Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-10-08 Minutes• I• • MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission vas held Monday, October 8, 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: Melanie Stockdell, Ernie Jacks, Fred Hanna, Sue Madison, Stan Green, Barbara Crook, David Williams and Joe Tarvin MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Newton Hailey, Jr. Planning Consultant Larry Wood, Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones, Paula Brandeis, members of the press and others The regularly scheduled meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was called to order by Vice -Chair, Melanie Stockdell. MINUTES The minutes of the September 24, 1984 meeting were approved as mailed. PUBLIC HEARING ON AMENDMENT TO THE MASTER STREET PIAN MASONIC DRIVE AND MILSAP AREA The second item on the agenda was a Public Hearing on a proposed amendment to the Master Street Plan in Masonic/Milsap area just east of Hwy. 71. Consultant Wood reported on information gained from the Arkansas State Highway Department. He said that they have not commented on the service drive itself because it lies outside of their jurisdiction but Wood stated that the Highway Dept. and the City Board have recommended the following: 1. the fifth lane on Hwy. 71 be extended north and properly striped for left -turn movements for south -bound traffic; 2. the second lane north (in front of Ark. Western Gas) where it tapers to one lane for northbound traffic be added at least to Sain Ave. and; 3. there is support for a traffic light (at Milsap and 71) when traffic volume warrants it. In answer to Jack's question, Wood said that the fifth lane officially begins about half way between Milsap and Masonic. He said the Board and Highway Dept. recognize the need to extend the lane far enough to allow for stacking space for left-hand turns. 196 • • • Planning Commission October 8, 1984 Page 2 Green said he thought this configuration would make it difficult for traffic on front street to enter Hwy. 71 through Milsap because of either the stacking of traffic or a continuous stream on the green light. He asked if there was another alternative. Wood replied that no other alternatives have been discussed at this time and he added that there may be reason for concern with regards to southbound traffic stacking up far enough back to impede entrance to the by-pass itself. Stockdell opened the Public Hearing and requested to hear from anyone in favor of an amendment to the Master Street Plan. Crook reported that the Planning Commission had previously discussed adding a connecting street between Milsap and Masonic to the Master Street Plan, and that even if it is not added at this time, streets are usually gained as development takes place and a street could be improved here in the future by the developers owning these properties. Oscar and Bobbie Wyatt, 3442 Hemlock, residents of this area inquired whether a right-hand turn lane could be provided for traffic exiting onto Milsap and Wood replied that this was possible but the City would need to acquire right-of-way and alter the bank's existing parking lot and retaining wall. He added that he thought it was advisable to do this if it could be accomplished. Gladys Davis, 3468 Hemlock, asked if the proposed street between Milsap and Masonic would effect property owners adjacent on the east and Crook explained that if the Master Street Plan showed this as a street, the adjoining property owners would be asked to participate in improving said street. Davis replied that she did not want a street and would not care to participate in paying for one. Malcolm McNair, 503 N. Washington, stated that he represents First Federal of Arkansas, a principal landowner in this area. He said he had some confusion as to where the access road would be and thought that it would effect some of his property, adjoining neighbors on the east, but not that of proposed American College. Crook explained that the 400 ft. suggested was an estimate and Jones added that some of the confusion stems from the fact that McNair's measurements have been taken from the as opposed to the section line and both may be correct. McNair wished to go on record as being in favor of the widening of Hwy. 71 as well as the traffic light and extra lane. Ron Harrell, 1020 Baldwin, Master of Masonic Lodge, stated that his organization and three others meet at the lodge hall on Masonic many times during a month and they don't have any problem gaining access to Masonic. He added that they are not in favor of a connecting street as suggested. Harrell said he thought the American College was too large an institution for the lot they have proposed building on. 197 • • • f Planning Commission October 8, 1984 Page 3 Crook said that no matter what develops on the lots facing Hwy. 71, there is concern about compounding a dangerous traffic situation. Harrell said he didn't feel there was enough parking for American College and he expressed concern that students and faculty would use his organization's space for their overflow to which he objected. Kim Fugitt, architect for American College explained that he has planned a 9,00 sq. ft. building with 92 parking spaces (the code requires 15 parking spaces). He said the proposed access point is on the southern end of the property in the form of a 40 ft. tandem driveway to be shared with the neighbor adjacent on the south. Fugitt said he planned the drive in this location to keep it as far away as possible from the existing traffic problem on Milsap. Mary Pate, Directress of American College stated that the students number 230 divided between morning, afternoon and night classes. She said approximately 40% of the students attend evening class and she did not anticipate all vehicles being present at any one time. Pate added that a number of students car pool from outlying areas which reduces the total number of vehicles expected. She said that American College currently has 45 parking spaces at their present location and does not experience a problem with parking. Harrell asked if the college expected any growth and Pate replied that, while some growth was anticipated, the intention was to keep the school small and she didn't foresee outgrowing these facilities. Mike Price, 2852 N. College, stated that he plans to purchase the parcel adjacent to the proposed college on the north side (behind First Heritage). He advised that if right-of-way was taken to build a street between Milsap and Masonic, there would not be room left to build on the lot he has in mind. Commissioner Jacks said he didn't feel that a connecting street as suggested would do any good and he was not in favor of it. He said he liked the proposal made by the Highway Dept. and the City Board. Green agreed and said he thought said connection would make the situation worse because the vast majority of drivers would not go up Front Street to make a left hand turn onto Hwy. 71, but would use Milsap instead. He said he was not sure if a traffic light was a good idea because of the stacking up this would create, restricting right turns onto Milsap and up Front Street as is presently possible. Green said he thought the most expedient thing to do at the present was to ban left turns from Milsap onto Hwy. 71. Crook disagreed with Jacks, expressing her concern with the development in this area and the safety need for a second point of access. She added that she did favor a traffic light and a left-hand turn lane. 198 • • • Planning Commission October 8, 1984 Page 4 Madison agreed with Crook and added that she was in favor of banning left-hand turns onto 71 from Milsap. She said she didn't see the need for two connecting streets in this area and thought that Hemlock needed to be abandoned if the new suggested street is constructed. MOTION Crook moved to recommend to the Board of Directors that a change be made to the Master Street Plan by adding a connecting north -south street between Milsap and Masonic east of Hwy. 71, along with a recom- mendation to proceed with the addition of a fifth lane and a turning lane on Highway 71. Madison seconded followed by discussion. Green said he was in favor of this recommendation with the exception of adding a traffic light and Crook advised that she was not including that in her motion and wished to encourage the Board to pursue the remainder of their recommendation. Stockdell reported that the traffic light was part of the Highway Dept. recommendation. Stockdell reopened the Public Hearing as their were several members of the audience wishing to comment at this time. Barker Adair, 3500 N. College said it alarmed him that left-hand turns might be banned onto N. College. Crook advised him that that was not part of this motion. Mrs. Wyatt suggested constructing Milsap on to the east and Stockdell replied that Milsap does not go any further than the Gehring Cemetery. Oscar Wyatt advised that when turning left onto Hwy. 71, traffic is not visible coming from the south because of a hill. The question was called and the motion by Crook failed to pass on a 3-5-0 vote with Madison, Crook and Hanna voting in favor. MOTION Jacks moved to recommend no change to the Master Street Plan along with encouragement for the timely accomplishment of the street improvements as proposed by the City Board and Arkansas State Highway Dept. Green seconded followed by more discussion. Jacks commented that this proposal has been addressed by the Technical Advisory Committee and there didn't seem to be a better alternative for improving the situation. Madison asked Wood if the connection between Milsap and Masonic had been discussed by the TAC and Wood replied that he had recommended this but it was not discussed at the TAC meeting. The motion by Jacks passed 7-1-0, Madison voting "nay" Stockdell announced that the petitioner has requested tabling Item 47. Williams so moved; seconded by Madison, the motion passed 8-0-0. ;q9 • • Planning Commission October 8, 1984 Page 5 Stockdell advised that the next meeting of the Planning Commission would take place on Tuesday, November 13 as Monday Nov. 12, (the regularly scheduled day) meeting is Veterans Day. PUBLIC HEARING ON R84-15 REZONING FOR FAYETTEVILLE INDUSTRIAL FOUNDATION The third item on the agenda was a Public Hearing on a rezoning petition filed by the Fayetteville Industrial Foundation to amend three tracts of land on the east side of City Lake Rd. Consultant Wood reported that he recommends the requested I-1 and I-2 Districts for the following reasons: 1. The General Plan recommends industrial land use for the area. 2. The tracts are part of an overall Industrial Park Plan; 3. Public facilities are being provided as part of the industrial development process. MOTION Williams moved to waive discussion and approve this petition. There were no objections to this action and seconded by Hanna, the motion to approve this rezoning passed 8-0-0. PUBLIC HEARING ON REZONING PETITION R84-16 FOR MORRISS HENRY AT THE NW CORNER OF ZION RD & OLD ZION The fourth item on the agenda was a Public Hearing on Rezoning Petition R84-16 for 13.55 acres owned by Dr. Morriss Henry located at the northwest corner of Zion Rd. and Old Zion Rd. Consultant Wood gave the following recommendation: The recommended development pattern at Zion Rd. and Highway 265 was based on planning principals without regard to ownership and individual desires. The development pattern could be amended to extend the R-0 District north to Old Zion Rd. and west to a point west of the intersection of Zion Rd. and Old Zion Rd. If that is considered, the medium density residential pattern should be re-established west and north of the R-0 District. Another alternative would be to extend the R-2 District west of Old Zion Rd. which would allow professional offices on 1 acre as a conditional use. The other alternative would be to leave the development pattern as adopted. All of these alternatives are acceptable planning practices. • Wood said a problem that needs to be worked out with any future development is poor site distance at the intersection of Old Zion Rd. and Hwy. 265. 200 • • • Planning Commission October 8, 1984 Page 6 In answer to Jack's question, Wood explained that the present land use plan brings the multi -family area up to the south and east sides of Old Zion Rd. Dr. Henry was present to speak for this appeal and stated that he wished to locate his office on this parcel of land which he has owned for over 10 years. He indicated that he was open to questions. Bill Giese, residing just south of Henry's property, said that although he did not object to this rezoning, he was concerned because he had difficulty locating the advertisement sign for this case. He said he felt the sign was put up in a fashion that would purposefully not allow any visibility. Art Mueller, Zion Rd. said that he, too, was unable to find the sign. He asked if R-0 was a zoning suitable for multi -family housing. Wood went on to explain again the layout of the proposed zoning and added that the rezoning was not negative as long as buffer zones remained between zoning classifications. He said that it would involve buffering the north side of this area with offices and extending the multi -family north of Old Zion Rd and west into Henry's property. Tarvin asked if it was necessary to have multi -family zoning between R-0 and R-1. He said he felt that rezoning the entire tract to R-0 was beneficial to City planning because it was less intense than multi- family housing. MOTION Madison moved to recommend granting this request as submitted. Tarvin seconded followed by discussion. Jacks wished to know if Henry had seen the proposals submitted by Wood and asked if he intended to build on the eastern part of the land. Henry responded that he did not have concrete building plans at this time. Jacks said he was reluctant to rezone the entire tract to R-0. Green said he felt that Wood's proposal #1 addresses Dr. Henry's desire as well as helping to preserve the land. He agreed that if this motion failed, he would be in favor of selecting Alternate #1. Wood advised that if alternate 111 was chosen, a Public Hearing would have to be held to amend the Land Use Plan but he added that a rezoning could be approved tonight based on Alternate 111. Jacks explained that if Alternate 111 were adopted it would mean rezoning the east half to R-0 and leaving the west half A-1. In answer to Madison's question, Wood said 6.5 acres would exist in the rezoned R-0 District. VPI • • • Planning Commission October 8, 1984 Page 7 Green offered an amendment to Madison's motion as follows: he requested that the entire area be examined at a future time with regard to changing the Land Use Plan. Tarvin said he did not think R-2 zoning was a good plan in this area and he objected to keeping to a zoning pattern without qualification as to what would exist in the R-0 District. Crook agreed. Green said he liked the idea of multi -family housing as a buffer to R-1 better than R-0 because it may be difficult to exercise control over what kinds of offices occupied that space. Wood clarified that Alternate //1 would split the east half of the property between R-0 and R-2 and leave the remainder in A-1 or R-1 as the Planning Commission wishes. He explained that R-0 is used as a buffer between R-1 and R-2 because of its high density potential. In answer to Tarvin's question, Wood agreed that with a Conditional Use, one could build an office in R-2 District but it would limited to four doctors per acre. Green's amendment died for lack of a second, the question was called and the motion to grant the request passed 6-2-0, with Jacks and Green' voting "nay" PUBLIC HEARING ON REZONING PETITION R84-17 FIRST SERVICE CORP. LOCATED AT 215 N. EAST ST. The fifth item on the agenda was a Public Hearing on Rezoning Petition R84-17 for First Service Corp. located at 215 N. East Avenue. Requested is a change from R-0 to C-2, Commercial Thoroughfare. Consultant Wood gave the following recommendation: The goal of the General Plan is to encourage the development and redevelopment of the area on the periphery of the Square as offices, apartments, light service commercial and public facilities. If it is felt this goal is no longer valid then rezoning to C-2 District would be appropriate. If the goal is still valid, then C-2 District is not recommended. Planning Administrator, Jones, explained the history of a clothing shop two doors away from subject property. She said when it was rezoned to C-2 it was operated as "The China Hutch" with a Bill of Assurance restricting it to a bridal registry and when it when out of business, the Bill of Assurance was amended to allow a dress shop to operate in the same space. Crook commented that C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, seems unappropriate for a clothing shop. She inquired if another zoning would be better. Wood replied that C-3 would be more appropriate because there is C-3 zoning immediately west of this property. • • • Planning Commission October 8, 1984 Page 8 There was a discussion regarding the various uses allowed in the different zoning classifications and Jones said that this petitioner could operate in either a C-2 or C-3. Crook advised that, according to the zoning map, a C-3 district would be more in keeping with surrounding property. Wood stated that a C-3 could not be approved at this meeting because it is a higher use and would require a separate and advertised Public Hearing. Stockdell opened the Public Hearing and Lynn Wade, attorney for the petitioner, stated that the proposed tenant for subject space will be selling collectables and used clothing. He said she will be using the ground floor only and was advised that a C-2 zoning would be most appropriate. Wade said he felt the neighborhood was a mixed one and this shop would not be in conflict with this setting, adding that there is adequate parking. Wade said the building in question is owned by First Federal who have plans to expand, limiting the current request to a transitional use. MOTION Crook said she felt the proposed use was inconsistent with the neighbor- hood and the General Plan and moved to deny this petition. Jacks seconded followed by discussion. Hanna said he did not think it fair to ask the petitioner to return with a request for C-3 when it is known what the use would be. He said he was in favor of the C-2 rezoning and commented that there has been no opposition to this request. Madison said that, although it would be presently used as a clothing shop, she could not discount the possibility of its being used as something more objectionable. Crook said she was concerned that neighboring property owners may use this rezoning as a reference to have other properties rezoned to the C-2 classification. Green suggested taking a Bill of Assurance because he felt the use of the building was appropriate with the neighborhood. He said he would vote against the motion because he felt it would also be acceptable to take a Bill of Assurance from other citizens willing to restrict their business to a dress shop. Stockdell asked what method was being used to enforce Bills of Assurance and it was determined that it was through court action. Jones advised that anyone examining a zoning map cannot see the Bill of Assurance that has been accepted with a piece of property and it is always up to someone in the Planning Office to remember what action took place. She added that sometimes a property is purchased under the assumption 203 • • • Planning Commission October 8, 1984 Page 9 that it is zoned for a particular classification and the restriction is not immediately understood by the purchaser. Green replied that this information is generally gained through the abstracting process. Crook asked if the time factor involved in applying for C-3 district would create a hardship and Wade replied that it would as the tenant has already paid rent here in hopes of C-2 being accepted. Stockdell said she thought the Commission was in agreement as to maintain- ing the area around the square and if it is to be kept as it is, this petition should not be approved. Green said he felt that there sometimes is not a perfect solution to a problem and recognizing that what the property is intended to be used for is absolutely unobjectionable he felt that the best thing to do is to rezone with a Bill of Assurance, preventing any objectionable uses from taking place here. The motion to deny this rezoning petition failed by a 4-4-0 vote; Williams, Green, Hanna and Jacks voted "nay". MOTION Green made a motion to recommend approval of this request to rezone to C-2 with a Bill of Assurance restricting the use to a dress shop. Hanna seconded and Wade advised that this request is for the first floor of the building only, with the upper floor remaining apartments. The motion to recommend approval of this request passed 6-2-0, Madison and Crook voting "nay". APPROVAL OF EXPANSION OF CONDITION USE FOR CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS LSD - 1225 E. ZION RD. The sixth item on the agenda was the approval of the expansion of The Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints, a LSD Conditional Use located at 1225 E. Zion Rd. and represented by Neal Albright. Crook reported that the Subdivision Committee considered this plat at their meeting of October 5 at which time they were not able to approve it because of a tie vote. She said they had no problem with the development itself but there was a question as to how to handle the street improvements to Zion Road. Crook said there was agreement that the street improvements were badly needed, but some members of the committee objected to Zion Road being widened in a piecemeal fashion while others felt that the decision was entirely up to the church. Crook said precident has been set by requiring two recent developments on the same road to make their street improvements at the time of development rather than keeping funds on deposit for future improvement at such time that Zion Road can be addressed as one entire stretch (or a period of five years). • • • Planning Commission October 8, 1984 Page 10 Crook explained that Ervan Wimberley, an engineer, had been present at the Subdivision meeting and had advised that Zion Road has many problems which he felt needed to be addressed simultaneously and that improving it piecemeal would worsen the situation. Crook added that the Committee agreed to take into account the wishes of the church at this time and she had been informed that they would like to make the street improvements immediately. MOTION Crook made a motion to recommend approval of this plat subject only to Plat Review comments. Madison seconded followed by discussion. Green said he would not like to see this developer widen Zion Road as he strongly felt the City should bear full responsibility for it with regards to said improvements because it is used as an east -west through street for access to the Mall shopping center. He said he would prefer to take a cash bond for future participation because he felt that, if this street were ever widen properly, this section would have to be torn out. He added that he did not want to change the rules for the church and so he would vote in favor of the approval as stated. Jacks said he felt it was a big step to turn this request over to the City Board even though he thought Green might be right. Madison reported that the Subdivision Committee had also passed a resolution asking the City Board to examine Zion Road and consider adding it to the priority list of the Master Street Plan. She said she did not have strong feelings one way or another regarding this issue but she felt that the church may not want the street improvements hanging over their heads. Madison also said she did not think it was a good situation having mixed wide and narrow sections along this road. Albright stated that the church feels that if will be out the money for the required improvements, they would rather enjoy the improvements now than to give a cash bond for future improvements. The question was called and the motion to approve this LSD subject to Plat Review comments failed to pass 4-4-0 with Williams, Green, Hanna and Jacks voting "nay". Jones stated that if a Bill of Assurance was taken for street improvements at the call of the City, the Board of Directors would have to approve. She added that this developer had proposed to file a plat to dedicate easements and rights-of-way and a motion to approve them is necessary. 205 • • • Planning Commission October 8, 1984 Page 11 MOTION Jacks made a motion to approve this LSD subject to Plat Review comments with the exception that a Bill of Assurance will be accepted to account for the off-site improvements at the call of the City. Williams seconded followed by discussion. Crook advised that the Planning Commission has required the developer down the street to make street improvements and she felt passage of this motion would be inconsistent and a Bill of Assurance at the call of the City may cost the church considerably more money if the street is constructed five or ten years from now. Madison said she thought that if the rules were being changed, the Commission should ask the City Board to look at this decision. There was discussion as to who paid for the improvements of Joyce Street south of Zion Road. Green requested to amend the motion to stipulate that the cost of the improvements (at the call of the City) would not exceed the cost of making said street improvements at this time. The amendment was accepted and the motion to approve carried 5-3-0 with Crook, Madison and Stockdell voting "nay". MOTION Crook moved to accept the plat dedicating easements and right-of-way for the above development. Seconded by Madison the motion passed 8-0-0. LOT SPLIT FOR VERL & RUBY TERRY 1/8 MILE E OF OAKLAND CHURCH CEMETERY The eigth item on the agenda was a request for waiver of the minimum lot size for a second lot split by Verl 5 Ruby Terry for property located 1/8 mile east of the Oakland Church Cemetery in the Growth Area. The first lot split was approved administratively. Sherry Garner, Fulton Stanton Associates, explained that the subject property is located three miles east of Hwy. 265 on the extension of Old Wire Road (Oak Bailey Road). Stockdell advised that Bud Allen, County Planning Administrator, has approved this lot split but has indicated that the County Planning regulations are changing and lot splits in the County will be examined more closely in the future. PAS • • • Planning Commission October 8, 1984 Page 12 MOTION Jacks moved approval of this lot split. Hanna seconded followed by discussion. In answer to Crook's question, Garner reported that the subject parcels are three acres each and have septic tank systems Jones advised that septic was acceptable on one and one-half acres or more but if any division of property into three or more parcels any one on which contains less than three acres, it must be approved by the State Health Dept. The motion to approve the lot split passed 8-0-0. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF LSD AND CONDITIONAL USE FOR RED DIXON OF CHRISTIAN LIFE CENTER, 1285 E. MILSAP The ninth item on the agenda was a request for approval of a LSD and Conditional Use for the Christian Life Center located at 1285 E. Milsap and represented by Red Dixon. Stockdell asked Dixon if he understood that a Conditional Use requested for a church alone could not be applied towards a school and he replied that he did and that if he wished to have an educational center in the future, he would return to the Planning Commission to make that specific request. MOTION Jacks said he thought this development would increase traffic in the area but that that issue needs to be solved anyway. He moved approval of the Conditional Use. Hanna seconded and the motion passed 8-0-0. Crook advised that the Subdivision Committee had tabled the request to approve the preliminary plat at a meeting earlier today for consid- eration at their next meeting. REQUEST TO APPROVE LSD AMERICAN COLLEGE LOCATED 3448 N. COLLEGE AVE. - KIM FUGITT The tenth item on the agenda was a request to approve a LSD for American College located 3448 N. College Ave., represented by Kim Fugitt. Stockdell advised that this item had been tabled at the Subdivision Committee meeting of October 5 because there were questions to be resolved with regard to the poor traffic situation in the area in Qp7 • Planning Commission October 8, 1984 Page 13 question. She explained that the Committee wished to have the entire Commission's feelings regarding the traffic problem before any decision was made on this plat. Jacks said he did not wish to go through the examination of this plat and Madison indicated that the architect had prepared two sets of plans so as to address whatever solution was reached regarding traffic. Crook reported that aside from the traffic/street issue, everything seemed fine with this plat but it had not been examined at length. She asked Fugitt if it would be a hardship to delay and he replied that he would prefer to have this item addressed tonight. He said he would like to present the plans with access to Highway 71. Crook asked if Fugitt had any problem with comments made by the utility companies at the Plat Review meeting and he replied there were not. Crook made reference to comments made by Franklin, Traffic Supervisor, which stated that having this development here would add to the already existing traffic problem in this area and she advised that compounding a poor traffic situation is grounds for refusing approval of a LSD. Crook asked Jones if the north side easement has been verified and Fugitt replied that it has been dedicated as a utility easement. Jones asked Fugitt to clarify whether the easement is meant for a specific utility company or utilities in general. Jones said if they are not required to dedicate right—of-way or construct a street along the east boundary, they are required to errect screening on this property line because the property to the east has a different zoning classification. Fugitt indicated that he has submitted a request for waiver of this requirement in lieu of 10% planting of this area. In answer to Madison's question, Jones advised that the code requires the screening to be view obscuring in two years time and she added that the plantings must be at least 18" high at the time of planting. Madison next inquired about the driveway at the southwest corner and Fugitt replied that the neighbors adjacent on the south are agreeable to the 40 ft. dual drive. Oscar Wyatt, a neighbor to subject property, said he wished to have the existing (planted) screening remain. Fugitt replied that he would preserve as much of this fence row as is possible. He added that the parking lot comes within five feet of this fence row but he did not think it would disrupt the root systems of the trees because most of the plantings are small and somewhat offset from the fence. In answer to Madison's question, Fugitt said the grade will be changed very little at the east side of the property. 208 • • Planning Commission October 8, 1984 Page 14 MOTION Crook made a motion to deny this LSD based on the increased impact on the traffic situation. She said she couldn't vote for any development that would compound the Hwy. 71 traffic problem until some other point of access is gained. Madison seconded followed by discussion. Jacks agreed that this development would increase traffic but he said he felt that anything built in this area would have the same effect. Madison asked Wood when the improvements to Hwy. 71 (as proposed by the Board of Directors and the Highway Dept.) were due to be completed and Wood replied that it was unpredictable. A citizen in the audience commented that, because of the highway project between Fayetteville and Fort Smith, she didn't feel she could count on the Highway 71 North project getting underway any time soon. Jacks said he felt the only way to alleviate the problem was to require that this developer obtain an easement to Milsap or Masonic. Fugitt commented that he has a blanket easement onto Milsap through the property to the north, although the exact placement is not stated. Williams said he thought the situation indicated a that building moratorium was necessary because of the fact that any building here will increase the traffic problem. He said voting in favor of the motion to deny this LSD would be to discriminate against them with no real basis on which to draw the line of what is safe and what is not. Williams said this development didn't appear to be inordinately unsafe compared to any other affordable use and he added that he was not prepared to declare a moratorium and would vote against the motion. Crook said that part of her concern was that any property in this area have another access in addition to that of Highway 71, either to Milsap or Masonic. Green said he didn't agree, sitting traffic turning left from Masonic onto 71 as a greater hazard. Tarvin said that he would not like to see additional traffic exiting from Masonic onto 71 particularly if there was a problem with site distance. Stockdell said she felt that there were other parcels throughout the City that would serve the same purposes that American College has in mind and that the discrimination would be against the subject parcel of land because of the fact that it is not developable. Hanna said he felt that the only way to resolve the traffic situation at Milsap and Masonic was to develop the land over the years and as development progresses, the traffic problem would also be solved. 21961 • • • Planning Commission October 8, 1984 Page 15 Fugitt raised the question of exists or if this development is that although the problem already it. whether the traffic problem already creating the problem. He was informed exists, this development would compound Jacks noted that the Conditional Use for the church down the road was just approved and it, too, adds to the traffic. He agreed that it was a problem but said it was difficult to make a decision. Crook replied that the church users have the option of turning up Front Street and using the stoplight. Fugitt said he thought having an easement onto Milsap might help. The question was called and the motion to deny this development based on safety reasons, failed 3-5-0, Crook, Stockdell and Madison voted "Aye". MOTION Jacks moved approval of this plat contingent to the developer providing an exit from the property parking lot onto Milsap, the recommendation of a Bill of Assurance for sidewalks be accepted and a recommendation to waive the view obscuring screening on the eastern boundary in favor of installing 10% landscaping. Tarvin seconded and the motion to approve this LSD passed 6-2-0, Crook and Madison voting "nay". JIM -BOW ADDITION Stockdell announced that, item 12, the request for approval for this LSD be tabled due to the developers wish that the adjoining property owners have due time,to make comments regarding said development. MOTION Jacks moved to table this item; seconded by Williams, the motion to table passed 8-0-0. MOTION Williams made a motion to adjourn this meeting due to the late hour and the number of items yet to be considered. Tarvin seconded followed by discussion. Stockdell pointed out that some members of the audience had waited to be heard since 5:00 and she did not think it appropriate to adjourn at this point but was in favor of taking a break. The motion to adjourn failed to pass by a 2-6-0 vote, Williams and Tarvin voting "aye". 210 • • Planning Commission October 8, 1984 Page 16 APPROVAL OF LSD FOR DANDY OIL SPOT -NOT CAR WASH, 1369 W. 6TH ST. The eleventh item on the agenda was a request to approve the LSD for Dandy Oil Co.'s Spot -Not Car Wash at 1369 W. 6th Street (at Razorback Road) represented by Bill Kennedy. MOTION Crook reported that the Subdivision Committee reviewed this and moved to approve a request for a waiver of the driveway width maximum. Williams seconded and the motion to recommend this waiver passed 8-0-0. MOTION Crook moved to recommend approval of this LSD subject to Plat Review comments. Seconded by Williams, the motion to approve the LSD passed 8-0-0. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT REGARDING STREETS IN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS This item, 1113 on the agenda, and #14 were moved to a position to be heard after items specifically concerning with members of the audience. REQUEST FROM HOME CARING TO AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE FOR INCLUSION OF ELDERLY BOARDING HOME The fifteenth item on the agenda was Loretta Morkrid to amend the zoning home for elderly citizens with related consideration of a request from ordinance to include a boarding office facilities. Stockdell advised the petitioners that if they did not agree with the use assigned by the Planning Administrator, this issue would need to be heard by the Board of Adjustment for interpretation. Mary Ann Gunn, Attorney for the petitioners, stated that this is a non-profit corporation. She said if her client falls into Use Unit 4 (Long-term caring) and any of their homes are in C-2 zoning, it will mean a letter of approval is needed from the City before obtaining a license. Gunn added that, aside from the office facility, four to six people were anticipated to be clients. She stated that Home Caring is not an institution or convalesent home but an alternative for elderly people who can help themselves. In answer to Stockdell's question, Gunn replied that the home will be overseen by a manager. Ms. Morkrid said the home will see that their clients have three meals a day and laundry services as well as attention to personal cleanliness. ill • • Planning Commission October 8, 1984 Page 17 Stockdell asked what the difference in this home would be as compared to a nursing home, other than its size. Morkrid responded that a nursing home requires skilled care and her proposed home could not deal with a client who required intravenous feedings or a bedfast client. Gunn stated that she thought her client qualified for Use Unit 4 because it was similar to a 24-hour childcare facility, a dormitory or a hospital with 24-hour facilities. She said if her client does not qualify in Unit 4, an amendment would be needed to the ordinance in order to occupy the building they have chosen for their services as it is zoned C-2. Mary Bassett, representing realtor, stated that the proposed site is located at 4040 Frontage Road next to the Social Services building upon which most of the intended clients are dependent. Jacks asked why a location that is noisey and close to heavy traffic was chosen for elderly people and Morkrid replied that this location was desireable because of the physical layout of the building. Jacks said he was not in favor of adding anything else to the hodge-podge that exists in Use Unit 4 and mentioned that the Up -Date Committee is addressing this problem presently. Bassett stated that the chosen building is suitable for housing both the care facilities as well as the offices. She said that City Attorney, McCord, advised that a request for Non -Conforming Use was not appropriate and Jones had indicated that a variance was not appropriate either although this was their preference. Bassett said that the use is being requested fora one-year period and she didn't forsee any complaints in that time. Madison advised that amending the zoning ordinance for a period of one year was not possible. She asked Jones how this proposal would differ from a detention home or a 24-hour childcare operation and Jones replied that children do not live at the facility. In answer to Hanna's question, Jones said the difference between the client's proposed use and a hospital was that a hospital is temporary care and this would involve long-term care. Stockdell repeated that if there was a question with interpretation made by Jones as to Use Unit, it needs to be brought before the Board of Adjustment before this body can consider a decision. In answer to Commissioners' questions, Jones replied that a boarding or rooming house would fit in Use Unit 10 which is allowed in R-3 and C-3, and R-0 upon appeal to the Commission while a convalesent home is also allowed in Use Unit 10 as well as, 6 which is allowed in A-1 zone. P12 • • Planning Commission October 8, 1984 Page 18 Williams asked if the home was regulated by the State Boarding Homes and Morkrid replied that it was not. Jones advised that there are no residential uses allowed in C-2 zoning other than housing for caretakers with special privilege. Jacks said he thought this use belongs in a relatively quiet, multi -family zoning. Morkrid clarified that the request for a one year time period arose from the lease specification. In answer to Madison' question, Morkrid replied that additional homes of this nature were to be anticipated which is why the request has been made to amend the ordinance. Stockdell asked if there was any precident for making a change to the ordinance for a one year period and Jones replied that there was not. NOTION Williams stated that this movement towards home caring was an important one in Fayetteville and he expected that there would many homes occurring in the area. He expressed his concern that approving this request by using a current Use Unit may set up a precident for creating boarding house slums. Williams felt strongly that this type of home required appropriate zoning offering environments suitable for elderly and handicapped people. He said he did not think this request was in the best long-term interest of either this home or the residents who might use the facilities. Williams moved denial of the petition. Seconded by Jacks, discussion followed. Green said there seemed to be some chance that this proposal does fit into an established Use Unit and that a misinterpretation has been made He said he would like to have that issue cleared up before considering approval and would, therefore be in favor of the motion. Gunn asked that she be allowed to withdraw her request at this point. Crook asked that the issue of which Use Unit this proposal fits into be turned over to the Committee for the Handicap and Elderly which is currently working on trying to adopt the zoning ordinance to allow for this request. Williams said he felt this was an appropriate R-2 use and that there were many choices in said zoning classification. • The question was called and the motion to deny the request passed 6-2-0, Hanna and Green voting "nay". 213 • • • Planning Commission October 8, 1984 Page 19 REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF STREET FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT AND RELEASE FROM BILL OF ASSURANCE The sixteenth item on the agenda was a request by John Box for a waiver of the requirement that a lot have frontage on a public street along with a request that a Bill of Assurance entered into in 1977 restricting access onto Elm Street be released. Stockdell advised that at the time the Bill of Assurance was entered into there was a great deal of opposition from the neighborhood and, although the Planning Commission turned down the request for maintaining access onto Elm Street, the Board of Directors overruled the denial. Jacks asked if the people in the neighborhood have been notified of this request and Jones explained that the only resource available to the Planning Office is a petition listing the opposition's names without addresses and the addresses have been difficult to locate. Jacks said he was reluctant to release the Bill of Assurance in light of the opposition that has existed and Stockdell said the only issue the Commissioners must address tonight is whether or not to allow the waiver of a lot having public street frontage. She said the issue of releasing the Bill of Assurance will need to be forwarded to the Board of Directors with a recommendation. Green said he felt that Box made an agreement not to use Elm Street and he said he would not approve this request unless the neighbors were no longer opposed. He said he would like to hear from the neighbors. Jacks said having the people in the neighborhood notified would effect his decision regarding this request. He added that the Commission has not examined removing a Bill of Assurance except for one. He suggested either tabling this until input is received from neighbors or Box could approach the Board of Directors. Jacks said a system for notification needs to be found; he asked about an advertisement sign on the property. Green asked if there was a procedure whereby the City Board specifically asks the Planning Commission for an opinion as to whether a Bill of Assurance should be released and Jones replied that there have not been many cases where a release has been requested although some requests have gone directly to the City Board. Box explained that he wasn't able to build on the lot without street frontage and he was requesting the access to Elm Street to alleviate this situation. He said he has a potential buyer for the lot but the sale may depend on whether there is access to the property. 2/N • • • Planning Commission October 8, 1984 Page 20 MOTION Jacks said if the neighbors no longer cared whether Box had access to Elm Street then the Commission probably wouldn't care either. He moved to grant the waiver of the requirement that a lot have access to public street frontage. This motion died for lack of a second. In answer to Green's question, Box replied that the three parcels, although adjoined, are legally separate parcels. Jones explained that Box might be able to obtain a property line adjustment if his current request is not granted. MOTION Jacks repeated his motion to grant a waiver of requiring that a lot have frontage on a public street. Green seconded followed by further discussion. Madison said tandem lots are prohibited in commercial areas including this one classified as R-0. Box advised that there is already a 40 concrete easement to the subject lot and there is a fire hydrant on the corner. The question was called and the motion to grant a waiver of public street frontage for a lot passed 6-2-0, Crook and Madison voted "nay". MOTION Jacks moved to put up a sign advertising the request for release of the Bill of Assurance restricting access to Elm Street. Tarvin seconded and Jacks added that he would like to request that the Board of Directors not address this issue until the neighbors are heard from. The motion passed 8-0-0. PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROPOSED ORD. TO AMEND PUD STREET MAINTENANCE AND ALSO PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO REGULATE LSD STREETS Items 13 and 14, Public Hearings on amendments to the Ordinance, Art.8, Sec.12, P.4.15(b)(6) of App.A to provide that private streets within a PUD shall be maintained by the developer, property owner, or the property owners association; and Art.IV, Sec.I of App.0 to regulate private streets within a large scale development which is being continued from the meeting of September 24, 1984. Crook advised that she had sent letters to engineers asking for comments and has not received any. Stockdell noted that Wimberley, Northwest Engineers, had said earlier this evening that he did not agree with the ordinances. 2/5 • • • Planning Commission October 8, 1984 Page 21 MOTION Williams moved that the Commission recommend both ordinances be amended. Madison seconded followed by discussion. Crook said she had agreed to summarize the feelings of the Subdivision Committee members regarding these items MOTION Green moved to table this issue. Williams seconded and the motion to table passed 7-1-0, Madison voting "nay". REPORT FROM JACKS ON LAND USE FOR HIGHWAY 62 W AND FU BRIGHT MOTION Hanna moved to table this item until another meeting. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. INFORMATION ITEM CHANCERY COURT DECISION REVERSING ACTION FOR CONDITIONAL USE DENIAL Stockdell advised that the Chancery Court made a decision reversing the action taken by the Planning Commission to deny a change in Conditional Use for property on Wedington Drive from wholesale/retail antique to wholesale/retail food packaging and distribution plant. Crook stated that sometimes the Commission makes motions that are recorded without the reasons for the action taken. Crook said she would like to know whether the City Attorney plans to appeal this action. Madison said she desired an appeal because she didn't like the idea of Planning Commission action being taken lightly. Jacks advised that there was a possibility that the court was influenced as much by the fact that the Commissions vote on this action had been close as by the actual request. Tarvin thanked Vice -Chair Stockdell for her perseverance in seeing the meeting to its conclusion. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:20. alb