Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-09-26 MinutesMINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Newton Hailey, Jr. at 5:00 P.M. on Monday, September 26, 1983 in Room 107 of the Continuing Education Center, Center Street and East Avenue. Six commissioners were present. MEMBERS PRESENT: Barbara Crook, Windell Cullers, Morton Gitelman, Newton Hailey, Don Hunnicutt, Ernest Jacks, Melanie Stockdell, David Williams MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Julie Nash George Faucette, Jr., Mildred and Debbie Graue, Larry Wood, David McWethy, Bobbie Jones, Suzanne Kennedy, members of the press, and others With no corrections or additions, the Minutes of the September 12 meeting were approved as mailed, with six commissioners present. Commissioner Cullers arrived. Public Hearing was opened on Rezoning Petition R83-12, submitted by Burlington Northern Railroad to rezone 1.85 acres located at 512 W. Dickson Street from I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial District, to C-3, Central Business Commercial District. George Faucette, Jr. was present to represent the petitioner. MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING REZONING PETITION R83-12 512 W. DICKSON STREET BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD, Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, whose Planning Report on this application was distributed before the meeting, reported he recommends the C-3 District for the following reasons: 1. The original intent to acquire open space along the railroad track in the 1970 General Plan has not been effectuated; 2. C-3 zoning currently exists both to the east and west of the property; 3. Public facilities and services necessary to serve the property are available; and 4. Rezoning to C-3 may stimulate a more attractive use of the property than current I-1 zoning. Wood said those uses allowable in a C-3 District which are not permitted in the I-1 District are commercial recreation and amusement facilities, hotel, motel, neighborhood shopping, and multi -family dwellings. Commissioner Stockdell arrived. George Faucette, speaking for the petitioner, stated the future plan for the property, if rezoned, is to operate a restaurant. hg J • • • Planning Commission September 26, 1983 Page Two With no questions from the Commission and no comments from the audience, David Williams moved to recommend approval. Don Hunnicutt seconded the motion. Morton Gitelman asked, if the property is rezoned, do the railroad tracks become non -conforming. George Faucette said the plan was to retain the main track and one other track, but to abandon two other tracks. Bobbie Jones said railroad rights-of-way are allowed in Use Unit 3, a use by right in the I-1 District, and are a conditional use with Planning Commission approval only, in the C-3 District. Williams and Hunnicutt agreed to amend their motion to include granting a conditional use for the tracks. The motion passed, 8-0, with Julie Nash absent. Chairman Hailey said he would table the proposed amendment to the Bylaws because he had not completed the necessary documentation, the commissioners prior to the next meeting. The fourth item on the agenda was a request for a waiver of the 25 foot setback (safety zone) between driveways and waiver of the 121 foot safety zone from side property line to driveway submitted by Bill Graue for property at 2625 Old Wire Road, zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Mildred and Debbie Graue were present torepresent this request. AMENDMENT TO BY-LAWS that this would be mailed to WAIVER OF DRIVEWAY SAFETY ZONE 2625 OLD WIRE ROAD BILL GRAUE Newton Hailey said he thought it was apparent there was not much choice for the owners but to make this request. Mildred Graue said the property owner to the north will build a driveway which should be located 50 or 60 feet away from the property line. Barbara Crook suggested not waiving the 121 foot setback on the south side of the 25 foot strip, and waiving the setbackon the north side of the strip, with the driveway being located against the north side of the strip, thus maintaining a 121 foot setback from the south of the strip. Mildred Graue said she thought placing the driveway against one edge of the 25 foot strip would look out of proportion. Windell Cullers moved approval of the request as submitted. The motion was seconded by Ernest Jacks and passed, 7-1, with Barbara Crook voting "nay" and with Julie Nash absent. Fifth was a request for waiver of the 25 foot separation between driveways and the 121 foot setback from driveway to side property line submitted by William Kim Fugitt for property at 3226-3228 and 3234-3236 Kings Low Density Residential District. No one was present to WAIVER OF DRIVEWAY SAFETY ZONE 3226-28-34-36 KINGS CROSS WILLIAM KIM FUGITT • Cross, zoned R-1, represent the request. 1\1 Planning Commission September 26, 1983 Page Three Bobbie Jones said the request applies only to two of the lots at the end of the cul de sac, that although there is one driveway serving two lots, the driveway gets too close to the side lot line. It was stated the proposed change in the driveway would allow the owner to save some trees, as well as having a less steep incline for the drive. Ernest Jacks moved approval, seconded by Windell Cullers, and passed, 8-0, with one commissioner absent. The sixth item was a request for waiver WAIVER OF DRIVEWAY SETBACK of the 121 foot setback on driveway from 1148 E. RODGERS DRIVE side property line submitted by Dewitt Smith DEWITT SMITH for property at 1148 E. Rodgers Drive, zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. No one was present to represent the request. Bobbie Jones said she thinks Mr. Smith wishes to bring the driveway into the lot with the level grade. Ernest Jacks moved approval, seconded by Windell Cullers, and passed, 8-0, with Nash absent. Newton Hailey said the next item is a .REVIEW OF RESTRICTIONS request from the Board of Directors that ON NON -CONFORMITIES Planning Commission review restrictions on non -conformities. Hailey referred the commissioners to letters with the agenda written by Bobbie Jones and Jim McCord. He said, according to McCord, the issue was considered under Other Business by the City Board, and they approved a variance, although they had no authority to do so Hailey said Bobbie Jones' letter asks for guidance on future requests, and he said since the Board did not formally request anything from the Planning Commission, he sees no reason to form a committee. Hailey said the Board of Adjustment has on occasion asked for a similar study, and he suggested the Planning Administrator have the Board of Adjustment write a letter to the Commission outlining what the Commission should study. Bobbie Jones said the Board of Adjustment is more concerned with non -conforming lots and structures, rather than non -conforming uses, that the Board of Directors in this instance had granted a variance for a non -conforming use Mort Gitelman said the Commission should keep in mind the whole intent of the ordinance is to hope non -conforming uses will eventually die out. He said when non -conforming uses in residential areas are allowed to make improvements, additions, or expansions, because these commercial uses are free from competition, they have a natural monopoly and it is difficult to get rid of them. He said it is standard around the country to have fairly strict provisions about expanding and sometimes even repairing these businesses. Gitelman said the only reason for the ordinance allowing repair up to 10% of replacement cost in any 12 -month period is to keep these properties from turning into slums. �Ao Planning Commission September 26, 1983 Page Four Everett Crouch asked,'if someone owned a service station that had been annexed into the City and zoned residential, what would be wrong with adding a bathroom to it. Bobbie Jones said a non -conforming business of this type cannot have a bathroom added to it unless it can be added within the existing walls. She said the 10% allowable repair is only to maintain an existing structure, and does not allow for expansion. Gitelman noted there have been past requests for rezonings simply to allow a non -conforming use to expand. Mr. Crouch stated the other man who received the variance from the City Board started his addition without a building permit, whereas he had checked with the City first, and had been turned down. Newton Hailey told Mr. Crouch his only recourse is to take his request be- fore the City Board for an amendment to the ordinance. The last item on the agenda RECOMMENDATION TO BOARD OF DIRECTORS was a recommendation to the DRAINAGE AND SEWERAGE EVALUATION Board of Directors on the HIGHWAY 16 WEST ANNEXED AREA Drainage and Sewerage Evaluation Report prepared by McClelland Engineers on the newly annexed area along Highway 16 West. Hailey said he was not prepared to make any recommendations to the City Board because Planning Consultant Larry Wood, who was instrumental in getting things started, had not been given a copy of the study, apparently in an effort to save money on printing copies of the Report. Hailey asked that a copy of the Report be loaned to Wood and that the matter be tabled until the next meeting. David Williams moved this issue be tabled until the next meeting. The motion was seconded by Melanie Stockdell and passed, 8-0, with Nash absent. Under Other Business, the Chairman OTHER BUSINESS introduced a letter from James Davis, which was distributed at the meeting, and asked the Commission if they wished to address it at this time. Windell Cullers moved the request be heard at this meeting. The motion was seconded by Don Hunnicutt and passed, 8-0, with Nash absent. There was no one present to represent the request. Bobbie Jones said Mr. Davis wishes the Commission to initiate action to change the Ordinance so storage units would be allowed in a C-3 zoning district. • STORAGE UNITS IN C-3 Larry Wood said the Commission might have concerns about the aesthetics of storage units in this zone, which is mostly located downtown and along Dickson Street. Bobbie Jones said, by her interpretation, storage units fall under Use Unit 21, which is allowed in the I-1 and I-2 by right, onappeal to the Commission in the C-2 District, and not allowed in the C-3 District at all. Gitelman asked, if Mr. Davis were just building storage units for the paint store and for those people on the property, would there be a problem. Bobbie Jones said no, she would consider that an accessory use Gitelman said he would 191 • • • Planning Commission September 26, 1983 Page Five be opposed to storage units which would be rented to persons not on the property. Ernest Jacks asked what objection Gitelman has to storage units in a C-3 District. Gitelman said he thinks of the storage units as a "warehousing kind of use", that C-3 is a downtown business district. He said he might not object to 'having four units in this particular location, but would object to covering the property with them. Gitelman pointed out the request "...for residents on or in the vicinity of the property..." is ambiguous. Cullers said he wouldn't object to the mini - storage in this particular location, and suggested granting a conditional use. Bobbie Jones said the Planning Commission can only grant a conditional use if the use is listed as such under the zoning district. Newton Hailey asked what needs to be done to make storage units a conditional use in a C-3 District. Bobbie Jones said it would have. to be written into Use Unit 17, "Trades and Services", making it a use by right in C-2 and a conditional use in C-3, and a public hearing must be held to amend the ordinance. After further discussion, David Williams said "I move we table this until we know what to do". The motion was seconded by Melanie Stockdell. The motion passed, 8-0. With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:35 P.M.