Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-10-11 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at 5:00 P.M. on Monday, October 11, 1982 in Room 107 of the University of Arkansas Continuing Education Center, Fayetteville, Arkansas MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ernest Jacks, Morton Gitelman, Newton Hailey, Jr., Windell Cullers, Julie Nash, David Williams, Melanie Stockdell, Barbara Crook MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Don Hunnicutt Bob Beall, Roger Schutte, Jerry Mahanke, Gordon Houston, Jan Parker, Truman Yancey, David McWethy, Bobbie Jones, Suzanne Kennedy, members of the press and others The minutes of the meeting of September 27th were MINUTES approved as mailed. The next item of business was to consider approval of the final plat of Hamestring South Addition located in the Growth Area, west of County Road No. 877 and north of Highway 16 West, Lester Longwith, Owner and Developer. Mr. Longwith was not present. Ernest Jacks reported for Subdivision Committee in the absence of Don Hunnicutt. He reported that the Minutes of this committee meeting show all Plat Review requirements have been complied with but that Bobbie Jones still needs further information from ArkLa on a gas easement. He reported that Don Hunnicutt recommended passing this on to the Planning Commission. General Kendall, representing Washington County, stated Plat Review problems had been corrected and that the County has no problem with the Addition. Bobbie Jones stated she had spoken with someone from ArkLa Gas Company in Fort Smith who thought the easement was eighty feet wide, not fifty feet wide as Frank Blew thought. She thinks the easement width should be indicated on the final plat when she finds out what it is. Barbara Crook moved to recommend approval subject to corrections only concerning easement widths as presented. The motion was seconded by Melanie Stockdell and passed, 8-0. FINAL PLAT HAMESTRING SOUTH ADDITION HIGHWAY 16 WEST -GROWTH AREA LESTER LONGWITH The third item of business was review of a concept Large Scale Development Plan for Butterfield Trail Village located south of Joyce Street and west of Old Missouri Road; property zoned A-1, Agricultural District. Applicant requests a statement of intent from the Planning Commission regarding their feelings before bringing in a rezoning request. Bob Beall, President of Butterfield Trail Village, was present. He stated the Village was an independent, non-profit, corporation whose sole purpose is to build an operating retirement village in Fayetteville with close ties to four local STATEMENT OF INTENT CONCEPT LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN BUTTERFIELD TRAIL VILLAGE JOYCE STREET AND OLD MISSOURI ROAD Planning Commission October 11, 1982 Page Two churches. He stated each of the nine board members are active in one of those churches. He named the nine board members: Henry Meenen, Vice -President; Gloria McPherson, Secretary; Ella Shelton, Treasurer; Margaret Stephan, Don McGuire, Chuck Kirchen, Truman Yancey and David Lashley. He stated they are preparing to build a lifetime care retirement complex which will include a health care center capable of providing all health care needs for the residents with the exception of those acute cases which may require full hospitalization. They intend to have one nursing bed for every four living units. They have retained a consulting firm, Retirement Centers of America, Inc., to help plan the Village. Roger L. Schutte $ Associates are the architects. Roger Schutte, President of Roger L. Schutte F, Associates, was present. He stated they have been working with the local board in planning the retirement center. He referred to the vicinity map which had been distributed and displayed a large scale plan to illustrate the site location. He stated the site is currently zoned A-1 and they plan to request a rezoning of a major portion of their site to R-2, leaving a small portion of it A-1. He noted the areas to the north and west are zoned R-2, the portion to the east is A-1 and across Old Missouri Road to the east is the golf course, zoned A-1. He displayed some drawings of Phase 1 of their building project, which would comprise about 20 acres and contain about 240 units. He stated the R-2 zoning allows a density of 24 units per acre and they propose 12 units per acre. The concept has a number of benefits regarding density, such as impacts of school, traffic, noise and body count per acre, all of which are favorable. He thinks the Village would be the best possible neighbor, as they do not cause disturbances, and they plan to have good quality construction. He displayed drawings of the preliminary layout. He stated Joyce Street would run along the north side of their site. He described the building complex as one S-shaped main building which consists of three-story apartment wings on two ends, with a single - story commons and health center, and some single -story duplexes or four-plexes on the west side, approximately the size of single family homes. The circulation on the site will all come in from Joyce Street. He identified some miscellaneous buildings such as carports, mechanical building and woodworking shop, fitness center, swimming pool and exercise room. He displayed a drawing of the commons area and stated there would be an administrative area, library, central kitchen and dining room and other activity spaces. The health center is a licensed nursing facility. He displayed some exterior elevations which illustrated the exterior treatment they propose, to be constructed using stone and wood siding. The duplexes are to be of different types so that there will not be a row of identical buildings. The commons has a canopy over the main entrance which comes all the way out to the cul de sac which provides access to the building. The three-story portion of the building has projections and recessed balconies, to give it a very residential appearance. He said the Village would not be experimental, as the firm has been active with retirement centers for the last 16 years across the country. Jerry Mahanke, Executive Officer of Retirement Centers of America, was present. He distributed a pamphlet on the Life Care Program for the Village, two pamphlets on other typical facilities and a pamphlet to explain Retirement Centers of America, Inc. He stated the medical facility is designed to serve nursing home patients up to acute cases which need to be taken care of in the hospital. He stated each person is provided one meal per day from the dining room, and special diets are served. Each resident has kitchen facilities in their apartment. He noted all services were listed in the brochure on the Life Care Program. Morton Gitelman was concerned that the site location would be too remote for those residents without autos, as there is no public transportation for Fayetteville. • • • Planning Commission October 11, 1982 Page Three It was explained that each living care project provides transportation for the residents, bus service for shopping, and limousine service for physician visits. It was stated there was no HUD financing involved, that it was not a rent -subsidy program, but was designed for persons who have planned their retirement. Bobbie Jones confirmed for Ernest Jacks that the hospital portion of the retirement center will fit either A-1 or R-3 zoning, but will not fit in an R-2 zone. Julie Nash asked if serving a community meal and organized social functions fit into the R-2 zoning. Mr. Schutte said they had read the ordinance and thought it would be allowed, that this has always been allowed in other projects because they are providing strictly support functions and not public or business ventures. It was explained that the plan was to be an extension of the home, or to provide the kind of recreation that could be had in a larger home. ' Bobbie Jones stated an accessory commercial use of the type listed in Unit 13 of the Code which is a restaurant without dancing or entertainment is permitted in R-2, R-3 and R-0 districts, provided they are located entirely within a multi- family dwelling or office building as an accessory use for the convenience of the occupants of that building and does not occupy more than 20% of the gross floor area of the building in which it is located, has no signs or other advertising visible from outside the zoning lot in which it is located and is located in or contiguous to the lobby of the principal building and have at least one lobby entrance. (Article 7, Section 2) Ernest Jacks stated that Section was obviously written for a tall building situation. One of the representatives stated he thought they complied with the Section. Newton Hailey, Ernest Jacks, Julie Nash and Windell Cullers all expressed positive feelings towards the project. Barbara Crook asked about the potential of Joyce Street becoming busy with traffic. Bobbie Jones said Joyce Street is in line with the arterial street which originates with the intersection of Stearns and N. College, curves southward and continues on to Highway 265. One of the representatives stated the retirement village concept expects less vehicular traffic than anything else which could be built on that site, because of the bus transportation being provided for the residents. He stated they intend for the village to be a positive contribution to the community. Ernest Jacks stated the Minutes will reflect a positive feeling toward the Butterfield Trail Village on the part of the Planning Commission members. Chairman Ernest Jacks opened the REZONING PETITION R82-16 public hearing on Rezoning Petition PORTER ROAD $ DEANE STREET R82-16, Gordon Houston, to rezone GORDON HOUSTON property located south of Deane Street, east of Porter Road, and west of Sang Avenue from R-1, Low -Density Residential District, to R-2, Medium Density Residential District. In the absence of Larry Wood, Chairman Jacks reported from the Rezoning Application Planning Report recommendation: That the property under application has previously been denied a change to R-2 District on three occasions, that following the 1978 rezoning request the Planning Commission approved duplexes Planning Commission October 11, 1982 Page Four as a conditional use, that the planning report for the 1981 application recommended approval, citing the changes that had taken place in the area, such as a special land use study requested by the Planning Commission which recommended multi -family use of the property. This study was not adopted by the Planning Commission. R-2 is recommended because 1) public facilities and services are available; 2) the relationship of the property to the By -Pass and the interchange at Mt. Comfort; 3) the mixed nature of residential land use in the area; and 4) the inability to construct and market single-family houses in the lower cost range because of the current economic situation. Gordon Houston was present and stated he was in favor of seeing the property rezoned. Jan Parker, 1650 Porter Road, presented a petition signed by six property owners on Porter Road and Deane Street objecting to the rezoning. Mrs. Parker stated the persons signing the petition were all senior citizens, and they object to the rezoning because of a flooding problem and object to multi -family dwellings being built in the neighborhood. She showed photographs of an area in which some street and drainage work had been done, but which did not help with the flooding. She stated the rezoning would lower the value of the homes in the area. Ernest Jacks read the names and addresses on the petition. Windell Cullers stated he had received a call from Mrs. Behl and one other person objecting to the rezoning, whose names are not on the petition. Mrs. Behl's objection is to multi -family dwellings, not duplexes. Gordon Houston stated the flood zoning was for 500 -year flooding and there are several homes built in the 500 year flood plain in Fayetteville. He doesn't feel the flooding has anything to do with the zoning. He reminded Mrs. Parker that she bought her home with the knowledge that there were apartments two lots from her. Windell Cullers asked Mr. Houston if he did not agree that the addition of the churches has made the flooding problem worse. Mr. Houston said he did not think so and it was his opinion the flooding came from the east. Mr. Cullers said the water has no place to go since the churches built paved lots which has raised the area and is trapping water that would have run off before. Mr. Houston disagreed, and said he has had the area engineered and knows where and where not to build. Mr. Cullers stated there are still instances where water remains in people's yards after a rain for weeks at a time. He said Mrs. Behl did not like the fact that water was "dammed up on the east side" and he agrees that is causing part of the problem. Ernest Jacks said the Planning Commission was never really able to agree on Larry Wood's recommendations for this area, and there is a mixture of residential properties in the area. Windell Cullers thinks we wind up with a small area, very highly impacted, with no particularly good access through it or to it. He does not like a large population with no access for through streets. He is opposed to it for the same reason as before; when the Plan was altered it was thought a substantial portion of the City was R-2. People living there who built in an R-1 area have a right to be protected. Windell Cullers moved to recommend denial of rezoning and leave it R-1. The motion was seconded by Morton Gitelman. Mr. Gitelman stated he voted in the past for approval of R-2 in that area. • • Planning Commission October 11, 1982 Page Five Since the Planning Commission has refused to adopt an amendment to the land use plan, he feels bound by the Commission's denials in the past. He feels there is no reason to be inconsistent with what was done in the past. Ernest Jacks stated he would vote to deny because there is no pattern that is different from the single family homes existing in that area. The motion was passed, 8-0. Chairman Jacks opened the public REZONING PETITION R82-17 hearing on Rezoning Petition R82-17, HIGHWAY 62 WEST Floyd E. Gabbard, George J. E. Holzwarth, GABBARD, HOLZWARTH P, GEORGE and Charles W. George to rezone property located north of Highway 62, east of Sang Avenue and west of Lewis Avenue from R-2, Medium Density Residential District, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Truman Yancey was present to represent the owners. In the absence of Larry Wood, Jacks quoted from the Rezoning Application Planning Report that, in the past, a portion of the same property was denied for C-2 but approved by the Planning Commission for R-0. R-0 is recommended again because 1) it was felt that the low density residential recommendation of the General Plan did not offer a reasonable use of the property in light of the sur- rounding land use and current nature of the area; 2) the close relationship of the property to adjacent residential and undeveloped property; 3) the need to provide some buffering for the adjacent residential uses; and 4) the need to provide a reasonable use of the property and still adhere to the goal of not encouraging strip commercial along all highways. Truman Yancey stated he represented the owners. He stated that a request for rezoning was submitted last year by a potential buyer of a portion of this same property and that the sale never took place. He stated the owner, Mr Gabbard, has now joined with two neighbors to request a rezoning of Lots 7 and 8 as shown on the map. He displayed a map which showed the location of the property in relation- ship to adjacent zoning districts. He stated he agreed with Item 1 in the recommendation. In regards to Item 2, he stated the property to the north is residential and that lots 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 have been used for residential. He stated he assumed Larry Wood's reference to undeveloped property refers to the narrow strip which is zoned Industrial between the highway and the railroad. In regards to Item 3, he is not sure what we are buffering here. He stated the small area facing the highway is the only area left on that side of the highway not already zoned C-2, across from it to the south is Industrial and they are asking that this small strip be a buffer against the rest of it. In regards to Item 4, he thinks it's a little late to adhere to a concept of no -strip commercial development. If we look at the concept of buffering and blocking out of areas for particular uses without concentrating on the highway, there are still some rational approaches. Coming from the south, Industrial and Commercial has already encroached across the highway to the north. That whole area can be reasonably marked off for commercial development that serves the Industrial area and serves to some extent the residential area to the north. He sees the buffering in this instance as being C-2 rather than R-0. He stated facing just to the north of the area involved are houses right on the highway which lost their front yards because of the widening of the highway. Right behind them there is a tree -covered ridge, beyond which is a nice residential development. He thinks screening and use -wise, the pattern is already established. The owners think the trend is already set for how the area is used and wish to have available the widest possible use and, in /y8 • • Planning Commission October 11, 1982 Page Six particular, would like to have Use Unit 15 (Neighborhood Shopping); Unit 16 (Shopping Goods) and Unit 17 (Trades and Services), which are already the kinds of things in existence in the area east and west of their property. He does not see the rezoning making any substantial impact on the area to the north. There was no one present to speak in opposition. It was confirmed that the lots 9, 10 and 11 were the only other R-2 zoned property in that area. Mr. Yancey passed out some photographs of the area. Mr. Cullers asked if the rezoning could be approved subject to leaving the trees. Mr. Yancey stated the trees were dying anyway because of the widening of the highway and the moving of utility lines. Mr. Cullers agreed that it is not clear what we are buffering from in this location. He does not think the three duplex lots will ever have duplexes built there, and he thinks probably the only thing it will ever be used for will be multi-plex dwellings. Mr. Cullers moved to approve the rezoning to C-2. The motion was seconded by David Williams. Morton Gitelman spoke in opposition. First, he feels the industrial zoning to the south of Highway 62 is not the same as strip commercial and any develop- ment on that can be very carefully regulated and doesn't present the same kinds of problems as commercial. Secondly, he thinks rather than saying a pattern has been established just because of K -Mart and Wal-Mart and a small area near Razorback Road, it is no different than the properties to the west of the Bypass. He said the Planning Commission had a case recently where they resisted stripping out Highway 62 to the west. The Planning Commission said, before the widening of Highway 62, that commercial development would be coming in and we said we wanted to try and space it out. We have tended to look more at Highway 62 west of the Bypass and ignore this part under consideration. He thinks that if we grant this then those three lots will truly be isolated and there will be no way of resisting commercial development and we will have the strip we have fought so strongly against. He does not think the Industrial area on the other side of the highway is already strip commercialization. David Williams asked what kinds of development could happen if the property were rezoned to R-0. Windell Cullers said he could not see much of a distinction between the uses in R-0 and in C-2. He said he thought the R-0 ordinance is very well used and anything up to restaurants can be put in that district, under special conditions. He does not think rezoning to R-0 will change the traffic pattern that much. Morton Gitelman thinks the widening of the road and the rezoning of parcels of land to C-2 is not good traffic management. Windell Cullers said he thought making only one entrance to C-2 zoned properties might control the traffic. He does not think one more driveway will have an impact on the area and thinks businesses need to be located on roads where people drive a lot. Barbara Crook stated she had just come back from Houston which is an example of what can happen when C-2 zoning is granted to one parcel of land just because there is C-2 zoning already on either side. She doesn't feel it is a matter of how many driveways, but a matter of the number of autos coming to the facility and stacking up She can agree with the R-0 zoning as a good use of the land. Newton Hailey said he doesn't think there is that much difference anymore between the C-2 and R-0 districts. He said the original intent of the R-0 zoning was to help the transition from the Square, but now R-0 has become a garbage bag for any property we don't know how to zone. Planning Commission October 11, 1982 Page Seven Ernest Jacks stated the Update Committee is going to change that. Windell Cullers stated, if the car count was the same in R-0 as in C-2, he doesn't understand the problem with rezoning to C-2. Morton Gitelman said he thought rezoning to C-2 would endanger the values of the surrounding residential properties to the north. He thinks there is an oversupply of C-2 land in this community and he doesn't see any reason why the Planning Commission should change Its land use plan and zoning map to help put property on the market. Windell Cullers doesn't want to help speculators but stated 1) where the C-2 is located is more important than the quantity of C-2 land and 2) the more you restrict a given area of C-2, the more you help increase the value of property already zoned C-2. Morton Gitelman thinks we are nowhere near the position in Fayetteville of driving up the price of C-2 land. He said the Planning Commission asked Larry Wood about a year ago to give a rough estimate of the number of vacant acres of C-2 land and it turned out we do have an oversupply. He said the Highway 62 plan was definitely designed to try and stop the strip commercialization, recognizing that we've gone a long way down that road already. Truman Yancey addressed the question of what you can do in C-2 that you can't do in R -O. His understanding is that most of the facilities along 62 at the present time would not' be a permitted use in an R-0 zone, whereas they would all be acceptable in the C-2 zone. Julie Nash stated she disagreed that Highway 62 is commercialized on only two ends, and thinks it is commercialized all the way down, with the exception of the lots being discussed. She hates strip commercialization, but sees no reason to hold out on that one block. Melanie Stockdell stated the fact that only one block is left which is not zoned C-2 is no good reason to confirm the fact, particularly for the sake of Lots 9, 10 and 11. She thinks if we rezone Lots 7 and 8 to C-2, we are confirming the fact that that's what will happen to Lots 9, 10 and 11 rather than allowing someone a chance to revitalize those lots in a residential nature. Morton Gitelman pointed out that most of the commercialization on the Highway was pre-existing when Fayetteville was first zoned. The vote on the motion was 4-4, with Morton Gitelman, Barbara Crook, Melanie Stockdell and Ernest Jacks voting "nay" and David Williams, Windell Cullers, Julie Nash and Newton Hailey, Jr. voting "aye". Truman Yancey indicated that he would take his petition before the City Board of Directors. The conditional use request submitted by Don Ousterhout to have a home occupation at 1022 Trust was tabled at the request of the petitioner who was under the impression he would be on the agenda of the October 25th meeting instead. CONDITIONAL USE 1022 TRUST DON OUSTERHOUT Jacks reported that the Update Committee had met and discussed a group of items, there were not many members present, and another meeting is set up for next week. He asked the Planning Commission, as things questions to that committee. OTHER BUSINESS UPDATE COMMITTEE ERNEST JACKS come up, to refer With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:15 P.M. /50 J