Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-11-14 MinutesF-] • MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at 5:00 P.M. on Monday, November 14, 1983 in Room 107 of the Continuing Education Center, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Members Present: Morton Gitelman, Barbara Crook, Don Dunnicutt, David Williams, Newton Hailey, Jr., Melanie Stockdell, Julie Nash and Ernest Jacks. Members Absent: Others Present: Windell Cullers. Paul Marinoni, Jr., William C. Sherwood, Jim T. Hatfield, Bryce Davis, Larry Wood, David McWethy, Bobbie Jones, Suzanne Kennedy, Jeanette Crumpler, 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. With no corrections or additions, the Minutes of the October 24, 1983 meeting were approved as mailed. The second item of business was request for waiver of driveway safety zone for the Mong Dynasty Restaurant located at 1998 North College Avenue, zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The Chairman reported that this Large Scale Development was approved at the Subdivision Committee meeting of action was needed by the Planning Commission. MINUTES LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT MONG DYNASTY RESTAURANT NORTH COLLEGE AVENUE LAWRENCE MONG November 4, 1983 and no A motion was made by Don Hunnicutt that the 25 foot MOTION driveway safety zone be waived for the Mong Dynasty Restaurant. Motion was seconded by Morton Gitelman and passed, 8-0. The third item on the agenda was a public hearing on Rezoning Petition R83-18, submitted by Paul Marinoni, Sr. to rezone 5.47 acres located south of Wedington Drive (Highway 16 West) and west of Lonnie Avenue (said property lies both east and west of Presbyterian Church). Paul Marinoni, Jr. was present. the following: REZONING PETITION R83-18 HIGHWAY 16 WEST PAUL MARINONI, SR. the Cumberland This request involved Tract I, from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Tract II, from R-1, Low Density Residential District to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Tract III, from R-1, Low Residential District to R-0, District. Residential Office INS PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 14, 1983 PAGE TWO Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, presented his report, stating he recommends the R-0 and R-2 Districts for the following reasons: 1. The two districts will establish a transition and buffer from the potential commercial uses to the west and the single-family to the east; 2. The public facilities and services are available to serve the development; and; 3. The property has access to a principal arterial street. The Chairman stated a petition three (3) pages in length was received from residents in the area, expressing opposition. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Marinoni explained that the lots under petition are too close to the highway for single-family units. He stated that several lots on the east side of the church had been for sale for several years and they have been unable to sell them as single-family sites. He explained that the use would be far better as R-2 with the proposal to build high quality duplexes, and retain their ownership. He explained they do not intend to put these lots up for sale as they have a very high interest in the integrity and value of the neighborhood. Mr. Marinoni advised that there is a final plat of Phase I approved for four (4) lots on the east side of the church and a preliminary plat for the whole plan. Mr. Marinoni advised that Lancelot Avenue is existing but not paved yet. He stated sewer and water are in. Mr. Marinoni advised that Ora Drive runs east and west and lies east of a ditch along his East property line; with Lonnie Avenue also being east of the ditch. Linda Graham, 2355 Berry stated that one of the selling points of her property was the large vacant pasture land. She wanted to know how far Mr. Marinoni's development would be from this pasture as she was concerned about the resale value and the fact that this is a very quiet, low traffic area. Mr. Marinoni advised although the lots were big enough for a six or eight-plex, they intend to build duplexes. Mr. Marinoni advised there would be no thruways and that Lonnie would not be extended. Mr. Marinoni advised that they did not intend to cut the trees down, but if a drainage study is done, they might make the ditch deeper. Mr. Marinoni advised that his plans are probably for one duplex per lot with two people per unit or four persons per lot. Chairman Hailey asked if there was anyone in the audience who would like to speak against this rezoning petition. Paul Guthrie, 2315 Ora, referred to the petition in opposition to the rezoning. Mr. Guthrie advised that he did not believe there were any more duplexes or apartments needed in the City of Fayetteville at the present time. He said he felt it would be a detriment to every homeowner living on Ora, Berry or on Wedington. He stated they bought their homes because of the single-family character of the neighborhood. Mr. Guthrie advised that there is not a shortage of housing in Fayetteville at this time, either in duplexes or apart- ments. He stated that the National average for occupancy in the United States is 95% or better, but in Fayetteville, it is between 85 and 90%. In 1982, there was a serious flood, and Mr. Guthrie stated that the drainage ditch which is east of Lonnie currently is not adequate to carry the water. He stated that all the drainage from Wedington to the Presbyterian Church comes through that ditch. He also voiced his concern with regard to the traffic flow. Mr. Guthrie feels that if you put more apartments in the intended location, you will have more serious accidents and more serious flooding. The public hearing was closed. 146 • • PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 14, 1983 PAGE THREE It was decided by the Commission to consider Tracts I through III on an individual basis. MOTION Morton Gitelman moved the Planning Commission recommend denial of rezoning for Tract I, stating the location of that property was not much of a buffer to commercial development and that he thought Marinoni could build duplexes under the R1 zone with a conditional use. Melanie Stockdell seconded the motion and it passed, 8-0 with Cullers absent Morton Gitelman made a motion the Planning Commission recommend MOTION approval of rezoning for Tracts :II:and III as submitted. The motion was seconded by Ernest Jacks. Motion passed 8-0. Mr. Marinoni asked if they could change their application to apply for con- ditional use in R-1 for Tract I for duplexes tonight. Bobbie Jones advised that in the past, the City Attorney advised that a Conditional Use application would have to be filed at the Planning Office. She advised that Mr. Marinoni could file one application to cover the four lots. The motion passed, 8-0, with a recommendation to the City Board that Tract II' be rezoned to R-2 and Tract III from R-1 to R-0. Bobbie Jones advised that today was the deadline for Conditional Use applications, but if Mr. Marinoni submitted his first thing Tuesday morning, she would place it on the agenda for November 28th meeting. The fourth item on the agenda was Rezoning Petition R83-19, William C. Sherwood and Lee Ward, to rezone property located at 701 North College Avenue from R-0, Residential Office District, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Mr. William C Sherwood was present. REZONING. PETITION R83-19 701 NORTH COLLEGE AVENUE WILLIAM C. SHERWOOD $ LEE WARD Larry Wood, Planning Consultant,:made the following recommendations: In summary, he recommended that the property not be changed from R-0 to C-2. The property has been the subject of three rezoning requests for C-2, all of which have been denied. Rezoning of the property to the north has also been denied. There has been a special study of the strip from Trenton to North Street and the recommendation was to retain R-0 on the west side and the property under application has been the subject of a court challenge and the court has upheld the City Board on its denial of C-2. The reasons in all of the previous zoning cases cited, basically, summarize into traffic problems. Highway 71 is carrying approximately 22,000 vehicles a day past this location. The property is subject to a fairly steep grade both north and south of its location. There is a retaining wall on the west side which causes sight distance problems for people trying to turn in and out of the property. He stated he feels that the C-2 district with all of its use potentials, and the traffic generation of those uses would continue to create a traffic hazard, and he therefore, does not recommend a change to C-2. Larry wood stated R-0 zoning surrounds this property on three sides. The public hearing was opened. • • PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 14, 1983 PAGE FOUR William Sherwood stated he did not understand why the club across the street could overflow into his parking lot every night, that this would cause accidents moreso than any business he might have. He stated that "The End of the Rainbow" is right at the crest of the hill and also creates a large amount of traffic. With no one speaking in opposition to the petition, the public hearing was closed. Ernest Jacks agreed, there was a traffic problem and questioned whether it should be increased. Mr. Jacks suggested the possibility of access from the west side of Mr. Sherwood's property without putting more traffic out on College. Don Hunnicutt suggested some type of a conditional use for that property that would not generate traffic in that location rather than going commercial all the way. Bobbie Jones stated the alley which runs along the west side of the property may not be open. Mr. Sherwood stated the alley was not open and there was no access to the west or south. Ernest Jacks asked if Mr. Sherwood owned the property the last time the Commission had taken action on it and he replied he did not. He advised he had bought it after the last action, and that he did know there was a problem when he bought it. David Williams made a motion the Planning Commission recommend to deny the application for rezoning on the basis of its potential for increasing public safety problems. The motion was seconded by Melanie Stockdell. MOTION Mrs. Stockdell then stated that a Conditional Use would be something that the Commission would look at rather than rezoning the property. Mr. Sherwood then explained that he intended putting a western store in this spot and probably would not have more than two cars in there at a time. Bobbie Jones explained that about the only conditional use allowed in an R-0 district would be apart- ments and restaurants. Mr. Sherwood then advised that the present zoning allows him to put a funeral parlor there, and suggested traffic for that would be worse than for a western store. Barbara Crook then advised that there was still the need to be consistent with the zoning on that side of College. The motion passed, 6-2 with Chairman Halley and Julie Nash voting "nay". David McWethy advised that in order to get on the City Board Agenda for December 6, he must file his appeal with the City Clerk within 15 days The fifth item on the agenda was Rezoning REZONING PETITION R83-20 Petition R83-20, Jim T. Hatfield, to rezone OLD WIRE ROAD AND OLD 4.72 acres northwest of the corner of Old Wire Road 'MISSOURI ROAD and Old Missouri Road, from R-1, Low Density Residential JIM T. HATFIELD District, to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Mr. Hatfield was present. Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, advised that in this case, he had not really given a recommendation, but has given an alternative. He suggested that a case can be made for rezoning the property in that there are churches on two sides, and the property backs to residential, and is located at the corner of a collector and a minor arterial in terms of the master street plan. On the other hand, he stated he considered the site td keep the greater densities to the exterior of the neighborhood. The property location is at a dangerous location at the present time,because of the way the grades are at the inter- section and there is a great deal of undeveloped land in this area that rezoning 148 i PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 14, 1983 PAGE FIVE to R-2 could impact in terms of the future use of that undeveloped land. Mr. Wood suggested that this might be referred to the Update Committee to see if they might want to give some guidance back on the implication of changes in residential goals in terms of location of single family versus multi -family. 2) The other alternative is the potential for a conditional use for duplexes in R-1 for the property. Chairman Hailey explained that this had been discussed at the Update Committee meeting held before the Planning Commission meeting. If Mr: Hatfield.agreed to" table the petition, it would give 45 days for the committee to get back to the Planning Commission with a recommendation. The Update Committee did not feel they could maneuver and make a decision with the things that are already scheduled on the agenda for them to do and could not get back to the Planning Commission within the time period. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Hatfield stated that due to the glut of single-family residential lots available in the area, it is not feasible to develop property right now with the development costs and sell them for single-family houses. Mr. Hatfield then handed out Kiplinger's Newsletter of six weeks ago which stated that the coming trend was toward smaller homes, condominiums and town houses. He stated that there is a need for this type of housing with smaller lots, as a lot of people do not want to maintain large lots. Mr. Hatfield stated this is the same property as that which was presented for Large Scale Development. There have been no changes made and he can get approximately 13-14 lots. Chairman Hailey asked if Mr. Hatfield had to move on this immediately, as he has touched on some points that have been talked about earlier in the day, i.e., the need for this type of housing, but_the Update Committee is in a sort of "time warp", and does not know when action could be taken on it. Hatfield advised that they were not ready to start any construction, but there are some things pending that this would clear up. Barbara Crook questioned the exit access of this property with concern that the only place to come out would be the intersection of Old Missouri Road and Old Wire Road. Hatfield advised that the exit would be 100 feet plus north of the intersection. David Williams, Chairman of the Update Committee, explained to Mr. Hatfield the "bureaucratic time problem" which they are being faced with. He advised that the Update Committee cannot recommend a change in the Zoning Ordinance soon because of the holiday schedule and other work which must be done between now and January; however, the 1st of January, this will be high on the priority list of problems to take care of. Mr. Williams advised the Commission must take action within 45 days Bobbie Jones added that Mr. Hatfield could agree in writing to table it for more than 45 days. Morton Gitelman then added that even if the Update Committee comes up with a new recommendation, it still would have to go to the Planning Commission, City Board and public hearings would have to be held before any changes in the ordinance could be made. Mr. Hatfield asked if there was a possibility of putting covenants on making this an R-2. Barbara Crook advised that the best route would probably be conditional use duplexes in an R=1 zone. David Williams reiterated Mr. Hatfield's options, those being: 1) The petition may or may not get approved tonight. 2) If this is disapproved, Mr. Hatfield cannot apply for the same rezoning for a period of 12 months unless waived by the Planning Commission, however, he could come back for a duplex conditional use request and 3) He could wait i99 PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 14, 1983 PAGE SIX for some resolution, perhaps the establishment of another zone between R-1 and R-2. Julie Nash stated she did not see any difference in rezoning or giving a conditional use because if it were to be rezoned, the duplexes would be there and if a conditional use were to be granted, the duplexes would still be there. Morton Gitelman responded by saying that if it were zoned R-2 and Mr. Hatfield were to build one duplex and it did not sell, then he could build a three story apartment building. Mr. Bob Nickel, property owner on Stagecoach Drive, stated he was not opposed to the placement of duplexes. However, he was concerned that if in the future the property were to change hands, there would be little that could be done about an apartment complex going in. He stated he would be against R-2 zoning, but thought conditional use for duplexes would be appropriate. Mr. Hatfield then asked if this property could be zoned R-2 with a maximum density of duplexes. Bobbie Jones then stated that if Mr. Hatfield were to voluntarily submit a Bill of Assurance, this could be accomplished, and she advised that the City has in the past, accepted some Bills of Assurances that were voluntarily submitted, but this must be proposed by the petitioner and accepted by the Planning Commission. She further advised that the Bill does run with the land. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Hatfield then offered to sign a Bill of Assurance for a maximum density of duplexes on the property. A motion was made by Julie Nash to recommend to the MOTION City Board to rezone from R-1 to R-2, contingent upon the receipt of the Bill of Assurance which is equal to conditional use available under R1. The motion was seconded by Ernest Jacks. Morton Gitelman stated he was opposed to this motion. He stated that the motion made no sense because you could get a conditional use for exactly the same thing without rezoning the property. Rezoning this property with the Bill of Assurance, sets a bad precedence in that neighborhood due to the amount of empty land still available. He was concerned because the Bill of Assurance does not show on the zoning map but the R-2 does The motion for the recommendation of rezoning failed 2-6 with Mr. Jacks and Mrs. Nash voting for the rezoning. A motion was then made by David Williams to deny MOTION rezoning to R-2 and was seconded by Barbara Crook. The motion for denial was passed 7-1 with Mrs. Nash voting "nay". The sixth item on the agenda was a public hearing to consider a proposed ordinance to amend Article 7, Section 12, (B) of Appendix A -Zoning, to the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances to authorize the use of a mobile home as a temporary con - PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO AMEND ARTICLE V_II, SEC XIIB FAYETTEVILLE .CODE OF ORDINANCES 159 I • • • PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 14, 1983 PAGE SEVEN struction office on property for which a building permit has been issued, and for other purposes. This had been referred back to the Planning Commission for recommendation by the Board of Directors. The public hearing was opened. Bryce Davis wished to know what was meant by the term "other uses" in the proposed ordinance. Chairman Hailey advised that he thought there were no other uses. Bobbie Jones said this is a "catch-all" phrase in the newspaper notice in case they wish to change the proposed ordinance. Ernest Jacks then reiterated that this ordinance simply adds a mobile home as temporary construction office to whatever is already possible under the present ordinance. The public hearing was closed. Morton Gitelman asked if the ordinance would include the fact that if a person's house burned down, he could place a mobile home on it and use it as his living quarters until his home is built, saying he is supervising the building of his home. Ernest Jacks reiterated the fact that this was a construction office, not a residence. Ernest Jacks made a motion to recommend to the City Board the adoption of this ordinance. The motion was seconded by Don Hunnicutt, and motion passed 8-0. MOTION The seventh item on the agenda was a public hearing PUBLIC HEARING to consider a proposed ordinance to amend Chapter PROPOSED ORDINANCE 13B of the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances to TO AMEND CHAPTER 13B clarify the City's regulations on the location FAYETTEVILLE CODE OF ORDINANCES of mobile homes. This had been referred to the Planning Commission by the Board of Directors for recommendation. Chairman Hailey explained that this would strictly limit the placing of a mobile home to the degree that the only place you could put them would be in a mobile home park, and advised that for the last year, Mrs. Crook has had a committee which has worked on this to some degree. Chairman Hailey stated he would like to suggest that this be referred back to Mrs. Crook's committee and let them determine if there are any additional public hearings needed. The public hearing was opened. A lady stated she was a representative of a property owner from Oklahoma City with future plans to move a trailer to Fayetteville into an R-2 zoning district. She wished to know if there was any way to temporarily move this trailer onto an approximately 27 acre tract. Barbara Crook advised that this could not be done at the present time without 3 acres zoned A-1. Mrs. Crook advised that if he had a prefabricated building which meets the Standard Building Code, it can be placed on the lot in the same manner as a house, but it would have to permanently attach to city services with no wheels, etc. This would have to be set up as a permanent dwelling and must meet the Standard Building Code. Ernest Jacks said Mrs. Crook's committee was first formed to review the code which restricts mobile homes to trailer parks, except for the A=1 with 3 acres. He said this was in no way meant to hamper the construction of prefabricated homes of a /51 • PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 14, 1983 PAGE EIGHT quality nature; then, the problem got to be how to distinguish between these mobile homes and prefabricated structures because prefabricated construction is both brought in and built in. Mr. Jacks said the only big difference had to do with meeting building codes, so this was written into the ordinance. He then read City Attorney McCord's comments in his letter which indicated that the Planning Office interprets the City Zoning Ordinance and Mobile Home Ordinance as permitting the location of mobile homes outside mobile home parks if they meet the construction standards described by the Southern Building Code or the Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards Act. Bobbie Jones advised that her interpretation dealt only with the Southern Building Codes, not the Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards Act. Mr. Jacks stated that when the ordinance was written, it was intended mobile homes must meet the Southern Building Code to be considered prefabricated. Bobbie Jones then stated that she thought the intent of these two ordinances deals with the 2nd paragraph in Mr. McCord's letter and his concern that the courts may hold that mobile homes can be restricted by zoning but not necessarily by building code, that they could not be denied from a construction standpoint. Bryce Davis then stated that the subdivisions which have been put in within the last 20-25 years have restrictions in them against mobile homes going in. He wanted to know if it was definitions which the Commission was talking about, whether it is mobile home or whether it is prefabricated. Barbara Crook advised that the committee's concern at the time they were looking at this was that•it be possible to have some sort of temporary housing for elderly or handicapped relatives and still not have the possibility of mobile homes on small city lots. Therefore, she felt the Commission would need to be sure that what is being proposed would not make that impossible. She said there also appears to be a need to look at the definition of prefabricated homes. Morton Gitelman stated that in 1970, the Planning Commission proposed that mobile homes would be allowed in the R-1 zone if they were fixed to a permanent foundation and had water and sewer connections. There were several public hearings and the public seemed to disfavor this considerably and it was changed. He stated his personal feelings that if you keep a mobile home that is fixed on a permanent foundation and attached to water and sewer out of a residential neighborhood, it is discriminatory. A motion was made by Newton Hailey and seconded by David Williams to refer this proposed ordinance to Barbara Crook and her committee. MOTION The eighth item on the agenda was a SEWERAGE AND DRAINAGE STUDIES recommendation to the Board of Directors HIGHWAY 16 WEST on the sewerage and drainage studies along Highway 16 West on which public hearings were held October 24, 1983. Newton Hailey explained that the purpose of this is for the Planning Commission to attempt to come up with a recommendation for the City Board. Barbara Crook requested that each report be taken separately. Bobbie Jones brought to the attention of the Commission, the letter from the City Engineer on the Maple Manor sewer line. Barbara Crook stated that she was basically in agreement with the report of the Engineer and would be willing to recommend that the City accomplish priorities #1 and #2 as soon as monies could be budgeted to /5 2 i •S • PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 14, 1983 PAGE NINE accomplish these, i.e., replacing structures #2 and #5 and upgrade structure #1. These are immediate problems. In priority #2 on structure #3, there is some question about whether the structure needs replacing or not. The engineers were not sure of the structural integrity of the bridge the way it is. Melanie Stockdell requested that in the Commission's recommendations, they propose that this study be consolidated with other studies performed, and that the process of setting priorities be accomplished with the money that the City has for City wide endeavors of working on the system. Stockdell stated that recommending a lot of what is in these studies is giving undue priority to this section of town over other sections which have had tremendous problems historically and are still having problems. Don Hunnicutt stated that he did not think that the Commission could recommend anything anymore than this is what we looked into and this is what we found, and not to recommend starting right away on anything which would cause immediate growth. Barbara Crook then made a motion to recommend the MOTION Evaluation of Stormwater and Drainage Facilities as prepared by McClelland Engineers to the City Board to serve as guide- lines for the development of stormwater and drainage facilities on Highway 16 West with the recommendation that it is the sense of the Planning Commission that priorities I and II are important and should be accomplished as soon as feasible in light of other needs of the City. The motion was seconded by Ernest Jacks and passed,7-0-1, with Julie Nash abstaining. Julie Nash left the meeting. The second portion of item #8 was now addressed, that of the Sewerage report. Chairman Hailey called attention to the memo submitted by Don Bunn. Bobbie Jones stated that Mr. Bunn did advise her that the fact that there are two sewer lines intersecting into that manhole does not preclude another sewer line being placed into it at a lower elevation. One could be brought in about 31 feet lower than the one that is already present, and that Mr. Bunn was not sure how much larger area it could serve. Barbara Crook then stated it was her feeling that any unused capacity of the Hamstring Creek Pump Station should be retained to sewer that portion within the city limits to the north of 16 and to the east of Ruple Road whenever that can be accomplished. That area cannot be sewered with the force mechanism. PART A A motion was made by Barbara Crook that the Commission MOTION recommend to the City Board that additional loading to the Hamstring Pump Station be restricted so that sufficient capacity is preserved to take care of these two areas as they develop in the future; 1) one being north of Highway 16 and to East of Ruple Road as proposed by Blew and Associates in 1981; 2) the other area being within the City limits and near the inter- section of County Road 877 and north of Highway 16 West. Barbara Crook also recommended that the report as a PART B guideline to the development of sewerage needs for the MOTION study area of Highway 16 West with the exception of their recommendation regarding municipal participation in the sewerage facility costs. We recommend that the City participate to some equitable extent with construction of major facilities recommended, forced mains, pump stations and interceptor '53 PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 14, 1983 PAGE TEN lines. The motion was seconded by Don Hunnicutt. Motion was passed 7-0. Melanie Stockdell made a motion that the Commission MOTION recommends that these studies along with the other studies which have been done across the City on sewerage and stormwater, be put in the appropriate department head's hands for development of a specific set of priorities with associated costs for the Boards' consideration for inclusion into the 1984 budget. The motion was seconded by Morton Gitelman and passed 7-0. The nineth item on the agenda was a request by REQUEST FOR DOWNZONING property owners on South Gregg Avenue SOUTH GREGG AVENUE BETWEEN CENTER between Center Street and Prairie Street, that the STREET ;AND: )P.RAIRIE City initiate action to downzone from R-3, High PROPERTY OWNERS Density Residential, to R-2, Medium Density Residential, a parcel of property at Gregg Avenue and University Avenue. Chairman Hailey explainedthat the issue to be discussed is whether the Planning Commission feels that it is in a position to initiate a rezoning or to send the data it has on to the City Board for their recommendation. Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, gave a history of this property beginning about 1970. A portion of the property was zoned R-3 on the 1970 zoning map and the remainder of the property wasrezoned I-1 to R-3 on the part he owned. Mr. Wood said he had recommended against the zoning of R-3 because the zoning of the property is I-1 and the nature of use there was single-family. The property was rezoned by the City Board to R-3 in 1976. Ernest Jacks then stated in 1978, the Commission did a study of that area due to the City Board's rezoning of this property, with the recommendation of High Density, which is shown on the land use plan. About 5 years ago, there was a petition to rezone R-2 from Industrial. Area residents objected and the Planning Commission went back over this and upheld what they had originally decided and sent it on to the Board. The people then went on to the Board with a request to rezone the entire neighborhood. The Board refused but did rezone to R-1, individual parcels upon petition of the owner. Wood then stated he did agree with the people in the neighborhood that the streets were undersized, but to do nothing will not change the nature of the streets. In the meantime, the north end of Gregg Avenue at Center Street was rezoned and apartments were built there; then just south of that, there was an R-2 rezoning and apartments were built there as well; and then a third case came up in the curve which was denied. This is the one that went to court. Chairman Hailey _asked the property owners if they would like to add anything. At that time, Irving "Buddy" Zisner, owner of Lots 11 & 12 of Hall& Gollaher Addition, voiced his concerns about safety and the fact that the streets were not wide enough. Chairman Hailey then stated that the owner of the subject property had not applied for a building permit but had started the process. Bobbie Jones then advised that they had submitted the site plans prepared by an Architect and have had the property surveyed. Chairman Hailey reiterated that the only issue before the Commission is "have there been enough changes made, or does the Commission feel strongly enough that enough things have happened to initiate change?" Ms. Wynn, 304 S. Gregg Avenue, property owner, then stated that she lives directly across from the proposed site. She stated her driveway was directly across from the site '59 • • PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 14, 1983 PAGE ELEVEN where the owner proposes to have his driveway come out and Gregg is only 18' wide. She agreed with Mr. Zisner that this is a safety hazard. She stated that high density was not at all appropriate for this neighborhood. At this time, Don Kemp, Surveyor of the subject property came forward in representation of the property owner. He stated that this entire issue was a shock to the property owner as he had just gotten his agenda in the mail on Saturday night. He advised that the property owner has gone to quite a bit of expense on this and the property owner did get this property rezoned before he started any plans or specifications on the buildings. Mr. Kemp advised that there could be minor changes as far as the driveway is concerned or outlets to the parking. He stated there may be a variance needed on the parking, but he would be willing to work with the property owners on this. Bobbie Jones then brought an additional petition to the attention of Chairman Hailey which had been signed by four additional people. Hunnicutt then requested to know the time frame in- volved in the receipt of the plans. Bobbie Jones advised that the site plan was received September 19; she began her review on the 20th and completed it on the 22nd of September. Ernest Jacks then stated that since there had been a great deal of expense incurred in the process of these plans, he did not be- lieve that anything could be done at this point. Newton Hailey stated that in his discussion with City Attorney McCord today, November 14, 1983, McCord had said that since the Planning Commission had previously approved rezoning and the City Board had reviewed and approved the rezoning, and a study had been done, that in his opinion, the only thing that could really be done would be to look at anything that had affected the area and whether there had been any changes in that immediate area since that action had been undertaken. Chairman Hailey then clarified the fact that even if the Commission were to initiate action for rezoning, that the Planning Commission could actually initiate a Rezoning Petition and then vote against it. Bobbie Jones then advised that on the subject property, the Lots which have lot numbers were zoned R-3 when the map was adopted in 1970. The property owner submitted the balance of it for rezoning in February of 1976. There was no one present when it came before the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission recommended denial. It was appealed to the City Board and the City Board rezoned it. Melanie Stockdell then made a motion to initiate MOTION action to rezone from R-3 to R-2, the subject parcel of property located on South Gregg Avenue between Center Street and Prairie Street. The motion was seconded by David Williams. Hunnicutt then stated he thought the City had "made a contract" to rezone and now time has caught it up. He thought the owner should instigate rezoning and Mr. Hunnicutt said he would hate to have to start going across the entire City rezoning properties. He stated it just does not seem like it should be done this way. Ernest Jacks then stated that high density residential is the future land use of that area. David Williams then stated the compelling issue would not be the street situation, but the list of exceptions about the area which continues to grow. He stated he could not tell if there was a definite exception or not, nor did he know who would examine it. This appears to be the last opportunity for examination of this situation, and this is the spirit in which Williams supports a rezoning petition. He stated he would like to hear the whole case, /55 r �n • LS 0 • PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER.14, 1983 PAGE TWELVE get it settled, and let it rest. Barbara Crook then stated that if the proposed plans for this property were to be carried out, then the street would at least be improved at that site. The motion failed 2-6 with Melanie Stockdell and David Williams being in favor of initiating action to rezone the property and Ernest Jacks, Don Hunnicutt, Barbara Crook, and Morton Gitelman voting "nay". The Chairman stated that the proposed amendment to the Bylaws would be tabled until the next scheduled meeting. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE BYLAWS /56 1