Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-04-09 Minutes71� • • • MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, April 9, 1984, at 5:00 P.M. in the Board of Directors Room in the new City Hall. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: The regularly was called to MINUTES Barbara Crook, Stan Green, David Williams, Melanie Stockdell, Fred Hanna, Sue Madison, Ernie Jacks and Newton Hailey, Jr.. None Larry Wood, Greg House, Bobby J. Boles, R. L. Jeske, Don Reese, John Shelton, Judy Moore, Rudy Moore, Dennis Becker, Ken Mourton, Bobbie Jones and Paula Brandeis. scheduled meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission order by Chairman Hailey. The first item on the agenda was the approval of the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of March 26, 1984. Sue Madison requested that Page 2 of the minutes be amended where the Planning Report recom- mendation was shown for Rezoning Petition R84-7, Fern McNair. The recommendation shown was that contained in the Planning Report for Rezoning Petition R84-6. Following this correction, the minutes were approved as mailed. PRILIMINARY PLAT BLACK 2 - COLT SQUARE Item 2 on the agenda, approval of the Preliminary Plat of a replat of Block 2 of Colt Square, located on Green Acres Road and Colt Square Drive, zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, was tabled until the next meeting because the engineer had not submitted revisions to the plat to the Planning Office following the Plat Review Committee Meeting. REZONING PETITION R84-6 GREG HOUSE, 305 NORTH UNIVERSITY AVENUE Item 3 on the Agenda was a Public Hearing on Rezoning Petition R84-6, Greg House, to rezone property located at 305 North University from R-3, High Density Residential District to C-3, Central Commercial District. Planning Consultant, Larry Wood recommended that the Planning Commission consider a change to C-3 for three reasons. 1. First, there already exists three C-3 zonings to the north and east of the property under application. • Planning Commission April 9, 1984 - Page 2 • • 2. Secondly, there is very little chance of further expansion of that C-3 district to the west and south with the University and the cemetery that exists to the south. 3. Thirdly, there are only three homes left on University Avenue between Dickson and Center Street and two of those are already zoned C-3. Chairman Hailey inquired if there were any questions for Mr. Wood and then opened the Public Hearing portion of the petition. No one was present to speak either for or against the petition and Chairman Hailey closed the Public Hearing. MOTION A motion was made by Ernie Jacks for approval of the petition and seconded by Sue Madison. Motion passed 7-0 with Commissioner Stockdell absent for the vote. REZONING PETITION R84-8 BOBBY J. BOLES, NORTHWEST CORNER MORNINGSIDE AND 15TH STREET The fourth item on the agenda was a Public Hearing to rezone property located at the NW corner of Highway 16 By -Pass and Morningside Drive, from R-2, Medium Density Residential District to C-3, Thoroughfare Commercial. Planning Consultant Wood said he has not recommended that the Board consider a change to C-2 on this property. Reasons being: 1. The commercial development on the north side of Highway 16 at the location requested is not in keeping with the general plan recommendations. 2. Commercial development in the general plan is basically recommended at major street intersections with a one -mile spacing between developments. The intersection of Morningside Drive and Highway 16 is not considered a major street inter- section in planning terms 3. The development of commercial at that location would tend to encourage stripping of Highway 16 and 71 all the way around to Highway 71. The Public Hearing was opened. Bobby Boles introduced Dennis Becker to speak in favor of the zone change. He proceeded to tell the Commission the number of vehicles passing this intersection by the hour and by the half-hour. He said that at peak time vehicles passing are somewhere between one car every 3 or 4 seconds. He stated that this is a minor arterial because there is no truck traffic at Huntsville and Highway 16 which deters all trucks that come down Highway 16 which indicates the quality of the traffic. He said he and his client feel that Morningside • • Planning Commission April 9, 1984 - Page 3 South will have an increase of traffic as the industrial develops to the South. From the intersection of Huntsville Road and Highway 16 back to Highway 71B intersection it is about 5900 feet, there is already 3200 linear feet frontage Commercial or about 54% already existing. If you include the south side of the street, which is heavy commercial and light industrial, you have 3900 feet or 66% Commercial or Industrial, so it seems, perhaps, that at this intersection, with what we believe is bound to happen that we chose C-2 as being much lighter Commercial use than the 400 feet that parallels this property across the street. We don't see any strip development or increasing of property to the North because it's bounded by a church. In putting this package together, including the traffic count, the quality of traffic, and the present zoning, Mr. Becker stated he felt that the rezoning to C-2 would be correct in terms of environmental pollution, safety factor and noise pollution. He stated they want to comply and correspond with heavy Commercial across the street and not get stuck on "no Commercial on the North side of 16" when we've got over 54% Commercial already existing between Morningside and Huntsville Road. Mr. Becker asked for a clarification on term "public" in reference to future land use as specified in the General Plan. Mr. Wood explained that at the time the General Plan was drawn, he thought that a school site was anticipated for that location. That is not known as a fact but it appeared so on the map. There was no one else present to speak for the rezoning. Buel Curtis, the pastor of the church to the North, spoke in opposition to the rezoning. He stated the church believes that Mr. Boles wants to do the right thing but they are worried that if he sells the property, with the new rezoning, a liquor store could be placed there, and the church opposes that. Mr. Boles replied that he has already spoken to the Pastor about this matter and that Boles would be willing to sign a Bill of Assurance that there will never be a liquor store built on this property. This Bill would go with the property regardless of who purchased it. The present zoning was verified by Commission members. MOTION Barbara Crook stated that the argument for not stripping Highway 16 is valid and the line must be drawn at some point. Because of this and in order to conform with the General Plan, Ms. Crook made a motion that the request be denied. Seconded by Melanie Stockdell. Mr. Jacks stated that he, too, was concerned with stopping the stripping out of the major thoroughfares. With no further comment, the motion passed 8-0. r13 Planning Commission • April 9, 1984 - Page 4 • Bobbie Jones stated that Mr. Boles would need to have any documents necessary for appeal to the City Board of Directors into the City Manager's office no later than noon on Wednesday, April 11 to be considered for the Board of Director's meeting of April 17, 1984. REZONING PETITION R84-9 R.L. JESKE, 1338 W. Cleveland The fifth item on the agenda was a Public Hearing on rezoning petition R84-9, R. L. Jeske, to rezone property at 1338 W. Cleveland from R-1, Low Density Residential, to R-3, High Density Residential. Larry Wood recommended the change be approved for the following reasons: 1. Request is in keeping with the General Plan recommendations. 2. Precedent has been set for the North side of Cleveland with the R-3 and R-2 rooming houses currently existing here presently. Sue Madison asked for clarification on the existing R-2 and R-3 zones currently existing on Cleveland in the area in question. It was explained by Bobbie Jones that those two properties were rezoned in the 1960's for construction of fraternity and sorority houses; however, one of the sites was subsequently developed into apartments. The Public Hearing was opened and Mr. Jeske was present to speak for the Petition. He stated that he was making the request, along with a Bill of Assurance that the zoning be for this time only, so that Mr. John Shelton can operate the property as a "ministry". Shelton stated that the property would be used as a residence for Christian students renting rooms from him in his home. He is associated with a non-profit organization, Ark Ministries, located in Florida that sets up homes for said students. He stated that he needs the rezoning because he would like to accomodate 8 students, as well as himself, his wife and child. Bobbie Jones reaffirmed that a Bill of Assurance goes with the land when it is sold, but that it has been a problem keeping up with these Bills of Assurance because the zoning map shows only the zoning district. Mr. Jeske told the Commission that he is only asking rezoning for one-half acre out of the two -acre parcel in question. He stated that he lives immediately to the East of this property and would not like to have apartments built there either. Jeske said that he has requested this petition so that he will be within the law and still be able to rent the property to the Ark Ministries. • Sue Madison requested of Bobbie Jones the exact rule on family occupancies. riy Planning Commission April 9, 1984 - Page 5 Bobbie replied that the ordinance defines a family as no more than three people unless they are related by blood or marriage. She said the reason she has allowed one roomer or boarder with a family in the past is, because the definition of a rooming house or boarding house is that they are furnishing lodging either with or without meals to two or more people. She also stated that an alternative would be to zone the property R-2 and add separate kitchens for each apartment, or a possible duplex conditional use in R-1, then they could have three unrelated persons living in each dwelling unit. Rudy Moore was present to represent Judy Moore in speaking in opposition of the rezoning. He stated that some of the rooming houses in this area are non -conforming usage and that they are in violation of the ordinance. Moore said that the only precedent is several hundred feet to the East at the intersection of Hall and Cleveland where apartments are situated with the access off of Hall. He stated that the problem is in allowing an R-3 right in the middle of two R-ls, and the way it is situated, twenty apartments could easily be accomodated here at some point. Mr. Marshall Heck, 814 Sunset, questioned whether or not Razorback Road would ever be opened on to the North of Cleveland giving access to his property. Mr. Hailey replied that he did not know of the Planning Office's plans in respect to this question. Barbara Crook questioned Bobbie as to Use Unit 9. She said it included use by fraternities and sororities and wanted to know how that would differ from the type of use being requested. Bobbie stated that by looking at the code and comparing what Jeske had explained that he wants done, that it either fell under the dormitory or rooming and boarding house usage (Use Unit 10). Ms. Crook said that the petition would be less objectionable in terms of long-term zoning if it came under R-2 instead of R-3. Mr. Moore restated that R-2, medium density residential, still had • the potential for building 16 units on this half acre. . Mr. Scott Maglothin ' speaking in opposition of the petition, stated that he would like the Planning Commission to table this issue for approximately 30 days in which time the immediate neighbors could meet and discuss a way to incorporate the Ark Ministries Christian family home without rezoning. He expressed his fear that rezoning would allow the potential for many of the very old homes in the area being torn down at a future date. Mr. Jeske said he would be agreeable to the property having a non- conforming use if the Planning Commission would permit it. 75 J • Planning Commission April 9, 1984 - Page 6 Clarification was given as to the approximate age of the students and the type of turnover that would be involved in the Ministry. There would be a maximum of eight students at any one time. Jeske described where the students would be allowed to park and how he currently limits the parking situation on his property. The Public Hearing was closed and the Commission engaged in discussion. In answer to David Williams question of whether approval of the petition would be putting an R-3 in the middle of two R -1's, Larry Wood replied that the General Plan recommends that this area be changed to a high density residential relating to the property. Dr. Williams said that when the General Plan was written it was assumed that the University was going to grow and the maps that we've seen were projecting University use extending and making this area logical multi -family residential. In our reviews lately, that is no longer the assumption. Ms. Crook inquired as to the history of the intersection of Hall and Cleveland. Jacks replied that the plans were made at a time when only R-4 permitted a boarding situation. When the ordinance was rezoned in 1970, this piece of property (Hall and Cleveland) automatically became the highest residential zoning we had. Bobbie Jones stated that R-2 does not permit boarding or rooming houses but it does permit fraternities and sororities. MOTION Sue Madison moved denial of the petition, seconded by Dr. Williams. Ernie Jacks agreed, stating that this is a transitional area not yet designed for multi -family use. Crook stated she thought that tabling the petition and allowing the involved parties to reach a solution amongst themselves could not be accomplished within the Zoning Ordinance without rezoning. Dr. Williams said that the problem to him was that the approval of this petition would set up a change in the character of the neighborhood. To allow rezoning would be to go against the grain of our historical preservation and neighborhood integrity policies. Jeske repeated that he would accept a solution for use without rezoning if it were possible. Mr. Moore stated that, as Ms. Moore's attorney, he will advise her not to be amenable to a change of uses even if it were conditional. Had the University not slowed down in growth, there may have been pressure to convert this land but that pressure has now reversed itself. We are not offering to go along with anything at this time. The motion to deny was approved 8-0. '76 • Planning Commission April 9, 1984 - Page 7 • REQUEST FOR RE—HEARING WILLIAM SHERWOOD — WHOLESALE AND RETAIL PACKAGING AND DISTRIBUTION PLANT WEDDINGTON DRIVE — ZONED A-1 The sixth item on the agenda was a request for re -hearing for a Conditional Use for a whoesale and retail food packaging and distribution plant for William Sherwood, property located on Wedington Drive. This request for a change in non -conforming use had been denied at the last meeting and Mr. Mourton stated that he thought the Commission members had a misconception of what the property would be used for, and that he wished to clarify this information before the entire Board. He stated that he believed the Board thought that Sherwood's request was to extend the non -conforming use of the property beyond what it had previously been, which would be more offensive. Mourton proceded to repeat what the actual use for the property will be. He also stated that the alternative to approval by the Commission would be through the courts. Jacks stated that according to the by-laws, one of the following had to be present in order to re -hear an issue: 1. A factual error. 2. An omission. 3. An oversight. Jacks requested to know which of the afore -mentioned circumstances had taken place at the last meeting and indicated that he felt Mr. Morton had presented the case very clearly at the previous meeting. He stated that he was not in favor of a re -hearing because he didn't think there was an error, omission or oversight. MOTION Fred Hanna moved to grant a re -hearing, seconded by Stan Green. Madison and Stockdell both stated they were in agreement with Jacks for the same reasons given by Mr. Jacks. Williams stated he was not present at the last meeting and was not sure of what had taken place; but after reading the minutes of the meeting he was in favor of a rehearing. Stockdell stated that what the Commission needed to look at was the requirement for a re -hearing which would have to do only with the three reasons stated by Jacks previously. • Hailey abstained because he was not present at the last meeting. The motion was clarified. Jacks, Madison, Stockdell and Crook voted 77 rig • Planning Commission April 9, 1984 - Page 8 • • nay"; Hanna, Williams and Green voted "yes" and the motion failed to pass 3-4-1. CONDITIONAL USE HOME OCCUPATION CHILD CARE — ONE TO SIX CHILDREN DON AND DOROTHY REESE — 1218 N. MAXWELL DRIVE The seventh item on the agenda was a request for home occupation of child care for one to six children at 1218 N. Maxwell Drive. Jones clarified that keeping of one to six children in R-1 zone has limitations as to the hours of operation and needs Planning Commision approval. She said that no one outside of the family may assist in the operation, and they may not have a sign for advertising purposes, and finally that the Commission may not approve this for more than one year. If approved, they will need a Certificate of Occupancy, inspection by the inspection department and the fire department and they will need to check with Nonnie Vance at Social Services to see whether they will need a State License. She also said if there are no complaints at the end of the approval period, the Planning Office may renew the occupancy for another one year period. Mrs. Reese has filed public notice in the newspaper and it does comply with code requirements. Jones stated that there have been no comments taken in the Planning Office regarding this issue. There was no one present to speak against. MOTION Dr. Williams moved approval with hours extended until 6:00 p.m., seconded by Fred Hanna. Madison suggested that the hours be extended earlier in the morning. Dr. Williams agreed to amend the motion to extend the hours of operation from 7:00 A.M. until 6:00 P.M. The ammended motion, with hours extended to 6 in the evening and 7:00 in the morning, passed 8-0. VARIANCE ON REQUIRED 3 ACRE LOT SIZE LOT SPLIT FOR NATCHEZ INVESTMENT CO. SW CORNER HIGHWAY 112 AND HIGHWAY 71 BY—PASS Item 8 on the agenda was a request for lot split by Natchez Investment Company. This property has recently been rezoned C-2. Bobbie Jones stated that the owners wish to construct a convenience grocery with gasoline sales and a delicatessen to attract the traveling public and they do not wish to tie up the entire parcel in the financing of it. Planning Commission April 9, 1984 - Page 9 Drake Street is on the Master Street Plan as a Collector Street and if there is less than a 60 foot right-of-way, we will need additional right-of-way at this location. Ms. Crook expressed a desire to have access to information as to what the intentions are for future development of the balance of the parcel of land. She stated, however, that as long as there was access to the remainder of the property it would be difficult to deny approval. MOTION Stockdell moved that the request for this variance be allowed. Seconded by Ernie Jacks. Jacks agreed with Crook with regards to future development of this piece. Jones showed the Commission a survey of the entire parcel of land in question with intent of use for the piece to be split off. Crook stated that she is becoming increasingly interested in this parcel. Motion passed 7-1 with Sue Madison in minority. APPROVAL OF LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT HARDEE'S AND WAL-MART, 62 W. BETWEEN SANG & FUTRELL Item 9 on the agenda was a request for approval for Large Scale Development for Hardees and Wal-Mart on Highway 62 West between Sang and Futrall, south of Old Farmington Road. Now zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Barbara Crook stated that the developer was to work out the parking and drainage problems and the Subdivision Committee had agreed to pass this as there was no need for waivers. She said that a Bill of Assurance will be rendered for the sidewalks for the access road and Highway 62, and that drainage will be handled on site. Stockdell inquired whether there was enough parking. Crook affirmed this. MOTION Madison motioned that the Planning Commission pass a resolution requesting the City Board to examine all the streets with Bills of Assurance for sidewalks within the next six months with the intent of calling those Bills and constructing sidewalks. The resolution to ask the Board to examine all of the sidewalk Bills of Assurance of the past and coordinate them passed 8-1. 79 • Planning Commission April 9, 1984 - Page 10 OTHER BUSINESS Item 10 on the agenda, Other Business, included the following: 1. Procedure for Street and Alley Closings. Ernie Jacks asked if there has been a change in the procedure for closing or vacating streets and alleys. Bobbie Jones stated that under a State statute, the City Board may decide that the particular street or alley is no longer necessary and close it. 2. A-1 Zoning on Farmers Road: Memo from Don Grimes. Dr. Williams (the Update Committee) agreed to study this. 3. Original Charge of the Update Committee. Dr. Williams has agreed to review the minutes of the committee and give a report at the next meeting. 4. Updating of the Land Use, Zoning, Master Street Plan and Sidewalk Maps in the Board Room. A price is needed for this job as the Planning Office has been unable to find time for this. Newton Hailey thanked Melanie Stockdell for chairing the last two meetings. Sue Madison asked if it would be possible to have a clock in the room. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:30. go