Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-03-12 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on March 12, 1984 at the Continuing Education Center at 5:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Morton Gitelman, Barbara Crook, Stan Green, Fred Hanna, Melanie Stockdell, Sue Madison, & Ernie Jacks. Newton Hailey, Jr. & David Williams. Kenneth Morton, William Sherwood, Gregg House, Robert Whitfield, Earl Ogden, Jr., Harry Gray, Sam Mathias, Bobbie Jones, Jeanette Crumpler, members of the press and others. Vice -Chairman Melanie Stockdell called the meeting to order. MIN[1TES The first item on the agenda was the approval of the minutes of February no additions or corrections, the minutes were 27, 1984. There being approved as mailed. LOT SPLIT WINCHESTER SQUARE SUBDIVISION WILLIAM SHERWOOD The second item on the agenda was a Request for a variance from the lot size requirement applicable to a lot split submitted by William Sherwood for property located on Wedington Drive. This property is part of Winchester Square Subdivision that was submitted to the Plat Review Committee on July 8, 1982. Zoned A-1, Agricultural. Mr. Kenneth Morton was present to represent this matter. Mr. Morton advised that Mr. Sherwood had acquired this property in May, 1983, and was not aware that this property needed a lot split. Morton explained that this property would be used for an assembly operation which will also be heard by the Planning Commission tonight. Stockdell requested opposition to this request. There being no opposition, the matter was returned to the Planning Commission. MOTION Ernie Jacks moved approval of the variance from the lot size requirement applicable to a lot split. Motion seconded by Stan Green. Motion passed 7-0. 45o • • • PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONAL USE WEDINGTON DRIVE WILLIAM SHERWOOD - 2 - MARCH 12, 1984 The third item on the agenda was the approval of Conditional Use request submitted by William Sherwood located on Wedington Drive to change a non -conforming use, from a wholesale and retail antique shop to a wholesale and retail food packaging and distribution plant with a maximum of six employees. Property zoned A-1, Agricultural. Mr. Kenneth Morton was present to represent this matter as well. Morton explained that Mr. Sherwood proposed to have a packaging facility for the shipping of pizza kits. Sherwood stated that the food will come in already packaged with the only thing occurring at this location being the baking of crusts. At this point, they will be placed in a box with the pre-packaged ingredients which will go into the existing cooler. Morton stated that this building was used as a packing house in the past and was also used as a wholesale and retail facility until approximately November of 1983. Morton stated there would be no waste since all of the ingredients are pre-packaged. Morton described one other activity, that being pizza crust which would be packaged by itself and sold to retail distributors such as Chunky Cheese, etc., thus packaging and shipping of these items. Jacks requested to know how these items would be shipped out. Morton explained that this would either be by semi -trailer or a refrigerated bob -truck. Madison questioned the fact that this included retail sales. Morton explained that this would be only wholesale. Morton stated that the sales would not even take place from this operation, but would take place from the office on Leverett Street. Morton wished to point out that all surrounding property owners had signed a petition in favor of this development. Jacks requested to know some history regarding this area. Jones advised that Bassett did have preliminary plat approval on a Subdivision in this area, but dropped it. Jones felt as though Mr. Bassett planned on this being developed as commercial, and since there was no water and sewer in the area, commercial zoning could not be obtained. Jones advised that a land use plan had been adopted for this area and felt that the proposed use is R-0. Crook stated she did not find the argument that this had been a meat packing or processing plant some years ago, a persuasive argument due to the fact that the use had been abandoned, even though the equipment is still present. Jones stated that within a six month time period, the Planning Commission has the authority to review a request and change to another non -conforming use. Jacks stated that the Planning Commission was trying to be very careful in this area, setting a proper land use for this area. Jacks stated he did not think commercial property was in the plan. MOTION Ernie Jacks moved to deny this request for conditional use. Motion seconded by Sue Madison. PLANNING COMMISSION 3 - MARCH 12, 1984 Stan Green stated that he was concerned about this due to the fact that a petition had been signedbythe adjoining property owners in favor of this request. Hanna requested some knowledge of the condition of the existing building. Morton stated that some minor improvements needed to be undertaken on the building, but otherwise, it was ready to go. Green advised that he would vote against this motion as he could not see a higher and better use in the near future, and it is overwhelming that the neighbors are not opposed. Jacks requested to know if these were residents or large developers. Jones presented the list of names which showed that there was a mix with some being large developers and the others being residents. Jacks reiterated that the Commission needed to be very careful in this area to avoid strip zoning. Madison wished to point out that because this developer has asked for an extension of a non -conforming use, goes against the feeling of allowing non -conforming uses, stating that the antique shop and the original meat packing plant were in operation before zoning went into effect in this area. Madison advised that the Code stated that the Commission should decide that the new use is appropriate or equally appropriate as the antique business was, and she could not see that in relation to the surrounding land use at this time. Hanna stated he felt that some consideration should be given to the building which is on the property, stating that the vacant building would be an eye -sore. Motion to deny the Conditional Use passed 4-3 with Morton Gitelman, Stan Green and Fred Hanna voting "nay". MOTION Morton Gitelman moved approval of the Conditional Use. Motion seconded by Fred Hanna. Green requested to know where the developer would go from here upon denial of the conditional use. Morton requested to make an additional comment stating that the building could not be used for anything else. This is a cooler with large, thick walls and metal doors. The position that the developer is in is that the building either has to be destroyed or have the full interior changed. Motion to approve the conditional use was denied 3-4 with Barbara Crook, Melanie Stockdell, Sue Madison and Ernie Jacks voting ''nays Stockdell advised this could be appealed only through the court system. LOT SPLIT SW CORNER OF PALMER AVENUE AND CENTER STREET GREGG HOUSE The fourth item on the agenda was a Request for a variance from the lot size requirement applicable to a lot split submitted by Gregg House, located at the SW corner of Palmer Avenue and Center Street. House is also asking for a waiver of the requirement to dedicate 5' of right-of-way for Center Street. Zoned R-1, Low Density Residential 50 r • • PLANNING COMMISSION - 4 - MARCH 12, 1984 District. Gregg House was present to represent this matter. House stated that after discussion with Bobbie Jones, this property would not need a variance from the lot size if this developer were to be granted a waiver of the 5' right-of-way requirement. Jones suggested this be brought before The Commission since 25' had already been dedicated along Center Street. Jones advised that he does need the lot split approval, however, if the waiver for the 5' of right-of-way dedication on Center Street were granted, then he will meet the required 8,000 sq. ft. required for a lot. Jacks questioned the right-of-way dedication on Center Street. Jones stated that much of the right-of-way along Center was less than the required 50' of right-of-way. Jones stated, however, that if the waiver of the 5' is granted, it will also have to be approved by the Board of Directors. MOTION Barbara Crook moved that the lot split and waiver for the additional 5' dedication of right-of-way be approved. Motion seconded by Fred Hanna and Morton Gitelman. Motion passed 7-0. OAKLAND TOWNHOUSES 1I 1370 NORTH OA LAND AVENUE ROBERT G. WHITFIELD, INC.-OWNER/DEVELOPER The fifth item on the agenda was the Approval on Concurrent Plat of Oakland Townhouses II, located at 1370 North Oakland Avenue, Robert G. Whitfield, Inc., --Owner and Developer. Property zoned R-2, Medium Density District. Mr. Robert Whitfield was present to represent this matter. Stockdell requested a report from the Subdivision Committee on this matter. MOTION Crook moved recommendation of this Concurrent Plat. Crook stated that there will be an additional dedication which would possibly not qualify this as a concurrent plat. However, the Subdivision Committee did not feel that the changes were extremely significant. Motion seconded by Sue Madison. Madison stated that she would like to commend Mr. Whitfield for his attempt to save the trees in the back of the lot; that he has gone through considerable trouble in researching how to maintain oxygen to the root and will look forward to seeing their survival. Motion passed 7-0. LOT SPLIT EARL OGDEN 2340 S. CATO SPRINGS ROAD • The sixth item on the agenda was a request for variance from the lot size requirement applicable to a lot split submitted by Earl Ogden 53 • • • PLANNING COMMISSION - 5 - MARCH 12, 1984 for property located at 2340 S. Cato Springs Road. Zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. Mr. Earl Ogden and Harry Gray were present to represent this matter. Jacks requested to know if the Large Scale Development which was coming up would show the necessary improvements. Jones advised that the sewer is currently some distance away from this development. The approval of the development needs to be conditioned upon this property being sewered. Jones stated that sidewalk would be required for the apartment development and may wish to continue the sidewalk across 2340 S. Cato Springs Road. Gray stated that this developer would render a Bill of Assurance that a sidewalk will be constructed at the call of the City. Stockdell requested to proceed with the lot split first. Jacks reiterated that the improvements would need to be made to the property. Jacks questioned if the necessary improvements were being required of this developer, thus taking care of the house too. MOTION Ernie Jacks moved approval of this lot split with the contingency that sewer be connected to the lot. Motion seconded by Fred Hanna. Motion passed 7-0. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT 2334 CATO SPRINGS ROAD EARL OGDKN—OWNER/DEVELOPER The seventh item on the agenda was the Approval of a Large Scale Devel- opment plan for Earl Ogden, located at 2334 Cato Springs Road. Earl Ogden --owner and developer. Property zoned R-2, Medium Density Resi- dential. Mr. Earl Ogden and Harry Gray were present to represent this matter. Stockdell asked for the report from the Subdivison Committee. Crook advised there were several questions which needed to be answered on this development. One is the 80' right-of-way. Gray advised there were two right-of-way markers which he could find along Cato Springs Road. There was approximately 78.8' between right-of-way markers. Gray stated he feels that it is an intended 80' right-of-way. Gray advised that it would be impossible to survey the platted Tight -of -way due to the fact that there are no bearings, etc. Crook advised another question is the status of Treat Drive. Crook stated that the Planning Department has not been able to find a street dedication, and will have to assume this is a private drive. Gray advised that the property to the south begins 33' south of the south property line. The last question has to do with drainage. Since this is a hillside development, there is a strong drainage path through the center. 54 PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION - 6 - . MARCH 12, 1984 Crook moved approval of the Large Scale Development subject to Plat Review Comments; that a Bill of Assurance be entered into for construction of the sidewalk at the call of the City; that the storm drainage be collected on-site and be taken to the natural drainage path; that the 12-1/2' safety zone for drives be provided, either through additional land to the north or by re -alignment of the driveway. Motion seconded by Morton Gitelman. Jacks questioned the driveway safety zone with Crook explaining that the driveway along the north edge of the property shows 12-1/2' offset to drive but not to radius. Jacks stated he had never been extremely interested in the 12-1/2' requirement, but requested to know if this developer had been able to meet this requirement. Gray advised they would be able to take care of this matter. Motion passed 7-0. IDT SPLIT NW CORNER OF SUNSET AND CLEVELAND DINA C. WILLIAMS The eighth item on the agenda was Request for a variance from the lot size requirement applicable to a lot split submitted by Dina C. Williams for property located at the NW corner of Sunset and Cleveland for a second split. Property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. No one was present to represent this matter. Stockdell explained that Ms. Williams had received two deeds for this property for which the City had single ownership. Stockdell requested to know if there were any questions with Jacks stating he did not understand this matter. Jones explained that the Planning Office approved the split when Jim Morton constructed a house. Jones explained that Williams is requesting a waiver of the requirement to dedicate additional right-of-way. Jacks stated he would be reluctant to waiver the requirement of the right-of-way. Madison requested to know if the lot would still meet the square footage requirements if the right- of-way. Jones stated that she would meet the lot size requirement. Green requested to know how much right-of-way the City currently has in this area. Jones stated there is 50' existing, but the 60' shown on the Master Street Plan. Gitelman suggested that the additional right-of-way dedication should come from the property owners to the south. MOTION Ernie Jacks moved approval of the variance from the lot size requirement and waiver of the requirement for additional right-of-way. Motion seconded by Stan Green. Crook requested to know if there would be a problem on the north side of the street if development were to occur? Jacks stated there would be no problem as the City would just insist on the right-of-way dedi- cation. Motion passed 7-0. 55 J PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONAL USE 226 S. CHURCH STREET SAN MATHIAS - 7 - MARCH 12, 1984 The nineth item on the agenda was the Conditional Use submitted by Sam Mathias for 10 efficiency units to be located at 226 S. Church Street. Property zoned as R-0, Residential -Office. Mr. Sam Mathias was present to represent this matter. Stockdell explained that in an R-0, apartments are conditional uses. Mathias stated there are three units just below the proposed units which are zoned correctly. MOTION Jacks moved approval of this Conditional Use request. Motion died due to lack of second. Joy Hughey, property owner, 224 South Church, stated she was concerned about the map as shown; that according to the map, the Mathias development would take part of her house. Hughey stated there was also question of the property line and that she did not wish to lose access to her driveway nor her fence. Hughey stated there is not a straight line along this property and she is concerned about this. Mathias stated there would be 45' from the street to the development. Mathias advised that there is a joint drive and this would not be changed at all. Hughey stated there is a wire fence on the south side of her back yard which was set many years ago. When the bulldozing was performed, a small section of fence was knocked down. Mathias stated this developer would replace the fence. Hughey requested to know if Mathias would be building 10' below the drive? Mathias stated that the building would be 10' below their property line. Crook requested to know where the property line is. Mathias reiterated that the building would begin 45' from the street. Mathias stated that the south fence would be approximately 10' from the building. Hughey advised she did not object to the apartments, but wanted to be sure that the fence would stay. Mathias advised they were going to take this fence down and build a new fence, but they will just leave the old one if this is what Ms. Hughey wishes. Hughey stated she would discuss this matter with Mr. Mathias. MOTION Stan Green moved approval of the Conditional Use subject to retention of the driveway; and that the fence be worked out to the satisfaction of both parties. Motion seconded by Morton Gitelman. Motion passed 7-0. OTHER BUSINESS Stockdell stated that each of the Planning Commission members had received material from The City Attorney addressed to Barbara Crook regarding the Zoning Ordinance Restrictions on the location of nnnufactured 56 J • PLANNING COMMISSION - 8 - MARCH 12, 1984 housing which will be on the agenda for the Planning Commission Meeting of March 26, 1984. Meeting adjourned at 6:10 p.m. 51