Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-03-11 Minutes• • MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held Monday, March 11, 1985 at 5:00 P.M. in the Board of Directors' Boom of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Newton Halley, Melanie Stockdell, Ernie Jacks, Barbara Crook, Fred Hanna, Stan Green, Sue Madison, Joe Tarvin and Trey Trumbo None Planning Consultant Larry Wood, Philip Moon, Rick Faires, James Sandlin, Dave Fulton, Sam Thornton, Ervan Wimberly, Richard Mayes, Bill Addingham, Darrell Ward, Carl Osborn, Libby Simmons, James Jones, Les Childress, Art Mueller, Haskell Carns, Donald McNaughton, Paula Brandeis, members of the press and others The regularly scheduled meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Hailey and the minutes of the February 25, 1985 meeting were considered. MINUTES The following additions and corrections were made: Stockdell: Page 14, last paragraph, should read "marketing tool". Green: Page 5, fourth paragraph, should read "...the Commission would not be setting a precident with regards to surrounding property"; Page 16, third paragraph, should read "...most of the time"; Page 16, third paragraph, should read "moot point". Jacks: Page 5, seventh paragraph, should read "...to insert...". Crook: Page 4, second paragraph, should read "...east of Sandlin's..."; Page 11, fourth paragraph, omit second "...by Stockdell refers to the administration of subdivision regulations." With these additions and corrections, the minutes stood approved. 63 • • Planning Commisison March 11, 1985 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING — REZONING R85-5 WARREN COTNER — HWY. 112 NW OF BYPASS The second item on the agenda was a public hearing, rezoning petition R85-5 submitted by Warren Cotner for property located on Highway 112 northwest of the bypass and represented by Attorney Philip Moon and agent Rick Faris. This item was tabled at the meetings of February 11 and Februray 25 for further information. Request is for C-2. Moon, (Mcllroy Plaza) stated that the size of the area requested to be rezoned has been reduced further from 2.92 acres to 1.56 acres. He said this encompasses the barn area and the immediatley adjacent area. Moon said that the house has been eliminated from the request and added that he has obtained an architects opinion on the structural soundness of the house for information purposes He said his client will build a native stone structure to help house the winery and the entrance to the winery will be through the vineyards on the east side of the property on Highway 112. He advised that the pond, springhouse and bird sanctuary will remain as they are to preserve the area in its present state. In answer to Jack's question, Moon stated that the east property line is on Highway 112. Jacks inquired whether Moon and Cotner had worked out any of the problems of this request with Sandlin, and Moon said he and his client chose instead to restructure their plan. Wood reviewed his original report and then presented amendments as follows: He said, originally, the zoning request was for up to the western property line bordering Sandlin's property but at this time the request has been modified to 100 ft. away from all exterior property lines which Wood said he was in support of. Moon wished to note that there were several people in support of this petition at the previous meetings who were not present at this time. Sandlin, Route 2 Fayetteville, said he is still opposed to this petition for the same two reasons being 1. because of the elevation of his property, his privacy will be threatened and 2. (and most important) the possibility exists for the surrounding property to be rezoned C-2 which he felt would de -value his property. Sandlin said that he has not heard from Mr. Cotner with regards to working out the privacy problem as had been requested by the Commission at the last meeting. He said if this request is approved to C-2 District, he felt more property owners in the area should be notified. Sandlin asked that a letter of opposition from Jim Bob Wheeler, a resident of Highway 112, be added into the record. (This letter follows the minutes). • David Fulton, President of the Fulton -Stanton Realty Co., stated that the question was whether the value of the land increases or decreases. 64 • • • Planning Commisison March 11, 1985 Page 3 He said that there are a number of very nice single-family residences within a mile whose property value would decrease if the this C-2 request is approved. He said there would be no way for residents to recover this loss. Sam Thornton, Route 2, expressed his consern regarding access to the property if it should occur on the east/west portion of Highway 112. He said he helps people out of the ditch at least once a month and felt that something needs to be done with regards to safety. Moon noted that access will be on the north/south portion of Highway 112 but Crook pointed out that the winery will have to be presented as a large scale development and as such, may be required to have a second point of ingrees/egress which could possibly be on the north boundary of the property. Thornton asked if there were a possibilty that, once the property were rezoned C-2, it could be sold and used for another purposes. He inquired if it could be approved contingent upon construction beginning within a prescribed period of time or revert to A-1. Hailey replied that the Commission could not request this stipulation but could approve an offer of a Bill of Assurance for specific purposes from the petitioner if one is offered. There being no one else wishing to speak either for or against the petition, the Public Hearing was closed to Commission discussion. Moon noted that by utilizing the barn as C-2 and not the house, the elevation will be 65 ft. and Sandlin's privacy will be much less infringed upon. Crook advised that, whatever the outcome of this request, she will propose that a study be conducted to determine the future land use in the area surrounding this property. MOTION Stockdell made a motion to recommend approval of this rezoning to C-2 District and noted that she would like to attach a caveat that it would revert to A-1 if sold. She said, however, that, because the petitioner has met all of the questions of the Planning Commission, she felt it should, in all fairness, be rezoned as requested. Madison seconded, followed by discussion. Trumbo inquired whether this petition should be approved before the study, (as suggested by Crook) is undertaken. Hailey explained that sometimes issues such as this are not pointed out until someone brings it before the Commission for action. Moon noted that this petition has been tabled twice already and Crook explained the procedure for conducting a public hearing (for a land use study) which would involve 65 • • • Planning Commisison March 11, 1985 Page 4 a time period of at least another month's wait for the petitioner. Trumbo said he felt that 6 weeks was not long to wait in the face of the amount of investment that will take place on this development. Crook advised that the Commission does have an obligation to protect the area residents and that a study would probably look for ways to buffer the existing single family homes in this area. Tarvin said he felt there should be some use and access restrictions on this rezoning and that he would not like it if some other enterprise took place here instead of the winery/retail sales. Jacks noted that, legally, the Commission may not restrict the use of a property and only the developer can offer a Bill of Assurance. Moon said he objected to any Bills of Assurance noting that his client has met the objections of the Commission in terms of reducing the size of the parcel to be rezoned. Green agreed with Tarvin that the use as proposed is relatively non- offensive and that if the planning in this area had already been done, he felt it would not be zoned commercially. Green said he bases his hesitation on the previous report from Consultant Wood which stated that the area surrounding this property would probably be zoned R-1, R-1.5 or R-2 if a land use plan had been developed. Wood said he based his previous recommendation on the fact that there is existing commercial district on the east side of the highway and that some commercial would probably develop on the west side although he doubted that it would extend as far west as that which is being requested at this time. He said that some office and multi -family buffering would probably be inserted to get back to single family district. Madison said she felt that, because of this property's proximity to the by-pass, it was unreasonable to think that it would be developed as A-1 or R-1. She said she thought most of the area along Highway 112 would be commercial and that approving this buffered C-2 would preclude many other worse uses along this highway. Madison said that this totally buffered area was as benign as it could get and that she would vote for the request. Moon advised that he has spoken to City Attorney McCord who stated that he did not think there was a problem w:Lth C-2 at this site. Tarvin said he had a problem placing C-2 100 feet from a residence without a Bill of Assurance restricting the use of the land. Crook explained that a Bill of Assurance could state that the area would carry a C-2 zone as long as Cotner owns the property but would revert to A-1 if sold. 66 • Planning Commisison March 11, 1985 Page 5 Rick Faires, real estate agent for Cotner, stated that his client has expressed to him that he would sign a Bill of Assurance stating that if the property sold or the project completely fell through, it would revert to A-1. He added that Cotner does not want to restrict use of the land while he owns it. AMENDMENT Stockdell amended her motion to include a Bill of Assurance stating that if the property is sold or the project fails the district will revert to A-1. Madison accepted the amendment; discussion followed. Tarvin asked what "the project fails" meant. Faires explained that, to him, it means that if the project was not successful and was put up for sale. He further explained that if another owner could take over and successfully run the restaurant and retail sales portion of this project, then the zoning would not revert to A-1. Stockdell re -stated her amendment to say that in the event that the property sells and the use changes it will revert to A-1. The question was called and upon roll call, the motion to recommend • C-2 passed 7-2-0 with Trumbo and Hanna voting "nay". • PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION R85-6 CLARENCE PAYEE - HIGHWAYS 265 AND 16 EAST The third item on the agenda was a public hearing on rezoning petition R85-6 submitted by Clarence Payne for property located at the northeast corner of Highways 265 and 16 East and represented by Ervan Wimberly. Requested is C-2 from C-1. Consultant Wood gave the following recommendation: After reviewing the previous recommendations (R81-14 and R82-14) and the situation at the intersection of Highway 16 and 265, I feel the service commercial (office) recommendation of the General Plan is the preferred land use. Wimberly said that at this time, Payne has the opportunity to sell this piece of property to a developer who proposes a small shopping center including stores for tire sales and auto parts. He said the project depends on getting the C-2 zoning. Wimberly said he is aware that neighbors are concerned that a liquor store will be a tenant here and he said that, although he cannot guarantee the exclusion of a liquor store ten years from now, he noted Ordinance 1747 which states that no retail liquor shall be located on any property of which two or more sides abut, or are across the street from, residential property. He stated that this property is bounded on the north, south and west by R-1 on the east by A-1. Because of this restriction, Wimberly 17 • • • Planning Commisison March 11, 1985 Page 6 said this property would only be open to a retail liquor store if the surrounding properties were first re -zoned. He said the developer does not want to sign a restricting Bill of Assurance but wishes to leave the option open in case the neighborhood changes. In answer to Wimberly's question, Wood replied that he had been opposed to the R-0 to C-1 re -zoning that took place here, but now that it is C-1, he didn't see much difference between C-1 and C-2. Wimberly advised that the proposed developer for this property is willing to give 40 ft. of right-of-way, including a large radius, in order to provide left and right hand turn lanes. J. C. Jones, 2525 E. Hwy. 16, stated that he thought this site was not suitable for housing but that something should be done with the lot because it is an eyesore the way it is now. He said he was not opposed to a tire sales or auto parts store at this location. Richard Mayes, 2505 E. Huntsville, said he was still opposed to rezoning this tract of land, as he was in a previous request. He said there is a terrible traffic problem in this area and he also felt it was too uncertain as to what business would go into the shopping center. Wimberly advised that even if the rezoning is approved, this tract will have to go through the large scale development process which will give residents further opportunity to address this project. Mayes asked whether a C-2 zoning or Ordinance 1747 (as cited earlier by Wimberly) would take precedent and Wimberly said both would apply. Carl Osborn, representing the Spillars property to the west, said that they continue to be opposed to any change in the existing zoning. Bill Addingham, property owner to the east of subject property said the engineers have noted that there is a river branch that runs through said property. Wimberly replied that he is aware of this drainage area and is prepared to address it as part of this project. Addingham said it is currently stopped up. He added that there is a wall called for and he said he is worried that digging will collapse part of his property. Wimberly said the developer will not use the sloped area. Hailey advised that the Commission must decide whether or not the proposed use is realistic as C-2 District and if it is rezoned, the development plans will have to be presented to the Subdivision Committee for approval at which time the drainage, setbacks, access, etc. will be addressed by utility representatives as well as City Department Heads such as Water and Sewer, Traffic, Fire and Streets. He explained that the developer will be required to meet the requests of these representatives and he added that the meetings are open to the public and neighbors are encouraged to join said meetings and give opinions. • • • Planning Commisison March 11, 1985 Page 7 Darrell Ward, E. Hwy. 16, said he felt his property value would decrease if subject parcel were zoned C-2 and added that he felt the land was more suited to offices. He said the site plan for this development shows two drives on Highway 16 which he felt would be a traffic problem. In answer to Stockdell's question, Osburn said he was opposed to this petition because of potential traffic problems and that he felt it might also be the first step towards having a liquor store at this location. Chairman Hailey closed the Public Hearing and the discussion returned to Commissioners. Stockdell asked if there were plans to sign the intersection and Wood replied that a light has been approved at both this intersection and that of Hwys. 265 and 45 and should have been installed by now. Wimberly stated that part of the problem on Hwy. 265 and 16 has been not enough right-of-way which the proposed developer is now willing to give. Wood clarified, at Madison's request, that: he felt there was not a great deal of difference between C-1 and C-2 at this intersection. Madison asked if a C-2 zoning here would make a stonger case for encourag- ing additional commercial district to the north and/or west and Wood replied that the case is already there. Madison said that, after viewing the area, she noticed that this would be the first commercial on the north side of Hwy. 16. She expressed her concern that this would lead to creeping, commercialism up Hwy. 265. Hailey said he felt the C-1 zoning was a mistake in the first place and he also felt there was a big difference between C-1 and C-2. He agreed with Madison with regard to the potential for spreading the commerical zone in this area. Crook said that what is logical for the neighborhood should be addressed. She said it may be zoned residential but it will not develop as such. She added that it has not developed as C-1 either. Hailey commented that the reason for the rezoning request seems to be that there are prospective tenants. Crook said the Commission should address what sort of use the owner can get out of his property. She added that it is difficult to develop this particular parcel because of the ditch running through it. Hanna advised that he has had a few calls regarding this rezoning and the possibility of a liquor store being located there. He said he thought the ABC could issue a liquor license regardless of the City zoning ordinances. 69 • • • Planning Commisison March 11, 1985 Page 8 Wimberly said that, even though the ABC could grant a liquor license, he did not believe the City would issue a Certificate of Occupancy due to City Ordinances. Wimberly repeated that this developer has not offered a Bill of Assurance because the neighborhood may change and the possibility does exist that a liquor store could go in years from now. Osburn noted that two pieces of property are being developed, one on either side of the branch, and if the developer chose to sell one section, the remaining piece would not be surrounded by R -District and a liquor store would no longer be prohibited. Wimberly said that action would still require City approval. MOTION Stockdell said that, if the only issue at hand was whether or not a liquor store could be placed at this location she would vote in favor of the petition as she felt that to vote against would be restrict- ing trading and the Commission's concern is mainly planning the area not deciding who should and who should not do business. She moved to deny this petition because once the stoplight is in there will not be as great a concern regarding safety and it may become more attractive in terms of a lighter usage (perhaps office). Madison seconded, noting that her opposition is not linked to the possibility of a liquor store. Upon roll call, the motion to deny this petition passed 8-1-0, Crook voting "nay". Chairman Hailey advised that this decision may be appealed to the City Board at their meeting Tuesday, March 19. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R85-7 LIBBY SIMMONS - ZION RD EAST OF HWY. 71 The fourth item on the agenda was a R85-7 submitted by Libby Simmons side of Zion Rd. east of Highway 71 Requested is R-0 from A-1. Wood gave the following report: the following reasons: public hearing on rezoning petition for property located on the north and represented by Libby Simmons. R-0 District is not recommended for 1. Office development is contrary to the residential land use recommen- dation of the General Plan; 2. The requested location is interior to a residential area and constitutes spot zoning; and, 3. Office development at the location requested would tend to commit Zion Road to nonresidential uses. 'J0 • • Planning Commisison March 11, 1985 Page 9 Simmons said that Kim Fuggit, a local architect, had approached her to purchase the subject 1.5 acres to build a red brick colonial building for the American Red Cross. She said she lives adjacent to the rezoning request to the east. Madison asked if the Red Cross would own or lease the property and Simmons said they will own it. James Jones, a neighbor to the west, said he is opposed to this petition for the reasons cited by Wood. He said he is interested in preserving the residential quality of the neighborhood. He also noted that there is no guarantee that the Red Cross will be the owner of the property and that something else could go in there. Les Childress, a neighbor to the west, was in agreeance with Jones and added that any further development on Zion Road would increase the already heavy traffic situation there. Art Mueller, immediate neighbor to the west, said that he agrees with both Jones and Childress and noted that the subject property is surrounded by A-1. Haskell Carus, adjacent property owner to the north stated that he was opposed to the rezoning and added that he was not notified of this action. There being no one else present to speak either for or against this petition, Chairman Hailey closed the public hearing portion of discussion. MOTION Jacks moved to deny this request for the reasons as stated by Consultant Wood. Seconded by Stockdell, the motion to deny passed 9-0-0. Hailey advised that this decision may be appealed to the City Board at their meeting Tuesday, March 19. IAT SPLIT - LIBBY SIMMONS ZION ROAD EAST OF HWY.71 The fifth item on the agenda was a request for a waiver of subdivision regulations (lot split) submitted by Libby Simmons for property located on the north side of Zion Rd. east of Highway 71, as discussed above. MOTION Crook moved to table this item pending action on petitioners rezoning by the City Board. Jacks seconded and the motion to table passed 9-0-0. nl • • Planning Commisison March 11, 1985 Page 10 LOT SPLIT AND REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC ROAD — MkNAUGHTON WEST SIDE OF RWY.71 NORTH OF APPLEBY ROAD The sixth item on the agenda was a request for waiver of subdivision regulations and waiver of the requirement that property have frontage on a public road submitted by Donald McNaughton for property located on Highway 71 N., north of Appleby Road and represented by McNaughton. McNaughton stated that his realty company has purchased the former Brown's Litte Jug and proposes to split the lot giving both pieces access on the drive that presently exists. He said Churches Fried Chicken plans to put up one of their smaller (30 ft. wide) buildings at this location if the split is approved. McNaughton said the lot is currently 250 ft. and he would split off 116 ft. The Planning Clerk noted that there is a question as to how many lot splits this property has been through thus far (only the Board of Directors can appiove a fourth lot split). MOTION Stockdell moved to table this item until the question of which (number) lot split this would be is settled. Motion died for lack of a second. MOTION Jacks moved approval of the request to waive the frontage on a public road requirement. The motion died for lack of a second. MOTION Green moved approval of both the waiver of public road frontage and the lot split contingent upon research by the Planning Office staff that results in a determination that approval comes under the Planning Commission's jurisdiction. Jacks seconded. Madison asked if the real estate company (which is located behind the proposed Chicken business) will be visible and McNaughton replied that it was highly visible from several points. The motion to approve passed 8-0-0, Hanna having left the meeting prior to this hearing. OTHER BUSINESS: 1. DISCUSSION OF PRAB RECOMMENDATION ON PARRS PLAN • Upon a motion by Stockdell and a second by Jacks, this item was removed from the table for discussion. (Tabled at February 25, 1985 meeting). n2 • • • Planning Commisison March 11, 1985 Page 11 MOTION Jacks noted that both the parks study and the PRAB recommendation agree on a 5 acre minimum land area being acceptable for a neighborhood park (Part II.B. of the PRAB minutes of March 4, 1985). He moved that this Commission notify the Board that they are in agreement with this recommendation. Seconded by Stockdell, the motion passed 8-0-0. 2. LAND USE STUDY FOR THE AREA OF HWY. 112 NORTH OF HWY. 71 Crook expressed concern that this study be undertaken and Chairman Hailey requested that Consultant Wood research this matter and present a rough draft of his review. 3. REPORT ON LAND USE STUDY FOR THE AREA OF HWYS. 265 AND 45 Crook, Chair of the committee for this study, handed out maps to aid in this discussion. She said this committee met immediately prior to the Planning Commission meeting and agreed on several proposals. Crook noted that the northwest corner of this intersection is shown as multi -family on the proposal, although it is currently zoned R-0 as shown on the overlay. She said that, in general, the committee felt that the general plan should reflect the manner in which the land is currently developing. She also said that the committee considered extending the R-0 area to the east of the southeast corner and they suggest buffering the area of the future school site with R-0 and multi -family. Crook said they also considered extending the multi -family on the west side of Hwy. 265 to align with that multi -family on the east side. She said they are showing an R-0 strip along the east edge of the large commercial parcel on the SE. corner. Crook said that a public hearing will be necessary and Halley advised that all the property owners in this neighborhood must be notified. MOTION Crook moved to hold a public hearing on April 8 for the proposed changes in the land use plan. Seconded by Stockdell, the motion passed 8-0-0. Crook noted that the committee has shown an R-0 strip on the east edge of the large commercial property that is presently zoned C-2 and the committee has shown it to be re -zoned, or developed as, R-0 as it currently has R-0 uses on it. MOTION Crook moved to set a public hearing to initiate a re -zoning of this area along the east portion of that parcel of C-2 property on the southeast corner of this intersection extending the entire length of it from Highway 45 to the southern edge of the commercial zoning. Stockdell seconded the motion. 173 • • • Planning Commisison March 11, 1985 Page 12 Hailey said he was hesitant to hold public hearings for both items at the same meeting. He said there may be issues brought up that will require additional time and research. Jacks said he would like to hold the public hearing for the change in land use first, followed by a hearing to initiate rezoning at a later date. Madison said if that area is already being used for offices and the recent re -appraisal of property has shown this to be the highest and best land use, then perhaps it should remain as it is. Tarvin added that a third reason to rezone would be to isolate and protect the R-1 district to the east. The notion to set a public hearing at the same time as the previously mentioned public hearing failed to pass by a vote of 4-4-0, with Jacks, Trumbo, Hailey and Green voting "nay". Chairman Hailey requested the Planning Office staff to set a special meeting of the Planning Commission to discuss the interpretation of rational nexus and other matters. The meeting was tentatively set for 3:00 P.M. on March 25, 1985. Hailey requested that Clayton Powell, Jim McCord and other interested parties attend this special meeting. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:15 P.M.