Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-10-10 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, October 10, 1983 at 5:00 P.M. in Room 107 of the Continuing Education Center, East Avenue and Center Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas MEMBERS PRESENT: Barbara Crook, Windell Cullers, Morton Gitelman, Newton Hailey, Jr., Don Hunnicutt, Ernest Jacks, Julie Nash, Melanie Stockdell and David Williams MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: None Paul Noland, Frank Sharp, Marion Orton, Jerry Hardin, John Womack Roy Clinton, John Walker, John Quinn, Robert White, D,,QQn Bunn, Richard Mills, Larry Wood, James Davis, Bradford White, Roy Nastasi, Suzanne Kennedy, members of the press and others The meeting was called to order by Chairman Newton Hailey, Jr., at 5:00 P.M. with eight commissioners present. The Chairman reported the large scale development plan for a First Federal Savings and Loan Association Branch facility was approved at Subdivision Committee meeting on October 7 and no action was needed by Planning Commission. The third item on the agenda was public hearing on Rezoning Petition R83-14, submitted by Kenneth Paul Williams, to rezone property located south of Sycamore Street and east of North Gregg Avenue from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Jerry Hardin was present to represent the petitioner. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN BRANCH FACILITY NORTH COLLEGE AVENUE REZONING PETITION R83-13 1634 NORTH GREGG KENNETH PAUL WILLIAMS Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, presented his report, stating he recommends the R-2 District be considered for the following reasons: 1. The character of the area is in a state of change with apartments existing north and south of the property, the four-laning of Gregg and the light industrial development to the northwest, warranting consideration of a greater density residential development pattern along the face of Gregg Avenue; 2. The public facilities and services necessary to serve the property currently exist in Gregg Avenue; 3. The character of the area east of the railroad tracks is one of mixed residential uses (apartments and duplexes); and 1c3 Planning Commission October 10, 1983 Page Two 4. The establishment of a buffer along Gregg Avenue will help stabilize the area and offer greater protection for the single- family zoning to the east. Mr. Hardin explained that Mr. Williams had decided not to build a single family dwelling on the property because he felt the character of the neighborhood was changing such that a residence there would not be the best use of the land. He requests the rezoning because there is R-2 zoning existing to the east. Although the square footage of the lot could support 8-10 apartment units, because of the slope of the terrain Williams intends to build only six units, probably in spanish stucco style. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to speak in opposition to the petition. Richard Mills, adjoining property owner, stated he was speaking for himself and for the other adjoining property owners, most of whom were present. He read a petition which expressed opposition to the rezoning and which was signed by fifteen adjacent and surrounding property owners. The petition was then presented to the Chairman for the record. Commissioner Stockdell arrived during this part of the meeting. Bradford White, adjoining property owner, displayed photographs of his home and other homes surrounding his residence, stating they have a "green belt and a very good buffer" and they don't want apartment houses on their block. Richard Mills asked Larry Wood to explain how R-2 zoning would establish a buffer along Gregg Avenue, asking what this would buffer their neighborhood from. Wood said he meant it would be a buffer from continued encroachment from the east. Mills said he thinks of the rezoning more as a step towards increasing the number of apartment complexes in the future. Mr. White added there has been an average of one wreck every ten days at the corner of Sycamore and Gregg and he feels harrassed about having to call the police or ambulance to that corner. Roy Nastasi, property owner; in the area, said he thought the nearby area of existing apartments was "a holy mess" and there has been no move to make improvements there. Mr. Hardin stated he did not think the character of that neighborhood was primarily residential, with apartments to the south and north; he said he thought the widening of the street was to take care of additional traffic and he thought it was sufficient for reasonably prudent driving. He said Williams plans a professionally designed structure with adequate parking that should not alter the character of the neighborhood. He said Williams did not intend to reside on the property because he prefers a more secluded location. Mills said he and the other residents prefer not to "take a bath on their property values for someone else's gain". • • Planning Commission October 10, 1983 Page Three Morton Gitelman made a motion to recommend denial of the petition, primarily because, recognizing Wood's points about the widening of Gregg Avenue, there still are:only .three places along Gregg between Township MOTION and North that are zoned R-2 and, if the rationale for this rezoning were followed, future requests for rezoning along the east side of Gregg Avenue would have to be designated R-2 also. Gitelman said he recalled a past rezoning request from Jerry Sweetser between Holly and Lawson that the Planning Commission at that time thought would be an invasion of the residential neighborhood and he didn't think the Commission should allow a strip of R-2 zoning all the way from Township to North Street. The motion was seconded by David Williams and passed, 9-0. The next item on the agenda was public hearing on Rezoning Petition R83-14, submitted by John M. Walker, to rezone 2.14 acres REZONING PETITION R83-14 1657 SUNRISE MOUNTAIN RD JOHN M. WALKER located at 1657 Sunrise Mountain Road from A-1, Agricultural District, to R-1, Low Density Residential District. Mr. Walker was present, as well as Architect John Womack and Roy Clinton. Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, presented his report, stating he recommends the R-1 District be considered, but with reservations, because: 1. In 1972, the property to the north was rezoned to R-1 and at that time the recommendation did not violate the intent of the General Plan; 2. The same is true in this application, that the future land use for the area is most likely low density 'residential.; 3. Wood has reservations because this is continued development with no sewer, a private water line that is inadequate in terms of fire capability, and a substandard street; some attempt should be made to insure the facilities at some future date or set a policy of no more rezoning until there is some assurance. 4. Wood noted the owner now has sufficient acreage to meet A-1 require- ments for building a house John Womack,. Architect for Walker, said the reason for the request is because a variance is needed from the side setback and the Board of Adjustment recommended granting the variance conditioned upon approval of rezoning to R-1. Barbara Crook questioned the reason for the Board of Adjustment's actions and Roy Clinton explained, under A-1 zoning, a 15 foot variance would be needed but if the property were zoned R-1, the variance needed is only 3 feet, and the Board of Adjustment did not wish to grant the larger variance. Mr. Womack showed a drawing of the house location on the site, and in relation to Sunrise Mountain Road. He said the placement of the residence was designed to take advantage of the view and in an effort to save some trees. Ernest Jacks said he recalled a problem with a past zoning case where Mr. Will wished to subdivide property but did not wish to make improvements, such as streets and utilities, that it seems the problem is the same with this case. It was decided to pursue this discussion in conjunction with the lot split request. 1V5 Planning Commission October 10, 1983 Page Four: With no other comments expressed from the audience either in favor of or in opposition to the petition, the public hearing was closed. Barbara Crook moved to recommend approval of R-1 zoning. The motion was seconded by Morton Gitelman and passed, 9-0. The Chairman said the Board of Directors would take action on this recommendation at their next meeting, October 18. The fifth item on the agenda was a request for a waiver from the lot size requirement applicable to a lot split submitted by John M. MOTION VARIANCE FROM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT FOR A LOT SPLIT 1657 SUNRISE MOUNTAIN ROAD JOHN M. WALKER Walker for property at 1657 Sunrise Mountain Road, presently zoned A-1, Agricultural District, and under recommendation to the Board of Directors for rezoning to R-1, Low Density Residential District. The Chairman said the Planning Administrator told him this property did not have sufficient frontage for her to administratively process a lot split; that, subsequently, more acreage has been purchased and the frontage requirement has now been met, so he does not understand why it is on the agenda. Suzanne Kennedy (Planning Office) stated the requirement for 200 feet of frontage is a zoning requirement in the A-1 District, that if the R-1 zoning is granted, the 200 feet of frontage is no longer an issue. She said a waiver must be granted for a lot split of less than three acres, regardless of the zoning. Ernest Jacks said this is a subdivision requirement. Jacks asked if Mr. Will still owned the property. :Mr..:Walker said he has already purchased the tract of land they wish to split off Mr. Will's property. Newton Hailey said he thought the lot split approval was no longer needed, if the rezoning is approved. Both Suzanne Kennedy and Ernest Jacks pointed out the three acre minimum requirement applies to the property regardless of its zoning. Mr. Clinton suggested the waiver might not be needed because the lot may have been created sometime in 1965. Suzanne Kennedy said, if the Planning Office could have processed the lot split administratively because it was an older lot, it would not have been placed on the agenda. Morton Gitelman moved to table the request until Bobbie Jones MOTION can.explain .the problem. The motion was seconded by Ernest Jacks, who stated he thought there was a bigger issue here, about piecing off the property, which he said was what the subdivision ordinance is in place to prevent. Windell Cullers asked how waiting for Bobbie Jones was going to change the amount of property owned, which is still less than three acres. He asked Mr. Walker if he could buy more land and Clinton said he would have to buy land across the road in any direction. .Gitelman pointed out, the question is, does this lot come under the subdivision requirements. It was explained to Mr. Walker that the lot split question would not have to go before the Board of Directors but would be resolved either by the Planning Office or by the Planning Commission. 126 Planning Commission October 10, 1983 Page Five Barbara Crook asked if the road to the property qualifies as an improved public street, stating the ordinance requires a lot split cannot be granted without access to an improved public street. The motion to table the request passed, 9-0. The Chairman stated the proposed PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO BYLAWS amendment to the Bylaws would be tabled again until he has prepared the necessary material. Seventh on the agenda was a report from McClelland Engineers on the Sewerage and Drainage Study they conducted for the Highway 16 West area, as well as comments from Planning Consultant, Larry Wood. The Chairman said the Planning Commission would hold a public hearing on October 24th for citizen input and will then make a recommendation to the Board of Directors at a regular meeting. SEWERAGE AND DRAINAGE STUDY REPORT FROM ENGINEERS $ PLANNING CONSULTANT HIGHWAY 16 WEST (NEWLY ANNEXED AREA) Larry Wood said the sewerage and drainage study came about after this area was annexed into the City, that a resident of the area, Mr. Jack, told the Planning Commission the area south of the highway was not suitable for septic tanks and another resident, Mr. Goff, said there were flooding problems on several parcels. The engineer's report shows flooding problems and soils problems in terms of septic tanks. Wood said he concurred with the recommendations in both studies, that an effort should be made to form an improvement district as a first step in a commitment to fund facilities for storm drainage improvements to relieve the flooding on the three properties mentioned and, as development occurs, to make channel improvements, as funding becomes available. He said he also concurs with the sewer recommendations, for a policy of tight zoning control to try to secure an improvement district to aid in funding, that the City participate to what extent it can towards improvement of sewerage facilities. Wood said he would recommend these be the recommendations of the Planning Commission. John Quinn, McClelland Engineers, said their initial objective was to recommend storm drainage and sewerage improvements indicated for a 900 acre target area along Highway 16 West, as impacted by any contiguous drainage areas that might affect those recommendations. He said they ended up studying almost 2,000 acres, including those contiguous areas He cautioned that a sewer improvement district does not always consider other municipal improvements that go along with drainage and sewerage, so additional costs should be considered. He said the storm drainage design recommendations in the report do not guarantee there will be no further flooding in the affected areas He said a ballpark cost estimate, from a construction and engineering standpoint, for storm drainage improvements, would approach $1.5 million; for sewerage improvements, approximately $1.1 million. He said the engineers feel implementation should rest with the policy makers and the Board of Directors. The engineers feel there are four high priority items for storm water and drainage improvements, with a total cost of $150,000.00, which they feel should be the City's responsibility. Secondary to X27 j • • • Planning Commission October 10, 1983 Page Six this is another $1.3 million of drainage improvements which they feel the City should participate in, only to the extent of upsizing improvements done by individual developers, with developers bearing the basic costs. As far as sanitary sewage improvements, they recommend an ultimate design for 25% potential density. They do not think the City should participate in the near future in any sewage improvements, because they feel drainage improve- ments are more important for that area. The engineers encourage the formation of a development district, with the City participating in major facility improvements only in the way of pump stations, force mains and primary sewer interceptors, with all other improvements to be financed by the developers. Quinn said Robert White, the project engineer for the study, was present to answer questions. Newton Hailey asked those Directors present for some input on how detailed a recommendation they wished to have from the Planning Commission, if they wish the Commission, for example,tto phase priorities. Director Noland said it does not appear to be possible to phase the sewerage aspect. He said the Directors wish to have as much input as possible from the Commission. Mort Gitelman said he wouldn't see how the City could participate in sewerage improvements after the developers put..in:collection lines, and developers cannot put in lines without force mains. He suggested one alternative would be to extract contracts from developers such as those used for subdivision improvements. Noland said it occurred to him also that the City would perhaps have to do the work first and charge an assessment fee to the developers. Robert White said they did estimate a current user's fee for hooking on could be $5,000.00. Don Hunnicutt said he thought this arrangement had been used for the Highway 265 area, that there is also the possibility of homeowners having to pay the fee rather than developers, if the area does not develop fast enough. Barbara Crook said she noted the study indicates particular areas not good for septic tanks and she asked what recommendations there were for individuals who have Health Department approval for septic tanks, coming in with piece -meal developments. Quinn said the soils study discourages development by septic tanks, although there are septic tanks existing in the area, and this approach could be taken, where the Health Department approves it under optimum conditions. He said several commercial enterprises could also get together with smaller lift stations, but that neither one of these are good alternatives. Windell Cullers brought up the question of how to control the amount of users when those on septic tanks decide to hook onto sewer. Quinn said he thought these would have to be case-by-case decisions, and Don Bunn said they had no set policy for where to draw the line, as long as the capacity is there. Don Hunnicutt said he thought at this point, the studies need only be used as a guide by the Planning Commission and Board to make decisions as development comes in the future. Barbara Crook suggested, since the City built only one sewage treatment plant and located it on the east side where all the sewage must be pumped around the town to get it to the plant, this might justify a larger expenditure by the City for a force main and pump stations, that this $400,000.00 expense could I9i Planning Commission October 10, 1983 Page Seven be added to the millions of dollars being spent on the treatment plant and could be considered as a unit of the plant. She felt the landowners on the west side of town would not have had such an expense to develop their land if they could have been on gravity sewage. Morton Gitelman said he thought this could become too complex, because every time there needs to be a decision about a plant or pump station location, you would have to apportion out who receives the most benefits and who pays out the most expenses. Gitelman said he also thought it would be the City Board's job to decide how much expense will be borne by the City for the force main. Cullers said he thought developers bought land with their eyes open, knowing their expenses will be greater in one area than in another, also that drainage problems have existed in the Highway 16 West area for a long time and are now a matter of public record. Hunnicutt stressed the importance of making the studies available to everyone, perhaps even by notifying all the landowners. Newton Hailey asked Board members if they thought it was better to fund some of these improvements through improvement districts. Marion Orton said she thought the Planning Commission has to deal directly with planning decisions for the area, that if she were a planning commissioner she would want something more tangible than what has been discussed so far, that as a City Board member she looks to the Planning Commission for guidance and recommendations. Hailey asked about possible policy for annexations, and Marion Orton said the Board looks to the Planning Commission for policies of this kind. Hailey said he and Hunnicutt had discussed other areas in town which need sewer. Paul Noland said it would be helpful to the Board if the Planning Commission would study other un-sewered areas and prioritize these. A member of.the'audience said he thought having pump stations in Farmington would not help the Wedington Road area, and said he thought we should be helping the people who want to develop along Highway 16, east of Double Springs Road. Robert White said the pump stations in Farmington are existing, not proposed. Don Hunnicutt said we must look at the entire area, not just the strip along the highway. He said whoever develops first sets the course. Frank Sharp said the City has projections on growth for the next 25 years and he would like to see how many areas already have adequate streets, adequate sewer, and are close enough to fire stations, which could be developed before spending taxpayers', money in other areas. He said the projections on growth for the entire city are that it should double in 25 years. Cullers said he thought it would be simpler for the Planning Commission if the Board would tell them just what they want the Commission to study. David Williams said the Plan Update Committee will be studying how much each zone has developed and Williams didn't think it would be hard to look also at the development of sewer and streets along with this. 129 L L. J • Planning Commission October 10, 1983 Page Eight Larry Wood said Fayetteville now is 22.5% developed, not including the newly annexed area of Highway 16 West (meaning, of the total land within the City, 22.5% of it is developed and the rest is undeveloped). The eighth item of business was a petition to vacate the ten foot alley between Lots 12 and 13 and Lots 14 and 15 in the Dowell Addition west of Government Avenue, submitted by Kenneth and Alice Wagner and Zinn Jackman. The petitioners were not present. ALLEY VACATION DOWELL ADDITION WAGNER, ZINN 8 JACKMAN Albert M. Zinn and Viola The Chairman stated approval from utility companies officials had already been granted. and necessary City Windell Cullers moved the Planning Commission recommend approval. The motion was seconded by Julie Nash and passed, 9-0. The last item on the agenda was REQUEST TO AMEND ORDINANCE a request from James D. Davis to MINI -STORAGE IN C-3 appear before Planning Commission JAMES D. DAVIS and discuss his request that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to allow mini -storage in a C-3 zoning district. This request had been tabled at the September 26 meeting. David Williams moved the request be taken off the table. The motion was seconded by Morton Gitelman and passed, 9-0. Mr. Davis was present, and distributed a concept drawing, and a letter of explanation to the Planning Commission. Mr. Davis said his letter suggests a way to allow the mini -storage in the C-3 District without amending the Code, byallowing it under appeal to the Planning Commission under Use Unit 17, Trades and Services. He said there is a use specified under Use Unit 17 for food storage lockers and the service he proposes is a household service that fulfills recurrent needs of residents in the nearby area. He said storage lockers are not specifically listed under any other use unit. David Williams moved this interpretation be accepted under the MOTION category of food storage lockers. The motion was seconded by Windell Cullers. Ernest Jacks said he was agreeable to that, but questioned why the storage units were not included under any use unit. Mort Gitelman asked how a storage locker differs from mini -storage units. Mr. Davis said he thought storage lockers differ from "warehousing" uses (Use Unit 21) in that warehouse uses are aimed more at large distribution centers with turnaround spaces for big trucks. David Williams said, with the location of the current C-3 zoning in town, he did not think this would cause a lot of unsightly storage units becoming a problem. 130 • • • Planning Commission October 10, 1983 Page Nine Barbara Crook asked if it would make more sense to amend Use Unit 17 to include storage lockers instead of making a broad interpretation. David Williams said he would rather deal with this question when the General Plan is updated. The motion passed, 7-2, with Crook and Gitelman voting in opposition. With no further business the meeting adjourned at about 6:30 P.M. 131