even for an eight -story building. He thinks the Planning Commission intended to repeal that one -acre minimum, and thinks the Commission might want to look into doing so. Bobbie Jones said she thinks part of the problem was taken care of by the Board of Directors picking up the section in the street regulations and asking the Planning Office to administer it. The next item on the agenda was to consider approval of a conditional use request submitted by Dolores Dillon Kirby for home occupation to instruct violin and piano lessons at 932 Bel Air Drive, zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Dolores Dillon Kirby and Dan Campbell, music instructors, were both present. Bobbie Jones said that adjoining property owners were notified by way of a notice placed in the newspaper by the applicant, and a sign was placed on the property by the Planning Office. She said agendas were sent to two or three of the immediate neighbors. Ernest Jacks reported on telephone calls which were received by the Planning Office from one person who objected to the conditional use and from four persons who made statements in favor of the request Ernest Jacks read the report from the Planning Office on those calls. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST HOME OCCUPATION 932 BEL AIR DRIVE DOLORES DILLON KIRBY Ito • • Planning Commission Meeting July 26, 1982 Page Five Dolores Dillon Kirby said that she noted the Code specifies home occupations shall not occupy more than 30% of the gross floor area or more than 300 square feet, whichever is greater. She said 30% of their square footage would be 483 square feet and they intend to use 379 square feet. She said they would like to extend the hours of the request from 5:30 P.M. to 8:00 P.M., because they work with school-age children as well as with very young children. She said that she and Mr. Campbell expect a usual amount of traffic for them would be three or four cars at one time, if they are both teaching in the house at the same time: two at lessons and two arriving. She said that her teaching load at the house would be about 17 students, and that Mr. Campbell's would amount to 10-15 students. Dolores said with both of them teaching, this would amount to 6-8 students in one day Mr. Ray Russell of 912 Bel Air said that he purchased his home on the basis of the current zoning. He said he doesn't see how the integrity of the neighborhood can be protected if home businesses are permitted. It was explained that the ordinance which states that home occupations can only employ immediate members of the family did apply to this request, but there will not be outside employees. Jo McConnell, who lives across the street from the property, said that there are apartment houses in the neighborhood and there are no sidewalks. She said she thinks more traffic would be hazardous to the children in the neighborhood. Clyde McConnell expressed the same objection. Dolores Kirby stated that the children are almost all accompanied by mothers when they come to lessons. Charles Springer spoke on behalf of his mother-in-law who lives adjacent to the property. She opposes the request from the same standpoint as Mr. Russell. He asked, if the request were granted, would it automatically be renewed after the one-year period. Bobbie Jones stated the ordinance states the Planning Office may renew the conditional use after one year for the same period of time if there have been no complaints from the neighborhood. If there are complaints, it is referred back to the Planning Commission. It was explained that approval of a conditional use does not legally constitute rezoning. Rawlie Sullivan, owner of property at 932 where the lessons would be taught, said he understands the concern of the neighbors because the basic tenor of the neighborhood has changed fairly significantly over the last few years. He said that the neighborhood has changed from one of all residential property to one of mixed residential and rental property. He said the influx of multi -family dwellings and groups of students seems to have brought in a greater number of cars. As to Mr. Russell's concern about the integrity of the neighborhood being violated, he pointed out that at 821 Bel Air a gentleman sells used cars out of his front yard and has done so for the last 6-8 months. Mr. Sullivan said that he objected to this situation. He said that Luther Johnson lived at 901 Bel Air until last summer and repaired and sold used bicycles in his garage with a sign up in his front yard for over a year. He said that this was done for at least eight hours a day every day, Mr Russell was a friend of Mr. Johnson's, was aware of this activity and never complained about it. He said that after Mr. Johnson moved, he noticed that Mr. Russell sold bicycles himself. Mr. Russell said he only sold one bicycle which belonged to him. 111 • • • Planning Commission Meeting July 26, 1982 Page Six Mr Sullivan said at least one woman appears to operate a day care center out of her home in that neighborhood, and at least one gentleman runs garage sales on a regular basis. He said that these examples really make him appreciate the attempts to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. He said that, as a landlord, he is trying to rent to persons who will eventually buy the house, and that Dolores Kirby is prepared to sign a lease with a purchase option on the house, and if the home occupation is successful by the end of the year, she intends to purchase the house. He said he does not intend for his house to merely become a piece of rental property and prefers to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood as much as the other neighbors. Clayton Spencer said he wished to speak for a Rev. Logue of 913 Bel Air, whose concern is about zoning being changed. He said Rev. Logue thinks if you permit one business to start, others will come in. He said it sounds to him as if the zoning is already being violated and this needs to be checked into by the appropriate persons. It was clarified that if a conditional use is approved, it only applies to Ms. Kirby's request at 932 Bel Air, and if she were to move, that use would not be permitted for any future tenants of the house Ms. Kirby stated that they also have a clause in their lease which states, if the Planning Commission approves the use, that only she and Mr. Campbell are permitted to use the house for this purpose. Dolores said that the house is air-conditioned and they would operate with the windows closed as much as possible. She said on certain days they would both teach at the same time, at different ends of the house, and she does not think that the noise factor would be a problem. Morton Gitelman moved to approve the conditional use request from 7:30 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. for the reason that we need more music than we need garage sales. The motion was seconded by Melanie Stockdell and passed, 6-0. There was no objection to EXTENSION OF PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL considering Lester Longwith's request HAMSTRING SOUTH ADDITION before discussion of the General Plan HIGHWAY 16 WEST Update. LESTER LONGWITH Consideration was given to the request from Lester Longwith to extend the preliminary plat approval period beyond one year for Hamstring South Addition located in the Growth Area west of County Road No. 877 and north of Highway 16 West. B. L. Lewis was present to represent Mr. Longwith. Don Hunnicutt said that the Subdivision Committee recommends a 6 -month extension of time for the reason that bankruptcy litigation caused work on the project to cease for some period of time. Don Hunnicutt moved a 6 -month extension from July 26, 1982 be granted. The motion was seconded by Barbara Crook, and passed, 6-0. The last item on the agenda DISCUSSION OF GENERAL PLAN UPDATE was discussion of the General Plan Update. Ernest Jacks said that Mayor Noland is asking the Planning Commission how strongly they feel about a study of the General Plan. He said the last time this was discussed, the Planning Commission had agreed to ask Jim Vizzier for a more detailed work plan. 112 • • • Planning Commission Meeting July 26, 1982 Page Seven Mr: Vizzier said he has some objection to giving a detailed work program and cost outline for two reasons: 1) He is thinking of involving some other professionals in the fields of population, economics, environment, soils, etc., and he has not yet talked to all of them; and 2) If he came up with an alternative to what Larry Wood presented and the City goes into a selection process and takes his proposal he would have to copywrite it. Mr. Vizzier said if the Planning Commission wants to talk about the work items in general terms, that would be acceptable to him. Newton Hailey left the meeting at 6:00 P.M. Mr. Vizzier listed some major policy areas such as population, economics, physical and environmental, activities or land use. He pointed out that population figures in Fayetteville for the last 10-20 years showed the major part of the growth to be the university enrollment, but Fayetteville has also grown in elderly and young persons and employment and business has grown. He thinks the original plan was based a lot on industrial employment and a spin-off of service growth. The industrial growth has not materialized. He thinks what is lacking is some good information for making decisions. He talked about spending, wherein the general community, the private developer and the administration as coordinator are all involved. If all three groups are not working in the same direction and with the same philosophy, he thinks lots of adversary relationships develop. He thinks a better understanding of this is needed. Barbara Crook said she is convinced we need good information and some updating. She thinks the question of who does the work is not the concern of the Planning Commission, but what gets done is. She said she had taken the proposal Mr. Vizzier had submitted and information given by Larry Wood and, without being selective, prepared a list of proposed work that might be done. This list was distributed. Mr. Vizzier said he didn't think the work could be done in less than 11 years because of the number of people and groups involved. Mr. Jacks said he felt part of the Planning Commission's decision making has to be based on cost and asked Mr. Vizzier if he could give them a cost estimate. Mr. Vizzier said he thought the cost might be 3 to 4 times what they have mentioned. Barbara Crook said she felt everyone is in'agreement on need, except for the expense. She asked if everyone agreed that the Planning Commission needs to start by looking at goals and policies in light of updated planning theories, economics and population trends. Morton Gitelman said he did not agree and thinks the forces that affect development in Fayetteville are mostly beyond the planning process and goals. He thinks data needs to be updated but the nature of Fayetteville in terms of its relationship to the county and surrounding towns and the university hasn't changed at all. He said he is more concerned about the specifics of things like capital improvement plans and community facilities than he is concerned about policies and goals. Ernest Jacks said he thinks basic overall density needs to be reconsidered. He doesn't know that he is ready to change policies and goals to reflect an economic situation that exists right now. Barbara Crook asked if population trends which reflect elderly population is a goal and policy question. l�3 • Planning Commission Meeting July 26, 1982 Page Eight Morton Gitelman said he thought if there is a population group in need of municipal services we ought to try to provide them. Jim Vizzier said if there are offices downtown the supporting facilities around them must change and that this could change land use and zoning. Don Hunnicutt said we can't really change that much of the General Plan. We might move some boundaries but it is going to depend on the development; for example, the changing downtown area. Barbara Crook asked if the Planning Commission could state that we think it would be good to examine the General Plan in light of what has happened between 1972 and 1980 to see if there are policies ultimately affecting the General Plan that need to be revised. Morton Gitelman said he felt we need planning and direction from a short term point of view, looking forward four or five years rather than long range planning. There was some discussion about changes and revisions made by the City Board, by the water and sewer department and street department and how one department is not always advised of changes made by other departments, and how zoning decisions can affect these changes. Don Hunnicutt pointed out that guidelines have to be set if the Planning Commission is going to make serious decisions, and that conclusions can't be reached in an hour or two. Ernest Jacks said he did not feel capable of making these kinds of decisions. Jim Vizzier suggested that a planner could not proceed with updating while working on policies and revisions at the same time. Don Hunnicutt asked Mr. Vizzier if he thought the Board of Directors would want to ask a planner for criteria to be submitted, if they decide to have a new study done, and would it be on a fee basis or a lump sum basis. Mr. Vizzier advised that a planner may be given some very general questions and be allowed to construct some kind of proposal and cost estimate within that or a very special set of work items. He said he thinks the Board will decide on cost, that there can be no percentage estimate on this kind of work. He said most cities determine their needs based on what HUD is interested in and that it was his feeling that this sometimes is in conflict with the community's needs. Melanie Stockdell asked if it could be agreed that, if all things were fair, we would like to see both new figures plugged in and a patchwork business taken care of and at the same time look at longer term things like capital improvement plans. Mr. Vizzier said he thinks the actual update of the planning document and revisions or adjustment to regulations depend somewhat on the neighborhood and policy studies. He said some of these studies need to be done at separate times and then be incorporated later. Barbara Crook wondered if the Board might not understand this better than the Planning Commission and it occurred to her that they ought to do the study Ernest Jacks asked if this should be again put on the agenda or if a committee should be appointed, since it was pointed out that four members were absent during the discussion. It was established that David Williams and Morton Gitelman would be unable to attend the next meeting of August 9. Melanie Stockdell stated that we can all agree that things have changed in the last ten years. Why couldn't both Jim Vizzier and Larry Wood give us an indication based on the changes of some idea of what needs they perceive us • • Planning Commission Meeting July 26, 1982 Page Nine having and how they might go about studying those and the cost factor involved. At the next meeting this could be presented and we could give a serious indication of whether, based on the needs, we should proceed with a strong resolution. It was pointed out that this would be asking both Vizzier and Wood to put in a good bit of time on a volunteer basis. It was agreed to try and call a special meeting of the Planning Commission to discuss this item only on Monday, August 2nd, at 5:00. Bobbie Jones was asked to poll the members to determine what kind of attendance couldbe expected and report back to Ernest Jacks in two days. It was agreed that Mr. Vizzier and Mr. Wood would not be asked to attend the meeting but might be asked to come back later. OTHER BUSINESS Ernest Jacks stated that REZONING PETITION R81-14 Rezoning Petition R81-14 submitted HIGHWAYS 16 EAST AND 265 by Walter Longstreet to have property WALT LONGSTREET on the northeast corner of Highway 265 and Highway 16 East rezoned from R-1, Low Density Residential District to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District, had been denied by the Planning Commission and was appealed to the Board of Directors 10-9-81. The action of the Board was to deny C-2 and grant C-1. Mr. Jacks said that the Planning Commission will have to rehear a new petition on the property by Order of the Washington County Circuit Court on July 23, 1982. Copies of the Order had been distributed to members at the beginning of the meeting. Bobbie Jones said that a new petition had been brought to the Planning Office but sent back for a more suitable legal description. The meeting was adjourned at 7:05 P.M. 115