Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-09-12 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was called to order by Vice -Chairman Melanie Stockdell at 5:00 P.M. on Monday, September 12, 1983 in Room 107 of the Continuing Education Center, Center Street and East Avenue, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Barbara Crook, Windell Cullers, Don Hunnicutt, Ernest Jacks, Julie Nash, Melanie Stockdell, David Williams Morton Gitelman, Newton Hailey, Jr. Danny Wright, Robert Cupp, Lyell Thompson, Joan Hays, Kathryn Stout, Sterling Anders, Carl Thurman, Dan Epperly, William Greenhaw, Mel Milholland, Altha Morrison, Liz and James Sledge, Randall Webb, Jim McCord, David McWethy, Perry Franklin, Bobbie Jones, Suzanne Kennedy, members of the press, and others With no additions or corrections, the Minutes of the August 22 Planning Commission meeting were approved as mailed, 6-0, with Commissioner Williams not yet present. The second item on the agenda was public hearing on a rehearing of a conditional use request submitted by University Baptist Church for the Arkansas Institute of Theology at 505 W. Maple Street, zoned R-3, High Density Residential District. Danny Wright, Attorney for UBC, was present to represent the Church. The Chairperson stated this hearing had been advertised in the Northwest Arkansas Times as a "public hearing" as requested by the Planning Commission members. She also gave a brief history of this conditional use request. MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST ARKANSAS INSTITUTE OF THEOLOGY 505 W. MAPLE STREET UNIVERSITY BAPTIST CHURCH The property under consideration was purchased from Calvary Baptist Church in the late 1970's. On June 13, a motion to approve the conditional use (under Use Unit 4: cultural and recreational facilities, including schools) was entertained and failed, 4-2, because it lacked the needed five votes, a majority of the full Commission (according to the Bylaws). There has been some confusion as to which set of Bylaws the Commission should be using. A motion to amend the Bylaws to require five affirmative votes to approve a conditional use happened sometime in 1977; however, due to clerical error, the amendment (as it was adopted) never became part of the Bylaws. The Planning Administrator asked whether the request, because of the way it was voted on, should be placed on the agenda again. A motion to that effect was entertained and failed, 4-1-1, according to the way the Bylaws read. The staff researched the 1977 Minutes and found an error in the Bylaws, so the request was placed back on the agenda, per an opinion by the City Attorney. On June 27, a motion passed to grant a re -hearing. On July 11, a motion was entertained to hold a "public" hearing, and passed. This was scheduled for today so that it could be advertised and so as many commissioners as possible could attend. l03 • • • Planning Commission September 12, 1983 Page Two Stockdell also explained the Commission has already approved a conditional use for the "Wee Care Christian School", a conditional use for a dormitory was tabled for lack of property owner notification (still not submitted to the Planning Office), and conditional use approval was granted to use the upper level of a house for a missionary family residence. She said the request before the Commission today is for a building located on Tract B (about 1.1 acres), as shown in the agenda. There were no comments from the audience in favor of the request. Lyell Thompson, resident on Ila Avenue, commented that those in his neighborhood have lived in fear of encroachment of the UBC and its organization satellites, as history has shown the Church is constantly growing. He stated he feels the UBC has made a ghetto out of its neighborhood, which he said used to be a nice middle-class neighborhood, with well -kept homes. He said he thought the Church should never have built there in the first place, because a church which has grown to that size ought to have moved further to the edge of town, where they could have had sufficient land on which to expand. He said this reminds him of a story of a rancher in Oklahoma who said he didn't want to own all the land in Oklahoma, he just wanted to own all the land that touched his land. City Attorney McCord said Bobbie Jones has found Minutes from August 15, 1977, which read as follows: "...Next was a proposal to amend the Planning Commission's By-laws to require five (5) affirmative votes to grant a conditional use request. Ernest Jacks made a motion to add this to the Planning Commission Bylaws. Keith Newhouse seconded the motion, which passed unanimously." There seemed to be general agreement that at this time it should take five votes to approve a conditional use. Ernest Jacks stated the Committee to Study the Bylaws will soon bring back revisions before the Planning Commission. There were no other comments made from the audience in opposition to the request. Ernest Jacks asked about the checklist for conditional uses contained in the agenda, which reads "Arkansas Institute of Theology _ University of Arkansas". Bobbie Jones explained this was was a clerical error and should read "University Baptist Church". Barbara Crook pointed out that the south portion of Tract B has a conditional use for a parking lot. Bobbie Jones said the records show no change being made from the conditional use for a church which was originally granted to Calvery Baptist Church, other than the conditional use granted for the parking lot to the south in 1961 by the Board of Adjustment. Barbara Crook said the west half of Tract B originally had a residence on it which was torn down and is still zoned R-3. Barbara Crook moved approval of the conditional use for the Institute of Theology only for that portion of Tract B beginning at the north- MOTION east corner and proceeding south 168.5 feet, then west 129.75 feet, then north 168.5 feet, then east 129.75 feet to the point of beginning. The motion was seconded by Ernest Jacks. 1oq Planning Commission September 12, 1983 Page Three David Williams asked why the motion does not include all of Tract B. Crook explained the portion she has described is that portion of the Tract upon which the building sits; that the portion to the south already has a conditional use for parking, and the western portion is still zoned R-3. Ernest Jacks said he assumes this motion is a mechanism to control expansion to the west, and he agrees with that. Barbara Crook said the intent is, for any expansion, the Church would have to come before the Commission again. Melanie Stockdell said the primary concern of the Commission, she thinks, has been that when you have a conditional use, it is only for the applied -for use and each expansion, or change of use, or site expansion, or expanded use, requires a separate and new conditional use. Ernest Jacks asked the Church's attorney, Danny Wright, about the Church's proposed "Master Plan" and why no information has been forthcoming on it. Wright said a master plan has been drawn by an architectural firm and "more or less adopted in an informal sense", but not approved by the entire Church. He said they are considering a building on the "other part of the campus". He said AIT is separate and apart from the Church with its own governing body and for this reason, the Church did not realize the Planning Commission was interested in the Church's master plan. Jacks said he thought part of the fears of the neighborhood have been a feeling that the Church has grown without a lot of thinking but Jacks said he personally was glad to see a master plan. Wright said one reason for the master plan is to coordinate expansion and tie several buildings together, to hopefully alleviate any need to move down onto the "second mile parking lot" or to the west of the block that lies between AIT and UBC's primary campus. Wright said they had bought a a lot of property because it was available and stated several of these places look better as parking lots than they did as residential or rental structures. Barbara Crook said, in talking with a former commissioner who served on the Commission at the time the "second mile parking lot" was granted a conditional use, she learned the former commissioner had thought there were requirements for screening and landscaping attached to that conditional use and that these have not been accomplished, Danny Wright said he thought there was a require- ment that paving be accomplished at some future date and said, if there were other requirements, "knowing how things operate, if someone didn't write it down in black and white, it has probably been violated". Crook said it might be worth finding out what the requirements were; it might allay some neighbor- hood fears Cullers asked if Wright knew of any plans to accomplish screening or paving. Robert Cupp, President of AIT, said their understanding was they were asked to pave the parking, that they have asked McClinton Brothers to do the work when they can. Windell Cullers said he has been asked why UBC does not have to pave their parking lot when others are required to do so. Cullers asked if the paving would be done within the year. Cupp said it is supposed to be done this fall. Bobbie Jones asked that the Church contact the Planning Office to refresh themselves on requirements for screening, parking, and parking lot setbacks, before the paving is done David Williams asked under what conditions may a request for a conditional use be denied. Melanie Stockdell said these are in the areas of ingress and egress, off-street parking and loading, refuse and service area, utilities, screening t05 • • • Planning Commission September 12, 1983 Page Four and buffering, signs, setbacks, yards., open space, general compatibility with other properties and an adverse effect on the public interest. Williams asked if the Commission had any evidence that any of these conditions are violated with what is there now, since the Commission is considering a de -facto approval of something that has existed for a long time. With no comments from Bobbie Jones or other commissioners, Williams stated there evidently are no violations of the conditions and said he thought the motion would contain any growth of the building's current use. The motion passed, 7-0, with Commissioners Gitelman and Hailey absent. Danny Wright asked to what use the western part of Tract B could be used, and he was told it could only be used under its R-3 zoning. Julie Nash said at the initial meeting when UBC brought in its four requests, Mr. Wright said they had not brought in their requests earlier because they were not aware of the City ordinances; she said she would feel better if the Commission had UBC's assurance that they are aware of the City's ordinances and from now on, if they do need a conditional use approval, they will bring their requests before the Planning Commission before three or four years have gone by. Danny Wright said the Institute had thought they were operating under the conditional use approval granted to Calvery Baptist Church and it was not until Bobbie Jones told him that AIT did not fit her interpretation of the definition of a "church" that they realized they needed approval for a conditional use for a school. The next item on the agenda was a public hearing to consider a proposed ordinance to amend Chapter 18, Sec. 18-13 of the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances by repealing the require- ment that developers of property abutting a public service road. PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, SEC. 18-13 FAYETTEVILLE CODE OF ORDINANCES a controlled access highway construct City Attorney Jim McCord said the proposed ordinance is before the Commission because, on December 6, 1982, the Arkansas Supreme Court handed down a decision in the case of Calabria v. City of Fayetteville that a municipal corporation cannot require the mandatory dedication of right-of-way for a controlled access highway or service road as a condition of development approval. The court ruled in this manner because the enabling legislation for controlled access facilities does not expressly authorize the acquisition of right-of-way by mandatory dedication, whereas enabling legislation for subdivision regulations does authorize that requirement. McCord said he thought this was an artificial distinction, but the ordinance must be amended to conform with the Court's holding. He added that, in the Calabria decision, the Court did not address the issue of whether a municipal corporation may constitutionally require a property owner to close an existing access to a controlled access facility without compensation. McCord said there have been previous Supreme Court decisions which held that circuitry of travel resulting from closing an existing access is fob Planning Commission September 12, 1983 Page Five not compensible,as long as the property owner has reasonable access to the new facility. McCord said he is not recommending that that requirement be deleted from the ordinance. He said he has drafted the ordinance to delete those provisions that could require developers to construct and dedicate a service road. There were no comments from the audience either in favor of or in opposition to the proposed ordinance. Ernest Jacks asked if the dedication of land could be required, and McCord said it could not, although you can require setbacks, and you can leave the service road on the Master Street Plan to insure that a structure will not be built where a service road is proposed. Bobbie Jones asked, if the large scale development plan ordinance or the subdivision ordinance requires access, could a developer be required to construct a service road McCord said, as he construes the opinion, if the facility for which mandatory dedication is being required is a controlled access highway or a service road, mandatory dedication cannot be required. Windell Cullers moved the Planning Commission recommend to the MOTION Board of Directors the ordinance be changed as drafted by City Attorney McCord. The motion was seconded by Julie Nash and passed, 7-0, with two commissioners absent. The 4th:: item on the agenda was a public PUBLIC HEARING hearing to consider the following AMENDMENTS amendments to the Fayetteville Master FAYETTEVILLE MASTER STREET PLAN Street Plan, which were read and identified on a map displayed by Larry Wood, Planning Consultant," as follows: a. Re-classify Razorback Rd. from S.H. 16 to Cato Springs Rd. from a collector to a principal arterial. b. Re -align Razorback Rd. from 15th St. to intersect Cato Springs Rd. at Ashwood Ave. c. Eliminate service road along U.S. 71 Bypass on the east side from 18th St. to Cato Springs Rd. d. Delete service roads along U.S. 71 Bypass which do not reflect actual constructed service roads and; add service roads as result. e. On south end of U.S. 71 Bypass, realign the service road on the south side parallel to the west side of the R.R. track to Sunrise Mt. Rd. and return east to U.S. 71. f. Realign the service roads on the east side and west side of U.S. 71 Bypass and Cato Springs Rd. to run parallel with the on/off ramps log • • • Planning Commission September 12, 1983 Page Six g. Realign service roads at Porter Rd. and U.S. 71 Bypass to run parallel with the on/off ramps. h. Add Mt. Comfort Rd. west of the Bypass, Porter Rd. from Mt. Comfort Rd. to Deane St., and add Deane St. from Porter Rd. to Garland Ave. (S.H. 112) as minor arterials. i. Add Garland Ave. from Cato Springs Rd. to the north service road at the U.S. 71 Bypass as a collector. 3 Realign service road on west side of Garland Ave. at Drake St. to reflect a westward extension of Drake St. to McConnel Ave. k. Realign Drake St. to be continued west from Sunny Ln. to Gregg Ave. at the existing Drake St. location. 1. Change interchange location east of S.H. 112 on relocated U.S. 71 to show actual constructed alignment. m. Realign service road on south side of U.S. 71 Bypass between Gregg Avenue and Garland Ave. as a westward extension of Appleby Rd. to the Bypass then parallel with the Bypass then returning south to Drake St. approximately 400 ft. east of Garland Ave. n . Realign Garland Ave. at U.S. 71 Bypass to reflect actual construction. o . Remove all service roads north of U.S. 71 Bypass between Gregg Avenue and Garland Avenue. p. Add Van Asche St. from Gregg Ave. to S.H. 112 as a collector. q• Realign service road on south side of U.S. 71 Bypass between 71-B and Gregg Ave. as a westward extension of Millsap Rd. ✓ . Realign the proposed minor arterial running along the south side of the County Maintenance Facility and the U of A farm property between Gregg St. and Garland Ave. to avoid the Mayes property. t . Eliminate Rock St. from Knerr Dr. to Happy Hollow Rd. from Master Street Plan. The steep terrain makes street construction unfeasible. aa. Location of future connection of Frontage Rd. between Stearns Road and Zion Road. Commissioner Nash left the meeting. Joan Hayes said she did not understand "g". Larry Wood explained that "g" merely indicates that if the service road is built, it should parallel the on and off ramps at that location. Wood said although there is one service road in that location on the northwest quadrant, there is not one yet on the southeast or west quadrants. Planning Commission September 12, 1983 Page Seven Bobbie Jones said, where "e" proposes a service road to Sunrise Mountain Road, is a bad location because of a hill, a slight curve, and very steep access to Highway 71. Larry Wood said the only alternative would be to get further south before returning, and it would not be returning on the existing facility, but would be all-new. Bobbie Jones Street. She part of this said that Van "Ascher" Street, in "p", should read Van "Asche" asked if "p" gets into the Johnson City Limits. Larry Wood said lies parallel to the corporate limits. Bobbie Jones asked, for "m", if there would be any access into the intersection there, and Wood said there would not, it would probably be all fenced off. Bobbie Jones asked, regarding "q", would the road go through the mobile home park rather than around it. Larry Wood said "q" will simply tie in to an existing service road between the mobile home park and Highway 71. Ernest Jacks said he thought a main concern is where service road deviates from paralleling the Bypass and cuts off hunks of property in various places. He asked if, in the process, we are leaving accesses to the Bypass granted by the Highway Department without possibly leaving those people egress. Larry Wood also explained to Jacks that "J" is designed to go around the county fairgrounds. Jacks asked if we are leaving properties between the service road and the Bypass which have access to the Bypass. Larry Wood said the only one like that, to his knowledge, is the Steele property just west of where the Bypass comes back into 71 B. Don Hunnicutt said the County fairgrounds property has access to the Bypass. Larry Wood said the foregoing list is the entire package that the Commission from the Technical Advisory Committee; he also Commission has already taken action on "s" and "u", which are included on this list. was recommended to pointed out the therefore not Joan Hays said, as to "h", several people in her area are concerned about any widening which could bring Mt. Comfort Road almost to their front doors. She said there are several existing homes in that area Windell Cullers pointed out to Mrs. Hays that, if "h" were to be placed on the Master Street Plan, it would still be as much as 25 years before it was implemented. Perry Franklin said that, for an 80 foot right of way, no more than 30 feet each side of the center line would ever be paved. Mrs. Hays pointed out that utility companies also dig into additional space beyond what is paved. Windell Cullers moved the foregoing amendments "a" through with the exception of "e", be -recommended to the Board of Directors for inclusion in the Fayetteville Master Street The motion was seconded by Ernest Jacks. "aa", MOTION Plan. Cullers said it looks like "e" is one of those "no-win propositions". He said he felt the same way as Bobbie Jones; that it won't be good how ever it is done, and it looks like something that ought to be studied a little bit more. coq Planning Commission September 12, 1983 Page Eight Ernest Jacks stated agreement. The motion passed, 6-0, with Nash, Gitelman and Hailey absent. Don Hunnicutt addressed Mrs. Hays' concerns on "h", stating development cocurs, the improvements probably won't ever be City won't pay for the whole length of it and someone would the property owners together or buy up the whole stretch of that,. until made, because the have to get all property. Mrs. Bob Stout asked what "future connection" means in "aa". Larry Wood ex- plained there are two stubs which exist north and south of the Stout property, one off Zion Road which serves to the real estate office, and the frontage road on the south. He said the intent is to connect those two in the future. The Master Street Plan indicates a straight line connection, and the amendment is proposed to bring the road around the east side of the Stout's house rather than through it. Don Hunnicutt pointed out to Mrs. Stout that this would never be done unless the Stouts developed the property or sold it. Mrs. Stout asked what would happen if she decided to develop ten acres. Barbara Crook told her this would provide a guideline for the location of a service road if she were to bring in a subdivision development. Don Hunnicutt asked Mrs. Stout if she owned Shephard Lane. She said that eight years ago several property owners agreed to build a road and dedicate it to the City, that the City did not wish to have it, so it is just a courtesy lane. The fifth item on the agenda was approval of the Large Scale Development Plan for office buildings to be located at 4210 and 4226 N. Frontage Road. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 4210 and 4226 N. FRONTAGE ROAD JOHN MAGUIRE Don Hunnicutt, Chairman of the Subdivision Committee, said that Committee approved the Large Scale Development at their meeting on September 9th, that since there are no waiver requests, there is no need for Planning Commission approval. The sixth item on the agenda was to consider approval of the preliminary plat of Point West Subdivision located north of Sycamore Street, west of the Bypass and south of Mt. Comfort Road; zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light present to represent the owners. PRELIMINARY PLAT POINT WEST SUBDIVISION M.A.P. GROUP M.A.P. Group, owner and developer, Industrial District. Mel Milholland was Don Hunnicutt reported for Subdivision Committee for approval based on: and read their recommendation 1. Plat Review comments, with exception taken to the points to be covered below; 2. Include a note on the plat that drainage access across private property is not eligible for public maintenance; 3. Proof of notification to other property owners within 100 feet of the subdivision; Planning Commission September 12, 1983 Page Nine 4. Show sidewalks on both sides of N. Shiloh Drive to the north edge of Lot 14, Block B and only on the west side, north of that; 5. Show sidewalk on north side of Shiloh Court and around the cul de sac; 6. Waiver of street light spacing as shown on the plat; 7. Waiver of maximum length of a dead-end street; 8. Temporary cul de sacs at the south end of Shiloh Drive as it is developed down to the south end of the property; 9. Dedication of 25 feet of right-of-way north of the centerline of the existing right-of-way of Sycamore all the way to the Bypass; 10. Bill of Assurance to cover the proportionate share of constructing Sycamore at the call of the City, or as the property abutting theirs is developed; 11. Dedication of right-of-way for Point West Avenue with Bill of Assurance it would be paved when the property to the west is developed; 12. Add a note on the plat that Use Units 18, 22 and 27 are excluded from this subdivision because of the Bill of Assurance recorded in Book 1050 at pages 450, 451 and 452; and 13. Subject to the Planning Commission and the owners agreeing on construction standards for North Shiloh Drive. Hunnicutt said Clayton Powell presented his ideas at Subdivision Committee meeting about having more than minimum street construction standards. Hunnicutt said the owners propose 8" of SB -2 and 2"'of Hot Mix Asphalt, but Clayton Powell wants 6" of concrete and wide radii at the streets. Hunnicutt said the Planning Commission should decide if it will require minimum standards or something beyond that. Barbara Crook said the minimum (for residential streets) would be 6" of SB -2 and 2" of asphalt. Crook said Powell's recommendation is for construction as is used in the Industrial Park. Milholland said his proposal for 8/2 is based on what is being used for other frontage roads. Hunnicutt said Clayton Powell brought this up because this is the first time an industrial development has been proposed outside the Industrial Park and he thought there should be higher standards on the streets. Ernest Jacks said he agreed those standards are needed. Cullers asked if the developers could be required to have more than minimum standards and Hunnicutt said we cannot require more because the City does not have requirements for an industrial subdivision, and these developers have been making their plans along present guidelines. Ernest Jacks asked Hunnicutt if the standards being proposed by the developers now are those which were used initially in the Industrial Park, where the street was destroyed by the traffic. Hunnicutt said that was true, but that street had been destroyed from residential, not truck, traffic. Melanie Stockdell asked Mel Milholland if he had been able to meet with Clayton Powell after Subdivision meeting to work out a compromise. Milholland said he had not, but that they do not recommend the minimum of 6/2, but are recommending 8/2, as is used on the frontage roads. Cullers asked Milholland if he sees the road as nothing more than a frontage road and Milholland said he thought it would be considered as a frontage road. Cullers said he understood trucks would be coming into the subdivision and Milholland said there would be light industrial traffic. Cullers said he thought, if Powell thinks the road is going to be a 111 • • • Planning Commission September 12, 1983 Page Ten constant problem for the City and recommends a more substantial street, Cullers doesn't think it unreasonable for the Commission to ask for higher standards. Sterling Anders said they were willing to compromise on 2.4 (which Melanie Stockdell explained was a structural number in a numbering system for street construction) agreed upon as a compromise between what the developer proposed and what Powell recommended. Mr. Anders said Powell had indicated that 2.4 would be acceptable to him, according to AASHTO guidelines. Barbara Crook explained that AASHTO specifications compare different types of street construction for strength, that Powell had proposed "3" which is used in the Industrial Park, an absolute minimum would be "1", that "8/2" would be a little more than "1", and in the course of discussion, "2.4" was arrived at as a compromise and Powell said he was willing to accept that. Cullers moved the preliminary plat be approved, subject to the developers reaching a compromise with Clayton Powell as to street standards. Ernest Jacks seconded that motion. Milholland and those commissioners on Subdivision Committee asked if the motion could include the "2.4" structural number for the street construction, stating Powell had agreed to that as a compromise. Cullers did not agree to amending his motion, nor did Ernest Jacks, who had seconded the motion. Carl Thurman, adjoining property owner to the south, expressed concern overthe wording of a waiver request included in the agenda, which states "waiver of any type of construction along the abandoned Sycamore Avenue Thurman said if Sycamore Avenue is abandoned, his property is completely shut off. He said he had no access from Giles Road because the bridge is out. He asked if the proposed road would be extended far enough for him to have access from Sycamore. Barbara Crook said the motion does not include a waiver worded in that way, but includes dedication of 25 feet of right-of-way on the developer's side of the centerline of Sycamore and a Bill of Assurance that they would participate in the construction of Sycamore at the call of the City. Thurman asked if he could have some approval from the Commission that he can have access from the new street. Don Hunnicutt said there will be a temporary cul de sac, and if Sycamore is ever developed, these developers will participate in their half of the construction of the street, at the call of the City. Barbara Crook asked if an amendment to the motion would be in order, and Stockdell said the motion cannot be amended by anyone other than the person who made the motion. Don Hunnicutt pointed out to Cullers that the motion for approval should include all Subdivision comments 1 through 13 and Cullers agreed to amend his motion to include those. The motion was voted on and failed, 4-2,fwith Crook and Stockdell voting "nay", and with three other commissioners absent. • • Planning Commission September 12, 1983 Page Eleven Barbara Crook moved approval of Point_West Subdivision as presented, subject to comments 1-13 of Subdivision Committee report, with the agreement that the road shall be constructed to AASHTO standards using the structural number of "2.4". Don Hunnicutt seconded the motion. MOTION Dan Epperly, adjoining property owner to the north, said the plat did not accurately convey his property lines. Melanie Stockdell explained, and Mel Milholland concurred, that reference to adjoining property ownership on the plat is for identification purposes only, and was not meant to show property lines. Epperly said he would like to know where exactly the service road will go. He said he observed a turnaround on the plat over the present City sewer and he said, since 1959, he has seen 7 to 8 feet of water at numerous times in the land area. He asked if flood control regulations will come into effect, stating he wondered about future construction of residential or commercial property.in that area. Mel Milholland said the plat shows the service road will be adjacent to the Arkansas Highway Department. He said storm water will be channeled down the same channel it goes now. Barbara Crook reworded her motion to read "...a minimum structural number of AMENDED 2.4..." Don Hunnicutt agreed to seconding the amended motion. MOTION Windell Cullers asked why was there opposition to. having Powell approve a compromise. The Chairperson said there was none. The motion passed, 5-1, with Cullers voting "nay", and with three commissioners absent. Cullers was asked why he voted against the motion and he stated the Commission relies on the Planning Administrator and Street Superintendent to do certain things and he thought there may be a special problem out in this area, especially because the creek is a problem. Seventh item on the agenda was public hearing on Rezoning Petition R83-11, Lloyd and Joan Hays, to rezone .9 acres located north of Mt. Comfort Rd. and west of Deane Solomon Rd. from A-1, Agricultural District, to R-1, Low Density Residential District. Joan Hays was present to represent the petition. REZONING PETITION R83-11 MT. COMFORT AND DEANE SOLOMON RDS LLOYD AND JOAN HAYS There were no comments from the audience either in opposition to or in favor of the petition. There was no discussion by the Planning Commission. Ernest Jacks moved to recommend approval of the rezoning petition. The motion was seconded by David Williams and passed, 6-0, with three commissioners absent. The eighth item on the agenda was a request for a variance from the lot size requirement applicable to a lot split submitted by Lloyd L. and Joan C. Hays for .9 acres north of Mt. Comfort Road and west of Deane Solomon Rd. 'Joan Hays was present. VARIANCE FROM LOT SIZE FOR A LOT SPLIT MT. COMFORT AND DEANE SOLOMON RDS. LLOYD AND JOAN HAYS Bobbie Jones pointed out a variance would be by the Board of Directors. contingent upon approval of rezoning "3 • • • Planning Commission September 12, 1983 Page Twelve Ernest Jacks moved approval, seconded by Windell Cullers. Barbara Crook asked the reason for the split. Joan Hays said they wish to sell one lot with a house on it. Hunnicutt asked if the property was on sewer; Hays said it was The motion to approve, subject to approval of rezoning by the Board of Directors, was voted on and passed, 6-0, with three commissioners absent. Next was a request for a variance from the lot size requirement applicable to a lot split submitted by Joe B. Morris for 2 acres south of Masonic Drive and east of Highway 71 North, zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial to represent the request. VARIANCE FROM LOT SIZE FOR A LOT SPLIT MASONIC DRIVE F, US 71 JOE B. MORRIS District. William Greenhaw was present Barbara Crook asked what is the purpose of the lot split. Mr. Greenhaw said the tract is an automobile lot (Houston -Taylor). He said the City Sign Inspector recommended he submit this request and attend this meeting, because there is a problem with having two signs on the property, one representing Chrysler Corporation and the other representing Nissan Motor Company. The sign ordinance does not allow two freestanding signs on one lot, but both corporations require separate sign identification, as they are "fiercely competitive". Ernest Jacks said he had received a note that City Manager Grimes wanted the Commissioners to understand the only reason for this request is to add another sign to the lot. Jacks said he personally is not sympathetic to that idea. Stockdell asked Greenhaw why he is not requesting a variance from the sign ordinance. Greenhaw said they wished to have a lot split so that they can comply with the sign ordinance. Stockdell said the Planning Commission is compelled to study issues from a planning standpoint only. She said if the real issue is the sign ordinance, she is not comfortable discussing it, as it is outside the purview of the Commission to rule based on that consideration. Jacks said it seems the Commission is being asked to circumvent the sign ordinance by means of granting a variance from the lot size requirement for a lot split, and he does:not feel comfortable with that. Hunnicutt the lots. permit be lot would asked if a building could be built after the lot is split, on one of He said Masonic Drive has not been improved, and could a building issued without any improvements being made on Masonic, since the new not have to be processed as a large scale development. Bobbie Jones read from Sec. J, Art. IV, Appendix C, Fayetteville Code of Ordinances, "When commercial, industrial, or multi -family development takes place along any street which is not constructed according to existing City standards, the developer shall: (1) Dedicate sufficient right-of-way to bring the street into conformance with the right-of-way requirements of the City's • • Planning Commission September 12, 1983 Page Thirteen Master Street Plan" and it allows the Board of Directors to grant a waiver in cases of "undue hardship"; "(2) Install street paving, curbs, gutters and sidewalks necessary to bring the street into conformity with all existing City standards"; They are "required to bear that portion of the cost...which bears a rational nexus to the needs created by the development"; "(b) The term development shall inblude, but shall not be limited to, the construction of a new improvement, the construction of an addition to an existing improvement, or a parceling which results in the need for access and utilities." These requirements do not apply if no increase in Vehicular traffic is created. Ernest Jacks moved to deny the variance. The motion was seconded MOTION by Windell Cullers. Barbara Crook asked what reason is going to be given. Jacks said the reason is that the request is really concerned with circumvention of the sign ordinance and does not seem proper. With no further discussion, the motion to deny was passed, 5-0-1, with Barbara Crook abstaining and with three commissioners absent. The tenth item on the agenda was a request for a variance from the lot size requirement applicable to a lot split submitted by Altha Morrison for .99 acres north of Birwin Street, south of Calvin Street and west of Old Wire Road, zoned R-1, District. Altha Morrison was present. VARIANCE FROM LOT SIZE FOR A LOT SPLIT BIRWIN $ OLD WIRE ROAD ALTHA MORRISON Low Density Residential Ms. Morrison said there are two houses on a 1i acre lot and she wishes to sell them separately. She said most of her property is along the unpaved portion of Birwin. Ernest Jacks said, since the purpose of the ordinance is to prevent development, he moves approval of.the variance for this lot split. The motion was seconded by Windell Cullers. Barbara Crook asked what recourse the City has to get Birwin paved. Ernest Jacks said we cannot require paving until development is proposed. Barbara Crook asked if the lot split approval could be conditioned upon their improving their portion of the street at such time as the adjoining property is developed. Ernest Jacks, said he was not interested in including that condition in his motion. The motion was passed, 6-0, with three commissioners absent. Ms. Morrison was told, since her property is on the sewer line, she does not need approval from the Board of Directors. Eleventh on the agenda was a conditional use request for a home occupation for child care for five children at 1203 Carter Street, zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. The Sledges were present. CONDITIONAL USE - CHILD CARE HOME OCCUPATION 1203 CARTER STREET LIZ SLEDGE 115 • • Planning Commission September 12, 1983 Page Fourteen Mr. Sledge said the City Fire Inspector had inspected their house today and it passed the inspection. David Williams moved approval of the home occupation from 7:00 A.M. through 6:00 P.M. The motion was seconded by Windell Cullers. Approval is automatically for one year only and must be renewed at that time. Bobbie Jones reported a call was received by her office from adjoining neighbor, Mrs. Burch, who stated she objects to anyone crossing into her yard or littering her yard while dropping off or picking up children. The Sledges stated their yard is fenced and they do not contemplate any problems. The motion passed, 6-0, with three commissioners absent. The next item was a conditional use request submitted by Jim Lindsey to construct condonimiums south of Joyce Street and west of Highway 265, a portion of the property being zoned R-0, Residential Office District. CONDITIONAL USE CONDOMINIUMS JOYCE STREET 8 HIGHWAY 265 JIM LINDSEY Bobbie Jones explained when Jim Lindsey brought in a petiton to rezone some property from A-1 to R-2, he brought in a description for a parcel of land, part of which was A-1, and part of which was R-0, and the entire parcel was advertised. She said she was absent when the owners told Larry Wood and the Planning Commission that the only portion of the property they wished to have rezoned was the A-1 portion, that the R-0 portion was to remain R-0. The Planning Commission subsequently recommendedand the Board approved, the rezoning of the A-1 portion to R-2. Jones said when the Ordinance came in two weeks ago, Suzanne Kennedy noticed the legal description was wrong because it described the entire parcel. Jones said she also had already issued building permits based on R-2 zoning and part of the property is actually R-0. Ernest Jacks moved to approve the conditional use, seconded by Windell Cullers, and the motion passed, 6-0, with three commissioners absent. The last item on the agenda was a request to amend the conditional use request submitted by Randall Webb for a greenhouse at 845 Longview, zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District, Mr. AMEND CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST PLANT NURSERY (GREENHOUSE) 845 LONGVIEW RANDALL WEBB Webb was present. Melanie Stockdell said this conditional use began in 1981, that plant nurseries are conditional uses city-wide, that it is before the Commission because the Building Superintendent, Freeman Wood, is requiring a building permit for this greenhouse. • • • Planning Commission September 12, 1983 Page Fifteen Mr. Webb said, since C-2 zoning goes back about 300 feet from Highway 71, part of the property is commercial and part is R-1. He said he has had a nursery there for about two years and now wishes to build a steel frame greenhouse David Williams moved approval, Windell Cullers seconded the motion and it passed, 6-0, with three commissioners absent. Melanie Stockdell said the Storm Water and Sewage Studies have been distributed to the Planning Commission and will be considered at September 26th. Commissioners are asked to read the booklets at the next meeting. OTHER BUSINESS The meeting adjourned at about 6:55 P.M. the next meeting on studies and return the u9