Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-11-28 Minutes• • • CO A meeting of the 28, 1983 in Room MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Planning Commission was held at 5:00 P.M. on Monday, November 107 of the Continuing Education Center, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Morton Gitelman, Barbara Crook, David Williams, Melanie Stockdell, Windell Cullers, Julie Nash F, Ernest Jacks. Newton Hailey, Jr. F, Don Hunnicutt. Wayne Jones, Wade Bishop, Roy Cate, Paul Marinoni, Jr. Harry Gray, Don Ward, Larry Wood, Bobbie Jones, Jeanette Crumpler, members of the press and others. The meeting was called to order by Vice -Chairman Melanie Stockdell at 5:05 P.M. with seven (7) commissioners present. With no corrections or additions, the of the November 14, 1983 meeting were as mailed with Newton Hailey, Jr. and Minutes MINUTES approved Don Hunnicutt being absent. The second item on the agenda was the approval of the Large Scale Development Plan and Conditional Use for Drake Field, Fayetteville's Municipal Airport, located on the east side of South School Avenue (Highway 71). Property zoned A-1 Agricultural District. A waiver in the maximum width of curb cut for a private drive is requested. Crook advised the Subdivision Committee reviewed the Plan and forwarded a recommendation to the Planning Commission. Based on the Subdivision Committee recommendation, Crook moved that: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT DRAKE FIELD FAYETTEVILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT 1) The conditional use be granted; with 2) Waiver of the 10% landscaping requirement between street and parking;for the east/west access road. 3) With waiver of the 40' curb cut requirement as well. Crook advised that a 124' curb cut agreement had already been accomplished with the State Highway Department in order to allow for a 50' turning radius. 4) Crook advised that the Airport is to submit in writing, and on a large scale development plat, the right-of-way for the access road and.; 5) Easements as requested by the utility companies, along the access road and the utility easements along 71 on the west side of the airport. 6) A numbering and naming system for roads and meters will be worked out to the satisfaction of other City Departments. 7) Drainage will be handled, as the airport is developed, in a way that is acceptable to the City Engineer. ADDENDUM TO #5) Two north/south easements as requested by the utility companies, running perpendicular along the access road and the utility easements along 71 on the west side of the airport. _ • • • PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 28, 1983 PAGE TWO 8) This motion is subject to other Plat Review Comments that have not either been specifically waived or mentioned earlier. 9) In addition, as portions of the airport are phased in, the sectionsof the phases will be brought to the Planning Office to be checked for conformity with the large scale development. Wayne Jones stated that an area in question is that portion of the access road into the airport which runs in an East/West direction from the east side of the airport. The new access road is supposed to be a 50' easement and is approx- imately 35' south of the present Airport property boundary. Immediately north of that is the flood plain of Airport Creek for a distance of 100-150'. There- fore, in the immediate vicinity north of this section, there is really no usable property for some distance. Crook stated that the closest designated residential area is in the neighborhood of Willoughby Road to the north. The motion for approval of the Conditional Use was seconded by Morton Gitelman. The motion passed 7-0. The third item of business on the agenda was REZONING PETITION R83-21 Rezoning Petition R83-21, Wade Bishop, to ,STUBBLEFIELD ROAD & EAST OF SUMMERHILL rezone property located on Stubblefield WADE BISHOP Road and East of Summerhill from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Mr. Wade Bishop was present. Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, presented his report stating he does not recommend R-2 District for the following reasons: 1) The property is an interior neighborhood location served only by local residential streets; 2) The requested R-2 District is contrary to the General Plan recommendation which currently is low density land use; 3) A mixed residential land use pattern is available through either PUD ordinance or by Conditional Use under the R-1 District. Chairman Stockdell advised there had been a written request to table this item. She advised there was a petition from residents in the area. She wished to know if it was in the interest of any member of the Commission to entertain that motion. Property Owner and originator of petition, James Turner of 1501 Stubblefield, requested this Petition to Table be withdrawn. Public Hearing was opened. Chairman Stockdell asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in favor of the Petition to Rezone. Wade Bishop asked to speak in regards to the Petition and why he had requested the R-2 District. Bishop stated he was aware of the option for a PUD develop- ment. He stated this had been given serious consideration. Bishop stated he had no duplexes planned in the area at this time. However, they would like /38 • • • PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 28, 1983 PAGE THREE to have the option to build them if economic conditions were to demand building them. Bishop stated that the neighbors across the fence are in a much higher density than would result from these duplexes. If duplexes were to be built in the area, they would be of very high quality. What is planned is that each side of the duplex would sell for the equivalent of a single family dwelling. Bishop stated that he would have more to lose if he were to fail than anybody else would have to lose. He must protect his investment. James Turner, 1501 Stubblefield, advised that the traffic would have to be very closely watched as this area developed. Stubblefield Road is approx- imately 15' wide along the entire length of the property, actually along the entire 3-4 blocks. Unless the traffic goes up Loxley Avenue to Rolling Hills Drive, Stubblefield Road is the only access in and out of the property. Turner stated that this area of town is one of the fastest growing areas and the impact of higher density would greatly effect the school system. He stated that the people who have purchased houses in the neighborhood, purchased with the concept and general rules of future use which was planned by the Commission, assuming the use would compliment and/or be the same as the past development. Turner requested that the Commission follow the general plan of Residential, R-1 growth in that area. Turner advised there were many other areas of town which are already zoned R-2 which could be looked at for purchase when the economic conditions warrant. John Eldridge, Summerhill Addition, stated that if the property were to be rezoned R-2, then it could be used for any permissible use under R-2, whereas the restrictions on the PUD would require some shielding and setbacks from the existing R-1 zone. Eldridge stated that the residents of the area would like to see this land developed within the restrictions of a PUD, i.e., setbacks and limitations. This would protect all of the R-1 surrounding district. Eldridge stated the traffic would definitely be a problem and stated he felt all of the situations named are the factors which a PUD takes into account. Conlee Bodishbaugh, 1776 Stubblefield, requested that the Commission be aware of the name and address, or at least a count of, how many adjoining property owners object to having the property rezoned to endorse what has already been said. The Commission called for,a show of hands. Vice -Chairman Stockdell requested that the Minutes indicate 20 persons present in opposition to the rezoning. Those in favor were requested to show hands, as well, with one being present. Hubert Agee, 1315 Stubblefield Road, stated he had known Mr. Bishop for many years and has not been interested in stopping progress. However, Fayetteville has been extremely fortunate in prudently carrying on the growth of the City in an orderly fashion. Agee stated that since he knew Mr. Bishop, he felt Bishop would have to do whatever was necessary to recoup his money, even if it came to building duplexes. Agee also reiterated the points which had already been stressed, i.e., street size, traffic, Summerhill Racquet Club Members, etc. Agee asked that two (90°) corners be taken into consideration, those being Stubblefield and Harold. He stated when you turn off of Harold; this is extremely dangerous Also when you try to turn in front of his house, this is extremely dangerous as well. /5`1 • • • PLANNINGCOMMISSI0N NOVEMBER 28, 1983 PAGE FOUR Dale Johnson, 1800 Stubblefield Road, advised that he did not feel rezoning was justified or consistent with single family dwellings which are currently in Summerhill. Public hearing was closed. David Williams moved that the request for MOTION rezoning be denied for the three reasons listed by Larry Wood, Planning Consultant. Motion was seconded by Barbara Crook. Motion passed, 7-0. The fourth item on the agenda was a CONDITIONAL USE conditional use request submitted by Roy CORNER OF SYCAMORE AND PORTER ROAD Cate for duplexes to be located at the South:- ROY CATE west corner of Sycamore and Porter Road. Property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Melanie Stockdell requested of Mr. Cate, that the return receipts from the Post Office be sub- mitted to the Planning Administrator. This was done. Mr. Cate advised that the property to the east has had a duplex conditional use for some years now. He advised that he thought this would be a nice area for duplexes. Melanie Stockdell asked if there was anyone in the audience who would like to make a comment on this request. There being no response, Chairman Stockdell asked if there were any comments from the Commission. Windell Cullers stated he was opposed to this for many of the same reasons which were cited in the Bishop rezoning. Cullers stated he did not believe that the duplexes were consistent with the land uses which have already been developed there; however, he thought this was an application for rezoning originally. Even as a conditional use, he stated he did not feel this was consistent with the land use plan. Ernest Jacks stated that this area has been studied in the past and'The Commission never could come to any agreement as to what this area really should be. Jacks stated there was a difficulty with single family dwellings in that area and Jacks said he is left with a feeling that perhaps duplexes would hot be a bad thing for this area. Cullers stated he was worried that this conditional use of R-1 District would lead the way for future development in this area. Cullers stated that once you put R-2 uses in an R-1 District, even though the density is not the same, the character changes. David Williams stated this conditional use was gray to him for several reasons: 1) This is right in the heart of the area which, for three years, there has not been a single family dwelling built or proposed. However, the Commission continues to hear from at least three developers that economically, there is a major problem in that area with limits on development. 2) The other side of the coin is that an awful lot of the development in that area has been multi -family and the density is heavy in the direction not intended by the plan. The larger picture reveals that about 66% of the R-2 land zoned in Fayetteville is not developed. Thus, there is a tendency to make this the multi -family side of town and the other side of town, the non - multi -family side which lays the groundwork for years to come and does become a real problem. Crook asked if the lots conform with the lot size requirements. Bobbie Jones responded that the lots must be no less than 80' wide and contain no less than 12,000 square feet. Crook stated that her vote against the Houston rezoning of the interior portions aa ross the road in the past dealt mostly with �itthe fact that it was an interior ficult .', to the access and had a drainage problem. Thus, multi -family housing could make it worse. She stated her vote was not against having duplexes in an R-1 neighborhood. She stated she had no objection to that request. Crook stated she found them quite nice as they )6v i PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 28, 1983 PAGE FIVE added considerably to the neighborhood. Mr. Cate commented that the structures on the southeast corner of Porter Road and Deane Street were not duplexes, but were apartments. Cate stated Gordon Houston has had a con- ditional use approved for duplexes east of Porter Road since 1979. He stated that the Commission keeps referring to R-2 and this is not what he is asking for; he is asking for a Conditional Use which would allow him to build duplexes in R-1. Windell Cullers made a motion to deny the MOTION request for Conditional Use and said it was inconsistent with the General Plan and he didn't see it as R-2 land. Motion died for lack of second. Ernest Jacks then made a motion to MOTION approve the request for Conditional Use. The motion was seconded by Julie Nash. Chairman Stockdell asked if there was any discussion to this motion and Windell Cullers stated he was opposed to this Conditional Use and thought there was a big difference in the fact that no=one was present to oppose this matter. Cullers stated this area was studied three years ago and this was simply not consistent with the planned use. Stockdell reiterated the motion to approve the Conditional Use. Motion passed 5-1, with Windell Cullers voting ''nay". The' fifth:.item.on the agenda was the Conditional Use request submitted by Paul Marinoni, Jr. for duplexes to be located south of Wedington and west of Lonnie Avenue. Property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Paul Marinoni, Jr. was present. CONDITIONAL USE SOUTH OF WEDINGTON AND WEST OF LONNIE PAUL MARINONI, JR. Mr. Marinoni came forward to explain some of the details which were presented at the November 14, 1983 Planning Commission meeting. He reiterated what had been approved at the meeting, and stated he was presenting a request for Conditional Use for that portion which was not approved at said meeting. David Williams asked if all matters with regard to the request for Conditional Use had been taken care of, i.e., return receipts received and agenda mailed to all parties who were concerned at the November 14, 1983 meeting. Stockdell then stated that the conditions had been fulfilled. David Williams made a motion to approve MOTION the request for Conditional Use. Motion was seconded by Ernest Jacks. Chairman Stockdell asked if there was any discussion by the Commission with regard to this Conditional Use. Cullers stated he would like to discuss the matter and asked if there would ever be enough R-2 in Fayetteville. He asked why people were.not building on lots which were already zoned for this type of use. He thought it would be much more feasible to use the lots which were already zoned R-2 for purposes of duplexes. Motion passed 5-1 with Cullers voting "nay". The sixth item on the agenda was REQUEST FOR WAIVER a request for waiver of the setback OF SETBACK REQUIREMENT requirement of 250' for multi -family :HUNTINGDONJSUBDIVISION units in Huntingdon Subdivision (A Planned Unit Development). Property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. It was also proposed to amend the plat and convenants of Huntingdon Subdivis9n_to: /L1 • • •^ PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 28, 1983 PAGE SIX 1) Reduce the platted setback from street rights-of-way to the City Zoning Ordinance Minimum of 25'; and 2) Reduce minimum dwelling unit size from 1700 sq. ft. to 1500 sq. ft. Ernest Jacks asked if there was someone present who could identify the lots in question. Harry Gray was present to represent Dr. J. B. Hays. Bobbie Jones advised that these are setbacks from the perimeter of the (sub- division) development. Jones advised that the variance was for the setback from the land to the northeast, east and south. Gray stated that he wished to correct Dr. Hays letter in which it requested 4 -Unit Multi -family dwellings; Lot 25 should read Lot 26. Lot 25 already has approval for 12 units. Jacks asked if there was anyone present to the south who was interested in this property. Chairman Stockdell opened the public hearing. Mike Corso, 2437 Sharon, stated he owns the lot in Huntingdon behind his home, and the difficulty he sees is The Huntingdon was a Planned Unit Development and already, it has not fulfilled what it was supposed to be. There was supposed to be tennis courts, and now there will be no tennis courts. The swimming pool bath house still is not finished and it will not be finished the way it was planned. It is being completed in a "make -do" type situation. Corso stated he did not know the reason for Dr. Hays requesting a change in setbacks, but according to the plan, this was supposed to be a very elegant subdivision with the houses back in the woods in a natural setting. There was a convenant against metal fences. Fences were supposed to be stone or wood with nothing over 4' high so this would not interfere with the plane of vision. If the setbacks were to be changed, the nature of the development would also be changed. The houses would be pulled out of the natural setting and placed on the road. He stated this is a difficult place to build anyway as there are many hills. He stated he has a particular objection to changing the square footage from 1700 square feet to 1500 square feet. He felt this would definitely lessen the value of the overall subdivision. Corso stated there is a Property Owners Association which takes care of the pool, etc. He questioned why they were not notified as an association about Dr. Hays' requests. Corso stated that all of Dr. Hays' requests do not honor the commitment under which all the property owners purchased their homes. He stated this is an enclosed area and there are only two ways to get into this subdivision. There would be a higher concentration of people if the density were to be increased. Ernest Jacks asked why the particular question of covenants was before the Planning Commission. Bobbie Jones stated what is before the Planning Commission is the request for Waiver of the 250' setback. Jones stated that in order to do this, because the plat gave the density on it, an amended plat must be filed. Stockdell then added that in order for this to be accomplished, a decrease in the square footage would have to be approved. The setbacks from street rights-of-way would also have to be decreased down to the zoning minimum. Jones stated that the zoning minimum setback was all that she had enforced in the.past. Jacks stated he felt this was a matter to go before the Property Owners Association. Jones stated that presently in a PUD, the City must be made a third party to covenants. Nothing can be changed without the City agreeing with it. Jacks stated that the main reason the third party stipulation is in the ordinances is for paving, maintaining streets, etc. Jacks stated it was the City Board who attached the 142 • • • PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 28, 1983 PAGE SEVEN 250' setback on R-1 property to keep smaller pieces of property from being developed as a PUD. Jacks did not think the Board of Directors would accept a waiver. Chairman Stockdell asked for additional comments. Jim Clark, 3191 Katherine, stated he particularly objected to the amount of traffic which would be brought into the area by this change. He stated there is quite a bit of traffic already and this would create a danger area. Clark stated he personally bought his home with the understanding of the covenants. Now they want to change the covenants to benefit themselves. Jacks asked if the covenants stated R-1 on all the property. Gray advised that on the final plat, certain lots in Block 8 have a maximum of 4 units per lot and Lots 25 and 28, Block 8 are specified as a maximum of 12 units. Gray stated the entire PUD was set up in 'this manner. Ernest Jacks asked that since the original PUD request was specified as single family, wouldn't Dr. Hays have to go back to the Property Owners Association to change this? Gray stated he thought Dr. Hays would have to go back and get the square footage changed. David Williams made a motion to MOTION Table this request until there is a two-party agreement which makes this a pertinent question for the Planning Commission. Motion was seconded by Ernest Jacks. Motion passed 6-0. Julie Nash left the meeting at 6:15 P.M. The seventh item on the agenda was WAIVER OF DRIVEWAY WIDTH AND SAFETY ZONE a request for waiver of maximum 2423 GOLDEN OAKS DRIVE driveway width and minimum DON WARD safety zone submitted by Don Ward for property located at 2423 Golden Oaks Drive. Mr. Ward was present. Stockdell asked about the three -car garage which was being requested. Ward stated that the garage was already present. Ward stated he did not need much waiver on the safety zone. Ward stated that on measuring it, he is 3" short on the safety zone. He stated he was only asking for a waiver of the driveway width and not the safety zone except for the 3". Jacks asked if the ordinances prohibited backing into the street. Jacks stated he did not think the Planning Commission would want to set up this type of a situation. Jones then read the definition of Off-street Parking Space from the ordinance which states that: "off street parking space shall consist of a space adequate for parking an automobile with room for opening doors on both sides, together with properly related access to a public street or alley and maneuvering room. Required off-street parking areas for three or more automobiles shall have individual places marked, and shall be so designed, maintained and regulated that no parking or maneuvering incidental to parking shall be on any public street, walk or alley and so that any automobile may be parked and unparked without moving another." Mrs. Jones stated that Chapter 18, Sec. 18-28(h) provides that the width of commercial driveways shall not exceed 40' measured at right angles to the centerline of the driveway and the width of residential driveways shall not exceed 24' measured at right angles to the centerline of the driveway. ) 63 • • • PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 28, 1983 PAGE EIGHT Cullers requested that Mr. Ward reiterate exactly what he is requesting. Ward stated what he has is a house which he took to the Planning Office to have approved and was ignorant of the fact that he.had a problem. Therefore, when the house was started, the curb was broken out in order to get trucks in, etc. Ward stated there was an 18' garage door and a 9' garage door separated by 3', i.e., 30' from edge -of- garage to edge -of -garage door. He stated he would like to put in a wide enough drive that people would not have to park on the grass in bad weather. He stated he broke the curb out without even thinking about it. Ward stated he needs a driveway width of 32' with a 31' flare on each side, thus making it 39'; and he needs waiver of 3" on the 121' safety zone and a waiver from 24' to 39' on curb cut. Ward stated if this was not approved, it would be difficult getting into garages. Ward stated this would be designed primarily for the two car family with the extra garage being strictly for some- thing like a boat. There would not be any added frequency to people backing into the street. Jacks stated he still thought there should be a single drive- way to houses, and felt this could simply be accomplished with a T-shaped apron approach so as to back out on your own property and drive into the street. Thiscould be done on either side of the property. Ward stated if he were to utilize an apron, this would take up his entire front yard. Jones stated the ordinances were set up to allow two cars to back into the street. Crook stated the Commission was not necessarily blocking cars by requiring Ward to stay within the 24' requirement. Jacks reiterated that the ordinances were designed to keep people from backing into the street. Windell Cullers made a motion to approve the waiver of driveway width and safety zone. Motion was seconded by David Williams. MOTION Ernest Jacks asked if there had to be five Votes to carry a motion. Jones replied that in talking to Chairman Newton Hailey and City Attorney Jim McCord, it was agreed that previous motions. -to amend the Bylaws did not re- quire five votes on anything except a rezoning question, a conditional use approval or any amendment to the plan because this is required by State Statute. For the record, Chairinaf •Stockdell stated that this would be decided by a simple majority. Motion failed 2-3 with Barbara Crook, Melanie Stockdell and Ernest Jacks voting "nay". Mr. Ward stated he felt that the decision which was made was absolutely point- less. He requested advice on further recourse. Ward stated he felt like his request was not unreasonable. Ward stated that the Planning Commission's decision was going to result in financial hardship on him. Stockdell advised that Mr. Ward's recourse would be to confer with Bobbie Jones who will'in turn confer with the City Attorney. Jones advised that under the Code of Ordinances, Chapter 18, Section 18-28(h), the width of a residential driveway is not to exceed 24'. Therefore, Mr. Ward could have a 24' opening at the street. Stockdell requested that the minutes reflect that recommendation was made to send this matter on to the Update Committee for study. Motion was made by David Williams to Table PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE BYLAWS this matter to the next regularly scheduled meeting with this item being placed at the beginning of the agenda. Motion 16'/ • • • PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 28, 1983 PAGE NINE seconded by Barbara Crook. Motion passed 5-0. David Williams, Chairman of the OTHER BUSINESS Update Committee reported that the Committee is now meeting regularly. The committee is getting briefings and will be reporting back to the Planning Commission, a series of priorities for plan changes, for their review arid comments in mid to late January. Meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m. )65