Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-02-11 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, February 11, 1985 at 5:00 P.M. in the Board of Director's Room of the City Administration Building, 113 A. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Melanie Stockdell, Ernie Jacks, Barbara Crook, Fred Hanna, Sue Madison, Stan Green and Joe Tarvin MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Newton Hailey and Trey Trumbo Warren Cotner, Al Graves, Bob Laser, M.D. Peoples, Elliott Hunter, 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 and the minutes of the meeting of January 28 were considered. MINUTES Correction by Commissioner Jacks: Page 2, first paragraph should be "...an office building is being considered for the northwest corner of North and Woolsey...and that this site is being thought of as the parking lot for it." Additions and corrections by Commissioner Madison: 1. Page 3 should reflect that there were many other residents in the audience that had originally wished to speak but when they had nothing new to add, they gave up their turn; 2. Page 4, next to last line, the word 'time' was omitted. With these additions and corrections, the minutes stood approved. REPORT FROM NOMINATING COMMITTEE ELECTION OF OFFICERS POR 1985 The second item on the agenda was a report from Commissioner Jacks of the Nominating Committee. Jacks stated that the Nomination Committee, after much consideration, wishes to re -nominate the present slate of officers, Newton Hailey as Chairman, Melanie Stockdell as Vice -Chair and Barbara Crook as Secretary. 35- • • • Planning Commission February 11, 1985 Page 2 Jacks noted that Hailey would be absent for a short time due to medical problems but that he had indicated to Jacks that he would like to stay with the position. There being no other nominations from the floor or the Commission, Jacks moved nominations as stated; the Commission approved unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING/REZONING APPEAL R85-5 WARREN COTNER, HIGHWAY 112 NW OF THE BY—PASS The third item on the agenda was a Public Hearing on rezoning appeal R85-5 submitted by Warren Cotner for 7.272 acres located on Highway 112 northwest of the by-pass. Zoned A-1, requested C-2. Wood gave his report as follows: C-2 District at the location requested is not recommended for two reasons. Because of the location of the C-2, he was concerned about the encouragement of commercialization along Highway 112 west of the Hush Puppy restaurant and he was concerned about the economic impact on the residential structure just to the northwest of the proposed commercial area. Cotner stated that he owns approximately 35 acres in this area and is currently in the process of opening a winery (which is acceptable in A-1 district) but to enhance the winery, he said he would like to also have a restaurant and retail sales from the winery. Cotner said when he consulted Regional Planning; regarding this situation, he was advised to maintain a green belt around the C-2 area requested. Cotner added that the existing house on this property was built in 1900 and is an historical landmark which he would like to restore and preserve as part of the winery. He passed out maps to Commissioners indicating the area to be re -zoned in relation to the remainder of the property. In answer to Crook's question, Cotner said that some of the property is wooded and that the University vineyards are within a mile. Cotner said the access to the property is on Highway 112 and he added that he will cut the drive wherever the State Highway Department believes is the best location. Al Graves, Route 2, Fayetteville, stated that he is the property owner to the north and west of Cotner and he said he felt the rezoning and Cotner's winery plans would enhance the area rather than deteriorate the value, particularly because it would be encircled by a green belt of vineyards. Graves said he thought the direction in this area thus far has not been positive and that accepting Cotner's plan would be a step in the right direction. 36 • • • Planning Commission February 11, 1985 Page 3 Crook clarified that Cotner had purchased his property from Graves. Tarvin clarified that Graves property lies to the northwest of Cotner's but does not include any land north of Highway 112. There being no one else wishing to speak either for or against this appeal, Stockdell closed the Public Hearing to Commission discussion. Hanna clarified that the only reason for this rezoning request was to be able to have a restaurant and to sell wine made on the property from the winery. Cotner said every winery he has visited across the country has this right and he thought it was an interpretation of the rules that does not allow that right in Fayetteville. Hanna asked if Cotner anticipated shipping in wine or liquor from other places or to have a liquor store and Cotner said that he might import some grapes for processing until his vineyard becomes productive. Hanna said he thought having a restaurant which serves wine made on the premises was a unique idea. Cotner said that he hopes to buy all the wine grapes available from the farmers in Tontitown and added that he does not intend to have a retail liquor store. Tarvin agreed with Hanna. Cotner said he understands and will abide by the Fayetteville sign code. Jacks advised that once this entire property was re -zoned to C-2, the City has no control over what concern will operate from the location. Crook said it becomes difficult to deny a request from an adjacent property owner once a parcel becomes C-2. Cotner said that he is opposed to strip --zoning also, which is why he has left a green belt around the area requested as C-2. Jacks inquired whether C-2 was necessary for a restaurant or if C-1 would be acceptable. Jones replied that C-1 allows a restaurant without dancing or entertainment. Jacks said he would be more in favor of examining a request to rezone the immediate area around the house to C-1 (he noted that the winery is allowed by right in A-1) as he did not want to set a precedent for C-2 here. Green asked if there were any reason to rezone as large a portion as is requested and Cotner said he wasn't sure the barn could support a winery and that his architects are beginning to look at it at this time. He said he can't do much planning until he has approval from the Commission. Cotner said he was not sure of the retail outlet placement. Madison clarified that bottled wine would be for sale in part of the barn and wine with meals available in the house -turned - restaurant. Jones advised that within the past month, the City Board has requested the City Manager to express opposition to a request for a beer license at another location with a C-1 zoning. 3'1 Planning Commission February 11, 1985 Page 4 Crook asked if they were opposed because of the particular location and Jones replied that they are opposing it because there have been complaints from the neighborhood but they have also made the statement that they have not approved of any other permits of that sort in this zoning district before. Crook asked if Cotner were strongly opposed to placing the restaurant further east so that it would be along that portion of Highway 112 opposite from the Hush Puppy Restaurant and Cotner replied that he would consider that a strip zone and the green belt would be lost. In answer to Jacks' question, Cotner said it would take him about four months to come up with a plan based on structural possibility. He said he is due to speak with experts at the University of California at Davis and that he does not need 7.27 acres. Tarvin asked where the vineyards would be planted and Cotner said they would be to the south and west of the existing structures. Jones advised that this appeal could be tabled for 45 days without Cotner's approval and for a longer period with his permission. Cotner said he was intending to restore the old house as a restaurant and that he would consult with the Fire Marshall for his approval. MOTION Jacks made a motion to table this appeal until Cotner firms up the plans and is ready to re -submit. He added that he was in favor of a "restaurant -in -the -woods". Hanna seconded and reiterated Jacks' and Crook's thoughts on re -zoning the entire area as well as setting a precedent. Cotner advised that he must go through a bonding process for the winery area and that if any of that area changes, the tedious paper work must be repeated which is why he chose to include as large an area as he is requesting. The motion to table passed 7-0-0. REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE CAROL MCDANIELS - 2607 OLD WIRE ROAD The fourth item on the agenda was a request to approve a Conditional Use for child care for 10 children submitted by Carol McDaniels of 2607 Old Wire Road. Madison wished to know if McDaniels were licensed and Stockdell replied that anyone who applies for a license from Social Services is requested to come before this Commission. MOTION Jacks moved approval, seconded by Tarvin and followed by discussion. 32 • • Planning Commission February 11, 1985 Page 5 Green stated that a Conditional Use will allow a sign in the yard and he requested a friendly amendment which would make the approval subject to Home Occupation requirements except for hours of operation and number of children. Jones advised that a Home Occupation requires annual approval and comes before the Commission if there have been any objections from the neighborhood. Green said he would like that to apply also. Jacks and Tarvin accepted the amendment and the motion to approve passed 7-0-0. REQUEST FOR LOT SPLIT AND LSD APPROVAL LIFESTYLES - SYCAMORE AND PORTER ROAD The fifth item on the agenda was a two part request 1. a lot split and 2. approval of a large scale development plan submitted by Lifestyles located at Sycamore and Porter Road. Jacks asked why the parcel needs to be split and Bob Laser of Lifestyles replied that HUD would not appraise the entire four acres because of the cost and payments of the project. He said they will only appraise the part of the property with the lowest cost which is the west two acres. He added that there is no intention of selling any portion. Crook asked if Sycamore qualifies as an access to Tract A and Jones replied that it is being used primarily as a private drive and additional right-of-way will have to be dedicated. She added that it is part of the service road system on the Master Street Plan. MOTION Tarvin moved approval of the lot split, seconded by Hanna, the motion to approve passed 7-0-0. Green gave a report from the Subdivision Committee who reviewed the large scale development plan for Lifestyles on February 8, 1985. He explained that there were no waivers requested or granted. Green advised Crook of the solution to the drainage problem at her request and explained to Madison that a 15 ft. wide asphalt drive beginning at Porter and Sycamore and extending through this developer's access drive would be acceptable as Lifestyles contribution to off-site improvements. APPROVAL OF LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT CARPET CABIN - 3246 S. SCHOOL The sixth item on the agenda was the approval of a large scale development plan for Carpet Cabin located at 3246 S. School. 39 • • • Planning Commission February 11, 1985 Page 6 Green reported that the Subdivision Committee had reviewed this case on February 8, and there had been no waivers requested. Jones advised that Peoples, Carpet Cabin representative, had furnished her with proof of notification of the adjoining property owner who had signed the plat stating that he was not in favor of a privacy fence, preferring a shrubbery hedge instead. Jones added that the hedge must be view - obscuring within two years. Peoples stated that the reason the neighbor did not want a fence is because he has planted pine trees at that location and is afraid that the fence would block the light to them. No further discussion was necessary for this development. WOODLAND HILLS REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF CHANGES WEDINGTON WEST OF GARLAND The seventh item on the agenda was a report from the Subdivision Committee on the changes proposed for Woodland Hills large scale development located on Wedington Drive west of Garland which was reviewed on February 8, 1985. Green stated that the entrance will still align with Hall Avenue on the south side of Wedington. He said the developer was faced with the problem of adding a great deal of fill to the southeast corner at a great financial expense and the lose of many trees. Green said they chose to curve the entryway on Wedington to eliminate this problem and to avoid losing density in the project, they curved the road at the northeast corner exiting onto the access to James Street. Stockdell advised that the Fire Department had made comments on this situation just prior to this meeting. Jones reported that the Fire Department cannot enter the development with their 35 foot long trucks if the divider remains in the entryway and that they will need the drive to be 30 ft. wide at the 90 degree curves exiting onto James Street access. Crook stated that she had noted the possibility of a problem for the fire trucks around the radii and had requested the Fire Department to examine the plans. Jacks asked if the radius could be made more generous at the entry from Wedington to accomodate the trucks and Hunter, Woodland Hills representative, said it could be done. MOTION Crook made a motion to approve the changes in this large scale development subject to all Subdivision Committee comments and a satisfactory solution being found between the developer and the Fire Department. Hanna seconded and the motion to approve passed 7-0-0. qo • • • Planning Commission February 11, 1985 Page 7 DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE UPDATE COMMITTEE The eighth item on the agenda was a discussion of the proposed ordinance amendments as recommended by the Update Committee. 1. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 18-28(i). Crook said that there is no criteria as yet regarding where to measure the curb cut from. She said she thought this amendment should read: "from the driveway" and Stockdell said that a definition of "curb cut" was necessary. Hanna suggested omitting the words curb cut. Crook said if that was done, it would result in three foot radii at the property line without a landing zone for safety between drives. Green asked if the question of what point the drive is measured from (the radius or the throat) is related to this amendment. Wood said this proposal might be tabled until he can bring in his full report on driveway measurements because, although it would not make that much difference in a residential area, it would in a commercial zone. Crook moved to table this proposed amendment; approved unanimously. 2. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING APPENDIX A (to delete the F-1, Flood District). Crook moved approval, seconded by Jacks and followed by discussion. Jones explained that F-1 was in the ordinance before the flood plain map existed. She said she thought there is only one piece of property in the flood plain in Fayetteville and she added that the flood plain map will still be used. The motion to approve passed 7-0-0. 3. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ART.4, SEC.2 OF APP.A. Crook commented that perhaps the wording in the introduction should read "vacant" and not "nonconforming". She also said she had a problem with requesting neighbors approval when the ordinance states that the setback will in keeping with the standards of the neighborhood. She said she would be in favor of deleting "on an isolated vacant lot" and eliminating neighbor's approval. Stockdell said she felt that neighbors should have every opportunity to input but should not be allowed to keep someone from doing what they need to do to their property. Hanna suggested that Planning Commission or Planning Administrator approval could be required. Jones replied that a determination would have to be made as to whether the other homes in the neighborhood had the same setback as the one being requested. Stockdell commented that measurable standards were needed. Crook noted that this method of setback comparison has been used before, with no building extending further than another. Jones said that before June, 1970, an averaging 41 • • • Planning Commission February 11, 1985 Page 8 of setback distances was used in computing a new variance request. She said that it was at this time, also, that the change in side setbacks was established. Green agreed with Hanna, saying that it was highly unlikely that all neighbors would be in agreement regarding a variance request. He suggested the Subdivision Committee as determining body. Jacks agreed, noting that Jones may not always be available for this process. Madison questioned whether the Board of Adjustment could serve in this capacity and Jones replied that the Board of Adjustment requested this amendment and she added that Don Mills, a member of that Board, also objects to the immediate neighbors approval because she feels it should either be a right or not be a right. Commission members discussed the case of a non -conforming building burning to the ground and whether or not that lot would then be considered "vacant". After further discussion and informational background from Jones with regards to lot width/area regulations and definition of a previously platted subdivision (platted prior to the adoption of Ordinance 1747 - June 29, 1970), Commissioners agreed to re -word this amendment to read: "In a previously developed subdivision, platted prior to June 29, 1970, and with the approval of the Subdivision Committee a new single family dwelling may be constructed in all residential zones in keeping with the existing standard in the neighborhood so long as the interior side setback is not less than five (5) feet." 4. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ART.4, SEC.4(A) OF APP.A - Enlargement of certain non -conforming structures. NOTION Upon a motion from Jacks, seconded by Madison, this amendment passed unanimously. 5. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ART.5 OF APP.A - The addition of zoning district R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential. After a brief discussion, and the advice of Consultant Wood, Commissioners decided unanimously to table this ordinance amendment until Use Unit 29 is established, allowing the construction of single-family, two family and three-family dwellings. 6. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ART.7, SEC.1 OF APP.A - To regulate the use of accessory structures. This proposed amendment was discussed a section at a time. Section 1. and Section 2. were approved unanimously. N2 • • Planning Commission February 11, 1985 Page 9 Section 3. Jacks said he felt that television antenna dishes should not be singled out, but perhaps be included with all auxiliary equipment such as air conditioner units, etc. Stockdell said she was not in favor of this type of restriction. Crook asked if there was a current problem regarding the placement of television antenna dishes and Jones replied they are not allowed in the setbacks but the Planning Office is being met with much opposition over this. Jacks noted that there could be a problem with visual obstruction by placing these antennas in the front yard setbacks. Crook suggested disallowing them in front setbacks and Jacks replied that it was a matter of how specific an ordinance should be and added that he objected to writing this amendment for the one item. Jones said she would like something to refer to and Crook asked if Planning Commission support of nothing over 30" high being placed in the setbacks would suffice and Jones replied that that might require always having a copy of these minutes with that statement on hand. MOTION Crook moved that the Planning Commission go on record as being in agreement with the Planning Administrator that television antenna dishes be included in the category of accessory structures which are restricted to a heighth of 30" above ground level and are prohibited in front yard setbacks. Jacks seconded and the motion passed 7-0-0. (This proposal includes the striking of Section 3). Section 4. - After discussion clarifying the type of container being referred to, Commissioners agreed that Section 4. shall read: "Load -all - type trash containers located in any required yard shall be screened along the sides of the container which encroach into the required yard, except that screening shall not be required on the access side. Where a trash container encroaches totally within a required yard, either the front or the back of the container shall not be screened." Section 5. and 6. - No comment, approved as is. 7. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ART.7 OF APP.A - Authorization of accessory residential uses in non-residential districts. Crook asked if an amendment is needed for C -1/C-2 and 1-1/1-2 zoning use units along with this proposal as it should be noted that they are permitted by right. Jones said they are listed as accessory to non-residential uses. Stockdell advised that when an ordinance states that a use is permitted, that referral of that use should be found first in that zoning district's information. • Jacks clarified that the purpose of this ordinance was to allow a person to build their residence over, or next to, their place of business. 43 • • • Planning Commission February 11, 1985 Page 10 Jones said that Art.7, Sec.2 deals with accessory commercial uses which are not listed in a use unit in a zone in which it refers to. She said they are uses permitted by right. Wood advised that it would probably be easier to amend the accessory structure (use conditions) rather than amending each individual Unit Unit that appear in the various zoning districts. Upon a motion from Crook and a second from Jacks, this amendment passed 7-0-0. 8. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ART.17 OF APP.A - The definition of off-street parking space. Jones explained that this amendment would allow a duplex residence the ability to back into the street from the required four parking spaces. She said that, presently, they must have two separate driveways or a turn -around. Upon a motion from Crook and a second from Jacks, this amendment passed 7-0-0. REQUEST TO EXAMINE LAND USE PIAN IN AREA EWYS. 265 AND 45 The ninth item on the agenda was a request from the City Board for an examination of the Land Use Plan in the area of Highways 265 and 45, with regards to the amount of land that is being re -zoned commercially NOTION Crook moved that the Chair appoint a sub -committee that will report back to the Commission with a recommendation on this situation. Tarvin seconded and the motion passed 7-0-0. Stockdell appointed Crook, Tarvin and Madison to serve on this committee with Crdok serving as Chairperson. OTHER BUSINESS Jacks noted that Wood has advised that, because of the anticipated absence of a member of this Commission, Commissioners may wish to consider requesting a member of the City Board temporarily attend Planning Commission meetings. Other suggestions were that, alternating members of the City Board sit in on Commission meetings; that this Commission request a Board member's presence only if a quorum is lacking at a Commission meeting; and, present the issue to the Board for their opinion and consideration. Jacks noted that this Commission has always been in favor of having a liaison between it and the City Board. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:20 P.M. KH