Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-06-25 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, June 25, 1984 at 5:00 P.M. in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Newton Hailey, Jr., Melanie Stockdell, Ernie Jacks, Sue Madison, Stan Green and Joe Tarvin Fred Hanna, Barbara Crook and David Williams Kim Brawner, Bill & Janice Hardin, Jim Lindsey, Bill Stiles, Bobbie Jones, Paula Brandeis, members of the press and others The regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Hailey. The first item on the agenda was the approval of the minutes of the June 11, 1984 meeting. They were approved as distributed. REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PARADISE VALLEY CONDOMINIUMS - JIM LINDSEY CORNER OF JOYCE ST. BETWEEN CROSSOVER & OLD MISSOURI RDS. The second item on the agenda was a request by Jim Lindsey for Conditional Use for Paradise Valley Condominiums located on Joyce St. between Crossover & Old Missouri Rds. to add 4 more apartments in an R-0 district. There was no one present in the audience to represent this request. Mrs. Jones explained that the petitioners had approached her with this request to add four units in a location previously planned for golf carts (on their original plan). She said this parcel is 7 acres, part of which is in R-0 (Residential -Office) and part in R-2 (Medium Density Residential). The new units would be in the R-0 portion. Jacks asked if the total number of units planned met code requirements in this district. Jones affirmed that 32 units on 7 acres did comply. NOTION Stockdell moved approval of this request; seconded by Jacks the motion passed 6-0. 1341 • • • Planning Commission June 25, 1984 Page 6 REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE FOR ANTIQUE S OFFICE FURNITURE BILL STILES — 1934 HUNTSVILLE RD. The fifth item on the agenda was a request by Bill Stiles for conditional use for an antique and office furniture shop at 1934 Huntsville Rd. R-1, Low Density Residential, an existing building which previously had approval for a non -conforming use. Jones explained that in 1972, Stiles had asked for a change in non- conforming use for this property as Jerry's Catering Service. It had previously been used as a retail television sales and repair shop, and a manufacturing shop for electrical components. The last Catering Service was approved by the Planning Commission September 5, 1972. She said that on June 15, 1984 Stiles submitted an application to change the nonconforming use to an antique and office furniture shop. Jones said that if this property were rezoned to C-2, Stiles could expand the building, but a Conditional Use would not allow for this.' MOTION Jacks said he thought the proposed use was a less severe use than some previous uses He moved approval; seconded by Stockdell. Madison said that the code reads (sic) that if a non -conforming use has lapsed for more than 120 days the new use must then need to conform. Stiles said it had been less than four months between the closing of Jerry's Catering and the present request for the antique shop. Jones replied that the re -opening of a non -conforming business when the equipment and items of business has been stored for a period of time. At Madison's suggestion, Stiles said he would be willing to withdraw this request and re -apply for a re -zoning if that was what it would take to gain approval for the antique shop. The motion passed 6-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:10 P.M. 13 • • Planning Commission June 25, 1984 Page 2 REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF DRIVEWAY SAFETY ZONE — 1667 BROADVIEW FOR KIM BRAWNER The third item on the agenda was a request by Kim Brawner for a variance of the driveway safety zone at 1667 Broadview. Brawner was present to speak for this request. Brawner said there are many large old trees that prohibit the construction of a driveway in the required setback from the property line. MOTION Jacks moved approval of the request; seconded by Joe Tarvin, motion passed 6-0. REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR 1ST, 2ND & 3RD LOT SPLITS FOR BILL 6 JANICE HARDIN BY JIM LINDSEY N. OF HWY. 45 JUST OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS The fourth item on the agenda was a request for a waiver of the minimum lot size required for the first, second and third lot splits submitted by Jim Lindsey for Bill and Janice Hardin. Property located north of Hwy. 45 just outside of the city limits. The request was also for approval of tandem lots for two of the lot splits. This was submitted to the County Planning Administrator and does not have his approval as the County does not like tandem lots in the Growth Area. The applicants have the right to appeal to the County Planning Board or process the splits as a subdivision plat and construct a public road to serve the back lots. The Hardins and Lindsey were present to speak for this request. Jones said that she had not heard from County Planning Administrator, Bud Allen, since sending him a memo dated June 18, 1984. Hardin said he was unaware that this request would create a problem and he wished to have an explanation of the rules regarding this request. Jones explained that when she talked to Allen, he told her that the reason the County does not like this type of situation is that the property owners often request road maintenance of their supposedly private drives from the County. He told her he would not approve this project without it being presented to the County Planning Board. Jones added that the original description for this parcel was for 21.657 acres and the drawing submitted currently shows only 13.9 acres with no indication of what became of the other 7.757 acres. /36 Planning Commission June 25, 1984 Page 3 Hardin said the unaccounted seven acres was sold to Dr. Bob McCollun sometime before Hardin purchased the remainder of the parcel. At Jones request Hardin said that the 7 acres was sold after 1970. Lindsey said he told the Hardins they coould treat this parcel one of two ways; 1. subdivide the land or 2.execute a lot split. He added that he was aware that one lot split had already been executed. Jones said that if there were 5 acres in each piece and no more than 3 splits, this request would have to go before this Commission. She said in 1979 the Ordinance was amended to call for 3 acres in each parcel of the first split, and 5 acres each in the second and third splits. Jones stated that if this were three 5 acre tracts and if Allen had approved, she would have processed this administratively. Lindsey said Allen had told him that he does have the authority to approve this request and a letter has been drawn up, as suggested, stating that the roads servicing the tandem lots would not be public streets, they will be privately maintained. Lindsey said they are requesting a waiver of the minimum lot size and approval of the tandem lot plan because he feels this would be the best use for this land. Madison asked if Bud Allen could approve both of these issues. Jones replied that the City has no zoning regulations in the growth area and the City's tandem lot regulations are in the Zoning Ordinance. She said the County has jurisdiction over roads that are not within the incorporated city limits. The fourth split would have to be approved by the City Board of Directors. Jones said if Allen had approved this request administratively and it met all other requirements, then she could approve it administratively. Jacks inquired if this request was scheduled to go to the County Planning Board. Lindsey said there are plans to put it on the next agenda. Green asked who has the final "say" in this matter. Jones replied that she wasn't sure of the legal implications and she added that the City and County try to work together on these issues. Jones added that the state statute requires the City to submit subdivision proposals to the County and allow them 30 days or so to present comments. Jacks said he thought that the City has jurisdiction over subdivision plans and the County has jurisdiction over roads outside city limits. Jacks said he had no problem with the waiver of lot size but he didn't think that this was a good use of the lot split Ordinance which was intended to prevent development from taking place without providing for improvements. He added that the intent of the tandem lot Ordinance was to provide access to otherwise unaccessible property. • l3 Planning Commission June 25, 1984 Page 4 Hailey suggested that this item be tabled or a motion be entertained. He said the Commission might recommend that the Board of Directors look favorably on the request for a fourth lot split. Tarvin asked if the Commission could approve two tandem lots after approving the three lot splits. Jones said her feeling was that whatever action was taken by the Planning Commission, further action would be required by the County Planning Board and the City Board of Directors. Lindsey asked if it would help if a Bill of Assurance was signed that all of the split pieces would use one drive. Jones said according to City subdivision regulations, the two tandems would have to be looked upon as two separate parcels, not one property. Green stated that he thought the Commission could approve two of the requested lot splits and recommend that fourth be approved. He also said he was still unclear as to whether this should come under the City's or the County's jurisdiction. He inquired of Jacks whether he thought the biggest problem was the drives exiting onto Hwy. 45. Jacks said it would not be a good idea to have Highway 45 (or any major thoroughfare) developed in this (proposed) fashion because of the driveways exiting onto Highway 45. Lindsey said another approach to the driveway problem is to add a cul-de-sac at the end of the private lane for use by all of the lots. Madison asked if the County has any minimum standards for private lanes or driveways. Jones said they have driveway requirements, but not private street regulations. Jones read the code in reference to "Subdivision Regulations" (Appendix C, Art.IV, Sec.A (variations) parts of paragraphs 3, 6 and 7 that regulate lot splits. She said her feeling about this issue was that as long as the County claims jurisdiction over roads, that they should have the opportunity to say yes or no concerning the private driveway. Jones said she had hoped to receive a response from the County Planning Administrator after sending him her memo. MOTION Jacks moved to grant the minimum lot size waiver and to deny the tandem lot request and suggest the Hardins present the private drive issue to the County. Jones suggested this could be approved contingent upon County approval. Lindsey said that was agreeable. • • • Planning Commission June 25, 1984 Page 5 Hailey repeated the motion which died for lack of a second; discussion followed. Stockdell asked what the difference would be between the last motion and a recommendation of approval of the tandem lot subject to a Bill of Assurance that would result in single access to Highway 45. Jacks responded that tandem lot simply means "one lot behind the other" and to him this meant that one could not have all the drives together. Madison objected to there being no standards set for private drives. MOTION Stockdell moved approval of the minimum lot size waiver and denial of the tandem lot request. Jacks seconded followed by discussion. Tarvin inquired as to why the County would be concerned over residents having private drives that they, the residents, agree to maintain. Green said he was in favor of approval of the minimum lot size for split) but he was not in favor of denying the tandem lot request. He added that he would like to recommend approval of the tandem lot, to the County, contingent upon resolution of the access issue. Lindsey affirmed that the owners would be willing to have all the lots exit from one driveway. He said the Hardins would give a Bill of Assurance stating this specification. Lindsey said he would like to have the drive issue left open to County decision. Stockdell asked if Lindsey wished to have this item tabled so that the Hardins could present this to the County Planning Board. Madison said she was opposed to both the minimum lot size and the tandem lot development. She said she felt it was not a good subdivision plan and that it goes against the original intent of the lot split Ordinance. Madison said the only way she would approve of this project was if there were 25 ft. lanes going across the back of the property. She said she was concerned about emergency services gaining access. Hardin said that he was willing to enlarge the private road to whatever width was required to approve the project. Mrs. Hardin said there is an existing 50 ft. easement existing here that will be used as the road. MOTION Hailey re—read the amended motion. "...approval of the waiver of minimum lot size for the first, second and third lot splits and to recommend to the City Board to look favorably on the fourth lot split; to deny approval of four private drives; and approve the tandem lots. Motion passed 5-1, Madison voting "nay". 1341