Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-08-23 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at 5:00 P.M. on Monday, August 23, 1982 in the Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ernest Jacks, Windell Cullers, Julie Stockdell, and Barbara MEMBERS ABSENT:. OTHERS PRESENT: Don Hunnicutt Morton Gitelman, Newton Hailey, Jr., Nash, David Williams, Melanie Crook Rick Cowdrey, Jim Stephens, Jim Rose III, Dale Holland, Karen Muncy, Carl Osborn, Richard Mayes, Gerald Ward, Lucille McDaniel, Jim Vizzier, Larry Wood, David McWethy, Bobbie Jones, Suzanne Kennedy, members of the press, and others. The Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting MINUTES of August 9, 1982 were considered for approval Chairman Ernest Jacks stated that on page three, paragraph eight, he did not think the Planning Commission should use the word "advance" when referring to the $10,000 budgeted for the General Plan, since the money is already in place Windell Cullers who had made the motion expressed no objection to a change. Suzanne Kennedy was asked to rephrase that part of the motion. With this change, the Minutes were approved as mailed. The next item on the agenda was to consider approval of the preliminary plat of Sequoyah South, a Planned Unit Development, Phase I, to be located PRELIMINARY PLAT SEQUOYAH SOUTH (a PUD) PHASE ONE FIFTH STREET AND RODGERS DRIVE SEQUOYAH LAND COMPANY north of Huntsville Road, west of the end of Fifth Street, and south and east of the end of Rodgers Drive, Sequoyah Land Company, owner and developer. Property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. In the absence of Chairman Don Hunnicutt of the Subdivision Committee, committee member Melanie Stockdell reported on the meeting of Friday, August 20, 1982. She said the Subdivision Committee moves to recommend approval of the preliminary plat of Sequoyah South, Phase I, subject to Plat Review comments which would specifically include a Bill of Assurance on the cul de sac if the road was not extended and the 100' setback on the north in case the property is sold without further PUD development. Rick Cowdrey, speaking for the owner, stated that the intent of the motion was understood. The motion was seconded by Barbara Crook. Bobbie Jones said Clayton Powell felt the sidewalk should extend all the way to Sherman because of school traffic and that he agreed to delay the cul de sac but wanted the street extended to the west line of Lot 2 rather than just through the drainage structure. It was clarified for Windell Cullers that there will be a sidewalk. The motion was passed, 8-0. i20 Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 1982 Page Two The next item on the agenda was REZONING PETITION R82-14 the public hearing on Rezoning HIGHWAY 16 E and HIGHWAY 265 Petition R82-14, Jerry O:and Jane HOUSE, LATRECHIA, PAYNE & HARNER House, Anthony A. and Jerry Latrechia, Clarence and Jan Payne and David and Bernice G. Harner, owners; to rezone property located at the northeast corner of Highway 16 East and Highway 265 from C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Chairman Ernest Jacks stated that the Planning Commission had denied a request to rezone a slightly larger piece of property in this same location from R-1 to C-2 and this was appealed to the Board of Directors in October of 1981, and the action of the Board was to deny C-2 and grant C-1. Today we are rehearing the rezoning petition for a smaller portion of that property by Order of the Washington County Circuit Court on July 23, 1982. Larry Wood, who prepared a Planning Report on R82-14 which was attached to the agenda, stated his recommendation: A special study of this area was concluded several years ago which redefined the future land use recommendations. Because of the potential traffic and flooding problems at this intersection less intensive and traffic generating uses associated with the R-0 District were recommended. The more intensive commercial uses were recommended to the east and west where businesses already exist. The recommendations contained in the Highway 265 Special Study are still believed to be valid and therefore the requested C-2 District is not recommended but R-0 District is recommended. The R-0 District recommendation is made with the knowledge of the existing C-1 zoning. It is felt that any commercialization of this intersection will lead to strip commercial zoning along this section of Highway 16 East. Jim Rose III was present as attorney for the owners. Mr. Rose said that he noted in Larry Wood's recommendation he was relying on the prior study concluded several years ago in which it was said that the more intensive commercial uses were recommended to the east and west where businesses already exist. Larry Wood confirmed that he meant those businesses along Highway 16. Mr. Rose asked, if there is already C-2 on the east and west, why rezoning the intersection would lead to strip zoning. Larry Wood answered that the tendency to fill in between the two is what he feels would lead to strip zoning. Mr. Rose stated he brought an appeal from:the earlier decision through the Circuit Court because it was the only route he had to take. Judge Cummings did rule in their favor to give them a waiver, on the 12 -month period only, for him to bring another petition before the Planning Commission. He can give no other reasons for the rezoning request other than those already stated and in the Minutes from the first hearing. He said the owners have decided not to try to have the entire 3.75 acres rezoned but only a portion right at the intersection. There was no one present to speak in favor of the petition. Mr. Carl Osborn, 1216 Stephens Street, spoke on behalf of Paul and Gladys Spillar, whose property adjoins to the west. He said they continue to be opposed to the rezoning in that area, because there is already a substantial amount of traffic and they think the rezoning would make that situation worse for the community of families living in the area. Richard Mayes, who lives at 2505 E. Huntsville, across the street from the intersection in question, said he had not received notification of this meeting or any other meeting regarding this property, and stated he was opposed to anything being built on that corner because it would increase the traffic. He said on that section of Highway 16 going east there is an abundance of near - iii Planning Commission Meeting �J August 23, 1982 (� Page Three •' Ce: ; • • accidents and accidents. Bobbie Jones asked Mr. Mayes for his mailing address, as the agendas which have been mailed to 2505 E. Huntsville have been returned. Mr. Mayes stated that he uses 1641 N. Leverett, his shop, as his mailing address, because he has been unable to keep a mailbox up at his property on Huntsville as cars have crashed into it and knocked it down repeatedly. Gerald Ward, 2598 E. Huntsville, stated he is opposed to the rezoning and he is concerned that a liquor store is to be built, since the owners of this property already own several liquor stores in town. Jim Rose stated he had no idea what the owners intend to do with the property and said he felt this has no bearing on the rezoning. Windell Cullers asked if the Planning Commission can only approve or disapprove the zoning asked for, or can it recommend a different zoning. Bobbie Jones stated the Planning Commission can recommend a lighter zoning district, but not a heavier one. There was discussion regarding this question of recommending a zoning district different from that which had been granted by the Board last time. Morton Gitelman pointed out that decisions made by the Commission are merely recommendatons to the Board, and that the final decision rests with the Board of Directors. Windell Cullers moved to recommend rezoning the property under application to R-0. The motion failed for lack of a second. 6 Windell Cullers moved to recommend retaining the C-1 zoning for the .97 acre tract and deny the petition to rezone to C-2. C3 The motion was seconded by Barbara Crook. Larry Wood, in answer to a question regarding flooding, explained that many CD 23 of the uses in an R-0 District are less intensive in terms of traffic and tend to not be totally building and pavement which aids somewhat in the flooding problem because of the capability of some absorption. L.) Barbara Crook stated she felt it might be good to have Windell Cullers' L3 reasons for his motion shown in the record. es Windell Cullers stated he thinks C-1 zoning gives adequate opportunity to develop the land to a very intensive use He stated he thought there were c'J other locations where C-2 zoning could be which would not create as serious a traffic hazard as this particular intersection. He stated he did not want to U, . see a pattern begin towards more C-2 zoning and would prefer to see the zoning 8, go the other way, such as to R-0. The motion to retain the present C-1 zoning passed, 8-0. The next item was to consider OFF-SITE PARKING a request for approval of off-site CAFE SANTA FE - 25 E. CENTER ST. parking for proposed Cafe Santa Fe DALE HOLLAND at 25 E. Center Street; submitted by Dale Holland; property zoned C-4, Downtown Commercial District. Dale Holland stated he leases the building and has begun to remodel, with permission from the City Building Inspector. He said the building has a high ceiling of about 14.9' and he wishes to add a balcony which would increase the amount of his square footage and develop a requirement for two additional parking spaces. He is asking that the Planning Commission allow him to consider the parking garage for the additional spaces, since it is about 200 feet just to the north of his proposed restaurant. He stated that the ceiling 122 __A • • Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 1982 Page Four would be seven feet under the balcony and in the balcony. Barbara Crook expressed her concern about the fact that, as the downtown area becomes more developed, requests will continue to come before the Planning Commission for off-site parking, and that at some point a solution will have to be found for the problem. Mr. Holland stated he did not feel there was heavy traffic on Center Street in the evenings when he would be expecting the most business, and that during the noon hour expected his clientele to come from those who are already in the downtown area or who would be on foot. Windell Cullers asked if the Planning Commission had the authority to waive the parking requirement. Bobbie Jones stated that this authority rested with the Board of Adjustment. Dale Holland stated he had chosen to come before the Planning Commission because there is a $25.00 fee to appear before the Board of Adjustment and also because their next meeting would not be until September 20. < Windell Cullers stated he would make a motion although he was opposed to continually waiving the requirement for parking spaces downtown and stated he did not think the problem will take care of itself. Windell Cullers moved to allow Dale Holland to have two spaces off-site to fulfill his parking requirement. Barbara Crook asked Mr. Holland why he did not consider using parking spaces across from City Hall Bobbie Jones pointed out that Mr. Holland must find his spaces within 300 feet of his structure. The motion was seconded by Morton Gitelman. Melanie Stockdell asked how the action of the Planning Commission was any different from a waiver from the Board of Adjustment. Ernest Jacks said essentially there was no difference, since the end result was the same. The motion passed, 8-0. The next item to be considered was a Conditional Use request submitted by Karen Muncy to have child care for six children in her home at 1925 Greenvalley Avenue; property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Bobbie Jones stated Ms. Muncy had fulfilled the requirements of notification of adjacent property owners by posting a notice in the newspaper. Karen Muncy stated she would be caring for children from six weeks to one year old, that none of these children would be playing outside. She said the parents would arrive and leave at different times, so that she felt this would not create additional traffic. In answer to a question from Melanie Stockdell, Ms. Muncy stated that she was operating under a prerequisite where she does not take children over one year of age. David Williams reminded Ms. Muncy that there is a restriction in that operating hours are not to be before 7:30 A.M. or later than 5:30 P.M. Ms. Muncy stated she had one parent who is a nurse and must bring her child at about 7:10 A.M. She stated that none of the children leave any later than 5:00 P.M. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST FOR CHILD CARE 1925 GREENVALLEY AVENUE KAREN MUNCY 123 Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 1982 Page Five David Williams moved to approve the conditional use request for child care for six children from 7:00 A.M. until 5:30 P.M. The motion was seconded by Melanie Stockdell and passed, 8-0. Bobbie Jones asked Ms. Muncy to contact the Planning Office tomorrow regarding a certificate of occupancy. The last item to be considered was a conditional use request submitted by Alton McDaniel to have child care for ten children and two after school in his home at 850 S. Washington Avenue; property zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Lucille McDaniel was present. She stated she had had a license for day care last year. Bobbie Jones reminded the Planning Commission that their approval last year had a one-year limitation. She said that there had been no complaints to the Planning Office. She stated the residence was not in an R-1 zoning district and that, if the Commission wished to do so, they did not have to place a time limit on their approval so that Ms. McDaniel would not need to come before the Commission again. Windell Cullers moved to approve the conditional use request for child care for ten children and two after school. The motion was seconded by Morton Gitelman and passed, 8-0. Bobbie Jones asked Lucille McDaniel to contact the Planning Office tomorrow regarding a Certificate of Occupancy. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST FOR CHILD CARE 1850 S. WASHINGTON AVE. ALTON McDANIEL the was Jim Vizzier asked to be heard by Planning Commission, although he not on the agenda. He stated the City is trying to purchase land for a park on the north end of Washington Mountain Estates, a Planned Unit Development. He stated the location of the property in question is at the southwest part of the intersection of the 71 Bypass and Highway 62, behind the drive-in movie and a trailer court. He stated that when the PUD had come before the Planning Commission some time in the past, two requirements had been placed on the owners: 1) that there be more than one access to the property; 2) that the owners pave Finger Lane from the property to Highway 62. Mr. Vizzier explained that if the City were to purchase the park land it would cut off their access point from their driveway to Farmers Avenue. He stated that they had planned for access on the northwest corner but the Planning Commission specifically requested some access off Farmers Avenue just east of the drive-in movie. The second question the owners wish to put before the Commission regards the request for paving Finger Lane. They feel that the request for 1,000 feet of paving would benefit a substantial number of other property owners, and that, of the whole area to be served by the potential pavement, one-half of their property amounted to about S%. OTHER BUSINESS WASHINGTON MOUNTAIN ESTATES and POTENTIAL CITY PARK LAND 71 BYPASS $ HIGHWAY 62 121 4 • lanning Commission Meeting August 23, 1982 Page Six After some discussion, Ernest Jacks suggested that many newer members on the Planning Commission were not aware of the previous actions taken by the Planning Commission on this PUD, and it would be a good idea for Mr. Vizzier to leave more detailed background information and then be heard again at a future (� meeting. David McWethy said he hoped to resolve the question at this meeting. He said he understood the reluctance of the newer members to act, but the City cannot proceed in their negotiations on the park land until the Planning Commission has acted on Mr. Vizzier's two requests. He asked if the Commission would consider a special meeting between now and September 13. He said the CD funding for the proposed park land did not come in until July, and now they need jc to know whether to expect to be involved in litigation over the property and the Parks Department needs to know whether to budget funds for 1983. The majority of the Planning Commission members agreed to consider this item only at a special meeting on Monday, August 30 at 5:00 P.M. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:50 P.M. 125