Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-08-13 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held Monday, August 13, 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, Fred Hanna, Barbara Crook, David Williams and Stan Green Sue Madison and Joe Tarvin C.J. Rice, Mike Pritchard, Leroy Willis, J.B. Hays, Ervan Wimberley, Joe Terminella, David Malone, Roy Armstrong, Carolyn and Scott Crook, Albert Erbach, Leon Edens, Leo Dickerson, Gary Carson, Durenda Turner, John Eldridge, Larry Wood, Bobbie Jones, Paula Brandeis, members of the press and others The regularly scheduled meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was called to order by Vicechair, Melanie Stockdell at 5:00 P.M. with five Commissioners present. MINUTES The first item on the agenda was the approval of the minutes of the July 23, 1984 meeting. Green made a correction as follows: On Page 7, the owner of the Sam Wilson Commercial Center is Sam Wilson and not J. B. Hays as had been stated. With this correction, the minutes stood approved. RSNEARING ON REZONING PETITION 84-11 C.J. RICE - 5.13 ACRES FROM A-1 TO R-2 OLD FARMINGTON RD. & E. OF ONE MILE RD. The second item on the agenda was the rehearing of re -zoning petition R84-11. A majority vote by Planning Commission members put this item back on the agenda today. At the July 23 meeting this item was heard and the petition denied as Mr Rice was not present to speak for the appeal due to the death of his father 30 minutes prior to the convening of the meeting. Mr. Rice was present today to speak for this appeal. He stated that he would like to build apartments on the subject parcel and that he felt sensitive to overcrowding and would sign a Bill of Assurance that no more than 70 units would be constructed here. Rice said he would also be willing to make street improvements. Rice thanked the Commission for their consideration in rehearing his petition. 163 • • Planning Commission August 13, 1984 Page 2 Mike Pritchard, 3010 Old Farmington Rd., stated that he was in favor of this rezoning because he thought it would increase the value of his property. He said he felt that because of the changes that have occurred in this neighborhood recently, A-1 zoning was obsolete. Pritchard said he felt Fayetteville would have a public transportation system in the not too distant future which may serve best by being in areas designated higher density residential than that which A-1 or R-1 would provide. He pointed out that there is already C-2 development nearby and he felt that multi -family housing was needed here. Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, gave his recommendation. He did not recommend the change to R-2 because 1. Medium density residential development is contrary to the General Plan recommendation; and 2. Multi -family development at the location requested would tend to commit the properties between Old Farmington Road and Highway 62 to a similar use as well as the undeveloped hillside to the north and west. He indicated that if the applicant desires R-1 District, that is recommended. Leroy Willis wished to speak in favor of this petition. He stated that he will be helping Rice develop this property. Willis said that the property north of this parcel is zoned A-1 and that it is his understanding that 100 acres of it is owned by a Texas resident who proposes, at a future date, to develop it into something other than a single-family residence and has also made it clear that he is favor of the development of any of the area surrounding his parcel. Willis reiterated that the development proposed by Rice will not be over 70 units and that plans are to work around the old trees. Ms. Stockdell closed the Public Hearing to Commission discussion. Hanna said he is familiar with the subject area and does not agree with the Planning Report. He said he thinks medium density residential is suitable for this area Hanna asked Wood for some clarification. Wood said that approving this change would tend to commit much more in this area than the Planning Commission members may have studied. He agreed that multi -family units were needed in this area but had a concern regarding the totality of the commitment. Hanna said he thought that because of the current nature of the area it was difficult for him to imagine single-family homes here and Crook commented that there has already been some commitment here to R-1. She said she agreed with Wood and was not in favor of this petition. Wood indicated that some of these parcels have been brought into the City as R-1 within the past 5 or 6 year. He answered Green's question by saying that the General Plan shows some R-2 property along Highway 62 behind the Commercial zone, but that it does not extend to the north side of Old Farmington Road. 164- • • Planning Commission August 13, 1984 Page 3 MOTION Green said he thought this area was acceptable for R-2 and he moved approval of this petition. Hanna seconded and the motion to approve failed to pass by a 3-2-0 vote with Commissioners Williams and Hailey being absent. Green, Hanna and Jacks voted "yes"; Crook and Stockdell voted "nay". Jones advised that Rice's recourse was to appeal to the Board of Directors within 15 days from today. REZONING PETITION R84-12 R-2 TO I-1 FOR J.B. HAYS N. OF 15TH ST.- E. OF WASHINGTON The third item on the agenda was a Public Hearing on rezoning petition R84-12 for J. B. Hays from R-2 (Medium Density Residential) to I-1 (Heavy Commercial -Light Industrial). Property located north of 15th Street and approximately 150 ft. east east of Washington Avenue containing Lot 7 and the north 38 feet of Lot 6 in Block 7 or Berl Dodd Addition. Stockdell announced that a change had been made and the request 1s to consider the change to C-2 (Heavy Commercial) instead of I-1 as originally stated. She explained that Commissioners could consider this change because C-2 is a lesser use than advertised and she requested the Planning Report from Wood. Wood said his report on the I-1 request applied to C-2 zoning as well. He did not recommend the change for the following reasons: 1. C-2 District is not in keeping with the land use recommendations of the General Plan; 2. A commitment to C-2 District at the location requested would express an intent to significantly alter the land use pattern on the north side of Hwy. 16 East which would be contrary to the General Plan and past actions of the Planning Commission; and 3. A commitment to C-2 District could lead to strip development along Hwy. 16 East. J.B. Hays was present to represent this petition. He stated that he had a client that would like to use subject property as an electrical shop and that this parcel is directly across the street from commercially zoned property. He said he felt that the proposed use would not be a detriment to the area. Joe Terminella, Rt. 8, Box 359 Fayetteville, said he would like to set up an electronics repair shop and felt that this was a good location. Commissioner Crook said she had received a communication from Elizabeth Reagan of 241 E. 13th Street, an adjoining property owner, who prefers the subject property remain R-2 in conformance with the General Plan. • There being no others to speak either for or against this petition, Ms. Stockdell closed the Public Hearing to discussion among Commissioners. 165 • • • Planning Commission August 13, 1984 Page 4 In answer to Hanna's question, Wood advised that the property directly east of this parcel has been labeled C-2 in error on the zoning map He said it is actually R-2. Jacks commented that, for many years, the Commission has tried to keep away from "stripping out" areas and he said he still felt very strongly about maintaining this policy. MOTION Crook moved that the request for re -zoning be denied. Jacks seconded and the notion to deny carried 4-1-1 with Commisssioner A111ians absent. Hanna voted "nay" and Chairman Hailey (having just arrived) abstained. APPROVAL OF LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT FIRSTSOUTH FEDERAL SAVINGS S LOAN DICKSON STREET AND COLLEGE AVENUE The fourth item on the agenda was approval of a Large Scale Development for FirstSouth Federal Savings and Loan located at the corner of Dickson Street and College Avenue and represented by architects Everett Balk and Gary Ryel of Crafton, Tull, Spann & Yoe, Rogers, Arkansas and Don Giles of FirstSouth. MOTION Crook moved to approve this LSD as recommend by the Subdivision Committee subject to 1. Plat Review comments; 2. approval of the variance on driveway safety zones; 3. the City Manager's recommendation being followed which states that FirstSouth's engineer will design the plans and specifications for upgrading Dickson Street and present these along with the cost estimate (for same) to the Street Superintendent for his approval; and 4. cooperation by FirstSouth with the city for taking the storm drainage created by this development to Town Branch. Stockdell seconded followed by a request from David Malone (representative of a neighboring church) to examine the plat. He said he didn't have any problems with the development and the motion to approve passed 6-0-1; Commissioner Williams (having just arrived) abstained. MOTION Crook moved (as per the recommendation of the Subdivision Committee) to resolve to call to the attention of the Board of Directors and the City Street Committee, the problem being created by this development at the intersection of the alley, Washington Avenue, the exit from this property and the exit from the adjacent property owners and encourage these property owners and the City to work together to find a solution. Stockdell seconded and the motion passed 7-0-0. 114 • • Planning Commission August 13, 1984 Page 5 CONDITIONAL USE FOR HOME OCCUPATION ROY ARMSTRONG; 103 NORTH PLAINVIEW RETAIL ANTIQUE SHOP - ZONED R-1 The fifth item on the agenda was a request by Roy Armstrong, 103 North Plainview Avenue for a Conditional Use to conduct a retail antique shop from his home in an R-1 (Low Density Residential) zone. Jones stated that this is the first time that a request for an antique shop in the home has been filed. Roy Armstrong was present to speak for this petition. He stated that he has no intention of developing the subject property to sell. Carolyn Crook, 892 Longview Street, said she has no complaint with regard to the business being operated from Armstrong's home but she said she wanted to make it clear that she wished this R-1 district to maintain its present zoning classification. Scott Crook, 892 Longview Street, said that he was not opposed to the request but he felt that granting the request would be a significant change for the area. He said he was concerned that, at some future date, an approval of this request may set a precedent resulting in a re -zoning. Crook said he was also concerned about the traffic in this area because the road (Longview Street) is very narrow and is basically a deadend with two spurs branching from it. Chairman Hailey requested that the Planning Administrator put a note in this file stating that, if anything comes up in this particular area for re -zoning, these minutes will be retrieved for reference. Albert Erbach, 767 Longview Street, said that although he has no direct opposition to Armstrong's petition, a traffic problem does exist because the street is only 18 feet wide. He suggested a one-way sign be posted. Hailey stated that a message will be sent to the Traffic Department with these comments requesting feedback on this issue. MOTION Williams moved approval of the Conditional Use, seconded by Stockdell and followed by discussion. Commissioner Crook asked if the access was from Highway 71 and Armstrong replied that it was from Longview Street to Plainview. He added that he would not be using the strip of land belonging to him which extends to Highway 71 as he does not want to increase the traffic flow. 16'7 • • • Planning Commission August 13, 1984 Page 6 Crook asked the circumstances under which this case may come back to the Planning Commission and Jones replied that Commission approval today would stand for a period of one year. She said Armstrong would need a Certificate of Occupancy and if there were no complaints at the end of one year, she would be able to approve it for another year (and so on). Jones added that if any complaints were received, she would send it back to the Planning Commission. She stated that the requirements include hours from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.; no outside help may be employed (only members of the family in residence); it cannot occupy more than either 300 sq.ft. or 30Z of the gross area of one floor (whichever is greater) and; no sign may be posted in the R-1 zone. The motion to approve passed 7-0-0. CONDITIONAL USE FOR CHANGE OF NON -CONFORMING USE FOR LEON EDENS 4095 WEDINGTON DRIVE - ZONED A-1 CHANGE FROM PLUMBING, HEATING S AIR TO SILK SCREENING The sixth item on the agenda was consideration of a Conditional Use for a change of non -conforming use for Leon Edens at 4095 Wedington Drive, zoned A-1. The change proposed is from a Plumbing, Heating and Air Conditioning business to Ozark Ceramic and Novelty Company, a silk screening business. Gary Carson, attorney for Edens, was present to represent this appeal. He stated that, property owner Edens, had bought the property and built a structure on it about four years ago before this parcel was annexed into the City. He said at the time of Edens retirement, an employee of Edens, Leo Dickerson, took over the shop (June 1, 1984). Carson said at the present time, Mr. Dickerson would like to buy the property to use as a silk screening business. He said the silk screening process does not use chemicals of any kind nor does it produce any pollutants. Carson added that, because no water is used in the silk screening process, no impact will be made as to sewer usage. He said he has affidavits from neighbors stating that they would prefer this. business to the Plumbing, Heating and Air Conditioning that was previously in use here. Carson said that the entire operation would take place inside the building and employ about the same number of people as the previous business and the traffic flow will not increase. He advised that a great deal of the silk screening is done for the University of Arkansas and Wal-Mart. Crook inquired as to how the waste from the process is handled and Dickerson replied that it is taken care of entirely with mineral spirits on rags and there is no washing up with water. Dickerson added that there is an existing bathroom for employees use. He said there will be about 20 people employed and he did not anticipate any problems with parking for this many people on the acre and a half property. 148 • • • Planning Commission August 13, 1984 Page 7 Crook inquired as to shipping and Dickerson said there will be no direct shipping to his sources but a truck will make two pickups per day during daylight hours for delivering the products. In answer to Crook's inquiry regarding possible sewer tapping in the future, Connie Kronable replied that the sewer is located across the street and extends northwards. She said there are plans to extend the sewer east to Rupple Road which will make tapping into it easier. MOTION Stockdell moved approval of the request for change in non -conforming use. Seconded by Williams, the motion passed 7-0-0. REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE/CHILD CARE FOR DURENDA TURNER - 509 S. CHURCH The seventh item on the agenda was a request for Conditional Use for child care (8 children) for Durenda Turner. Property located at 509 S. Church and zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. This could not be approved administratively in an R-2 zone. Jones advised that, although Ms. Turner will be conducting the child care operation in her home, it does not qualify as a "home occupation" because she is planning on caring for more than 6 children. Jones said the appropriate listing for this operation is "Child Care" or "Nursery School" which requires Planning Commission approval in all zoning districts. She said it also requires that the lot have at least 250 sq. ft. per child and at least 80 sq. ft. of outdoor play space per child; the outdoor play space must be screened if it is within 50 ft. of other property zoned residential. Jones advised that the applicant has met these qualifications and she added that Turner would be allowed to put up a sign and was not subject to the "no outside help" clause or the need to be re-evaluated in a year. Stockdell inquired if Turner has a State license and Turner replied that Nonnie Vance, Social Services, would be checking the location for approval on Wednesday of this week. In answer to Jack's question, Jones said that neighbors surrounding this property had been sent an agenda announcing this proposal. MOTION Jacks moved approval of the request for Conditional Use and Crook seconded followed by an amendment from Green. He requested that because this is strictly a residential neighborhood, this request be subject to the restrictions for a "Home Occupation" except for the number of children allowed. The motion to approve (as amended) passed 7-0-0. • • • Planning Commission August 13, 1984 Page 8 PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ART 4, SEC. I, OF APPENDIX C REGULATING PRIVATE STREETS IN A LSD The eigth item on the agenda was a Public Hearing on an ordinance amending Article IV, Section I, of Appendix C to the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances to regulate private streets located within a Large Scale Development. Jones gave some background on the subject. She explained that this issue evolved out of the addressing of private streets or drives within a LSD in the same manner as in a PUD. Jones said that she realized that Planning Commission members and Street Superintendent Powell seemed to be under the impression that these private drives needed to be built to the same standards as within a PUD (which is to meet City standards as far as sub -base, base and surface material and a lesser width without curbs and gutters but including drainage). Jones said a suggestion was made that an amendment be proposed to the Planning Commission to address a possible change which would make LSD private drives subject to the same requirements as private drives in a PUD. Chairman Hailey opened the Public Hearing to the general audience and Ervan Wimberley, Northwest Engineers, commented on the proposed amendment. He asked why the City must regulate the streets within a development. His expressed his concern regarding endless regulations being imposed by the City. Crook said she thought the issue was not being stated clearly enough. She said, to her, there was a great difference between a parking lot (with access) to a street and a street which would lead from one location to another. Crook said in recent months there have been many subdivisions presented (via LSD) to the Planning Commission for approval and there is a concern that, at some future date, the maintenance of the streets within these developments may fall from the POA to the City. She said she thought these differences needed to be more clearly defined. Jacks agreed with Crook on the increasing number of subdivisions coming in as LSD. He said he thought the requirements for private streets and drives were quite clearly defined for PUDs, but he had some concern about developers who need an access to a parking lot to serve only a small number of units. Jacks said that perhaps a modification could be included for addressing necessary minor street work serving not more than 40 units as in the PUD ordinance. He said he preferred this measure as opposed to continually addressing the requests for waivers on street improvements. Jacks said he meant that cul-de-sacs and loop drives within a LSD would be by rights for up to 40 units. 170 • • Planning Commission August 13, 1984 Page 9 Jones advised that the PUD ordinance requires private streets to be built to City standards (sub -base, base and paving) with a maximum of 40 units on a cul-de-sac or 80 units on a loop. She said that a width of 14 ft. for one-way traffic and 22 to 24 ft. for two-way traffic is required. MOTION Crook stated that she felt there were more problems surrounding this issue than the Planning Commission could address at this moment and she moved that this item be referred to a committee consisting of at least one Planning Commission member, one engineer (someone who works with the developers) and the City Attorney to clear up any ambiguities and then return to the Planning Commission for a continuance of the Public Hearing. Williams seconded followed by discussion. Jacks said he felt that it would not be appropriate to allow standards for private streets in a LSD to go below those required for PUDs. Chairman Hailey requested that Crook put this item on the Subdivision Committee's meeting agenda for discussion and that Jacks attend the next Subdivision Committee meeting. He also requested that Jones notify Wimberley and other concerned engineers of this same meeting so that they might attend and work out some solution. The question was called and the motion to table this item and continue it at the next Planning Commission meeting (at which tine there will be a report from the Subdivision Committee) passed 7-0-0. OTHER BUSINESS The first item under "Other Business" was Crook's report on comments received from Mrs. Teas regarding prior complaints about the debris left by the developers at Cambridge Place Subdivision (see Planning Commission minutes of July 23, 1984). She said Mrs. Teas reports that the developer responded very quickly to her request that the "tree corpses" be removed and soil conditions repaired. The second item under "Other Business" was the approval of the official name change for Park Place, Phase I to Cambridge Place Phase I. Jones said she suggested to the City Attorney that the manner of changing the name of this subdivision would be to submit an amended plat reflecting this name change and after some discussion it was determined that this method was acceptable. MOTION • • Jacks moved acceptance of the final plat under the name of Park Place; seconded by Hanna, the motion passed 7-0-0. int • • • Planning Commission August 13, 1984 Page 10 The third item under "Other Business" was a report from Williams on the Update Committee. He said that Jones and Wood have agreed to prepare a list of 1. items to be dealt with quickly which are ready for action and 2. items that require problem solving and study. Williams said the work on these items will begin mid-September and within four to six weeks proposals will be presented to the Planning Commission. The fourth item under "Other Business" was a request by Attorney John Eldridge on behalf of Ozarks Electric Corp. He asked that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Board that an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance be passed without a Public Hearing. Eldridge said that Ozarks Electric on Highway 16 West, is in what was determined to be A-1 zoning (as a non -conforming use). Eldridge said O.E. desires presently to paint and maintain its own trucks and needs additional space to do so. He said he has spoken to the City Attorney and his recommendation was that the Planning Commission recommend amending the ordinance to permit what is already taking place on the O.E. property (office operation and vehicle maintenance) in either Use Unit 2 or 3. Use Unit 2 is a Conditional Use in the A-1 zone and Use Unit 3 is allowed by right. Eldridge said Attorney McCord's suggestion was that possibly the best way to handle this situation was to apply for a zoning ordinance amendment under either Use Unit 2 or 3 so that utility facility buildings (as desired by Ozarks Electric) may be permitted by application and approval of the Planning Commission as opposed to a re -zoning request. He indicated that Ozarks Electric is the only utility company within the boundaries of the City that is not in a C-2 zone. Planning Consultant, Larry Wood, said he feels more comfortable keeping private utility facilities as a Conditional Use in all districts as opposed to requiring the zoning change to C-2 in I-1 to handle the operation in different areas of the City where C-2 and I-1 do not belong. He cited Arkansas Western Gas as an example of a rezoning to I-1 where he would have preferred a Conditional Use. Wood said he is not in favor of rezoning from I-1 to C-2 or R-0 because it has the potential of forcing other land uses. He said if the Planning Commission agrees with this thought, then they could express that to City Board members who could then (under a provision in the State Law) make that amendment by declaration without a Public Hearing. Crook asked if Wood would recommend any use conditions such as compati- bility with existing structures and Wood replied that this request is merely to place utility company facilities as Conditional Use and that all of the Conditional Use stipulations, such as compatibility and access, will still apply as standards to measure acceptance or denial of a request. I'12 • • • Planning Commission August 13, 1984 Page 11 MOTION Jacks said he thought that not enough time had been allowed to consider this matter and he made a motion to request that the City Attorney draw up a zoning amendment before a decision is made. Stockdell seconded the motion which was followed by further discussion. Williams cited that fact that, according to Eldridge, Ozark Electric has been caught in the midst of applying for a building permit and was requesting expediency in this matter. Eldridge said that to delay would create a problem. He explained that the existing Ozarks Electric building houses its offices in the front with bays at the rear for maintaining the equipment necessary to provide electricity to clients. He reiterated that more space is necessary and the building permit was applied for under the assumption that "utility facilities" meant everything necessary to operate that utility. Eldridge pointed out that the next City Board meeting would be on Aug. 22 and if O.E. were to make their presentation at that meeting and (if it passed) they could appear before the Planning Commission to make their Conditional Use request one week after that date (Aug. 27) Jacks reiterated that he did not feel comfortable voting on an ordinance that he has not seen and Stockdell said that, although she did not have a problem with this issue, she agreed with Jacks as to taking the extra time to have an ordinance drawn up for review. The question was called and the motion to refer this to McCord for clarification and to submit to Commissioners a proposed amendment to the ordinance passed 4-3-0 with Commissioners Jacks, Hanna, Stockdell and Williams voting "yes" and Green, Crook and Hailey voting "nay". Crook wished the Commissioners unwillingness to approve an ordinance that might have broader implications than the particular issue at hand made know to the Board of Directors. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:00 P.M. 1'73